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  
The Light

Why Some Shia's Defend The First 3 Caliphs?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(salam)

 

Recently, I've seen talking to some Shias and some are my relatives. When we talk about some personalities of the ahle sunnah. For example, Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman. 

 

They try to upgrade their status by saying that we must respect them, because they were the caliphs after Rasulaallah (pbuh), they were just, they spread Islam etc. They even say hazrat before their names. 

I'm like "What the hell is wrong with these Shias?" :mad:

 

They're main argument is that, well if they were bad, why didn't Imam Ali  (as) fight them. 

Believe me they are acting like sunnis which is horribly frustrating. They think that the first 3 caliphs were legitimate. 

 

 

I mean, what's wrong with these Shias?

 

Have you experienced this thing before?

Edited by The Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Recently, I've seen talking to some Shias and some are my relatives. When we talk about some personalities of the ahle sunnah. For example, Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman. 

 

They try to upgrade their status by saying that we must respect them, because they were the caliphs after Rasulaallah (pbuh), they were just, they spread Islam etc. They even say hazrat before their names. 

I'm like "What the hell is wrong with these Shias?" :mad:

 

They're main argument is that, well if they were bad, why didn't Imam Ali  (as) fight them. 

Believe me they are acting like sunnis which is horribly frustrating. They think that the first 3 caliphs were legitimate. 

 

 

I mean, what's wrong with these Shias?

 

Have you experienced this thing before?

 

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

I don't see anything wrong with that. They were companions of the Holy Prophet(PBUH). You can't deny that. And yes they were the first three caliphs after Prophet(PBUH)'s death, that is history. We may disagree about their right to rule, and that Imam Ali(AS) should have succeeded the Prophet(PBUH) instead of Hazrat Abu Bakr, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen etc.

 

(wasalam)     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if they were bad, why didn't Imam Ali  (as) fight them. 

 

Whether they were good or bad is a separate issue.

 

But it is stupid to expect that our Imams should fight every bad person. 

 

The situations when fighting is obligatory (or even permissible) are not that straightforward. 

 

In any case, Islam is not all about fighting

 

SABR also has a very high place in Islam.

 

And SABR means to put your arms down. 

They even say hazrat before their names. 

 

For the sake of sectarian peace and goodwill among Muslims, there is no harm in adding 'HAZRAT' to their names.

 

They think that the first 3 caliphs were legitimate. 

 

That is not the Shia belief though.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, 

 

It seems that no one really reads the threads properly. 

 

I didn't come here to ask questions.

 

I came here to say if anyone else has experienced this kind of thing where they see ignorant shias. 

 

You know what.

 

I am really starting to think that every Shia is turning into batris.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

I don't see anything wrong with that. They were companions of the Holy Prophet(PBUH). You can't deny that. And yes they were the first three caliphs after Prophet(PBUH)'s death, that is history. We may disagree about their right to rule, and that Imam Ali(AS) should have succeeded the Prophet(PBUH) instead of Hazrat Abu Bakr, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen etc.

 

(wasalam)     

Who said that I deny that they were the 3 khalifs. 

I never denied history. 


 

 

For the sake of sectarian peace and goodwill among Muslims, there is no harm in adding 'HAZRAT' to their names.

 

 

.

Sorry, there were no sunnis sitting next to us. 

 

If that's the case, then some shias are in taqiya 24/7.

Edited by The Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dare a supposed Shia to utter the word 'hazrat', an honorary epithet, before the names of Abu Bakr and Umar in front of Zahra (a.s.) or Al Qaem of Aale Muhammad (s.a.w.s) when his blesssed returnn will grace the world.

FisherKing, I don't know whether you said what you did in the above posts out of sheer ignorance or the slip of tongue, but until you retract or clarify then you have fallen out of the fold of wilaya.

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is batrism?

 

A pejorative term used for those Shias who use 'hadhrat/hazrat' as a prefix to the names of the Sunni caliphs and other Sahaba and those who maintain that the caliphs weren't by nature bad people who willfully acted out of hatred and malice towards Islam but misunderstood the message of Islam and hence did what they did due to their lack of knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pejorative term used for those Shias who use 'hadhrat/hazrat' as a prefix to the names of the Sunni caliphs and other Sahaba and those who maintain that the caliphs weren't by nature bad people who willfully acted out of hatred and malice towards Islam but misunderstood the message of Islam and hence did what they did due to their lack of knowledge.

Actually no. It is pointed out against those who respect the first 3, and other enemies of Ahlulbaayt. In particular, those who say — "May Allaah (s.w.t) Be pleased with them".

