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

Am I Forced To?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I agree, Ali was a spiritual leader and also a political leader. But, as today the enemy of Islam is trying to do is to divide spiritualism and politics, this same happend after the passing away of the Prophet (saww). 

You want to give us the body but not the head, the head belongs to someone else. Typical style of the enemy of Islam. 

 

Also look at post #67.

Salamun Alaykum Dear Brain User,

 

Every time I express what i said in my previous post, people immediately think that I am trying to exclude politics from Islam and they  think that I am advocating a kind of secularism.  I am certainly not proposing that!  I believe that politics is a religious issue as far as Islam is concerned!  But just because it is a religious issue does not mean that an Imam must necessarily be the a political ruler!  Sure, I as a Shia would wish if Imam Ali (as) and all the Ahlul Bayt (as) were caliphs and leaders.  But i feel that if that were the case we would be living in an ideal world (in paradise, literally).  Inshallah when the Imam (as) appears he (as) will make this earth into a kind of paradise and it is because of him that this terrestrial existence will come to an end (will be transformed rather).  But given that we are not living in that ideal world (at least not yet) I believe that the way how history transpired was as good as it could get and that whatever happened to Muslim Ummah was a blessing.          

 

Wallahu Alim,

Masalama

 

Ethereal

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

From what I remember from Aqaid class, a person who believes in Allah and his unity, his Prophet's Nabuwwah (saw) and Qiyamah is technically a Muslim (like for the purposes of being Pak/ being buried

We Shia reject Abu Bakr because we believe it is Ali's right to be the Caliph. Whether you believe that is true or not, that is the position of us Shia of Ahlulbayt.

بِسْم الله الرحمن الرحيم السلام عليكم I don't want to make this lengthy so I would like to address this point before addressing your earlier point that you made on Ghadir. Moreover, how do you recon

Yes, the oppression of Ahlul-bayt was also a blessing for Ummah.

That is not what I am saying brother/sister.

 

I am saying that , metaphysically speaking, this lower/ terrestrial world is not receptive enough to allow for people of such purity (i.e. the Ahlul Bayt (as)) to be leaders.  Even Imam Ali (as) was not allowed to rule properly and was constantly beset with internal problems, one after another.  Simply put, this world was and is simply not ready for them.  

 

May God hasten the appearance of our 12th Imam (as) and May God purify our hearts in order to make us receptive enough to receive and accept his rule.  If the 12th Imam (as) is not ready to be received outwardly in this terrestrial world then we should at least try to receive him inwardly through the purification of our hearts.      

 

Wallahu Alim,

Ma'salama

 

Ethereal 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamun Alaykum,

 

Inshallah, you are doing well.  Sorry I didn't reply to this before.  

 

.
They also invented pledging allegiance, which is also something new.

 

'Will you not make bai’at to the Rasul of Allah?' We stretched our hands and enquired: On what shall we make Bai’at to you, O Rasul of Allah? He (saw) said. 'That you make the Ibaadat of Allah,- that you associate nothing with Him,- that you perform the five Salaat; that you hear and obey."
(Muslim, Abu Daawood, Nisaai)

 

In the Qur'an, God says about Pledging Allegiance...:

 

"Verily, those who Swear Allegiance unto thee, O Muhammad (saw), in truth Swear Allegiance to God: The Hand of God is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with God,- God will soon grant him a great Reward." 
Qur'an (Surah 48: Verse 10)

 

 

Since sunnis claim that caliphate wasn't mentioned by the Prophet (saww) and Alllah, one can conclude that then the caliphate is an invention, bidah

 

Strictly according to your logic one can also conclude that to reject the caliphate is also an innovation since the Prophet (S) did not himself reject it.    

Isnt the caliphate something invented, what the Prophet (saww) nor Allah have spoken about, nor ordered it to exist? 

 

Did He order you to reject it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salamun Alaykum,

 

Inshallah, you are doing well.  Sorry I didn't reply to this before.  

 

 

'Will you not make bai’at to the Rasul of Allah?' We stretched our hands and enquired: On what shall we make Bai’at to you, O Rasul of Allah? He (saw) said. 'That you make the Ibaadat of Allah,- that you associate nothing with Him,- that you perform the five Salaat; that you hear and obey."

(Muslim, Abu Daawood, Nisaai)

 

In the Qur'an, God says about Pledging Allegiance...:

 

"Verily, those who Swear Allegiance unto thee, O Muhammad (saw), in truth Swear Allegiance to God: The Hand of God is over their hands: then any one who violates his oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and any one who fulfils what he has covenanted with God,- God will soon grant him a great Reward." 

Qur'an (Surah 48: Verse 10)

 

 

Strictly according to your logic one can also conclude that to reject the caliphate is also an innovation since the Prophet (S) did not himself reject it.    

Did He order you to reject it?

 

Ok, allegiance isn't bidah. I accept my mistake.

So, one could invent anything after his (saww) death and say that it is bidah to reject it since he (saww) himself didn't reject it. Would be better if they have decided about caliphate when he (saww) was alive. But no, they decided to wait for his (saww) death. How obvious is this betrayal.

No one did order me to reject it nor to accept it. But since the system is the same like in choosing a president, I have my own vote. Simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, one could invent anything after his (saww) death and say that it is bidah to reject it since he (saww) himself didn't reject it. Would be better if they have decided about caliphate when he (saww) was alive. But no, they decided to wait for his (saww) death. How obvious is this betrayal.

No one did order me to reject it nor to accept it. But since the system is the same like in choosing a president, I have my own vote. Simple as that.

Salamun Alayakum,

 

The error is to revolt against a righteous Caliph and to cause fitnah in the Ummah.  But if you feel that if you were living at those times and that you felt Ali (as) should have been the Caliph, then that is alright.  I too would like to think that if i were living then I would have wanted Ali (as) to be the first Caliph instead of Abu Bakr (ra) or Umar (ra).       

 

Imam Ali (as) was rather patient and cooperated with ABu Bakr and Umar (he helped and was involved) even though he felt he could have done far better for the Ummah.  And he was right from a certain perspective which it was his right to emphasize.  Abu Bakr (ra) was right from his own perspective.  They were both sincere and wanted the best for the Muslim Ummah.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay bro. Seems that I would be the one who is wrong, for not accepting something what they would impose on me. Seems legit and just. What a joke

Brother,

 

Just as Imam Ali (as) would have been wrong if he would have revolted so also would you be wrong if were to revolt.  We should be "Shia of Ali (as)" and follow his example.  Inshallah.

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethereal, while I respect your view, I differ because I see God's leadership as something he wants to take place in political affairs as well, like Mohammad [saw] was a political leader as well as a spiritual leader.

