When the Prophet (PBUH) died , Umar Bin Khattab was responsible for preventing a riot amongst the two Muslim groups of the Ansar and the Muhajeroon and thus Abu Bakr became the leader of the faithful. When Abu Bakr was dying he named Umar as his successor and by taking this rather bold step on his death bed he did the greatest service to the Muslim Ummah.
When Umar was assassinated, before he died he left instructions for 6 of the Prophet’s compatriots who were very close to him to select one of them to be Khalifah.
As everyone knows that Hazrat Umar was a very strict man and for 10 years he ran a very tight ship of the state. He foresaw many of the problems which were to arise during the reign of Hazrat Uthman and prevented them from happening. Most people did not like that and when he died they wanted someone who would allow them to do what they wanted.
Now everyone knew that Hazrat Ali was in the same mould as Hazrat Umar as regarded ethics, sharia and religious duties. Specifically that is the reason a soft easy going gentleman like Hazrat Uthman was selected because people were tired of the strict regime of Hazrat Umar and did not want the continuation of the same with Hazrat Ali.
Well , everyone knows what happened next.
If Hazrat Ali had become the Khalifah after Hazrat Umar- the history of the Muslims would have been different and in a much better way.
PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues
Fate- a Tragedy of the Muslim history.
(271 posts)-
shimatoree
MemberPosted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 17:44 # -
Abdul Rahman
Member"If Hazrat Ali had become the Khalifah after Hazrat Umar- the history of the Muslims would have been different and in a much better way."
ST, None of the great Muslim scholars have dwelved into that and came to that conclusion. It is mute point and we can say the same thing about Ali RA. If someone else was 4th Khalifa rather than Ali RA, the orthodox caliphate would have continued.
ALL Khalifas earned the title of Mubashireen and promised Jannah in hereafter during their life span and it is not correct to dig into mute points of history and debate. We certainly have to learn from history but such topics should be better left for learned scholars. I am sure none of the them would like to open the pandora's box.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 18:05 # -
Shimatoree, we, or rather I in this case definitely agree with you. We could consider the third Caliph of Islam a bit of a setback. But at least it gave Hazrat Ali some 25 years of freedom from governmental care to concentrate on the faith and the grooming of the Muslim community, so that when he finally acceded to the highest function, short though it was, he was able to take the Islamic world in a totally different direction from his predecessors, leaving behind him ethical and religous standards at such a superbly high level that they are even today a model of their kind and a guide to any Muslim leader who may come to power.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 18:07 # -
shafiq12
memberas per request
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 18:14 # -
AR, we were posting our comments at practically the same time, so I didn't see yours before mine had already been posted.
Actually, I find it brave of shimatoree to take on such a delicate topic. As Muslims, I don't quite see why we can't express our views on this delicate topic as well. Knowing shimatoree, I think what he means is Islam would have benefitted ethically from such a succession. No one is questioning the right to heaven of all four Khalifas.
Now may I ask you one thing, please. You write: "If someone else was 4th Khalifa rather than Ali RA, the orthodox caliphate would have continued." If you felt upto explaining what you meant exactly by this, I'd be very interested in reading your point of view. Thanks.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 18:16 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberMG,
There was no such debate througout Muslim history on topics like: if Abu Bakr was no 2 , or Umar was number 3 or Ali was no 3 and Osman was no 4 rather than no 3. Please provide any reference if there was one.
Those Khalifas and Sahabas RA were the BEST of generations until the end of the world. On same token, whatever they did and left for us is the best anyone could ever do until the end of the world. So how can we point out their flaws in the selection process and come to conclusion that if Ali RA was no 3, things would have been better? May be it would have been worst. Allahu Alam
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 18:34 # -
shimatoree
MemberMy purpose is just that- to look into What did go on- from an objective and historical perspective.
I disagree vehemently with the assertion that " pandora's box" should be left un-opnened.
No we need to open the Pandora's Box so that we may get some perspective and not just live by MYTHOLOGY.I intend to bring forth more specific issues which have in FACT affected as to what is going on today.
