AOAWRBHU:


It's widely quoted that the 2nd Caliph was famous for calling out all the governors of His Kingdom, and used to ask them questions and make them accountable in public.

I would like to ask, if the same treatment was ever extended to Mawiah during the rein of Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman? Apparently, he became the governor of Damascus during the times of Abu Bakr, and enjoyed unquestionable freedom of power till Imam Ali (a.s.) --- as he tried to replace him.

Total span of 40 plus years of such an authorative political empowerment, compelled Mawiah to make his son Yazeed a Successor, who eventually became responsible for the incident of Karbala?

Don't you think that First three caliphs shall also be accountable on day of judgement for never questioning Mawiah's luxury life style and his policies for converting Caliphate into Kingdom, as he received full support from first three Caliphs?

Who says they never Questioned it ?

History says it all !
It was Imam Ali (a.s.), who ordered his replacement, which irked Mawiah and his followers.

Provide historical references.

I haven't come accross a single mustanad referece, where Mawiah or his Father Abu Sufiyan was made accountable by first three Caliphs. That's why I wrote History says it all itself, by ignoring Mawiah and Abu Sufiyan First three Caliphs automatically become accountable for the outcome of Karbala.

If you have any mustanad reference, please do bring it here

How can the 3 calipahs be automatically responsible for Karbala when Abu Sufyan wanted an alliance with Imam Ali to fight against Abu Bakr and Umar ?

As for Muawiyah being made a governor during Umar's rule, he was given responsiblity of part of Syria, not the whole Syria.
Ibn Katheer records:

"The correct record is that Uthman gathered all the areas of Syria under Muawiyah's governorship. Umar had appointed him (Muawiyah) as a ruler of just few of the areas of Syria"
Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 164

Also there are reasons to why he was pushed to Syria. Refer to the clip below.


It was better to place Muawiyah in Syria, instead of letting him stay in Mecca. Otherwise, the future war would be between Mecca and Madina. In fact, this is the same reason why Imam Ali himself shifted the Islamic capital to Kufa.

Next Imam Ali defends Umar by saying he had a strict eye on Muawiyah.

According to al-Waqidi-—'Abdallah b. Muhammad--his father: the year 34 (6 54-5 5] certain of the Companions (Sahaba) of the Messenger of God wrote to others [as follows]: "Come, for if you desire the jihad, then the jihad is here with us." The people maligned 'Uthman and censured him in the harshest language ever used against anyone, while the Companions of the Mes- senger of God were giving their opinions and listening, and among them no one forbade or prevented this save a few indi- viduals: Zayd b. Thabit, Abit Usavd al-Sa'idi, Ka'b b. Malik, and Hassan b. Thabit. The people assembled and spoke to 'Ali b. Abi Talib, and he entered 'Uthman's presence and said, "The people stand behind me, and they have spoken to me about you. By God, I do not know what to say to you. I know nothing of which you are ignorant, nor can I point out to you any affair with which you are not well acquainted. Indeed you know what we know. We have not per- ceived something before you have, so that we must inform you of it. Nor have we gained sole knowledge of anything so that we must bring it to your attention. In no affair have we been assigned greater distinction than you. You have seen and heard the Mes- senger of God, you were one of his Companions and became a son-in—law to him. (Abu Bakr) b. Abi Quhafah was not better suited than you to act rightly, nor did ('Umar) b. al-Khattab enjoy greater merit in any way, and indeed you had a closer blood- relationship to the Messenger of God [than either of them]. You obtained a marriage tie to the Messenger of God such as they never did, nor did they have any precedence over you. Re- member God! You are not being given your sight after you were blind, by God, nor are you being instructed after you were in ignorance. Verily the path is manifest and clear, and the signposts of true religion are standing upright. "Know, 'Uthman, that the best of God's servants in His eyes is a just imam, one who has been guided aright and who himself gives right guidance, for he upholds accepted prescriptions and destroys rejected innovations (bid'ah ma- Q trukahj. By God, everything is clear. Sound prescriptions stand I clearly marked, as do blameworthy innovations. The worst of men in God's sight is a tyrannical imam, one who has gone astray himself and by whom others are led astray, for he destroys an accepted prescription and revives a rejected innovation. Verily, I heard the Messenger of God say, .'The Day of Resurrection will be brought by the tyrannical imam, he will have no helper and no advocate, so that he will be cast into Hell, turning about in Hell as the mill turns, and then he will plunge into the fiery flood of Hell.' I tell you to beware of God and His sudden assault and His vengeance, for His punishment is harsh and painful indeed. I tell you to beware lest you be the murdered imam of this Community. Indeed it is said that an imam will be killed in this Community, and that bloody strife will be loosed upon it until the Day of Resurrection, and its affairs will become hopelessly entangled. (God) will leave them as sects (shiycfj, and they will not see the truth due to the great height of falsehood. They will toss therein like waves and wander in confusion."
Then 'Uthman replied, "By God, I knew that (people) would be saying what you have said. But by God, if you were in my place I would not have berated you nor left you in the lurch nor shamed you nor behaved foully. If I have favored kinsmen, filled a need, sheltered an impoverished wretch, and appointed as governors men like those whom 'Umar used to appoint, {then what have I done-wrong?] I adjure you by God, O 'Ali, do you know that al- Mughirah b. Shu'bah is not there?" "Yes," he answered. (Uthman) said, "Do you know that 'Umar made him a gover- nor?"' "Yes," he answered. Then ('Uthmanj said, "So why do you blame me for having appointed Ibn 'Amir, simply because of his close kinship [with me]?"