 

The perspective I get from the Talut [as] verses is that God wants people to follow the best in spirituality with regards to their social affairs. That is why the Prophet [as] responds that he has raised Talut as a King over them due to being chosen above them and being superior with respect to knowledge and body. It is further clarified that God in fact gives his authority to whom he pleases. This means Talut [as] was a King whether people followed him or not.

 

But the story doesn't stop there. The Prophet [as] before this stated they might turn on their backs when it came to fighting in the way of God. Now when people were going to fight following Talut [as]...Talut [as] said he tries them by a river that who drinks of it will be not from Talut [as] and those who don't drink from it or just a little drink will be from him. This was to test their sincerity towards God and that only with sincerity towards God were they truly fighting in the way of God and on the side of Talut [as]. Without that sincerity, they weren't on the side of Talut [as].

 

The Quran then reminds of one God's great Prophets, Dawood [as] slaying Jalut (Goliath). And then talks about giving him the MULK (kingdom/authority). 

 

We see the Spiritual Masters and Guides on the way of Ascension, God also wants them to be followed with respect to politics. He sees them as the most fit to rule.

 

The Quran talks about witnesses in every age, in all times, that people will be called with on the day of judgement and the witnesses will stand witness against them.  We see that God wants such witnesses to be taken as political leaders when they are present among people and manifest them so they can be followed with respect to all affairs.

 

In fact, verse (5:55) shows we have no absolute authorities aside from these leaders.

 

Aside from this, the Leadership of God through Mohammad [saw] with respect to both spirituality and politics, is one of the most emphasized themes in Quran. We know that God continued his authority in Ali [as], then Al-Hassan [as], then Al-Hussain [as]. 

 

Therefore the same leadership that Mohammad is vested with, and God wants with respect to Mohammad [saw], is the same that his 12 Successors inherit. This is the Wilayah talked about in (5:55) and the great mulk that the family of Ibrahim [as] was given in (4:54).

 

If one ponders about the Wilayah of Mohammad in Quran, people will see wisdom in it that it continues in spiritual successors inshallah with respect to every way leadership of Mohammad took place in Quran and Sunnah.

 

The light of this Wilayah will only be completed by Imam Mahdi [as], when people look to God for leadership in all their affairs.

 

It's this Wilayah that God wanted established in Bani-Israel through his Prophets [as], Kings [as], and Captains [as] chosen by him.

 

It's the same Wilayah of God that God wanted established through Ahlebayt[as]. When God gives his authority to whom he pleases, he trusts that person to lead in the way of God and represent God.

 

The 12 Successors from Quraysh were such leaders, but it seemed the Arabs only wanted to follow Quraysh with respect to the non-chosen leaders, and didn't want to accept the chosen leaders.

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

Just as Imam Ali (as) would have been wrong if he would have revolted so also would you be wrong if were to revolt.  We should be "Shia of Ali (as)" and follow his example. 

 

Revolting is different from not believing.

 

if you revolt in full knowledge of the Imam's rights and character, you are in serious trouble.

 

If you revolt without a valid reason, you are in serious trouble.

 

But if you do not believe in him for reasons beyond your control, such as, reading Sunni history books and having no exposure to Shia books, God may forgive you. 

 

If you do not believe because your information on the subject is flawed, again, God may forgive you. 

 

 Muslims, including Ali, chose Abubakr as their leader. 

 

That  is false.

 

Imam Ali did not choose caliph Abu Bakr as his leader.

 

First, he rejected him and then decided to tolerate the status quo. 

 

That is very different from choosing.

Edited by PeaceLoving
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ali did not choose him as successor. First, he rejected him and then decided to tolerate him. 

 

That is very different from choosing.

 

That's obvious. And most of the umma accepted Abu Baker as leader, they didn't chose him. They decided they didn't want to revolt against him, and Ali [as] didn't have the support to lead a rebellion...so it was most of the umma tolerating Abu Baker, not so much as choosing him. A minority of the ummah gathered and chose.

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

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

 

That  is false.

 

Imam Ali did not choose caliph Abu Bakr as his leader.

 

First, he rejected him and then decided to tolerate the status quo. 

 

That is very different from choosing.

 

 

Ali not only agreed with Imamah of Abubakr but also supported him. 

 

The only reason Ali was upset initially was that the decision was made in a hurry and he was not consulted about the Saqeefa Shura. 

 

 

That's obvious. And most of the umma accepted Abu Baker as leader, they didn't chose him. They decided they didn't want to revolt against him, and Ali [as] didn't have the support to lead a rebellion...so it was most of the umma tolerating Abu Baker, not so much as choosing him. A minority of the ummah gathered and chose.

 

The leaders of the Ansar, the majority of the city, chose Abubakr. Then the rest of the city agreed and pledged their allegiance to Abubakr in the Mosque of the Prophet (saw). 

 

 

@ Others

 

Yes, Abubakr was both a political and a religious leader. Just because you think Ali was the most knowledgeable, it doesn't mean the rest of Sahaba were ignorants. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the name of Allah(swt), the most beneficient, the most merciful.

 

Dear brother, you have made a few claims here. The first is that there is no evidence in the Quran, nor in the sunnah of Muhammed pbuh appointing anyone as his succesor. Secondly, you state muslims chose Abu Bakr, the first Caliph,  including Imam Ali a.s himself. Lastly, you praise both groups of people as righteous  , who chose the first Caliph. This all paints a very rosy picture, which in all honesty, and with respect, is far from what actually occured.

 

I want to try to dissect these claims in light of the Quran and hadith books deemed authentic by our brothers and sisters in the ahlul sunnah wal jamaah.

 

Firstly, let us look at the election of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph. Let us use only Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim to examine this, as if i quoted from a myriad of historical sources which sunni's and shia's have accepted, which are explicit, one may cast it aside. Therefore i will only use a source our sunni brothers and sisters can not dispute.

 

All the following quotes are

 

Firstly, the issue itself was very complicated.The people as a whole did not even seem to regard the first Caliph as the best individual. There was a lot of risk involved, and a lot of it was done on the spin last minute.

 

Taken from Sahih-Al- Bukhari or Sahih Muslim (all the hadiths or quotes will be henceforth)

 

Umar, the second Caliph states: "One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful"

 

Secondly, Imam Ali a.s opposed the first Caliph for six whole months. This is something absolutely significant. Not only did he oppose the first Caliph right away, but it carried on for an extremely lengthy duration of time.

 

Umar, the second Caliph states: `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr.

