Brother Paul I really appreciate your content and am one of your early subscribers. This narrative is extremely one sided and I would have assumed you would have been fair enough to allow a balanced discussion. I am a Sunni but also a Shia sympathiser after studying the history with a neutral stance. My advice to you is not to take sides and be neutral.
Bro I telling you trouth Abubakar omar caa isha xafsa poising him prophate mohamed sawa.then they start coop They took power of khaliifa They kill fatima they barning her also fatima she is prignant they kill son of her stomuch His name muxsin So if you want trouth about that story listen Sheeq cali kowraani.. He well adicated history slam. Also cali cs was first khaliifa but qureesh says We don,t accept bini hashim again take power So sunni is biggest fake in history People till that day they fallow fake Me 55years iam sunni but today when iknew about ahlul beyt whay hapen ileft Now iam shia Shia is nuur calaa nuur Dariiqu najaat So bro Good luck.. Me no more sunni
@@supersurfer1 Liar liar liar !!¡ Spotted U ve discussed with me day before as a Shia ..and here u r saying u r a Sunni a shia sympathiser...this is a dirty game Shia plays with sunnis Shame on u ...u dont have any good invite ppl to ur cult n here u r playing a emotional game.
I dont understand why there's a debate occurring about Shia beliefs without the presence of a Shia??? The lack of a representative of the group whose beliefs are being debated invalidates the debate, in my opinion.
Don't be silly. Are sunnis invited onto ypur channels to discuss such matters? Even some of your own scholars dismiss the murder of Fatima as nonsense. Modern day Shiism is pure anti Arab ideology heavily influenced by Persian hate of companions
This should be a debate with an actual Shia scholar. Bukhari narrates from Aisha (3093), that Fatima died angry and refused to speak with Abu Bakr and Omar. This talk immediately begins with "forgery", from the Shi'i perspective, as if the Sunni perspective is correct. The narrations are in Sunni narrations. Maybe the sunni narrations are forged?
Williams attempts to project himself as a neutral or objective representative of some unified, non-confessional Muslim stance while in reality his reading of Islam is highly tendentious and must be taken as such.
@kingmosesix432 Read the narration and come to your own conclusions. It's clear as day. Some of you takfiris are just like Israel and zionists. Every accusation is really a confession.
Salamualakum Paul, Paul, I don't take you as a man of bias considering you converted to Islam from Christianity. I highly recommend you study the biography of Ali ibn Abi Talib, a well thought out and researched version. Spend time with this biography because it is important. Mute the Sunni and Shia labels...just study the man. Study his dedication to the Prophet (pbuh), his actions, his words, his context in history. "Do not look at the personalities and then judge the truth. Instead, first look at the truth and then judge the personalities." --Ali ibn Abi Talib at the battle of the Camel
Ababa40 When some shia speakers will come out of these Sunni Shia division they will begin to understand more about Ali ibn Abu Talib and his teacher and the real teachings of the Imams.
I just wish most Muslims knew who people like Mohammad Al Baqir or Jafar as Sadiq were. Unfortunately, most Shia speakers have to start from zero when educating Muslims because personalities such as these have been sidelined or ignored in Islamic history. @@zedispahany7317 The same can be said about Ali ibn Abu Talib and his merits. How many times have we seen Western scholars/Non-Muslims marvel about Ali after doing a deep dive in his biography, yet most Muslims know Ali just as the man who slept in the Prophet's (saws) bed during Hijra, a good warrior and the 4th Calipha? That to me is unfortunate and is a great disservice to Muslims.
A true Muslim, who is above these stupid labels, loves all the sahabas equally since we are in no position to judge the superiority of one over the other.
No one tortured her, thats what the howl presentation us about, what earliest report mentioned and how 200+ years later you get shia drama version(that is laughably obvious a fabrication in light reports that predates it 200+ years earlier)
@@Mahdi--no8fnwhy did Fatima refuse to speak to Umar and Abu Bakr for months before she died and they were not allowed to attend her funeral. Why is that?
My brother, if you would have searched you would have seen that there is a video about the same time from a Twelver shii Muslim. Dont act like you are opressed when you are not.
If every thing was going right in the muslim ummah ....how could Hussain be killed by muslims just 50 years after the Prophet's(saww) death in 61 hijra ...you need to have an answer for this question....
the history of the muslim ummah is not to be mixed with the History of islam. The History of Islam concluded and was Finished with the Death of our Prophet SAW
Thank you Brother Paul. As a Shia myself, I went into this debate with a prayer for Allah (swt) to guide me. I have to be honest though, I don’t think the video was as convincing as it claims to be. There is a RU-vid Channel called Bayat Al Ghader that has made a 16 part video series on this topic and I think that the points they bring up are still true, so while I find the video a great explanation of the Sunni perspective, it doesn’t answer the points raised by the Bayat Al Ghader videos. I think bringing the folks over on that channel to show the Shia perspective would be great. Thank you once more for the video, but I hope Shia are brought on to show their perspective too! Wishing the best Brother Paul !
Salam. I don't think that that is the case. I have heard that some menbers simply took a break and others are studying to return to the channel with more knowledge. But of course, Allah (swt) knows best. Nonetheless, I could argue that some prominent sunnis such as Muhammad al-Tijani and Hasan Shehata have become shia as well, and we could be back on forth on this issue. However, here is the playlist from the Bayat al Ghadeer channel: ru-vid.com/group/PLhz8wosokP1JI5kZQxDVX0ii_CeEvJjCp Let Allah (swt) be witness that I have shared the link for my sunni brothers and sisters to look into. What you do with this is up to you, but I recommend you pray to Allah (swt) for guidance and watch the videos. Becasue you will either find faults in the videos and help Shia see the path, or you might just see that the path of Allah (swt) is with Muhammad and his family (peace be upon him and his progeny) and the Shia that follow them. wishing the best @@kush9195
Brother, thanks for sharing the playlist. But in the end of your comment, you tried to paint the picture that Shia are following the Prophet PBUH and his progeny but u seem to imply that sunnis don't do that. Why would you do that?
Salam, I have and I have watched some of their videos. To start off, both the Rafida Plus and the Bayat al Ghadeer channels have made refutaions on the sunnah discourse channel. So without watching both videos and comparing the evidence, one cannot just state "have you seen (inset channel name here)?" and use that as evidence. I have offered the playlist countering the Sunni point for one to see if one pleases, so that way Allah (swt) is witness that I have provided a link for both sides to compare and contrast the contents of the video above, showcasing the sunni point, with the vidoes showcasing the shia point. But, you are right. It is my duty as someone who wishes to please Allah (swt) to follow the truth wherever it leads me. I will continue to watch the sunnah discourse channel, but I have to admit, refutations of the channel do exists, wheter they are good or not is up to the evidence presented of course. May Allah (swt) guide us onto the staright path always. يَا اللَّهُ يَا رَحْمَانُ يَا رَحِيمُ يَا مُقَلِّبَ الْقُلُوبِ ثَبِّتْ قلبی علی دینک Wishing the best @@Radec913
if you need debates to prove something to you then you're quite weak minded. Debates are most of the times just ego-shows. Look at the sources and judge for yourself.
@@aeyshaeman4752 Prophet P.B.U.H said Mann Kunto Mola-hu Fa Aliyyun Mola. Also, refer to verse 55 of Al-mai'dah. it aint shirk. May Allah guide you to love of Prophet and His house hold.aameen
I'm sorry to say that the brother already places assumptions with biases of 12'ers... I have read the events all from the Sunni sources, which was to understand how oppressed the lady Fatima (ra) was.
@@bsands116 Shia is fighting Zionists! go sleep man you really think that Shia can even do a single good thing to the ummah? NO they only fight muslims
In today's world nobody is ready to discuss this issue, and from this point of view many of the people are misguiding unknown people, you have dared to deal with that, open hearty salute😊😊😊
There are a lot of of Muslim students of knowledge who refute Shia's claims on day to day basis but are most likely well known within the Arab region, there are many who dedicate all their content refuting and debating Shiasim....two of the top of my head one named Waleed Ismail, another Ramy Issa, and others within the Khalig region dedicating most of their dawa content to Shias.
@@ihab505true,sheikh walid ismail, rami issa, ashraf gharib ,sayyid mazen ,zein kheirallah ,abu omar al-bahis and many many other da’ees and sheikhs have responded and are responding day after day to the lies of shia. Shia dont believe what the Quran says sadly,they only believe what their story teller sheikhs tell them,they even dont have rigid acceptance of their “hadith”,they choose whatever hadith they want whenever they want and according to their desires
Someone in the comment section had not realised how Shah İsmail I of safavid forced the sunnis of Persia to adopt the Shia and claiming that he's a Mahdi despite his loss at the battle of the chaldiran lol
Who benefits from widening the gap between Shia and Sunni by providing a one-sided narrative? We are one Ummah. Is "debunking" your word choice, Paul? The title and content of the video don't match what we know of the academic standards of Blogging Theology. For our Sunni brothers and sisters, the first account is enough to show that Ahlul Bayt didn't approve Saqifa, and the house of Fatima (sa) was threatened to be burned down because of that. (At the very least) It is always refreshing to hear about our beloved spiritual mother, Lady Fatima (sa). She is the most important figure in Islam after the Prophet (pbuh). Please have more and more❤ Let's not portray such pivotal events as "insignificant" in order to dismiss them and feel safe in your intellectual comfort zone.
Most comment are very negative about shiites. Please have respect. Shiites are muslims. I cant believe that this division is still on. Instead of divisions, we should all unite. Prophet Mohamed PBU was not sunni or shia.
Many shias are not Muslims. We should unite on the Qur'an and Sunnah. This is our religion. Not blaspheming against the companions of the prophet pbuh.
Anyone mildly educated on this matter can spot the glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in your statements. You are doing an enormous disservice to your viewership without bringing a robust shia response. Brother Paul, watch "How Islam was Hijacked". If there are still questions bring them forward to a Rafidhi guest. The truth is, where Bakri theology fails, Shia thought succeeds in answering doubts comprehesively , logically and rationally and has saved many from losing faith in Islam completely. Our name testifies to our commitment to critique. We are the RAFIDHA , the rejectionists.
@MY-sy9dd Farhad Amirebrahimi, wrote a booklet entitled, ‘Up from Shiaism’. It gives a concise but precise overview of the shia school, to which he belonged to before embracing the sunni school. Farhad asked a very simple question regarding Hazrat Ali’s refusal to fight for his divine right of leadership, “Was Ali violating the Prophet’s commands?” If the shias assertion is true that the completion of Islam was dependent on Ali being the first Caliph, then it implies that Hazrat Ali was violating the Prophet’s command (aoozobillah). Not only that, given that the Quranic verse on the completion of Islam was revealed at Ghadir-e-Khum (according to shias) then it was Allah’s command for Hazrat Ali to be the rightful successor. This questions the integrity of: 1)- Hazrat Ali - his refusal to fight for the caliphate was in violation of the Prophet ( aoozobillah) and also in violation of Allah’s commands( aoozobillah). But ALL Muslims believe Hazrat Ali is the Lion of Allah…who fought in many battles, would NEVER willingly violate the Prophet’s commands and would NEVER violate Allah’s commands 2)- Muhammad - if Hazrat Ali did not obey the Prophet it questions the success of the Prophet’s mission in training his Companions in fighting for Islam and spreading its message. 3)- Allah (SWT) - if Hazrat Ali exercised his own judgement over Allah’s it implies that Allah did not complete his religion of Islam,( aoozobillah) since it’s completion is dependent on Hazrat Ali’s caliphate. Muhammad’s mission was successful and that Allah (SWT) fulfilled His promise of Islam being complete. In other words, Hazrat Ali did not consider the Caliphate to be a divine right neither did the Companions, and that the first three Caliphs were legitimate and not usurpers nor unbelievers nor hypocrites.