'Ali said, "I will tell you that everyone appointed by 'Umar b. al- Khattab was kept under close scrutiny by him.253 If (Umar) heard a single word concerning him he would flog him, then punish him with the utmost severity. But you do not do (that). You have been weak and easygoing with your relatives." "They are your relatives as well," answered Uthman. 'Ali said, "By my life, they are closely related to me indeed, but merit is found in others." Uthman said, "Do you know that Umar kept Mu'awiyah in of- fice throughout his entire caliphate, and I have only done the same." 'Ali answered, "I adjure you by God, do you know that Mu'awiyah was more afraid of Umar than was Umar's own slave Yarfa'?" "Yes," said (Uthman). 'Ali went on, "In fact Mu'awiyah makes decisions on issues without (consulting) you, and you know it. Thus, he says to the people. 'This is Uthman's com- mand.' You hear of this, but do not censure him."254 Then 'Ali left him, and Uthman went out on his heels.
Reference: History of Tabari, Vol.15, Page 140,State University of Newyork Press

AOA Wa RABHU




Punch line is that He WANTED to create a big Fitna, which Hazrat Ali (a.s.) turned down. The fact is that Abu Sufiyan first came to Imam Ali (a.s.), and offered his allegiance, but Imam Ali (a.s.), replied to him that you have come to me not with an intention to support Imamat, but with an intention to create a bigger Fitna, so go away.

Now, what's interesting that the mainstream do not ponder that Abu Sufiyan after getting a negative response from Imam Ali (a.s.), went to same Abu Bakr & Umar, and made a deal that Hijaz should be in control of first two caliphs, while He should be given the control of Shaam and they must appoint his Son Muwaih as a governor. It's a very cruicial moment in history, but mostly mainstream is ignoring such a vital deal, which is openly mentioned in the books of history that Abu Sufiyan was turned down by Imam Ali (a.s.), but Abu Bakr and Umar complimented him through a shared power deal, and gave the family a powerful role in their cabinet. Ignoring such unquesitonable authority and power given to the family of Abu Sufiyan by the first two caliphs and further strengthened by the third one, you can't keep them out of the court of utlimate accountability, as the very seed planted in Damascus by these first three caliphs, eventually led to a brutal outcome in Karbala. All of them must pay the price in the court of Allah (swt).





There are more supportive arguments available in favor of Muwiah in the history books, but the question remains the same;

Did Mawiah ever face the court of accountability during the rein of first three calips ?


The above historical reference becomes Nullified in front of the widely quoted reference of Imam Ali (a.s.), when he ordered Mawiah's replacement in the beginning of his worldly Caliphate ruling. It shows that the actual justice demanded Muawiah's immediate removal from the post of governorship, which the first three calips avoided and ultimately it resulted in the following:

1. Musilms considered offering Friday Prayers on Wednesday as valid because Muawiah
2. Focusing on Hadith traditions nourished in Muawiahs time than referring to Al Quran and avoiding questions to those who are above in Knowledge (Rasikhoon- fil Ilm), because of Muawiah's propaganda
machine
2. War of Safeen happened because of Muawiah
3. Yazeed became ruler of Muslim world
4. Outcome of Karbala

All the above and many more damaging outcomes were mainly because of the reason that Abu Sufiyan, Muwiah and other corrupt Ummayads were supported by first three caliphs.

