The following article is extracted from http://rayatmohammed.blogspot.in/2007/08/imam-alis-sons.html
Ali (عليه السلام) had 12 sons (including the unborn Mohsin (عليه السلام)). Two of the twelve were named Umar and Uthman. When you hear the name Umar today you usually immediately and automatically think of Umar Ibn al-Khattab. However, back at the time, this was not the case and the names such as Aisha, Umar and Uthman were very popular and very common Arab names. In fact, the brothers over at Answering-Ansar provided a list of the numerous companions who shared their names. So basically, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not name his sons after the two caliphs.
A suitable comparison would be if a staunch anti-George Bush father were to name his sons George and Richard. These two names are very popular indeed and no one would even think for a second he had named his sons that in honour of George Bush and Dick Cheney. If in 1400 years time the names George and Richard become associated with the current US President and vice-president, people would probably claim that this anti-US individual loved the Bush government, but we know from looking from an objective point of view, this is incorrect.
My Sunni friend once said in a discussion, “So why don’t you name your sons Yezid, Saddam and Adolf?” I replied to him, “Brother you are missing the point. The names Yezid, Saddam and Adolf are always associated with Yezid Ibn Muawiya, Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. They are the first people you think of when the names are mentioned. However, during Imam Ali’s (عليه السلام) time, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and Uthman Ibn Affan would not spring to mind when their first names were mentioned. This is the crucial point.”
The Sunni propagandist may say is it not too big of a coincidence for Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to have named two of his sons Umar and Uthman without having the caliphs in mind. I reply by saying if an anti-USA father were to name his sons George and Richard would anyone start talking about coincidences? No. As we can see the argument is weak but I will entertain it for a second. If the Sunni propagandists say that it is unlikely Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named his sons those names simply because the names were popular while there were many other popular Arab names, we respond to them by saying Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never named any of his sons Marwan, Hakam, Amr, Aas, Waleed, Mugheera, Khalid, Sufyan etc all of which are other popular Arab names shared by the enemies of the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام). Therefore, when you think about it carefully it is not appropriate to claim the coincidence is too big, as there were so many people opposed to Imam Ali (عليه السلام), many of them with popular Arab names. Remember to keep in mind Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had twelve sons in total.
As for the claim Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named all his sons after beloved ones (e.g. Jafar after Jafar Al-Tayyar (عليه السلام)) this is not always the case as indicated by the example of Aun Ibn Ali (رضي الله عنه).
In fact, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did indeed name his son Uthman in honour of someone;
“I name this child Uthman after my brother Uthman Ibn Ma’dhoon (رضي الله عنه)”
A suitable comparison would be if a staunch anti-George Bush father were to name his sons George and Richard. These two names are very popular indeed and no one would even think for a second he had named his sons that in honour of George Bush and Dick Cheney. If in 1400 years time the names George and Richard become associated with the current US President and vice-president, people would probably claim that this anti-US individual loved the Bush government, but we know from looking from an objective point of view, this is incorrect.
My Sunni friend once said in a discussion, “So why don’t you name your sons Yezid, Saddam and Adolf?” I replied to him, “Brother you are missing the point. The names Yezid, Saddam and Adolf are always associated with Yezid Ibn Muawiya, Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. They are the first people you think of when the names are mentioned. However, during Imam Ali’s (عليه السلام) time, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and Uthman Ibn Affan would not spring to mind when their first names were mentioned. This is the crucial point.”
The Sunni propagandist may say is it not too big of a coincidence for Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to have named two of his sons Umar and Uthman without having the caliphs in mind. I reply by saying if an anti-USA father were to name his sons George and Richard would anyone start talking about coincidences? No. As we can see the argument is weak but I will entertain it for a second. If the Sunni propagandists say that it is unlikely Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named his sons those names simply because the names were popular while there were many other popular Arab names, we respond to them by saying Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never named any of his sons Marwan, Hakam, Amr, Aas, Waleed, Mugheera, Khalid, Sufyan etc all of which are other popular Arab names shared by the enemies of the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام). Therefore, when you think about it carefully it is not appropriate to claim the coincidence is too big, as there were so many people opposed to Imam Ali (عليه السلام), many of them with popular Arab names. Remember to keep in mind Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had twelve sons in total.
As for the claim Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named all his sons after beloved ones (e.g. Jafar after Jafar Al-Tayyar (عليه السلام)) this is not always the case as indicated by the example of Aun Ibn Ali (رضي الله عنه).