23:22, you will find proofs of your proclaimed conspiracy theory in sahih bukhari when he drops the name of culprits, in Fathul Bari, the explanation of Bukhari by Asqalani etc…
I am speaking as a Sunni. I'm not Shia. I will preface this by saying there are two extreme sides on this issue. There is the extreme of those who call themselves Shi'a, but that is mostly Twelvers, and not all Twelvers. And then there is the side of those who call themselves Sunni, but they are not really Sunni, they belong to the Wahabiyyah or the Salafiyyah sect, which has certain cultural inheritances of Umayyad attitudes towards Ahl al-Bayt. If you really wish to understand this situation, and the situation of the Ahl al-Bayt as a whole, then speak to the living descendants of Rasulallah ﷺ, who are Sunni. The Habaib of Yemen are probably among the best and most accessible. The Sunni position is that we cannot judge Imam Ali ع or the Companions. As Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad says, it's like worms looking up at trees trying to judge which one is tallest. I must also note here that simply referring to Imam Ali ع as "Ali", like he's just your boy or some guy, is disrespectful and a sign of bias against him, and very bad adab. Describing him as making poor decisions and other disrespectful phrases is a sign of extreme bias against him. Imam Ali ع was said to be the gate to the city of knowledge! Moreover, he was present in the cave of Hira with Rasulallah ﷺ and actually saw the light of Prophecy! The light of Prophecy is metaphysical, it's not physical, which means that he also participated in the mysterious reality of Enlightenment. There is a reason why Imam Ali ع was said by Rasulallah ﷺ to be his 'self'. The Sunni view is one that is rooted in reverence for the Ahl al-Bayt. The pretension here that the Sunni view is objective on the basis of looking at evidence to judge these figures, particularly the members of the Ahl al-Bayt, is often a veiled strategy to attack and diminish the Ahl al-Bayt under the guise of objectivity. Unless a person is beginning from a position of love and reverence for Ahl al-Bayt and understanding their true status, they are neither objective nor operating from the Sunni perspective. That is because these are first principles, they are foundational beliefs in Islam. This is because it is objective fact within Sunni Islam that Ahl al-Bayt are not regular people, they are highly realized and reified people, a destiny proffered upon them as the beloved ones of Rasulallah ﷺ. It is the anti-Alid side that begins with the assumption that the Ahl al-Bayt are not just regular people in order to attack them as guilty. The process of diminishing the Ahl al-Bayt, ironically enough since the brother denies the conspiracy theory yet is acting it out in real time, has various stages. The first stage is 1) saying that Ahl al-Bayt are like everyone else, thus opening them to attack; 2) Now engage in religious revisionism, deviating away from orthodox Sunni Islam to diminish the spiritual status and position of Ahl al-Bayt; 3) Now engage in historical fabrication and slander to diminish the Ahl al-Bayt themselves; 4) Blame the Ahl al-Bayt for rebelling against the "caliph", thus Karbala was justice served upon them; 5) Regard the Ahl al-Bayt as lowly. We also need to distinguish between Salafi and Sunni. The Salafi side is highly influenced by the cultural attitudes that developed historically through Umayyad presence, so it's also highly geographical in nature. You will notice that contemporary attitudes regarding the Ahl al-Bayt are highly divided by geography, and thus, culture. It's no coincidence that the people of the Salafi sect today repeat the same sort of propaganda points made by the Umayyads in the past. The brother says something very bizarre. He is critical of the Shi'a assumption that Imam Ali ع is not only 'good or a great person, but he is the best and he is the most correct, and is supreme and infallible'. The problem here is that most of these 'assumptions' are not incorrect assumptions from a Sunni perspective, except for the point on infallibility since that is reserved for Rasulallah ﷺ. But in regards to the alleged conflict, it is irrelevant. The orthodox Sunni position is that Imam Ali ع was not just a good or great person, but he was the best and most correct. There is nothing wrong with having a bias, as long as that bias is correct and it is congruent with the evidence. For example, we are biased in favor of the perfect character of the Prophet ﷺ. According to hadith methodology, if there is a hadith that clearly contradicts what we know about his character, we know it's a forgery. Being objective, in this case, necessarily requires that Imam Ali ع and the Ahl al-Bayt are the best and that we reject narrations that show otherwise. To lack that 'assumption' would not just be ignorance but also bias against them. The brother is also making an assumption that 'the other side' (what he describes as the Sunni side) is also not biased as well. The fact is, the 'other side' is biased against Imam Ali ع and the Ahl al-Bayt, and in favor of the Umayyads. This is either due to inheriting anti-Ali Umayyad propaganda through cultural religious influence, or out of a dislike for contemporary Shi'a and thus the need to take contrarian positions. This is not the true Sunni position. The true Sunni position is in favor of Imam Ali ع, but is also conciliatory towards Muawiyyah, but not towards his son, Yazid.
We must not neglect how much cultural and religious attitudes have been affected by Umayyad influence down the generations on societies in which they were socially, culturally, and religiously dominant. Pride in them as a part of cultural heritage, for instance, does make its way into overall religious sentiment. And moreover, the narratives that they produced for many decades find their way into the religious and social conscience of society. The fact that people stoned and pelted Imam Sajad ع and the rest of the Prophetic family as they were marched in chains to Damascus is proof of that. The fact that Muslims today either deny Karbala even happened is proof of that. But that is a bizarre conspiracy theory. The fact that there are Muslims that support Yazid today over Imam Husayn ع is proof of that. The narratives created by the Umayyads was that the family of the Prophet became polytheists and betrayed Islam. Biases are often largely unconscious, and many Muslims do hold unconscious biases against the Ahl al-Bayt. One of the evidences for this is the fact that it is understood in our tradition that when Imam Mahdi ع arrives, most Muslims will be against him just like most Muslims were against Imam al-Husayn ع (those who knew what was going on, not those ignorant of events). It is this bias here that makes one to have the potential of being a Yazid. The Muslims today, who support Yazid against Imam Husayn ع, and who hold a bias against Imam Ali ع, are the ones who would follow ad-Dajjal. At 19:26 he mentions this point of this transcendent conspiracy theory. Before he explained what it was, I knew what he would say. The reference to a theo-political conspiracy theory to subdue the Ahl al-Bayt and subdue their significance in Islam is not specific to Shi'i Islam, not at all. It's something that has been identified by Sunni Islam as well. The dismissive tone regarding it automatically gives the impression of an Umayyad sympathizer, not an objective Sunni Muslim. To dismiss the notion that there was a conspiracy regarding the centrality of the Prophet ﷺ and his family is contradicted by history. One of the most startling facts is that all of the 12 imams, who are revered in Sunni Islam, were assassinated. Coincidence? In Islam today, do most Muslims know about the Ahl al-Bayt and what Sunni Islam says about their significance? Has not Rasulallah ﷺ said that his family is like Noah's Ark, whoever holds fast to them is safe? Has he not said that "I am of Husayn ع and Husayn ع is of me?" And "Whoever loves Husayn ع loves me, and whoever hates Husayn ع hates me?" Is it not true that most Muslims have no clue what Karbala is, and that it is pretty much never mentioned in Sunni mosques? Is it not true that many Muslims today blame Ahl al-Bayt for what happened at Karbala and support Yazid? Is it not true that most Muslims don't know who the 12 imam are, and their significance in our spiritual tradition? Is it not true that today, most Muslims wrongfully regard mawlid as haram, and attack the family of the Prophet ﷺ, starting with his parents and uncle, Abu Talib ع? Is it not true that many Muslims today say that sitting in circles of remembrance in which salawat is made is shirk and bid'ah? Is it not true that most Muslims today diminish the status of the Prophet ﷺ by saying he was just a normal man like anyone else? It's not a conspiracy theory because its seeds have not only fructified but people have already consumed them. That being said, the Shia view that the conspiracy began with Hadhrat Abu Bakr ر and Umar ر is obviously wrong and a fabrication. To attack them is to attack Rasulallah ﷺ. People, by now, should notice the two extremes here. There are those who claim to love Ahl al-Bayt, but hate the beloved companions of Rasulallah ﷺ. These are the same people who betrayed Imam Ali ع, and then later on, betrayed Imam Husayn ع, and then later on, betrayed Imam Zayd ع. Then there are those who claim to love the companions and hate the Ahl al-Bayt, but reject the Tradition, reject the Sunnah, claim that salawat and mawlid are bid'a and haram and shirk, and who claim to know more than the companions by following modernist revisionist dispensations such as Wahabi'ism/Salafi'ism. Also, we must differentiate between the Shia conspiracy theory that Sunnis are trying to undermine Shi'i Islam from the conspiracy to undermine the Ahl al-Bayt. The problem is that, Shi'i Islam is associated with Ahl al-Bayt and Sunni Islam has nothing to do with them. That is a false perception that must be destroyed. The Ahl al-Bayt are central to Sunni Islam, therefore, the conspiracy to undermine Ahl al-Bayt is a conspiracy to undermine Sunni Islam. And is it not true that a false dispensation claiming to be "pure" Sunni Islam, that is predicated on diminishing the status of Rasulallah ﷺ and Ahl al-Bayt, arise so suddenly from the two horns of Najd and usurp the position of authority through deception? The brother says something very wrong that goes against mainstream Sunni Islam. He says, "The premise to this entire conspiracy theory is that the Ahl al-Bayt are more significant and that they have an original status and significance that is then undermined..." This sounds like something an Umayyad agent of the anti-Alid and anti-Ahl al-Bayt movements had said. It also contradicts orthodox Sunni Islam because in our Tradition, the Ahl al-Bayt do have a special status. They are more significant. The resentment of some members of bani Umayyah, that jahiliyyah, has survived till today in religio-cultural attitudes and expressions. This statement is so very foolish, I'm sorry to say. Astagfurallah, any Muslim who wishes to safeguard their iman must protect themselves against that. I know I will be attacked by extremists on both sides for this, but that is a sign that what I have said thus far is correct. This is not my opinion or personal analysis, this is what our traditional Sunni scholars have said. I do agree with many other points the brother has made regarding evidences and fabrications and faulty citations. That is fine and it is good that he is highlighting this. But he needs to have his foundations right. If not, then just stick to the evidence and the reading of texts, and stay away from theological points like the centrality of the Ahl al-Bayt. What significance does that have with the faulty textual historiography of the Shia position? I haven't watched the entire video, I will continue from this point on, but it seems like it is opening the door to some of the more foolish views such as Ghadir Kawm never happening, Karbala either never happening, or it was Imam Husayn's ع fault, or Yazid had nothing to do with it. These are the real conspiracy theories and historical revisionism.
