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

Salams,

 

I was reading the Qur'an earlier, and then I read its translation, because I know very little arabic and I came across this ayah: 4:69

 

which, translated by Yusuf Ali reads, : "All who obey Allah and the messenger are in the company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah,- of the prophets (who teach), the sincere (lovers of Truth), the witnesses (who testify) (this is also translated as "martyrs" by other translators, but seeing that it says "shuhadda'i", it probably means martyrs), and the Righteous (who do good): Ah! what a beautiful fellowship!"

 

If I am not mistaken, this verse implies that those who obey Allah and the messenger, they are in the company of those whom the grace of Allah is bestowed upon, namely:

 

-The prophets

-The sincere (in here the word Siddiq is used)

-The martyrs

-The Righteous

 

There is no doubt that our Imams (as) are Sincere, they were all martyrs and, they were all righteous, ofcourse.

But then I have got into thinking. Does this verse pertain only to the Imams? or does this also pertain also to other people.

 

Then I got into thinking more, I thought of Abu Bakr, as he is called "Siddique" by many (especially sunni) writers.

 

FIrst is that, is the popular hadith (by sunnis, I dont know if its narrated by shias) which says that after the miraj, Abu bakr was called as siddiq after he attested to the truth of the miraj AUTHENTIC? If, or if not, how can we ascertain its authenticity?

 

Second, if this hadith is proved to be true (based on the arguments that you will, in shaa Allah raise), then wouldnt it be that Abu bakr is part of those mentioned in this verse?

 

Third, if the second question is answered positively with a yes, then Will it be erroneous if we speak badly about him?

 

Last question is (which is not connected with the verse I mentioned what so ever) should we really be "hating" or "bashing" or "speak badly" about these companions of the prophet, who, even if they did bad after the prophet's death, the prophet himself treated well?

 

My salaams to you all Mu'mins and Mu'minaats I hope my questions will be answered maturely and positively without having to resort to hate speech amongst Sunnis and Shias.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salams,

 

I was reading the Qur'an earlier, and then I read its translation, because I know very little arabic and I came across this ayah: 4:69

 

which, translated by Yusuf Ali reads, : "All who obey Allah and the messenger are in the company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah,- of the prophets (who teach), the sincere (lovers of Truth), the witnesses (who testify) (this is also translated as "martyrs" by other translators, but seeing that it says "shuhadda'i", it probably means martyrs), and the Righteous (who do good): Ah! what a beautiful fellowship!"

 

If I am not mistaken, this verse implies that those who obey Allah and the messenger, they are in the company of those whom the grace of Allah is bestowed upon, namely:

 

-The prophets

-The sincere (in here the word Siddiq is used)

-The martyrs

-The Righteous

 

There is no doubt that our Imams (as) are Sincere, they were all martyrs and, they were all righteous, ofcourse.

But then I have got into thinking. Does this verse pertain only to the Imams? or does this also pertain also to other people.

 

Then I got into thinking more, I thought of Abu Bakr, as he is called "Siddique" by many (especially sunni) writers.

 

FIrst is that, is the popular hadith (by sunnis, I dont know if its narrated by shias) which says that after the miraj, Abu bakr was called as siddiq after he attested to the truth of the miraj AUTHENTIC? If, or if not, how can we ascertain its authenticity?

 

Second, if this hadith is proved to be true (based on the arguments that you will, in shaa Allah raise), then wouldnt it be that Abu bakr is part of those mentioned in this verse?

 

Third, if the second question is answered positively with a yes, then Will it be erroneous if we speak badly about him?

 

Waleykum Salaam ,

 

Yes brother, the Prophet (saw) called Abubakr 'as-Siddiq' and this is authentic/Sahih narrated by Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. 

 

Brother one think you should know; for Shia it doesn't matter how good person Abubakr was and how the Prophet (saw) loved him and how he spent for Islam etc because according to Shia he and other Sahaba became apostates and hypocrites (audhubillah) after the death of the Prophet (saw) by not recognizing the 'divine' caliphate of Ali (ra).

 

However, the truth is there was no divine appointment of Ali or anybody else. These beliefs of divine appointment of Ahlu-Bayt were invented later. Ali and Ahlulbayt never believed in such concept nor claimed to be divine caliphs on earth. 

 

Last question is (which is not connected with the verse I mentioned what so ever) should we really be "hating" or "bashing" or "speak badly" about these companions of the prophet, who, even if they did bad after the prophet's death, the prophet himself treated well?

 

My salaams to you all Mu'mins and Mu'minaats I hope my questions will be answered maturely and positively without having to resort to hate speech amongst Sunnis and Shias.

 

 

This is what Allah [swt] expects from the Muslims who come after the Sahaba that includes you and me:

 

And [there is a share for] those who came after them, saying, "Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful." (59:10)

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The prophet himself treated them well

I like this sentence Bruv

It is struck me right in the heart

I think I should follow the act of PROPHET PBUH

JAZAK Allah KHER

 

 

hehehe Arnt you the guy running around this forum as a fake shia putting A.S next to our imams name while you respect and love their killers and enemies?

