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  
Sheikh Voldemort

Am I Forced To?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I agree with that, to believe in Allah and His unity and his last Prophet Mohammed (saww), and Qiyamah. But after Mohammed (saww), passed away, Abu Bakr became the first caliph. Can I reject him and still be a muslim and go to the Heaven? 

 

(salam)

whether to go to Heaven or not depends on how much you were after the truth in this world and how much you have performed upon your knowledge. so even a Shia who believes in Imam Ali A.S as the first khalifate and still does not practice the religion in his daily life or commits sins can not rest on his belief to take him to Heaven.

So, try to find the truth and then thoroughly hold it! both in your belief and behavior.

May Allah bless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The family of Ibrahim was given the book, the wisdom, and a great authority/kingdom.

The family of Mohammad are said to be blessed in a similar way as the family of Ibrahim are blessed.

 

Part of the ritual that is suppose to embody the connection to God (Salah) has us remembering the family of Mohammad by blessing them. 

 

The Quran shows wisdom in putting a succession of God chosen representatives after one another and also shows wisdom in putting in chosen offspring of Prophets.

 

The Authority of God was suppose to take on social level that people accept the Wali of God as their ruler. Talut, Dawood, and Sulaiman in Quran show wisdom of God making his chosen ones people the people accept as rulers.

 

Over all, our Salah is not a true connection without recognizing who Auli-Mohammad are. This shows they have importance.

 

Abu Baker and Umar are not part of Salah. So as they are not part of the connection, it is irrelevant to whether we recognize them or not.

 

Ali on the other hand is part of Salah, and it is important to recognize him or else we are not establishing the connection to God.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shias say that Ali is chosen by Allah to be the leader after Mohammed (saww). But Abu Bakr was chosen by a group of people to be the leader after the Prophet (saww).

Who is smarter in picking a leader for the ummah of the dearest of the creation of Allah, Mohammed (saww)?

Shias say that Ali was chosen while Mohammad (saww) was still alive, and there is no word from him that he denies that Ali is the leader after him. While Abu Bakr was chosen after the passing away of Mohammed (saww), and there was no way that Mohammed (saww) could comment that. Why did they wait for the Prophet (saww) to pass away so they can chose who will be the leader, they could have done it while he was alive and listen to his advice. 

Someone who believes in Allah will say that Allah is the Wisest, the All-Knowing, and that He knows his creatures the best of all, and the He knows who can be a ruler. 
Sunni side, they don't say that Abu Bakr was chosen by Allah nor by they Prophet (saww), but he was chosen by a group of people. So by the opinions of the group they decided who will be the leader, but what about Allah. Doesn't  Allah rule the world and the ummah, and that He knows who is the best for the ummah.

This is just confusing. And what would happen if I was alive at the time of Abu Bakr and refused his caliphate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just confusing. And what would happen if I was alive at the time of Abu Bakr and refused his caliphate?

Then, you would just seek out protection by e.g. Imam Ali (as) ;) I mean, it's not like you would've been the only one to reject his caliphate (there weren't even all the Sahaba present at the time of his 'election'). Some might have tolerated his caliphate (though, most probably because they had been told to do so) but they sure weren't on his side. So, rest assured that you wouldn't be alone :P

And on another note- what could he have done to you as long as you didn't oppose him publicly? Besides, at that time, there were even Christians and Jews living in a Muslim state without much of a problem- and they didn't even accept our prophet as a prophet. So, he couldn't have punished you for this, logically seen, which doesn't mean that he wouldn't try to. Therefore, as long as you have contact with the right people, even Abu Bakr couldn't possibly do anything.

As to your question as such: You're basically a Muslim if you accept that there's only one God and Muhammad (saaw) is his prophet. Abu Bakr has nothing to do with you being a Muslim.

Wa salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shias say that Ali is chosen by Allah to be the leader after Mohammed (saww). But Abu Bakr was chosen by a group of people to be the leader after the Prophet (saww).

Who is smarter in picking a leader for the ummah of the dearest of the creation of Allah, Mohammed (saww)?

Shias say that Ali was chosen while Mohammad (saww) was still alive, and there is no word from him that he denies that Ali is the leader after him. While Abu Bakr was chosen after the passing away of Mohammed (saww), and there was no way that Mohammed (saww) could comment that. Why did they wait for the Prophet (saww) to pass away so they can chose who will be the leader, they could have done it while he was alive and listen to his advice. 

Someone who believes in Allah will say that Allah is the Wisest, the All-Knowing, and that He knows his creatures the best of all, and the He knows who can be a ruler. 

Sunni side, they don't say that Abu Bakr was chosen by Allah nor by they Prophet (saww), but he was chosen by a group of people. So by the opinions of the group they decided who will be the leader, but what about Allah. Doesn't  Allah rule the world and the ummah, and that He knows who is the best for the ummah.

This is just confusing. And what would happen if I was alive at the time of Abu Bakr and refused his caliphate?

