Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Why Aren't The Ansar Worse Than Abubakr And Umar?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

It is a known fact that AbuBakr and Umar did not plan the Saqifa gathering. Rather they went to the place when the Ansar had already gathered there for the discussion of succession.

So, my question is Why aren't the Ansar considered worse than AbuBakr and Umar ?

Afterall, they were the ones who gathered first, they raised the question first, they planned to install their own khalifa first. If they hadn't gathered there, hypothesis is AbuBakr and Umar wouldn't have gone there and the caliphate might not be decided then and who knows maybe Ali would have become the leader. So why do shia don't consider them as guilty , if not more, than Abu Bakr? Where is the condemnation of Saad ibn Ubadah? Any sayings of the aimmah specifically on the Ansar?

Or is that the shia narratives are a reconstruction after the unfortunate times of fitan that solely focuses on the political authorities of the previous times.

Edited by Zigzag
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I doubt this. Even Sunni sources record Imam Zayn ul-Abideen (as) being asked of his opinion on Abu Bakr and Umar, so clearly it must have been at least somewhat of an issue at the time. Yet this woul

Cave? :huh: Honestly where on earth do you people get this cave reference? I have not seen a single narration regarding the Imām inside a cave. You seem to use this concept so bring your proof if you

Reports of Imam Ali using Hadith Khum to call people to himself are lacking from sunni sources in the period of the 2 khalifa but they appear during the period of Uthman . The major sunni books that m

Posted Images

  • Veteran Member

Very good question !

and btw the son of Sa'd b ubaidah ...Qays was the right hand man of Ali and a loyal supporter of his till the end

but Ansar were justified in their fear of Quraish , look at what happened to them at Harrah and earlier as well in times of uthman

I say Caliph should have been Ansar, these quraishes were power hungry imperialists with few exceptions

p.s you are interested in the Imami shia spin on this read jawad Chirri's book I believed called brother of the Prophet where he essentially says the Ansar were "pre-empting a pre-emptive strike by muhajireen led by abubakr/umar"

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

Or is that the shia narratives are a reconstruction after the unfortunate times of fitan that solely focuses on the political authorities of the previous times.

you should read ( unless you already have) ..Imami shia views of Sahaba an article by Etan Kohlberg

it basically says that earliest shias had little or no problem with abubakr/umar but mainly hated ( and actually may have killed) uthman.

The Imami vilification of abubakr/umar is a much a later invention born out of doctrinal neccesaity when divine designation became the article of faith in later generations of shias.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

who says they're not as bad, it has nothing to a person being of the ansar or the muhajirin, whoever opposed the leadership of Imam Ali (as) is as guilty as abu bak and umar

The speech of Sayddah Fatimah in the mosque when she demanded her right from all the men gathered in the mosque, she was not soft on Ansar

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Interesting take zigzag and panzerwaffe.

It's like one has to get a degree in history to understand Islam :wacko:

Afterall, they were the ones who gathered first, they raised the question first, they planned to install their own khalifa first.

So why did they give in to Abu Bakr? How did they benefit?

^ Yes you are right and governers of several places under Ali , infact only six ansar abstained from bayat from Ali when he became caliph

If Ansars had close ties with Imam Ali, why didn't the Ansars push to elect Imam Ali (his name wasn't even mentioned in the meeting?) or atleast invite Imam Ali?

I have a feeling Imam Ali's young age played a factor here, that's my take.

-----

And, Shias shout Ghadir Khum, why didn't the people refer to it? Did the have amnesia all of a sudden?

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to post
Share on other sites

you should read ( unless you already have) ..Imami shia views of Sahaba an article by Etan Kohlberg

it basically says that earliest shias had little or no problem with abubakr/umar but mainly hated ( and actually may have killed) uthman.

The Imami vilification of abubakr/umar is a much a later invention born out of doctrinal neccesaity when divine designation became the article of faith in later generations of shias.

