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  
Muhubbiun

Abu Bakr Being Called As Siddique

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

For us, the Ahl-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah,  it very is relevant, verses of Quran are very relevant for us.

Nice attempt to twist my words. I never said verses of the Quran are not relevant, and you know it.

 

When Allah praises a group of people so many times and even promises paradise for those who follow them, they become our role models. For us they remained Muslims even after the Prophet (saw). We stick with the Quran and love and follow the Companions.

They were praised for their good actions, which I haven't disagreed with. Similarly, the Quran promises paradise for those who follow them in their good actions. The Quran nowhere guarantees that they will never deviate, and in fact contains warnings for them should they deviate. For example:

And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful. [Quran 3:144, Shakir]

Behold! you are those who are called upon to spend in Allah's way, but among you are those who are niggardly, and whoever is niggardly is niggardly against his own soul; and Allah is Self-sufficient and you have need (of Him), and if you turn back He will bring in your place another people, then they will not be like you. [Quran 47:38, Shakir]

On the day when (some) faces shall turn white and (some) faces shall turn black; then as to those whose faces turn black: Did you disbelieve after your believing? Taste therefore the chastisement because you disbelieved. And as to those whose faces turn white, they shall be in Allah's mercy; in it they shall-abide. [Quran 3:106-107, Shakir]

O you who believe! What (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah's way, you should incline heavily to earth; are you contented with this world's life instead of the hereafter? But the provision of this world's life compared with the hereafter is but little. If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things. [Quran 9:38-39, Shakir]

 

What is irrelevent is claiming that world must be ruled by divinely appointed infallible children of Ali and those whom Allah praised so many times turned apostates for not believing in them. Such belief is alien to Quran.

 

Allah warned them just as many times as He praised them. In any case, it is makes no difference how many times someone is praised, unless they die in a praiseworthy state.

 

Thats why I pointed out that 'apostates' are different according to Shia and Sunni.

 

For us Prophet (saw) never appointed anyone, even though his favorite candidate was Abubakr. Even Ali never talked about his 'Ghadeer appointment'. For us there is no concept of 'divine Imams after Prophet (saw)' as according to Quran we as believers are not supposed to believe in such concept:

The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination." (2:285)

 

O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray. (4:136)

 

No mention of Imams  ^

The key part of the verse you quoted is "We hear and we obey". This is the bit that wasn't followed, and what led to them no longer being believers. The authority of the Imams stems from the authority of the Prophet (pbuh), and there was no reason for the Quran to mention them.

You claim that there is no proof for the Prophet (pbuh) appointing Imam Ali (as), but there is no reasonable standard of proof that you would accept. It is absurd to think that a believe that would destroy Sunnism could be proven beyond all doubt out of hadiths collected by Sunnis, and where the system of authentication of these hadiths privileges Sunni beliefs.

If you want to even pretend to be objective, you need to at least for the sake of discussion be willing to step onto more neutral ground. It would be like me having a discussion about the truth of Shi'ism by only referring to Shia hadiths and Shia methods of hadith authentication. It would be ridiculous.

 

My feeling is though that you are not capable of such objectivity, and will continue to offer absurdly improbabl explanations for any uncomfortable hadith or historical event, all in the name of 'reconciliation'. It's obvious that you have authentic narrations to back up your beliefs. It would be surprising if you didn't. However, the argument is whether all these beliefs can coherently and credibly be held together, and I would argue that they can't. 

 

 

same as above

 

What happened later for Shia: They apostated by not accepting the appointment of Ali

What happend later for Sunnis: They not only remained Muslims but spread the religion of Allah, published his Book and defended his religion. Just like they did during the time of the Prophet (saw).

Right, and they did such a good job spreading the religion of Allah that less than a couple of centuries later, people weren't sure how the Prophet (pbuh) prayed. Just because they spread something that was vaguely like Islam, it doesn't make them great people. I'm sure Shaytan's beliefs more or less correspond with Islam too. However, he rejected one command, refused to repent, and that was it for him. The problem with Abu Bakr and Umar was similar. They thought they knew better than the Prophet (pbuh) (not for the first time), disobeyed him, and refused to repent of it. Whether they followed the rest of the Prophet's teachings or not won't save them anymore than Shaytan would be saved by all his worship.

 

what he had specific in his mind? 

