Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
  • entries
    30
  • comments
    123
  • views
    6,567

Did the Sahaba become Kafir?

Islamic Salvation

6,489 views

هلك الناس أجمعون قلت: من في الشرق و من في الغرب؟ قال: فقال: إنها فتحت على الضلال

All the people were destroyed. I said: whomever was in the east and the west? he said: it (the whole earth) was opened up to misguidance

هلكوا إلا ثلاثة ثم لحق أبو ساسان و عمار و شتيرة و أبو عمرة فصاروا سبعة

All were destroyed except three - then they were joined by Abu Sasan, Ammar, Shatira and Abu Amra, so they became seven [Ja`far al-Sadiq]

 

Did the Sahaba Apostatize?

There are narrations which indicate that all the companions were destroyed except three, these were then joined by four others, so they became seven who were saved. However, most of the scholars have understood this Halak [destruction] to be that of Dhalal [misguidance] i.e. perished in Salvific terms, not Kufr [disbelief] - which is the opposite of Islam.

 

Who are the three?

They are the pillars of the Madhhab. They are explicitly named in some of the narrations below:

أبي بصير قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام: ارتد الناس إلا ثلاثة: أبو ذر، و سلمان، و المقداد؟ قال: فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: فأين أبو ساسان، و أبو عمرة الأنصاري؟

[al-Kashshi] Abi Basir said: I said to Abi Abdillah عليه السلام: all the people turned back except for three - Abu Dhar, Salman and Miqdad? Abu Abdillah عليه السلام said: so where is Abu Sasan and Abu Amra al-Ansari?!

أبي بكر الحضرمى قال: قال أبو جعفر عليه السلام: ارتد الناس إلاثلاثة نفر سلمان وأبو ذر والمقداد. قال: قلت: فعمّار؟ قال عليه السلام: قد كان جاض جيضة ثم رجع ... ثم أناب الناس بعد فكان أول من أناب أبو ساسان الانصاري وأبوعمرة وشتيرة وكانوا سبعة فلم يكن يعرف حق أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلاّ هؤلاء السبعة

[al-Kashshi] Abi Bakr al-Hadhrami said: Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people turned back except three individuals - Salman, Abu Dhar and Miqdad, I said: what about Ammar? He عليه السلام said: he wobbled a bit then he returned [to the truth] … then the people repented after that, so the first ones to return [to the truth] were Abu Sasan al-Ansari, Abu Amra, Shatira, and they became seven, none recognized the right of the commander of the faithful عليه السلام except these seven.

  • 'then the people repented after that, so the first ones ...' This shows that it was not just these seven, rather, these were the foremost of them.

علي بن أبي طالب عليهم السلام قال: خلقت الارض لبسبعة بهم ترزقون وبهم تنصرون وبهم تمطرون منهم سلمان الفارسي والمقداد وأبو ذر وعّمار وحذيفة رحمة اللّه عليهم. وكان علي عليه السلام يقول: وأنا إمامهم وهم الذين صلوا على فاطمة صلوات الله عليها

[al-Ikhtisas] Ali b. Abi Talib عليه السلام said: the earth was created for seven, because of them you are given sustenance, and because of them you are assisted, and because of them is rain made to fall on you, among them are Salman al-Farsi and al-Miqdad and Abu Dhar and Ammar and Hudhayfa - may Allah have mercy on them. Ali عليه السلام used to say: and I am their Imam, and they are the ones who prayed [Salat al-Mayyit] upon Fatima صلوات الله عليها            

 

The Three had a higher status than the Four

حمران قال: قلت لأبي جعفر عليه السلام: ما أقلنا لو اجتمعنا على شاة ما أفنيناها قال: فقال: ألا أخبرك بأعجب من ذلك قال: فقلت: بلى قال: المهاجرون و الأنصار ذهبوا إلا (و أشار بيده) ثلاثة

[al-Kashshi] Humran said: I said to Abi Ja’far عليه السلام - how few we (the Shias) are! if we gather to eat a sheep we will not be able to finish it, he (Humran) said: so he عليه السلام said: should I not inform you of something even more bewildering? he (Humran) said: I said: yes (do so), he said: the Muhajirun and the Ansar all diverted (i.e. went astray) except for - and he gestured with his hand - three.

In al-Kulayni’s variant the narration continues:

قال حمران: فقلت: جعلت فداك ما حال عمار؟ قال: رحم الله عمارا أبا اليقظان بايع وقتل شهيدا، فقلت في نفسي: ما شئ أفضل من الشهادة فنظر إلي فقال: لعلك ترى أنه مثل الثلاثة أيهات أيهات

Humran said: may I be made your ransom - what is the status of Ammar? He said: may Allah have mercy on Ammar Aba al-Yaqdhan, he pledged allegiance and died a martyr, I said in my heart: what thing is better than martyrdom, so he [the Imam] looked at me and said: perhaps you think that he [Ammar] is like the three [in status], how far! how far! [from truth that opinion is]. 