Unfortunately, the mainstream Muslims of then and today are still confused about Imamat, and un-necessarily trying to defend Muawiah.

You made the argument that the caliphs that



First of all, only Umar did that, not even Abu Bakr, according to you. so your argument is already weak.

Secondly you said it is widely quoted. Tell us where it is quoted. Just give 3 references.

What I have read is that Umar would ask them questions when he would meet them, for example when they would come to Mecca for hajj. But I haven't read that he made all of them accountable. He would make those accountable about whom he would receive any complaint. And it is known that Muawiyah was loved by his people.

And if we agree with your logic, Imam Hasan was also responsible for the outcome of Karbala because he gave allegiance to Muawiyah. Now you satisfied?

Technically Umar was controlling Bakr since days of Saqifah.



Precisely reference of what?
Incidents or that of Administrative courts for government officials?



Do you love Muawiah?





Then why was Imam Hassan (a.s.) poisoned ?

Yes I am aware that he wanted to finish of the Abu Bakr and Umar and then attack Imam Ali . However, you claim that he was with the 3 calipah. ON the contrary, you are saying that there is proof that he wanted to fight against them. Why would he want to do that if they were allies in your opinion ?


I want to see proof for this. As the other brother said Muawiyah didn't even come into power at the time of Abu Bakr . I hope I am not debating with a brick wall.



Read the reference I gave you. What did Imam Ali say ?

'Ali said, "I will tell you that everyone appointed by 'Umar b. al- Khattab was kept under close scrutiny by him.253 If (Umar) heard a single word concerning him he would flog him, then punish him with the utmost severity. But you do not do (that). You have been weak and easygoing with your relatives." "They are your relatives as well," answered Uthman. 'Ali said, "By my life, they are closely related to me indeed, but merit is found in others." Uthman said, "Do you know that Umar kept Mu'awiyah in of- fice throughout his entire caliphate, and I have only done the same." 'Ali answered, "I adjure you by God, do you know that Mu'awiyah was more afraid of Umar than was Umar's own slave Yarfa'?" "Yes," said (Uthman). 'Ali went on, "In fact Mu'awiyah makes decisions on issues without (consulting) you, and you know it. Thus, he says to the people. 'This is Uthman's com- mand.' You hear of this, but do not censure him."254 Then 'Ali left him, and Uthman went out on his heels.
Reference: History of Tabari, Vol.15, Page 140,State University of Newyork Press

Read it until you understand it. It answers your question.

This guy is not worth debating. He is one of those 12rs who has an agenda just like many other. The reality is these 12r Shias don't care if the 3 calipahs did good or bad. In their view they consider them apostates for being non-shias. Debating on topics like these doesn't prove their aqeeda. They are just complimentry to their aqeeda.

In the 12r Shia view
Umar is
a) an apostate
b.) had an illegitimate birth
c) is responsible for killing Bibi Fatima (sa)
d) Is no different or worst than Muawiyah and Yazid.

Of course the 12rs won't present these points in the begining. They have to start slowly by pointing out other facts. Then they try to get to the point where they try to prove Umar is as bad as Yazid.

Watch this clip and see how they are trained.

funnily enough, if im not mistaken the gentleman in the video above is an ex-sunni.

QUOTE

I understand it clearly, and your point for raising this one piece of historical quotation.
Do you think Imam Ali (a.s.) would have supported Umar, after what history has quoted --- Please formulate your opinion after a carefull collective study of historical narrations, then reading only one paragraph in favor of Umar. Don't go with one single story, rather read a collective versions, and then form an opinion, if you still do not understand, then you can keep on beating the drums of Umar, Bakr, Uthman, Mawiah and Yazeed, and I can pray that your dream may be fullfilled on day of judgement, and May Allah (swt) raise you on day of judgement behind these people ... Amen!