 

'we' doesn't necessary mean the people who pledged under the tree, and even it refers to people of the tree, it doesn't mean 'we turned apostates'. The Tabi'e al-Musayyab starts with saying "you enjoyed the company of the Prophet (saw)" meaning you were the companion of the Prophet (saw) and then mentions that he also "pledged under the tree" so another virtue for him.

What kind of sense does this make? A specific reference was made to him being of the group who "pledged under the tree", so why would 'we' refer to any other group? You are rejecting the most natural and logical explanation in order to avoid uncomfortable conclusions.

 

The reply of Al-Bara'a was due to modesty and he was humble in his answer and when he said "what we did after him (saw)" he was probably referring to the fitans that happened during the caliphate of Uthman and Ali and he feared from what happened. It was the first time Muslims fought each other so what else can he refer to other that? (all companions who were alive that time feared the fitna and battles between Muslims). Even other companions including Ali made similar statements as mentioned in authentic narrations.

I preempted this reply in my previous post. It is an interpretation that makes no sense. Wasn't it the 'Sabaiites' that were causing all the fitna anyway, so why would he include the Sahaba and those who made the pledge under the tree in that group?

You asked what he could be referring to other than that, well I told you. He was a companion of Imam Ali, who was quite possible referring to the fact that Imam Ali was denied his rightful position, and all kinds of bidah was spread after that. There was a period of over 30 years between the death of the Prophet (pbuh) and the khilafah of Imam Ali (as), so again, it is more natural to assume that 'what we did after him' refers to something closer to after the Prophet died than an event decades later.

 

People who pledged under the tree were already promised paradise. The Prophet (saw) said in Sahih Muslim 2496 "None of those who gave the pledge under the tree shall enter the Fire."

 

so it is not referring to what you think.

According to your 'authentic narrations', the Prophet (pbuh) seemed to be guaranteeing Paradise left, right, and center. Again, if you were to be a little more objective, you might realise that such narrations are slightly suspect for historical reasons. Firstly, the whole Sunni world-view that rests of the adalah of the Sahaba has a vested interest in making them all beyond reproach, or at least the main players. However, there is another issue here.

It is clear that the pledge under the tree took place before the hadith of the ten companions promised paradise was allegedly said, since Zayd ibn Haritha is not part of the ten and it is not reasonable to think he wouldn't have been had he been alive. However, all of the ten promised paradise made the pledge under the tree (even Uthman, since the Prophet allegedly made it on his behalf as well). So what then would be the point of guaranteeing paradise to people who had already been promised it?

Edited by Haydar Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Already answered. 

 

(salam)

 

And the answer was?

 

All I have seen so far is one verse which you have presented with a manipulated translation. You have not been able to produce the translation where it says that everyone who swore was a believer. Nor have you been to able to produce any other verses (From the tens of verses which you boasted about) to support your claim about them having faith in their hearts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

They were praised for their good actions, which I haven't disagreed with. Similarly, the Quran promises paradise for those who follow them in their good actions. The Quran nowhere guarantees that they will never deviate, and in fact contains warnings for them should they deviate. For example:

And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful. [Quran 3:144, Shakir]

Behold! you are those who are called upon to spend in Allah's way, but among you are those who are niggardly, and whoever is niggardly is niggardly against his own soul; and Allah is Self-sufficient and you have need (of Him), and if you turn back He will bring in your place another people, then they will not be like you. [Quran 47:38, Shakir]

On the day when (some) faces shall turn white and (some) faces shall turn black; then as to those whose faces turn black: Did you disbelieve after your believing? Taste therefore the chastisement because you disbelieved. And as to those whose faces turn white, they shall be in Allah's mercy; in it they shall-abide. [Quran 3:106-107, Shakir]

O you who believe! What (excuse) have you that when it is said to you: Go forth in Allah's way, you should incline heavily to earth; are you contented with this world's life instead of the hereafter? But the provision of this world's life compared with the hereafter is but little. If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things. [Quran 9:38-39, Shakir]

 

Totally agree. The Quran warns the believers all over the Quran. Allah even warns the Prophet (saw). 