 

Does this mean all others became apostates?

The crux is the meaning of Ridda (ردّة) in these narrations. Whether it is to be understood in a linguistic sense or the technical sense of apostasy. If the latter is taken then it means all the Sahaba became Kafir [out of Islam] for not sticking to Ali.

Irtidad in the linguistic sense refers to ‘turning back from something’. It has been used with this meaning in a number of verses such as:

فَلَمَّا أَن جَاء الْبَشِيرُ أَلْقَاهُ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ فَارْتَدَّ بَصِيرًا قَالَ أَلَمْ أَقُل لَّكُمْ إِنِّي أَعْلَمُ مِنَ اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ

(i) So when the caravan herald [fore-runner] came he threw it on his face so he returned to seeing, he said: did I not say to you that I know from Allah what ye do not (12:96)

قَالَ الَّذِي عِندَهُ عِلْمٌ مِّنَ الْكِتَابِ أَنَا آتِيكَ بِهِ قَبْلَ أَن يَرْتَدَّ إِلَيْكَ طَرْفُكَ

(ii) The one who had knowledge of a part of the Book said: I will bring it to you before your glance returns back to you [i.e. you blink and open your eyes again] (27:40)

مُهْطِعِينَ مُقْنِعِي رُءُوسِهِمْ لاَ يَرْتَدُّ إِلَيْهِمْ طَرْفُهُمْ وَأَفْئِدَتُهُمْ هَوَاء

(iii) Racing ahead, their heads bowed down, their glances not returning back to them [i.e. unblinking] and their hearts void (14:43)

Whenever Irtidad from the Diin - ‘turning back’ from the Diin i.e. apostasy in the technical sense is meant, the Qur`an qualifies it by explicitly mentioning Diin.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَن يَرْتَدَّ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَسَوْفَ يَأْتِي اللّهُ بِقَوْمٍ يُحِبُّهُمْ وَيُحِبُّونَهُ

(i) O you who believe, whoever turns back from his Diin from among you then Allah will bring about a people whom He loves and they love Him (5:54)

وَمَن يَرْتَدِدْ مِنكُمْ عَن دِينِهِ فَيَمُتْ وَهُوَ كَافِرٌ فَأُوْلَئِكَ حَبِطَتْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ

(ii) And whoever among you turns back on his Diin and dies whilst being a Kafir then those are they whose deeds have been nullified in the world and the hereafter (2:217)

It is clear that the narrations about the Irtidad of the Sahaba are not qualified by Diin. To understand that meaning from it would require further proof.

 

The Chosen Interpretation

The Irtidad in the narrations should be understood [in light of other narrations] as people turning away, after the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله, from what they had made incumbent on themselves in his صلى الله عليه وآله lifetime, when they gave the Bay`a to Ali b. Abi Talib as the leader of the believers i.e. Irtidad from Wilaya not apostasy from Islam. 

Instead, they decided to give the Bay`a to someone else because of expediency and other reasons. This was a betrayal of epic proportions that opened up the door of misguidance and innovation in the Diin, however, they had not exited the apparent Islam, nor were all on the same level of liability for this.

This interpretation is aided by the following texts:

أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وآله إلا ثلاثة. فقلت: ومن الثلاثة؟ فقال: المقداد بن الأسود، وأبو ذر الغفاري، وسلمان الفارسي، رحمة الله وبركاته عليهم، ثم عرَف أناسٌ بعدَ يسير. وقال: هؤلاء الذين دارت عليهم الرحا وأبوا أن يبايعوا، حتى جاؤوا بأمير المؤمنين مكرَهاً فبايع، وذلك قوله تعالى: وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِن مَّاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَىَ عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ

(i) [al-Kafi] Abi Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people were the people of Ridda after the prophet صلى الله عليه وآله except three. I said: who are the three? He said: al-Miqdad b. al-Aswad, Abu Dhar al-Ghiffari and Salman al-Farsi, may Allah’s mercy and blessings be upon them, then the people came to know after a while [the truth], these [three] are those around whom the banner revolved and they refused to give Bay`a [to Abu Bakr], until when they brought the commander of the faithful عليه السلام by coercion and he gave the pledge of allegiance, and that is His words the Elevated - “Muhammad is not but a messenger, messengers have come and gone before him, if he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heels, and whoever turns back on his heels then he will not harm Allah a thing and Allah will recompense those who are grateful” (3:144).