No matter what you say, I witnessed enough to know 100% your not a shia. Just FYI....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hehehe Arnt you the guy running around this forum as a fake shia putting A.S next to our imams name while you respect and love their killers and enemies?

No matter what you say, I witnessed enough to know 100% your not a shia. Just FYI....

Do you have any flippin problem with that,

My thought , my love and my knowledge is all with me. You don't accept it fair enough as u have the right of difference of opinion . Kindly respect others right as well, and show some courtesy before u start this language.

I have never said u anything and neither have I engaged with any conversation with you. So kindly please

And I don't know what that FYI rubbish is but I send it back to you

Next time kindly use words while keeping respect for the other person in tact .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any flippin problem with that,

My thought , my love and my knowledge is all with me. You don't accept it fair enough as u have the right of difference of opinion . Kindly respect others right as well, and show some courtesy before u start this language.

I have never said u anything and neither have I engaged with any conversation with you. So kindly please

And I don't know what that FYI rubbish is but I send it back to you

Next time kindly use words while keeping respect for the other person in tact .......

 

:squeez: :lol:

FYI = For Your Information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waleykum Salaam ,

 

Yes brother, the Prophet (saw) called Abubakr 'as-Siddiq' and this is authentic/Sahih narrated by Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. 

 

Brother one think you should know; for Shia it doesn't matter how good person Abubakr was and how the Prophet (saw) loved him and how he spent for Islam etc because according to Shia he and other Sahaba became apostates and hypocrites (audhubillah) after the death of the Prophet (saw) by not recognizing the 'divine' caliphate of Ali (ra).

 

However, the truth is there was no divine appointment of Ali or anybody else. These beliefs of divine appointment of Ahlu-Bayt were invented later. Ali and Ahlulbayt never believed in such concept nor claimed to be divine caliphs on earth. 

 

 

This is what Allah [swt] expects from the Muslims who come after the Sahaba that includes you and me:

 

And [there is a share for] those who came after them, saying, "Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful." (59:10)

 

 

Yes, the event of ghadeer, the narration: Kitab Al Sunnah Volume 2 page, 565, Narration 1188: "You are from me, like the status to that of Haroon is to Musa, except  you are not a prophet, It should not be that I leave, Only when you are my Caliph, In every Mo'om'in (Faithful Muslim) After me......"  these and other narrations are not in your books? Just the shia books and their innovations?  You dont want to believe in divine appointment? Fine, convince us "the rafadi" that it was the prophet who said that the appointment of the caliphate should be done by shura,  he gave a specific procedure on how this shura is to take place; as this is a very serious matter, further more, that this way of shura appointment, which you are going to be so kind to provide for us "rawafid," was followed to the T  by umar (ra), abu bakr (ra) and the other few companions, and also that this shura way appointment since it is going to be done by falliable men who are very much likely to commit error (Duh: ummayad caliphate, abbasid, etc) is still very much valid in the sense that any one person who rejects them (the appointed) should forever be referred to as a "rawafid," and cast out of the fold of islam.  

 

Jazak Allah al khair

Edited by kbsquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:squeez: :lol:

FYI = For Your Information

Now brother for your information

Go read qazi sanaullah pani pati, in his tafseer e mazahri he writes AS for the ahal e bayt

Also go read mujadid alif Sani, he uses the word AS for ahal e bayt

Also read shah waliullah muhadith dehlvi, he uses the word AS for ahal e bayt.

Go and read imam jalal ud din suyuti, he uses word AS for ahal e bayt.

Read imam qurtubi, imam hathim, imam baghavi they all use the word AS for ahal e bayt

Not even that imam sulami and imam tusheri also write AS with the name of ahal e bayt in their books.

Go further up the scale and read fakhar ud din razi he uses the word AS in his books

Not even that

Go further more up and read imam Tabari, he also uses the word AS for ahal e bayt.

Please brother/sister whoever u r , I respect u but what u said was not good

Again FYI these are all Sunni references and 1200 year history the word AS has been very common and this is not my invention nauzubillah,

Hope it satisfies you

Take care and have a nice day

JAZAK Allah KHER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it was authentic that he was called as such due to his attesting to al-Miraj, this wouldn't mean anything in the arguments presented about his character. Most of the argumentation is based on what was done after he took possession of the Caliphate of the Muslims. Such a title is implicitly conditioned on him staying in such a state of trust and good deeds. This is not based on Shiism, but on philosophy, Abu Bakr was not a prophet nor was he an angel so his state of being good or not could've changed from the time of al-Miraj to the time of The Prophet's (peace be upon him and his family) death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waleykum Salaam ,

 

Yes brother, the Prophet (saw) called Abubakr 'as-Siddiq' and this is authentic/Sahih narrated by Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. 

 

Brother one think you should know; for Shia it doesn't matter how good person Abubakr was and how the Prophet (saw) loved him and how he spent for Islam etc because according to Shia he and other Sahaba became apostates and hypocrites (audhubillah) after the death of the Prophet (saw) by not recognizing the 'divine' caliphate of Ali (ra).

 

However, the truth is there was no divine appointment of Ali or anybody else. These beliefs of divine appointment of Ahlu-Bayt were invented later. Ali and Ahlulbayt never believed in such concept nor claimed to be divine caliphs on earth. 

