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
Sign in to follow this  
hcy786

What Nahjul Balagah Letter 6 States!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Really Nahjul Balagah - Peak Of Eloquence,, letter 6 supports Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) & Usman (ra) ??

Letter 6 state:

Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah.

If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.

O Mu'awiya! I am sure that if you give up self-aggrandizement and self-interest, if you forsake the idea of being alive only to personal profits and pleasures, if you cease to be actuated solely by selfishness and if you ponder over the incident leading to the murder of Uthman, you will realize that I cannot at all be held responsible for the affair and I am the least concerned with the episode.

But it is a different thing that you create all these false rumours and carry on this heinous propaganda to gain your ulterior motives. Well you may do whatever you like.

& the most most important point: "it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah."

What does this statement signify!!

Here are wordings of Ayatolla Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai..

Describing situation when first caliph was elected, Ayatolla Muhammad Husayn Tabatabai, said:

«This group (the one who chosed Abu Bakr) which was later to form the majority, set forth in great haste to select caliph for the Muslims with the aim of ensuring the welfare of the community and solving its immediate problems».

Source: «A series of islam and shia» p 56, 1-st edition, printed by Ansariyan in 2005.

post-792-1265667168.jpg?tsid=20100210-031711-da263d48

The interesting part in this quote is a fact, that this ayatolla admitted the aim of Muslims which chose Abu Bakr. They aim wasn't taking ruling from ahlel-bayt, or make oppression. Aim was ensuring the welfare of the community.

Now the matter is crystal clear.. :angel:

Edited by hcy786

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And so far as Shura (selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah."

You completely misinterpreted the words of Imam Ali (as).

Pay attention to the bold writing. The key word here is "supposed." In this letter Imam Ali (as) is saying that it was "supposed" that the person selected in the shura would do so per the approval and pleasure of Allah (SWT). The word "supposed" implies an assumption was made. What assumption was made? The assumption that the person selected in the shura was selected per the approval and pleasure of Allah (SWT). This means that those involved in the shura were under the impression that the person selected would be selected per the approval and pleasure of Allah (SWT) and their impression does not necessarily indicate reality.

As for the ayatollah, I have not done the required research to deem your quoted statements authentic or unauthentic, but that is not necessary. The views of one ayatollah are not representative of the views of all the Shia. Ayatollahs tend to have disagreeing opinions on many issues and this wouldn't be the first time.

Edited by mnaqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what Imam Ali (as) says in Nahjul Balagha.

SERMON 3

Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah

Beware! By Allah the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)(2) dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And so far as Shura (selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah."

You completely misinterpreted the words of Imam Ali (as).

Pay attention to the bold writing. The key word here is "supposed." In this letter Imam Ali (as) is saying that it was "supposed" that the person selected in the shura would do so per the approval and pleasure of Allah (SWT). The word "supposed" implies an assumption was made. What assumption was made? The assumption that the person selected in the shura was selected per the approval and pleasure of Allah (SWT). This means that those involved in the shura were under the impression that the person selected would be selected per the approval and pleasure of Allah (SWT) and their impression does not necessarily indicate reality.

As for the ayatollah, I have not done the required research to deem your quoted statements authentic or unauthentic, but that is not necessary. The views of one ayatollah are not representative of the views of all the Shia. Ayatollahs tend to have disagreeing opinions on many issues and this wouldn't be the first time.

sorry my mistake.. i forgot to go through real arabic text.. & unfortunately i only copy-pasted the letter-6 from al-islam.org..!!

& do u know what i found!!

The word suppose is not in the real arabic text!! :wacko:

This means that translation of al-islam is wrong..!!

Now lets see what arabic real text quotes:

Åäå ÈÇíÚäí ÇáÞæã ÇáÐíä ÈÇíÚæÇ ÃÈÇ ÈßÑ æÚãÑ æÚËãÇä ¡ Úáì ãÇ ÈÇíÚæåã Úáíå ¡ Ýáã íßä ááÔÇåÏ Ãä íÎÊÇÑ æáÇ ááÛÇÆÈ Ãä íÑÏ ¡ æÅäãÇ ÇáÔæÑì ááãåÇÌÑíä æÇáÃäÕÇÑ ¡ ÝÅä ÇÌÊãÚæÇ Úáì ÑÌá æÓãæå ÅãÇãÇð ßÇä Ðáß ááå ÑÖì ÝÅä ÎÑÌ ãäåã ÎÇÑÌ ÈØÚä Ãæ ÈÏÚÉ ÑÏæå Åáì ãÇÎÑÌ ãäå ÝÅä ÃÈì ÞÇÊáæå Úáì ÇÊÈÇÚå ÛíÑ ÓÈíá ÇáãÄãäíä ¡ ææáÇå Çááå ãÇ Êæáì

Translation: Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him.