 

 

Right, and they did such a good job spreading the religion of Allah that less than a couple of centuries later, people weren't sure how the Prophet  (pbuh) prayed. Just because they spread something that was vaguely like Islam, it doesn't make them great people. I'm sure Shaytan's beliefs more or less correspond with Islam too. However, he rejected one command, refused to repent, and that was it for him. The problem with Abu Bakr and Umar was similar. They thought they knew better than the Prophet  (pbuh) (not for the first time), disobeyed him, and refused to repent of it. Whether they followed the rest of the Prophet's teachings or not won't save them anymore than Shaytan would be saved by all his worship.

 

What happened couple of centuries later has nothing to do with them. You should be the last to make such statement. After death each of your Imams (who were living in Taqqiyah and confusing their followers with their different answers) tens of sects would appear, and even you had divinely appointed Imams with you for 250 years, who were teaching you the 'true' religion, yet you were more divided than the Majority of Muslims who didn't have any 'divine Imam' with them. 

 

 

 

 

According to your 'authentic narrations', the Prophet  (pbuh) seemed to be guaranteeing Paradise left, right, and center. Again, if you were to be a little more objective, you might realise that such narrations are slightly suspect for historical reasons. Firstly, the whole Sunni world-view that rests of the adalah of the Sahaba has a vested interest in making them all beyond reproach, or at least the main players. However, there is another issue here.

It is clear that the pledge under the tree took place before the hadith of the ten companions promised paradise was allegedly said, since Zayd ibn Haritha is not part of the ten and it is not reasonable to think he wouldn't have been had he been alive. However, all of the ten promised paradise made the pledge under the tree (even Uthman, since the Prophet allegedly made it on his behalf as well). So what then would be the point of guaranteeing paradise to people who had already been promised it?

 

You accept our narration about a topic but reject others that touches the same topic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)
(salam)
 

 

The Quran refers to those who pledged under the tree as 'believers who fulfilled their oaths, Allah become pleased with them, knew what was in their hearts so He sent Tranquility upon them'. If anyone claims that people who pledged under the tree turned 'apostates' later in their lives then they need to provide evidence for each individual who turned apostate. 

 

 

 
The verse is: Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, [O Muhammad], under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity upon them and rewarded them with an imminent conquest.
(48:18)
 
 
1. Was it because of this tranquillity that right after making the pledge and the Treaty of Hudaybiya, Umar became anything but tranquil, and confronted the Holy Prophet (s) to demand reasons for signing the treaty, also expressing doubts about whether the Prophet (pbuh) was indeed the Prophet (s) of God? [ref. Bukhari & Muslim]
 
2. Or was it because of this tranquillity that later when the Holy Prophet (pbuh) commanded (three times) his companions (including those that pledged under the tree) to shave their heads and none listened nor responded to him?
 
3. Or perhaps it was due to this trnaquillity that companions such as Umar were seen fleeing from future battles, for example Hunain, saying that this was the will of Allah while the Holy Prophet (pbuh) kept on calling upon them?
 
 
 
But maybe you direct us to the hadith in which the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is said to have guaranteed paradise to certain companions.
 
 
 
Could it be that Umar and Abu Bakr, having heared the aforesaid hadith, became lax in their religion to the extent that they started denying the commands of the Holy Prophet (pbuh)? 
 
Examples:
1. We know that Umar refused to give the pen and paper to the Holy Prophet (pbuh). 
2. We know that Abu Bakr and Umar did not participate in the expedition of Usama ibn Zayd, while the Holy Prophet (pbuh) had commanded all to participate?
3. We also know that Umar was about to wrong a mentally ill woman by stoning her to death for her adultery, or when he had advised a man not to say his prayer given that he was in the state of janaba and he had no access to water.
 
 
And there are more examples from the Shi'a perspective, but you would simply ignore them.
 
 
--------------
 
 
And they say, "None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian." That is [merely] their wishful thinking, Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful." (2:111)
 
Stop following the precedent of your predecessors, i.e. the misguided ones of the Jews and Christians. Just as they say that only Jews and Christians shall enter Paradise, so do you say that such and such a companion shall surely enter paradise, while you have no Qur'anic verse to support this. Instead, there are many times in which companions have been criticised by God, not to mention that looking into history too shows majority of their actions were actually in contravention of the Qur'an.
You should also stop making baseless claims that your point of view regarding the companions is in accordance to the Qur'an, or that it is even logical.
 