I remember that, but it raises interesting questions, such as the view on Fadak by the pro-Ali companions. If it is as shia history portrays then those companions would have held some animosity against the Shaykhain at the very least. Also, I don't think Uthman was hated or opposed initially, but the key point here is that the rebel's opposition wasn't related to the status of Ali but the Caliph's policies and such.

Provide evidence from Shia books, then we can start discussion, we don't need fairy tales from bukhari...

Then you should ignore evey single sunni hadith there is. It really does make me question the intellectual maturity of people who pick and chose things from the books of others as long as it suits their beliefs. Cherry picking at its best.

Interesting take zigzag and panzerwaffe.

It's like one has to get a degree in history to understand Islam :wacko:

So why did they give in to Abu Bakr? How did they benefit?

If Ansars had close ties with Imam Ali, why didn't the Ansars push to elect Imam Ali (his name wasn't even mentioned in the meeting?) or atleast invite Imam Ali?

I have a feeling Imam Ali's young age played a factor here, that's my take.

-----

And, Shias shout Ghadir Khum, why didn't the people refer to it? Did the have amnesia all of a sudden?

It comes down, apparently, to the power hungry and greedy sahaba who made the choice of having this world over the next. Additionally, there was a shed load of Ansar, against Abu Bakr, Umar and Ubaidah. If the Ansar really wanted Caliphate they could have taken it, so clearly they must have seen some merit in Abu Bakr being Caliph.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

All great questions, I doubt ansar had a global view of caliphate at that time their interest was mainly to prevent their city from falling under the influence of Quraish.Later on many of them realized that its better to have a priviliged status as early companions under an umbrella of quraishi hegemony is their best bet ( like banu hashim did under Ali), when uthman challenged even that they naturally rose up and backed ALi.That is my 2 cents.

I remember that, but it raises interesting questions, such as the view on Fadak by the pro-Ali companions. If it is as shia history portrays then those companions would have held some animosity against the Shaykhain at the very least

I doubt the issue of fadak was as significant at that time, and it was strictly a banu hashim dispute.Do we have statements from Ansar and Ali's usual supporters in defence of Fatima and fadak.I remember reading in a translation of Tareekh Yaqubi something like that exists

If Ansars had close ties with Imam Ali, why didn't the Ansars push to elect Imam Ali (his name wasn't even mentioned in the meeting?) or atleast invite Imam Ali?

I have a feeling Imam Ali's young age played a factor here, that's my take.

yes quite possibly his young age and that Ansar wanted to nominate their chief to take over medina as soon as possible, if you remember the animosity between ansar and qurisah was long brewing and they had grave concerns that the newly convert Quraishis may try to settle old scores

Ali for a long time had ties with certain groups of ansar they may have raised his name

one source that reports that is Tabari and Zubair b Bakkar's Al-Muwaffiqayat

not sure if any Imami sources describe it

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

you should read ( unless you already have) ..Imami shia views of Sahaba an article by Etan Kohlberg

it basically says that earliest shias had little or no problem with abubakr/umar but mainly hated ( and actually may have killed) uthman.

The Imami vilification of abubakr/umar is a much a later invention born out of doctrinal neccesaity when divine designation became the article of faith in later generations of shias.

I doubt this. Even Sunni sources record Imam Zayn ul-Abideen (as) being asked of his opinion on Abu Bakr and Umar, so clearly it must have been at least somewhat of an issue at the time. Yet this would before Western scholarship generally assumes the issue of divine designation became an article of faith in Shi'ism.

Something to keep in mind about non-Muslim Islamic scholarship, which I do respect and am not dismissive of, is that they start with certain presuppositions that can lead to some dubious conclusions. As an example, they don't believe in miracles, prophesies, and believe that 'sophisticated' religious doctrines are always later developments. Therefore, since Muslims do not share these presuppositions, it's worth being careful about automatically accepting certain conclusions.

As for the Ansar, who is to say they were meeting in order to select a khalifa (why would they assume they had the power to do that anyway)? I don't see much real evidence for that. More likely, they were just discussing what they should do as a group now that the Prophet (pbuh) had died.