& unfortunately i didnot found any word suppose or equivalent to it..!! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam),

If you copied it from al-islam.org, you must also have read the translator's notes about the letter (which you deliberately did not mention). Here's what you did not mention:

The following is a letter to Mu'awiya and in it Imam Ali (a) has used the same principle that he applied on Talha and Zubayr. Imam Ali (a) in this letter has raised all the points which were once quoted against him. He says if an election on the basis of general franchise is the criterion to decide such a caliphate, then general election took place to elect him the Caliph and nobody can deny this fact, and if limited franchise (Shura) was the criterion then those who represented this group (Muhajirs and Ansars) were amongst those who elected him and therefore even according to the rules formulated by opponents of Imam Ali (a) his election was lawful, regular and bonafide. Thus no Muslim has a right to speak or act against him.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/letters/letter6.htm

wa (salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam),

If you copied it from al-islam.org, you must also have read the translator's notes about the letter (which you deliberately did not mention). Here's what you did not mention:

The following is a letter to Mu'awiya and in it Imam Ali (a) has used the same principle that he applied on Talha and Zubayr. Imam Ali (a) in this letter has raised all the points which were once quoted against him. He says if an election on the basis of general franchise is the criterion to decide such a caliphate, then general election took place to elect him the Caliph and nobody can deny this fact, and if limited franchise (Shura) was the criterion then those who represented this group (Muhajirs and Ansars) were amongst those who elected him and therefore even according to the rules formulated by opponents of Imam Ali (a) his election was lawful, regular and bonafide. Thus no Muslim has a right to speak or act against him.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/letters/letter6.htm

wa (salam)

I did not mention!!

So what!! does the meaning changes!!

My point is not to show to whom that letter concerned.. But to show the part in red..

If Ali (ra) using aruguments against muawiyah (ra) then why he comparing his condition to 1st 3 khalifa (ra) !!

& why he said pleasure of Allah is involved ,, & this is must (bcoz the word suppose is not used) !!

So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah.

According to shia theology they snatched the khalifat & now the letter says they become khalifa as per pleasure of Allah!! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry about Salafis. They are very "literalist" and can not understand things easily. They are blind as Quran used the word for such people. Mola Ali (as) is using "The process adopted by his (as) enemies against them". You need to study what is meant by "Doctrine of Estoppel". When you would have studied then come to argue. Talha and Zubair and other companions who went against Ali (as) from their conduct to revolt against a rightful caliph. Imam (as) reminded them that "Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them" so "HOW YOU CAN ACT AGAINST YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES?.

Seems too much mind application required which lacks in Salafi side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry about Salafis. They are very "literalist" and can not understand things easily. They are blind as Quran used the word for such people. Mola Ali (as) is using "The process adopted by his (as) enemies against them". You need to study what is meant by "Doctrine of Estoppel". When you would have studied then come to argue. Talha and Zubair and other companions who went against Ali (as) from their conduct to revolt against a rightful caliph. Imam (as) reminded them that "Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them" so "HOW YOU CAN ACT AGAINST YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES?.

Seems too much mind application required which lacks in Salafi side.

Thanks for clearing this up. This was exactly what I was trying to get at, but couldn't find the words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

The Imam (as) is simply telling Mu'awiya that the majority of those who had allied themselves with Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman had allied themselves with 'Ali (as). Therefore, Mu'awiya and his gang was causing a fitna in a community that had (majority) supported 'Ali (as), including those who had originally supported sheikhain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

The Imam (as) is simply telling Mu'awiya that the majority of those who had allied themselves with Abu Bakr, 'Umar, and 'Uthman had allied themselves with 'Ali (as). Therefore, Mu'awiya and his gang was causing a fitna in a community that had (majority) supported 'Ali (as), including those who had originally supported sheikhain.

He is also telling them that the bayah Musims gave him isn't based on imamate. This is a bayah where Muslims decide who should be leader, which is contradiction to the Imami belief on Imamate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is also telling them that the bayah Musims gave him isn't based on imamate. This is a bayah where Muslims decide who should be leader, which is contradiction to the Imami belief on Imamate.

