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

Riddah Wars During Time Of Abu Bakr

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

How do the 12er imamis view the Riddah wars during time of AbuBakr ?

What was the position of Ali per 12er imami version of events ?

and which sources/ scholars have commented on it ?

esp would like extrememly knowledgable members like bro macissac, Qa'im, Link , VIlgaire, sister zareen ( but not limited to them) etc to comment on it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

From what I know about it, and I did my research a while back. :squeez:

Like jasir said:

Imam Ali (as) supported Abu Bakr and them when it came to fighting Musaylamah (LA) and the renegades.

But the so-called "apostates" who refused to pay the zakaat is a different matter, many were people who didn't feel that they should render their money to the baitul-maal that had recently come under new management.

Some of those who refused to pay were shi'as.

There was a lecture I heard a while back which said the same thing, I think it was by Sayyid Ammar.

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
But the so-called "apostates" who refused to pay the zakaat is a different matter, many were people who didn't feel that they should render their money to the baitul-maal that had recently come under new management.

Some of those who refused to pay were shi'as

thanks brother for replying ...who were these sh'ias who refused to pay zakat did your source name any ?.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

plz dont use quotes of "sayyid" ammar who is a spin doctor, can u name specifically those partisans of ali who refused to pay zakat as they opposed abubakr's election

furthermore why didnt ali intervene to say his partisans from slaughter ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

"The Shi'a believe that Abu Bakr sent Khalid ibn Walid to crush those who were in favour of Ali's caliphate (see Ridda Wars). The Shi'a strongly refute the idea that Abu Bakr or Umar were instrumental in the collection or preservation of the Qur'an, claiming that they should have accepted the copy of the book in the possession of Ali." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Bakr

"In contrast, Shiah Islam sees the Ridda Wars as a result not of apostasy, but of the improper selection of Abu Bakr as calif. Shiites hold that before his death Muhammad had designated Ali as his successor, and that Abu Bakr’s elevation to the califate was therefore a violation of the Prophet’s will. In this view the so-called “apostates” were devout Muslims who objected to the arbitrary selection of Abu Bakr as calif. What evidence is available suggests that Ali was not a serious candidate for the succession until the 640s, by which time Ali’s supporters had begun to circulate the story of Muhammad’s selection of his son-in-law as his successor." -- Excerpt from an essay by someone (I'm not sure) from Vanderbilt University.

http://searchvu.vanderbilt.edu/search?q=+The+Califates+of+Abu+Bakr+and+Umar.+Muslim+Conquests+and+the+Establishment+of+an+Arabian+Empire&site=default_collection&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&go=GO

File Attached hereto.

Suffices these for now. I am going to try and dig up the research I've collected but I am not sure how successful I'll be,

I lost a backup containg some files dating prior to 2009 in a house break-in; on exactly the 10th Of Muharram 2010.

However, I do clearly remember there no names of shi'is killed in the Ridda wars.

Was-Salaam

Chapter Twenty. The Califates of Abu Bakr and Umar. Muslim Conquests and the Establishment of an Arabian Empire.pdf

Edited by JawzofDETH
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ thanks bro for postings

you see my point is that this concept of 12er shias is hard to believe since there are few if any supporters of ali who fought against abubakr's armies in the RIddah.

Shiites hold that before his death Muhammad had designated Ali as his successor, and that Abu Bakr’s elevation to the califate was therefore a violation of the Prophet’s will. In this view the so-called “apostates” were devout Muslims who objected to the arbitrary selection of Abu Bakr as calif.

Rather the reverse is true..i.e many prominent supporters of ali participated in the Riddah wars on the side of the Medina govt

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

plz dont use quotes of "sayyid" ammar who is a spin doctor, can u name specifically those partisans of ali who refused to pay zakat as they opposed abubakr's election

furthermore why didnt ali intervene to say his partisans from slaughter ?

I agree that Quoting Sayed Ammar is not academic at all, but why do you say he is a spin doctor? For whom is he spinning? Also you've put your apostrophes around the wrong word, because he actually is a sayed.

I believe Malik Bin Nuwayrah (ra) is the main leader of the Shia who was killed. I suppose there are many other instances in history of Shias being killed while an Imam (as) was alive. I don't know if it's accurate to say they always didn't intervene, for example it was one of the conditions of Imam Hassan's (as) treaty with Muawiyah (la), to stop killing the shia. Other occasions however would have seen no intervention by the Imam (as). It is an interesting question though, what are the different circumstances surround the responses of the Aimmah (as) to different challenges facing them and their followers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

As for Sayyid Ammar, I called him such because he is a sayyid. His lineage.

I respect the fact that he has knowledge for his age. But generally neither love him overly nor despise him in any way.