 

If you were given the Caliph position, and someone usurped it from you, the first reaction would naturally be opposing. Furthermore if the first Caliph was really praised as the best after Muhammed pbuh, and given so many praises - why do we see not only the companions, but even Ali a.s who must have heard these praises - that he was the best man after Muhammed pbuh(referring to Abu Bakr) oppose him? Would you oppose a man you believed was the best one after Muhammed pbuh?

 

We also find the Ansaar did not even think Abu Bakr was the most suitible. They did not recall Muhammed pbuh saying 'Abubakr is the best after me'  , 'Abubakr is garuenteed Jannah' , 'Follow Abubakr' etc.

 

Here's what the Ansaar say, again narrated by Umar, in Bukhari:

 

"'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it."

 

The ansaar, far from 'choosing' Abu-Bakr, accuse him, Umar, and the people at Saqifah of trying to deprive them of the Caliphaat position. Is this brotherhood, or is it vengeful accusations and dirty political accusations? It is very incorrect to assert that both groups were pious and thus, together chose Abu Bakr after a lengthy consultation of who would be the best to lead - far from it.

 

Infact, if you look at it according to Umar's report, Abu Bakr himself never at all suggested he was the best person to lead the Ummah.

 

Here is what Umar narrated of Abu-Bakrs speech to the Ansar: "After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question (of Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the Arabs as regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that you choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to either of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu Ubaida bin al-Jarrah's hand who was sitting amongst us."

 

 

There's two points i want to raise here. Firstly, why did Abu-Bakr not narrate his many qualities? Why did he not remind the people that Muhammed pbuh said he was the best after him? Why did he choose Umar, and Ubaida bin al jarrah -not even Uthman or Imam Ali a.s were there, and he should have known they were superior.

 

Additionally interesting to note, he argues about liniege. He stated that only one from the tribe of Muhammed pbuh i.e Quraish would be eligible. Now tell me, who is the one who , in terms of liniege, should be most suited according to Abu Bakr?

 

Umar, Himself, Ubaida bin Al Jarrah, or Ali Bin Abu Talib a.s , who not only part of Quraih, but Banu Hashim itself, the ahlylbayt a.s!

 

From every angle. this is extremely flawed.

 

Now, let us go back to the claim the ansar and the emigrants chose Abu-Bakr. The picture as i have previously stated, was painted in a very rosy way, which is far from the truth.

 

In reply to Abu Bakr's speech, here is what the Ansaar said: And then one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.'

 

Not only do they completely disregard Abu-Bakr's selection and choice, they actually wanted to split the Ummah with two rulers, one from them, and one from the emigrants. Do you think those who gathered in Saqifah - a minority- were people who wanted the best for the Ummah? To me, it looks like a fight and struggle for power, rather than an honest open dialouge on choosing a leader they deemed was the best for the Ummah.

 

Now, the interesting thing to note is how Abu-Bakr rose to power, according to Umar. This part itself reveals the truth of the situtation:

 

Umar narrates: "Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards."

 

Far from the emigrants and the ansaar mutually and respectfully agreeing on a succesor, or seeing the superior qualities of Abu-Bakr, there is actually a lot of arguments and fights - no-one is even agreeing with one another. It's direspectful, it seems , and i say this objectively, like a struggle for power in quite a barbaric way, deprived of reason, fair dialouge, or any thought as to whats best for the Ummah.

 

Note , no-one actually rationally decided to then choose the first Caliph. It was done by a minority, a very small minority in Saqifah. That small minority argued, disgagreed, refuted each other, and there was chaos that erupted, and Umar, according to his own testimony, quickly gave his hands out to Abu Bakr. Now what makes little sense to me is how everyone suddenly rushed to give hands to him when they were staunchly opposing one another? When there was only chaos and confusion? This part is very shady and rushed.

 

As we can see from this one narration from the second Caliph Umar, there was no rational dialouge, only bickering and refuting among his group and the minority of ansar who gathered at Saqifah. The majority of muslims were still mourning for the death of Muhammed pbuh, Ali a.s himself was not even at Saqifah. No-one should be deceived into thinking it was even a consultation. You can read the quotes from Bukhari of Umar's testimony for yourself and judge.

 

I now want to analyse the rejection of Imam Ali a.s to Abu Bakr

 

There is a claim made that Imam Ali a.s chose Abu-Bakr. Let me analyse this claim for truthfullness.

 

We know, historically and for a fact, the even of saqifah was done by a few muslims. Imam Ali a.s was not part of that 'consultation' nor did he even decide or even agree with it's outcome. As you have seen clearly, it was hardly a consultation at all, but bickering, arguing, egotistical and chaotic.

 

In Sahih Al Bukhari, we know two things about Imam Ali a.s with regards to how he responded to the appointment of Abu Bakr:

 

1. Bukhari: "`Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet's death and Fatima's death)."

2. Umar, the second Caliph states: `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr.

 

I am not going to quote the rest of the narration, because it's not reliable to the truth and narrated by people who were perhaps involved in this whole thing. All we know, historically speaking, is Imam Ali a.s opposed Abu-Bakr for six months, and opposed him and his appointment initially.

 

If Imam Ali a.s was so close to Abu-Bakr, if Imam Ali a.s had heard the prophet pbuh say Abu-Bakr was the best of men after him, if he had known the superiorty of Abu Bakr over him (as sunni hadiths narrate him as saying himself), if the muslims accepted Abu-Bakr(falsely claimed) , why did he not only reject his appointment, but also oppose him for six whole months.

 

If you have a disagreement with someone, and the stability of the ummah is at stake, and if this individual is the best of the Ummah according to what the Prophet pbuh said (claim by sunni brothers and sisters), and if you are so close to this person, you can disagree with them, but to oppose them for six whole months? Do you not atleast go and talk to them, tell them what you feel ? If i were to oppose someone for that long, it would mean i am absolutely sure they are not the right person to lead, or perhaps they have usurped the caliphat, and it was my right to it!

 

Imam Ali a.s used these months to review the situation, to see how to respond , if he could claim his right. But, he prefered the stability of the Ummah and keeping it away from civil war, and he did not have the means there and then to do so, and so observed patience.

 

One very interesting thing to note is that Fatima a.s did not give the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. She opposed his caliphaat until her death.

 

If your father told you that the best man was Abu-Bakr, the wisest man was Abu-Bakr, and that he was pious and the one to follow after him, would you really oppose him until your death? Would you oppose him for a day let alone six whole months?

 

What happened at saqifah was a illegal struggle for power. You can read the dialouge and clearly see no-one had any interest for the Ummah. It was done in the absence of the majority of the muslims and received opposition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

W. salam 

 

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

1- The leaders of the Ansar, the majority of the city, chose Abubakr. Then the rest of the city agreed and pledged their allegiance to Abubakr in the Mosque of the Prophet (saw). 