  • The narration indicates that the uniqueness of the three was that they did not give the Bay`a to the usurper because of knowing the true status of Ali, it was only when Ali was forced to give the Bay`a, and he did [for the Masliha which Allah willed], that the three also agreed to do it.
  • The meaning of 'then the people came to know after a while ...' is that some people recognized their fault, and acknowledged that the commander of the faithful was the most rightful person to assume leadership.

That all the others apart from the three were paralyzed by fear is shown in the narration below:

أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: جاء المهاجرون والأنصار وغيرهم بعد ذلك إلى علي عليه السلام فقالوا له: أنت والله أمير المؤمنين وأنت والله أحق الناس وأولاهم بالنبي عليه السلام هلم يدك نبايعك فوالله لنموتن قدامك! فقال علي عليه السلام: ان كنتم صادقين فاغدوا غدا علي محلقين فحلق علي عليه السلام وحلق سلمان وحلق مقداد وحلق أبو ذر ولم يحلق غيرهم؛ ثم انصرفوا فجاؤوا مرة أخرى بعد ذلك، فقالوا له أنت والله أمير المؤمنين وأنت أحق الناس وأولاهم بالنبي عليه السلام عليه السلام هلم يدك نبايعك فحلفوا فقال: إن كنتم صادقين فاغدوا علي محلقين فما حلق إلا هؤلاء الثلاثة قلت: فما كان فيهم عمار؟ فقال: لا؛ قلت: فعمار من أهل الردة؟ فقال: إنّ عمارا قد قاتل مع علي عليه السلام بعد ذلك

(ii) [al-Kashshi] Abi Ja`far عليه السلام said: the Muhajirun and Ansar and others came after that [the coup at Saqifa] to Ali عليه السلام and said to him: you are by Allah the commander of the faithful, and you are by Allah the most rightful person and closest to the prophet, put forth your hand so that we can pledge allegiance to you, for by Allah we are going to die in front of you [in your defense], Ali said: if you are truthful then come to me tomorrow having shaved your head [which would visually identify the ‘rebels’ to the authorities], so Ali shaved, so did Salman, Miqdad and Abu Dhar, and no one else did, then they came a second time after the first and said: you are by Allah the most rightful person and closest to the prophet, put forth your hand so that we can pledge allegiance to you, and they swore an oath, he said: come to me tomorrow having shaved your head if you are truthful, so no one shaved except three. I said: Ammar was not among them? He said: No, I said: Ammar is from the people of Ridda? He said: Ammar fought together with Ali after that.

  • This reaffirms that the uniqueness of the three is related to them not giving in and remaining with Ali to the end as far as his right is concerned. Note also how Ammar is not included among the Ahl al-Ridda, even in a historical sense, because of his later support for Ali.

In fact, one of the reasons behind Ali accepting to give Bay`a after his show of dissent was so that the masses do not renounce the faith totally. Recall that the Islamic polity was still unstable and there were a lot of Arab tribes whose allegiance had been personally to the prophet and not the Diin per se, the Jahiliyya was not far from their psyche.

أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: إن الناس لما صنعوا ما صنعوا إذ بايعوا أبا بكر لم يمنع أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام من أن يدعو إلى نفسه إلا نظرا للناس و تخوفا عليهم أن يرتدوا عن الاسلام فيعبدوا الاوثان ولا يشهدوا أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وكان الاحب إليه أن يقرهم على ما صنعوا من أن يرتدوا عن جميع الاسلام وإنما هلك الذين ركبوا ما ركبوا فأما من لم يصنع ذلك ودخل فيما دخل فيه الناس على غير علم ولا عداوة لامير المؤمنين عليه السلام فإن ذلك لا يكفره ولا يخرجه من الاسلام ولذلك كتم علي عليه السلام أمره وبايع مكرها حيث لم يجد أعوانا

(iii) [al-Kafi] Abu Ja'farعليه السلام  said: When the people did what they did - when they gave allegiance to Abu Bakr, nothing prevented the commander of the faithful عليه السلام from calling to himself (i.e. gather support to rival them publicly) except his fear for the people - that they would apostate from Islam, and begin worshiping the idols anew, and reject witnessing that there is no God but Allah, and that Muhammad is his messenger; and it was more beloved to him to acquiesce to what they had done rather than them apostatizing from the whole of Islam. Verily, those who clambered upon this (opposing Ali for rulership) have been destroyed. As for the one who did not contribute anything to that (opposing Ali for rulership) and entered into what the people entered into without knowledge (about his status) nor enmity towards him then this act of his does not make him a disbeliever, and it does not remove him from Islam, and this is why Ali kept quiet about his matter (status), and gave allegiance while displeased, when he could not find any supporters.