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

doubt this. Even Sunni sources record Imam Zayn ul-Abideen (as) being asked of his opinion on Abu Bakr and Umar, so clearly it must have been at least somewhat of an issue at the time

Well even ALi was asked opinion of shykhan by his companions so it must have always been an issue, but there is no widespread condemantion of the 2 shaykhs like there is of uthman in Ali's camp

but even worse case scenario Ali absolutely HATED abubakr/umar that still does not prove divine imamate and designation

And, Shias shout Ghadir Khum, why didn't the people refer to it? Did the have amnesia all of a sudden?

this is worth discussing

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt this. Even Sunni sources record Imam Zayn ul-Abideen (as) being asked of his opinion on Abu Bakr and Umar, so clearly it must have been at least somewhat of an issue at the time. Yet this would before Western scholarship generally assumes the issue of divine designation became an article of faith in Shi'ism.

The hadith that states the Imam then told them to go away?

And 'at the time' is a bit misleading. Uthman was murdered 656, and Karbala happened in 680. Factoring in all the problems that arose after Uthman's death, Jamal and Siffeen and Muawiyah's treatment of dissidents (who mostly supporter Imam Ali) then it's not hard to see how hatred of the Shaykhain could have developed in 24 years. Also worth remembering is that the Imam was asked after Karbala so it could have been 25, 30 or 35 years after Uthman's death which would be plenty of time for this to become a part of shiaism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Well even ALi was asked opinion of shykhan by his companions so it must have always been an issue, but there is no widespread condemantion of the 2 shaykhs like there is of uthman in Ali's camp

Imam Ali (as) had enough issues to deal with as it was, so imagine what would have happened if he had started condemning the Shaykhayn left and right? It would have been political suicide.

but even worse case scenario Ali absolutely HATED abubakr/umar that still does not prove divine imamate and designation

I don't think anyone has attempted to make such an argument. At best, all it can do is serve as supporting evidence.

this is worth discussing

Who knows what was referred to in that meeting? It's not like there were detailed minutes recorded. As far as I know, the most detailed account comes from Umar, who is hardly an impartial witness.

What we can be certain of is that the event of Ghadir happened, it was referred to by Imam Ali, and there were attempts to downplay its importance by Anti-Alid scholars (who clearly didn't see it as unimportant).

The hadith that states the Imam then told them to go away?

No, the one where he responds by saying something like that they were to the Prophet (pbuh) in life as they are to him in death (referring to the fact that they were buried next to him). Which if you ask me, is a bit of an ambiguous statement, which could be understood in many ways.

And 'at the time' is a bit misleading. Uthman was murdered 656, and Karbala happened in 680. Factoring in all the problems that arose after Uthman's death, Jamal and Siffeen and Muawiyah's treatment of dissidents (who mostly supporter Imam Ali) then it's not hard to see how hatred of the Shaykhain could have developed in 24 years. Also worth remembering is that the Imam was asked after Karbala so it could have been 25, 30 or 35 years after Uthman's death which would be plenty of time for this to become a part of shiaism.

I meant at the time Zayn ul-Abideen was asked the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the one where he responds by saying something like that they were to the Prophet (pbuh) in life as they are to him in death (referring to the fact that they were buried next to him). Which if you ask me, is a bit of an ambiguous statement, which could be understood in many ways.

I meant at the time Zayn ul-Abideen was asked the question.

Is it really ambigious? I'm sure most would say that they were close to him (pbuh) in life as they are close to him (pbuh) in death.

And yes, I know. But I was explaining that views on Abu Bakr and Umar needn't have been there from the begining and could have developed, as Panzerwaffe said, at a later stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Then you should ignore evey single sunni hadith there is. It really does make me question the intellectual maturity of people who pick and chose things from the books of others as long as it suits their beliefs. Cherry picking at its best.

Cherry picking? We use Sunni Hadith against you (Sunnis) because you do not believe in our Hadith. If you want to prove something to use (Shiites) then use our Hadith. Is it so hard to understand?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It is a known fact that AbuBakr and Umar did not plan the Saqifa gathering. Rather they went to the place when the Ansar had already gathered there for the discussion of succession.