 

As already described in post nos. 33 & 55, one remains Muslim in case he rejects the caliphate of Abubakr. 

 

The discussion may be continued further if a sahih sunni hadith can be brought urging the Muslims to choose Abubakr as caliph / muslim ruler after the prophet, necessitating to give allegiance to him and accepting him as Ulil Amr.

 

Just getting hold of political circumstances against the group of companions who were loyal to the prophet saww and his family, does not prove any thing for the caliphate of Abubakr.

 

Regards

Edited by skamran110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

 

Tell me, so today (and since the time of the demise of the Prophet (saw)) we can't have leaders because Prophet (saw) is not here to approve them? This is an absurd argument. Brain User, you want the Prophet (saw) to live forever to approve leaders? 

 

The "group of people" were the Muhajirin and Ansar, the people explicitly praised in the Quran multiple times. They were the people of the time and appointed a leader for themselves.

 

I suggest you to refer to Quran for what you believe and say:

 

1. Mohajerin and Ansar was People, not innocent,

 

11 times in Quran:  "but most people do not know" ولکن اکثر الناس لا یعلمون

6 times:  "but most men do not believe" و... ولکن اکثر الناس لا یعقلون و لا یشکرون و لا یومنون

 

Mohajerin and Ansar was People as they are involves in these sentences too.

 

-------------------------------

 

2. Surah 9: 

وَ السَّابِقُونَ الْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهاجِرينَ وَ الْأَنْصارِ وَ الَّذينَ اتَّبَعُوهُمْ بِإِحْسانٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَ رَضُوا عَنْهُ وَ أَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْري تَحْتَهَا الْأَنْهارُ خالِدينَ فيها أَبَداً ذلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظيمُ (100)

And those who came early and quickly from amongst the emigrants and the supporters, and those who followed them in kindness; God Has accepted them, and they have accepted Him; and He prepared for them gardens with rivers flowing beneath in which they will abide eternally. Such is the great success.) 001 (

وَ مِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُمْ مِنَ الْأَعْرابِ مُنافِقُونَ وَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدينَةِ مَرَدُوا عَلَى النِّفاقِ لا تَعْلَمُهُمْ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ سَنُعَذِّبُهُمْ مَرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلى‏ عَذابٍ عَظيمٍ (101)

And from the Nomads around you are hypocrites, as well as from the city people, they persist in hypocrisy. You do not know them, but We know them. We will punish them twice, then they will be returned to a great punishment.) 101 (

وَ آخَرُونَ اعْتَرَفُوا بِذُنُوبِهِمْ خَلَطُوا عَمَلاً صالِحاً وَ آخَرَ سَيِّئاً عَسَى اللَّهُ أَنْ يَتُوبَ عَلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحيمٌ (102)

And others who have acknowledged their sins, they have mixed good work with bad. Perhaps God will pardon them. God is Forgiving, Merciful.) 201 (

----

 

1. Do you see God praise ALL MOHAJERIN and ANSAR as you said?

2. And would you please tell me Abubakr ra was one the earliest and quickest or Umar ra or Uthman ra ? Or Ali (ra)

 

If you read Sunnies History you will find so many other facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

 

 

Ali not only agreed with Imamah of Abubakr but also supported him. 

 

The only reason Ali was upset initially was that the decision was made in a hurry and he was not consulted about the Saqeefa Shura. 

 

 

 

The leaders of the Ansar, the majority of the city, chose Abubakr. Then the rest of the city agreed and pledged their allegiance to Abubakr in the Mosque of the Prophet (saw). 

 

 

@ Others

 

Yes, Abubakr was both a political and a religious leader. Just because you think Ali was the most knowledgeable, it doesn't mean the rest of Sahaba were ignorants. 

 

 

I am deeply saddened to say this but you seem to be a habitual liar who is only here to make false claims despite being exposed multiple times you have not amended your ways. Fyi, this is not your HCY forum where you exaggerate a lie and people accept it without any questions. If you think your claims are really true then answer my questions on the appointment of the Prophet's successor at the feast of Dhul-ashira. Can you?

 

 

You said Abu Bakr was chosen because he was the most knowledgeable and when asked to prove it, you quickly went defensive to tell us that other Sahabas were not ignorant. No one is claiming is that Sahabas were ignorant but only denying your reasoning for the people electing Abu Bakr as a caliph. Don't you get the difference or is it that you don't want to understand the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethereal, while I respect your view, I differ because I see God's leadership as something he wants to take place in political affairs as well, like Mohammad [saw] was a political leader as well as a spiritual leader.

The perspective I get from the Talut [as] verses is that God wants people to follow the best in spirituality with regards to their social affairs. That is why the Prophet [as] responds that he has raised Talut as a King over them due to being chosen above them and being superior with respect to knowledge and body. It is further clarified that God in fact gives his authority to whom he pleases. This means Talut [as] was a King whether people followed him or not.

But the story doesn't stop there. The Prophet [as] before this stated they might turn on their backs when it came to fighting in the way of God. Now when people were going to fight following Talut [as]...Talut [as] said he tries them by a river that who drinks of it will be not from Talut [as] and those who don't drink from it or just a little drink will be from him. This was to test their sincerity towards God and that only with sincerity towards God were they truly fighting in the way of God and on the side of Talut [as]. Without that sincerity, they weren't on the side of Talut [as].

The Quran then reminds of one God's great Prophets, Dawood [as] slaying Jalut (Goliath). And then talks about giving him the MULK (kingdom/authority).

We see the Spiritual Masters and Guides on the way of Ascension, God also wants them to be followed with respect to politics. He sees them as the most fit to rule.

The Quran talks about witnesses in every age, in all times, that people will be called with on the day of judgement and the witnesses will stand witness against them. We see that God wants such witnesses to be taken as political leaders when they are present among people and manifest them so they can be followed with respect to all affairs.

In fact, verse (5:55) shows we have no absolute authorities aside from these leaders.

Aside from this, the Leadership of God through Mohammad [saw] with respect to both spirituality and politics, is one of the most emphasized themes in Quran. We know that God continued his authority in Ali [as], then Al-Hassan [as], then Al-Hussain [as].

Therefore the same leadership that Mohammad is vested with, and God wants with respect to Mohammad [saw], is the same that his 12 Successors inherit. This is the Wilayah talked about in (5:55) and the great mulk that the family of Ibrahim [as] was given in (4:54).

If one ponders about the Wilayah of Mohammad in Quran, people will see wisdom in it that it continues in spiritual successors inshallah with respect to every way leadership of Mohammad took place in Quran and Sunnah.

The light of this Wilayah will only be completed by Imam Mahdi [as], when people look to God for leadership in all their affairs.