In fact, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did indeed name his son Uthman in honour of someone;
“I name this child Uthman after my brother Uthman Ibn Ma’dhoon (رضي الله عنه)”
Bihar Al-Anwar Volume 45 Page 38, Maqatil Al-Talibeyeen Page 55
I also want to keep in mind the likely possibility that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named his son Umar as a tool of facilitating closeness and reconciliation between the bitterly divided and warring Muslims. A Shia man I know named his daughter Aisha to please his Sunni wife, and so it is absolutely probable Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named his son Umar to bring together the various factions of Muslims who were deeply divided i.e. for the greater good. Personally speaking, I lean towards this idea.
In conclusion, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not name his sons Umar and Uthman out of love for the two caliphs, and his stance towards them is perfectly clear, as are the injustices they perpetrated.
NOTE:
It seems that a Sunni writer has attempted to refute this article. For a defense of this article read the reply given below:
This will Inshallah serve as rebuttal to a Sunni response to this article. For many years, the Sunnis have utilised the same argument regarding the naming of Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) sons, and this will hopefully be the time when their argument finally runs out of heat.
Note: Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had 12, not 18, sons out of 28 children.
The First Sunni Aspersion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7amil ar-Rayya (who we shall call Rayat) has conveniently forgotten that Ali also named one of his sons Abu Bakr. Ali named one of his sons Abu Bakr, two of his sons as Umar, and two more of his sons as Uthman. Rayat knows that Ali had four sons with those names, but he said it is two. This is deceit. We kindly ask Rayat to display more honesty when he furthers arguments; if he knows that four of them were named that, then there is no reason to state two and then base his entire article upon that false fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is nothing short of a lie. Imam Ali did not name two of his sons Umar, two of his sons Uthman, and one more son Abu Bakr. We would like to ask the Sunni on what basis do you want us to acknowledge Sunni references that claim Imam Ali had five sons with the names of the three caliphs. It is ironic he is accusing us of lying and deceit, whilst simultaneously his claim that Imam Ali had five sons with those names, and upon which he structures his article, is nothing more than a fish story.
Sheikh Mufid, in Irshad, documents the names of all of the Imam's 28 children in volume 1 Page 355. We shall summarise the names into a list of all the boys:
Hassan
Hussain
Muhsin (unborn child)
Mohammed, who had the kunya of Abul Qasim
Umar
Abbas
Jafar
Uthman (some narrations say Aun)
Abdullah
Mohammed al-Asghar, who had the kunya of Abu Bakr
Ubaydullah
Yahya
Where do we find "two Uthmans" and "two Umars"? There is only one Umar and one Uthman. So I will now sincerely urge the Sunni propagandists to refrain from posting dishonest claims and deceiving their audience.
As for Abu Bakr Ibn Ali, the name Mohammed was the one given to him by his father. Abu Bakr was simply His kunya, which is something like Abu Jafar, Abu Abdullah, Abu Hafs etc. So we again have to ask the Sunnis on what basis do you claim Imam Ali named his son Abu Bakr, or even gave him that kunya?! It is narrated that Mohammed al-Asghar only became known as Abu Bakr during the Ummayad periods, so what are the Sunni propagandists talking about?!
In fact even with regard to Uthman Ibn Ali, it is also thought he was called Aun Ibn Ali. However, we shall assume for the sake of this article his name was Uthman, not Aun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps if the matter was simply about naming his sons Umar and Uthman, then one could somehow (possibly?) pretend it was a coincidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then, there you go. The Sunni has just conceded the entire argument. Imam Ali did only name two of his many sons with names sharing the three caliphs', and so we would like to thank the Sunni for just shooting himself in the foot.
As for Uthman Ibn Ali, he was named in honour of the great companion Uthman Ibn Ma’dhoon. This is narrated as fact in Maqatil al-Talibiyeen, and later recorded by Allamah Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar and other references.
1) One may ask even though the name Uthman was shared by many people, including a dear friend, it was also the name of Uthman Ibn Affan. So why didn’t Imam Ali shun the name and instead call his son after another companion. We respond to this by saying Imam Ali wasn’t petty as to avoid naming his son a popular name after a companion, just because it was also held by a foe.