So, my question is Why aren't the Ansar considered worse than AbuBakr and Umar ?

Afterall, they were the ones who gathered first, they raised the question first, they planned to install their own khalifa first. If they hadn't gathered there, hypothesis is AbuBakr and Umar wouldn't have gone there and the caliphate might not be decided then and who knows maybe Ali would have become the leader. So why do shia don't consider them as guilty , if not more, than Abu Bakr? Where is the condemnation of Saad ibn Ubadah? Any sayings of the aimmah specifically on the Ansar?

Or is that the shia narratives are a reconstruction after the unfortunate times of fitan that solely focuses on the political authorities of the previous times.

I would like to know the intention of Umar when he denied the Prophet (pbuh) to make his (pbuh) will? and why Prophet (pbuh) chased him out of his company for the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^ Off-topic. Create a new thread please.

Jaysro

Cause AbuBakr and Umar (being "the loyal friends" of the prophet) should have been the ones discouraging the idea, showing that islam has changed the status quo of the jahiliyah, instead they joined in...

So they are worse becaue they accepted the 'idea' formulated and advocated by some other people? If thinking of a appointing a leader through shura is sin then the Ansar were the first in this sin.

UglyJinn

It's like one has to get a degree in history to understand Islam

Well not really bro. A degree in the seerah of the Prophet maybe but after him revelation of religion and divine presence ended in this world. The essence and the core of deen , the very concept , the spirit of divine message is preserved in the Quran.

If Ansars had close ties with Imam Ali, why didn't the Ansars push to elect Imam Ali (his name wasn't even mentioned in the meeting?) or atleast invite Imam Ali?

Good question. Yes they didn't invite him. There is indeed some report I vaguely recall that some people from Ansar said on the lines of "there is a person more worthy of being the leader if he so wishes " So based on that narration Ansar mentioned Ali and then added "if he so wishes"!

HaydarHussain

As for the Ansar, who is to say they were meeting in order to select a khalifa (why would they assume they had the power to do that anyway)? I don't see much real evidence for that. More likely, they were just discussing what they should do as a group now that the Prophet (pbuh) had died.

So you are rejecting commonly held view by both sunnis and shias that saqifa was about succession? What would they discuss as a 'group' after the Prophet's death?

panzerwaffe

but Ansar were justified in their fear of Quraish , look at what happened to them at Harrah and earlier as well in times of uthman

But in Harrah weren't the people of Makkah i.e. non-Ansaris also slaughtered? It wasn't Quraishi vs non-quraishi but more whoever is opposing the dictator.

p.s you are interested in the Imami shia spin on this read jawad Chirri's book I believed called brother of the Prophet where he essentially says the Ansar were "pre-empting a pre-emptive strike by muhajireen led by abubakr/umar"

Lolz.. Spin doctors!

if you remember the animosity between ansar and qurisah was long brewing and they had grave concerns that the newly convert Quraishis may try to settle old scores

Animosity? You mean after the Ansar had become muslims? As I thought that Aws and Khazaraj were at loggerheads with each other and used to continously fight. Some of them even sought alliance with Quraish, some with the surrounding areas and some with the Jews of Madinah.

Ibnsohan

The speech of Sayddah Fatimah in the mosque when she demanded her right from all the men gathered in the mosque, she was not soft on Ansar

I read it from here

http://www.al-islam....gracious/50.htm

(Fatima then turned towards the Ansars and said:) O you people of intellect! The strong supporters of the nation! And those who embraced Islam; What is this short-coming in defending my right? And what is this slumber (while you see) injustice (being done toward me)? Did not the Messenger of Allah, my father, used to say: A man is upheld (remembered) by his children'? O how quick have you violated (his orders)?! How soon have you plotted against us? But you still are capable (of helping me in) my attempt, and powerful (to help me) in that which I request and (in) my pursuit (of it). Or do you say: "Muhammad has perished;"

Ok, this is a valid example. It is mentioning Ansar by name. But in this supposed speech Fatima is not talking about saqifa or Ali's leadership to the Ansar but more on not getting support for returning of Fadak. Anyways, I can list this. Any other from Jafar Sadiq or later Imams specfically for Ansar? Or any sermons of Ali in NahjulBalagha on the treachery of Ansar? I see quite a bit of 'quotes' from Imams on Abubakr/Umar, duas like the two "idols" of Quraish and ofcourse tabrra / la'anah on them but Ansar or Saad bin Ubadah are mysteriously vanished from the scene. This makes the whole concept a bit dubious as the "real" guilty party are not pointed at in a more vocal manner.