He mentions that it's not a conspiracy that people don't know the Ahl al-Bayt in the same way it's not a conspiracy that the average Muslim doesn't know various companions. But that is a very problematic statement. Firstly, it equalizes the Ahl al-Bayt with the companions in general, which devalues their status. That was the attitude of the Umayyads. Secondly, and I believe I mentioned this before too. but Rasulallah ﷺ mentioned the special status of his family; thirdly, all his ﷺ Ahl al-Bayt were slain except for a few, so far from conspiracy it turned out to be actualized; fourthly, the 12 imams down the generations, and those who supported them such as Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, etc., were imprisoned and killed; fifthly, to love Rasulallah ﷺ requires one to love his Ahl al-Bayt, but in the times we live in today, most Muslims denigrate Rasulallah ﷺ by likening him to nothing more than a mail man, an average man like you or I who just 'happened' to receive revelations from God, from time to time. Other than that, he is normal, nothing special about him. That is blasphemy, and it was the view of the minor Dajjals that lived amongst the Umayyads. This Dajjalic attitude, that penetrated into the Islamic community has formed as the foundation of many of the false interpretations of Islam, namely Wahabi'ism, which this brother appears to follow. Again, the dismissive tone and the mocking attitude towards the Ahl al-Bayt, in this attempt to lower their status, is a very grotesque and ugly thing. This is not an objective analysis of events, rather, it is a very biased analysis that seeks to validate the religious worldview of neo-Umayyads and Nasibis. @BloggingTheology: Please do a follow up of this discussion, but this time have someone from the authentic Sunni tradition who knows the Ahl al-Bayt. Two names that immediately come to mind are Shaykh Ninowi and a teacher named Luqman al-Andalusi. The latter is far more accessible, you can find him on Facebook. He has written many excellent books on the Ahl al-Bayt, and runs a company called Jawahir Media. The brother here says that Karbala was not central to the Sunni worldview as it is to the Shias, that nobody cares about it so there was no conspiracy. That is false. Sunnis once held it close to their hearts, and true Sunnis continue to do so. But the fact of not caring about it was the end result of the conspiracy in the first place. His logic is completely flawed because it's dismissiveness is the whole point. Shaykh Umar Faruq Abdallah said that one of the signs of the end of times was that the Ahl al-Bayt would be slain and Imam al-Husayn killed. He mentioned that even Abu Hurayra knew the date that it would happen, and he would supplicate to Allah to not see that day. He passed away almost a year before it happened. Another sign connected to it, as Shaykh Umar taught, was that young men from Quraysh would destroy Islam. The young man who lead the Quraysh was Yazid. And then he mentioned that when the Ahl al-Bayt were slain, the prophecy was fulfilled and Islam was destroyed. You might ask how, since there were many Muslims who knew the Qur'an who prayed, etc., all through out this period. But make no mistake about it, Islam is not just rituals. The people who slew the Ahl al-Bayt first prayed Dhuhr or Asr prayer before doing so. But their prayers are empty, that was not Islam. Shaykh Umar then mentioned that it was Zayn al-Abidin ع who revived Islam, and it was the spiritual and esoteric dimension of Islam that was rooted in love of Rasulallah ﷺ and his Ahl al-Bayt. In the Sunni creed, we recognize that Imam Ali ع is the gate to the city of knowledge ﷺ. All spiritual stations that you or I might attain happens through the twelve imams of the Ahl al-Bayt, and then through Imam Ali ع to Rasulallah ﷺ. That is what it means to have an intact Tradition or Traditional Way. This way, however, is disconnected from the Nasibis and the Wahabis, and those who slander and hold in their hearts enmity towards Ahl al-Bayt.
Thank you for your answer brother . Just to help you complete the picture may I suggest you you "How Islam was hijacked" and ponder whether certained opinions should be averaged out to seek the middle way or rejected completely in our quest for truth.
You can debate whether she was killed or not but what is clearly established is that her house was attacked by sahaba led by Umar, her property of fadak gifted to her by the Prophet was taken from her, and she died angry with Abu Bakr and Umar. These are not trivial matters that you can just pass over
Allah teala only knows what happened, He teala will judge rather it happened or not,but beloved ummi Fatima as died in sorrow People have no right to judge about this issue, essentially hearing not the other side of story however the claim is Like story of prophet Dawud as and 99 sheeps
How the Sunnis of Iran were forced to convert into shiaiism by Shah Ismail I who declared himself Mehdi and lost the battle with ottomans, he introduced twelver shiaism into Asia
Wrong 12 elers are also mentioned in sunni books of ahadeeth. Pure line from Fatimah and Ali and the order was to hold on to the quran and the holy alhul but but the sunni have held on to the sahaba, even when Allah says some were hypocrites. Sunni follow the scholars who have led them.to.the false path.
@@yourfriendsThe shia mixed all kinds of creeds into Islam, like a little catholicism, some hinduism, a punch of zoroastrianism and finally they mix the 12 tribes in as the 12 imams. Mission accomplished.😂😂
What a sad one sided presentation, the judge, the juror, the executor all the same. And while at it let's expand this division amongst Muslims 😢😢😢 May Allah (SWT) guide us all 🤲
How does it make sense to you that Ali (ra) would allow his beloved wife to be killed and let the killers get away? On one hand shias believe ali (ra) can take on an army all On his own. On the other hand u believe he didnt punish the killers of his wife.
@@Radec913is that all you have ? How does it sit with you when Allah has commanded the wife’s of the prophet to remain in their homes and instead Mother Aisha gathers a army to fight a war with the prophet son in law and cousin and first Muslim. I suppose you will try to debunk that too.
@@supersurfer1 the shites killed Ali and his sons. He was not the first Muslim. And the fact that you lie just as much as christians shows shites are not Muslim. Lying to yourself is a mental illness. Lying against Allah takes you straight to hell.
Would love to have seen a Shi’a who is also not into polemics so much as healthy academic discussion also be brought on to discuss the evidence and provide their own afterwards. Please do a follow up.
1:35:40 I don't think threatening to burns someone's house down, and possibly kill them, is part of a "polite and calm conversation". You guys were deliberately minimizing the significance of things.
Verily, the most burdensome of prayers upon the hypocrites are the night prayer and dawn prayer. If they knew the blessings that are in them, they would come to them even if they had to crawl. Certainly, I felt like ordering the prayer to be established and commanding a man to lead the people in prayer, then I would go with some men with firewood to the people who were absent from the prayer and I would burn their houses with fire. Source: Sahih Muslim 651 The Prophet ﷺ used similar wording but never burnt any house. This was a common saying the Arabs used to use to denote a grave matter. Be quiet about Umar RA and the sahaba.
Interesting that the prophet a few months before had just told them to protect his family. From Zayd bin Arqam One day Allah's Messenger PBUH stood up to deliver a sermon at a watering place known as Khumm, situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household. I remind you of Allah with my family! I remind you of Allah with my family! I remind you of Allah with my family! Zayd then clarifies that the family are Prophet Muhammad's PBUH blood relations not his wives.
Please also check Sahih Bukhari hadiith 4240 & 4241, and Sahih Muslim hadiith 1759* . As the Prophet(s) had said : " فَاطِمَةُ بَضْعَةٌ مِنِّي، فَمَنْ أَغْضَبَهَا أَغْضَبَنِي ".[" *Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry* "] We know what that means! Also she stopped all communications after the usurpation of power and her own property, by Abu Bakr (ra), leaving her with nothing! ....فَأَبَى أَبُو بَكْرٍ أَنْ يَدْفَعَ إِلَى فَاطِمَةَ مِنْهَا شَيْئًا فَوَجَدَتْ فَاطِمَةُ عَلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ فِي ذَلِكَ فَهَجَرَتْهُ، فَلَمْ تُكَلِّمْهُ حَتَّى تُوُفِّيَتْ، وَعَاشَتْ بَعْدَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم سِتَّةَ أَشْهُرٍ، فَلَمَّا تُوُفِّيَتْ، دَفَنَهَا زَوْجُهَا عَلِيٌّ لَيْلاً، وَلَمْ يُؤْذِنْ بِهَا أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَصَلَّى عَلَيْهَا، ...So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. - Sahih al-Bukhari 4240, 4241 Before dying, Abu Bakr (ra) nominated Umar as his successor. If the Prophet(s) had not nominated anyone, as the most Sunni brothers believe, then why the did Abu Bakr go against this so-called sunnah? Instead, he should have left the question of his succession open. *If, on the other hand, he was just following the sunnah of the Prophet(s) in all matters, as was claimed and still so, then it follows that by appointing a successor the claim that the Prophet(s) did NOT name a successor tantamounts to nothing and the claim that the Prophet(s) left no clear indication of who should succeed him holds no water* ! *The event of Ghadeer al-Khumm and the Prophet's sermon and several ahaadeth indicate his clear choice for Imam Ali as his successor. Ghadeer is an event which has the GREATEST NUMBER of mutawaatir isnaad (continuous, unbroken narrations) in the history of Islam* ! *Event of Ghadir Khumm* www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm *Looking at the Hadith of Ghadeer - Sheikh Usama Al-Atar* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-V3T17ULKdMg.html *Why did the Ummah go against the Prophet's appointment? - Sheikh Usama Al-Atar* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-SYiD4V34Euw.html *Did Prophet Muhammad appoint anyone after him? - Sheikh Usama Al-Atar* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9bQ2tj34XDQ.html *Does the voting system apply to Islamic leadership? - Sheikh Usama Al-Atar* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-63I-CxdnC14.html *Did the Prophet appoint Imam Ali as his successor at Ghadeer* ? *SUNNI traditions* ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s2h2HW6NuXw.html *Did the Prophet appoint Imam Ali as his successor at Ghadeer*? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-s2h2HW6NuXw.html&t=1006s *It's imperative for us Muslims to educate ourselves about our own past, and these posts are just to do that, i.e. we get to know this troubled past so we can better understand what all this is about* ! ...* please also read the books on such topics, and to begin with you can start with Lesley Hazleton's book, After the Prophet Lesley Hazleton www.amazon.com/After-Prophet-Story-Shia-Sunni-Split/dp/0385523947
Salaam Thank you brother for this explanation & your honesty for reading the most authentic narrations & their subsequent embellishment by the twelver Shia. A few thoughts do come to mind from the narrations discussed: 1) Ali (RA) was not at Saquifa as he & the close family were busy preparing the Prophet (PBUH) for burial. 2) Abu Bakr (RA) & Umar (RA) did act quickly at Saquifa - but it was clearly done in a genuine attempt to secure the Ummah from a difficult situation brewing & it was not a power grab. 3) There was however clearly a party of senior Sahaba who felt at the time that Ali (RA) should have at been consulted or poss even been considered for the Caliiphate. 4) Umar(RA) and others did go to the house of Fatemah (RA) and some type of disturbing incident occurred & possibly some type(s) of verbal threats were made however, nothing else occurred thereafter and there was no physical attack on the house or the individuals therein. 5) The Shia have clearly embellished the already weak narrations years later and their Alims add ‘fuel to the fire’ by using these most dubious, sectarian & polemical narrations. However, when you also add in the subsequent civil wars between Aisha(RA) & Ali (RA) and between Mauwaya (RA) & Ali (RA) - both occurring when Ali (RA) was the legitimate caliph (& we chose not to blame either side) & then, the massacre of Hussain (RA) & his family in Karbala under the rule of Yazeed the son of Mawaya (RA) and the Grandson of Abu Sufian & Hind, one can begin to see how the Shia ‘join their own dots’ & create their own potted & self-serving version of history. Perhaps we too are guilty of putting an over-emphasis on all the Sahaba and & we tend to ‘white-wash’ some tragic events in our history after the Prophet’s demise as mere ‘footnotes’ - whilst the Shia put an over-emphasis on these historic events & emotionally embellish them creating their own self-selective ‘potted history’ regarding them and they’ve also, regarding the lineage after the Prophet, introduced the strange Safavid concept of ‘infallibility’ which makes it difficult for Twelvers to view anything dispassionately or objectively.
Ah oui!?? Shiiite embellissement? and their ''own'' narration?? but ''yours'' is the TRUTH as a Sunnite!? isn't it? Sûre you were there wth your camera and micro and all needs to ''mémorise'' what happened ?? I'm not a Shiite but if all these events are true, that will be very serious. (Très grave)
@@mockingbird78 Salaams sister - yes these events are indeed serious and they require some introspection and reflection and cannot be just passed off as ‘fitna’ and be conveniently ignored, but the Shia don’t do their cause any good by making up exaggerated fairly stories!