Ibn Abi Shayba
Ibn Abi Shayba (235 AH/ 849 CE), a prominent scholar of hadith and one of the teachers of al-Bukhari, narrates in his book al-Musanaf that:

“ Umar came to the house of Fatima and said: "O' Daughter of the Prophet of God! I swear by God that we love no one more than your father, and after him we love no one more than you. Yet I swear by God that that won't stop me from gathering these people and commanding them to burn this house down! [5] ”

[edit] ibn Qutayba
Ibn Qutaybah (276 AH/889 CE) in al-Imama wa al-Siyasa writes:

“ Umar said: 'I swear by He who controls the life of Umar, either you come out or I will burn this house down!' The people said: 'Abu'l Hafs, Fatima is also in this house'. Umar replied: 'Even if she is...' [6] ”

[edit] al-Baladhuri
al-Baladhuri (297 AH/ 892 CE) in Ansab al-Ashraf writes:

“ "Abu Bakr sent for Ali so that he can give alligance but he didn't. So Umar came [to the house] and Fatima met him at the door. She said: 'ibn Khatab you want to burn my door down?' Umar replied: 'Yes, in order to strengthen the religion your father brought.' [7] ”

[edit] History of al-Tabari
The historian Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (923 CE) in his Tarikh[8] writes:

“ Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talhah and Zubayr and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him."




I am a muslim, and in my view I agree with what you have mentionend -- not sure about b .. may be you would like to quote some references on that.

Umar, Bakr, Uthman, Mawiah, Yazeed, they have no religouis significance in Islam, they were only corrupt political leaders disguisded under the umbrella of Islam to gain powers,and history has vividly quoted their actions of hate extended towards the family of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and they rejected Imamat, which was well established with a will of Allah (swt) and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Thank you. Good to see that we finally progressed.


Both Sunnis and Shias agree that Imam Ali was there to support Islam. The Imams options were limited, since the rift between the Ummavis and Hashimis still existed. Therefore so he chose to work with the Calipahs, and having them in power prevented the tribal wars from occuring. He was there for them when they asked for assistance. For example when the war against the Romans and Persians occured, Imam Ali advised Umar not to go. He could have told Umar to go and get himself killed so he can take over the calipah. However, he gave the calipah of the time honest advice.
Also, Umar appreciates Imam Ali counciling and we hear Umar saying had it not been for Ali, Umar would have been perished.


I am aware of the 12r Shia view on these personalties. Most of the time, the 12rs like to beat around the bush with historical details. However, I am glad you have admitted that you hate them to the deapest level. To be honest, I respect 12r Shias like you. The reason is you are straightforward. I've met other 12rshias who say the 3 calipahs were Muslims, just to please the Sunnis. I am glad you are being honest. Also, just to compliment your post, I have a clip which further explains how the 12r shias really think about Umar .

** Warning to sensitive Sunnis. If you are sensitive do not watch the clip below **

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH44AWFXyqg




The first narration is weak since it contains the narrator Suyf ibn Umar. The middle narrations are fabricated. The last narration, I still have to check, but let me tell you it doesn't say that Bibi Fatima (sa) was present.

Also I've managed to find a stage drama on this so called waqeeyah.

Would it still not suggest what kind of character Umar had?

Imam Ali also said his rough character kept Muawiyah in fear.

Your first statement in this topic if you care to read.
It's widely quoted that the 2nd Caliph was famous for calling out all the governors of His Kingdom, and used to ask them questions and make them accountable in public.



Not just love, but I extremely love and respect him , I hope you understand it this time.



When Imam Hussain didn't come to know who poisoned Hasan , how come anyone else know it? Isn't it interesting?




A blatant lie in this forum. Muawiyah was made a governor by Umar, much after the death of Abu Bakr. So the lie in your self made theory is obvious. Secondly, Umar made him governor of a place where the previous governor was Yazid bin Abu sufyan , who was a son of Abu Sufyan and brother of Muawiyah, thirdly Yazid bin Abu Sufyan was appointed as a governor by the Prophet (peace be upon him) on Tema (تیماء) during his life. He was also made Aamil on the charities of Qabila bani faras by the Prophet (peace be upon him) (Al Isaaba, vol 2, page 512)

1. The first narration in ibn abi shayba is maqtu (the chain of narration is broken)
تقريب التهذيب رقم2117

Bukhari and the latters narrated the incident of Ali's allegiance to Abu Bakr but nowhere this ridiculous lie is present.

2. Al imamah wa al siyasah is not a book of ibn qutaiba, it is wrongly attributed to him

3. The narration in the book of Baladhouri is also maqtu , it is as

المدائنی، عن مَسْلَمَة بن محارب، عن سلیمان التیمی وعن ابن عون إن أبابکر ارسل إلی علی یرید البیعة، فلم یبایع، فجاء عمر و معه قبس. فتلقته فاطمة علی الباب فقالت فاطمة: یابن الخطاب! أتراک محرّقا علیّ بابی؟! قال: نعم، و ذلک أقوی فیما جاء به أبوک.