2) The Sunnis respond to our references by saying:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bihar al-Anwar, Maqatil al-Talibeyeen, and Munthee’ala Mahal are all garbage books. They are Shia books and as such they hold no weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps they are not a hujjah (proof) upon you, but it is a reliable source for the Shia, who the article was aimed at. It is the Sunnis who use their own sources in these debates when it comes to, for instance, Imam Ali supposedly naming five of his sons after the three caliphs, or Imam Ali and the other companions thinking the Prophet was cursed by the devil. If you are so sensitive to Shia websites using Shia sources, then you youself should stop using Sunni sources against us.
Interestingly, the book Maqatil al-Talibeyeen, penned by Abu Faraj al-Isfahani in the 3rd century hijri, is published and distributed in Egypt and so can even be considered a more “neutral” source.
So now we have dealt with the names Abu Bakr and Uthman, we only have Umar to play chicken with, and the rest of this article will deal with the arguments used to that respect (but I fear some of the Sunni arguments have become redundant because they were based on the fallacious claim Imam Ali named five sons after the three caliphs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many dozens upon dozens of Hadiths exist in which Sahabah narrated and only said “Umar” instead of “Umar ibn al-Khattab”. When a Sahabi said “Umar”, there was thus no doubt that this was in reference to Umar. Let us share an example that the Shia propagandists love to bring up: the incident of the pen and paper. In those Hadiths, Ibn Abbas says “Umar” and does not say “Umar ibn al-Khattab”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all comes down to the context. So for instance, when people used to call out the companion Uthman Ibn Hunayf’s name or any of the other Umars and Uthmans of the salaf, he never stopped to think who they were calling for. When we hear Abbas was martyred in Karbala, we all think of Abbas Ibn Ali, not Abbas Ibn Abdul Mutallib. Why? It is because of the context. So, by Imam Ali naming his son Umar, people did not necessarily begin to think of Umar Ibn al-Khattab, as the naming of a son is not like an incident where Umar slandered the Prophet, or a leadership issue, where the name Umar would not require further deliberation.
For instance, if I were to open a history book and find the name Franz Ferdinand, I would think of the royal whose assassination sparked off World War I, without needing to flick through the pages. However, if I saw a billboard advertising Franz Ferdinand, only a few would think of the archduke of Austria instead of the rock music band.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that the name Umar, for example, was not very common before Umar Ibn al-Khattab after which the proportions of individuals with that name doubled and tripled and increased.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is false. The name Umar, during that early period of Islam and after the Holy Prophet’s demise, was held by many people. Sure, Umar Ibn Al-Khattab currently holds a near-monopoly over that name, but back then this was not the case when it was a standard Arab name just like Khalid, Sufyan, Uthman or Ubaydullah.
Perhaps nobody would call their sons “Abu Bakr” before Abdullah Ibn Abu Quhafa became caliph, but then again Imam Ali didn’t even name his son Abu Bakr. Mohammed al-Asghar acquired that nickname just like the more famous Abdullah did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that when people double names, then there is some significance to them; otherwise, there is no point in doing that
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That argument is redundant as Imam Ali only had one son called Umar, not two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can one imagine Barack Obama naming his daughter Hillary if Hillary Clinton killed his other child?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama is not as magnanimous as Imam Ali, who would not avoid a common name simply because one holder of it happened to be a transgressor.
Response to “Lightning never strikes twice” argument
The original Sunni claim was that it would have been way too much of a coincidence for Imam Ali to have named five sons after the three caliphs, without having them in mind, especially when there was a plethora of other Arab names he could choose from. Firstly, it is only two sons and not five who shared names with the three caliphs. I feel quite frustrated having to keep mentioning this, but as the Sunni ‘rebuttal’ keeps repeating it, I have to. Secondly I already responded to this argument in my first article, but it seems it was not comprehended completely:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.rayatmohammed.blogspot.com says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…we respond to this argument by saying Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never named any of his sons Marwan, Hakam, Amr, Aas, Waleed, Mugheera, Khalid, Sufyan etc all of which are other popular Arab names shared by the enemies of the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni (I did not copy and paste his entire argument as he once again starts saying “Why then did Ali name two of his sons as Umar and two of his sons as Uthman? How “random” is that?”) says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is perhaps one of the most convoluted arguments we have ever seen…Rayat claims that the above names were all very popular but Ali did not choose them because they were the names of his enemies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not what I meant. I was simply saying that it cannot be said it was too huge to be a coincidence for Imam Ali to name two of his sons Umar and Uthman, while there were many other common Arab names shared by his enemies, such as Khalid or Sufyan.