@@MJB0110actually the fairytales exist on the Sunnis side. I am a Sunni but well versed in the history and actually sympathise with the Shia. Why did mother Aisha call Usman a Jew ? Do you know he didn’t even have a janaza and was buried amongst the Jews. Fairytales are rampant in the Sunni circles . Sunni need to learn they instead just love listening to molvi.
@@supersurfer1 Salaams Bro. Wow I had no idea! I don’t doubt there are ‘farmboy’ Molvi’s on both sides of this sectarian divide. I know there was a lot of nepotism in the reign of Usman (RA). Have you read the book ‘After the Prophet’ by Leslie Hazleton? - she is a secular Jew from the US. She has a lot of profound love and respect for the Prophet (PBUH) and because of her background she had no sectarian ‘axe to grind’ when narrating the events following the death of the Prophet (PBUH) from her own research. I’d say her history is more sympathetic to the Shia claims that the traditional Sunni narrative we are brought up with.
@@MJB0110walikumsalam. Yes I have read her book. I did find that her research was mainly based on sunni sources. What convinced me more about the Shia narrative is that these events are written in the sunni literature especially the sahee Hadith but conveniently not mentioned by us sunni. In order to have better understanding one should take a neutral stance and above also study the history from both views.
What an interesting and superb unbiased, informative lecture. I will strongly consider buying the book mentioned of the author. May Allah reward you. Ameen ❤
As the great ibn tayimah said "shia are worse then kawarij"....Muslims are better trusting and befriending ignorant Jews then trusting shias....shias are a step ahead of christians in ignorance.
@@Hussein1999 2.1 Why are key Facts or key Forensics never considered by advocates of mutah? We are told that Imam Ali (as) has said that if Umar had allowed Mutah then nobody would commit adultery except the wretched. Yet we are also told that Imam Ali (as) did not overturn Umar's decision to ban mutah when he became Caliph. This is the first forensic evidence against mutah as it proves that Imam Ali (as) was not an advocate for mutah. Here are other points against mutah: 1. None of the 12 Imams was born of it, nor did they have any children out of it. If mutah was considered valid by them then why did not one imam be born of it or at least produce one child from mutah? Remember Mutah is not in the same category as divorce because Mutah is 'sawab' while divorce is not recommended. And as Mutah is regarded as 'sawab' it would become 'tarq e awla' if an imam did not do it! 2. Not only from the Imams but also no child in the family of Banu Hashim is recorded to be born of it from the time of Hashim till 12th Imam. Why? 3. The Prophet never even did it in his unmarried days despite the pagan environment of Mecca where mutah was widespread and it was a norm. Since he was a role model for the world his responsibility was to do it if it was something he favoured. 4. When Imam Musa Kazim was imprisoned there were many excuses for him to do it but there is no record of it even when the caliph tried to tempt him with his own daughter. The same is true for so many Imams and their true followers 5. The 11th Imam could have had many sons through mutah in order to protect the 12th Imam but this was not done. The 11th Imam had an ideal excuse to do it but he did not do it despite the Abbasides and Umayyads favoring it. 6. The Quran does not say that the 'prophet's temporary wives' are our temporary mothers. If there were mutah wives of the prophet then their status would have been made clear 7. Umar wanted to marry Ume Kulsum in order to associate himself with the Ahlul Baith. Imam Ali (as) could have proposed him to do mutah with her rather then give her in nikkah to Umar 8. The Quran says to the Prophet that he is not allowed to marry or divorce any of his wives after his marriage to Zainab. if mutah was legitimate then these type of wives would have been mentioned also as in the same verse slave girls are mentioned. 9. There is no record of it in the whole of the Kitab ul Ershad when the book is full of sexual issues that were brought to Imam Ali (as). In fact if it was allowed then he would have asked of it when charges of rape and molestation were being made against men. 10. There a lot of Hadith in Shia books that say that Imams forbade mutah. Just because proponents of mutah dismiss them does not mean that they are not worth considering as credible evidence against mutah. There are more forensics to prove that Mutah was not considered legitimate by the AHlul Baith. What is also a fact always hidden and never considered is that Muawiya and his cronies always did mutah while the forensics prove that the Ahlul Baith never considered it as legitimate. QUESTION ON IGNORING THE FORENSICS AGAINST MUTAH: Why ignore the above facts? 2.2 TWO TYPES OF NARRATIONS. Narrations in our shia books come in two sorts: Those which freely allow mutah and those which either restrict it or ban it completely. The norm for our elite is to favour those narrations that allow mutah and dismiss or misrepresent those narrations that forbid it. One narration that is totally by-passed is from Imam Ali (as) who gave the fundamental criteria to decide what is allowed and what is forbidden in Islam. Imam Ali (as) has said that if you want a foolproof way to see if an act is haram then look at it's results: If the results are bad then the act is harram. This would mean that mutah is totally haram since it’s dreadful results are openly boiling out in public. Private affairs with the resulting pregnancies and abortions is just one dirty outcome. Deceptions in relationships, increase in lust, lose of trust and stability, diseases, prostitution, preying on vulnerable girls for sex, taking advantage of poverty stricken widows, exchanging 'temporary wives', making sex a business, undermining marriages etc. are all other deadly effects of mutah that we like to brush under the carpet and pretend that mutah has none of these aftermaths. And worst of all is that Mutah accommodates sex studs to deceive mothers and their sisters and daughters to have sex with them. A case in Leciester UK in an example in point: A man was having sex with a mum and her daughter and neither of them knew. The above consequences of mutah are just a few of the known aftermaths. Other stories of mutah are even more deadly! One Women's group in Iraq gives a report that a mentally ill girl was gang assaulted by several boys after she was convinced by them that it was okay and 'sawab' to do it. Each of the boy gave her a bite to eat and then used his fingers to feel her. We know of boys in the UK who are so sexed up that they end up assaulting girls as young as two years old. And indeed, there are those who say that even sex with minors is allowed if the father permits while the same people will say that a girl is not allowed to wear lipstick regardless of whether the father permits which means that there is more legitimisation of mutah with minors than wearing lipsticks by women! QUESTION ON THE AFTERMATH OF MUTAH Why are all these deadly aftermaths of mutah ignored when Imam Ali (as) said that hallal and Harram is based on looking at the aftermath of an act? 2.3 DID IMAM ALI SAY THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE Has Imam Ali (as) turned his back on us for associating him with meaningless sayings to legitimise mutah even though the forensic show he never allowed mutah? Let us look at the evidence of how we associate our Imam to sayings that don't make sense. One popular saying is that nobody would do adultery if mutah was allowed. But lets examine this saying closely. Take the following fact: Married women too commit adultery and yet mutah is not allowed for them. So this saying of Imam Ali only applies to married men who want to enjoy sex outside their nikkah marriage. Married women still have to commit adultery if they want to enjoy sex outside their nikkah So is Shia Islam such that married men can continue to enjoy sex by extra affairs (and is sawab) but married women cannot, and if they did then they are wretched? Therefore, when the saying is that 'nobody' will commit adultery then it does not apply to married women as they will still need to do it for satisfying the same urges that are accommodated for their husbands. Furthermore, the saying is not for the desperate boys in colleges and universities or those teenage studs showing off their cars in Alum Rock! For these boys mutah would only delay them in doing nikkah and as sexual argues arise everyday the temporary fix of mutah is not an answer. What is a normal everyday urge needs nikkah, not mutah. Hence, this saying is not about boys avoiding fornication as this will only make them delay nikkah. If then the justification of this saying is that a married man needs mutah but a married woman does not because married women don't get urges beyond their nikkah then the question is that does Islam only consider to accommodate married men and is in denial about the strong urges for married women? Is this Islam or a male invention? Secondly, since polygamy is allowed to men then what is the point of this mutah for men who want more sex outside their nikkah. The Quranic solution is polygamy with a restriction to 4 wives. Interestingly while the Quran restricts wives to 4 our fikh gives no restrictions to mutah. Evidently there are two sources of law in Islam - The Quran and then the Fatwas that are independent of the Quran! So coming back to the point that if married men are allowed it but married women are not then is it fair? If Islam is there to accommodate desires of one gender and not the other then it is clearly a male invention and not from the creator of men & women who will not accommodate one gender only as it would make him unfair. But in the Quran God is telling men and women to not yield to their low desires, learn self control, learn to gaze down etc because he wants to give value to relationships, not undermine them by allowing one gender to yield to his explosive sexual desires while the other gender is told not to even smile or put fragrance in case it attacks another man. One interesting fact is that adultery involves a lot of risks (including being stoned to death) and people who do it often do so because they are in an emotional mess and have lost their moral direction. For them even if they had a hundred temporary wives they would still commit adultery with that one woman who attracts them even if she was married. So the evidences against this saying are as follows: 1. Married women still have to do adultery as they are not accommodated in mutah. So if a husband is away for a long time then why not accommodate her when he is accommodated in his trip to do mutah? 2. It cannot be for single boys or girls as it only offers a temporary release whereas sex is an everyday urge which needs nikkah 3. If nikkah is delayed by a boy or girls obsessed with mutah then that is not good as it causes emotional and psychological issues for the person and spreads dirt in society 4. Adultery is often committed in complicated set of circumstances where people have lost their spiritual direction. Mutah will not get them out of that complicated circumstance but only make it worst.
@@Hussein1999 QUESTION ON SUGGESTING THAT ADULTERY IS REDUCED BY MUTAH If Imam Ali ever said this then why would he ignore all the other circumstances of people where mutah is detrimental and adultery continues to be committed while only advocating for married men who don't need it anyway to get sex as they are allowed polygamy? 2.4 Can Imam Ali ever Lie? It is claimed that when Abu Harith made a young girl pregnant and her father complained to Umar then Umar went to lash Abu Harith and extract maintenance from him. But Abu Harith said that the Prophet had allowed him such things and had allowed a man the final say on whether the child is his or not. Umar was shocked as he had been with the Prophet since Mecca and had never heard of such things. So Umar went to Imam Ali so ask if this was at all true. Imam Ali refuted it saying it contradicts what Quran 4:25 says. Then Umar said to those so-called Companions like Abu Harith that even if the Prophet allowed it to them it was now to be regarded as forbidden under his rule. However, to explain why Imam Ali told Umar that Mutah was harram we are often told that Imam Ali was lying under TAQAYYAH as he could have been murdered by Umar. QUESTION ON LYING The question is that why would Imam Ali(as) ever tell lies on an issue like mutah when telling lies on any account is totally against the character and spiritual level of Imam Ali (as) especially when it comes to the question of Hallal and Harram in Islam? If there is refusal to accept that Umar ever came to Imam Ali (as) to ask this question then it would mean that when Umar said to men like Abu Harith that even if the Prophet allowed it to them he was going to forbid it then surely it was the responsibility of Imam Ali (as) to oppose Umar as speaking the truth in the face of falsehood is a must especially if it is to do with Islam. If the argument is that as long as someone like Abu Harith had told Umar that it was allowed then the duty was done and Imam Ali (as) did not need to say anything then the issue is that Umar must have said this because a man of the calibre of Imam Ali did not intervene earlier. Had imam Ali intervened earlier then Umar may not have forbidden it. Hence when the situation arose then Imam Ali should have immediately jumped to support Abu Harith as there were other companions of lesser calibre who had done so. However, all the books - both Sunni and Shia - say that Imam Ali did intervene, but on the side of Umar! Hence the above question remains as to why would a great personality like Imam Ali tell lies and favour a 'tyrant' like Umar?