I also reject the notion that some " scholars" need to look into this. With the historical information available through the internet to-day- we can study and we do not need to wait for scholars to issue their Fatwas. We can read what they have written and I am doing just that. Therefore I shall have something to add to this thread and I do hope so will everyone else.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 18:36 # -
ST,
If we have to suppose things then I have also a supposition. I think you know about Abdullah bin Saba a jew convert to Islam. He was founder of Shian Ali Movement. He was behind the killing Hazrat Talha and Hazrat Zubair, who were returning after successful negotiation in before Jang-e-Jamal. He was also responsible for Kharjitis movement who killed Hazrat Usman.
He was the root cause of almost everything so if he was prevented from creating the chaos at that time then. Please post your reply academically.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 19:02 # -
shimatoree
MemberHazrat Uthman lived with a modest lifestyle and never used treasury funds for his own private use.
But he did make lavish payments to Ansar and Muhajeroon from the treasury.
This created envy , greed, and completely discredited the austerity and self denial that umar had set an example about.Hazrat Ali was equally known to be auster like Umar.There were ten sahabah who were promised paradice by the Prophet. Amongst them were-
Saad b. Waqas- At the conquest of Makkah- he was penniless. He commanded the army in the battle of Qadsiah against the Iranians.When he died in his mansion he left 300,000 dirhams.
His son Omar was offered governorship of a province in Iran if he would lead the army against Imam Hussein and compell him to accept Yazid as khalifah. His ambition won and he shot the first arrow at Imam Hussein.
He obviously had forgotten verse 34 of sura at-Tawba which say-Quote " those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend it in God's cause, give them notice of painful punishment" end of quote
What happened to Abu Dharr Ghafari -( a devout companion of the Prophet)-
first in Damascus and then in Madina for repeating the above truths- where he was flogged and then expelled from Madina- spending the rest of his life in a cave.More to come.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 19:13 # -
AR, I asked you a precise question on the supposition you yourself had put forward regarding Hazrat Ali's position as the 4th Khalifa. You failed to answer it. Any specific reason?
Where's the harm in questioning our early history again, AR? Do you think it might weaken our faith in Allah or cause harm to Islam? On the contrary, I'd say. The more we understand our religion better ourselves and not only through the eyes of one of the ulema, the more we assume it as our own.
shimatoree, please, not to feel upset if we're transferred to Faith and Religion once more. After all, it would be the logical place for this particular thread, wouldn't it?
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 19:49 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberMG, In my humble opinion there is nothing worthwhile for the benefit of Ummah in discussing the ascension of orthodox Khalifas and pros and cons of the order in which they were chosen . You go ahead and comment but I feel it is not fair at this juncture in Islamic history to dwelve into this topic.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 20:02 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@shimatoree: Most of what you wrote is utter BS!.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 20:45 # -
OK, AR, point taken. And having cudgelled my brains I managed to come up with an answer my own question. Let's see where shimatoree wants to go with this one. It's also my duty to stand by him in his musings, But I'll bear your objections in mind certainly, as well as HK's elegantly expressed comment.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 21:18 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
ALLAH ALMIGHTY has given each and every human being, the 'ability' to make decisions, take actions.
Each and every human being is responsible for their! own! decisions, their! own! actions.
Having said that, ALLAH ALMIGHTY has also given a path for human beings to follow. If human beings make decisions, take actions to be loyal to ALLAH ALMIGHTY, to HIS messenger Muhammad (SAW), they will succeed, they will prosper.
Otherwise, they are doomed to failure, not only in this life, but in the afterlife as well. They'll destroy not only their own lives, but the lives of countless others, as well.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 21:39 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@shimatoree: You'r putting forward the case of Hazrat Ali (RA, RAA) to be Khalifah, and portraying it as if Hazrat Usman's (RA, RAA) turn to be Khaleefah was a 'bad turn' of 'fate', when you;
(1) already know, or
(2) have been apprised ofthe fact that this was not the decision of Hazrat Ali (RA, RAA) himself, through the following threads;
(1) Video: Hazrat-e-Umer Aur Usman (RA) Ki Shahadat Ka Tarikhi Pas-e-Manzar
(2) Video: Hazrat e Ali Aur Hazrat e Hussain RA Ki Shahadat Ka Tarikhi Pas e Manzar
..as a result, you choose to be unjust. That is your! decision. You are the only person responsible for taking that path. No one else shares your burden.