ALso, the reason I am emphasizing is becaues I find this 'connecting-the-dots' theme amongst Shia folklore of one thing leading to another and somehow connected together. One example is a poster I saw of Hussein crying that 'I was killed at Saqifa'. Only that the dots connecting line stops just before the origin.

Why? As discussed before, Ansar formed a formidable part of Ali's army in his battles and his goverment. They never gained political power, thus did not get into conflicts with banu hashim or Ali's progeny therefore avoiding condemnation from shia literature though in principle they should have been villified the most.

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

But in Harrah weren't the people of Makkah i.e. non-Ansaris also slaughtered? It wasn't Quraishi vs non-quraishi but more whoever is opposing the dictator.

Yes true but it was the quraishi allies of the medinians i.e basically anyone who opposeed uthman

the battle cry at karbala and harrah was revenge for uthman

Animosity? You mean after the Ansar had become muslims? As I thought that Aws and Khazaraj were at loggerheads with each other and used to continously fight. Some of them even sought alliance with Quraish, some with the surrounding areas and some with the Jews of Madinah

Yes that reared its ugly head at saqifa too but there was a bigger threat to both ansari tribes the rising power of Meccan aristocrats now under the banner of islam remember the resentment of ansar at the rehablitation of Tulaqa after Fateh Makkah.What are you implying bro that the squabbling ansar were not fit to rule ? what about the quraishes apart from a few like abubakr umar only a few others like abu ubadah b jarrah had the impeccable credentials to be a caliph rest of Quraish were worst than worse in their squabbling

Why? As discussed before, Ansar formed a formidable part of Ali's army in his battles and his goverment. They never gained political power, thus did not get into conflicts with banu hashim or Ali's progeny therefore avoiding condemnation from shia literature though in principle they should have been villified the most.

they are by default , the 4 BFFs of Ali are salman miqdad ammar and abu dharr !

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

^ Off-topic. Create a new thread please.

Jaysro

So they are worse becaue they accepted the 'idea' formulated and advocated by some other people? If thinking of a appointing a leader through shura is sin then the Ansar were the first in this sin.

UglyJinn

Well not really bro. A degree in the seerah of the Prophet maybe but after him revelation of religion and divine presence ended in this world. The essence and the core of deen , the very concept , the spirit of divine message is preserved in the Quran.

Good question. Yes they didn't invite him. There is indeed some report I vaguely recall that some people from Ansar said on the lines of "there is a person more worthy of being the leader if he so wishes " So based on that narration Ansar mentioned Ali and then added "if he so wishes"!

HaydarHussain

So you are rejecting commonly held view by both sunnis and shias that saqifa was about succession? What would they discuss as a 'group' after the Prophet's death?

panzerwaffe

But in Harrah weren't the people of Makkah i.e. non-Ansaris also slaughtered? It wasn't Quraishi vs non-quraishi but more whoever is opposing the dictator.

Lolz.. Spin doctors!

Animosity? You mean after the Ansar had become muslims? As I thought that Aws and Khazaraj were at loggerheads with each other and used to continously fight. Some of them even sought alliance with Quraish, some with the surrounding areas and some with the Jews of Madinah.