It's this Wilayah that God wanted established in Bani-Israel through his Prophets [as], Kings [as], and Captains [as] chosen by him.

It's the same Wilayah of God that God wanted established through Ahlebayt[as]. When God gives his authority to whom he pleases, he trusts that person to lead in the way of God and represent God.

The 12 Successors from Quraysh were such leaders, but it seemed the Arabs only wanted to follow Quraysh with respect to the non-chosen leaders, and didn't want to accept the chosen leaders.

(Bismillah)

(Salam)

Sorry for the delay, I just felt like taking a short break from this topic.

1) I believe what you are saying (regarding how God wants His chosen leader to have both a spiritual function and a political function) is "a" possibility, but it is not "necessary". In other words, not all divinely chosen leaders need to have those two functions. Some can have one of them and others can have both of them. Muhammad (S), in the capacity of a Prophet, had both functions, and he had to have both functions because the religion which he (S) was embodying (I.e. Islam) deals with not only with the interior and spiritual life of man but also with his social and transactional life (whether it be work, or politics). If you look at Christianity or Buddhism this is not the case, because their "founders" (the Christ and the Buddha) embodied a religion which dealt mostly with the interior life of man. This is why neither the Buddha, nor Christ ever married and were ever involved in political affairs (neither of them were a statesman like Muhammad (S)). On the other hand, if we look at one of the Avatars of Hinduism (Krishna) and the founder of Judaism (Moses), we see that they were the type of Divine Leaders to have two functions, (a worldly and a spiritual one) and this is because of the respective religions that they embodied (which dealt with not only the interior life, but also with the transactional and worldly affairs of man).

2) Imam Ali (as) does not have a Prophetic function (such that he (as) is required to embody the entire religion). If there is a reason why Muhammad (S) is greater than the rest of the Ahlul Bayt (as) it is because (out of all the Ahlul Bayt(as)) it was only Muhammad (S) who was both a Prophet and an Imam.

3) I would like to mention something that I have brought up before: If someone is divinely appointed to have a certain function, then that function will necessarily become manifest. The reason is because nothing can come in the way of something which has been divinely ordained (especially if it involves essential guidance and mercy for mankind's success in this world and the hereafter). No body could have possibly killed the Messenger of God (S) when he (S) was a young orphan because it was divinely ordained that he (S) would be a Prophet (S) and that nothing would happen to him until and unless that divine function of Prophecy was fulfilled. If the function doesn't become manifest then such a function has no meaning. So the Shia argument typically goes like this: The "logical" reason why leaders after the Prophet (S) are divinely chosen is because it is essential for the guidance of humanity. But the problem with saying this is that if it is indeed true that such guidance and mercy is essential then nothing whatsoever can come in the way of that. Because God would never deprive anyone or anything of essential mercy. Nothing can overpower God's essential mercy. Nothing can come in His way with regards to something which is so essential to Him.

4) And finally. all of what I have been suggesting above does not mean that we as Shias should not be allowed to wish for Imam Ali (as) to have been the leader from the get go with no hindrances whatsoever. We can certainly wish for that with the understanding that such a scenario would only be possible in an Ideal World (which is another name for Paradise), not in this terrestrial world. This terrestrial world is too low and impure for it to receive from above, the immaculately pure ones, i.e. the Ahlul Bayt (as) (in all of their fullness and glory). Now this is perfectly part of a Shiite conscience. It is however NOT part of the Shiite conscience to curse and to think evil of Abu Bakr and Umar. And the reason for this is simply because cursing and thinking evil of Abu Bakr and Umar isn't essential to the Shiite conscience, and anything which isn't essential can be (and, in this case at least, should be) done away with.

Wa-Allahu-Alim

Please take care

Masalama

Ethereal

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Unregistered

bismillah.gif

إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ {55}

[shakir 5:55] Only Allah is your Vali and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.
[Pickthal 5:55] Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue, and bow down (in prayer).
[Yusufali 5:55] Your (real) friends are (no less than) Allah, His Messenger, and the (fellowship of) believers,- those who establish regular prayers and regular charity, and they bow down humbly (in worship).

 

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 5:55]

 

All the commentators unanimously hold, as Qushaji admits in the Sharh al Tajrid on the subject of imamat, that this verse refers to Ali when he gave his ring to a beggar while bowing down in the course of his prayers. Nasa-i has also recorded this tradition in his Sahihah al Nasa-i, and so has the author of Al Jama Bayn al Sihah al Sittah (corroboration of the six authentic books) in discussion of the commentary on al Ma-idah, and so does Tha-labi in his Tafsir Kabir, and al Balakhi in his Yanabi has copied it from Ahmad bin Hanbal's Musnad, vol. 5, margin of p. 38. Please refer to the commentary on this verse in Wahidi's book Asbab al Nuzul (the circumstances of descent) which contains the tradition related by Ibn Abbas. Al Khatib has recorded the tradition in Al Muttafiq, and Ibn Marduwayh and Abu Shaykh in their Musnads. It is mentioned in Kanz al Ummal, vol. 6, p. 391, tradition no. 5991. In Ghayah al Maram, chapter 18, there are twenty four traditions from sources other than the Ahl ul Bayt, all supporting the above statement about the descent of this verse.

 

When Abi Ishaq Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Naysaburi al Tha-labi reached this verse he recorded the following in his Tafsir al Kabir on the authority of Abu Dharr al Ghifari, who said "Both of my ears may turn deaf and both my eyes may become blind if I speak a lie. I heard the Holy Prophet saying, 'Ali is the guide of the righteous and the slayer of the infidels. He who has helped him is victorious and he who has abandoned him is forsaken'. One day I said my prayers in the company of the Holy Prophet; a beggar came to the masjid and begged for alms, but nobody gave him anything. Ali was in a state of ruku in the prayer. He pointed out his ring to the beggar, who approached him and removed the ring from his finger. Thereupon the Holy Prophet implored Allah, saying: 'O Allah! My brother Musa begged You saying: My Lord, delight my heart and make my task easy and undo the knot in my tongue so that they may understand me, and appoint from among my kinsmen, Harun, my brother, as my vizier, and strengthen my back with him and make him participate in my mission so that we may glorify You and remember You more frequently. Certainly You see us-and You inspired him: O Musa! All your requests have been granted. (The Holy Prophet continued) Delight my heart and make my task easy and appoint from among my kinsmen Ali as my vizier and strengthen my back with him'. (Abu Dhar proceeds) By Allah, the Holy Prophet had not yet finished his supplication when the trustworthy Jibril descended to him with this verse". (Ibn Khallikan says that Al Tha-labi was unique as a commentator of the Quran and his Tafsir al Kabir is superior to all other Tafsirs).