I don't see any value in disliking any of our fellows because one takes issue with a differing position or whatever.

furthermore why didnt ali intervene to say his partisans from slaughter ?

This doesn't sound like Panzerwaffe, this sounds like classic Salafy rhetoric. I am confused.

This sounds just like "Why didn't Ali raise dhulfiqar for Fatimah's killers." etc etc.

What's going on brother?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

As for Abu Bakr, Lest We Forget:

He should have done as the Prophet (pbuh) had ordered and accompanied Usamah (ra)

but like all wise kings he saw to it that the last order of the predecessor was executed in order

to create an air of contiguity and to keep peace, but the fact still remains that those that dodged

the draft of Usamah's regiment were cursed by none other than the holy Prophet (pbuh) himself.

Because the Prophet (pbuh) passed-on, did it make the command any less enforced?

It was no place of Abu Bakr to order Usamah (ra) to do anything, but the reverse of position is true.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Rather the reverse is true..i.e many prominent supporters of ali participated in the Riddah wars on the side of the Medina govt

Can you please cite who these companions were.

As is well known Imaam Ali (as) himself didn't participate in any of these wars of the Khulafah.

Most of the latter riddah wars were just imperialistic- expansionist.

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
This doesn't sound like Panzerwaffe, this sounds like classic Salafy rhetoric. I am confused.

This sounds just like "Why didn't Ali raise dhulfiqar for Fatimah's killers." etc etc.

What's going on brother?

salam alaikum, its quite a logical question bro whoever asks it salafi or shia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

As for Abu Bakr, Lest We Forget:

He should have done as the Prophet (pbuh) had ordered and accompanied Usamah (ra)

but like all wise kings he saw to it that the last order of the predecessor was executed in order

to create an air of contiguity and to keep peace, but the fact still remains that those that dodged

the draft of Usamah's regiment were cursed by none other than the holy Prophet (pbuh) himself.

Because the Prophet (pbuh) passed-on, did it make the command any less enforced?

It was no place of Abu Bakr to order Usamah (ra) to do anything, but the reverse of position is true

.

i m not a big fan of usama b zayd, look at what he did eagerly pledged allegience to abubakr to secure his position as commander

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Can you please cite who these companions were.

As is well known Imaam Ali (as) himself didn't participate in any of these wars of the Khulafah.

Most of the latter riddah wars were just imperialistic- expansionist.

Was-Salaam

well important ones are

hujr b adi of kinda

adi b hatim of tayy

alAshtar of banu nakhai

Abu Qatada ansari who later commands part of ali's army in jamal and nahrawan

ammar b yasir

this info u can find in their commonly used biographies

and above are just the riddah other wars have been covered in the seperate thread of umar's conquests and participation of ali's companions in it

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

i m not a big fan of usama b zayd, look at what he did eagerly pledged allegience to abubakr to secure his position as commander

And what does this say towards the Prophet's (pbuh) judgement in appointing him?

Appoint him a commander too no less, He (ra) was like a grandson.

It may have been just been a means to accompany his duties,

He did as he was asked and returned, then avenged his father - a true martyr.

And that was it.

well important ones are

hujr b adi of kinda

adi b hatim of tayy

alAshtar of banu nakhai

Abu Qatada ansari who later commands part of ali's army in jamal and nahrawan

ammar b yasir

this info u can find in their commonly used biographies

and above are just the riddah other wars have been covered in the seperate thread of umar's conquests and participation of ali's companions in it

Shukran.

Was-Salaam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^ You could apply the same argument to Khalid bin Walid then. What happened before and after the Prophet's (saaw) death are two very different things.

I don't quite understand, Khalid was never made commander of an army in the time of the holy Prophet (pbuh),

in-fact in the latter expeditions before the Prophet's passing, saw the holy Prophet (pbuh) rebuke Khalid and

in a supplication distance himself from him.

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ok good point, but I dont want to get bogged down by Khalid Bin Walid and what he did and did not do.

The point I was trying to make was that perhaps Usama comes under this category of Sahaba:

Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 8.578:

Narrated Anas: Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, "Some of my Sahaba, companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Ok good point, but I dont want to get bogged down by Khalid Bin Walid and what he did and did not do.

The point I was trying to make was that perhaps Usama comes under this category of Sahaba:

Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 8.578:

Narrated Anas: Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, "Some of my Sahaba, companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you."