Posted 1 year ago on 14 Sep 2010 21:40 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@shimatoree: Having said the above, I want to add, that you are welcome to your opinion.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 0:24 # -
shimatoree
MemberHK-
Unlike you whose sources are Video clips to suite your view point( which you have a right to)-
I study quite a bit and give the subject matter a lot of thought before I write something here.
The views I have put forth here are all documented based on historical research done by people who have spent a lot of time just doing that.
Perhaps it is unpleasent for some here to be forced to face up to some of the facts. The reaction from most has been negative including you.
You have called it BS.
AR has felt that these things should be left alone.I am not a little child that I will be satisfied with your CANNED answers and they are CANNED- very well CANNED but Canned nonetheless.
Perhaps I am naive in thinking that we can have an intelligent and thoughtful conversation about the issues through this medium .
The comments from various sections of the community here tends to confirm that.What I have found instead is Knee Jerk reactions from people with a superficial perspective who do not even pay attention to what is written and who fail to see the relevance of what I am trying to bring in front of everyone.
I wrote something about 1937 and I was accused of being wrong about something in 1945!
One gentlman says that since I am a surgeon therefore I cannot have the ability to write what he thinks are Humanities issues.
Let me just give you one example-
The topics which have something to do with religious subjects- are seperated and banished to the Siberia of Faith and Religion.
Now Islam does not have seperation of Church and state- that is ideas of religion and life and politics belong in the same place.As yet here the subject of religion is delegated to the back bench so to say.
It appears that this time that has not happened yet to this thread.
You may label me UNJUST- but let me tell you something. You are unlikely to meet anyone in your life who is more driven by justice.
I was not going to reply to you but then I decided that I did need to write just one more time.
You may rest assured I shall not reply to you again.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 1:01 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
Perhaps, I could have used a 'less' 'harsh' words to convey my message.
I feel, the thing I'm lacking in .. is 'communication', more-so 'human' 'communication'. I 'communicate', as if I'm talking to an 'pre-programmed' 'drone', rather than a 'human being'.
I find, its the 'choice of words', that you want me to 'refine'.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 2:23 # -
HK, You've made a tremendous amount of progress in what you call communication skills. Only sometimes you still get a bit carried away. But less and less so, thank God. Someday, you might even become a leader of Pakistan and then you'll think back to these days and some of shimatoree's wise pronouncments and feel glad you got to know him at the crossroads.
shimatoree, let's get back to the topic of the thread. I take it your fundamental meaning was that corruption might not have been introduced into the Muslim world had events gone differently at the very start. Or am I wrong?
But as you say, Fate had a hand in it, not just human free will. Amd then there's such a thing as human nature made up more or less in equal parts of greed, lust and a yearning for goodness, which last named remains just that, a simple yearning, never really followed up.
Now you tell us what you really meant, dear shimatoree. Was it then, perhaps, that had the Imamat not taken place, the Muslim world might have evolved in ways which would have made our present decadence impossible?
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 11:44 # -
Hussain Farooqui
MemberDuring Hazrat Usman's regime, many great events took place. The first naval fleet of the Muslims was developed and Hazrat Mavia was appointed as the admiral. Egypt and some more areas were conquered. Hazrat Mavia being the governor of Syria performed very well for the development of the Islamic society.
During Hazrat Usman's regime, a lot of work was done on the compilation of the Holy Quran. However, the soft nature of Hazrat Usman provided opportunities to the miscreants to act upon their agenda.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 16:22 # -
shimatoree
MemberMg-
Your perception to read between the lines is amazing or perhaps your do have a radar that picks up subliminal signals!