 

In this verse the word wali has been used in the meaning of guardian or master or who holds authority superior to others. Please refer to the origin of the word wali in Sihah or Mukhtar al Sihah or any other good dictionary. The lexicographers have explained that he who manages the affairs of and exercises authority for another person is the wali of that person. This verse, therefore, means that those who manage the affairs of the people (mankind) are superior to all men, and certainly they are Allah, His messenger, the Holy Prophet, and Ali, who possesses all the qualifications enumerated in this verse. Allah has simultaneously confirmed His wilayah (superior authority), that of His prophet and his wali (Ali) in unbroken succession. Allah's wilayah isuniversal, so likewise, the wilayah of the Holy Prophet and his wali (Ali) must be so. It is not possible to assign to the word wali in this verse the meaning of a helper or a friend, etcetera, for help and friendship are not confined to these three only. All the faithful men and women, according to the holy book, are friends and helpers of one another. It is as obvious as can be that the word wali in this verse means, guardian, ruler, possessor of superior authority. It is in this sense that the word wali has been used by the Holy Prophet in the abovenoted tradition related by Al Tha-labi in his Tafsir al Kabir on the authority of Abu Dharr al Ghifari whom the Holy Prophet had given the title of siddiq (the truthful). There are other authentic traditions, given below, in which the word wali indicates its true meaning:

 

(i) Abu Dawud al Tayalisi has recorded in Isti-ab on the authority of Ibn Abbas, who said: "The Holy Prophet said to Ali, 'You are the master (wali) of the faithful after me'."

 

(ii) After an expedition, under the command of Ali, some of the men, who went with him, complained to the Holy Prophet about Ali's refusal to oblige them favourably. The Holy Prophet turned to them with signs of displeasure on his face and said: "What do you want to do to Ali? Surely Ali is from me and I am from him, and after me he is the master (wali) of all the faithful."

 

Nasa-i has recorded it in his Khasa-is al Alawiyyah, p. 17, Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, vol. 4, p. 438; Hakim in Mustadrak, vol. 11, p. 11; Al Dhahabi in his Talkhis al Mustadrak; Ibn Shaybah and Jarir both have recorded it from whom Muttaqi of India has copied it in his Kanz al Ummal, vol. 6, p. 400; Tirmidhi has recorded it from Asqalani, mentioned in his account of Ali in his Isabah; Ibn Hadid has copied it from Tirmidhi in his Sharh al Nahj al Balagha, vol. 2, p. 450.

 

(iii) The Holy Prophet said to Buraydah:

 

"Am I not a more privileged master (mawla or wali) of the lives of the faithful than the faithful themselves? Ali is the master (wali or mawla) of those who believe me to be their master."

 

Ahmad ibn Hanbal has recorded it in his Musnad, vol. 5, p. 356, Hakim has recorded it in his Mustadrak, vol. 3, p. 110, besides many other traditionists.

 

(iv) The Holy Prophet said:

 

"O Ali! After me you are the master of all the faithful."

 

Hakim has recorded this tradition as reported by Ibn Abbas in his Mustadrak, vol. 3, p. 134; and Dhahabi in his Talkhis; Nasa-i in Khasa-is al Alawiyyah p. 6; Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Musnad vol. 1, p. 331.

 

"Ali is your wali after me", means that Ali and none else will be the master of the faithful after the Holy Prophet. It confines in Ali the authority to manage the affairs of the ummah after him. It is, therefore, necessary to attach the same meaning to the word wali and to understand it in the same sense as has been pointed out above. Help, affection, love, friendship are not confined to any one person. All faithful men and women love and are friends of one another. If the meaning of wali is taken as helper or friend, then why the Holy Prophet took so much interest in, and attached so much importance to, clarifying emphatically what was obvious and evident, so as to repeat the declaration off and on? His perfect wisdom, his thorough impeccability and termination with him of the prophethood make him far above the indulgence of explaining the self-evident, emphasising the obvious and making unnecessary repetitions. Besides, the traditions lay down clearly that Ali is or will be master of the nation after the Holy Prophet, and this makes it all the more necessary to understand the word wali in the same sense and fix for it the same meaning as has been stated above. The abovenoted traditionists, commentators and historians also deal with the word wali or mawla as the "more privileged master of the lives of the faithful than the faithful themselves."

 

"Those who believe" is in the plural form. How can it be applicable to an individual?

 

All the annotators, traditionists and historians agree that it was Na-im ibn Mas-ud al Ashja-i, whom Abu Sufyan gave ten camels for discouraging the Muslim, said to them: "Fear your enemies who have united against you and gathered in large numbers to attack you" (Ali Imran: 173), but in this verse "people said to them" (a plural form) has been used.

 

It was Ghawrath from the tribe of Banu Maharib, some scholars say, while others say that it was Umar ibn Jahash of the tribe of Banu Nadir, (a single man) single man) who drew out his sword to strike the Holy Prophet, but verse 11 of al Ma-idah describes it as "when a group of persons became so bold as to stretch their hands to you"-in plural form. Verse 120 of al Nahl says: "Ibrahim was certainly a people obedient to Allah".

 

There are plenty of other examples of using the plural form for an individual.

 

Tabrasi, while commenting on this verse in his Majma al Bayan, says: "The plural form has been used for Ali in order to express his glory and eminence ."

 

Zamakhshari, in his Tafsir al Kashshaf, says:

 

"If you inquire how this plural word is applicable to Ali, who is an individual, I shall say that though this verse is about Ali, an individual, the plural form is used in order to persuade others to act similarly and give alms as readily as Ali did."

 

The Imams among the Ahl ul Bayt have frequently referred to this verse as a proof of their rightful imamat and have assigned the same meaning to the word wali as we have stated.

 

The word innama makes the decision of Allah (that He, the Holy Prophet and Ali alone are the masters of the believers) final and decisive. The construction of the sentence and the word wali,used in singular for all the three, means that wilayah of all the three is essentially one in nature as well as in effect. Therefore, obedience to the Holy Prophet must be as it should be to Allah, and obedience to Ali and his successors (the Imams among the Ahl ul Bayt) must be as it should be to the Holy Prophet.

 

Wa hum raki-un is an adverbial clause qualifying the manner in which the alms were given. If it is taken as a conjunctive clause, then yuqimunas salat or this clause becomes an unnecessary repetition.

 

In fact this verse points out the highest state of spiritual attainment-fully absorbed in witnessing the glory of the absolute Lord and at the same time alive to the needs of His servants so as to solve them at once to their full satisfaction- which alone entitles a man to be a master like the eternal master, the almighty Allah. The Quran a asserts this possibility for such a man, not for all the followers because they have been addressed in

second person (kum). The plural term "those who believe" is used to include the Imams among the Ahl ul Bayt in the same way as has been done in verse 61 of Ali Imran (Mubahilah).