Hassan Ibn Ali AS left the caliphate even though he is the best for it according to all sects for one reason unity of the UMMAH, this action shows the importance of unity even more important than who lead the UMMAH.
If you look at history from a theological position, then you've already made up your mind before even doing any historical research - which is exactly what you did. Which means, you just wasted your time and everyone else's.
A question for our Shia brothers and sisters that I have been unable to get an answer to. Who is the correct Imam to follow in the line of Imam Ali (KW)? The Twelvers say it is the Hidden Imam. The Ismailis say it is the Aga Khan. The Zaydis say the Imamat follows the line of Imam Zayd (RA) instead of the line of Imam Muhammad Baqir (RA) and Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (RA). Which one of these claims is the true Imam and why are the other Shia incorrect as to their claims?
To answer your 1st question DIRECT brother of WHO is the present Imam that the Muslim World is supposed to follow is Sayed Imam Ahmad Al-Hassan Al-Yamani & 1st Mahdi of the Family of Muhammad sawa where the Ummah of Muhammad saww is supposed to give their allegiance to the Yamani as that allegiance being the allegiance given to be received to the 12th Imam, Al-Imam: Al-Mahdi, Muhammad-ibn-Al-Hassan-Al-Askari atfs who is indeed the last living Imam the Preserver & Holy Mandate of the Family of Muhammad-ibn-Abdullah sawa. The Yamani is The Alim and The Marja that the Muslim Ummah is supposed to get their Aqeeda from bcuz he has the most guided Banner as both Imams Al-Baqir a.s. and As-Sadiq a.s. have been quoted as saying.
And now to clear the "confusion" of WHO We are to follow of the differing Shi'a Sects of Islam that you brought up this can be cleared and rectified by the DOCUMENT AND LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT that the Prophet sawa had written on the night of his death by the hand of his brother Ali-ibn-Abi-Talib a s. The Calamity of Thursday Hadith justifies this claim of the Prophet leaving a Will bcuz wen he sawa ask'd for a pen and paper he said wat he sawa wanted to write wud NEVER LEAD the UMMAH ASTRAY! And a Will of Successors AFTER him sawa wud do JUST THAT!! So all the 12 Successors from Quraish that the Prophet sawa foretold about after Imam Ali-ibn-Abi-Talib a.s. were the following: Imam Hassan a.s., Imam Hussain a.s., Imam Ali-Zainul-Abideen a.s., Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir a.s., Imam Jafar As-Sadiq a.s., Imam Musa Al-Kathim a.s., Imam Ali Al-Ridha a.s., Imam Muhammad Al-Jawad a.s., Imam Ali An-Naqi a.s., Imam Al-Hassan-Al-Askari a.s., Imam Muhammad-ibn-Al-Hassan-Al-Askari Al-Mahdi atfs and the last Imam mentioned in the Prophet's sawa Will was Abdullah-Ahmad the Mahdi a s. So Imam Ahmad Al-Hassan Al-Yamani a.s. is the only one who has laid claim to the Only referenced Will of the Prophet sawa in Shia Hadith books.
the prophet pbuh clearly mentioned twelve caliphs or imams and he even told us their names so the shia ithna ashari point of view is correct according to the ahadith of rasool allah pbuh. the choice is yours
Actually the Truth of the matter is that the succession of prophet Muhammad became nasty because of the wrong belief or opinion among many sahabas that Prophet and leadership should not be enjoyed by the banu Hashim. If the prophet came from banu Hashim, the caliphate should not be from them but from any one who want it. Umar is the champion of this sinister idea as evident in his stoping the attempt of prophet Muhammad to put his appointment of Ali in writing. Umar reveal his sinister political belief and the belief of his supporters to ibn Abbas that the Arabs (majority of Quraish) will not allow banu Hashim to have both the prophethood and caliphate be from the same family.
Imam Abu Hanifah Rahmatullahi Alayhi was invited to debate by the Shi'ite scholars Into a mosque. He arrived late on purpose. After keeping them waiting for a long time he arrived and then, took his sandals and kept it under his arm instead of leaving the at the door. The Shi'ite scholars asked him why he was not leaving his sandals at the door and he replied because in the time of Rassulullah Swalalahu Alayhi Wassalam Shi'a used to steal our shoes👞. The Shi'ite scholars rejected the claim by saying that there was no shi'ism during the time of Rassulullah Swalalahu Alayhi Was Salaam. Then, our brilliant Shaykh Abu Hanifa Rahmatullahi Alayhi replied then what are we here to debate about (if you did not exist at the time of our Prophet Peace and Blessings be upon him)😊
@@Radec913 May be the proof of Shi'ism in the sunnah of Rassulullah Swalalahu Alayhi Was Salaam. I don't know! I am just a regular Muslim woman, not a scholar.
Very good break down by brother Rabbat, May Allah swt bless u all. Make more of these, some of my shia friends hav indeed become muslim after reading true Islamic/sunni books and narratives. Baraqallahu feeq.
You are genuinely an academic mind, so I am disappointed that you posted this video. I'll give you a caution: Guard yourself from these pseudo-salafis. They don't like how neutral and respectful you are, so they are here to warp this good thing that you made and use it to promote their agenda. They want you to be more nasibi, more anti-Shia. Guard yourself.
We're sorry, Messieurs, gentlemen, il is not a Shiia believe, it is a very serious fact in the Islamic history, but not a murder(we hope) of Prophèt's Muhamed daughter Fatima, it is related, told, a very bad treatment . Who killed Ali, the prophet's cousin and his son in law?? Who killed Hussain, the Prophèt's grand Son?? Is it also a Shiia believe??
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Do not insult my companions. If one of you were to spend the likes of mount Uhud in gold, it would not reach a small portion of theirs or even half of that.” Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3673, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2540 Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Sahih al-Bukhari 6586 Narrated Ibn Al-Musaiyab: The companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam). Sahih al-Bukhari 6585 Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "On the Day of Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, 'O Lord (those are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from Islam). Sahih Muslim 2304 a Anas b. Malik reported Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) as saying: Some persons from amongst my associates would turn to my Cistern; when I would see them and they would be presented to me, they would be detained in the way while coming to me. I would say: My Lord, they are my companions, they are my companions, and it would be said to me: You don't know what innovations they made after you.
Read in BUKHARI WHERE THE AHADEETH RASOOLLAH SAYS, MY COMPANIONS WILL BE TAKEN AWAY, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT INNOVATIONS THEY MADE." LIKE UMAR'S INNOVATED TAREEEH PRAYER.
The presentation of the position on the events during the time of Ahlul-Bayt and Allah's purpose for their sacrifice is lacking in understanding and could benefit from further research. It is important to approach this topic with sensitivity and respect, as it holds significant importance in the Islamic faith. It is unfortunate that there are individuals who seek to create discord and disrespect towards this topic, but it is important to remain vigilant and educate ourselves on the true teachings of Islam.
We need more unbiased academic discourse on Shiaism because it is necessary since people are selling ignorance in the envelop of Ahlul Bayt's love appealing emotionally and talking about things that are very dangerous and can even lead to apostasy. Alhamdulillah for this. But need more.
It is very common that when one is in the minority one holds on desperately to ones religion even if it leads to fanatism in belief. Despertion leads to different perceptions.
See the following sources about Fatima and Fadak: Sirah Halabiyyah 3:488, 3:487 Ibn Abi al Hadid 16:274, 16:219-220, 16:214, 16:216, 16:211-212, 16:249-251, 16:212-213, etc. Tabaqat al Kubra 2:316 Sahih Muslim #19.4352, #19.4354 Sahih Bukhari #5.59.546, #4.53.325, #5.57.60, #5.59.368, #8.80.718 Fatima was given Fadak by the Prophet during his life according to sunni literature.
Why is the Musannaf Ibn Abu Shayba is assumed to be weak? Because of the illa? I feel like it's the narrative that THIS speaker beliefs. You bring another speaker, and that speaker BELIEFS something else. You can say the "murder" part is questionable, but you cannot DENY that there was a conflict between Fatima and a few other notable personalities. But what is clear to me, from the different sources shown here, there was tension and it's not a minor tension. It's CLEARLY written, whether you question the illa, the isnad etc.
Excellent discussion. Thank you for having this discussion. I strongly recommend the book by Ibn Taymiyya “Advice to the Shia” which was translated to English by Ustaz Abdullah Al Rabbat.
Jazakallah brother....Once recommendation from me as well... a few things to ponder for your journey ahead... If we say that Prophet Muhammad was the perfect leader and that islam is the perfect religion, we need to ask ourselves one question.... is it possible that a perfect leader of a perfect religion leaves this world without informing his people who would be the leader after him...is it possible that islam has answers to all questions, but did not address a crucial issue of leadership after the holy Prophet saww and leave it upon the people to decide whom they should follow ??? Why did it happen that Atrocities were carried out on the Prophet's family by the so called Muslims of that time on orders of the cursed Caliph of the time...all this happened just 50 years after the Prophet saww passed away.... Yes you read it right...hard to believe isn't it...killing and torturing the grandsons and granddaughters of the person who is your God's most loved messenger. Still, don't believe it and want to know more.. search karbala / ashura / ghadeer.. if interested in reading about the historical events and politics during the time of the Prophet saww, Please Google for the book, "Then I was Guided"...it opened my eyes to many truths which I was ignorant about...answered many of my questions...definitely worth spending a couple of days for a Muslim...
@@carlossmanutd Although I can answer your questions, it's crucial to acknowledge that our sources might differ - I refer to the two most authoritative books following the Quran, whereas you have your own references. This divergence raises the question of how we can arrive at the truth. The answer lies in revisiting the Quran, a shared foundation of belief and trust. And To validate your positions, please refer to explicit passages within the Quran rather than delving into ambiguous verses. Regarding your prior question, Yes, the prophet did choose a leader and that is Abubakar (رضي الله عنه). Moreover, there appears to be a misunderstanding about our sentiments towards significant events. It's inaccurate to assume that Muslims are indifferent to the occurrences of that particular day. Quite the opposite, we deeply care and are profoundly affected by these events. Our reverence and love for the Prophet's family are not to be underestimated; it's a sentiment that holds great significance within our faith. Moreover, there appears to be a misunderstanding about our sentiments towards significant events. It's inaccurate to assume that Muslims are indifferent to the occurrences of that particular day. Quite the opposite, we deeply care and are profoundly affected by these events. Our reverence and love for the Prophet's (ﷺ) family are not to be underestimated; it's a sentiment that holds great significance within our faith. Assalamu Alaikum
A few more beliefs for debunking ... 1] that islam is a complete religion and Rasulallah saww cannot leave this world without appointing his successor and leave it for the people to decide who they want to follow. 2] The event of Ghadir never happened...even if it did, and even if the prophet saww announced in front of a lakh people that Ali is your mowla, mowla only means friend, it has nothing to do with succession.. 3] the calamity of thursday never happened. 4] Bibi Fatima Zehra sa was lying / mistaken when she demanded fadak from the first caliph.. 5] and finally...the event of karbala never happened...or even if it did, Yazid la had nothing to do with the killings and atrocities and the grandsons and granddaughters of the Prophet saww... For the sake of your religion, please google and read the book, 'Then i was guided'...as a muslim, if theres one book that you read in your life this should be the book...dont resist...just do it once...God bless...
