Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Skanderbeg

If Caliphate Is Not In Sunni Aqidah ..

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Ridda wars

Ahl al-Bayt a.s almost had been killed.

Good question but not what you are saying is entirely accurate

infact if you see nahjulbalagh Ali gave pledge to abubakr after 6 months because of riddah wars aND the threat they posed to medina govt

Followup questions are

Is not paying zakat sufficient to make someone kafir?

Those not paying zakat and believe in false prophets equal ?

Did Ali and his supporters protest Against the riddah wars ?

If that is the case why are sunnis so lenient against those who refused to pay zakat ( amongst other things) to Ali ?

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I think is rather:

Who has the right to enforce zakat upon the muslims and who is not?

As salat is something between the servant and Allah, zakat is something where a third party becomes involved which is the ruler who is at that time a representative of the legislations of Allah. 

Is a muslim a non-believer when he refuses to pay zakat to a ruler who he believes is not rightful?

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main question is still ..

Why were people enforced to pay allegiance when caliphate is not part of Sunni Aqidah?

Because this would imply that one can refuse to pay allegiance and still remains a muslim. 

If so then why were people killed because of such a matter?

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are bagful of contradictions in aqeedah of Sunni model of successorship to the Prophet saww and that is in addition to the fact that such concept/s have no backing from the Holy Quran and/or Seerah. Sunnis know this well and therefore generally are igonrant of important historical facts.

Edited by abbas110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why did Abu Bakr killed those who did not pay allegiance?

Abu bakr r.a declared war with those who oppossed to obey command of Allah, by not paying zakat ! Not for bayah which your 1st imam Ali r.a gived him, after demise of Fatimah r.a, in taqiyyah mode according to you ! And even didnt objected him for declaring war may be again, due to taqiyyah according to you. Abu bakr was fallible anyhow but your infallible imam was not aware of him & his mistakes, and didnt oppossed him ! Again, maybe he did taqiyyah according to you.

M/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question I think is rather:

Who has the right to enforce zakat upon the muslims and who is not?

As salat is something between the servant and Allah, zakat is something where a third party becomes involved which is the ruler who is at that time a representative of the legislations of Allah.

Is a muslim a non-believer when he refuses to pay zakat to a ruler who he believes is not rightful?

thAts one issue but also see what the counter argument is , did Ali ever say Ridda wars were wrong ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abu bakr r.a declared war with those who oppossed to obey command of Allah, by not paying zakat ! 

Alright. So if I lived in that time and I paid my zakat to my neighbour would that be fine then?

thAts one issue but also see what the counter argument is , did Ali ever say Ridda wars were wrong ?

The counter argument to what?

The question was why Caliphate isn't incorporated in Sunni Aqidah while enforcement and killing for the sake of it was taken for granted.

If one still can be a muslim without believing in the caliphate or Dajjal as these matters are not incorporated in Sunni Aqidah then why the fuss?

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. So if I lived in that time and I paid my zakat to my neighbour would that be fine then?

Hadits are there in muslim and bukhari ! Abu bakr r.a never said to give zakat to him, rather to anybody or to bayt al'maal. And declared war towards people who were not obeying one of fara'id of Deen, commanded by Allah in holy Quran ! Unlike the opposite & baseless like Qums business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Hadits are there in muslim and bukhari ! Abu bakr r.a never said to give zakat to him, rather to anybody or to bayt al'maal. And declared war towards people who were not obeying one of fara'id of Deen, commanded by Allah in holy Quran ! Unlike the opposite & baseless like Qums business.



Narrated Abu Huraira: When Allah's Apostle died and Abu Bakr became the caliph some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief) (Abu Bakr decided to declare war against them), 'Umar, said to Abu Bakr, "How can you fight with these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.' " Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight those who differentiate between the prayer and the Zakat as Zakat is the compulsory right to be taken from the property (according to Allah's orders) By Allah! If they refuse to pay me even a she-kid which they used to pay at the time of Allah's Apostle . I would fight with them for withholding it" Then 'Umar said, "By Allah, it was nothing, but Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision (to fight) and I came to know that his decision was right." 

source: 
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=23&translator=1&start=0&number=483#483

Edited by Iskandarovich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"By Allah! I will fight those [who differentiate between the prayer and the Zakat as Zakat is the compulsory right to be taken from the property (according to Allah's orders) By Allah!]