Although everyone knew in their hearts that Rasulullah (pbuh) had appointed Imam Ali (as) his successor on countless occasions, after Rasulullah's (pbuh) death, only 4 companions remained by his side. He went around to every house in Medina multiple times, with his family, and reminded everyone about how Rasulullah (pbuh) proclaimed his right to succession and his superiority to the rest of the muslim umma. In the end, he was alone. He remembered how Rasulullah (pbuh) told him that after his death, people will trample on his right to the caliphate. He also remembered that Rasulullah (pbuh) told him that if he is able to get 40 men to support him, then he should fight and if not, he should remain quiet. When he needed 40, he only had 4. May Allah (SWT) curse those who abandoned him.

The point I am trying to make is that when writing this letter, Imam Ali (as) knew the people denied him the caliphate and his right to succession. They did not take him as their Imam. So when making an argument, why would Imam Ali (as) bring up points, such as Imamate, when the people clearly do not believe in it? This is one of the basic elements of argument; you cannot support your argument with evidence that had no credibility with the opposition. The key is to support your argument with proof that is deemed credible by the opposition, and perhaps even deemed incredible by you. For example, when the Shia make arguments against the Sunni, would we use ahadith from the Shia books, deemed incredible by the Sunni? Or would it be more intelligent and effective to use ahadith from Sunni books, many of which are labeled as "Sahih?" Similarly, Imam Ali (as) is using the principles deemed credible by the opposition; the principle that the people should select the caliph and not their Prophet (pbuh). Since the people selected Imam Ali (as), he used this principle to prove to the opposition (Muawiya (L), etc.) that he has no right to question his position as caliph, since according to the people, the correct way to choose a caliph is through "election."

I hope this clears things up.

Allah (SWT) knows best.

Edited by mnaqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is also telling them that the bayah Musims gave him isn't based on imamate. This is a bayah where Muslims decide who should be leader, which is contradiction to the Imami belief on Imamate.

What was the purpose of presenting the concept of Imamat before those who had already rejected it? If those who were addressed had any shame of Prophet (pbuh) then they would not have supported Abu bakar or Umer or Uthman previously. Therefore, Imam (as) used their own argument against them. Offcourse there is no logic or benefit of presenting a verse of Quran as argument to Jews or Christians who reject Quran. Their simple answer would be that we do not have faith in Quran. Therefore it was useless to present the Ghadeer or Imamat argument against the rejectors of Ghadeer and Imamat and all sayings of Prophet (pbuh) regarding the Imamat/Wilayat/Khilafat of Ali bin Abi Talib (as). So your argument is full of flaws and completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although everyone knew in their hearts that Rasulullah (pbuh) had appointed Imam Ali (as) his successor on countless occasions, after Rasulullah's (pbuh) death, only 4 companions remained by his side. He went around to every house in Medina multiple times, with his family, and reminded everyone about how Rasulullah (pbuh) proclaimed his right to succession and his superiority to the rest of the muslim umma. In the end, he was alone. He remembered how Rasulullah (pbuh) told him that after his death, people will trample on his right to the caliphate. He also remembered that Rasulullah (pbuh) told him that if he is able to get 40 men to support him, then he should fight and if not, he should remain quiet. When he needed 40, he only had 4. May Allah (SWT) curse those who abandoned him.

So which Imam (as) was lucky to have at least 40 Imami shias ? In this clip below the shia dude says during the time of Imam Jafar (as) he was willing to least look for 17, but he failed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7AiWHXWm2k

Today we have about 200 million Imami shias, but the 12th imam still did not appear ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So which Imam (as) was lucky to have at least 40 Imami shias ? In this clip below the shia dude says during the time of Imam Jafar (as) he was willing to least look for 17, but he failed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7AiWHXWm2k

Today we have about 200 million Imami shias, but the 12th imam still did not appear ?

To answer your first question, Imam Husain (as) had more than 40. I don't understand what point you are trying to establish.

The reappearance of the 12th Imam (as) is not solely based on how many Shias are available, and although most of us are Shia by name, we are not even close to Shia by actions. However, that is of no consequence here, because the reappearance of the 12th Imam is based on more than one factor, and the greatest factor is the will of Allah (SWT). The world is supposed to be in a state of complete tyranny, oppression, and evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere. This letter is proof that the calipahs got bayah, and the same people of who gave them bayah placed Imam Ali (as) in power. 12rs can talk about how they were monafiqeen, but the concept of imamate put none of the imams in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere. This letter is proof that the calipahs got bayah, and the same people of who gave them bayah placed Imam Ali (as) in power. 12rs can talk about how they were monafiqeen, but the concept of imamate put none of the imams in power.