 
God's peace and blessings be upon His Prophet (pbuh), and his purified progeny (as)
(wasalam)
Edited by Mikael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened couple of centuries later has nothing to do with them. You should be the last to make such statement. After death each of your Imams (who were living in Taqqiyah and confusing their followers with their different answers) tens of sects would appear, and even you had divinely appointed Imams with you for 250 years, who were teaching you the 'true' religion, yet you were more divided than the Majority of Muslims who didn't have any 'divine Imam' with them.

The fact that by the time of Imam Malik, and even earlier, people all over the Muslim world were confused on how to pray has nothing to do with those who spread Islam? Who does it have to do with? The so-called three best generations couldn't even preserve the most fundamental of sunnahs, and this has nothing to do with them? I hope you aren't going to tell me it's all the fault of the 'Sabaiites' again.

 

 

You accept our narration about a topic but reject others that touches the same topic?

Quite clearly, I don't accept either. I'm just noting that there would be a problem in accepting both, and if one is suspicious, then it would cast some suspicion on all such ahadith. However, there are other reasons for thinking the hadith of ashara mubashara is suspect anyway.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what the point of you being here is. If it's simply to prove that it's possible to find authentic Sunni ahadith to back up Sunni beliefs, then I'm sure everyone here will concede that right now. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything by pointing out something so obvious, unless your target audience are the very ignorant Sunnis who you fear being 'misled' into Shi'ism. However, if you actually want to convince Shias, or more educated Sunnis who may be having doubts, then I suggest you step out of your comfort zone a little bit, and take a more holistic approach to history, where difficulties aren't simply resolved by saying that authentic ahadith have to be reconciled at any cost, so any explanation will do, no matter how far-fetched is sounds. The strange thing is, I'm sure you notice how dumb it sounds when Shias engage in the same practice, but for some reason you can't see it when Sunnis do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(bismillah)
(salam)
 

 

 

 
The verse is: Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, [O Muhammad], under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity upon them and rewarded them with an imminent conquest.
(48:18)
 
 
1. Was it because of this tranquillity that right after making the pledge and the Treaty of Hudaybiya, Umar became anything but tranquil, and confronted the Holy Prophet (s) to demand reasons for signing the treaty, also expressing doubts about whether the Prophet (pbuh) was indeed the Prophet (s) of God? [ref. Bukhari & Muslim]
 
2. Or was it because of this tranquillity that later when the Holy Prophet (pbuh) commanded (three times) his companions (including those that pledged under the tree) to shave their heads and none listened nor responded to him?
 
3. Or perhaps it was due to this trnaquillity that companions such as Umar were seen fleeing from future battles, for example Hunain, saying that this was the will of Allah while the Holy Prophet (pbuh) kept on calling upon them?
 
 
 
But maybe you direct us to the hadith in which the Holy Prophet (pbuh) is said to have guaranteed paradise to certain companions.
 
 
 
Could it be that Umar and Abu Bakr, having heared the aforesaid hadith, became lax in their religion to the extent that they started denying the commands of the Holy Prophet (pbuh)? 

 

Examples:
1. We know that Umar refused to give the pen and paper to the Holy Prophet (pbuh). 
2. We know that Abu Bakr and Umar did not participate in the expedition of Usama ibn Zayd, while the Holy Prophet (pbuh) had commanded all to participate?
3. We also know that Umar was about to wrong a mentally ill woman by stoning her to death for her adultery, or when he had advised a man not to say his prayer given that he was in the state of janaba and he had no access to water.
 
 
And there are more examples from the Shi'a perspective, but you would simply ignore them.
 
 
--------------
 
 
And they say, "None will enter Paradise except one who is a Jew or a Christian." That is [merely] their wishful thinking, Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful." (2:111)
 
Stop following the precedent of your predecessors, i.e. the misguided ones of the Jews and Christians. Just as they say that only Jews and Christians shall enter Paradise, so do you say that such and such a companion shall surely enter paradise, while you have no Qur'anic verse to support this. Instead, there are many times in which companions have been criticised by God, not to mention that looking into history too shows majority of their actions were actually in contravention of the Qur'an.
You should also stop making baseless claims that your point of view regarding the companions is in accordance to the Qur'an, or that it is even logical.

 

 
God's peace and blessings be upon His Prophet (pbuh), and his purified progeny (as)
(wasalam)

 

 

(wasalam)

Already answered on this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)
(salam)

^ My post wasn't meant to seek clarifications from you. Of course, you would have some justifications, and you would be satisfied with them regardless of whether they're sensible or not.