Ibn Aun died in 152 AH and Tamimi died in 143 AH ,none of them saw Abu Bakr who had died in 13 AH


4. In the history of Tabari, there is a narrator Ibn Humayd who is daeef, hence the narration is not acceptable.

Now listen to the shia ayatulla fadlulla also.









For the complete series, click here
http://gift2shias.com/2010/10/17/the-unbro...of-an-ideology/

We cannot begin to think that Ali and Umar had any similarities in their character

A momin does not speak in such ways to another

I provided the reference where Imam Ali talks about Umar keeping Muawiyah under control. Other than that I don't have time to go into circles.

Kalaam... Would it be fair to deem that had you been present at the time of Safeen, we would have found you in the forces of Mawiah fighting against Imam Ali (a.s.)...

And your unquestionable affection and love for Mawiah, would have further given him the comfort to assume that he has ample love of people who can die for him, and would even die for his son, Yazeed ?

I love Ali way more than Muawiyah but just because I love Ali it doesn't mean that I should hate others.
It is only because of the unlimited ranting against some of the personalities, that leads me to show the reality to the people. Muawiyah was not better than Ali at all but he was of course way superior to the people nowadays who think themselves to be so pious as to have the authority to talk ill about Muawiyah .

Then, Theeenn

Is it fair to deem that we would have found you in the forces of Imam Ali (a.s.), fighting angainst Mawiah?

Please simple answer than reverting an art of diplomacy ?

Which side would you have been ?

Such a waste of time to discuss issues with you.

Let's not waste each other's time, if you are unable to take decisions to fathom which side you would have opted for?

It's the confused mind which has fourished confusion to its peak, and has indeed resulted into a rainbow of turbans .. ..oragne, red, brown, green, you name it and we get to see scholars of your school of thought, rather THOUGHTS, are wearing different color of turbans... while on the other side, we see a group following Islam with clear thoughts and only wears Black and White.... it exhibits a clear distinction of school of thoughts driven by clear and confused thoughts.

Allah (swt) has said numerous times in Al Quran that there are CLEAR signs in this world... obviously, we can't follow those who are not even CLEAR on which side they are?

You win, enjoy

Allah 0 Akbar!!


We are waiting for the day, when justice will be done in the divine court and Mawiah and Yazeed will be punished for they took the revenge from Ahle Bayt (a.s.) for revealing Al Quran to public --- they were showing their own muscles like Pharoh, by putting chains in the neck of the grandsons (peace be upon all of them) of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and in doing so, infact rejecting the following verses with their worldly might:


40: 70 Those who reject the Book and that with which We have sent Our Messenger; but they shall soon come to know,
40: 71 When the fetters and the chains shall be on their necks; they shall be dragged

Oh Oh, that mysterious al Quran of Ahlelbayt again.

it's the same Al Quran we read today, that is, from Alif Laam Meem to Wanaa's, which was revealed by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his Ahle Bayt (a.s.) were its real protectors and waris, as per Hadith-e Thuqlainn...


Not sure which Mysterious book you are referring to --- may be from the fake sources of historical libyrnth, just to try to proof Shias are this and Shia's are that ... |get over it Kalam.

Shian-e Ali are muslims, and they do not believe in Threef-e Quran ... PERIOD.
These stories that Goats ate some pages of Al Quran and the Aya's in favor of Imam Ali (a.s.) were kept in secret etc etc are all a propaganda of Nasibis/Salafis and Wahabis.

I am dazzled

I think the correct expression would be "Astonished"

Found this on a shia blog.



in al-bidaya wa nihaya

وقال عمرو بن يحيى بن سعيد الاموي، عن جده.
قال: دخل معاوية على عمر وعليه حلة خضراء، فنظر إليها الصحابة، فلما رأى ذلك عمر وثب إليه بالدرة فجعل يضربه بها، وجعل معاوية يقول: يا أمير المؤمنين الله الله في، فرجع عمر إلى مجلسه فقال له القوم: لم ضربته يا أمير المؤمنين ؟ وما في قومك مثله ؟ فقال: والله ما رأيت إلا خيرا، وما بلغني إلا خير، ولو بلغني غير ذلك لكان مني إليه غير ما رأيتم، ولكن رأيته – وأشار بيده – فأحببت أن أضع منه ما شمخ.