 

(salam)  brother,

               I am sorry but what you have claimed is not true.

 

Successor-ship to the Prophet (pbub) was such an important aspect of the prophet hood that the Prophet (pbuh) brought it up during his initial days of inviting people to Islam itself (Read Dhul-Asheera). Saying that the Prophet (pbuh) did not leave a successor behind is nothing but a blatant lie.

 

You are ignoring everything the Prophet (pbuh) said and did just to cover for one person who was neither a prophet nor a person whom the prophet loved. He was one of the many people whom the Prophet (pbuh) did not want to be around in Medina at the time of his death.

 

 

 

This is what Allah [swt] expects from the Muslims who come after the Sahaba that includes you and me:
 
And [there is a share for] those who came after them, saying, "Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful." (59:10)

 

 

Are you suggesting that one shouldn't state what is in the History books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waleykum Salaam ,

 

Yes brother, the Prophet (saw) called Abubakr 'as-Siddiq' and this is authentic/Sahih narrated by Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. 

 

Brother one think you should know; for Shia it doesn't matter how good person Abubakr was and how the Prophet (saw) loved him and how he spent for Islam etc because according to Shia he and other Sahaba became apostates and hypocrites (audhubillah) after the death of the Prophet (saw) by not recognizing the 'divine' caliphate of Ali (ra).

 

However, the truth is there was no divine appointment of Ali or anybody else. These beliefs of divine appointment of Ahlu-Bayt were invented later. Ali and Ahlulbayt never believed in such concept nor claimed to be divine caliphs on earth. 

 

 

This is what Allah [swt] expects from the Muslims who come after the Sahaba that includes you and me:

 

And [there is a share for] those who came after them, saying, "Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful." (59:10)

 

Simple question and case closed, If Abu Bakr was called siddiq by Prophet (pbuh), why Prophet did not take him to Mubhala except (Imam Ali (as), Fatima (as), Hasan (as) and Hussain (as), his pure family) when Allah gave order to curse liars, why did he not take Abu Bakr with him if he was called "siddiq"?

 

Therefore any hadith which is aboragated by Quran is not Sahih even if some call it Sahih.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only Quran abrogates any hadith which says Abu Bakr was siddiq even Sahih hadith abrogates Abu Bakr as Siddiq.  According to Sahih hadith, Imam Ali (as) called Abu Bakr and Umar  liars,  sinners, usurpers and betrayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple question and case closed, If Abu Bakr was called siddiq by Prophet (pbuh), why Prophet did not take him to Mubhala except (Imam Ali (as), Fatima (as), Hasan (as) and Hussain (as), his pure family) when Allah gave order to curse liars, why did he not take Abu Bakr with him if he was called "siddiq"?

Therefore any hadith which is aboragated by Quran is not Sahih even if some call it Sahih.

Sister,

The matter of fact is that mubahila was meant for the PANJTAN PAK and was depictive of their great merit.

Asking why PROPHET SAWW did not take that person or that person or that person will not make sense to an outsider.

Someone can than pose a question than why did HOLY PROPHET PBUH never took hazrat ammar yasir ra or Hazrat salman Farsi ra .... What u want others to think that they were liers nauzubillah/astaggfirullah (I seek refuge from Allah SWR wrath). I can't believe that those two men were liers as they were also siddique.

Summing up it is just that someone is called siddique it does not mean others are not siddique.

Such approach can than result in what I call a BLAME GAME , and u will than not be able to defend those u love .

My humble and meek request would be to refrain from blame game and mubahila is purely a verse to enlighten the elegance, calibre and wisdom of ahal e bayt

JAZAK Allah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sister,

The matter of fact is that mubahila was meant for the PANJTAN PAK and was depictive of their great merit.

Asking why PROPHET SAWW did not take that person or that person or that person will not make sense to an outsider.

Someone can than pose a question than why did HOLY PROPHET PBUH never took hazrat ammar yasir ra or Hazrat salman Farsi ra .... What u want others to think that they were liers nauzubillah/astaggfirullah (I seek refuge from Allah SWR wrath). I can't believe that those two men were liers as they were also siddique.

Very flawed logic here.  Hazrat salman(ra) and ammar(ra) where never caliphs.  Its one thing to be a regular companion and be excluded from the event of mubahila but a completely another when you are the 'two most righteous' companions.  That, if Allah would of not chosen Muhammad (as) he would of chosen Umar (ra). Furthermore, the two in question, later became the first 2 caliphs of the ummah and even later are called the caliph al-rashiduun. Now when you sum it up; it is a very legitmate question to ask that when Allah's apostable wanted to show off elegance, caliber, and wisdom (as you say); then are those not neccessary attributes of a rashid caliph?  If so, then one can ask, why were the first 2 (or even first 3) not included in the event of mubahila, surely had they been it would of been a true testement to their elegance, caliber, and wisdom and would of left far little doubt to the titles they later achieved.  Otherwise, one can legitimately conclude that since they were not included in the event of mubahila, their status was equal to any other companion of the prophet (saw) just like salman (ra) or ammar (ra), and 

 

 

 

Summing up it is just that someone is called siddique it does not mean others are not siddique.