But it is important to realise when to stop seeking justifications: when adequate evidence is present against these individuals (Abu Bakr,Umar, etc.),

i) do we turn to the self-serving, self-preserving systems of a madhhab (for example the Sunni Rijal system) whose responsibilities are to provide justifications upon justifications, no matter how far-fetched,

ii) or we choose to take the common sense approach and try to look outside this madhhab for answers.

Perhaps there are Sunnis reading this thread who haven't fallen for their partisan apologetics, and can break free of them. And my post was targeted at such people.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

^ My post wasn't meant to seek clarifications from you. Of course, you would have some justifications, and you would be satisfied with them regardless of whether they're sensible or not.

But it is important to realise when to stop seeking justifications: when adequate evidence is present against these individuals (Abu Bakr,Umar, etc.),

i) do we turn to the self-serving, self-preserving systems of a madhhab (for example the Sunni Rijal system) whose responsibilities are to provide justifications upon justifications, no matter how far-fetched,

ii) or we choose to take the common sense approach and try to look outside this madhhab for answers.

Perhaps there are Sunnis reading this thread who haven't fallen for their partisan apologetics, and can break free of them. And my post was targeted at such people.

(wasalam)

 

(wasalam)

Adequate evidence? It has been refuted already so it can't be 'adequate' evidence.

 

The examples you provided in your earlier posts shows that you need to think out of the Madhab and learn other opinions as well, even if you don't agree with them. You grew up hearing only negative things about them and you approach every matter about them with that mentality.   

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(bismillah)
 

 

(wasalam)

Adequate evidence? It has been refuted already so it can't be 'adequate' evidence.

 

The examples you provided in your earlier posts shows that you need to think out of the Madhab and learn other opinions as well, even if you don't agree with them. You grew up hearing only negative things about them and you approach every matter about them with that mentality.   

 

 
I think my post just went above your head. If you're seeking truth, then you may want to read it a couple of times, patiently.
 
And I was brought up in the heartland of the Salafis and Nasibis, so you really should not make the argument of people being brought up to bear animosity towards the three caliphs and others.
But what about you? You say that I grew up hearing negative things about them - so you accept there were negative things associated with the people in question. Then, you also ought to realise that certain sins outweigh all good deeds combined. And if certain individuals are said to have committed such sins, then we are justified to condemn them for the harm they did to Islam.
 
I would make some additional points in relation to my previous post:
 
1. There are not just a couple of incidents/narrations in the Sunni History and Ahadith books that show the three caliphs and others in a very negative light. 
In some, we see them to be oppressors of the general public, lacking knowledge of Religious and Jurisprudential issues, having no regards for the Deen of Allah or the Holy Prophet (pbuh), and in others oppressing the Progeny (as) of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
 
2. In most of these cases, the excuses given for various acts of these individuals are absurd and pitiful. Muawiyah comes to mind as an example, out of the many.
It is here that you bring in the Sunni Ilm al Rijaal, which has been shown on this discussion forum by a brother to be a biased system of Ahadith filtration. A person of understanding would get tired of reading about the injustices of various companions, and then to find out if they really were unjust, use the very system that was created to preserve them from all criticism.
 
3. There is also a very strong moral argument against the Sunni view: A person who has been brought up with a clearer understanding of right and wrong, has set for himself strict standards of righteousness, and values virtue as it ought to be valued, follows only those who are similar or better than him in their moral standards and character.
Most people are shaken when you say that Omar could have been a prophet had there been any other prophet. Omar, the same person who worshipped idols and attacked his sister before converting, who confronted the Holy Prophet (pbuh), fleed from battlefields while being fierce against the weak (women), disregarded the commands of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and God. And this man is the ameer of Muslims? So are we supposed to forget all these moral failings, explain them away using the Rijal 'experts', and only mention how he rallied troops into different parts of the land and forcibly extracted Shahadah out of people's mouths?
The followers of him who gave Zakat while in Ruku cannot accept as leaders people of weak moral fibre. We have much better examples to hold onto - we have the 'Urwatul Wuthqa (as).
 
