power

I have said this on many occasions that Shia Islam presents the purest form of Tawheed than any other religion which is the fundamental pillar of Islam. And in researching such an extremely complex issue, we have to follow into the footsteps of the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) who taught purest form of unity of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) . Sadly other religions and sect's have introduced the concept of Anthropomorphism the idea of attributing human like characteristics.

Brother, how can you honour someone who had instigated a war where 1000's people had died for defending the truth? On bases can you honour someone when he/she perpetuated a crime on a false pretenses ? FurthermoreI, what rational or a logical reasons can a murderer can be honoured with the killing of masses? And finally I would say, those who fought on the side of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and gave their lives in upholding the truth, the Honour belongs to those soldiers. Its unjustness by honouring the culprits and dismissing those who fought for justice.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) believed Abu Bakr and Umar were liars, because Imam Ali A(عليه السلام) did not accept the verdict based upon the Hadith quoted by Abu bakr and Umar that: the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity" Hence Imam Ali (عليه السلام) calling then liars right? This is the stance of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) he reject's the hadith of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) quoted by Abu Bakr and Umar, In addition, Bibi fatima (sa) died angry with Abu bakr and Umar because they rejected her claim of inheritance. You state below: they initially thought he was wrong and then conceded that he was right, بارك الله فيك. Note what is being said: "you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth." Your above statement is not doing any justice, I mean on what bases did Umar convince Imam Ali (عليه السلام) that he is truthful, what argument did Umar use that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) conceded in the hadith ? Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never accepted the hadith to be true so how was he convinced or he conceded ? You need to present a comprehensive details that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) conceded that is compelling, rather than showing continuous repetition of Umar saying: the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity" This fabricated hadith above was not accepted by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) or Bibi Fatima (sa)

I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn't it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me. Which "Property" is Umar referring to? and support this with evidence to show Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his Uncle was entrusted with Prophets ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) property?

The above highlighted is clearly implying Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his Uncle believed Abu Bakr and Umar were liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.

He said: When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed away, Abu Bakr said:" I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)." 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 (ﷺ) 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 (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn't it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.

Its interesting that on two previous occasion's Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his Uncle believed Abu Bakr and Umar were liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. Then this third meeting with Umar they accepted his verdict that Prophets ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) dont leave inheritance...... It just doesn't make, because Imam Ali (عليه السلام) Had already demonstrated his view by stating Abu Bakr and Umar were liars, sinful, treacherous and dishonest on issue of inheritance, they why would Imam Ali (عليه السلام) approach Umar again on the same matter knowing of Umar position on inheritance??

Salaam brother, Just a quick analysis of the above hadith, in the above hadith the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) clearly states:You are the companions of Joseph There is substantial evidence the companions of Joseph were disbelievers, so who was Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) implicating being disbelievers?

Salaam brother, You state the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had on many occasion pointed out Abu Bakr was his Successor, so dose this mean it was a command from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) to nominate Abu bakr? If so then why was his nomination not communicated to the masses? In relation to the hadiths literature that your are referring of Abu Bakr's being Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) choice of Successors the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) has not stated this in front of wide range of audience which is problematic to say the least. Beside, at Saqifah no such argument was used in favour of Abu Bakr, The only augment that was mentioned by Abu Bakr or Umar to get Abu Bakr nominated was his closeness to the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) no mention of Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) choosing Abu Bakr as his successor. More importantly, If it was Allah’s (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will and intention to appoint Abu bakr to succeed after the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) then i need an comprehensive answer to this problematic issue that i am going to present to you. This issue is Abu Bakr was tasked of delivering a divine message of the Quran called Baraah or Al-Tawbah when Abu Bakr had left Medina, a day after departure Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was specifically ordered by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to promulgate these verses in Makkah either personally or to delegate authority to someone from his own family, but to no one else. In compliance with this commandment from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) called Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to deliver the divine message. What was the wisdom behind this process? where an appointment was followed by nullification, then reappointment of another candidate Imam Ali (عليه السلام) Was It to make obvious to anyone who reflects on this change in divine plan that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) intended to compare the two personalities and their qualifications. By this comparison, not only is Imam Ali (عليه السلام) pointed out as the more qualified candidate to assume this role, by default it also highlights the disqualification of the previous candidate? Therefore if Abu Bakr was not qualified to recite these verses because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) didn't wanted him to, but yet Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wanted Abu Bakr run affairs of the Islamic state after the demise of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) Can you share your thoughts on this matter. I