Such approach can than result in what I call a BLAME GAME , and u will than not be able to defend those u love .

My humble and meek request would be to refrain from blame game and mubahila is purely a verse to enlighten the elegance, calibre and wisdom of ahal e bayt

JAZAK Allah

 

Again flawed logic, you make a great error when you try to make the connection that since companions like salman (ra) and ammar (ra) were excluded in mabihila one must conclude they were liars and therefore not siddique...I dont have to go any further here, I am sure you can sum up what I have said and understand how flawed your logic is here...its very far from being a 'blame game.'

 

Jazak Allah al Khair.

Edited by kbsquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very flawed logic here. Hazrat salman(ra) and ammar(ra) where never caliphs. Its one thing to be a regular companion and be excluded from the event of mubahila but a completely another when you are the 'two most righteous' companions. That, if Allah would of not chosen Muhammad (as) he would of chosen Umar (ra). Furthermore, the two in question, later became the first 2 caliphs of the ummah and even later are called the caliph al-rashiduun. Now when you sum it up; it is a very legitmate question to ask that when Allah's apostable wanted to show off elegance, caliber, and wisdom (as you say); then are those not neccessary attributes of a rashid caliph? If so, then one can ask, why were the first 2 (or even first 3) not included in the event of mubahila, surely had they been it would of been a true testement to their elegance, caliber, and wisdom and would of left far little doubt to the titles they later achieved. Otherwise, one can legitimately conclude that since they were not included in the event of mubahila, their status was equal to any other companion of the prophet (saw) just like salman (ra) or ammar (ra), and

Again flawed logic, you make a great error when you try to make the connection that since companions like salman (ra) and ammar (ra) were excluded in mabihila one must conclude they were liars and therefore not siddique...I dont have to go any further here, I am sure you can sum up what I have said and understand how flawed your logic is here...its very far from being a 'blame game.'

Jazak Allah al Khair.

Brother kb square

It depends upon ur perception,

U r taking it line of caliphs

I m not even going down that road

From where the caliphs came I don't know as I was not even discussing that matter

Tomorrow another brother will come and say in the verse of purity why were caliphs not involved.

Then day after another brother would say ALI AS door was kept open to masjid e nabvi than why were caliphs door not opened,

Then the day after another brother would say MOLA ALI was allowed to enter masjid e nabvi in a state when ghusal is compulsory than why were caliphs not allowed.

Than u can carry on saying like this as many times as u want to .... Nothing goes of mine.... When a taste of ones own medicine is given than u critique a person saying flawed logic ....

Brother kbsquare I was not going down that road of caliphs which u have assumed . I was talking in general but u seem to get upset , all the apologies Bruv....

U r perceiving the verse of mubahila in a different way as from me and there is probability that I might be wrong.... But still I respect ur thought Bruv.... You can be right and I can be wrong .... Take care...

Also the above two mentioned companions are considered far better than the caliphs Bruv as I have heard in Shia circles around me than forget the first two caliphs as they are not even in the script for you .... I prefer talking about ones which are in the script.

Anyways I sincerely do not want to get into a long discussion brother kbsquare.

Summing up I respect ur stance on the above matter, I expect u to be soft and polite the way u have been. If u get really senti than ill refrain from commenting Bruv... I think this is my last post so u take care of urself and have a nice day.... Regards

Edited by Advocate123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother kb square

It depends upon ur perception,

U r taking it line of caliphs

I m not even going down that road

From where the caliphs came I don't know as I was not even discussing that matter

Tomorrow another brother will come and say in the verse of purity why were caliphs not involved.

Then day after another brother would say ALI AS door was kept open to masjid e nabvi than why were caliphs door not opened,

Then the day after another brother would say MOLA ALI was allowed to enter masjid e nabvi in a state when ghusal is compulsory than why were caliphs not allowed.

Than u can carry on saying like this as many times as u want to .... Nothing goes of mine.... When a taste of ones own medicine is given than u critique a person saying flawed logic ....

Brother kbsquare I was not going down that road of caliphs which u have assumed . I was talking in general but u seem to get upset , all the apologies Bruv....

U r perceiving the verse of mubahila in a different way as from me and there is probability that I might be wrong.... But still I respect ur thought Bruv.... You can be right and I can be wrong .... Take care...

Also the above two mentioned companions are considered far better than the caliphs Bruv as I have heard in Shia circles around me than forget the first two caliphs as they are not even in the script for you .... I prefer talking about ones which are in the script.

Anyways I sincerely do not want to get into a long discussion brother kbsquare.

Summing up I respect ur stance on the above matter, I expect u to be soft and polite the way u have been. If u get really senti than ill refrain from commenting Bruv... I think this is my last post so u take care of urself and have a nice day.... Regards

 

 

Brother, 

 

I was not getting sentimental...I am here to learn, same as you!  Sentimentality was checked at the door before I decided to come on the sunni/shia sub forum...Maybe the way I said things gave you the impression, that was not my intention and never will be but I guess the apology is mine. Sorry.