Religion places a huge emphasis on morality. How else do you expect to enter Jannah? Any weaknesses in the morality of the people in question, therefore, should be enough to shake anybody out of their dogmatic slumber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no authentic narrations that I am aware of from Shia sources that call Abu Bakr 'As Siddiq' or any that Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) ever used that title for him 

Those narrations were transmitted, mostly, by his daughter (Aisha) and Abu Huraira (the kitty man whom Umar himself called a liar and a fraud). Neither of these sources are considered reliable by the Shia ulema. He was a Sahaba (meaning he was physically present in the same place where the Prophet(p.b.u.h) was physically present on some occasions, which is the meaning of the word 'Sahaba' in Arabic) and that's about it. That was during the lifetime of the Prophet(p.b.u.h). He was a traitor to Islam after the Prophet's death by snatching the position, thru deceptive means, of Leader of the Muslims from Imam Ali(a.s) even though Imam Ali(a.s) had been appointed as Leader of the Muslims by the Prophet in his presence (more than once). So based on this, the title of 'As Siddiq' does not fit him very well. 

Edited by Abu Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

 

(bismillah)
 

 

 

 
I think my post just went above your head. If you're seeking truth, then you may want to read it a couple of times, patiently.
 
And I was brought up in the heartland of the Salafis and Nasibis, so you really should not make the argument of people being brought up to bear animosity towards the three caliphs and others.
But what about you? You say that I grew up hearing negative things about them - so you accept there were negative things associated with the people in question. Then, you also ought to realise that certain sins outweigh all good deeds combined. And if certain individuals are said to have committed such sins, then we are justified to condemn them for the harm they did to Islam.
 
I would make some additional points in relation to my previous post:
 
1. There are not just a couple of incidents/narrations in the Sunni History and Ahadith books that show the three caliphs and others in a very negative light. 
In some, we see them to be oppressors of the general public, lacking knowledge of Religious and Jurisprudential issues, having no regards for the Deen of Allah or the Holy Prophet (pbuh), and in others oppressing the Progeny (as) of the Holy Prophet (pbuh).
 
2. In most of these cases, the excuses given for various acts of these individuals are absurd and pitiful. Muawiyah comes to mind as an example, out of the many.
It is here that you bring in the Sunni Ilm al Rijaal, which has been shown on this discussion forum by a brother to be a biased system of Ahadith filtration. A person of understanding would get tired of reading about the injustices of various companions, and then to find out if they really were unjust, use the very system that was created to preserve them from all criticism.
 
3. There is also a very strong moral argument against the Sunni view: A person who has been brought up with a clearer understanding of right and wrong, has set for himself strict standards of righteousness, and values virtue as it ought to be valued, follows only those who are similar or better than him in their moral standards and character.
Most people are shaken when you say that Omar could have been a prophet had there been any other prophet. Omar, the same person who worshipped idols and attacked his sister before converting, who confronted the Holy Prophet (pbuh), fleed from battlefields while being fierce against the weak (women), disregarded the commands of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and God. And this man is the ameer of Muslims? So are we supposed to forget all these moral failings, explain them away using the Rijal 'experts', and only mention how he rallied troops into different parts of the land and forcibly extracted Shahadah out of people's mouths?
The followers of him who gave Zakat while in Ruku cannot accept as leaders people of weak moral fibre. We have much better examples to hold onto - we have the 'Urwatul Wuthqa (as).
 
Religion places a huge emphasis on morality. How else do you expect to enter Jannah? Any weaknesses in the morality of the people in question, therefore, should be enough to shake anybody out of their dogmatic slumber.

 

 

 

Your post further confirms what I said. 

 

And I just want to reply to this comment of yours:

 There are not just a couple of incidents/narrations in the Sunni History and Ahadith books that show the three caliphs and others in a very negative light. 

 

 

There are many narrations that, if we apply shia logic of how they understand some narrations about Abubakr and Umar, will show Ali in a negative light as well. A Nasibi can come and pick these narrations and using Shia logic say about Ali what Shia say about Abubakr and Umar. But both groups are biased because they consider these personalities 'evil' by default and they only accept negative sayings about them.

