ali47

Yes in theory and I would hope so, but the problem seems to be that the many manifestations of Salafism tends towards takfirism which are the modern-day Khawarij. It seems that the root of the Salafi idealogy is promoting that the non-Salafi's are somehow "less Muslim". This is the fatal error in their aqeedah where they confuse Islam and Iman. It is ultimately why the Khawarij [ibn Muljam] assasinated Imam 'Ali and used a dagger against Imam Hasan. They could not get it into their brains that the two Imams gave allegience to Mu'awiyah out of compulsion/taqiyyah and for this deed they declared the Imams kafir. It's ironic isn't it how the Khawarij were once amongst the Shia of 'Ali but now they have nothing to do with them.... Many of the khawarij wrote letters to Imam Husayn in Kufa to trick him and these were the people he called out when he brought out the bag of letters to show the Kufans. When Imam Hussayn (a) arrived they were in the army opposite ready to fight him. I would steer very clear of Salafism as sincere advice to any Muslim.

Verbal testimony of the faith is all that is required.

Then they are lukewarm Shi'is - aka Sufis =]

food for thought chaps, but don't you think Umar would of removed the third testimony instead/as well as 'haya 'ala khayril amal' if it existed? However, 'Ali ('a) only complained about haya 'ala khayril 'amal being removed ;)

Salaam, What does everyone think about how Azadari will develop in the West? I am a revert myself and find some forms absolutely unacceptable (zani zanjeer - idiots uploading these videos on youtube etc), in the sense that they will put people off the ahl al-bayt nevermind Islam as a religion. One of my main reasons for never researching Shi'ism was because of these ridiculous rituals that quite frankly make a mockery of Imam Husayn (s).. At the same time I appreciate those with certain cultural backgrounds will want to retain certain Aza practices which are close to their heart and are meaningful. For those living in the West do you think that a more "Western-friendly" Azadari will emerge or not? Do most people here see forms of Azadari as cultural, religious or both? I see most people in the West will not understand things like matam and instead prefer more debate/lecture formats, given their culture is completely alien to azadari practices that have developed over time in other countries. Interested to hear your thoughts!

Abu Bakr is a kunya many people would be called Abu Bakr - just means father of the camels generally the person who would look after the animals. Many Shia hadith narrators are called Umar, Yazid and Muawiyah - it didn't mean that much at the time - these were common names For the question on why they claimed Abu Bakr should be the leader: They thought Abu Bakr should be the leader because of certain claims made by Abu Bakr, Umar and three other companions. They said the leadership and prophethood would not come together and Prophet's do not leave inheritence etc. The vast majority of people were tribal and if their tribal chief made a decision the rest would follow suit. Abu Bakr also used 'Ali's right of closeness to the Prophet (s) and early entry into Islam (known as sabiqa), although it is obvious that 'Ali was the closest in both cases. From a Shia perspective the caliphs seized the leadership and had planned this event in advance, so this is why most people were confused and accepted his leadership. In 'Umar's words it was a hasty decision (falta) and it was only later that people began to question for example https://sunnah.com/bukhari/86/57 (the so and so is Ammar and such and such is 'Ali - this speech was made by 'Umar when people starting doubting Abu Bakr's entitlement to the leadership). Abu Bakr even gave a speech saying I am not the most worthy amongst you for this position and showed signs of doubting it, although his companions encouraged him to continue. Later on certain "proofs" mostly created in the Umayyad dynasty were created for Abu Bakr's leadership including: He lead the final prayers of the Prophet (s) [disputed] He was Muhammad's (s) best friend [disputed] He was the first man to embrace Islam [disputed] His financial contributions [acceptable, but does not excuse his later behaviour] His religious knowledge [disputed] Events like this in all cultural histories are nothing new - lies, betrayal and deceit is often a way to attain power in this dunya. It was far from a "democratic procedure" which is sometimes a view given in some books. These men saw an opportunity for a new imperial power that was opening up and took that opportunity. For a man like Imam 'Ali though spirituality always came first and the ends never justified the means. He did not approve of the often harsh methods of the previous rulers and squandering of wealth which often took place.

Believing that the ahl al-bayt were the most knowledgable and worthy of the leadership after the demise of Prophet Muhammad (s). Also believing that nass (verbal/textual declaration) was made to 'Ali - Ghadir Khumm etc

If one is truthful and honest then you will know the the third shahada has never been part of the azan or iqama since the early days of Shi'ism. Read the paper by Liyakat Takim http://www.ltakim.com/Adhan.pdf Unfortunately we Shi'is have now become known for ashadu ala Ali waliulah instead of hayya 'ala khayril 'amal. I personally do not understand why the Ulema don't just say it as it is, but then again I imagine it's not top priority. I hear Grand Ayatollah Allama Shaikh Muhammad Hussain Najafi has a similar view and it not afraid to call out the cultural practices - he sounds like a good alim. Remember, Imam 'Ali's (a) main issue with 'Umar concerning furu ud deen was his innovations of tarawih and changing the azan - we can't just come along and do the same!

It is the largest group and some of them give da'wah. Shi'I resources are also harder to get hold off although this is changing slowly.

Salaam Bilal, I have purchased this book and found it a great resource - thank you for this contribution. I am currently working on a paper on Sulaym ibn Qays identifying him as an authentic Sunni narrator known as Abbad ibn Qays. Would you be interesting in taking a look I would highly appreciate your feedback.