Walikum Salaam Imam Ali (عليه السلام) wilayat dose not become compromised because he rejected man made caliphate. Moreover, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) during the Caliphacy of the first three Caliphs Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was not a politically active in the current affairs except for counselling in some judicial cases. lets not forget Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had previously rejected caliphate in the selection process. The committee that was orchestrated by Umar refused Imam Ali (عليه السلام) requisition to follow the Quran and Sunna of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and reject the way's of Abu Bakr and Umar therefore there is rationality behind why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) rejected the selection process. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) evidently did not accept the caliphate plainly because following the ways of Abu Bakr and Umar was not conforming with Quran and the Sunna of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) As for the sermon 92 you are conveniently dismissing the reason and the context why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was refusing leadership role. More so you are ignoring factual circumstances that surrounded the revolt against Uthmam. Unfortunately the third Caliph's leadership was weak corrupted, nepotism was rife appointing notorious one's his relatives had key position. Famliy members who had enjoyed dishonesty had immunity under Uthman's weak leadership, and this caused revolt against his regime. You just can cannot dismiss the civil unrest in medina this was no trivial matter that you can conveniently just sweep under the carpet! it was major uproar. And there has been many tradition from historian were Imam Ali (عليه السلام) confronted Uthman about his conduct and including mishandling of the treasury. Therefore, in relation to the civil revolt against uthmam it was not based upon infringement of Islamic law rather is was corruption within Uthmam's regime. Those who requested Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to become the leader its purely political and not as divinely appointed Imam. Hypothetically, if the people of Medina accepted Imam Ali (عليه السلام) divinely given right as the Imam of their time then his refusal would be going against divine command, but we know that was not the case here. You cannot compare the role of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and the role of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) The mission of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was to clearly to establish Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) religion of Islam regardless of the hardship the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had to endure, therefore it was incumbent upon the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) to continue with his mission regardless what he had to face.

I hope this extract will enlighten you as to why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) gave the sermon When with the murder of `Uthman the seat of Caliphate became vacant, Muslims began to look at `Ali (p.b.u.h.) whose peaceful conduct, adherence to principles, and politia lacumen had been witnessed by them to a great extent during this long period. Consequently, they rushed for swearing allegiance in the same way as a traveller who had lost his way and catches sight of the objective would have rushed towards it, as the historian at-Tabari (in at-Tarikh, vol .I, pp. 3066, 3067, 3076) records: People thronged on Amir al-mu'minin and said, "We want to swear allegiance to you and you see what troubles are befalling Islam and how we are being tried about the near ones of the Prophet." But Amir al-mu'minin declined to accede to their request whereupon these people raised a hue and cry and began to shout loudly, "O' Abu'l-Hasan, do you not witness the ruination of Islam or see the advancing flood of unruliness and mischief? Do you have no fear of Allah?" Even then Amir al-mu'minin showed no readiness to consent because he was noticing that the effects of the atmosphere that had come into being after the Prophet had overcome hearts and minds of the people, selfishness and lust for power had become rooted in them, their thinking affected by materialism and they had become habituated to treating government as the means for securing their ends. Now they would like to materialise the Divine Caliphate too and play with it. In these circumstances it would be impossible to change the mentalities or turn the direction of temperaments. In addition to these ideas he had also seen the end in view that these people should get further time to think over so that on frustration of their material ends hereafter they should not say that the allegiance had been sworn by them under a temporary expediency and that thought had not been given to it, just as `Umar's idea was about the first Caliphate, which appears from his statement that: Abu Bakr's Caliphate came into being without thought but Allah saved us from its mischief. If anyone repeats such an affair you should kill him. (as-Sahih, al-Bukhari, vol 8, pp.210, 211; al-Musnad, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol.1, p.55; at-Tabari, vol.1, p.l822; Ibn al-Athir, vol.2, p.327; Ibn Hisham, vol.4, pp.308-309; Ibn Kathir, vol.5, p.246) In short, when their insistence increased beyond limits, Amir al-mu'minin delivered this sermon wherein he clarified that "If you want me for your worldly ends, then I am not ready to serve as your instrument. Leave me and select someone else who may fulfil your ends. You have seen my past life that I am not prepared to follow anything except the Qur'an and sunnah and would not give up this principle for securing power. If you select someone else I would pay regard to the laws of the state and the constitution as a peaceful citizen should do. I have not at any stage tried to disrupt the collective existence of the Muslims by inciting revolt. The same will happen now. Rather, just as keeping the common good in view I have hitherto been giving correct advice, I would not grudge doing the same. If you let me in the same position it would be better for your worldly ends, because in that case I won't have power in my hands so that I could stand in the way of your worldly affairs, and create an impediment against your hearts' wishes. However, if you are determined on swearing allegiance on my hand, bear in mind that if you frown or speak against me I would force you to tread on the path of right, and in the matter of the right I would not care for anyone. If you want to swear allegiance even at this, you can satisfy your wish." The impression Amir al-mu'minin had formed about these people is fully corroborated by later events. Consequently, when those who had sworn allegiance with worldly motives did not succeed in their objectives they broke away and rose against his government with baseless allegations. https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-92-leave-me-and-find-someone-else

Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) mentioned he's leaving Quran and Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) in detail at Arafat. Therefore, everybody who were present at Arafat were aware.

The part that i highlighted is incorrect understanding of yours. Division had already had occurred , when Abu bakr illegitimately became the Caliph.

Generally Muslims do remember Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in times of suffering and pain and have faith and hope in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) mercy. Nevertheless, despite suicide being prohibited and considered as a great sin, it should not be viewed as black and white as the way you are viewing it. Mental health issues of those individual who is not fully capable of making decisions should not be condemn hell fire without knowing their state of mind. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) alone who will judge the actions of each individual. And not you!!!!

Generally individuals who suffer from suicides thoughts are actually suffering from mental health issues, therefore with some individuals rationality goes out the window. So do you think "Preaching" to these individual about the consequences of their action which they dont have control over is the method ?