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Its absolute rediculous 1)prophet (s) told h.ali(r.a.) to compleate compilation of quran. Thats one reason why h.ali didnt fight abu bakr. 2) can any munafik show a single hadith where prophet (s) kill any person for not giving zakat. 3)why khalid kill h.malik(r.a.) though he wants to meet abu bakr n nagociate. 4)why did abu bakr pardon khalid the kill of innocent n rapist ,khalid force married layla wife of malik same night though she didnt complete iddah. 5)how many sunni give zakat today? If a sunni didnt give he must be killed. 6) when h.ali became khalifa he teach munafik the leason maviya ,aysha, khawarij.7) what about mirza qadiyan why didnt lover of abu bakr kill instead of debate,simply abu bakr dont have knowledge to debate that kafir who claim himself as prophet .8) quran 3:61 why ahle bait debate christian of yemen not killed them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

well said bro ...i didnt like him one bit Prophet was likely mistaken in his love for him

usama b zayd was too pro-quraishi

It's not about what you like.

You are preferring your opinions above The Holy Messenger Of Allah !!!

What is the matter with you! Have you forgotten that his holiness (pbuh)

does not make a decision except by command and direction of Allah (SWT)

bro khalid was made a commander twice, u r rite he was rebuked too

even amr b a'as was made a commander by prophet in ghawa autas

Where was Khalid made commander twice?

Leading a battalion is not the same as commanding an army.

Same goes for Amr Ibn Aas,

In Autas it was Abu Amr Al-Ash'ari not Amr ibn Aas that was dispatched.

As for Amr ibn Aas -in Dhaata Salaasi'l it was strategic, nothing else.

He was related to those tribes. Islam was not a war-like religion and

our holy Prophet (pbuh) wasn't a war-monger, he always tried

a diplomatic route and Amr was a tool of that in that case.

He was sent as head of a campaign with a small contingent under his command,

Abu Ubaydah was commander of the reinforcement battalion. Again it wasn't an

army.

yah I see your points bro, but Prophet could and did make mistakes not all decisions by prophet can be divinely guided e.g he needed revelation to find out aisha didnt commit adultry, he needed a wahi to find out his wives conspired against him etc

except when he made predictions i.e prophecy

e.g case of zayd b arqam, case of khabbab etc

These statements don't sound becoming of any believer, let alone a Shi'i Muslim.

I have nothing to say to that, except that I am concerned for you.

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sunni golden rule if u cant conveince,confuse then. From above passage about crippled rusty sowrd of Allah and amr,a guy joked amr of khandak was commander in a gazwa however the second amr was different amr. i conclude later a guy will say warlord king yazid die while fighting for h.husain(r.a.) bcoz there was also another martyr yazid from h.husain side. There4 sunni only mix words .as for osama was not pro quraish but a true muslim obident of prophet.

Sunni golden rule if u cant conveince,confuse then. From above passage about crippled rusty sowrd of Allah and amr,a guy joked amr of khandak was commander in a gazwa however the second amr was different amr. i conclude later a guy will say warlord king yazid die while fighting for h.husain(r.a.) bcoz there was also another martyr yazid from h.husain side. There4 sunni only mix words .as for osama was not pro quraish but a true muslim obident of prophet. And where was khalid when amr challenge islam .

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
It's not about what you like.

You are preferring your opinions above The Holy Messenger Of Allah !!!

What is the matter with you! Have you forgotten that his holiness (pbuh)

does not make a decision except by command and direction of Allah (SWT)

bro look at the hadith again quoted above Prophet will be surprised by who will be deprived of blessing on the day of judgement so why wudnt usama fit that category ? Prophet made prophecies but he does not KNOW everything nor can all his decisions be divinely guided otherwise why wud he be confused on certain occasions until wahi came

Where was Khalid made commander twice?

Leading a battalion is not the same as commanding an army.

there was no standing army in those times i.e there was no CinC or even a definate chain of command

appointing a comapanion to lead a raid was an honor whether big or small

Same goes for Amr Ibn Aas,

In Autas it was Abu Amr Al-Ash'ari not Amr ibn Aas that was dispatched.

As for Amr ibn Aas -in Dhaata Salaasi'l it was strategic, nothing else.

Yes you are right I confused the 2 my apologies, but fact remains a former quraishi powerfule enemy of islam is made a commander thats what made a lot of ansaris uneasy

He was related to those tribes. Islam was not a war-like religion and

our holy Prophet (pbuh) wasn't a war-monger, he always tried

a diplomatic route and Amr was a tool of that in that case.

Indeed Prophet was much more diplomatic than all the caliphs thats not what is under dispute

He was sent as head of a campaign with a small contingent under his command,

Abu Ubaydah was commander of the reinforcement battalion. Again it wasn't an

army.

what constituted an army then ? arabs in those days did not have the modern classification of units

These statements don't sound becoming of any believer, let alone a Shi'i Muslim.

I have nothing to say to that, except that I am concerned for you.

Was-Salaam

I appreicate ur concern bro, I pray for both of us

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

there was no standing army in those times i.e there was no CinC or even a definate chain of command

appointing a comapanion to lead a raid was an honor whether big or small

He wasn't given definitive command of the whole group which goes to my point.

what constituted an army then ? arabs in those days did not have the modern classification of units

300 horsemen under his command at that point of Islam's strength, definitely not an army.