  • The narration makes it clear that had the Imam fought for his leadership i.e. a civil war it would cause irreparable damage, this is because of the tenuous position that Islam had, even the outward Islam (the Islam of the Shahadatyn) would have been wiped out. There were a lot of external and internal enemies waiting for this infighting to make sure that the whole foundation of Islam crumbles.

 

Conclusion

The Umma became, for the most part, misguided after their prophet. This is something that had also happened to the communities of past prophets. But this misguidance should not be understood to have taken all of them out of Islam as a whole, rather, by ignoring a central commandment of the prophet they have done a great sin which struck a blow to the pristine Islam.

Furthermore, the protagonists differ relative to their role in the fiasco. Some were quite unaware of the whole thing and lacked full knowledge of the Haqq of Ali and his Ma`rifa, this could be because they were blind to the order of the prophet (total ignorance); had some doubts; did not have the ability to influence the outcome because of some constraints [swept away by the wave of events]; or because they showed cowardice and faltered in coming to Ali’s aid. Others later acknowledged their mistake and made up for it in the following years. All these in their different categories can be said to be the majority. Their fate in the next world of “realities” is left to Allah

On the other hand, there were those who administered the whole thing. They had full knowledge of what the prophet had ordered them and what the divine commandment required them to do. They also knew the position of Ali. Despite this, they fought against this explicitly. These are those who should be treated as apparent Muslims in the daily life in this world [according to most scholars]. This is, after all, how Ali himself treated them, praying in their mosques, visiting them in sickness, helping them out when they faced challenges, eating with them etc. part of which is Taqiyya and safeguarding the greater principles of Islam, but they are undoubtedly people of the fire in the next world.

Note that this interpretation is dependent on the position of differentiating between the Dharuriyat of the Diin and that of the Madhhab and considering the Shahdatayn alone to be enough in making someone a Muslim [unless taken out for some other reason]. Whilst this is a popular position among scholars today, it has had its detractors among the scholars of the past, one of them being someone like Shaykh Yusuf al-Bahrani, who considered the rejectors of the Wilaya as Kafirs with the fullest implication this has [even in this world].  



54 Comments


Recommended Comments



Salam here is nice lectuure from sunni scoolar Dr.Adnan Ibrahim.He mention some companions and first generation and misinformation from them about Prophet(s.a.w.a).Look honest to me.May Allah prise him for speaking truth insha'Allah.

Wa Salam

Edited by AidAsSadik

Share this comment


Link to comment

No.shaba didn't became kafir.Even though they did wrong and ignorant actions. 

There are numerous historic evidence and saying of Hazrat Ali as that clearly indicate that sahaba did not became kafir. But yes those who fought against Imam Ali did great sin and fitnah. 

Or they were ignorant to status and knowledge and position of Imam Ali.

Even we today do not have real marifah and knowledge of status of Imam Ali and Prophet puh. 

And also those who were on side of Imam Ali once Ali as became Khalifa did recognise Imam Ali as.

So declaring kafir to one who disagree with Imam Ali as indicate the ones ignorance. 

But those are excluded who despite knowing Imam Ali still opposed him out of love for world and lower self passion. 

 

Edited by islam25

Share this comment


Link to comment
7 hours ago, islam25 said:

No.shaba didn't became kafir.Even though they did wrong and ignorant actions. 

There are numerous historic evidence and saying of Hazrat Ali as that clearly indicate that sahaba did not became kafir. But yes those who fought against Imam Ali did great sin and fitnah. 

Or they were ignorant to status and knowledge and position of Imam Ali.

Even we today do not have real marifah and knowledge of status of Imam Ali and Prophet puh. 

And also those who were on side of Imam Ali once Ali as became Khalifa did recognise Imam Ali as.

So declaring kafir to one who disagree with Imam Ali as indicate the ones ignorance. 

But those are excluded who despite knowing Imam Ali still opposed him out of love for world and lower self passion. 

 

Salam 

Wa Salam

Share this comment


Link to comment
11 minutes ago, islam25 said:

Can you write what he says. 

Salam.You have translation.He is one of top sunni scoolars,and he found at Buhari&Muslim narrations of companions that are leave Islam even while Prophets(s) was live.Try found some videos of him on that isue,and you will understand insha'Allah.

In sunni tradition have narration that every 100 years will came scoolar wich will reunion religion.Manny top sunni alims think Dr.Adnan Ibrahim is "reunior of Islam"(Even he by himself never say that)

Ofcourse there is salafi fatwa on him wich say:"He is not reunior of Islam.We are not sure if he is rafidi,munafiq or qafir".So,if salafi atack you so hard than you know you are doing something good insha'Allah.