If they refuse to pay me even a she-kid [which they used to pay at the time of Allah's Apostle.]!!

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why did Abu Bakr killed those who did not pay allegiance?

1. Khilafah is part of the 'Aqidah actually

2. Who? Who'd he kill other than the Murtadin who rejected Zak'ah and gathered around false prophets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. So if I lived in that time and I paid my zakat to my neighbour would that be fine then?

The counter argument to what?

The question was why Caliphate isn't incorporated in Sunni Aqidah while enforcement and killing for the sake of it was taken for granted.

If one still can be a muslim without believing in the caliphate or Dajjal as these matters are not incorporated in Sunni Aqidah then why the fuss?

Easy to ask this 1400 yrs later

what was the situation at 11 AH ? Why didn't Ali raise this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are bagful of contradictions in aqeedah of Sunni model of successorship to the Prophet saww and that is in addition to the fact that such concept/s have no backing from the Holy Quran and/or Seerah. Sunnis know this well and therefore generally are igonrant of important historical facts.

They don't even have a concrete and consistent shura procedure IF shura was applied.

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to ask this 1400 yrs later

what was the situation at 11 AH ? Why didn't Ali raise this issue?

Why do you ask? Ask your scholars. They constructed your Aqidah. Not me.

 

2. Who? Who'd he kill other than the Murtadin who rejected Zak'ah and gathered around false prophets.

Not according to Umar. Read with me:

Narrated Abu Huraira: When Allah's Apostle died and Abu Bakr became the caliph some Arabs renegade (reverted to disbelief) (Abu Bakr decided to declare war against them), 'Umar, said to Abu Bakr, "How can you fight with these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people till they say: "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever said it then he will save his life and property from me except on trespassing the law (rights and conditions for which he will be punished justly), and his accounts will be with Allah.' " Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight those who differentiate between the prayer and the Zakat as Zakat is the compulsory right to be taken from the property (according to Allah's orders) By Allah! If they refuse to pay me even a she-kid which they used to pay at the time of Allah's Apostle . I would fight with them for withholding it" Then 'Umar said, "By Allah, it was nothing, but Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision (to fight) and I came to know that his decision was right." 

 

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to ask this 1400 yrs later

what was the situation at 11 AH ? Why didn't Ali raise this issue?

 

What was Imam ali (as) position in abu bakrs camp, when this atrocity occurred?

Edited by power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was Imam ali (as) position in abu bakrs camp, when this atrocity occurred?

Imam Ali never feared to speak his voice when ammar was beaten , abu Dharr was exiled or jundab azdi persecuted,

Furthermore many companions of Ali participated in these wars , the case of ibn nuwaira was an atrocity for which many Sahaba which imamis don't approve of complained openly

Skanderbeg you have a crystal ball you know my aqidah ..please refrain from personal attacks

They don't even have a concrete and consistent shura procedure IF shura was applied.

Shura (which actually excluded ansar unfortunately )elected only uthman and that turned out to be disastrous

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imam Ali never feared to speak his voice when ammar was beaten , abu Dharr was exiled or jundab azdi persecuted,

Furthermore many companions of Ali participated in these wars , the case of ibn nuwaira was an atrocity for which many Sahaba which imamis don't approve of complained openly

Skanderbeg you have a crystal ball you know my aqidah ..please refrain from personal attacks

 

 

You make an interesting analysis. However, Imam Ali  (as) silence is not admission that he did  approved of Abu Bakrs decision. With that said, you did say many companions had disapproved  Abu Bakrs decision, and there is a strong probability Imam Ali had thought those companion who did not agree with Abu Bakr decision were most likely from his camp, and would  of have more of a persuasion than himself.