 

There are no authentic narrations that I am aware of from Shia sources that call Abu Bakr 'As Siddiq' or any that Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) ever used that title for him 

Those narrations were transmitted, mostly, by his daughter (Aisha) and Abu Huraira (the kitty man whom Umar himself called a liar and a fraud). Neither of these sources are considered reliable by the Shia ulema. He was a Sahaba (meaning he was physically present in the same place where the Prophet(p.b.u.h) was physically present on some occasions, which is the meaning of the word 'Sahaba' in Arabic) and that's about it. That was during the lifetime of the Prophet(p.b.u.h). He was a traitor to Islam after the Prophet's death by snatching the position, thru deceptive means, of Leader of the Muslims from Imam Ali(a.s) even though Imam Ali(a.s) had been appointed as Leader of the Muslims by the Prophet in his presence (more than once). So based on this, the title of 'As Siddiq' does not fit him very well. 

 

It also also narrated by other companions including Ali. Not to forget the thousands of narrations in which the companions refer to Abubakr as 'as-Siddiq'. 

 

Abu Bakr as the first caliph lead the funeral prayer of the holy Prophet right?

 

He did pray the funeral prayer of the Prophet (saw).

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I just want to reply to this comment of yours:

 

There are many narrations that, if we apply shia logic of how they understand some narrations about Abubakr and Umar, will show Ali in a negative light as well. A Nasibi can come and pick these narrations and using Shia logic say about Ali what Shia say about Abubakr and Umar. But both groups are biased because they consider these personalities 'evil' by default and they only accept negative sayings about them.

 

It also also narrated by other companions including Ali. Not to forget the thousands of narrations in which the companions refer to Abubakr as 'as-Siddiq'. 

 

(salam)

 

Brother, you still haven't proved to us from Quran that Abu Bakr was a believer which you set out to do, forget about him being called a Siddique. 

 

And secondly, can you please post the Shia hadiths which you are talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Brother advocate123, I remind you that I always enjoy reading your posts.  The only reason I bought up the familal links/names is not because you brought it up in a private message/conversation but that as you said it is something that you brought up with another brother. In fact, you seem to fall back on this argument often; not that it is wrong but only because you base this argument as a "catch-all" "proof-positive" for the legitimacy of the caliphate of the first 3.

 

I respect your interpretation of the narration about abu Bakr (ra), however, in additon to what you have intrepreted it also shows that abu bakr (ra) admits that he may/will(historically confirmed) to need help ("guidance") in his rulership over the ummah. In addition my aim was to do a comparison of Abu Bakr (ra) statement vs Imam Ali (as), who was the "guide."  

 

Again, I repeat: 

"Is he then who guides to the truth more worthy to be followed, or he who himself does not go aright unless he is guided? What then is the matter with you; how do you judge?" (10:35)

 

 

 

 

 

You must of missed my post below his.  He completely avoided one-half of that sermon and chose the part that supports his argument and left out the one that nullifies it.  Yet, here you say "Hitting the nail right in the coffin"  please brother, advocate123, by saying this you are approving of his ill behavior of misquoting/half-quoting of narrations, which if done purposely, is unforgivable, as this is a form of censorship and dishonesty.  Thank you brother, Jazak Allah Al khair.

 

as-salaamu 'alaykum brother,

 

You talk about brother Abul Hussain Hassani leaving out half of the sermon, but you've done the same with verse 10:35...

 

Say: "Of your 'partners' is there any that can give any guidance towards truth?" Say: "It is Allah Who gives guidance towards truth, is then He Who gives guidance to truth more worthy to be followed, or he who finds not guidance (himself) unless he is guided? what then is the matter with you? How judge ye?"

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this verse does not mean that anybody who needs help isn't fit to lead the Ummah, as you seem to be saying about Abu Bakr (RA) asking Ali (RA) for help during his reign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Say: "Of your 'partners' is there any that can give any guidance towards truth?" Say: "It is Allah Who gives guidance towards truth, is then He Who gives guidance to truth more worthy to be followed, or he who finds not guidance (himself) unless he is guided? what then is the matter with you? How judge ye?"

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this verse does not mean that anybody who needs help isn't fit to lead the Ummah, as you seem to be saying about Abu Bakr  (ra) asking Ali  (ra) for help during his reign.

In simplicity, the verse means that it is Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì who gives the guidance and worthy to be followed. And because the Guidance comes from Allah, He gives it to his chosed servants. And these servants are Messengers, Angels, Prophets, Imams. For example in Qur'an verse 32:24 it says And We made of them Imams to guide by Our command when they were patient. Thus it is worthy to follow these Imams that Allah chose them to guide other people rather than to follow a man who finds not guidance (himself) unless he is guided by other.