Ibnsohan

I read it from here

http://www.al-islam....gracious/50.htm

(Fatima then turned towards the Ansars and said:) O you people of intellect! The strong supporters of the nation! And those who embraced Islam; What is this short-coming in defending my right? And what is this slumber (while you see) injustice (being done toward me)? Did not the Messenger of Allah, my father, used to say: A man is upheld (remembered) by his children'? O how quick have you violated (his orders)?! How soon have you plotted against us? But you still are capable (of helping me in) my attempt, and powerful (to help me) in that which I request and (in) my pursuit (of it). Or do you say: "Muhammad has perished;"

Ok, this is a valid example. It is mentioning Ansar by name. But in this supposed speech Fatima is not talking about saqifa or Ali's leadership to the Ansar but more on not getting support for returning of Fadak. Anyways, I can list this. Any other from Jafar Sadiq or later Imams specfically for Ansar? Or any sermons of Ali in NahjulBalagha on the treachery of Ansar? I see quite a bit of 'quotes' from Imams on Abubakr/Umar, duas like the two "idols" of Quraish and ofcourse tabrra / la'anah on them but Ansar or Saad bin Ubadah are mysteriously vanished from the scene. This makes the whole concept a bit dubious as the "real" guilty party are not pointed at in a more vocal manner.

ALso, the reason I am emphasizing is becaues I find this 'connecting-the-dots' theme amongst Shia folklore of one thing leading to another and somehow connected together. One example is a poster I saw of Hussein crying that 'I was killed at Saqifa'. Only that the dots connecting line stops just before the origin.

Why? As discussed before, Ansar formed a formidable part of Ali's army in his battles and his goverment. They never gained political power, thus did not get into conflicts with banu hashim or Ali's progeny therefore avoiding condemnation from shia literature though in principle they should have been villified the most.

you make me wonder though , isn't shameful of you sunni to try to degrade a group of Sahaba for another group of Sahaba? there is a famous hadith where prophet prayed for the ansar and their children and grandchildren..... or do you think Quraishis are superior to Aws and Khazraj?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Imam Ali (as) had enough issues to deal with as it was, so imagine what would have happened if he had started condemning the Shaykhayn left and right? It would have been political suicide.

thats a postulation, and if we follow your line of thinking by that we can infer that Ali did not even trust his closest companions and his true beliefs he took to his grave.If that is the case how can Ali then blame people for deserting him when he himself sends mixed messages to his followers?

Remeber that even Ashtar's big feud with ummayyads was land rights in mesopotamia not finer theological issues about Imamate.

And when Ali marches to Siffin with 80,000 iraqis and medinians who have their political and economic interests tied with banu hashim they would have cared less if Ali did actually condemn the 2 shaykhs, as we know the 2 shaykhs at that time had no religious significance unlike the later sunni glorification of them as part of the Rashidun caliphs.So I dont buy the political suicide argument.

One can argue that Ali did resent the 2 shaykhs for taking the caliphate from him ( as he saw it) but he did not openly criticized them as they had no scandals of corruption and lived austere lives.But if ALi had preached a divine designation form of Imamte than the criticism and vilification of the 2 shaykhs would have been common amongst his close folllowers at the height of their power i.e after jamal and siffin.

Edited by Panzerwaffe
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
you make me wonder though , isn't shameful of you sunni to try to degrade a group of Sahaba for another group of Sahaba? there is a famous hadith where prophet prayed for the ansar and their children and grandchildren..... or do you think Quraishis are superior to Aws and Khazraj?

there is definate sunni bias for early muhajireen from Quraish , that concept of superority of Quraish is also clear in many of their hadith.And the 10 promised paradise are all Quraishi and not one Ansar ! and Ali is in that group as well !


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
thats a postulation, and if we follow your line of thinking by that we can infer that Ali did not even trust his closest companions and his true beliefs he took to his grave.If that is the case how can Ali then blame people for deserting him when he himself sends mixed messages to his followers?

Remeber that even Ashtar's big feud with ummayyads was land rights in mesopotamia not finer theological issues about Imamate

I was under the impression that there are loads of condemnation made by Ameer ul Mumuneen (as) against the three Caliphs in other Shi'i sources other than Najhul Balaghah such as from Kutub Arbah.

Also in Kitab Sulaym bin Qais, you can see it.

