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

Was Abu Talib R.a A Kaffir According To Sunnis?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Salamunalaykum,

 

Shia muslims are often slated for saying they believe the first three Caliphs wrongly took the leadership, and that they took part in the opression of the ahlulbayt a.s Some people do takfir on shia's just for believing this.

 

But what about Abu Talib r.a the man who protected Muhammed pbuh, who was his aid, who did so much in the early stages?

 

Here is a Hadith in Saheeh al-Bukhari:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 222:


Narrated Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib:
That he said to the Prophet "You have not been of any avail to your uncle (Abu Talib) (though) by Allah, he used to protect you and used to become angry on your behalf." The Prophet said, "He is in a shallow fire, and had It not been for me, he would have been in the bottom of the (Hell) Fire."

 

According to hadiths from Bukhari, he is currently burning in fire. So my question is: If we are accused of not loving Sahabah(false claim) why do our brothers in the ahle sunnah believe one of the closest aids and helpers of Muhammed pbuh is burning in hell?

 

Why do we not then say, sunni's believe he was a kaffir and will burn in hell therefore sunni's are kaffir?

 

You may bring an argument that he was not a muslim, but then we also can say in our sources x wasn't a true pious follower of Muhammed pbuh. So we really reach a statelemate. We both have evidences and groups we choose to obtain our sunnah from and those we don't.

 

Calling one of the most revered individuals in the shia-school a kaffir who is burning in hell is actually quite offensive, much worse than asking Allah swt in private to remove his mercy from an individual.

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

The stories of the uncle of the prophet (sallalaho alaihe wasallam) is another thing that has been making me question Sunni hadiths, they say he was a supporter of the prophet (sallalaho alaihe wasallam) so I was under the impression he was muslim.. Then my mentor told me a Hadith that when Abu Talib died the prophet (sallalaho alaihe wassalam) prayed over him asking Allah almighty to forgive him which I thought was quite strange seeing as he was such a great supporter of Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Sunni Logic:

 

Abu Talib who helped Prophet (saww) throughout his life = Kaafir

Abu Sufyan who waged war against the Prophet (saww) = Sahaba

 

 

go figure....

 

 

Brother, it is simple logic.  Abu Talib did not accept Islam whereas Abu Sufyan did.  Is there a need to further probe this?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamunalaykum,

 

Shia muslims are often slated for saying they believe the first three Caliphs wrongly took the leadership, and that they took part in the opression of the ahlulbayt a.s Some people do takfir on shia's just for believing this.

 

But what about Abu Talib r.a the man who protected Muhammed pbuh, who was his aid, who did so much in the early stages?

 

Here is a Hadith in Saheeh al-Bukhari:

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 222:

Narrated Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib:

That he said to the Prophet "You have not been of any avail to your uncle (Abu Talib) (though) by Allah, he used to protect you and used to become angry on your behalf." The Prophet said, "He is in a shallow fire, and had It not been for me, he would have been in the bottom of the (Hell) Fire."

 

According to hadiths from Bukhari, he is currently burning in fire. So my question is: If we are accused of not loving Sahabah(false claim) why do our brothers in the ahle sunnah believe one of the closest aids and helpers of Muhammed pbuh is burning in hell?

 

Why do we not then say, sunni's believe he was a kaffir and will burn in hell therefore sunni's are kaffir?

 

You may bring an argument that he was not a muslim, but then we also can say in our sources x wasn't a true pious follower of Muhammed pbuh. So we really reach a statelemate. We both have evidences and groups we choose to obtain our sunnah from and those we don't.

 

Calling one of the most revered individuals in the shia-school a kaffir who is burning in hell is actually quite offensive, much worse than asking Allah swt in private to remove his mercy from an individual.

 

 

ya akhi y do u create such kind of threads? This is insanity! I strongly condemn the title of this thread!!!! It will create more hatred between sunni & shias.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

On return from the mountain, the Prophet had hardly passed a few days

in peace when Abu Talib and Khadija both died. He paid his last visit

to Abu Talib when he was dying. Abu Jahl and Abd Allah ibn Ummaya were

already there. The Prophet asked Abu Talib to recite the credo of

Islam, so that he might bear witness to his faith in the presence of

Allah. Abu Jahl and Ibn Umayya expostulated with Abu Taleb and asked

if he was going to turn away from the religion of Abd Al Muttalib. In

the end Abu Talib said that he was dying with is belief in the

religion of Abd Al Muttalib. Then he turned to the Prophet and said

that he would have recited the creed but he feared lest the Quraish

should accuse him of fear of death. The Prophet said that he would be

praying to Allah for him till He forbade (Bukhari on the Chapter of

Funeral. The last sentence has been taken from Muslim and not

Bukhari). This is the version of Bukhari and Muslim. Ibn Ishaq says

that while dying Abu Talib's lips were in motion. al-Abbas who was

till then a nonbeliever, put his ear to his lips and then said to the

Prophet that he was reciting the KALIMA the Prophet had wanted of him.