If Abu Bakr's Bayah was from Allah, why would Imam Ali say this in the same book (Nahjul Balagha)

SERMON 3

Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah

Beware! By Allah the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)(2) dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

And in Sahih bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546:

Narrated 'Aisha:

Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah's Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, "Allah's Apostle said, "Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.' By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah's Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah's Apostle used to do." So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect 'Ali much, but after her death, 'Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. 'Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet's death and Fatima's death). 'Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, "Come to us, but let nobody come with you," as he disliked that 'Umar should come, 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone " Abu Bakr said, "What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them' So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then 'Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), "We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Apostle ."

So those 6 month's did Imam Ali (as) do wrong according to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Abu Bakr's Bayah was from Allah, why would Imam Ali say this in the same book (Nahjul Balagha)

I never said it was a divine appointment.

So those 6 month's did Imam Ali (as) do wrong according to you?

He believed he was more qualified for it. However, when he saw that the majority gave bayah he joined them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said it was a divine appointment.

He believed he was more qualified for it. However, when he saw that the majority gave bayah he joined them.

His decision had nothing to do with the majority or minority, and the fact that you think that Imam Ali (as) who was undoubtedly foremost in Islam and protecting Islam would base his decision on the opinions of others and go against the truth is sad.

Imam Ali (as) never gave true bayah. Here is an excerpt from Kitab-e-Sulaym:

Then he (Umar) said: "Oh ibn Abi Talib, stand up and pay allegiance." Ali (as) asked: "If I do not do it then?" He said: "At that time we will cut your neck." Ali (as) said it three times. Then he, without opening his palm, stretched his hand and Abu Bakr put his hand on his (Ali's) hand and was happy with that. Before allegiance, Ali (as) when a rope was tied to his neck, said loudly: "Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well nigh slain me...(Surah Araf: 150).

People ask, how is it possible all this happened? The greatest warrior in Arabia had a rope tied around his neck and his house attacked and did nothing? Imam Ali (as) addresses that as well:

He (Imam Ali (as)) remembered what the Holy Prophet (pbuh) had said, and he (Imam Ali (as)) said: "By Him, who gave Muhummad (pbuh) the status of Prophethood, O son of Sahak, if the Book from Allah (SWT) had not been revealed and if the Holy Prophet (pbuh) had not taken a promise from me before, then you would have known that you could have never entered my house."

I'm tempted to create a post elaborating the whole incident, I'll think I will do it later tonight. For those of you who are interested check back in about 5-6 hours and you will find nothing but the truth. The questions regarding the authenticity of Kitab-e-Sulaym are new and have just begun. No Shia scholar ever questioned this book before and aside from being endorsed by 5 Shia Imams (as), it was also endorsed by Allama Majilisi (ra).

May Allah (SWT) curse the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His decision had nothing to do with the majority or minority, and the fact that you think that Imam Ali (as) who was undoubtedly foremost in Islam and protecting Islam would base his decision on the opinions of others and go against the truth is sad.

At an attempt to contain populist mistrust towards Khomeini and his illegitimate concept of 'vilayatul faqih' following the revolution of 1979, Ayatullah Najafabadi cites sermon 6 to state the fact that neither Imam 'Ali or Khomeini went in search of the wilayah. Rather it was an authority devolved upon them by the "attention of the forces of the people and the opinion and taking of the oath of allegience by the majority".

Source: Najafabadi - Vilayat -i-faqih, p32.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So which Imam (as) was lucky to have at least 40 Imami shias ? In this clip below the shia dude says during the time of Imam Jafar (as) he was willing to least look for 17, but he failed.

I think it is evident that the Imam was not speaking literally. He certainly had more than 17 followers, but he was looking for perfect shi'a, insan kamil in sufi terminology, and those are rare indeed. The biggest thing I understand from this saying is that we need to be much more focused on building people than on building governments. Other than Ali and Hassan, none of the Imam's ruled in this temporal world, and they both temporarily relinquished their claim to worldly power, yet all of them were still Imam's. Worldly rule was the least part of Imamate and lack of it never detracted from their station or their benefit for their followers. It is clear that 'Ali and Hassan understood that unity and the guidance and spiritual light they could provide to people was more important than worldly power. They had a longer vision than most Shi'a today and had a clearer view of the priorities.