It is said that Zayd, son of Imaam Zaynul-`Aabideen (a.s) first used it.

Edited by DaBeast313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks marbles, is this a new interpretation of the term batri?

 

Very much so. It's used a lot by overzealous Shias against those who take a slightly charitable view of the Shaykhain and other Sahaba in the Abu Bakr camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have a theory on why some shias have turned to this.

 

In muslim countries where there are majority sunni islam, when shia kids go to school, they grow up with sunni muslims and eventually they are brainwashed by them. I've seen some ahlul bait followers who call themselves shia, but they have mixed beliefs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually no. It is pointed out against those who respect the first 3, and other enemies of Ahlulbaayt. In particular, those who say — "May Allaah (s.w.t) Be pleased with them".

It is said that Zayd, son of Imaam Zaynul-`Aabideen (a.s) first used it.

 

A certain group of Zaydis were called Batriyyah because their leader was Kathir al-Nawa al-Abtar. There were other Zaydis who held similar beliefs but they were not called batri. The label refers to a certain group with a particular leader. Today the YH cult likes to label nearly all their shia opponents with that term. 

 

It is said that Zayd, son of Imaam Zaynul-`Aabideen (a.s) first used it.

 

 

What is your evidence?

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Recently, I've seen talking to some Shias and some are my relatives. When we talk about some personalities of the ahle sunnah. For example, Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman. 

 

They try to upgrade their status by saying that we must respect them, because they were the caliphs after Rasulaallah (pbuh), they were just, they spread Islam etc. 

 

Study human behaviour and you see the same thing happening across the world with people of all creeds. Many people are not good at judging character - especially of their leaders. Also some shia don't know everything.

 

They even say hazrat before their names. 

 

 

This is done in the indo-pak community, even by people who dislike these individuals. You will even hear it on the pulpits when a the speaker is criticising them. One of our scholars saying it: "companions as Hazrat Umar" http://www.al-islam.org/quran-its-protection-alteration-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/some-ahadith-omission

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FisherKing, I don't know whether you said what you did in the above posts out of sheer ignorance or the slip of tongue, but until you retract or clarify then you have fallen out of the fold of wilaya.

Wassalam

Excuse me but who are you to declare that I have fallen out of the fold of Wilaya?

My parents are Shia from Pakistan and when I ask them about Sunnis they say Hazrat Abu bakr as well...just because one says that doesn't mean they're Sunni or out of the Shia fold. That is pure ignorance. May Allah(Swt) guide you iA.

Btw many people in Pakistan say Hazrat before the caliphsnames...idk if ts something they're used to or developed as a practice but many Shia in Pakistan do.

Edited by FisherKing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is done in the indo-pak community, even by people who dislike these individuals. You will even hear it on the pulpits when a the speaker is criticising them. One of our scholars saying it: "companions as Hazrat Umar" http://www.al-islam.org/quran-its-protection-alteration-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/some-ahadith-omission

 

True. Shias of Indo-Pak widely used the prefix of 'hazrat' with the names of the The Three and other Companions revered by the Sunnis when we have a slightest intimation that Sunnis might be present in the group we're speaking to. In writing too, take a look at any Shia book in Urdu, it uses hazrat if not [r.a] after the names of Sunni Companions. Some books which have a very sectarian nature don't use this embellishments, such as that of Ghulam Hussain Najafi, the self-styled 'Wakil of Ahl al-bayt', whose tone and style was not different from YH and whose book got banned.

 

Shias using 'hazrat' and sometimes radi Allah anhu is done out of respect for the Sunnis and for not hurting their sentiments. I find nothing wrong with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. Shias of Indo-Pak widely used the prefix of 'hazrat' with the names of the The Three and other Companions revered by the Sunnis when we have a slightest intimation that Sunnis might be present in the group we're speaking to. In writing too, take a look at any Shia book in Urdu, it uses hazrat if not [r.a] after the names of Sunni Companions. Some books which have a very sectarian nature don't use this embellishments, such as that of Ghulam Hussain Najafi, the self-styled 'Wakil of Ahl al-bayt', whose tone and style was not different from YH and whose book got banned.

Shias using 'hazrat' and sometimes radi Allah anhu is done out of respect for the Sunnis and for not hurting their sentiments. I find nothing wrong with it.

This. Thank you again brother Marbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Recently, I've seen talking to some Shias and some are my relatives. When we talk about some personalities of the ahle sunnah. For example, Abu bakr, Umar and Uthman. 