Ibn Hisham, Cairo Edition, p 146)."

 

Shibli Numani, in his most celebrated work on the Seera of the Prophet, Siratun Nabi ( v 1, p 219 and 220 )

 

It is reported in the book of al-Bayhaqi (Dalail al-Nubuwwah) that when Abu Talib was at the point of death, he was seen moving his lips. al Abbas (the Prophet's uncle) bent down to listen to what he was saying. he then lifted

his head and said:

 

By Allah, he has uttered the word which you requested, O Messenger of Allah!.

 

Dalail al-Nubuwwah by al-Bayhaqi, vol 2 p 101

Ibn Hisham, Cairo Edition, p146 as quoted in Siratun Nabi, by Shibli

Numani, v1, pp 219-220

 

There is certainly contradiction in Sunni literature whether Abu Talib embraced islam or not?

 

Shibli Numani was a great science of hadith specialist…..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brother, it is simple logic.  Abu Talib did not accept Islam whereas Abu Sufyan did.  Is there a need to further probe this?  

Its no so simple because Abu Talib has a record of helping the Prophet (saww) propagate the message of Islam out of his own free will whereas Abu Sufyan accepted Islam in a munafiq manner when all his evil intentions did not pan out and his neck was in a vice. There was no changes in his outlook.

 

For the Shias: Sufyan also came to Ali (AS) after Saqifa to pledge his troops for Ali (AS) to revolt against Abu Bakr. This shows his evil plans.  Najhul Balagha sermon 5 + Sheikh Mufid.

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house, it's in Shi'a books too.

 

 

Very helpful post. Give your ego a pat on the back.

 

This problem with this statement is that our scholar have a general consensus that Abu Talib was a muslim while Ahlesunnah consensus is that he died without reciting the shahada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1.  Its no so simple because Abu Talib has a record of helping the Prophet (saww) propagate the message of Islam out of his own free will whereas Abu Sufyan accepted Islam in a munafiq manner when all his evil intentions did not pan out and his neck was in a vice. There was no changes in his outlook.

 

2.  For the Shias: Sufyan also came to Ali (as) after Saqifa to pledge his troops for Ali (as) to revolt against Abu Bakr. This shows his evil plans.  Najhul Balagha sermon 5 + Sheikh Mufid.

 

 

1.  Therefore, one accepted the Islam, the other did not.  Now that we have that out of the way, let us talk about Abu Sufyan [ra] losing his eyes.  He lost one eye at two different battles.  Had he been a hypocrite, he would not have risked his second eye.

 

2.  I read something similar quoted from Tarikh Tabari but we know the preface clearly says that Tabari [rah] only compiled that which reached him, without checking the authenticity of the report.  But assuming this actually happened, it creates more problems for your argument.

 

a.  Abu Sufyan [ra] offered support to Imam Ali [ra] unlike his grandson who killed Imam Hussain [ra].  Should you not like him?  After all, if Abu Bakr [ra] usurped the right of Imam Ali [ra], Abu Sufyan [ra] found himself on the right side of history (as per Shia beliefs).  So if anything, you should sing his praises.

 

b.  But if Abu Sufyan [ra] really intended fitnah, then the fact that Imam Ali [ra] turned down his allegiance (and offer of men and support) clearly hints at Imam Ali [ra] accepting the Caliphate of Abu Bakr [ra].

 

c.  Third possibility is that Imam Ali [ra] chose the "lesser of two evils" and thought that accepting Abu Bakr's [ra] Caliphate is less detrimental to Islam than is accepting Abu Sufyan's [ra] proposal.  So why do you hesitate from doing what Imam Ali [ra] did?  Why do you refrain from accepting Abu Bakr's Caliphate?  Follow Imam Ali [ra]!

 

Again, no matter which one of the three arguments you side with, you have contradicted your own beliefs.  I say that with humility.  Please do not be offended.

Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I really didnt wish to pursue this any further because we are derailing someone else's thread however some of the absurd arguments presented really needs to be explained.

 

1.  Therefore, one accepted the Islam, the other did not.  Now that we have that out of the way, let us talk about Abu Sufyan [ra] losing his eyes.  He lost one eye at two different battles.  Had he been a hypocrite, he would not have risked his second eye.