Indeed what choice did he have? The narrations are clear that he refused allegience and that 'Umar made a threat to burn the house. Does that make the 3 caliphs legitimate? Of course the Umayyads created the hadiths to say that 'Ali later pledged allegience willingly because he "thought he had a right" but decided he no longer had. This is to avoid narrating the embarassing event of Umar's threats which can be found in other Sunni and Shia sources. If you consult the sources you will see he gave allegience unwillingly and that it was most likely the threats to burn the house which made him do so. Again I ask, does Imam Ali pledging allegience based on coercion make their claims legitimate? 'Ali served the best interests of Islam and tried to guide them to the truth of their actions. Round the time of Muawiyah's reign when the fabricated hadiths were being created and Imam Ali's Shia were being killed, 'Ali started to make matters clear about him and the Shaykhs. This is why there are so many pro-Abu Bakr and pro-Umar hadiths to counter Ali and his Shia's claims. Indeed Muawiyah paid people to fabricate these traditions and people like Amr ibn Al As and Abu Hurayrah did so willingly. This is why the matter may be unclear to you my brother, the Umayyads had to reduce 'Ali's claim in order to secure their leadership. You might ask how I am so certain that the Umayyad hadiths have been forged. The answer is our Imams have told us this and given us examples. An easy one is that Abu Bakr and Umar are the old men of paradise - clearly an attempt our fifth Imam says to counter the hadith that Hasan and Husayn are the masters of the youth of paradise. In fact, this hadith apparently narrated by 'Ali has been declared weak (da'if) even by the Sunni scholars who came years later. I ask, if everything was fine between Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali, why was there this desire to create narrations and attribute them to 'Ali about loving the caliphs so much? There are many more examples and I can provide them if you wish. Despite the fabrications in the "Sahih" books the truth still shines: Narrated Hubshi bin Junadah: that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "'Ali is from me and I am from 'Ali. And none should represent me except myself or 'Ali." حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ مُوسَى، حَدَّثَنَا شَرِيكٌ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ حُبْشِيِّ بْنِ جُنَادَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ عَلِيٌّ مِنِّي وَأَنَا مِنْ عَلِيٍّ وَلاَ يُؤَدِّي عَنِّي إِلاَّ أَنَا أَوْ عَلِيٌّ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ صَحِيحٌ ‏.‏ Grade : Hasan (Darussalam) English reference : Vol. 1, Book 46, Hadith 3719 : Book 49, Hadith 4085 Here is an extract from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal (one of the Sunni Imams) about 'Ali in Kufa about 25 years after the event of Ghadir Khumm, asking those who heard the Prophet (s) declare him mawla to stand up and testify. There are a lot of hadiths in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal about Ghadir itself and this Sermon (of Ruhbah). Does this not prove Ali's entitlement to leadership along with all the other historical evidence? Why did certain companions not treat him like their mawla?

His presence surely as a moderate Shi'a alim who gives advice on the social and political plane is enough. So many scholars at this level can easily become corrupted and cause chaos given their position. His fiqh books guide Shia Muslims across the world to help follow their Imams..

He should of shown Muhammad Hijab hadith of Rubah where 'Ali in Kufa gives a sermon asking people if they remember the event of Ghadir? This is narrated many times in Ahmad ibn Hanbal's Musnad (Sunni book) along with the Ghadir narrations themselves that are described as Sahih. Look for yourself and ask - why would 'Ali stand up in Kufa 25 years later to mention this event? 'Ali was declared to have awla (closeness) to everybody else so how could they be an Imam over him? Why would he refuse to pledge allegience? Why would Umar threaten to burn his house down (Tabari, ibn Abi Shaybah)? The Muhammad Hijab's of this world may be able to fool the uneducated but they don't have a leg to stand on! It can all be proved from their scholar's own books

'Ali became a lot more outspoken towards his caliphate when he had his base in Kufa. He would openly ask people about Ghadir (hadith of Ruhba) which can be found in Musnad Ahmed ibn Hanbal which is a Sunni book! After all 'Ali refused to pledge allegience to Abu Bakr and only did after Umar's idea of threatening to burn down the house (narrated by both schools). Caliphate was an innovation in this sense because the senior companions chose to override the Amir which the Prophet (s) had chosen. The uprising of Hussain was about imamate after all the letters from the Kufans say explicitly "come be our Imam". Hussain responded to their call and they betrayed him plain and simple. He dispensed his duty as an Imam and they betrayed him teaming up with the Umayyads to slaughter them at Karbala. 'Ali and Hasan had the same issue with their so called "Shia" who would often betray them. Nevertheless we are told there was to be 12 Imams and that the Mahdi will appear at some point, so the Shia concept of Imamate is a lot stronger than the concept of Caliphate imo. One is divinely ordained and one was created by the sahaba under very suspicious circumstances. Unfortunately it was never meant to be they could just never get enough loyal Shia to back their cause and eventually the Imams became quietiest. The Umayyads fabricated hadiths which are now regarded as Sahih by the vast majority and the Shia ghulats elevated their Imams beyond normal means.

It's a sweeping statement which I'm surprised by given his mixed ancestary. The mirror isn't actually the source of all knowledge either.. The Muslims started out well and there are so many scientific loan words in English with Arabic origin. The Muslims developed some of the first hospitals in Baghdad and learned to read and write very early on. They contributed to Mathemetics and were some of the first to use the scientific method. Their hygiene too and still is to this day impeccable if practised properly. Unfortunately it went downhill for different reasons which I am not knowledgable enough to tell you about. But yes, the anti-intellectual schools of thought within Islam (not saying any names!) have not helped at all. This "black and white" understanding of Islam that we see nowadays is a sign of the intellectual decline. Given the deep divide between religion and science in the West Muslims have a big challenge to try harmonise the two. This could work really well because Muslims have always viewed Science of one of the many manifestations of Allah.