My purpose is to state that Corruotion started right after Hazrat Umar died. In reality it started amongst the Neo-Muslims right after the Prophet's death but Umar Bin Khattab was there and he nipped it in the bud. He also introduced procedures which pevented corruption from becoming a problem.
For example Umar banned ownership of Land in conquered territories by the Muslims .
That prevented from Muslims acquiring the land of the conquered people.
Well , most of the Neo-Muslims did not like that at all but the personality and character of Umar was such that no one could come out and try to change that.Once Umar died , the specific reason that Uthman was made Caliph was that people did not want the policies of ascetism and self-denial of Umar continued which they suspected would be the case if Ali became Khalifa.
So the companions of the Prophet who were amongst the ten promised Paradice( by the Prophet) carried out a tricky conspiracy and were successful in making Uthman the Caliph to suite their needs. Uthman was a gentle and relaxed guy and his first big mistake was to allow Land ownership to the neo-Muslims in conquered territories.
As a direct result of this one thing- those that had elected/selected Uthman -( who were not very well to do in Madina)were able to become great land owners overnight.
Now does'nt it smell like some stuff that the supporters of Zardari and Nawaz Shareef have been doing.
Another historical fact-
Ayesha, the widow of the Prophet joined Talha and Zubair in the war against Ali - why -
-because after Ali became Caliph he stopped the tremendous amount of endowment that she was given by Uthman from the state treasury while she disingenuously claimed that she was fighting for vengence aginst those that had killed Uthman.And of course it is a well known fact that Talha first gave allegiance to Ali and then went back on his word.
My point is that corruption is a built-in from the very begining. There have been exceptions like Abu-Bakr, Umar , Ali , Umar Bin Abdul Aziz and everytime such a person came- the majority did not like it since they were stopped from their stealing etc. So the majority of them were no different than the lot to-day we have both in Pakistan and the other Muslim countries- acquisition of wealth that is the end game.
The built up of MYTHOLOGY of the Muslim Empire is just that- Mythology and even better still- the Myth makers became very legitimate as shown by one man alone who came up with Ref to 250,000 Hadiths!
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 19:00 # -
shimatoree
MemberHussain Farooki-
It well established that Uthman was not an effective ruler and most of what you describe was already in the PIPELINE when Umar died.
To have appointed Muawiyah-
( who had nothing to do with the Sea) as the admiral say everything that needs be said about the nepotism practiced by Banu-Umayad adminsitration of Uthman.Corruption was rampant during his rule and the reason was because Uthman was not a good admnistrator and was himslef was very very wealthy due business inetrests. So his associates and kinfolk amongst the Banu Umayad took advantage.
But in the final analysis- it was HIS responsibility and he did not carry it out.
Do not forget he appointed Marwan Bin Hanna as his secretary and the bigoted and clever Muawiyah as the governer of Syria.
A lot of Banu-Umayad were put in key places by design- perhaps not by Uthman himself- but they were.To call Muawiyah " Hazrat" is a disgrace. He was a first rate crook.
And just for your information I am NOT a Shia.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 19:12 # -
Shimatoree, bravo. That's telling them. Fascinating how you tackled the whole thing and the analogy with today's Pakistan is absolutely spot on. Once again, the noble, the great and the genuinely creative are rare plants on God's earth.
Islam has had more than its share of crooks. But corruption is not inherent in Islam. It is to be found everywhere man sets foot. May God give us in coming days a man of nobility and magnanimity to nurse Pakistan back to health.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 19:27 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberPosted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 20:30 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberST quote "To call Muawiyah " Hazrat" is a disgrace. He was a first rate crook."
Reported by Tirmizi in “Sunnan” r4213
Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) said to Muawiyah (r.a): “Allah, make him (Muawiya ) guided, a guider, and guide people through him”.
“Bukhari, ibn Sad, ibn al-Barqi, ibn Hibban, Abdussamad ibn Sayed mentioned him as companion, Abul Hasan ibn Sumay mentioned him in 1-st generations of companions which settled in Hums”.