 

 

Islam is about actions and you are judged by your intentions. So if one was to say Shahada while holding disbelief against Allah and malice against his prophet (saww) then it doesnt count for much.

 

The position of a Munifaqoon like that is worse then a kuffar.

 

 

Abu Talib recited the Nikah of the Prophet (saww) and upon Abu Talib and Bibi Khadija death it was our Prophet (saww) who declared an entire year of grief.

 

 

 

2.  I read something similar quoted from Tarikh Tabari but we know the preface clearly says that Tabari [rah] only compiled that which reached him, without checking the authenticity of the report.  But assuming this actually happened, it creates more problems for your argument.

 

This is a very convenient argument used by Ahlesunnah. If they dont like anything by Tabari then they point out to the book preface. Surprisingly everything else is acceptable and no doubt he is known to be a renowned historian.

 

 

a.  Abu Sufyan [ra] offered support to Imam Ali [ra] unlike his grandson who killed Imam Hussain [ra].  Should you not like him?  After all, if Abu Bakr [ra] usurped the right of Imam Ali [ra], Abu Sufyan [ra] found himself on the right side of history (as per Shia beliefs).  So if anything, you should sing his praises.

 

b.  But if Abu Sufyan [ra] really intended fitnah, then the fact that Imam Ali [ra] turned down his allegiance (and offer of men and support) clearly hints at Imam Ali [ra] accepting the Caliphate of Abu Bakr [ra].

 

c.  Third possibility is that Imam Ali [ra] chose the "lesser of two evils" and thought that accepting Abu Bakr's [ra] Caliphate is less detrimental to Islam than is accepting Abu Sufyan's [ra] proposal.  So why do you hesitate from doing what Imam Ali [ra] did?  Why do you refrain from accepting Abu Bakr's Caliphate?  Follow Imam Ali [ra]!

 

I posted a reference to Najhul Balagha sermon 5 - Please read it because it address all of this absurdity.

 

There are plenty of others thread on Shiachat which addresses this topic, feel free to browse them.

 

 

Again, no matter which one of the three arguments you side with, you have contradicted your own beliefs.  I say that with humility.  Please do not be offended.

No offence taken. Thank you for your humility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

1.  The position of a Munifaqoon like that is worse then a kuffar.

 

2.  This is a very convenient argument used by Ahlesunnah. If they dont like anything by Tabari then they point out to the book preface. Surprisingly everything else is acceptable and no doubt he is known to be a renowned historian.

 

3.  I posted a reference to Najhul Balagha sermon 5 - Please read it because it address all of this absurdity.

There are plenty of others thread on Shiachat which addresses this topic, feel free to browse them.

 

 

 

 

1.  Agreed but here is one characteristic of a munafiq:

 

"Those who believe say, 'Why is not a Surah (chapter of the Qur'an) sent down (for us)?'  But when a decisive Surah (explaining and ordering things) is sent down, and fighting (Jihad holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is mentioned (i.e. ordained) therein, you will see those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) looking at you with a look of one fainting to death.  But it was better for them (hypocrites, to listen to Allah and to obey Him). (Qur'an 47:20)

 

A man to risk losing a second eye after having lost the first one - during two separate battles - does not fit that definition.

 

2.  We only rely on what Tabari [rah] said in the preface or introduction of his tareekh.  If he said he was only collecting narrations without authenticating them, then we have no reason to contest it.

 

3.  That is alright.  We will agree to disagree although my points are simple reactionary questions when your claims (regarding Abu Sufyan [ra] extending help to Imam Ali [ra] in order to overthrow Abu Bakr [ra]) are put next to your beliefs (that Abu Sufyan [ra] was an "evil person"..........plus when we see that Imam Ali [ra] never contested the Caliphate of Abu Bakr [ra]).

Edited by muslim720
Link to post
Share on other sites

ya akhi y do u create such kind of threads? This is insanity! I strongly condemn the title of this thread!!!! It will create more hatred between sunni & shias.... 

 

Salamunalaykum,

 

I think it will bring unity. Sunnis - or a minority say- as long as shia's believe Abubakr wrongly took the cilaphah we will never unite with shias if they speak about our Sahabas. Shia's can then say, well hang on, you believe one of our most revered companions Abu Talib, who protected Muhammed pbuh, did so much for islam is burning in hell or will burn in hell is way more offensive , so we have a stalemate.

 

So what then? Either side realizes they have differences, and need to unite and be respectful without leaving their beleifs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...