On the other issue. The Caliphs did receive bayah, but it was taken in far from ideal circumstances which even 'Umar considered a hasty decision. He believed God put good in it, but he never lived to see the consequences of their hasty decision. It is also clear that while 'Ali faced some coercion to force him to make bayah, he also did not completely reject the rules of Abu Bakr and Umar, although he was much more negative about Uthman. 'Ali should have been made Caliph, but as he wasn't recognized as such he carried out his duties in the way that would be of the most benefit to the muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His decision had nothing to do with the majority or minority, and the fact that you think that Imam Ali (as) who was undoubtedly foremost in Islam and protecting Islam would base his decision on the opinions of others and go against the truth is sad.

At an attempt to contain populist mistrust towards Khomeini and his illegitimate concept of 'vilayatul faqih' following the revolution of 1979, Ayatullah Najafabadi cites sermon 6 to state the fact that neither Imam 'Ali or Khomeini went in search of the wilayah. Rather it was an authority devolved upon them by the "attention of the forces of the people and the opinion and taking of the oath of allegience by the majority".

Source: Najafabadi - Vilayat -i-faqih, p32.

This does not prove that the decision Imam Ali (as) made to become the caliph after the death of uthman was based on the majority opinion. Yes, it happened so that at the time the majority of the people wanted him to become the caliph. Yet he still exercised restraint and said no. Had his decision been based solely on the majority opinion, he would have said "yes" and became the caliph right there and then. It wasn't until later that he said yes, and he did so under the condition that he would establish the way of Rasulullah (pbuh) and anything that the previous caliphs did that was not in line with the way of Rasulullah (pbuh) he would disregard.

The opinion of one Ayatollah does not reflect the the opinion of the entire Shia population. The fact that Ayatollah Najafabadi would be bold enough to use the words of Imam Ali (as) to liken the two situations (Imam Ali (as) after the 3rd caliph, and Khomeini after the revolution) is disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is evident that the Imam was not speaking literally. He certainly had more than 17 followers, but he was looking for perfect shi'a, insan kamil in sufi terminology, and those are rare indeed. The biggest thing I understand from this saying is that we need to be much more focused on building people than on building governments. Other than Ali and Hassan, none of the Imam's ruled in this temporal world, and they both temporarily relinquished their claim to worldly power, yet all of them were still Imam's. Worldly rule was the least part of Imamate and lack of it never detracted from their station or their benefit for their followers. It is clear that 'Ali and Hassan understood that unity and the guidance and spiritual light they could provide to people was more important than worldly power. They had a longer vision than most Shi'a today and had a clearer view of the priorities.

On the other issue. The Caliphs did receive bayah, but it was taken in far from ideal circumstances which even 'Umar considered a hasty decision. He believed God put good in it, but he never lived to see the consequences of their hasty decision. It is also clear that while 'Ali faced some coercion to force him to make bayah, he also did not completely reject the rules of Abu Bakr and Umar, although he was much more negative about Uthman. 'Ali should have been made Caliph, but as he wasn't recognized as such he carried out his duties in the way that would be of the most benefit to the muslims.

Jazkallah! Its rare to find shias as intelligent as you.

Edited by Abdaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ame='Vilayatul Faqih' date='12 February 2010 - 06:06 PM' timestamp='1266015964' post='2018025']

This does not prove that the decision Imam Ali (as) made to become the caliph after the death of uthman was based on the majority opinion. Yes, it happened so that at the time the majority of the people wanted him to become the caliph. Yet he still exercised restraint and said no. Had his decision been based solely on the majority opinion, he would have said "yes" and became the caliph right there and then. It wasn't until later that he said yes, and he did so under the condition that he would establish the way of Rasulullah (pbuh) and anything that the previous caliphs did that was not in line with the way of Rasulullah (pbuh) he would disregard.

The opinion of one Ayatollah does not reflect the the opinion of the entire Shia population. The fact that Ayatollah Najafabadi would be bold enough to use the words of Imam Ali (as) to liken the two situations (Imam Ali (as) after the 3rd caliph, and Khomeini after the revolution) is disturbing.

And what did the Ali (ra) disregard from the previous Caliphate that contradicted the way of Muhammed (saws)??