Wa salam

Share this comment


Link to comment
26 minutes ago, AidAsSadik said:

Salam.You have translation.He is one of top sunni scoolars,and he found at Buhari&Muslim narrations of companions that are leave Islam even while Prophets(s) was live.Try found some videos of him on that isue,and you will understand insha'Allah.

In sunni tradition have narration that every 100 years will came scoolar wich will reunion religion.Manny top sunni alims think Dr.Adnan Ibrahim is "reunior of Islam"(Even he by himself never say that)

Ofcourse there is salafi fatwa on him wich say:"He is not reunior of Islam.We are not sure if he is rafidi,munafiq or qafir".So,if salafi atack you so hard than you know you are doing something good insha'Allah.

Wa salam

So it what I said. 

I do not believe that all sahaba ra who disagreed Ali as became kafir. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
10 hours ago, islam25 said:

No.shaba didn't became kafir.Even though they did wrong and ignorant actions. 

Salam.

You say this.And your sahih books say diferent.

Wa salam.

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 minutes ago, islam25 said:

What is my sahih books.

Salam

Im sorry i don know.But anyway your conclusion is wrong.

If your sahih books are sunni collections such as Sahih Buhari,or Sahih Muslim,they say diferent from you

If your sahih books are shia collections such as Kitabu-l-Kafi,or Biharu-l-Anwar,agan they say diferent from you.

Wa Salam

Share this comment


Link to comment
2 minutes ago, AidAsSadik said:

Salam

Im sorry i don know.But anyway your conclusion is wrong.

If your sahih books are sunni collections such as Sahih Buhari,or Sahih Muslim,they say diferent from you

If your sahih books are shia collections such as Kitabu-l-Kafi,or Biharu-l-Anwar,agan they say diferent from you.

Wa Salam

So you mean only that version is correct which says shaba are kafir. 

Can you tell me what is definition of kafir. 

And how many sahaba became kafir and how they became kafir? 

Share this comment


Link to comment
5 minutes ago, islam25 said:

So you mean only that version is correct which says shaba are kafir. 

Can you tell me what is definition of kafir. 

And how many sahaba became kafir and how they became kafir? 

Salam.Im not qulify for it.

But sunni Imams,authors of qutbu-l-sitte think theye where and in thers sahihs/sunans is your answar

Or you can turn at Imam Kulayni(q.r) or somme other shia scoolar,and find your answar

Wa Salam

Edited by AidAsSadik

Share this comment


Link to comment
10 minutes ago, AidAsSadik said:

Salam.Im not qulify for it.

But sunni Imams,authors of qutbu-l-sitte think theye where and in thers sahihs/sunans is your answar

Or you can turn at Imam Kulayni or somme other shia scoolar,and find your answar

Wa Salam

Mr.

There are indications in both shia and sunni books about kafir. But non of us or even scholars can  declear any one kafir.

And it's quiete possible that our declaration of some one being kafir may prove wrong. Because ultimately it lies with Allah. 

Have you ever read any narration from imam Ali declaring any sahaba kafir. 

Are even those who fought against imam Ali. 

Even I have heard great scholars who do not agree that sahaba who disagreed imam Ali necessarily all became kafir. 

What is your  view about sunnis are they kafir. 

Edited by islam25

Share this comment


Link to comment
Just now, islam25 said:

Mr.

There are indications in both shia and sunni books about kafir. But non of us are even scholars declear any one kafir.And it's quiete possible that our declaration of some one being kafir may prove wrong. Because ultimately it lies with Allah. 

Have you ever read any narration from imam Ali declaring any sahaba kafir. 

Are even those who fought against imam Ali. 

Even I have heard great scholars who do not agree that sahaba who disagreed imam Ali necessarily all became kafir. 

What is your  view about sunnis are they kafir. 

Salam

In sunni islam Buhari&Muslim are at ranq of Qur'an.99% of sunni ulama will say every single hadith in theese 2 books is 100% autentic,so in very same books u will find that not all of companions stay with Islam.

At other hand Shia do not beleve that for example Kitabu-l-Kafi is all sahih,most of it yes,but all no.However narrations about this isue are sahih,and clear.Every companion was not stay with Islam.

At end,i have enough moral to not answar at your last question,because i know where that lead.I give my opinion on topic.Give source of my opinion.

When you ask me question,i give u answar with source of my answar.Think is enough from me.

Wa Salam

Share this comment


Link to comment
11 minutes ago, AidAsSadik said:

Salam

In sunni islam Buhari&Muslim are at ranq of Qur'an.99% of sunni ulama will say every single hadith in theese 2 books is 100% autentic,so in very same books u will find that not all of companions stay with Islam.