No doubt, Ali (as) was not in perfect harmony with the policies of the Sheikhyn, they disagreed on many issues and it is well documented. However the issue on Sheikhn was not the immediate concern as Muawiya was stirring up fitna to say the least that Ali (as) has grudges for the sheikhyn but Ali (as) dismissed it, i was even surprised to see in KSQ that Imam ALi (as) prayed for Hz Umar (ra).

And one must ponder that Muawiya was first promoted under Caliph Abu Bakr (ra), and finally inherited the governorship from his brother Yazid, this was Hz Umar (ra) idea. He laid the foundation for Muawiya to raise in rank. The final death blow came with Hz Uthman (ra) consolidating two provinces under the governorship of Muawiya, making him master over a strong garrison city to the north of the empire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

you make me wonder though , isn't shameful of you sunni to try to degrade a group of Sahaba for another group of Sahaba? there is a famous hadith where prophet prayed for the ansar and their children and grandchildren..... or do you think Quraishis are superior to Aws and Khazraj?

Have you read my posts or are you intentionally playing dumb?

I do not think Quraishis are superior to Ansar and not degrading the latter either. I am showing the hypocritical and inconsistent argument of shias and the loopholes in your imamate theory. The shia sect is a political group later evolved into a religious one. Thats it.

If imamate is such an important thing (comparable to Prophethood) then why is your literature soft on the people who originated the idea? Compare this to the sunni hadith of specific condemnation of the person who started shirk in Arabia Amr ibn Luhayy.

How convinient of you to remember a hadith on the merits of the Ansar! Do you believe in that? And its not just one, there are whole chapters on their merits in Sunni books by the grace of Allah.

Edited by Zigzag
Link to post
Share on other sites

thats a postulation, and if we follow your line of thinking by that we can infer that Ali did not even trust his closest companions and his true beliefs he took to his grave.If that is the case how can Ali then blame people for deserting him when he himself sends mixed messages to his followers?

Remeber that even Ashtar's big feud with ummayyads was land rights in mesopotamia not finer theological issues about Imamate.

And when Ali marches to Siffin with 80,000 iraqis and medinians who have their political and economic interests tied with banu hashim they would have cared less if Ali did actually condemn the 2 shaykhs, as we know the 2 shaykhs at that time had no religious significance unlike the later sunni glorification of them as part of the Rashidun caliphs.So I dont buy the political suicide argument.

One can argue that Ali did resent the 2 shaykhs for taking the caliphate from him ( as he saw it) but he did not openly criticized them as they had no scandals of corruption and lived austere lives.But if ALi had preached a divine designation form of Imamte than the criticism and vilification of the 2 shaykhs would have been common amongst his close folllowers at the height of their power i.e after jamal and siffin.

Although this is a seperate topic in itself, the reasons given about why Imam Ali didn't fight don't generally work, not least because if the Imamat of Ali was divinely given and is how the real Islam should have been, then Allah (swt) would have supported him against the usurpers just like He supportered the Muslims against the Mushriks at Badr (I'm not comparing the two but worth bearing that Allah supports those who are just and true in cause).

You're right about the lack of scandals of the Shaykhain though. Sure, they may have made mistakes but there doesn't appear to be a religiously motivated discontent or lack of support. Whatever support was initially withheld - according to sunni sources - was done so behind political reasons. The religious dogma around the Shaykhain and Imamat of Ali (as) developed much later on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

there is definate sunni bias for early muhajireen from Quraish , that concept of superority of Quraish is also clear in many of their hadith.And the 10 promised paradise are all Quraishi and not one Ansar ! and Ali is in that group as well !

But bro, there are chapters filled with ahadith on the merits of Ansar also in sunni books. Just because the no ansar is in the 10 promised list does not degrade their other merits which were not said for any muhajir I think.

Or are you only stating about the political leadership?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But bro, there are chapters filled with ahadith on the merits of Ansar also in sunni books. Just because the no ansar is in the 10 promised list does not degrade their other merits which were not said for any muhajir I think.