At Mut'a, 2 years earlier there were 3000 approx. A Chain of command was established.

At Hunayn less than a year later there were approx. 12,000 and Ali (as) was commander.

There existed; contingents with different leaders, chains of command, attack strategies for different units etc.

Even the holy Prophet (pbuh) sending everyone but Ali (as) under Usamah ibn Zayd was strategic.

I appreicate ur concern bro, I pray for both of us

Insha'Allah

Was-Salaam

Edited by JawzofDETH
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

.

300 horsemen under his command at that point of Islam's strength, definitely not an army.

At Mut'a, 2 years earlier there were 3000 approx. A Chain of command was established.

so what constitutes an army ? 500 , 1000 , 2000

furthermore there were no specific ranks amongst the sahaba

it wasnt colonel khalid and field marshal ali or anything of that sort

fact is former quraishi opponents were well rewarded by the prophet a policy continued by abubakr until umar reveresed it

There existed; contingents with different leaders, chains of command, attack strategies for different units etc.

Even the holy Prophet (pbuh) sending everyone but Ali (as) under Usamah ibn Zayd was strategic.

how was it strategic ? usama was in opposition to most hashimites a fervent supporter of abubakr after his election

furthermore usama either didnt pledge allegience to ali nor backed him in his wars infact he go into a physical brawl with one of ali's good friends

This "strategic" decision as shias claim is making a mountain out of molehill.If we take this analogy further why was zayd ahead of jafar in the Mutah expedition ? a fullblooded hashimite

nor is there ali present there ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I have read some hadiths which show that Imam Ali a.s. agreed with Abu Bakr's position on this but can't find them - what I have found though is the following -

http://www.*******.org/hadiths/preface-of-the-ibadat/kufr-of-one-who-rejects-the-daruriyat

If we take the position that some of the rebels held back zakat because they thought Imam Ali should have been ruler then it means Imam Ali stood by and allowed loyal shias to be slaughtered (although I'm aware it's not entirely simple as it was about tribes rather than individuals and therefore muslims would have been caught up in this as well, other issues too...).

There's also a hadith about Usama ibn Zayd

Muhammad b. Mas`ud said: Ahmad b. Mansur narrated to me from Ahmad b. al-Fadl from Muhammad b. Ziyad from Salma b. Mahraz from Abu Ja`far Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. He said: Shall I inform you of the people of halting (ahl al-wuquf)? We said: Yes. He said: Usama b. Zayd, he had come back so do not say (anything) but good (regarding him), and Muhammad b. Maslama, and Ibn `Umar died afflicted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

so what constitutes an army ? 500 , 1000 , 2000

furthermore there were no specific ranks amongst the sahaba

it wasnt colonel khalid and field marshal ali or anything of that sort

fact is former quraishi opponents were well rewarded by the prophet a policy continued by abubakr until umar reveresed it

how was it strategic ? usama was in opposition to most hashimites a fervent supporter of abubakr after his election

furthermore usama either didnt pledge allegience to ali nor backed him in his wars infact he go into a physical brawl with one of ali's good friends

This "strategic" decision as shias claim is making a mountain out of molehill.If we take this analogy further why was zayd ahead of jafar in the Mutah expedition ? a fullblooded hashimite

nor is there ali present there ?

I won't speak further on this matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As i read above a bro meant To say prophet doesnt know all thing is ok but to say prophet mistake and depend upon wahi .my dear reader even wahi depend upon prophet quran chapter 16,verse 89 and all mystry of earth and heaven are in quran chapter 27 verse 75 .2)only to expose munafik wahi comes later.3) and prophet is mistakeless chapter 33 verse 33. I have fail to understand if prophet is flawful person then to follow sunnah of mistake doing man.,further when it comes to bakr,usman,maviya why people justify there mistake. Why not bakr punish khalid the rapist?why he was not stoned

Prophet alwayz give chance to non hashmi. But when its about sake of islam on a cross line only hashmi come as we read battles.

Quran says in chapter 3 verse 144 about sahaba turning towards kufr

Quran says in chapter 3 verse 144 about sahaba turning towards kufr.i already wrote in mutazalites nahjul balagah about h.ali thought regarding abu bakr.imam ali was heavy hearted by death of prophet. And prophet told ali to be patience.n quite,abu bakr take imam land fidak,murder h.fatima,his khilafat but h.ali follow prophet command

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

What's the conclusion to this thread? I personally find this subject very interesting, especially since I've heard speakers mention that they were shias rebelling against Abu Bakr. Which kind of negates that apparent hadith from Imam Ali a.s. about having 40 men...

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.

×
×
  • Create New...