Maybe it was

- Abandoning the Taraweeh Prayer

- The abandonment of Jihaad from the front lines

- Rejecting the Uthmani mushaf

- Restitute fadk back to the children of Fatima (ra)

- Profess: self flagellation,muta,combining prayers and sujood on the mud from Kerbala back into mainstream islamic beliefs

Rather what ensued was a political struggle with the muslims who disagreed with him over the death of Uthman... Thus you rightly said "Yes it happened so".....

Shouldn't we accept the perfect Decree of Allah as He said "And the Command of Allah is a decree determined". [33:38]

He also said:

"That was a nation who passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do" [2:134]

Why can't the Shia brothers just accept that Ali(ra) accepted what was going on around Him and lived and died an honourable Muslim - You guys really need to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what did the Ali (ra) disregard from the previous Caliphate that contradicted the way of Muhammed (saws)??

Maybe it was

- Abandoning the Taraweeh Prayer

- The abandonment of Jihaad from the front lines

- Rejecting the Uthmani mushaf

- Restitute fadk back to the children of Fatima (ra)

- Profess: self flagellation,muta,combining prayers and sujood on the mud from Kerbala back into mainstream islamic beliefs

Rather what ensued was a political struggle with the muslims who disagreed with him over the death of Uthman... Thus you rightly said "Yes it happened so".....

Shouldn't we accept the perfect Decree of Allah as He said "And the Command of Allah is a decree determined". [33:38]

He also said:

"That was a nation who passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do" [2:134]

Why can't the Shia brothers just accept that Ali(ra) accepted what was going on around Him and lived and died an honourable Muslim - You guys really need to move on.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abu Bakr and the Company did the following:

1. Stole the rights of Imam Ali (as).

2. Burned the hadiths so that Imam Ali (as) rights cannot be proven.

3. Made Bibi Fatima (as) and Imam Ali (as) penniless overnight.

4. Quoted rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) about Sadaqa, thus ensuring that the Sunnah of rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) to be transmitted by one person only. Where Islam requires at least two witnesses.

5. Ensured the cooking of Sunnah of rasool Allah Mohammad (pbuh) by the likes of Father of Cats, Aisha, ibn Omar and so forth.

It was coup d'état by Abu Bakr and Company, the masters of deceits!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(salam),

If you copied it from al-islam.org, you must also have read the translator's notes about the letter (which you deliberately did not mention). Here's what you did not mention:

The following is a letter to Mu'awiya and in it Imam Ali (a) has used the same principle that he applied on Talha and Zubayr. Imam Ali (a) in this letter has raised all the points which were once quoted against him. He says if an election on the basis of general franchise is the criterion to decide such a caliphate, then general election took place to elect him the Caliph and nobody can deny this fact, and if limited franchise (Shura) was the criterion then those who represented this group (Muhajirs and Ansars) were amongst those who elected him and therefore even according to the rules formulated by opponents of Imam Ali (a) his election was lawful, regular and bonafide. Thus no Muslim has a right to speak or act against him.

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/letters/letter6.htm

wa (salam)

I don't understand. :blink:

The above explanation makes perfect sense to me. Why would anybody choose not to; read it, understand it, and finish any and all discussion over the topic?

wa (salam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I don't understand. :blink:

The above explanation makes perfect sense to me. Why would anybody choose not to; read it, understand it, and finish any and all discussion over the topic?

wa (salam)

^^ bcoz may be ur answer was not to the point.. :)

& below quote of al-islam.org:

The following is a letter to Mu'awiya and in it Imam Ali (a) has used the same principle that he applied on Talha and Zubayr. Imam Ali (a) in this letter has raised all the points which were once quoted against him. He says if an election on the basis of general franchise is the criterion to decide such a caliphate, then general election took place to elect him the Caliph and nobody can deny this fact, and if limited franchise (Shura) was the criterion then those who represented this group (Muhajirs and Ansars) were amongst those who elected him and therefore even according to the rules formulated by opponents of Imam Ali (a) his election was lawful, regular and bonafide. Thus no Muslim has a right to speak or act against him.

the above quote is not the part of letter.. so it can't be accepted,.. Bcoz ALI (ra) said "And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah."

& unfortunately ali (ra) never said that "And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of mine among muhajirin & ansar. So if they decide upon and declare me their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah." !!

I think there is confusion!!

Edited by oops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. 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
Reply to this topic...

×   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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...