[avaiptutt]

history reports when in any way trying to condemn a noble sahabi of prophet(saw0 or any sahabi of Prophet(saw) should be thoroughly scrutinized. When cant just blindly accept it. And historians themselve stated that what they bring in their books needs to be verified. So dont try to fool your ownself and others.

And it is well known fact that shias(narrators) have fabricated reports of histroy , every talib ul ilm knows this basic but it seems you are far away from truth.

salam brother,
i read your replies to omarashidweni and it seems you are playing the doubting thomas. he has given you correct traditions and you seem to be losing it ,trust me. the traditions he has given have a consensus of all historians both classical as well as formative. besides he gave you hadith references . not fair on your part. mawia(ra) had merits but they could be easily surpassed by merits that even people who fought under ali(ra) had, not to speak of ali.

your next allegation about the infallibility well yes nobody is infallible. BUT prophet(saw) said with correct hadith that
1/ i leave behind two things quran and ahl bait ....recorded in sahih muslim
2/ in namaz we offer duroode ibrahim which contains salutations to aal mohammad...well i wonder people who abused ali and hold grudges against him, how is their namaz being accepted by Allah.
3/ regarding your hadith of lake, actually pond. well the hadith is sahih and its narrations and recordings remain unparalleled.
if ur allegationis that rafidis have corrupted history then do you mean we sunnis dont have history of our own. this argument is for losers to make. what about bukhari, muslim etc which contain so many kharji, rafidi, nasibi, qadri, etc narrators. then hadith books should be done with also. it is justice.

formative and classical history was written mostly under anti shia regimes, ummayad and abbasids. furthermore, grow up, if you can, becoz the glorious reigns and deeds of sahaba were given to us by history. why werent they fabricated?

hadith as a science is as good and as bad as history. in fact it is history in itself as per the science it follows. you said weak narrations, they are in bukhari and muslim also. wat abt that?

imam ahmed ibn hanbal(ra) correctly said" wen the enemies of Ali found no lacking in his character, they forged hadith elevating their own status"


Imam Sakhawee writes that the status of Imam Bukhari is higher than Imam Muslim. The reason he gives this is that Imam Bukhari has taken narration from 435 narrators, among these narrators there are only 80 weak narrators. Imam Muslim has taken narration from 620 narrators. About 160 narrators are known to be weak from among these

(Fath-ul-mughees, chapter on Imams Bukhari and Muslim, by Imam Sakhawee)

Hafidhh Asqalani and Imam Ay’nee write that Imam Daar Qutni has written a book called “Istadrikaat” in which he has objected to many narrations of Imam Muslim and Imam Bukhari (Muqaddamah, Fath-ul-Baari by Hafidh Asqalani and Umdat-ul-qaari by Imam Ay’nee)

so accept the truth. be cerebral.
and of course hadrat muawiya was writer of revelation.

wasalam