 

I believe the circumstance that  surrounded Imam Ali (as) was also important factor. We need to take into account, that it was only days or weeks that Imam Ali's  right  to Caliphate was illegal taken from him, and his wife right to inheritance was confiscated from her, so it can be argued that Imam Ali (as)  still had bitterness feeling towards Abu bakr  hence he  refused to give his allegiance to abu bakr. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If that is the case why are sunnis so lenient against those who refused to pay zakat ( amongst other things) to Ali ?

 

There are several differences to mention:

1. In the time of Abu Bakr their refusal was unconditional, the opponents of Ali refused him on a condition. That they were wrong is irrelevant for the moment.

2. In the time of Abu Bakr their was no injustice that preceded it, in the time of Ali it was directly related to the murder of Uthman

3. In the time of Abu Bakr they would be the first to break unity, in the time of Ali, unity was already broken by the murderers of Uthman.

 

 

And there could be several differences, but the most important and simplest one is that Ali didn't consider them disbelievers.

Edited by GreatChineseFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are several differences to mention:

1. In the time of Abu Bakr their refusal was unconditional, the opponents of Ali refused him on a condition. That they were wrong is irrelevant for the moment.

2. In the time of Abu Bakr they would be the first to break unity, in the time of Ali, unity was already broken by the murderers of Uthman.

 

And there could be several differences, but the most important and simplest one is that Ali didn't consider them disbelievers.

Yes and probably because opponents of ALi were Aisha talha and mostly of quraishi hierarchy declaring them unbelievers was hardly practical !

 

 

You make an interesting analysis. However, Imam Ali   (as) silence is not admission that he did  approved of Abu Bakrs decision. With that said, you did say many companions had disapproved  Abu Bakrs decision, and there is a strong probability Imam Ali had thought those companion who did not agree with Abu Bakr decision were most likely from his camp, and would  of have more of a persuasion than himself

 

of what I know those who protested ibn nuwaira killing are

abu katada ( of ALi's camp)

Umar b khattab

Abdullah b umar

salim maula abihudhayfa  ( all 3 not of ali camp )

I believe the circumstance that  surrounded Imam Ali (as) was also important factor. We need to take into account, that it was only days or weeks that Imam Ali's  right  to Caliphate was illegal taken from him, and his wife right to inheritance was confiscated from her, so it can be argued that Imam Ali (as)  still had bitterness feeling towards Abu bakr  hence he  refused to give his allegiance to abu bakr

 

Their differences are definitely there no doubt but there was no bIG difference of opinion on this particular issue AFAIK

 

one interesting fact is that a few of those who were forgiven after Ridda wars participated in wars of Ali ( as they were Yemenis settled in Iraq),some of them were loyal to ALi like Qays b Makhush ( killed in siffin) and others were treacherous ( like Ashath b qays kindi).So I think the Ridda wars were more of regional /tribal issue ( with religious excuse used by abu bakr justiably or not I cant say) and loyalty to medina govt was definitely a central issue as those Yemeni leaders who were loyal to medina govt ( like the famous hujr b adi) were encoruarged by the first 2 caliphs to be active paticipants in the early futuhat in iran as they have proven their loyalty to medina and the "forgiven leaders" only later found a place in the conquests when the arab muslim forces were stretched thin on a 2 front war.

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I think the Ridda wars were more of regional /tribal issue ( with religious excuse used by abu bakr justiably or not I cant say)

 

I disagree, most people tend to forget that before Islam treaties/contracts became void after the ruler died and had to be renewed/renegotiated. Many tribes apostatized following this trend or simply wanted to renegotiate the rules/laws. As for the apostates, the decision was easy, as for those who didn't want to pay zakat, he was in a more difficult position as he doubted as well. But ultimately for Abu Bakr, degrading the laws of Allah to basically man-made law was simply unacceptable, so it was definitely a religious issue first and foremost. By the way, considering the relationship between Umar and Abu Bakr, I don't think Umar would object unless it was a religious issue.

 

As for the excluding, after they were forgiven they were banned from bearing arms at all, so no wonder they didn't benefit from the early conquests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ no they did bear arms at a later stage see second phase of conquests esp in persia

^ again the authority of caliphate was in the infancy that's why the real theological basis of it is beyond my understanding, but if I was then I wud have supported abu bakr too like most Sahaba including Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×