The 10 were also early converts I think, becoming Muslim before the hijra, so this narration is meant to highlight, in a way, the best of the early sahaba pre-Ansar.

Briefly, Abdullah ibn Salam was an Ansar promised paradise -

Narrated by Qais bin Ubad

While I was sitting in the Mosque of Medina, there entered a man (Abdullah bin Salam) with signs of solemnity over his face. The people said, "He is one of the people of Paradise." He prayed two light Rakat and then left. I followed him and said, "When you entered the Mosque, the people said, 'He is one of the people of Paradise.' " He said, "By
Allah
, one ought not say what he does not know; and I will tell you why. In the lifetime of the Prophet I had a dream which I narrated to him. I saw as if I were in a garden." He then described its extension and greenery. He added: In its center there was an iron pillar whose lower end was fixed in the earth and the upper end was in the sky, and at its upper end there was a (ring-shaped) hand-hold. I was told to climb it. I said, "I can't." "Then a servant came to me and lifted my clothes from behind and I climbed till I reached the top (of the pillar). Then I got hold of the hand-hold, and I was told to hold it tightly, then I woke up and (the effect of) the hand-hold was in my hand. I narrated al I that to the Prophet who said, 'The garden is Islam, and the hand-hold is the Most Truth-worthy Hand-Hold. So you will remain as a Muslim till you die." The narrator added: "The man was 'Abdullah bin Salam."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It is a known fact that AbuBakr and Umar did not plan the Saqifa gathering.

it's not a fact like 1+1 = 2. you see, i was reading kitab sulaym and it's mentioned that 5 individuals made a written oath that they will deny Imam Ali as from succeeding the Prophet saww. Guess what? One of them was an Ansar.

Rather they went to the place when the Ansar had already gathered there for the discussion of succession.

the ansars gathered there in view of the rumours (cleverly planted, IMO, if the oath taken above is true) that quraish would snatch the caliphate from Imam Ali as.

So, my question is Why aren't the Ansar considered worse than AbuBakr and Umar ?

The ansars were just duped to provide the perfect opportunity to execute the plan by the 5 individuals and their allies.

Afterall, they were the ones who gathered first, they raised the question first, they planned to install their own khalifa first. If they hadn't gathered there, hypothesis is AbuBakr and Umar wouldn't have gone there and the caliphate might not be decided then and who knows maybe Ali would have become the leader.

Ghadir Khum were not that long ago. Without the rumour that quraish would snatch the caliphate from imam Ali as, i believe no saqifa gathering would ever took place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Have you read my posts or are you intentionally playing dumb?

I do not think Quraishis are superior to Ansar and not degrading the latter either. I am showing the hypocritical and inconsistent argument of shias and the loopholes in your imamate theory. The shia sect is a political group later evolved into a religious one. Thats it.

If imamate is such an important thing (comparable to Prophethood) then why is your literature soft on the people who originated the idea? Compare this to the sunni hadith of specific condemnation of the person who started shirk in Arabia Amr ibn Luhayy.

How convinient of you to remember a hadith on the merits of the Ansar! Do you believe in that? And its not just one, there are whole chapters on their merits in Sunni books by the grace of Allah.

Who originated the idea ? what idea ? who spoke softly to who?

Why would I compare this to Shirk? oh ... wait , actually you are right, the ones who deny Imamah are actually mushriks but you will not understand that though I am surprised that your subconscious has got it already.

Speaking of being soft on mushriks, did not Abu Bakr forgive the apostates, let them marry his sister? then those apostates became khawarij?

How soft do you think was the protest of Sydah Fatimah when she refuse to have public funeral or known grave?

Speaking about the Ansar, Sa'd b. Ubadah the man whom you are accusing of being worse than Abu Bakr and Umar, whom the saqifah happened in his presence and in his home, he did not give bay'ah to either Umar nor Abu Bakr, he was found dead after he declared his hatred to Umar. Sa'd b. Ubadah was the man whom prophet peace be upon him gave the flag during the wars, he carried the flag of Ansar while Imam Ali carried the flag of Muhajerin.

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...