“And he narrated with his chain from abul-Hasan Ali ibn Muhammad al-Qabsi (or al-Qabusi) which said: I heard Abu Ali Al-Hasan ibn Abu Khallal, that he said: Abu Abdurrahman an-Nasai was asked about Mu’awiyah. His reply was: “Islam is like a house with a door. The door of Islam is the Sahaba. Whoever speaks ill of the Sahaba seeks but to harm Islam, just like one who knocks a door to enter a house. As for Mu’awiyah, whoever speaks ill of him seeks to find a way to speak ill of the Sahaba.”
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 20:30 # -
shimatoree
MemberAR-
There is a saying in the North America-
If the shoes fits- WEAR it.
I stand by everything I have said.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 20:46 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@shimatoree:
(1) 'Sahaba-e-Karaam' ? 'carrying out' 'tricky' 'conspiracies' ?
So the 'Sahaba-e-Karaam', whom ALLAH ALMIGHTY gave news in this life, that they'll enter 'Jannah', you accuse them! of 'corruption' ?
(2) You are accusing Usman (RA, RAA) of 'corruption' ?
(3) Accusing Usman (RA, RAA) of 'changing' rules of 'ownership' of 'land' to 'curry favour' with people 'unjustly' ?
Is that how we'll remember one of the most trusted Companions (RA, RAA) of Muhammad (SAW) ?
(4) I quote: 'built up of MYTHOLOGY of the Muslim Empire'
Now Muslim UMMAH will be mentioned through the terms;
(a) 'myth'
(b) 'mythology'?
That the 'drive' towards re-uniting Muslim UMMAH is a 'myth', a 'mythology' ?
(5) You are 'building up' the case that Hazrat Ali (RA, RAA) was 'denied' his (RA, RAA) chance to be 'Khaleefah' ?
What is all this ?
..and then you claim, you are 'one of the more' 'just' 'people' I will ever find ?
o_O
--------------------------------------------------------
The principle of land ownership in Islam is crystal clear. There is no need of 'promoting' 'idle speculation' or 'confusion' on it.
Dr. Israr speaks on issue of 'ownership' or 'right of ownership' 'of land' 'in Islam'. It is available on the;
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 21:24 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Hussain Farooqui: Usman (RA, RAA) was already apprised of circumstances of his (RA, RAA) death by Muhammad (SAW), in his (SAW) lifetime.
There is no need to 'engage' in 'idle speculation'. The circumstances of death of Usman (RA, RAA) are mentioned by Dr. Israr on the;
Thread: Video: Hazrat-e-Umer Aur Usman (RA) Ki Shahadat Ka Tarikhi Pas-e-Manzar
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 21:45 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberST, We don't go by Kuffar sayings of America. We have enough knowledge to rely on word of God and His Prophet SAS.
Ridiculing of Sahaba RA is tantamount to blasphemy. I bet you won't like to hear Shariah punishment. You may be able to get by with the punishment in this world due to prevailing dajjali systems but we all have accountability in hereftaer.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 21:47 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@Mirza Ghalib: Brother, Islam can't have 'crooks'. 'Muslims' can have 'crooks'. There is a 'sharp' 'difference'.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:07 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@shimatoree: Why or how on 'corruption' after death of Umar (RA, RAA) is mentioned in the;
Thread: Video: Hazrat-e-Umer Aur Usman (RA) Ki Shahadat Ka Tarikhi Pas-e-Manzar
What happened to Usman (RA, RAA), Ali (RA, RAA) is mentioned in the;
Thread: Video: Hazrat e Ali Aur Hazrat e Hussain RA Ki Shahadat Ka Tarikhi Pas e Manzar
Dr. Israr has 'researched' facts. He hasn't put up wrong information here.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:09 # -
Shimatoree
We certainly are not good enough to question the integrity of the companions of the great Prophet ever, but we certainly need to know what went wrong. For that matter we need to study and question all the events that seemed odd.
Our history is full of such things but questioning such events is the greatest taboo in our society. I always had this question in my mind that how on earth Muawia got the chance to become admiral and how conveniently he managed to transform this setup into a family dynasty as if Prophet Muhammad’s sole purpose was to establish his kingship and still people insist to call him ‘Hazrat’.