At other hand Shia do not beleve that for example Kitabu-l-Kafi is all sahih,most of it yes,but all no.However narrations about this isue are sahih,and clear.Every companion was not stay with Islam.

At end,i have enough moral to not answar at your last question,because i know where that lead.I give my opinion on topic.Give source of my opinion.

When you ask me question,i give u answar with source of my answar.Think is enough from me.

Wa Salam

Mr. 

You didn't gave answer. 

All the sahaba whom you declear kafir gave bayat to Imam Ali. 

Imam regularly used teach them aaddress them. 

Used lead prayer. 

Never call them kafir. Give sermons of guidance. Despite you still call them kafir. 

And when even shia scholars clearly say that by denying imam Ali one don't necessarily become kafir. 

Again why you didn't answer my last question. 

Or what is definition of kafir. 

Edited by islam25

Share this comment


Link to comment
15 minutes ago, islam25 said:

Mr. 

You didn't gave answer. 

All the sahaba whom you declear kafir gave bayat to Imam Ali. 

:) Test never ended on Imam Ali (a.s). Many companions have exposed themselves in the caliphate of Imam Hasan (a.s).

If majority of sahaba were assumed as true believers, why they allowed Muawiya Laeen to curse Imam Ali (a.s)? 

 

Edited by Salsabeel

Share this comment


Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

:) Test never ended on Imam Ali (a.s). Many companions have exposed themselves in the caliphate of Imam Hasan (a.s).

If so majority of sahaba were assumed as true believers, why they allowed Muawiya Laeen to curse Imam Ali (a.s)? 

 

How many these were who talked bad about imam Ali . 2 or 3 or 10.The question is of thousands of sahaba. That too when some shia give blanket futwa of declaring near all them kafir. 

Edited by islam25

Share this comment


Link to comment
4 minutes ago, islam25 said:

Mr. 

You didn't gave answer. 

All the sahaba whom you declear kafir gave bayat to Imam Ali. 

Imam regularly used teach them aaddress them. 

Used lead prayer. 

Never call them kafir. Give sermons of guidance. Despite you still call them kafir. 

And when even shia scholars clearly say that by denying imam Ali one don't necessarily become kafir. 

Again why you didn't answer my last question. 

Or what is definition of kafir. 

Salam

I declare kafir?No it was Imam Buhari&Imam Muslim at first place

I did not answar just to see way you think.Ok.

If just think a little just a little,you will get answar without asking me.

I belive you are sunni,yes.And i say Salam to you,yes.Woul i say salam to kafir?

I give you videos of Dr.Adnan Ibrahim.Would i call upon him and made him my source or take anything from him if i belive all sunnis are kafirs?

Ofcourse i would not.

But you are not read,you are not listen,now i see that you are not even think!

Im sorry for say this,but you not have morals at first place.How many times i say salam to you?How many times you reply?I see you as brother you see me as mister!?

Im not go down any more at your level.Whatever you wrighte,think you are right.From me have dua that Allah SwT guide you to Truth,whatever Truth is.

Wa Salam

 

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 minute ago, islam25 said:

How many these many were. 2 or 3 or 10.The question is of thousands of sahaba

:) brother, keep your heart soft.

Assume, if thousands of companions would have opposed the public cursing of Imam Ali (a.s), Muawiya Laeen would have stopped that. 

Imam Hassan's coffin would never recieve the shower of arrows. The incident of Karbala & its aftermath would not occured.

 

Share this comment


Link to comment
5 minutes ago, AidAsSadik said:

Salam

I declare kafir?No it was Imam Buhari&Imam Muslim at first place

I did not answar just to see way you think.Ok.

If just think a little just a little,you will get answar without asking me.

I belive you are sunni,yes.And i say Salam to you,yes.Woul i say salam to kafir?

I give you videos of Dr.Adnan Ibrahim.Would i call upon him and made him my source or take anything from him if i belive all sunnis are kafirs?

Ofcourse i would not.

But you are not read,you are not listen,now i see that you are not even think!

Im sorry for say this,but you not have morals at first place.How many times i say salam to you?How many times you reply?I see you as brother you see me as mister!?

Im not go down any more at your level.Whatever you wrighte,think you are right.From me have dua that Allah SwT guide you to Truth,whatever Truth is.

Wa Salam

 

 

Wa Alikum salam. 

I am definitely sorry for not greeting salam. 

Still do you think someone declared by bukhari or shahahi muslim kafir is necessarily kafir. 

Does someone declaring kafir means he is necessarily kafir. 

Because kufur is state heart which Allah knows best. 

That too when Imam Ali lead the prayer of all most all sahaba and lived with them like Muslims never called them kafir. 

So why should I. 