 

They try to upgrade their status by saying that we must respect them, because they were the caliphs after Rasulaallah (pbuh), they were just, they spread Islam etc. They even say hazrat before their names. 

I'm like "What the hell is wrong with these Shias?" :mad:

 

They're main argument is that, well if they were bad, why didn't Imam Ali  (as) fight them. 

Believe me they are acting like sunnis which is horribly frustrating. They think that the first 3 caliphs were legitimate. 

 

 

I mean, what's wrong with these Shias?

 

Have you experienced this thing before?

 

I doubt anyone says you have to respect the first 3 Caliphs. The issue is that we have members here that hold those 3 Caliphs dear while also believing in the same God and Prophet as we do. And for any forum to work properly we need diversity, and for diversity to work we need to show other members respect, and to show respect you sometimes have to tone down, hold back some things you want to say, don't insult, be patient etc.

 

 

 

It's very simple logic really, no one is saying you can't go out there and scream your lungs out, curse and insult, have a brawl or whatnot. If that is your idea of a good time or wajibat then yallah. But this place is a forum, and rules are implemented to make it work. 

 

However, this does not mean that you can praise anyone you like here. We have decided to set the limit at the first 3 Caliphs and the Prophets wives as that will encompass most sects of Islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People might use the term Hazrat but this in no way mean that they deserved the respect.

 

The bottom line is you can't love Ahlulbayt and not disassociate yourself form their enemies, which includes the first 3 caliphs.

 

Anyone that claims to love and respect both might believe he does, but in fact is only deceiving himself and yes that person is out of the fold of willaya. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why Imam Ali as treated Aisha with respect and organized rescue for her after the battle of the camel?

And why did Imam Ali AS send his sons to defend Umar or Uthman when they eventually got Assasinated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't see anything wrong with that. They were companions of the Holy Prophet(PBUH). You can't deny that. And yes they were the first three caliphs after Prophet(PBUH)'s death, that is history. We may disagree about their right to rule, and that Imam Ali(AS) should have succeeded the Prophet(PBUH) instead of Hazrat Abu Bakr, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen etc.

We don't merely "disagree" with them. It's a LOT more than that. 

 

http://realtashayyu.blogspot.com/2011/06/status-of-shaikhain.html

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between lenient and respectful in this case?

@Fisherking, Imam Ali as sent his sons to show that they will not be involved in barbaric treatment against anyone.But before He adviced Uthman to step back and to apologize to the people.But Uthman took the "advice" of his cousin Marwan la.And Imam Ali as provided that Uthman could receive water, but it was not a defending...he did his duties as an Imam.May Allah t curse his oppressors.

Edited by mina313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt anyone says you have to respect the first 3 Caliphs. The issue is that we have members here that hold those 3 Caliphs dear while also believing in the same God and Prophet as we do. And for any forum to work properly we need diversity, and for diversity to work we need to show other members respect, and to show respect you sometimes have to tone down, hold back some things you want to say, don't insult, be patient etc.

 

 

 

It's very simple logic really, no one is saying you can't go out there and scream your lungs out, curse and insult, have a brawl or whatnot. If that is your idea of a good time or wajibat then yallah. But this place is a forum, and rules are implemented to make it work. 

 

However, this does not mean that you can praise anyone you like here. We have decided to set the limit at the first 3 Caliphs and the Prophets wives as that will encompass most sects of Islam. 

I did not mean to say that we should not respect the ones that are dear to ahlu sunnah. I really do not have that attitude to insult them everywhere. That is against manners of being a shia of ahlul bait. It is important for everyone in this forum to respect each others sects. 

 

What I meant from this thread is that there are Shias who defend the 3 caliphs in front of you even when there are no sunnis present. 

I don't know if it's from ignorance, lack of research or they are brainwashed. 

 

The reason for writing this thread is that I saw that they are stubborn just like sunnis and saying that they were actually not that bad. 

Seriously, if shias that have that kind of attitude towards the enemies of ahlul bait, then I am ready to say that he/she does not deserve to be called a lover of ahlul bait and he/she is out of the fold of shia islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why Imam Ali as treated Aisha with respect and organized rescue for her after the battle of the camel?

I dont think he treated her with respect, he merely acted in a halal manner towards her (sending her into captivity with her brother accompanying her). If he had shown her any respect after she caused a war that killed thousands of muslims, it would've been out of respect for the Prophet and not her, something I think many shias should understand.

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...