…and when I asked that how come this guy alone managed to come up with so many Ahadith, I was snubbed that he had a special memory as Prophet prayed for him.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:10 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
@dildar: No one minds 'questioning' of what went on.
What 'Muslims' 'mind' is;
(1) 'manipulating' facts
(2) 'mutilating' facts--------------------------------------------------------
Don't have enough knowledge to speak on that person though.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:11 # -
shimatoree
MemberAR-
I go by the Prophet's edict that lies is the mother of all evils. I
not only stand by my statement but I shall add -1. Talha B. Obaydullah- a companion of the Prophet- one of those to whom Paradice was promised. He at first did not approve of Uthman as Caliph. Uthman went to him in person and he then gave allegiance to Uthman. Of course a reward of 50,000 dirhams helped too.After that he became a close friend and arranged deals for his friends.
When opposition to Uthman arose, at first talha spoke in favour of Uthman - then when he saw that opposition became louder and stronger and the rebels surrounded Uthman's house- Talha declared he was with the rebels.
Talha did not come from a rich family background and not well off at the end of Umar's reign- Ibn Sa'd's Tabaqat shows that when he died -his cash holdings alone were 100 leather sacks each containing 3 hundredwts of pure gold. The land he owned in addition.QED
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:14 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
(1) Usman (RA, RAA) was not murdered on 'dispute' over 'who' will be 'Khaleefah' after Umar (RA, RAA). That is 'manipulation' of facts.
Dr. Israr mentions something else.
(2) Usman (RA, RAA) was not a corrupt man
(3) Prophet's 'edict' ?
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:17 # -
shimatoree
MemberDildar-
When the Prophet died-( paraphrasing) Abu Bakr said- " if you are followers of Mohammad- he was a man and he has died but iff you are followers of Allah - then Islam is and will live forever.
The Myth making was started by corrupt and intellectually dishonest people for personal gain and this was done on purpose and by design.
As you can see that the number of believers in Myths is quite high.
I take strong exception to the notion that truth should be hidden and that we should not wash dirty laundry.
The JI and JUI and others consider it OK to call Musharraf and Zardari corrupt but when their LAT and MANAT are called to question- everyone starts saying that is not right.
I am not Mansoor Hallaj that they can skin me alive and I fully intend to expose the mythology that has been built-( on purpose) around corrupt people of the past who called themselves Muslims.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:22 # -
AR
Ridiculing of Sahaba RA is tantamount to blasphemy. I bet you won't like to hear Shariah punishment. You may be able to get by with the punishment in this world due to prevailing dajjali systems but we all have accountability in hereftaer.
You are absolutely right!
The guy who stopped Hazrat Umer from 'Khutba' just because he wanted an explanation about his dress was a big 'blasphemous'.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:25 # -
shimatoree
MemberAnd some more-
Zubair bin Awwaam-
A cousin of the Prophet and one of the 6 who were nominated by Umar to select the next Caliph- He was also one of the ten who were promised Paradise.
The Prophet called him “ my disciple”.
Uthman gave him 600,000 dirham after he became Caliph.
With that money he bought properties and houses from that money in Kufa , Cairo ,Alexandria and Basra. When he died his estate was worth 35 million dirhams.Adur rRahman bin Auf-
Another on of the select 10 who were promised paradise.
He left wealth far in excess of his earnings. He had four wives each of whom got 50,000 gold dinars alongwith 1000 camels and 3000 sheep.Then there was Hakim bin Hezam who would not accept a single penny and refused a pension when offered.
So let us not pretend that corruption has been caused by the EVIL West’s colonization alone. We have had a history of corruption at the highest level.- no doubt about it
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:35 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
I submit to the court of law of this nation, for justice as per standards of justice of Islam. JI does the same.