mawia came in wearing green dress, and he was wearing greed dress; so umar saw him; and started beating him with lash

this made mawia say: allah allah! o amir ul momineen!

so umar returned to where he was sitting; then people asked: what made you whip him o amir ul momineen? he is like this nation? he said: i have seen better things in him, otherwise, i would have done what you have not seen; but i saw this; and he pointed with his hand; and so i decided to take out this sign of pride

http://www.islamww.com/booksww/pg.php?b=3946&pageID=2985

this narration is also present in tareekh madina damishq

http://www.islamww.com/booksww/pg.php?b=40...mp;pageID=27200

and also present in sair ul aalam nabala; 3/135

http://ahlubait.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/u...ah-with-a-lash/

Links are not properly working. Would be interested to learn more about the precise sources it's quoted from..

he said: i have seen better things in him,


hmm.. half cooked statement, otherwise open to conclude that Omar was seeing him lobbying against Imam Ali (a.s.) in future, and only supporting him in invading other countries to expand his kingdom by sword...

I checked the blog the link works.

http://ahlubait.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/u...ah-with-a-lash/

Also, you still didn't give me one statement from our books where Imam Ali says Umar set up Muawiyah prepare him against me. So far your views are only speculation.

The good thing in Muawiyah was that he was defending the Muslim empire from the Romans and he was the governor of the province which was at the boundary of the Romans and this place, he conquered with his brother Yazeed bin Sufiyan. And he was loved by his people.



who translated this by the way? where is the bold arabic text in the translation? and where is the bold text in the translation in the arabic text? you present things from the website of deceivers? fear Allah and don't trust shias when it comes to sahaba. they lie more than any cult.

I am glad you used the word MUSLIM EMPIRE than Islamic.
Indeed, son of Hinda, was helping Umar to expand his Kingdom through a deal struck by his Father Abu Sufiyan.






Here we go again -- not a pixel left on any such discussion forum to put a blame on Shias... an easy lame excuse and escape goat from rebutting constructively.

I could imagine, had Kalam been present at the time of Safeen, he would have been the Chief of Army Staff for Mawiah's Army against Imam Ali's (a.s.) army.


Nafs : The link to the blog is the same as what you posted without any proper reference quotations.

Do you know what the son of Abu Talib called the army of Umar ? Check nahjul balagha before giving fabolous answers as always.

No I don't know what did Son of Imran ( Abu Talib (a.s.)) called Umar's Army in Nahjul Balagha -- why don't you englighten us here, but then be prepared to listen for what Umar was referred as by Aale Imran (a.s.)...

than read if you don't know



Ali was actually calling the army of Umar , God's army, and a God's army works for a kingdom of the servants of God. and it is clear from the sermon that Ali had not the views as the shiites of today hold, who claims that Umar was expanding his kingdom, rather Ali viewed the kingdom as the kingdom of Muslims and its expansion as the expansion of Muslims kingdom , and the army as the God's army. Further, the person with a slight common sense can understand well.

You didn't provide a single reference from your research. All you did is copy and paste everything since the day you joined or parroted what your marjas have told you. The link I provided is done by a 12r shia himself. Also I find it funny how you bring Siffin into this. Are you trying to suggest Imam Ali did not give political positions to any outwardly Muslim who had a bad record ?

I don't trust a shia or a sunni when it comes to these sensitive issues. They both have their tactics. However, what I wanted to see if how the person who started the topic would react. So far he has just presented his emotions and hatred toward the 3 calipahs. He then rejected all my sources I provided. Then when I give him a link to a shia blog he is asked me to check the sources further. If the brother can't even provide any references himself why does he have double standards? He starts his topic by saying the calipahs allowed 100%+ corruption, but he didn't even provide one reference for this. To be honest, you would be a better debator against him then me. I will give you credit for that.

Brother Bar please focus on the topic. Don't go off tangents. You started a topic, yet since you have no answer you are going off topic. This topic you started is about what the 3 calipahs against Muwaiyah's injustice. Its not about what is a calipah and what isn't. Also its ironic how you quote tabari, but previously you rejected it. I love the double standards.

Once again this thread has gone off topic. There is no reason for it to continue. This is debate forum, not a Sunni vs Shia warzone.