Jazakallah...a few things to ponder for your journey ahead... If we say that Prophet Muhammad was the perfect leader and that islam is the perfect religion, we need to ask ourselves one question.... is it possible that a perfect leader of a perfect religion leaves this world without informing his people who would be the leader after him...is it possible that islam has answers to all questions, but did not address a crucial issue of leadership after the holy Prophet saww and leave it upon the people to decide whom they should follow ??? Why did it happen that Atrocities were carried out on the Prophet's family by the so called Muslims of that time on orders of the cursed Caliph of the time...all this happened just 50 years after the Prophet saww passed away.... Yes you read it right...hard to believe isn't it...killing and torturing the grandsons and granddaughters of the person who is your God's most loved messenger. Still, don't believe it and want to know more.. search karbala / ashura / ghadeer.. if interested in reading about the historical events and politics during the time of the Prophet saww, Please Google for the book, "Then I was Guided"...it opened my eyes to many truths which I was ignorant about...answered many of my questions...definitely worth spending a couple of days for a Muslim...
We often see shias claiming they don’t believe in tahreef. Why so? Do our scholars lie? Or is it only for specific shia groups? summary: No, they either use taqiyah (lying that is encouraged & rewarded by Allah) or aren’t well informed about their aqeedah. A person cannot be a true Twelver Shi’ah except if he believes that the Quran is Muharaf! [1] While this might seem strange, what follows is even stranger. Ahl Al-Sunnah transmitted the Quran from the Prophet [May Blessings of Allah and Peace be upon him and his household] through Tawatur [2] and a multitude of widespread authentic chains. These Mushafs that are printed today, and people all over the world read from, are from one of these four narrations: The narration of Hafs from ‘Asim, and this is widespread in the Arabian Gulf, Egypt, Shaam, Iraq, and Yemen. The second is the narration of Warsh from Nafi’, and this is common in Morocco and Algeria. The third narration is that of Qalon from Nafi’, and it is widespread in Libya. The fourth is the narration of Al-Duwri from Abi ‘Amr, and this is common in Chad and the South of Sudan. In addition to these there are other narrations which are not that common among people, but are being taught in institutes and Universities. So ask [May Allah bless you, benefit you, and make you a benefit for others] … ask their scholars: Where is the Quran of Aal Al-Bayt? Where is the Mushaf which the Imams narrate and transmit from each other? Where is the chain of: Al-‘Askari from the way of Al-Hadi from Al- Jawad from Al-Ridaa form Al-Kazim from Al-Sadiq from Al-Baqir from Zayn Al-‘Abideen from Al-Husien (the grandson of the Prophet) or Al-Hasan (the grandson of the Prophet) from Ali [May Allah be pleased with them all]? Did the students of these Imams narrate everything from them except the Quran?!! Are the scholars of the Shi’ah capable of producing a chain of the Quran up to the Messenger [May Blessings of Allah and Peace be upon him and his household] without relying on or referring back to the chains of Ahl Al-Sunnah?!! I am definite that they are incapable of producing such a thing, so go back to them and check if they can correct me. What I think they will say to you, though, is: there is a narration, and it is the narration of Hamza Al-Zayaat from the way of Al-Sadiq from Al-Baqir from Zayn Al-‘Abideen from Al-Husien from Ali. This should raise another important question: Why is this being narrated by Hamza Al-Zayaat [3] from Al-Sadiq [4], and not by Al-Kazim [from Al-Sadiq]? And why isn’t Al-Kazim’s son: Al-Rida narrating this from him? And why isn’t Al-Jawad narrating it from Al-Rida … this is a very important point to pay attention to. Then I add to this another question to the Shi’ah: Where are your chains today to Hamza Al-Zayaat? And where is the recitation of Hamza Al-Zayaat being recited today? All the countries that the Shi’ah recite Quran in today follow: the narration of Hafs from ‘Asim, the narration of Warsh from Nafi’, the narration of Qalon from Nafi’, or the narration of Al-Duwri from Abi ‘Amr. Where is the narration of Hamza? I do not know of a Mushaf that is printed upon the narration of Hamza on this day. If the Companions were Apostates, especially the famous ones from among them, and they were the ones that transmitted the Quran: How can a Shi’ah trust the narration of those who he believe are Apostates? This Quran that is between our hands today, is from the narration of those companions of the Prophet [May Blessings of Allah and Peace be upon him and his household], and it is the one narrated by Hafs from the way of ‘Asim from Abi ‘Abdulrahman Al-Salami from ‘Uthman and Ali and Ubi and Zayd. Where is the chain of the Shi’ah to Hafs or to Warsh or to Qalon or to Al-Duwri? After answering these questions you would understand why we said that you will not be a shi’ah except if you say that the Quran had been subject to Tahreef. We add to this, that some Shi’a scholars, such as Ni’mat-u-Allah Al- Jazai’ri [5], Al-Nuri Al-Tabrasi [6] , and others proclaimed that Mutawatir narrations were transmitted from the infallible Imams stating that the Quran is Muharaf, yet you do not find even one narration from the Imams clearly stating that the Quran is free from any such Tahreef. The first to say that [the Quran is] free from Tahreef from their earlier scholars are four, they are: Al-Tabrasi Abu Ali[7], Al-Tusi[8] , Al-Murtada [9], and Al-Saduq [10]. As for Al-Mufeed [11] he has two sayings in this matter. It follows, that all those who claim to follow the Twelve Imams should also say [as their Imams are reported to have said] that the Quran has been subject to Tahreef, since the narrations that came from the way of the Imams attested to such a thing. As for those who don’t wish to follow the Imams and choose to follow someone else, like Al-Tusi, Al-Murtada, Al-Saduq, and Al-Tabrasi then that is their matter. For that reason you will find that the scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah are strict in this matter, and say that whoever says that the Quran is Muharaf is a Kaffir, and they clearly declare such a thing based on what Allah the Exalted said: {Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian}Hijr 15:9 . The scholars of the Shi’ah, on the other hand, do not say that, rather they just say that he who says such a thing is just mistaken. Many times we hear of a narration called “Hadith Al-Thaqalayn”, and the Thaqalayn as is known are: The Book of Allah, and Aal Al- Bayt. This tradition, which came in the Shiah books, state that the Quran is the Major [Thiql], and Aal Al-Bayt is the minor Thiql. So after this we say: Don’t all the scholars of the Shi’ah with no exception, say that the killers of Al-Husien [May Allah be pleased with him] are Apostates, since Al-Husien [May Allah be pleased with him] is a member of the minor Thiql, thus his killers are Apostates due to their attack on a member of the minor Thiql, based on this tradition. Yet they do not accuse any of those who attack the major Thiql, the Quran, of any of that?! For that reason a huge number … yes a huge number … from the big Shi’ah scholars said that the Quran is Muharaf. So do you accept these [scholars] as the symbols and heads of the Mazhab you are attributed to? [These are the scholars] whom you ask Allah to bestow his Mercy on, and whom you highly praise the knowledge and books they left behind. Do you know, May Allah Bless you, that Husien Al-Nuri Al- Tabrasi 13 said that the Noble Quran has ridiculous, silly verses (I ask refuge in Allah for me and you from such Apostasy)! I ask you: Is he after saying that a Muslim?! What he said can be found in his evil book: “Fasl Al-Khitab Fee Ithbaat Tahreef Kitab Rab Al-Arbab” . Go ask Shia scholars, ask them about the status of that man among the scholars of the Twelver Shiahs. If we do not stand up to defend the Quran, and we do not show animosity towards those who disrespect it, and do not free ourselves from those who attack it, then By Allah how can our Islam remain correct. Push Shia scholars, May Allah bless you, to declare all those who slander and attack the Quran as non Muslims, in the same way as they openly declare the Apostasy of the Nawasib [12] [May Allah curse them], even though the Nawasib showed animosity to humans i.e. the household of the Prophet. Why then don’t the Shiah scholars also declare as Apostates and curse those who show animosity or attack the Book of Allah the Exalted. As for us Ahl Al-Sunnah, we Praise Allah, who has guided us to the path where we do not distinguish between those who attack the Book of Allah, or the Household of the Messenger, or his Companions. We have one Manhaj in defending all that which is revered in this Religion. We show animosity and free ourselves from all those who attack the Book of Allah, rather we declare him as an Apostate, and we hate and free ourselves from all those who slander and attack the household of the Messenger [Blessings and Peace of Allah be upon him and his household] or the companions of our Prophet [Blessings of Allah and Peace upon him]. Shias will usually tell you about the nonsense of the goat & ibn umar like atheists do.
1 Tahreef is the belief that the Quran has been subject to alteration after the Death of Prophet Muhammad [Blessings and Peace be upon him], and that the Quran that we have today is not the same as the one left to us by him [Blessings and Peace be upon him]. Such a belief would place one outside the fold of Islam according to the Scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah wa Al-Jama’ah. 2 Tawatur or Mutawatir is a narration reported by a significant number of narrators at each level of the chain of narration, in such a way that it becomes beyond possibility that these narrators could have conspired to forge such narration. It is of the highest level of authenticity, and the highest level of Tawatur is that of the Quran. 3 Hamza Al-Zayaat (80 H to 156/8 H): He is Hamza b. Habib b. ‘Imarah Al-Zayat Al-Kufi. He is one of the scholars of his time in the Qiraat. He was known for his worship and piety. He took the Quran from: Sulaiman Al-A’mash, Humraan b. A’yan, Ja’far b. Muhammad Al-Sadiq, Abu Ishaq Al-Subai’y, and many others. 4 Original source did not mention Al-Sadiq, however according to books of Qiraat Al-Sadiq was one of those Hamza Al-Zayaat took the Quran from not Al-Baqir (Refer to Ghayat Al-Nihaya). The next paragraph was modified accordingly. 55 Ni’mat Allah Al-Jazaeri (1050 H - 1112 H): is a highly praised Shi’ah scholar. From his scholars are Muhammad Baqir Al-Majlisi (known as Al-‘Alamah Al-Majlisi) and Muhammad Mohsen (known as Al-Fayd Al-Kashani), as well as many others. He was praised by a number of Shia scholars including Al-Majlisi in the Ijazah he gave him, Al-Hur Al-‘Amili, Yusuf Al-Bahrani, as well as others. Refer to what he said about Tahreef Al-Quran in his book: Al-Anwaar Al-Nu’maniyah 6 Husien Al-Nuri Al-Tabrasi (1254 H - 1320 H): He was praised by the Shia Shaykh Aaqa Al- Tahrani who said of him: “… One of the greatest scholars of the Shia, and one of the grandest men of Islam in this century”. Also Al-Sayid Mohsen Al-Ameen said of him: “He was a noble scholar, a Muhadith, with great knowledge in both the Science of Hadith and Narrators … He was the most unique scholars of his time when it comes to knowledge of narrations and traditions …”. He is the author of the book: Fasl Al-Khitaab fee Ithbaat tahreef Kitab Rab Al-Arbab. 7 Al-Fadl b. Al-Hasan Al-Tabrasi (460 H - 548 H): The author of Majma’ Al-Bayan fee Tafseer Al- Quran. 8 Muhammad b. Al-Hasan Al-Tusi (385 H - 460 H): Known as Shaykh Al-Taefah. 9 Ali b. Al-Husien known as Al-Sayid Al-Murtada (355 H - 436 H). 10 Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Ali b. Musa b. Babawayh Al-Qumi (305 H - 381 H): known as Al- Shaykh Al-Saduq. 11 Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Al-Nu’man (336 H - 413 H): Abu Abdullah Al-Mufeed. 12 Who are the Naasibis and what is the ruling on them? islamqa
Shia Islam is Messianic religion, just like Judaism and Christianity. Prof. Shabbir Akhtar says that is a bit heretical form of Islam. Shia Islam has heavy influences from Judeo-Christian ideas and Zoroastrian mysticism. Sunni Islam is mostly free from such mystical and philosophical influences, thankfully. But I respect Shias.