We do not 'stop' or 'hinder' the process of justice.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:36 # -
shimatoree
MemberLet us also NOT forget-
That the dead body of the Prophet layed for three days because his followers-
( the two groups of Ansat and Muhajeroon)- were haggling and jockeying for power grab.Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:37 # -
Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,
It is strange. To me, it seems like a joke.
Why would ALLAH ALMIGHTY give news of 'Jannah' to those, who were 'corrupt', 'unjust', who 'conspired' ?
Does that make sense ?
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I don't have information from history to dispute 'points' mentioned above. I cannot comment on that, as yet.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 22:40 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberSahaba RA haggling and jockeying for power grab?
What is problem with you ST, There was no jockeying and haggling. Are you under so much spell of the dajjali system that you see those gems in the same lens as you see your corrupt to the core politicians?
Whatever, they were/are the best of generations until the end of the world. Has any honest historian except the kuffar orientalists described the succession as power grab?
None of the orthodox Khalifas CAME FORWARD to lead the Ummah due to the heavy responsibility and ultimate accountability. This thread has drifted towards outright blasphemy and need to be moderated.
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 23:31 # -
@ shimatoree, puhleeze don't shita-more, it already stinks here.
Shimatoree said:
If YOU are standing and a person is being killed- if you have the strength then you should stop it.
Well , He (GOD) IS all powerful- so why does'nt he stop it ?Or is He is a silent observer just taking notes for the Final day of judgement. If that is the case then what about the suffering of the poor and the weak due to exploitation by the wealthy ?
Shimatoree further said:
Yes- God has FAILED the poor and downtrodden and THE WEAK.
If I was the dictator of Pakistan-( and I am not)- I would be responsible for my actions- both the stuff I did and did NOT do.
Let us apply the same logic to the actions of God Almighty.
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/allahswt-kay-kouf-say-ghafil-hogaye-muslman#post-173339Well, when even GOD doesn't fit shimatoree's standards of being just, it is understandable what he thinks of the sahaba. But anyway, I have been really amazed by his personality, as it is beyond my comprehension that how can a person talk so much sh!t and that too so consistently. I guess he's old, so he really have mastered that art...
But he really is a freaking strange person, unquestionably loves taliban, is critical of Allah(swt) and his ways, talks sh!t about sahaba, defends those who slaughter Muslims... and does more crap like that...
Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 23:49 # -
zia m
MemberMaulana Maududi has done a half way decent job in his book khilafat 0 Malukiat to explain how Khilafat turned into Malukiat during the Caliphate of Usman.But he tried to give the Caliph a free pass on his nepotism on the basis Islam tells you to take care of your relatives first.I have no problem as long as the benefit is coming from ones own pocket and not at the expense of the state.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The whole caliphate saga was a power grab (at least 99%)I have never seen Muslims discuss the basic rights of Ansar.
Why were they declared ineligible for the Caliphate?I thought Islam was supposed to demolish the false boundaries of ethnicity and tribal identity.
Why only Quresh were declared fit to rule?Posted 1 year ago on 15 Sep 2010 23:50 # -
shimatoree
MemberZia-m
because they were Quresh !
Pure and simple the politics of exclusivity-( racism)- used in the most ruthless fashion.
Of course that continued till Hulagu Khan put an end to it in Baghdad.
And people today complain that in Pakistan Families are ruling and heading political parties.
Well guess what - the same was the rule during the " glory" ( whose glory anyway?) days of the Muslim Empire.
Posted 1 year ago on 16 Sep 2010 0:08 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberWhy only Quresh were declared fit to rule?
There was no power grab among the orthodox caliphate. No other Khalifa was called Rashedeen from the Omayyads, Abbasids, Ottomans.
Prophet SAS said: Even if a bald dwarf Abyssinian slave is nominated as the ruler, Muslims have to swear allegiance and obey the ruler. Bilal RA, the Abyssinian slave married women from the Quraish. Salman Farsi RA was declared by Prophet SAS: " Salman minna ahl el bait-Salman is from the house of Prophet SAS. Islam thereby crushed all tribal, ethnic , linguistic allegiances and made Taqwa-piety as the sole contributor to ones status in society in the world and herefter.