Your logic is understandably if it has nothing to do with religion or belief system. But if it has to do with leading the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad after him, then the leader must be related to religion and he must be guided by Allah to guide others. 

 

Of course if you define leader of Ummah in such a way that it does not necessary needs such a quality or he can ask help from others, then you can apply Abu Bakr on it. But in other hand Allah speak otherwise. Also having the possibility to make errors in judgement, thus the possibility to lead others in wrong judgement is not good leader to be fit as the leader of Ummah that previously was leaded by Allah choosed prophet.

Here is interesting logic too. Can we apply the verse to Prophet Musa (as) too when he visited Khidr (as) and learned from him? The thing is some people may see it as contradiction with that verse, but actually not. Because after all it is Allah who guided Musa thorough Khidr. And Musa is one of those chosed people who mission was to guide people by Allah commands. But was Abu Bakr choosed by Allah to guide others by Allah commands? No he was not. People choosed Him.

Edited by Dhulfikar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  The Hadith about the companions that they turn on their heels and changed , is not about Abu Bakr  Ra and Umar Ra , it was about Muaweya and other like him

  they changed truly and they always wanted Caliphate , which Umar Ra already knew in his time , its exaggeration to say that Abu Bakr Ra and Umar Ra were

like him Muaweya .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its is useless to convincing and discussing whether Abu bakr Ra was siddique .  they are many typical sunnis , i think 99% who even love Muaweya like other

 Abu Bakr Ra and Umar Ra , near that they make him Khalifa Rashid ,

 

I Like the Point of view of Great Mufasir of 20 th  Century  Muhammad Rasheed Raza  Author of Tafsir Al Manaar ,

 

 He said : Syedina Ali  (AS) did bayah of Abu bakr RA though Syedina Ali (AS) considered himself rightful for Caliphate than Abu bakr (RA)

 but he did not revolted  like Muaweya revolted against Syedina Ali (AS) , who was never rightful for that Office .( Mujalltul Manar Vol 14 Page 771)

 

 

If Sunnis and Shias come to this Point many tensions can be resolved

 

and if they really want to struggle for Revival for Caliphate   , turn your Guns towards the Great Deceptor and Hypocrite Muaweya ,

 

after all Muaweya was the First Person who Revolted in Islam  ( Sharah ul Maqasid Vol 5 Page 309 )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taftazani_First_Who_Revolt_in_Islam_Muaw

It is categorically written in the annals of history that muawiya ordered to abuse MOLA ALI AS publicly and in masjids as well..... He was abused regularly every Friday in the masjids of whole Arab world..... And this happened for 80 years......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Narration is not reliable. 

 

 
Bro remove this post .  press  report button and request admin to remove this post . I also remove my post  . you will not see my post .  I am talking about  the Hadith of Imam Bukhari

 

(wasalam)

 

I am not ignoring everything the Prophet (saw) said brother. I am accepting everything He (saw) said. He (saw) said good about Abubakr and Ali and I accept both but with all due respect you pick and chose from the sayings of the Prophet (saw) and accept the one you like and reject others. 

 

 

 

 

I am just suggesting to follow the Quran. You prefer history books over Quran? 

 

 

Please read the full narration.

 

Here is an explanation for the above narration:

http://www.schiiten.com/backup/http://www.*****************.com/www.http://www.*****************.com/articles/sahabah/liar-sinful-treacherous-dishonest.html

In This Narration of Sahih Ibn Hibban .. Abbas did not said Liar and Treacherous to Syedina Ali (as) .

So it is cleared that The Words Liar , Sinful , are towards Abu Bakr and Umar .

Abu_Bakr_and_Umr_Sinful.png[/quote

Get a grip man

Than what if not said ,

In the other narration syedna ALI never used these words , what u have proved the other brother also proved that already

Absolutely funny man lol

Think with logic Bruv

Seriously man

bro  kindly if you can remove this post .  press  report button and ask admin to remove it . i also remove my post regarding hadith of Sahih Hibban .

i want to leave the forum . Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Brother Al Husseini !!! if you can remove the post about  Imam Bukhari  on Abu Bakr and Umar  . please do it . i think it goes against the rules of This Chat room to call other Names . though they are in the hadith . but it would be better if you remove it . i removed mine already month ago . because of which you did reply which was a failed reply . but still i request to remove the above post . 

 Wassalam

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...