@@syedabbas5822 Bro, I am not against Shia Islam. But it has many problems. Anything built on resentment of the 'other' has limited appeal only. Many Muslims from Shia background are non-practicing, can you tell me why? It is because of convoluted nature of Shia Islam with its mystical and philosophical influences. Messianic nonsense of coming of Mahdi and 2nd coming of Christ is also not acceptable to human mind. Idea of Infallibility of Imams is another bad thing. To be honest, Sunnis have a lot of corruptions in our traditions of Hadith and Fiqh books as well.
Shia thought that Fatima, the flesh and blood of the Prophet sallallaahu ‘Alaihi Wasallam was chosen, was humiliated in the time of Abu Bakr Radhiyallahu‘ Anhu, broken his ribs, his house was about to be burned, and his fetus they called al Muhsin was aborted. Question: Where was Ali bin Abi Talib when it happened? Why doesn't he claim his wife's rights, even though he is brave and strong?
@@aleehydar8062 Allahyari is actualy ibleesyari. I know he is your ideological father, U must b agree with ibleesyari he called Khomeini a dajjal ..and marajas are traitors...
This was a very biased and one-sided discussion, brother Paul. This matter isn't that hard to navigate. One just has to think and ask themselves: Why is the grave of the prophet’s daughter a secret 1400 years later, no one knows where she is buried? Why did she refuse to talk to Abu Bakr and Umar and refuse for them to attend her funeral? Why did Umar threaten to burn her house down with its inhabitants? Would a Muslim who loved the prophet, terrorize his daughter in this manner? (There are credible sources for this btw, even in SUNNI historical records, which I will share down below, in a reply to my own comment) Ask yourself; why did her husband, Ali ibn abi Talib, lament her loss in a eulogy where he complained about the people’s mistreatment of her? And How could the prophet who was meticulous with every detail neglect to tell her about inheritance, but he tells his alleged best friend a secret about inheritance law that nobody else knows except the man who doesn’t stand to inherit anything? These are very valid thoughts and questions, but as soon as you try to delve into them deeper and reach a conclusion, some of our Muslim brothers and sisters start screaming "Fitnah! Fitnah!! Fabrication!!"
Other Sunni traditionists narrated that on the day of Saqifah: Umar said: “‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Zubair Ibn Awwam and those who were with them separated from us (and gathered) in the house of Fatimah, daughter of the messenger of Allah.” Sunni References: Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p55 Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, by Ibn Hisham, v4, p309 History of Tabari (Arabic), v1, p1822 History of Tabari, English version, v9, p192 Also: demanded confirmation of the oath, but ‘Ali and al-Zubair stayed away. Al-Zubair drew his sword (from the scabbard), saying, “I will not put it back until the oath of allegiance is rendered to ‘Ali.”When this news reached Abu Bakr and Umar, the latter said, “Hit him with a stone and seize the sword.”It is stated that Umar rushed (to the door of the House of Fatimah) and brought them forcibly while telling them that they must give their oath of allegiance willingly or unwillingly. Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v9, pp 188-189 Now let us see what Umar did on those days. Sunni historians reported that: When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said: “By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr).” Sunni References: History of Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1118-1120 History of Ibn Athir, v2, p325 al-Isti’ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p975 Tarikh al-Kulafa, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p20 al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20 Umar said to Fatimah (who was behind the door of her house): “I know that the Prophet of God did not love any one more than you, but this will not stop me to carry out my decision. If these people stay in your house, I will burn the door in front of you.” Sunni reference: Kanz al-Ummal, v3, p140 In fact Shibli Numani himself testifies the above event in the following words: “From Umar’s irritable and peevish temperament such an action on his part was not improbable.” Sunni reference: al-Faruq, by Shibli Numani, p44 It is also reported that: Abu Bakr said (on his death bed): “I wish I had not searched for Fatimah’s house, and had not sent men to harass her, though it would have caused a war if her house would have continued to be used as a shelter.” Sunni references: History of Ya’qubi, v2, pp 115-116 Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586 The historian named the following people among those who attacked the houseof Fatimah to disperse people who sheltered there: Umar Ibn al-Khattab Khalid Ibn Walid Abdurrahman Ibn Ouf Thabit Ibn Shammas Ziad Ibn Labid Muhammad Ibn Maslamah Salamah Ibn Salem Ibn Waqash Salamah Ibn Aslam Usaid Ibn Hozair Zaid Ibn Thabit The revered Sunni scholar, Abu Muhammad Abdullah Ibn Muslim Ibn Qutaybah Daynuri in his history of Caliphs known as “al-Imamah wa al- Siyasah”reported: Umar asked for wood, and told those people inside the house: “I swear by Allah who has my soul in his hand, that if you do not come out, I will burn the house.”Someone told Umar that Fatimah was inside the house. Umar said: “So what! It doesn’t matter to me who is in the house.” Sunni reference: al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 3,19-20
Burial of the propher and Saqifa, see Sahih Bukhari #5.57.19 Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk of Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari 9:186, 10:3 Al Tabaqat al Kubra by Ibn Sa'd 2:246-247 Ibn Abi al Hadid alMutazili alShafii 1:160-1 Al Imamah wa alSiyasah of Qutaybah alDinawari 15 Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah of Ibn Ishaq 688-9 Tarikh Tabari 9:202, 9:204, 9:205, 9:209 Musnad Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal #24378, #26091, #26392 Tabaqat al-Kubra 2:305 Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah Tarikh Ibn Kathir 5:291
For a better presentation which shows what happened to Fatima from Sunni books from the Sunni perspective see this video Fatima - What happened after the Prophet? By Sayed Modarresi
@@eii-p3tJazakallah...a few things to ponder for your journey ahead... If we say that Prophet Muhammad was the perfect leader and that islam is the perfect religion, we need to ask ourselves one question.... is it possible that a perfect leader of a perfect religion leaves this world without informing his people who would be the leader after him...is it possible that islam has answers to all questions, but did not address a crucial issue of leadership after the holy Prophet saww and leave it upon the people to decide whom they should follow ??? Why did it happen that Atrocities were carried out on the Prophet's family by the so called Muslims of that time on orders of the cursed Caliph of the time...all this happened just 50 years after the Prophet saww passed away.... Yes you read it right...hard to believe isn't it...killing and torturing the grandsons and granddaughters of the person who is your God's most loved messenger. Still, don't believe it and want to know more.. search karbala / ashura / ghadeer.. if interested in reading about the historical events and politics during the time of the Prophet saww, Please Google for the book, "Then I was Guided"...it opened my eyes to many truths which I was ignorant about...answered many of my questions...definitely worth spending a couple of days for a Muslim...
I agree solely so that all of us can witness how irrational, full of hatred, and how different the main principles of Shia towards the real Islam that Rasulullah, the Sahaba, and the Salaf preached therefore making it a separate religion compared to Islam. If that’s what you’re referring to, I agree with you wholeheartedly 😂
1. As a sunni i get that sunnis take reports from all sects whereas shias only take from shia sources. Which makes them accomodative of nuance. However to think that twelvers are more biased than sunnis on this particular issue is a lie. If someone reported this, he would be called a liar by sunni muhaddiseen as much as someone who says Ali was wrong somewhere would be labelled as a liar or nasibi or mukhalif by shia muhaddiseen. 2. Its not a conspiracy theory, its a perspective. Ibn kaseer says alllllll ummayads were nasibis. Hated ahlulbayt. Muawiya on Hassan ra's death was happy in abu daud. Yes they have a perspective, a lens through which they see things, deny historical facts, accept lies, fill in the blanks but the same is true for sunnis. They cannot admit that umayyads hated ahlulbayt. They fill in historical gaps, give pathetic reinterpretations, deny authentic hadees, accept fabricated narrations about umayyads. 3. He describes their scholarship as sinister. And says in 38th minute that obviously it's important to critique this claim. It's so biased. Ibn abi shayba reports the event with an authentic chain with rijal of saheehayn.
The argument at 12:54, Concerning Maviya and Ali, shias opinion is correct regarding the qualities of Ali and it is based on Hadith e Saqlain which simply nullifies Abu Bakr caliphate and as a matter of fact this video debate before it even starts…
@2:10:25...The Debate is OVER!! Imam Ali-ibn-Abi-Talib told Abu Bakr that jus 7mos prior him and Umar Ibn Khitab BOTH gave their Allegiance to Imam Ali-ibn-Abi-Talib a.s. @GhadeerKhumm Event where they BOTH CONGRATULATED Imam Ali-ibn-Abi-Talib a.s. on being the Master (Maula) over the Believers. And the Ghadeer Khumm Hadith is mutawatir. There is NO getting around that point!! And let's say one "believes" EVERYTHING thas said here that Umar or Abu Bakr had absolutely "NOTHING" to do with Bibi Fatimah Az-Zarah's s.a. death. Then where is her grave?? Where is the Hadith that Abu Bakr gave Bibi Fatimah Az-Zarah s.a. her funeral rites of wen he was "Caliph"/"Imam"? And if Fatimah Az-Zarah s.a. never gave Abu Bakr or Umar HER Allegiance then is she promised Hellfire bcuz of it??
This is some really high-quality content. (I wish there was more content like this. Specifically, I was hoping that the death of Fatima (RA) was also discussed, in relation to the "conflict" between her and Abu Bakr (RA) regarding the issue of inheritance.)
Jazakallah...a few things to ponder for your journey ahead... If we say that Prophet Muhammad was the perfect leader and that islam is the perfect religion, we need to ask ourselves one question.... is it possible that a perfect leader of a perfect religion leaves this world without informing his people who would be the leader after him...is it possible that islam has answers to all questions, but did not address a crucial issue of leadership after the holy Prophet saww and leave it upon the people to decide whom they should follow ??? Why did it happen that Atrocities were carried out on the Prophet's family by the so called Muslims of that time on orders of the cursed Caliph of the time...all this happened just 50 years after the Prophet saww passed away.... Yes you read it right...hard to believe isn't it...killing and torturing the grandsons and granddaughters of the person who is your God's most loved messenger. Still, don't believe it and want to know more.. search karbala / ashura / ghadeer.. if interested in reading about the historical events and politics during the time of the Prophet saww, Please Google for the book, "Then I was Guided"...it opened my eyes to many truths which I was ignorant about...answered many of my questions...definitely worth spending a couple of days for a Muslim...
A few more beliefs for debunking in your next few videos... 1] that islam is a complete religion and Rasulallah saww cannot leave this world without appointing his successor and leave it for the people to decide who they want to follow. 2] The event of Ghadir never happened...even if it did, and even if the prophet saww announced in front of a lakh people that Ali is your mowla, mowla only means friend, it has nothing to do with succession.. 3] the calamity of thursday never happened. 4] Bibi Fatima Zehra sa was lying / mistaken when she demanded fadak from the first caliph.. 5] and finally...the event of karbala never happened...or even if it did, Yazid la had nothing to do with the killings and atrocities and the grandsons and granddaughters of the Prophet saww... For the sake of your religion, please google and read the book, 'Then i was guided'...as a muslim, if theres one book that you read in your life this should be the book...dont resist...just do it once...God bless...
He peace and blessings on him told people to go to abu bakr if he would not be there anymore. The fact u bring the martyrdom of Husayn (ra) into this is evidence enough that this is merely an emotional outing
@@Radec913 okay...don't bring it in...keep that aspect out of it if you must.. Theres definitely plenty of proof that the event of ghadir happened...you show proof that hmthe Prophet saww told people to go to Abu Bakr if you have any... And if you wish to find out the truth, read the book...I certainly found answers in it...inshaallah even you will...