Yes there may be one or two exceptions but that doesn't apply to all. 

Wa salam. 

Share this comment


Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

:) brother, keep your heart soft.

Assume, if thousands of companions would have opposed the public cursing of Imam Ali (a.s), Muawiya Laeen would have stopped that. 

Imam Hassan's coffin would never recieve the shower of arrows. The incident of Karbala & its aftermath would not occured.

 

So you mean few persons cursed Imam Ali made all others kafir. 

In other words does  whole ummah of the time of muawiya became kafir. 

I think that is not right view. 

Every single person is responsible for his sin. 

Edited by islam25

Share this comment


Link to comment
46 minutes ago, islam25 said:

So you mean few persons cursed Imam Ali made all others kafir. 

This "few" possess thousands not tens or hundreds.

30,000 fought against Imam Ali (a.s) in Jamal. 120,000 fought against Imam Ali in Siffin. 

For Imam Hassan's army of 40,000 which went to fight with Muawiyah Laeen army of 60,000, you can read the story at www.al-islam.org 

Brother, just see what Allah says in Quran:

Surah Ya Seen, Verse 7:

لَقَدْ حَقَّ الْقَوْلُ عَلَىٰ أَكْثَرِهِمْ فَهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

Certainly the word has proved true of most of them, so they do not believe.

(English - Shakir)

Share this comment


Link to comment
1 hour ago, Salsabeel said:

This "few" possess thousands not tens or hundreds.

30,000 fought against Imam Ali (a.s) in Jamal. 120,000 fought against Imam Ali in Siffin. 

For Imam Hassan's army of 40,000 which went to fight with Muawiyah Laeen army of 60,000, you can read the story at www.al-islam.org 

Brother, just see what Allah says in Quran:

Surah Ya Seen, Verse 7:

لَقَدْ حَقَّ الْقَوْلُ عَلَىٰ أَكْثَرِهِمْ فَهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

Certainly the word has proved true of most of them, so they do not believe.

(English - Shakir)

So the tens of thousands that were with Imam Ali didn't became kafir. Because the opening post was indicating that except few all sahaba became kafir. 

Edited by islam25

Share this comment


Link to comment
23 hours ago, islam25 said:

So the tens of thousands that were with Imam Ali didn't became kafir. Because the opening post was indicating that except few all sahaba became kafir. 

He did not say nor it indicated that they became kafir.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Which of you, then, will help me in this, and be my brother, mine executor and my successor amongst you?’ All remained silent, except for the youthful ʿAlī who spoke up: ‘O Prophet of God, I will be thy helper in this.’ The Prophet then placed his hand on ʿAlī’s neck and said, ‘This is my brother, mine executor and my successor amongst you. Hearken unto him and obey him.’

(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, tr. A Guilaume, The Life of Muhammad, 118)

Share this comment


Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Latest Blog Entries

    • By shuaybi in Ahlul Bayt Mission
         0
      Based on the hadith of Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام), we should abstain from consuming the following parts of animals:
      Blood All reproductive parts (penis, testicles, vagina, vulva, cervix, uterus, cervix) Spleen Heart Gallbladder Glands (small organs found all over the body and in the brain) Chords/Veins Spine Placenta Anything in the loins Eyeballs Kidneys Bone marrow The above list is based on the following hadith from Al Kafi:
      Also published on my word press blog: https://ahlulbaytmission.org/2019/07/21/animal-parts-to-avoid-consuming/
    • By Simon the Canaanite in Mystical Heresies
         0
      I’bn Arābi said in ʿāl-Fūtūḥāt ʿāl-Mākkīyāh, (“the Illuminations of Mecca,”) volume 4, page 218.
      “Thus, the existence is not [except] God, for there isn’t anything in the being, except for Him.”

      Mūllā Ṣadrā said in Asrār ʿāl-Ayāt, page 24.
      “There isn’t [anything] in the existence, except for His self, qualities and acts, which are: an ‘envisage’ of His names, and a ‘manifestation’ of His qualities…”