The Second Sunni Aspersion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only this, but Husayn, the third Imam of the Shia, similarly named his sons Abu Bakr and Uthman! The fact that Husayn named his sons Abu Bakr and Uthman is mentioned in Shaykh Mufid’s book “Kitab al-Irshad” on page 372.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a lie. In Kitab al-Irshad Volume 2 Page 135, Imam Hussain’s sons are given as Ali Ibn al-Hussain (the fourth Imam), Ali Ibn al-Hussain (known as Ali al-Akbar, killed in Karbala), Abdullah Ibn al-Hussain (known as Ali al-Asghar, killed in Karbala) and Jafar Ibn Hussain (killed in Karbala).
For the Greater Good
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Three Caliphs and Ali initially had some friction but this was all resolved and the matter cleared. The Three Caliphs and Ali were brothers, and everyone knows that brothers get in arguments all the time! But at the end of the day, they love each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth of the matter is that Fatima al-Zahra, the Prophet’s daughter, Imam Ali’s wife, and the doyenne of the women of the worlds, died angry with Abu Bakr and Umar. How can anyone claim their relationship was dandy and rosy? It is a sign of Sunni desperation for them to cling on to this argument regarding Imam Ali’s sons, and is indicative of their failure to look at the bigger picture
And Allah knows best.
Note: Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had 12, not 18, sons out of 28 children.
The First Sunni Aspersion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7amil ar-Rayya (who we shall call Rayat) has conveniently forgotten that Ali also named one of his sons Abu Bakr. Ali named one of his sons Abu Bakr, two of his sons as Umar, and two more of his sons as Uthman. Rayat knows that Ali had four sons with those names, but he said it is two. This is deceit. We kindly ask Rayat to display more honesty when he furthers arguments; if he knows that four of them were named that, then there is no reason to state two and then base his entire article upon that false fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is nothing short of a lie. Imam Ali did not name two of his sons Umar, two of his sons Uthman, and one more son Abu Bakr. We would like to ask the Sunni on what basis do you want us to acknowledge Sunni references that claim Imam Ali had five sons with the names of the three caliphs. It is ironic he is accusing us of lying and deceit, whilst simultaneously his claim that Imam Ali had five sons with those names, and upon which he structures his article, is nothing more than a fish story.
Sheikh Mufid, in Irshad, documents the names of all of the Imam's 28 children in volume 1 Page 355. We shall summarise the names into a list of all the boys:
Hassan
Hussain
Muhsin (unborn child)
Mohammed, who had the kunya of Abul Qasim
Umar
Abbas
Jafar
Uthman (some narrations say Aun)
Abdullah
Mohammed al-Asghar, who had the kunya of Abu Bakr
Ubaydullah
Yahya
Where do we find "two Uthmans" and "two Umars"? There is only one Umar and one Uthman. So I will now sincerely urge the Sunni propagandists to refrain from posting dishonest claims and deceiving their audience.
As for Abu Bakr Ibn Ali, the name Mohammed was the one given to him by his father. Abu Bakr was simply His kunya, which is something like Abu Jafar, Abu Abdullah, Abu Hafs etc. So we again have to ask the Sunnis on what basis do you claim Imam Ali named his son Abu Bakr, or even gave him that kunya?! It is narrated that Mohammed al-Asghar only became known as Abu Bakr during the Ummayad periods, so what are the Sunni propagandists talking about?!
In fact even with regard to Uthman Ibn Ali, it is also thought he was called Aun Ibn Ali. However, we shall assume for the sake of this article his name was Uthman, not Aun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps if the matter was simply about naming his sons Umar and Uthman, then one could somehow (possibly?) pretend it was a coincidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well then, there you go. The Sunni has just conceded the entire argument. Imam Ali did only name two of his many sons with names sharing the three caliphs', and so we would like to thank the Sunni for just shooting himself in the foot.
As for Uthman Ibn Ali, he was named in honour of the great companion Uthman Ibn Ma’dhoon. This is narrated as fact in Maqatil al-Talibiyeen, and later recorded by Allamah Majlisi in Bihar al-Anwar and other references.