@@rosegirl9484 Shia thought that Fatima, the flesh and blood of the Prophet sallallaahu ‘Alaihi Wasallam was chosen, was humiliated in the time of Abu Bakr Radhiyallahu‘ Anhu, broken his ribs, his house was about to be burned, and his fetus they called al Muhsin was aborted. Question: Where was Ali bin Abi Talib when it happened? Why doesn't he claim his wife's rights, even though he is brave and strong?
Fun fact the prominent sahaba didn’t attend Prophet Muhammad funeral Fatima’s funeral Ali funeral Hasan funeral or Husains funeral. Or do they envy people for what Allāh has given them of His bounty? But We have already given the family of Abraham the Scripture and wisdom1 and conferred upon them a great kingdom. [4:54] That is of which Allah gives the good news to His servants, (to) those who believe and do good deeds. Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; [44:23] The Prophet has a higher claim on the believers than [they do on] their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood relations have a higher claim on one another, according to the Book of God, than do other believers and emigrants. Nevertheless, you may act kindly toward your friends. All this is inscribed in the Book [33:6]
@@isiddique5512 Prophet mohammed saww had already appointed the leader in Ghadeer Khum, Subhanallah I wish all my brothers and sisters in Islam knew about this important moment in the history of our religion
22:37, and here it comes, Your reference point to understand sunni history is based on the axiom that Ahl e bait are not superior! 😅 read and understand the Hadith e Saqlain or instead even Durood e Ibrahimi so that matter… Ahl e bait are superiority comes from Hadith Saqlain not from history
It’s amazing to me that the visit of Abu Bakr (RA) and Omar (RA) visit at Fatima’s house is portrayed as a small brawl. Even after the „real“ Sunni story was narrated here it’s very difficult to imagine. So not sure if your arguments that it was a minor brawl is accurate.
Except it wasn’t fatimas house. It was the house of Ali رضي الله عنه. The conflict was with Ali and the men in his house. This is if anything even happened after the threat. Which is why the threat said THEM and not HER.
It is not even the alleged murder, the Shia fallacy is that Hazrat Ali radiallahu anhu didn't punish her supposed killers, and further went on to serve under their leadership and Caliphate. It boggles your mind, and the Shia are not only spreading lies about Hazrat Umar radiallahu anhu, but are also insulting Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Hassan and Hazrat Hussain for serving under the leadership of Hazrat Fathima's alleged murderer...
Sunnism has a created an atmosphere of belligerence towards the household of Muhammad (peace be upon them). Most of the time the folk sentiment manifests itself with subtleness. On rare occasion, the hatred becomes overt and blatant. Feelings of antagonism and animosity are tolerated. The martyrdom of Husayn didn't happen in a vacuum...neither did it take place on a whim or without rhyme or reason. The precedent of disrespect had been well-established some 50 years prior and the incident (besiegement of Fatima's house) left an indelible imprint on the collective consciousness of the nascent Muslim community. Latter it became a matter of state-sponsored policy by the Umayyads to publicly curse Ali from the minbar (i.e. pulpit) for a period of 70 years. All this without so much as a peep from the masses (i.e. proto-Sunnis).
i think its more hatred when you paint Ali (ra) as a coward who did not defend his wife or punish the killers according to you.. I think its painting the prophet peace and blessings on him in a bad light when you say that the prophet said not to fight back even though they were gonna kill his wife.......
@Method775 It's a test. We are all here to be tested. That was Ali ibn abi Talib (a.s) test & and also, is today a test for the entire ummah today, to try our personal best to try & find the truth.
Yes! But she Radi Allahu Anha admitted she made a mistake and never left her house till her demise and even asked that she be inhumated during the night ir she would say she would better have been a rock or a tree because of the guilt is not enough for you??? And, also, the fact that our Rassulullah Swalalahu Alayhi Was Salaam loved and cherished her greatly despite knowing what would happen after his demise does not make you think??? You still keep to lies, what type of donkey are you???
@@CapellePs Yes, this is also true. Based on the information she received that Hadhrat Ali Radi Allahu Anhu was doing some mistake, she wanted to set things right. But I do not know about the Qur'an bit. Anyway, she was Hadrat Aisha Radi Allahu Anhu, respected for her intelligence, strong personality, knowledge and all. The woman who was not afraid to call hadhrat Umar Radi Allahu Anhu out when he made mistakes in hadith reporting or on judgments.
Terrible point at the beginning about neutrality. Your rijal is by nature bias, Shias are rejected as reliable narrators on the basis that they are shia, where is the objectivity? You accept reports because they are in line with your beliefs. Your belief in Adalatal sahaba, which you believe is objective because it comes from the Quran, means all sahaba are udool. You do not go in with the notion that Muawiya could be a hypocrite, nor that he was transgressing, as that would contradict your presupposed position that all sahaba were righteous are going to Jannah. It's Shia who are more objective in this regard, as we do not go in with the preconceived notion that all sahaba are righteous no matter what. We simply look at what the evidence tells us about a person's character, then make our judgement. Subhanallah, for a channel that regards itself as a place for an open floor for discission, it's incredible to me that the first point you make is "Shia's are emotional and liars."
Imam Ali rejected Abu bakr. See Sahih Bukhari #8.82.817 regarding Saqifah and Abu Bakr's caliphate, Umar said: "Ali and Zubayr and whoever was with them opposed us." --Musnad Hanbal #391 and Tarikh Ibn Kathir 5:266 is the same, except they end with "Ali, Zubayr, and those who were with them stayed away from us in the house of Fatima"
Abdu Khayr reported: Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Shall I not inform you of the best from this nation after its Prophet? It is Abu Bakr, and the best after him is Umar. Then, Allah will place goodness wherever He wishes.” Source: Musnad Aḥmad 922 Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Arna’ut
... then 'Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), "We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ." Thereupon Abu Bakr's eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) following, in disposing of it, but I will follow." On that 'Ali said to Abu Bakr, "I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon." So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of 'Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered; Then 'Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) for forgiveness, he uttered Tashah-hud, praised Abu Bakr's right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with. 'Ali added, "But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry." On that all the Muslims became happy and said, "You have done the right thing." The Muslims then became friendly with `Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr). Sahih al-Bukhari 4240, 4241
Aisha said according to Sahih Bukhari #8.80.718 "Fatima did not speak to Abu Bakr until she died." Sahih Bukhari #5.59.546 states "Fatima became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him and did not talk to him until she died... When she died her husband Ali buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself." In sahih bukhari #4.53.325 Aisha also said " Fatima got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr and continued assuming that attitude until she died" Sahih Muslim #19.4352 and sahih bukhari #5.59.546 states Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from [the properties Fatimah was demanding] to Fatimah, who got angry at Abu Bakr for this reason. She forsook him and did not talk to him until the end of her life."
@@harharharharharharharharha240 sahih bukhari #5.59.546 and sahih Muslim #19.4352 Aisha said When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect Ali much, but after her death, Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months. The sunni historical text Al-Milal wa al-Nihal of Shahrastani 51, says the Mutazili scholar Nazzam said, "Umar struck Fatimah in the stomach on the Day Abu Bakr was installed as Caliph, causing her a miscarriage." The sunni work by Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-mutazili al shafii 14:193 says "I recited this account of the miscarriage of Zaynab due to the attack of the pagans to my teacher al-Naqib Abu Jafar al-Iskafi. He said, "since the messenger of Allah made permissible the blood of Habbar ibn Aswad because he scared her and she miscarried what was in her womb, it appears that If Rasoolallah were alive, he would have permitted spilling the blood of whoever scared Fatimah such that what was in her womb was aborted." I asked, "May I relate from you what the people say that Fatimah was frightened and Muhsin was aborted?" He said, " Relate neither that claim nor the falsehood of that claim from me."
@@IslamOriginal14 why leave out context you liar? Bukhari 8:80:718: Narrated By Aisha: Fatima and Al ‘Abbas came to Abu Bakr, seeking their share from the property of Allah’s Apostle and at that time, they were asking for their land at Fadak and their share from Khaibar. Abu Bakr said to them, I have heard from Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘Our property cannot be inherited, and whatever we leave is to be spent in charity, but the family of Muhammad may take their provisions from this property.” Abu Bakr added, “By Allah, I will not leave the procedure I saw Allah’s Apostle following during his lifetime concerning this property.” Therefore Fatima left Abu Bakr and did not speak to him till she died.
In order to get a better understanding of this issue, and therefore a better stance about it, one should listen to an objective debate between Shia and Sunni scholars. I highly recommend the book “The Nights of Peshawar”, it’s about a long debate between Sunnis and Shias that took place in the city of Peshawar.
I recommend u Days of peshawor , a refutation from an ex-shia , Nights of peshaowr has thousands lies , fabricated hadith bringing hadith from Shia scholars and named them sunnis
Btw nights of pishawor is just about saying of a liars and those sunni that allegedly he is debating with are less qualified than a 10 years old child. This Murtad claims so many hadith that are in bukhari which are not, author of Nights of Pshawor is a Satan
That book is a fake debate that never happened, your so delusional and out of touch. The book was exposed a decade ago and still in 2023 some shia mention this book
Shia's believes is completely far away from what our Prophet Mohammad Teaching! they are not one of us part of the Ummah. even the way they praying is such a pagan. Thats not what prophet Muhammad teaching.
Are you out of your mind? Do you even know what you're saying? Why are you trying to play Allah? Who are you to chuck people out of Islam? Why doesn't anyone fear Allah anymore?
Shia claim that fatima r.a stayed in bed till she died after breaking of the rib The question is how did she stay in bed till she died yet she went to abu bakr r.a and demanded fadak?
Prophet (pbuh), on his death bed whispered to Fatima(ra) and she became happy and stopped crying; prophet(pbuh) told her she will be the first person to meet him after his death. So this misunderstanding between the sahabas took place within very short period of time after his death. So my question as a lame Muslim; these sahabas were the best of people amongst any human being as they were there with the prophet (pbuh) up until his death, they experienced everything with the prophet (pbuh)! and some of these sahabas were guaranteed to go to jannah as well. They were the best of the best, so the question is how come these sahabas right after prophets (pbuh)death became so divisive so soon? One could understand after 1500 years, modern Muslims are divisive; but division so soon after his(pbuh) death! What happened to the unity? love for Islam?love for prophet(pbuh) etc etc, all disappeared so soon?! difficult to believe…. As a lame Muslim, it is very difficult to understand why disunity took place with the best of people( who were guaranteed jannah) straight after prophets (pbuh) death!? Would Abu bakr and Umar(ra), knowing fatima (ra) the daughter of the prophet (pbuh) with her husband and children in the house really threaten to burn the house down??!! We’re they so selfish so soon for power?yet there were guaranteed jannah! As a lame Muslim, I don’t think that was the case; they would never hurt his(pbuh)family; no way! Also, what we know of our prophet (pbuh), he would never choose his own family members as the next leader; if anything he would choose or go for the most suitable person for the ummah; and not necessarily his(pbuh) lineage would come into this! no chance! he (pbuh)was the best of creation; no way he would be biased on selecting next leader. So the claim that ali(ra) should’ve been the leader is ridiculous; and hurting prophets (pbuh) family is just impossible!!! Allah knows best; as I said I am just a lame Muslim with limited knowledge but common sense is quite evident!
Please brother Paul avoid this political issues. God has blessed you with the true fitra. Don't follow these sterile debates. Just focus on the fitra.❤❤
@@mandregas bro iam not insulting or trying to attack on u. Ia. only saying that we are obliged to know our history correctly. it is not about debate. petsonally i find debates useless especially in such issues. However we must learn our history as all our problems in muslim world cones from lacking the knowldeg of history and why things happened and continue to happen. i wish u can realize what is beibg done in our world is a result of the intentionally corruption of our history. the issues discussed are only small part of things used to devide us