 

Please also refer to verse 67 of this surah for the event of Ghadir Khum where the Holy Prophet openly declared Ali as the wali or mawla of the faithfuls just as the Holy Prophet himself is. The entire Muslim nation is unanimous that when the verses of the Quran were collected they were not arranged in the same order in which they descended. There is many a verse occurring in an irrelevant context, for instance, the verse of purification, which occurs in the account of the wives of the Holy Prophet, but actually is in praise of the five persons of al kisa, as has been universally admitted. All Muslims are agreed that arguments are to be preferred to the context, and whenever the implication of the context was opposed to the implication of arguments they ignored the context and yielded to the arguments, because they were doubtful about the context in which a certain verse occurs.

 

http://quran.al-islam.org/

 

*****

Sermon 3: By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah….

Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyah1
 
:"

ومن خطبة له (عليه السلام) المعروفة بالشِّقْشِقِيَّة

وتشتمل على الشكوى من أمر الخلافة ثم ترجيح صبره عنها ثم مبايعة الناس له

Beware! By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)2 dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it........

 
Full Text Here
Edited by S.M.H.A.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Revolting is different from not believing.

 

if you revolt in full knowledge of the Imam's rights and character, you are in serious trouble.

 

If you revolt without a valid reason, you are in serious trouble.

 

But if you do not believe in him for reasons beyond your control, such as, reading Sunni history books and having no exposure to Shia books, God may forgive you. 

 

If you do not believe because your information on the subject is flawed, again, God may forgive you. 

 

Salam,

Sorry, but I don't find this applicable to what I have been talking about. I was explaining why it would be wrong to revolt against Abu Bakr and Umar. I was explaining why it is alright if you wanted Imam Ali (as) to be the 1st Caliph instead of Abu Bakr. It was alright if you were like Zubayr who said he would fight those who would come in Ali's (as) way. Ultimately what happened was that Imam Ali (as) and Zubayr did not revolt and chose the route of patience. In fact Imam Ali (as) participated and cooperated in Abu Bakr and Umar's government. So, we should follow his (as) example we want to be true Shia of Ali (as).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Unregistered

Event of Ghadir Khumm 

 

The date of this event was the 18th of Dhu'l-Hijjah of the year 10 AH (10 March 632 CE).

 

Revelation of Qur'anic Verse 5:67 
In this place, the following verse of the Qur'an was revealed:

 

"O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and
if you don't do it, you have not delivered His message (at all);
and
Allah
will protect you from the people
..
."
(Qur'an 5:67)

 

 

Revelation of Qur'anic Verse 5:3 
Immediately after the Prophet finished his speech, the following verse of the Qur'an was revealed:

"Today
I have perfected your religion
and completed my favour upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion."
(Qur'an 5:3)

http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm

 

*****

 

 

Edited by S.M.H.A.
Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Sorry for the delay, I just felt like taking a short break from this topic.

 

 

 

 

wa salam

 

No problem. Take all the time you need/want to respond.

 

 

 

1) I believe what you are saying (regarding how God wants His chosen leader to have both a spiritual function and a political function) is "a" possibility, but it is not "necessary". In other words, not all divinely chosen leaders need to have those two functions. Some can have one of them and others can have both of them. Muhammad (S), in the capacity of a Prophet, had both functions, and he had to have both functions because the religion which he (S) was embodying (I.e. Islam) deals with not only with the interior and spiritual life of man but also with his social and transactional life (whether it be work, or politics). If you look at Christianity or Buddhism this is not the case, because their "founders" (the Christ and the Buddha) embodied a religion which dealt mostly with the interior life of man. This is why neither the Buddha, nor Christ ever married and were ever involved in political affairs (neither of them were a statesman like Muhammad (S)). On the other hand, if we look at one of the Avatars of Hinduism (Krishna) and the founder of Judaism (Moses), we see that they were the type of Divine Leaders to have two functions, (a worldly and a spiritual one) and this is because of the respective religions that they embodied (which dealt with not only the interior life, but also with the transactional and worldly affairs of man).

 

 

 

I think this a wrong view. I showed per the Talut verses, those chosen above humanity and superior in knowledge and body, are true kings of humanity.  Their authority automatically encompasses politics. If they teach their followers to stay passive and not rebel against the government, that's a political  command their followers must follow and abide by. Their followers are not allowed straying from their commands.  Besides the Quran shows God wants to establish his rule, his authority, his justice, and that when his chosen ones are present,  society ought to follow them for that. It's another thing if they are all successful or not.

 

The verses about Talut, Dawood, Sulaiman, show a Wilayah of God that he wanted to establish in Bani-Israel. But as Bani-Israel deviated from supporting their Prophets,  the later Prophets like Yahya and Isa couldn't rule in the same sense a king rulers. However, Yahya is called Syedan (a Master), and Isa is called the Messiah (anointed King of Bani-Israel), despite them not having an outward kingdom.

 

There is another verse Bani-Israel are told God favored them with Prophets and Kings before they were sent Musa, so who are these Kings who didn't rule? They are chosen ones who held divine right of being obeyed.

 

Again, it doesn't mean they will have enough followers to be state leader. But they automatically hold a Wilayah that humanity ought to accept them as state ruler.

 

 

2) Imam Ali  (as) does not have a Prophetic function (such that he  (as) is required to embody the entire religion). If there is a reason why Muhammad (S) is greater than the rest of the Ahlul Bayt  (as) it is because (out of all the Ahlul Bayt(as)) it was only Muhammad (S) who was both a Prophet and an Imam.

 

But his Wilayah and succession is with regard to leadership function of the Prophet. Like Harun took the place of Musa in his absence, so does Ali take the place of Mohammad in his absence except with respect to Prophethood.  Wilayah of Mohammad  

 

The Imams succeed the Leadership position of Mohammad. 

 

In fact, this stating some Prophets aren't meant to be taken as political authorities, is making distinction between God's Messengers, when we suppose to believe they all came with the same message.

 

 

3) I would like to mention something that I have brought up before: If someone is divinely appointed to have a certain function, then that function will necessarily become manifest. The reason is because nothing can come in the way of something which has been divinely ordained (especially if it involves essential guidance and mercy for mankind's success in this world and the hereafter). No body could have possibly killed the Messenger of God (S) when he (S) was a young orphan because it was divinely ordained that he (S) would be a Prophet (S) and that nothing would happen to him until and unless that divine function of Prophecy was fulfilled. If the function doesn't become manifest then such a function has no meaning. So the Shia argument typically goes like this: The "logical" reason why leaders after the Prophet (S) are divinely chosen is because it is essential for the guidance of humanity. But the problem with saying this is that if it is indeed true that such guidance and mercy is essential then nothing whatsoever can come in the way of that. Because God would never deprive anyone or anything of essential mercy. Nothing can overpower God's essential mercy. Nothing can come in His way with regards to something which is so essential to Him.