1) One may ask even though the name Uthman was shared by many people, including a dear friend, it was also the name of Uthman Ibn Affan. So why didn’t Imam Ali shun the name and instead call his son after another companion. We respond to this by saying Imam Ali wasn’t petty as to avoid naming his son a popular name after a companion, just because it was also held by a foe.
2) The Sunnis respond to our references by saying:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bihar al-Anwar, Maqatil al-Talibeyeen, and Munthee’ala Mahal are all garbage books. They are Shia books and as such they hold no weight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps they are not a hujjah (proof) upon you, but it is a reliable source for the Shia, who the article was aimed at. It is the Sunnis who use their own sources in these debates when it comes to, for instance, Imam Ali supposedly naming five of his sons after the three caliphs, or Imam Ali and the other companions thinking the Prophet was cursed by the devil. If you are so sensitive to Shia websites using Shia sources, then you youself should stop using Sunni sources against us.
Interestingly, the book Maqatil al-Talibeyeen, penned by Abu Faraj al-Isfahani in the 3rd century hijri, is published and distributed in Egypt and so can even be considered a more “neutral” source.
So now we have dealt with the names Abu Bakr and Uthman, we only have Umar to play chicken with, and the rest of this article will deal with the arguments used to that respect (but I fear some of the Sunni arguments have become redundant because they were based on the fallacious claim Imam Ali named five sons after the three caliphs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So many dozens upon dozens of Hadiths exist in which Sahabah narrated and only said “Umar” instead of “Umar ibn al-Khattab”. When a Sahabi said “Umar”, there was thus no doubt that this was in reference to Umar. Let us share an example that the Shia propagandists love to bring up: the incident of the pen and paper. In those Hadiths, Ibn Abbas says “Umar” and does not say “Umar ibn al-Khattab”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all comes down to the context. So for instance, when people used to call out the companion Uthman Ibn Hunayf’s name or any of the other Umars and Uthmans of the salaf, he never stopped to think who they were calling for. When we hear Abbas was martyred in Karbala, we all think of Abbas Ibn Ali, not Abbas Ibn Abdul Mutallib. Why? It is because of the context. So, by Imam Ali naming his son Umar, people did not necessarily begin to think of Umar Ibn al-Khattab, as the naming of a son is not like an incident where Umar slandered the Prophet, or a leadership issue, where the name Umar would not require further deliberation.
For instance, if I were to open a history book and find the name Franz Ferdinand, I would think of the royal whose assassination sparked off World War I, without needing to flick through the pages. However, if I saw a billboard advertising Franz Ferdinand, only a few would think of the archduke of Austria instead of the rock music band.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point is that the name Umar, for example, was not very common before Umar Ibn al-Khattab after which the proportions of individuals with that name doubled and tripled and increased.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is false. The name Umar, during that early period of Islam and after the Holy Prophet’s demise, was held by many people. Sure, Umar Ibn Al-Khattab currently holds a near-monopoly over that name, but back then this was not the case when it was a standard Arab name just like Khalid, Sufyan, Uthman or Ubaydullah.
Perhaps nobody would call their sons “Abu Bakr” before Abdullah Ibn Abu Quhafa became caliph, but then again Imam Ali didn’t even name his son Abu Bakr. Mohammed al-Asghar acquired that nickname just like the more famous Abdullah did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that when people double names, then there is some significance to them; otherwise, there is no point in doing that
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That argument is redundant as Imam Ali only had one son called Umar, not two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can one imagine Barack Obama naming his daughter Hillary if Hillary Clinton killed his other child?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama is not as magnanimous as Imam Ali, who would not avoid a common name simply because one holder of it happened to be a transgressor.
Response to “Lightning never strikes twice” argument
The original Sunni claim was that it would have been way too much of a coincidence for Imam Ali to have named five sons after the three caliphs, without having them in mind, especially when there was a plethora of other Arab names he could choose from. Firstly, it is only two sons and not five who shared names with the three caliphs. I feel quite frustrated having to keep mentioning this, but as the Sunni ‘rebuttal’ keeps repeating it, I have to. Secondly I already responded to this argument in my first article, but it seems it was not comprehended completely:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.rayatmohammed.blogspot.com says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…we respond to this argument by saying Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never named any of his sons Marwan, Hakam, Amr, Aas, Waleed, Mugheera, Khalid, Sufyan etc all of which are other popular Arab names shared by the enemies of the Commander of the Faithful (عليه السلام).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni (I did not copy and paste his entire argument as he once again starts saying “Why then did Ali name two of his sons as Umar and two of his sons as Uthman? How “random” is that?”) says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is perhaps one of the most convoluted arguments we have ever seen…Rayat claims that the above names were all very popular but Ali did not choose them because they were the names of his enemies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not what I meant. I was simply saying that it cannot be said it was too huge to be a coincidence for Imam Ali to name two of his sons Umar and Uthman, while there were many other common Arab names shared by his enemies, such as Khalid or Sufyan.