 

+

 

I see where you have mentioned the different arguments one can give for imam ali (as) superiority plus many more. That is just a true testament to how great this man was, it is defiantly not something you should just whisk away and say "..yeah, but!..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In The Name of Allah The Most Beneficent The Most Merciful

 

Assalam o Allaikum WR WB

 

Notwithstanding the arguments shaped up by bro Advocate and Brother Kbsquare, the major difference in between ahle tasih and ahle sunnah is Caliph hood and Imamat. The question framed by Sister Mehek is based on the very same difference as both sides alleviates the status of their leaders to such an extend throughout 1400 hundered years that it's hard to make any side convince on such issues. Leaving apart all of us we need to look into the events and analyse the greatness of both side leaders. One side Ahle Bait and other side is close companions of Prophet SAWAW.

 

My observation in this regard which people may further expand are very simple:-

 

a.  Ahle Bait.  Both sides agree regarding the virtues of Ahle Bait e.g, Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was raised by Prophet, Marriage of Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã and Bibi Fatima Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was ordered from Allah SWT, Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was ordered to deliver the message while Abu Bakr was called back and the order was brought down by Jabril Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, Mubahilla exclusively elevates the status of 5 persons as already covered, the second portion of verse 33:33 exclusively spoke of 5 person under the cloak in both sides Authentic hadiaths, Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, Bibi Fatima Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã, Imam Hassan Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã and Imam Hussain Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã are termed as the Sardars of Jannah in both sides authentic hadiaths, Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã is the gate of city of knowledge, Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was both times i.e one at Zulashira and Ghadir and according to authentic hadiaths termed as wasi (later many sunni scholars says a child testimony of Zulashira and mawla at ghadir means friend), Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was assigned with the responsibility of returning the amanats of Kuffar at Macca and to sleep on Prophets (SAWAW) bed at the time of Migration, Imam Ali never left the Prophet SAWAW in any war where many people fled thinking that Prophet SAWAW died nazobillah, Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was called in for the conquest of Khyber where all leaders failed, Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was called in by Abu Bakar, Umer and Usman for help / as judge in complex matters where they were unable to decide and later we find authentic hadiaths where caliphs said that had it not been Abu Hassan Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã we would have perished . Also Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã was praying with Prophet SAWAW even before Islam, he used to frequently sleep on Prophet bed even as a child on orders of his father for the protection purpose. During dawah missions in Mecca when children used to throw stones on Prophet SAWAW he used to move ahead and sides of Prophet SAWAW only to throw back the stones because of which this practise was abandoned. Accompanied Prophet SAWAW in the valley of Shab e Abi Talab. Have assisted in Dawah in both Mecca and Madina and  etc etc as list goes on and on

b.  Close Companions.  

(1)  Abu Bakar was friend of Prophet and among few early persons who accepted Islam. In hadiaths books and history books, could not find much contributions in early days of Islam except on one occasion he was beaten and helped in freedom of few slaves, yes his services are more prominent in madina as a helper and devotion in terms of money, but during wars his contributions are no where to be figured out prominently. Yes he travelled with Prophet SAWAW (Hijrat) and famous for the cave incident (but many controversies surround the incident) and has the honour of  becoming the father in law of Prophet SAWAW. He was given the title of Al Saddique but the same title was also hold by Imam Ali (as) (read history). Have a  brief look here http://www.everymuslim.co.za/index.php/articles-menu/personalities-menu/61-important-peopke/820-caliph-abu-bakr-ra

(2)  Umer was famous for his bravery, but in all the battles (i mean Ghawats) his services as the bravest warrior are yet to be figured out outstandingly in historical accounts. His early contributions in early days of islam  aren't much except Muslims prayed freely and offered a combined salah but he was not the only one in this incident to led the circumstances, we can not leave aside Imam Ali (as) and Hazrat Hamza the brave uncle of Prophet SAWAW. But some how the other he was titled as Al Farouq. Even at madina i could find much on his contributions except participation in battles and spending money which is common written for all the sahabahs. Prophet SAWAW prayers for his acceptance of Islam as Hazrat Ayesha heard (age controversy), his bravery with respect to Adzan of muslims has also been narrated, in hadiaths we found that shaitan was afraid of him, people would stop speaking or singing in his presence and on few occasions he even checked Azwaj of Prophet SAWAW after which the verse of veil was received. Also not to mention in few occasions, he was also found of raising his voice in front of Prophet SAWAW like at Hudabiah where the verse also came down warning Sahabahs not to raise voice and the famous event of pen and paper. Her are some of the events of 

(3)  Usman's contributions were not to be found in Mecca except he migrated twice with his family. however, his contributions in terms of money assistance in madina are quite prominent with regards to purhasing a well as well as during expansion of Mosque. Not  a prominent figure in wars, yes in hudabiah was selected for negotiation.  Also famous for his marraige with the daughters of Prophet SAWAW. Have a summarily look at life here http://www.everymuslim.co.za/index.php/articles-menu/personalities-menu/61-important-peopke/823-caliph-uthmaan-ra

 

Point to note is that many contributions such as dawah, money donations and participation in wars are all common for other companions of Prophet SAWAW. If i have to give a comparison i would say that there is no comparison of money donation by companions once compared with money expended by Lady Khadija (as) and Hazrat Abu Talib ( AS ) the two giants become poor before their death only because spending each and everything in the way of spread of Islam. In terms of dawah, the situation remains the same, from Zulashira to freeing of salves, providing food and camels for the people who migrates towards abbsiyan, many dawah parties thrown in the pattern of Zulashira where money was spend like water, and even to the Christian king the dawah was delivered non other than the son of Abu Talib (as). In terms of wars and other than wars, participation of sons of Abu Talib ( AS ) are far more prominent and Imam Ali ( AS ) contribution are written in golden words. 