If Muslims did not adhere to those norms set by Prophet SAS, it is due to weak or lack of Iman and not the Shariah based on Quran and Hadith.
Posted 1 year ago on 16 Sep 2010 0:12 # -
shimatoree
MemberAll-
I have not failed to notice that NO ONE has refuted my statements with research and logic and study of history.
All I am hearing is that I am evil and I am attacking the mythological statues of the statue worshipers.
Like I said before if the shoe fits- wear it !
Posted 1 year ago on 16 Sep 2010 0:12 # -
Not Possible
Blocked@ pakistani47
The myth of Abdulah bin Saba is stale and old, poor show for buying into such rubbish. Shows your knwoledge of history is spoon fed and very weak.@AR and the rest
Muawyiah faught a war with Hazrat Ali, Hazrat Ali could have died in it and Muawiyah would have still been Hazrat Muwayiah? By what rights was Muawyiah ruling lands when Hazrat Ali was Khalifa? wasnt Hazrat Ali the Ameer ul Momenin? Then to oppose him and fight a bettle against him is what? Treason against the Ameer ul Momenin and that too the personality of Hazrat Ali, So If Shitmores words are blasphamy what about Muawyahs treason?What shitmore did not mention was that Moulana Moudodi may have been critical of Hazrat Usman, but he also condemed Muawyiah.So Allama Mouddudi was also doing blashphamy?. For 1400 yrs plus Muawyah has been cast in a bad light by Ulema its is only the propganda of the salfi today that have started to bend the truth on Muawyiah.
Banu Ummyah had only one good ruler and that was Umer bin Abdul Aziz, nobody calls the remaining Rashid, Allah only guarantees the Quran as free from error, Bany Ummaya fabricated many false traditons to elongate their rule. Dont not fall victim to such Ahadith.And if you do choose to belive all Hadith why dont you look at those that condemn Muawyiah?
Posted 1 year ago on 16 Sep 2010 2:39 # -
Abdul Rahman
MemberBy definition Muauwiya RA lived at the time of Prophet SAS is a Sahabi. Period. Hypothetical assumptions about "if" he fought against Ali RA he may have killed and martyred Ali RA does not carry any weight and must NEVER EVER be discussed.
As I said earlier these type of irrelevant discussions are prone to fitna. At this moment in Islamic history we are facing the combined might of the occupational army of world's Kuffar in middle of Muslim world and we are foolishly debating mute events of history. Not a good sign for the Ummah. Remember even AFTER the episode of Mauwiya RA and other Sahaba in question, Islam reached the far corners of the known world at that time. SO stop lamenting about Sahaba's roles and concentrate on your own role and action. Keep debating until the end of your life but be certain, no one will ever be born until doomsday in this world that will equal the status of Mohammad SAS to Omar RA to Ali RA to Mauwiya RA.
Allama Iqbal:
Jis carvan ki tu manzil tha
Mai us carvan ki gard hoonPosted 1 year ago on 16 Sep 2010 3:32 # -
How strange all of you are, with your insults and threats of blasphemy against shimatoree because you can't bear to look the truth in the face. I strongly object to your attitude towards him on grounds of failed humanity. Certainly I'll stand by him till the very end. And God will decide what to do with us on Judgement Day. Not a single human being present on earth now will have a hand in that judgement.
To be a Muslim does not mean to be deaf, dumb and blind as so many of you have apparently decided to be on sectarian grounds. It's just an act of cowardice on your part. Is one less of a Muslim because one questions Islamic history? Well let me tell you one thing. We will not be advancing the cause of Islam if we never honestly question our own history of past events.
Thank you above to those who gave shimatoree's very brave efforts support: dildar, zia m. NP come to mind. HK I stand corrected as to my unwise use of Islam in connection with crooks. Please to replace the word by "Muslims" as per HK's suggestion. And the person who wrote above: Allah Almighty guaranteed only the veracity of the Quran till the end of time expressed a fundamental truth which deserves our entire adherence.
Posted 1 year ago on 16 Sep 2010 6:44 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.