The Second Sunni Aspersion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only this, but Husayn, the third Imam of the Shia, similarly named his sons Abu Bakr and Uthman! The fact that Husayn named his sons Abu Bakr and Uthman is mentioned in Shaykh Mufid’s book “Kitab al-Irshad” on page 372.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a lie. In Kitab al-Irshad Volume 2 Page 135, Imam Hussain’s sons are given as Ali Ibn al-Hussain (the fourth Imam), Ali Ibn al-Hussain (known as Ali al-Akbar, killed in Karbala), Abdullah Ibn al-Hussain (known as Ali al-Asghar, killed in Karbala) and Jafar Ibn Hussain (killed in Karbala).
For the Greater Good
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunni says
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Three Caliphs and Ali initially had some friction but this was all resolved and the matter cleared. The Three Caliphs and Ali were brothers, and everyone knows that brothers get in arguments all the time! But at the end of the day, they love each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The truth of the matter is that Fatima al-Zahra, the Prophet’s daughter, Imam Ali’s wife, and the doyenne of the women of the worlds, died angry with Abu Bakr and Umar. How can anyone claim their relationship was dandy and rosy? It is a sign of Sunni desperation for them to cling on to this argument regarding Imam Ali’s sons, and is indicative of their failure to look at the bigger picture
And Allah knows best.
Categories:
English
4 comments:
1. Abu Bakr is a konia( means cognomen or nickname). Konia dosen’t choose by father. The real name of Abu Bakr was “Atiq”. Abu al-Faraj Isfahani Said:
قتل عبد الله بن علي بن أبي طالب، وهو ابن خمس وعشرين سنة ولا عقب له.
“ Abdullah Ibn Ali was killed when he was 25 in Karbala” [Maqatelo at-Talibin vol.1 page 22]
So his name was Abdullah and it’s the name of Muhammad’s father.
2. Umar used to change the name of children.
Bilazari Said:
وكان عمر بن الخطاب سمّى عمر بن عليّ بإسمه.
Umar ibn Khattab chose his own name for Umar Ibn Ali
[Ansab al-Ashraf vol 1 page 297]
And Ibn Hajar named 21 persons of Sahabi ( friends of the prophet) who their names was Umar
[ Al-Asabat Fi Tameez as-Sahabi vol.1 page 186]
3.
Imam Ali Said:
إنّما سمّيته بإسم أخي عثمان بن مظعون.
I named my son Uthman because of my servant Uthman ibn Math'un.
[ Maqatelo at-Talibin vol.1 page 22]
Now I ask you if you name your son “George” means you love “George W Bush”????
And Why Usman, Umar and Abu Bakr didn’t name their son “Ali”???
Now read this if you think Ali like Abu Bakr
He( Abu Bakr) said: When the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) passed away, Abu Bakr said:" I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)." Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat 'Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to 'Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.
[ Reference: Sahih Muslim 1757 c;In-book reference : Book 32,Hadith 58;USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 19, Hadith 4349]
So Ali believed that Abu Bakr is liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest
Salam brother. I love Maula Ali (AS) and khatoon-e-janat. My most favourite attributes in his personality are bravery, righteousness and intelligence. My most favourite attributes in her personality are selflessness, benevolence. The argument of fidak that my Shia brothers give totally contradict these attributes of their personalities. I can not believe khatoon-e-jannat to fight for a mere piece of land which according to the caliph of that time belonged to the people (not himself) when she herself used to give everything in the way of Allah so much so that her children would sleep hungry. I can not believe maula Ali would stay quiet if someone was rude to the prophet's daughter or hurt her in any way.