 

Foregoing in view, i can see the argument put in by Sister Mehek can not be set aside by putting an argument of companions vs companions like Umer, Abu Baker and Usman vs Abu Zar, Ammar e Yasir  and others. If someone is keen to analyse, and Histroy has witnessed whoever tried to compare any of the companion with the virtues of Imam Ali (as), they all  ended up saying that Imam Ali (as) has not match. Yet its strange, why then as a Caliph Hood candidate he was not considered at Saqifa in so called shoorah which only (deceitfully) assembled to elect a successor, only because he was busy in the funeral of Prophet SAWAW and later once Abu Bakar at his death bed didn't consider Imam Ali ( AS ) worthy enough for the Caliph of muslims ummah despite having a conversation with Imam Ali (as) where Imam Ali (as) has made him (Abu Bakr) realised that on the ground of arguments because of which you (Abu Bakr) have won the bayah at saqifa I (Imam Ali AS) am more worthy than you. And yet again, once Umer was about to die he nominated a six to seven member shoorah only to impose certain conditions. And then history witness that after the murder of Usman, people came to Imam Ali (as) not Imam Ali ( AS ) going to the people and also after refusing thrice then chose to be the caliph of the Ummah only to find Ayesha at Jamal and Moaviah at Saffin challenging the Caliph of the Ummah. Remember apostates war during Abu Bakar Caliph hood and how sunni historian write apostates in front of the people who refused to accept Abu Bakar as caliph and pay taxes etc, if an analogy has to be drawn then what should be stated for Ayesha and Moaviah. 

 

Coming towards the title of the thread, I think the title is also held by Imam Ali ( AS ), if anyone can provide a hadiath for it from Sunni Source will be much appreciated and will add to the academic value of the title and discussion generated afterwards. 

 

Thanks to all.

Edited by Malagniman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother,

I was not getting sentimental...I am here to learn, same as you! Sentimentality was checked at the door before I decided to come on the sunni/shia sub forum...Maybe the way I said things gave you the impression, that was not my intention and never will be but I guess the apology is mine. Sorry.

+

I see where you have mentioned the different arguments one can give for imam ali (as) superiority plus many more. That is just a true testament to how great this man was, it is defiantly not something you should just whisk away and say "..yeah, but!..."

Brother kbsquare

I cannot dare whisk away such merits of HAZRAT ALI AS , the list does not end here as it goes on and on . If it comes to describing the merits than my tongue would get tired but the merits won't stop, but I have understood ur point of view and I respect it and I expect vice versa that's it brother.

Yeah we r here to learn , I might learn some things from you and you might learn few things from me... Thanks anyways brother.... Nice to know a person like u here.... Thumbs up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why so much of Abu Bakr and Umar bashing? just leave them alone, whether they were good, bad or ugly Allah knows better. they were no yazid. we all agree that Ali r.a was the best and that's all that matters.

Thank you very much brother

To second you I would like to mention:

Imam Ahmed IBN e hanbal conducted a research on THE HOLY QURAN and concluded that there are as many as 300 verses in THE QURAN revealed describing the merit of IMAM ALI AS which no one else matches.

Further,

Imam Ahmed ibn e hanbal, imam jalal ud din suyuti, imam hakim and ibn e asakir have opined that the merits in favour of HAZRAT ALI KARAM ULLAH WAJJAHU are so great that no one else matches them.

JAZAK Allah

Edited by Advocate123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the event of ghadeer, the narration: Kitab Al Sunnah Volume 2 page, 565, Narration 1188: "You are from me, like the status to that of Haroon is to Musa, except  you are not a prophet, It should not be that I leave, Only when you are my Caliph, In every Mo'om'in (Faithful Muslim) After me......"  these and other narrations are not in your books? Just the shia books and their innovations?  You dont want to believe in divine appointment? Fine, convince us "the rafadi" that it was the prophet who said that the appointment of the caliphate should be done by shura,  he gave a specific procedure on how this shura is to take place; as this is a very serious matter, further more, that this way of shura appointment, which you are going to be so kind to provide for us "rawafid," was followed to the T  by umar (ra), abu bakr (ra) and the other few companions, and also that this shura way appointment since it is going to be done by falliable men who are very much likely to commit error (Duh: ummayad caliphate, abbasid, etc) is still very much valid in the sense that any one person who rejects them (the appointed) should forever be referred to as a "rawafid," and cast out of the fold of islam.  

 

Jazak Allah al khair

(salam)

Narration is not reliable. 

 

 

(salam)  brother,

               I am sorry but what you have claimed is not true.

 

Successor-ship to the Prophet (pbub) was such an important aspect of the prophet hood that the Prophet  (pbuh) brought it up during his initial days of inviting people to Islam itself (Read Dhul-Asheera). Saying that the Prophet  (pbuh) did not leave a successor behind is nothing but a blatant lie.