 

 

I don't think you have any proof for this assertion. You are saying the Prophets that were killed in Bani-ISrael were not meant to be followed, obeyed or supported, because it didn't happen. I think this saying whatever happens is what God wishes to happen. But this is not true. The Prophets were sent so they be obeyed by God's permission, but this isn't necessarily what happened.

 

Imams are not meant just to guide, but to be followed, and supported.

 

 

 

4) And finally. all of what I have been suggesting above does not mean that we as Shias should not be allowed to wish for Imam Ali  (as) to have been the leader from the get go with no hindrances whatsoever. We can certainly wish for that with the understanding that such a scenario would only be possible in an Ideal World (which is another name for Paradise), not in this terrestrial world. This terrestrial world is too low and impure for it to receive from above, the immaculately pure ones, i.e. the Ahlul Bayt  (as) (in all of their fullness and glory). Now this is perfectly part of a Shiite conscience. It is however NOT part of the Shiite conscience to curse and to think evil of Abu Bakr and Umar. And the reason for this is simply because cursing and thinking evil of Abu Bakr and Umar isn't essential to the Shiite conscience, and anything which isn't essential can be (and, in this case at least, should be) done away with.

 

 

I think much of the Quran shows wisdom and grace of God in when a leader appointed by him is followed both spiritually and politically. We see Mohammad's leadership in these two functions is a blessing. Those who severe this blessing to humanity cannot but be hated by those who recognize the grace that would've followed to society were it to be implemented.

 

Taking their right was not just injustice and hate towards God's chosen ones, it was an act of injustice towards rest of humanity. 

 

I don't know what is essential for Shiism or not...but I think it was very well known to Abu Baker and Umar that the Prophet wanted Imam Ali as head of state, and they were under his authority.  

 

If Imam Ali appointed Abu Baker and Umar as political leaders of the Umma while he would focus on spiritual leadership, then I would be pleased with them and Imam Ali decision. But he withheld allegiance to them in the start, and thought about revolting, except realizing patience was better given the circumstances that he was given (lack of supporters in numbers).

 

At the end, Quran devotes the wage of the Message to love of the family of Mohammad. I don't think going to the house of Ali, and Fatima, and forcing allegiance is an act of love.

 

Given they were not ignorant of God or his Messenger or the Wilayah of Ahlebayt, it's very hard to see how they can be but hated.

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Unregistered

(salam)

 

Tell me, so today (and since the time of the demise of the Prophet (saw)) we can't have leaders because Prophet (saw) is not here to approve them? This is an absurd argument. Brain User, you want the Prophet (saw) to live forever to approve leaders? 

 

The "group of people" were the Muhajirin and Ansar, the people explicitly praised in the Quran multiple times. They were the people of the time and appointed a leader for themselves.

 

Your argument, starts with the premise that the Allah[swt] did not appoint a Guardian for the the Religion/Muslims.

 

This premise mean that Allah[swt], left the affairs of the Muslims in the hands of recent reverts, [some were former enemies, and joined after fall of Mecca] . Some companions  during the life of the prophet Muhammad[pbuh ahp], doubted him, disrespected him, did not follow his instructions, and after him, selection by the aristocrats at a meeting place without the inclusion of the most learned, utter disrespect and audacity to attack the house of the Prophet Muhammad[pbuhahp], disrespect and harm to Sayyidatul nisa Al Alameen, Sayeda Fatima Zahra[sa], We have brave souls protecting the shrine of the daughter of Sayeda Fatima Zahra[sa] in Syria, none will be able to harm it unless they are walking in rivers of our blood, I can’t imaging the situation that men were able to get near the house let alone enter with the intent to Harm the Ma’soom[ this accurately gives the state of Ummah at that time]. later the appointment of the second, by the first utilizing the authority not given to your version of the prophet by his god,] [which also negates that fact that this method of few was not sanctioned], and the  Battle of Jamal and Siffin should shatter any myths  that Some companions did not  have ulterior motives, and this pristine image of peace and harmony, love, and brotherhood is a fallacy.[ as Muslim Recorded history will testify to it].

Second, as in the case with 12 generations of Divine guidance, Islam was out of its infancy, and rules and regulations clarified. After that the danger of manipulation of basic belief and interpretation of the Quran would have been eliminated[ as mentioned that it was done in the past nations]. Physical presence, of the Divine Authority may not have been necessary and most learned can govern in light of firmly establish principles of faith and acts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salam :)

Since the OP has already come to a conclusion for himself, there's no need for any more input, I guess. But in reagrds to this:

I think much of the Quran shows wisdom and grace of God in when a leader appointed by him is followed both spiritually and politically. We see Mohammad's leadership in these two functions is a blessing. Those who severe this blessing to humanity cannot but be hated by those who recognize the grace that would've followed to society were it to be implemented.

Taking their right was not just injustice and hate towards God's chosen ones, it was an act of injustice towards rest of humanity.

It has been a while, but I read a Hadith from Imam Hasan (as) (would have to look it up, I'm not sure where exactly I read it) - didn't memorise it word for word but I remember the content, along the lines of: If the Muslims had accepted my father's leadership, Allah swt would have been pleased with them so much that He would have graced them with rain and many green fields and riches - He would have blessed them so that people like Muawiya would never have been hungry for more and more power.

The Muslim ummah has never been really stabil and even today, we can see the 'fruits' of not following the path of the Ahl-ul-Bait, thus the path of our prophet (saaw)- even if the majority might argue otherwise. Allah knows best and there's surely a reason why the Muslim world is sinking into chaos (and not only them).

Wa salam.

Edited by Noor al-Batul
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

ok. so you suggest that the noble prophet muhamed pbuh had a wrong feeling of choosing his friends? so the man who first embraced islam abubakr (ra) cheated the prophet pbuh?

 

muhamed pbuh said that the religious heart of abubakr weighted more that the whole ummah together. 

 

islam is not a kingdom where the prophet is succeeded by his relatives. after the prophet there are no other people who deliver messages from Allah (swt). so anything that happened after the death of muhamed pbuh is only of local and temporary importance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Yes yes, the Holy Abu Bakr. Anyway, accepting him isn't needed, and rejecting him is no sin. And I can meet the Prophet (saww) without accepting Abu Bakr. 

 

Noor Al Batul, I have also read that hadith somewhere.

Edited by BrainUser
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...