Also regarding your argument of George Bush: Your example was not of being personally hurt but rather of a "political stance". Let me give you an example. My sister in law was engaged to a guy who broke it off to marry a girl named Zara. When I had my second daughter I named her Zahra (in honour of Hazrat Fatima AS). My in-laws wanted me to make sure I don't spell it "Zara" because they didn't want any one in their family to be named as someone from whom they had been hurt. They also make sure everyone says it properly with putting weight on "h" and not quickly. That is how a name effects you when you have been personally hurt by someone.
Now you will say: well your in-laws are regular human being but this is maula we are talking about here. But my dear brother your whole argument of fidak brings my maula (AS) and khatoon-e-janat to the level of regular human brings and that is unacceptable for me.
Mr. Anonymous,
You mean to say that because Maula Ali was brave ,honest righteous and intelligence, he and Khatoone Jannat didnt need Fidak gifted by Holy Prophet(SAWA). What a nonsense logic presented by you to defend Abu Bakr and Umar.
We believe that if Fidak was not the right of Khatoone Jannat she would have never gone to the court of Abu Bakr to demand it from him. Secondly Fidak was in the control of Khatoone Jannat before it was usurped by Abu Bakr. So Abu Bakr should provide witnesses to prove that it was not hers. On the contrary he demanded witnesses from janabe Zehra and when she presented the witnesses he did not accept it.
Now you have to tell me mr. Anonymous Why Abu Bakr behave so rudely to the beloved daughter of the Prophet(SAWA) and didnt accept her witnesses. Was She not Siddiqa ( truthful one in whose praised Aya Tatheer was revealed )???
The incident of Fidak is mentioned in your sunni books. why dont you go and read to find the truth.The demand of Fidak by Janabe Zehra (AS) was a legitimate one and it is an eye opener for the future generation to separate truth from falsehood.
It doesnt make any difference whether you believe it or not. But it is very clearly written in history books that Abu Bakr and Umar behave rudely with the Ahlal Bayt and Umar was responsible in the killing of the daughter of the Prophet(SAWA).
Ali was quiet and didnt take revenge from them in the interest of Islam. Ali advised to them was also to safeguard Islam.
I am a Muslim (if u like Sunni if not Np) born in the US. i take from all 4 major schools of thought, i also follow the the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the Salaf. however let me say this immediately for many years i've been saying i 100% politically support Iran. the only nations the big Shaytan & the other Shaytan israhell attack in the ME are countries who have NOT/NEVER signed a surrender "treaty" to israhell. without Iran, Syria and Hezbollah & i'm speaking direct here, the whole ME will have already been bulkinized weakened & under the control of israhell & the USA -FACT. O Muslims we have a common enemy (we must unite) i've named some but not all; the KSA/Jordan/UAE/Oman/Egypt etc not the 78% of Sunni Muslims living in these US-zionist OWNED & controlled nations; who when were Pew Polled said; "they rather Iran develops a nuclear weapon bcuz they will feel SAFER if Tehran had one (sighting indirectly they trust Iran to be just in defending the ME like they always have i.e. Muslims in Palestine & beyond) it'll balance the power in the ME from israhell & the biggest threat of them all the US they said." if you disagree with me i respect your opinion but not false opioniate facts. LOOK at the ME countries that are almost completely decimated? they're Sunni countries and some cases where they're not for example Iraq, Yemen and Syria. have another LOOK -it's the Sunni cities & towns that are destroyed by US & israhelli bombs. Iran in 1979 laid out the blueprint for Muslims of the ME to get rid of all western backed US-zio owned Arab dictators rise up against them. "The price of freedom is death." - Malcolm X.. As-Salaamu Alaykum.
Post a Comment
براہ مہربانی شائستہ زبان کا استعمال کریں۔ تقریبا ہر موضوع پر 'گمنام' لوگوں کے بہت سے تبصرے موجود ہیں. اس لئےتاریخ 20-3-2015 سے ہم گمنام کمینٹنگ کو بند کر رہے ہیں. اس تاریخ سے درست ای میل اکاؤنٹس کے ضریعے آپ تبصرہ کر سکتے ہیں.جن تبصروں میں لنکس ہونگے انہیں فوراً ہٹا دیا جائے گا. اس لئے آپنے تبصروں میں لنکس شامل نہ کریں.
Please use Polite Language.
As there are many comments from 'anonymous' people on every subject. So from 20-3-2015 we are disabling 'Anonymous Commenting' option. From this date only users with valid E-mail accounts can comment. All the comments with LINKs will be removed. So please don't add links to your comments.