 

You are ignoring everything the Prophet  (pbuh) said and did just to cover for one person who was neither a prophet nor a person whom the prophet loved. He was one of the many people whom the Prophet  (pbuh) did not want to be around in Medina at the time of his death.

 

 

(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. 

 

 

(salam)  brother,        

 

 

Are you suggesting that one shouldn't state what is in the History books?

 

 

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

 

     It seems you need a Sledge Hammer from your own Two Great Books , i.e Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari.

 

     So Listen !!  Syedina Ali  (as)  consider Abu Bakr and Umar both as Liar , Sinner , Cheater and Betrayer . And this was in the time of Umar .It means Syedina Ali ( Alaih Salam ) till the time of Umar had that Stance about Abu Bakr and Umar . The Following Hadith will Open your eyes.

  The sunni world says that . 

Sahih Bukhari and Muslim are the most Authentic Book after Quran .

 

          ٖFirst see the Sahih Hadith from Mustadrik Hakim .

 

 

                   Ummay_will_Betray_you11.jpg

  

           

              Now see Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari

 

 

 

            Abu_bakr_Umr_Sinner_Betrayer.jpg

 

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

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Narration is not reliable.

 

If you meant Hadith of Manzila is not reliable then I request you to kindly do some research before making bold statements. A simple internet search gives the list of sources/scholars who have confirmed it's authenticity. Below is a link I found:

 

http://www.al-islam.org/peshawar-nights-sultan-al-waadhim-sayyid-muhammad-al-musawi-ash-shirazi/fourth-session-sunday-night#authenticity-hadith-manzila-usual-sources

 

 

 

 

(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. 

 

 

 

Again, I am sorry but your response about Hadith of Manzila is another example of cherry picking of hadiths and you accuse us of picking and choosing hadiths. Do I need to say anything more?

 

Can you please let me know what happened at Dhul-asheera? Was there any nomination during the event?

 

Also, don't get me wrong I am not saying that Prophet (pbuh) never said anything good about Abu Bakr. He may have done some good things for Islam but a quick look into his life post the death of the Prophet (pbuh) is also supposed to be taken into consideration before passing a judgement.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Your question about preference is incorrect. Without looking in to the history how would you know who remained a Muslim and who apostatized? Merely stating what is written in the history books is not contradicting the verse you have quoted in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

*Sigh*

 

I have respect for people who try to get involved in an academic debate trying to seek the truth, but you are just a complete liar who insists on using the same garbage website over and over again even after I've told you and even given you the proof of how that website is filled with lies.

 

You are at par with that Nawasib-owned website. Anybody who takes any information from you or even takes you seriously for that matter, is naive to think that you are actually a serious person. Kind of ironic who you don't follow Abu Bakr's sunnah of being 'as-Siddique' while you are ghayr as-Siddique.

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235016210-how-many-sons-did-imam-ali-have-and-names/

 

لَعْنَتَ اللَّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Narration is not reliable. 

 

 

 

 

Akhi, Bravo! Bravo!  I did not ask you to comment on the authenticity of any hadith.  I asked you questions about the process of election by shura, its conditions, and what deems those of whom that don't accept the appointments who were appointed by a falliable system.  If you: Choose not to answer, Cant answer, and/or unable to answer then please dont give me answers to questions that I did not ask.  Thank you.

Edited by kbsquare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the OP of the thread has referred a quranic verse and asked BTW that If Abu Bakar is included in it or not. Therefore, instead of doing Tafseer bil Rai and bringing our own emotions into play. Let us see what Prophet (pbuh) has said about these verses of Holy Quran.

 

69. " And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed favours, of the prophets, and the trathful, and the martyrs, and the righteous; and excellent are these as companions." 70. " This is the grace from Allah, and sufficient is Allah as the Knower." Occasion of Revelation

Upon the revelation of this verse, it has been cited that: once one of the companians of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) , Who was named Nuban, and had afairly intensive affection to him, came to him while he was very distressed. The Messenger of Allah asked him about his disturbance and he answered that he reviewed the thought in his mind that day that: if he would be admitted into Paradise on the Day of Judgement he would surely not be in the position of the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) therein. And, if he would not be admitted into Paradise, his circumstance was evident. Therefore, in either of the cases he might be deprived from being at the presence of him (p.b.u.h.) . That was why he was distressed.

 

Then, these two verses were revealed and gave glad tidings to such people implying that the obedient persons will be the companions of the prophets and the chosen ones in Heaven. Then the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) said:

 

"By Allah, the faith of a Muslim will not complete except that the one loves me better than himself, his parents and all his relatives, and that he be submitted to my words.

 

Commentary:

Companions in Heaven

 

In the previous verses it enumerated the privileges of the obedients to the command of Allah. To complete them, this verse says:

 

"And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed favours, ..."

 

As it was mentioned in the  sura Al-Hamd, This bounty reaches to those who constantry pave the Straight Both and go astray naught.

 

Then, to explain this phrase, it points to four groups, and says:

 

"... of the prophets, and the trathful, and the martyrs, and the righteous; ..."