    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      The Trump administration gave up on JCPOA, partly because it did not like 'Iran's regional influence'. This is at the heart of the current dispute.
      Apart from Persoids who believe that giving up on Lebanon, Syria and Iraq will somehow make Iran safer, everyone else knows that Iran reigning in its regional influence will win it a matter of months of respite before its enemies seek to push home the advantage for regime change.
      At the same time Israel is seeking to build up its own sphere of influence amongst the Gulf Arab states. And Iranian actions are getting in the way. Currently a war seems to be the only way to settle this, but there is another option.
      Why don't Israel and Iran come to a grand bargain to split up the Middle East?
      The Israelis can have North Africa (they've controlled Egypt since Sadat anyway). They can have the Saudi peninsula except for Hijaz and Yemen (MbS is their [Edited Out] as it is). So they can also have control over Jordan, the UAE and Bahrain. This is a basic recognition of current reality rather than Muslims giving up something.
      Iran keeps its influence over Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.
      I don't know what to do about Kuwait. It should be part of Iraq anyway.
      So in both instances the facts on the ground are recognised, but the effect of the bargain would be to draw a line in the sand and have an agreement that Iran would not seek to influence countries in the Israeli sphere and vice versa.
      Obviously the chances of the above happening are 0%, but sometimes it takes someone naive to point out that the Emperor wears no clothes. In the current situation the corollary is that somehow the Arab states are independent and somehow the current antagonisms are between them and the Iranians. There's also the fiction that somehow the Americans and the British have some sort of role.
      But this is an Iranian and Israeli issue. Everyone else is an observer.
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      As I mentioned previously Maryam asked to take the 5D and the lenses with her on the school trip. It's professional equipment, albeit everyone in Hong Kong seems to have better. Here's some of what she came back with. Oh and all the equipment came back too.

       

       

    • By Haji 2003 in Stories for Sakina
         0
      OK, this was actually written for Zehra, but Sakina does have a role. This is one of my DIY birthday cards. You can get bubble-jet printer paper that prints both sides. Even better one side is semi-glossy and the other one is matt.

       

       
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         0
      I've always thought that since British Mandate the Palestinians have been in a no win position. If they accepted the offers the Israelis gave them there would have been an incentive for the Israelis to take more land (if the Pals don't time yielding some they might not mind yielding more) and if the Pals had resisted that would also have given the Israelis a pre-text to take more land (for defensive purposes).
      In short whatever the Pals decided did not matter, the Israelis were in too dominant a position.
      Turning now to a totally different situation, the following piece in the FT neatly summarises how I feel about the situation between the U.S. government and Huawei.
      In a previous FT story about the same subject I posted a comment that this situation is similar to the British attempts to stop Indian technological development by banning the Indians from making their own steam engines, at the start of the 20th century. The British may have delayed Indian development by some decades, but that's all they were able to do. Whether the British took no action to stop Indian technological development or whether they proactively tried to hinder it, ultimately they would lose. 
      There are now far too many Indians with every increasing levels of capability to stop the juggernaut.
      https://www.ft.com/content/8fc63610-88fe-11e9-b861-54ee436f9768
      In summary I think the U.S. government feels a threat to its economic/technological dominance. And the sanctions are its attempt to fight back. But whether the U.S. decides to fight or not, I think in the longer term that dominance will have to be compromised. Huawei and the Chinese are now too far along the technological path of development and they are far further ahead than the India of the early 20th century. 
      The U.S. is now in a similar technological position that the Palestinians have been in terms of geography. Whatever option the US chooses, it will ultimately 'lose'. Loss in this context is not necessarily ceding technological leadership to the Chinese, but it may well involve acknowledging their superiority in certain areas.
    • By Haji 2003 in Contemporania
         4
      The case against artificial ingredients is well worn in terms of the possible damage to health. The health benefits of foods that are as natural as possible with limited human interference I.e. processing seems compelling.
      For a couple of decades and perhaps for a couple more going forwards organic foods have given people something to believe in. Organic represents good, wholesome and natural and the opposite - foods that have chemicals added to aid their growth and which have been through a range of processes in order to give them longer-shelf lives represent what is bad. Whatever limitations organic foods may have are, for some people, more than compensated by their health and environmental benefits.
      Consuming organic is virtuous and whatever sacrifices need to be made in order to do this are similar to those theists are willing to make for their beliefs. Of course the believer in organic may claim scientific evidence to back their behaviour.
      The question is whether the 'organic faith' is likely to be a permanent state of affairs. I think not. Because natural food production processes are not scalable for an ever increasing global population.
      In contrast, the ability of humans to interfere productively in food production has been established over millennia and we've been getting better at it. Our interventions raise all sorts of scientific, environmental, moral and economic issues and as a result I don't think God would lead us to a developmental dead-end. So I think the current preference for organic and natural food that is devoid of processing is likely to be a short-term fad, albeit a well-meaning one. 
      We now have better knowledge of how not to process and the costs and risks of different processing methods, and overtime I think we will become better at processing and as the following story highlights the need to develop artificial ie. man-made processes for making foods is likely to increase and so is our ability to do so. Along the way we may well find ways of processing that do still cause health and other disbenefits, but it'll be up to us to find novel solutions. Relying on historical processes won't be an answer.
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/29/plan-to-sell-50m-meals-electricity-water-air-solar-foods
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Blog Statistics

    77
    Total Blogs
    401
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...