 

1. The prophets and the special messengers of Allah are those who take the first step for the guidance, leadership and invitation of people to the Straight Path.

 

2. The truthful are those who both tell the truth in the their speach and prove it by their true and sincere deeds. They practically show that they are not only above clainer of Faith, but truly do believe in the commands of Allah.

In Islamic literature, the immaculate Imams and Fatimat-uz-Zahara are introduced as the best samples of 'the truthful'.

 

3. The mortyrs are those slaim in the path of divine goal and belief, or those distinguished persons who will be witnesses to the deeds of human beings on the Day of Judgement.

 

4. The Righteous are the distinguished eligible persons who have gained some prominent ranks by performing some positive, productive and useful deeds and also by obeying the commands of prophets. At the end of the verse, it remarks:

 

"... and excellent are these as companions."

 

It is clearly understood from the above verse that having good companious and aluable friends is so important that even in the Here after, to complete the Heavenly hounties, this great favour will be granted to the obedients, too.

 

To express the importance of this great advantage (viz. The companionship of the Chosens) , it says:

 

"This is the grace from Allah, and sufficient is Allah as the Knower."

 

However, being with prophets and the truthful is a grace from Allah to those who obey Him.

 

Allah is cognizant to the states of obedient and disobedient people, as well as to the circumstances of the hypocrites and sincere helievers. He knows those who are eligible for the friendship of the prophets, the truthful and so on, the some as the states of those who are not eligible because He is even aware of the treachery of the eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

             Imam Bukhari and scholars like him  used (as)   with Ahle bait  . just one example  . though there are many several places

where Imam Bukhari and other scholars used Alaih Salam with Ahle  Bait

 

They also used (as) for Omol-Mominin Sayyida Aisha (ra) and even for Abubakr (ra) and Umar (ra). 

 

If you meant Hadith of Manzila is not reliable then I request you to kindly do some research before making bold statements. A simple internet search gives the list of sources/scholars who have confirmed it's authenticity. Below is a link I found:

 

http://www.al-islam.org/peshawar-nights-sultan-al-waadhim-sayyid-muhammad-al-musawi-ash-shirazi/fourth-session-sunday-night#authenticity-hadith-manzila-usual-sources

 

 

Again, I am sorry but your response about Hadith of Manzila is another example of cherry picking of hadiths and you accuse us of picking and choosing hadiths. Do I need to say anything more?

 

Can you please let me know what happened at Dhul-asheera? Was there any nomination during the event?

 

Also, don't get me wrong I am not saying that Prophet  (pbuh) never said anything good about Abu Bakr. He may have done some good things for Islam but a quick look into his life post the death of the Prophet  (pbuh) is also supposed to be taken into consideration before passing a judgement.

 

 

(salam)

I am not talking about authentic versions of Hadith al-Manzila. I was referring to that specific narration that contained the sentence "you are calph of every believer after me". 

 

 

 

Your question about preference is incorrect. Without looking in to the history how would you know who remained a Muslim and who apostatized? Merely stating what is written in the history books is not contradicting the verse you have quoted in any way.

 

No those whom Allah praised and confirmed the faith that was in their hearts. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Advocate123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

            Then why dont your sunni scholars Openly Says Abu  bakr Alaih Salam ???? Are you ashamed???

 

Go openly say that . I have never heard any sunni scholar saying neither he will allow you .

 

As Far as adding Alaih Salam to Ahle bait . it is because also we say Durood Salam in Salah . and we send salutation on Prophet's Family .

 and only Ahle Bait deserves that and they are rightful for that .

 If any scholar used it for Abu Bakr it doesnt mean he is rightul for that ..

 

 Many use  even Ra for Abu Hanifa though he is not sahabi

 

 

Salawat is only for Ahle bait . none else deserves that . and in Salah we only send salutation on Prophet and his family not Sahaba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 


(salam)


I am not talking about authentic versions of Hadith al-Manzila. I was referring to that specific narration that contained the sentence "you are calph of every believer after me". 

 

 

Oh ok, your previous post was not clear. 

 

Edit: The hadith you have doubted has already been posted above by brother Fahad Khan.

 

 

No those whom Allah praised and confirmed the faith that was in their hearts. 

 

 

 

And who are those whom Allah has praised and confirmed that faith was in their hearts & why?

Edited by yam_110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And who are those whom Allah has praised and confirmed that faith was in their hearts 

 

(salam)

The people whom you think turned on their heels after the Prophet (saw).

 

 

 

 

& why?

For Supporting his Prophet (saw) and Islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

The people whom you think turned on their heels after the Prophet (saw).

 

 

 

For Supporting his Prophet (saw) and Islam. 

 

 

 

(wasalam)

 

Please name them & your sources.

 

 

Also, I am still waiting for your response to my question on the nomination which happened at Dhul-asheera. Can you please answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(wasalam)

 

Please name them 

 

(wasalam)

One of them is Abubakr (ra)

 

 

& your sources.

 

 

 

Quran

 

 

 

Also, I am still waiting for your response to my question on the nomination which happened at Dhul-asheera. Can you please answer?

 

I haven't read about it much. 

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...