 

(salam)

Sunnis say there was no appointment of anyone by Prophet (saw). There is no evidence in the Quran nor in the Sunnah about Prophet (saw) appointing anyone as his successor. Ali (ra) and Muslims of the time never believed in such thing. Muslims, including Ali (ra), chose Abubakr (ra) as their leader. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Sunnis say there was no appointment of anyone by Prophet (saw). There is no evidence in the Quran nor in the Sunnah about Prophet (saw) appointing anyone as his successor. Ali (ra) and Muslims of the time never believed in such thing. Muslims, including Ali (ra), chose Abubakr (ra) as their leader. 

But I don't want to chose him, nor can I accept him since Prophet (saww) was not there at his appointment to approve it. And a group of people can't decide who will be my leader. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't want to chose him, nor can I accept him since Prophet (saww) was not there at his appointment to approve it. And a group of people can't decide who will be my leader. 

(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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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.

 

So the Prophet (saww) left this important matter to other people than him, he knew about successorship, and that all the prophets before him had appointed a successor, yet sunni claim that he didn't appoint and left the less knowledgeable decide his (saww) matter. 

Anyone without his (saww) permission could be a caliph. 

While shias say that Allah has chosen a successor for him (saww), like for every prophet. While sunnis state that Allah hasn't chosen anyone, but if Allah hasn't chosen anyone, this means that Allah didn't oblige us to follow those whom He didn't chose. 

Can't Allah decide who will be the successor of his dearest creation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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.

if so, how come do I have to believe in successor that has not been chosen by God in order to deserve Heaven? based on what you said, since appointing a successor is such socialistic matter that has nothing to do with Allah and Allah left believers with it, he will not accuse any one by their choose. because man is not infallible and they might go wrong.

accordingly to Sunni school of thought, no need to believe in chalifatehood of any one after the prophet, no matter if he is Ali or Abu-bakr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Sunnis say there was no appointment of anyone by Prophet (saw). There is no evidence in the Quran nor in the Sunnah about Prophet (saw) appointing anyone as his successor. Ali (ra) and Muslims of the time never believed in such thing. Muslims, including Ali (ra), chose Abubakr (ra) as their leader. 

Well, as far as I know, Imam Ali (as) might have accepted this six months after the prophet's (saaw) death (making you wonder why he waited for so long...) - and even that is not clear. And I find it always confusin that it's acceptable for Abu Bakr to choose Umar as his successor - the prophet couldn't do this? He left such an important matter in the hands of fallible people?

Oh, well, we won't agree on that matter and it isn't important, anyway, not here.

As the poster above me said, since Abu Bakr was chosen by fallible people, it's not necessary for you to accept his caliphate. You're basically a Muslim if you believe in one God and his (last) messenger :)

Wa salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per sunnism, you ought to believe in Abu Bakrs caliphate because they get their sunnah not only from the prophet but also from the a khalifas.

Also regarding your other question as to what would happen to you if you lived in the time of abu bakr but didn't accept his caliphate. Well, you will be executed. That is exactly what ISIS IS DOING TODAY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Sunnis say there was no appointment of anyone by Prophet (saw). There is no evidence in the Quran nor in the Sunnah about Prophet (saw) appointing anyone as his successor. Ali (ra) and Muslims of the time never believed in such thing. Muslims, including Ali (ra), chose Abubakr (ra) as their leader. 

 

No evidence? Before making such incorrect claims, please read the Islamic history. Successor-ship was so important to the Prophet (pbuh) that even before the message of Islam was out in the open, he first sought to find a successor for him. Read the feast of Dhul-ashira and you will see how wrong you are. 

 

 

(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.

 

Allah swt has also labeled a subset of people as hypocrites from the above very group you have mentioned. So how do you know no hypocrites were involved in the process of appointing the caliph? Was this a political party which needed a leader that people appointed a leader for themselves? Is there a precedent for such an act with the prior Prophets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any sunni to answer?

I use to be a Sunni before I converted to Shia.

Ali was suppose to be first caliphate, but was refused. Now imagine a "will" from the prophet regarding Ali being hidden from the ummah in order for Abu Bakr to come into power. I mean why else would these sunni caliphates have a meeting without Ali's knowledge while Ali was wrapping the Prophets body.

You must realize that Ali is family to the Prophet. Why would the Prophet appoint his companions over his family member as leader? Epecially if the Prophet said to Ali, "You and I are like moses to aaron." In addition to that, Ghadeer which is an event that took place involving a lot of people in order for the Prophet Muhammad to announce something important to his Ummah. But Sunnis say he announced to everyone Ali's friendship with his son in law which I find ridiculous. Why would the Prophet call upon hundreds of people just for that? No, in fact he called them to appoint Ali as caliphate which makes more sense.

Plus, why would you even pick Abu Bakr over Ali as common sense since you said a certain group voted for Abu Bakr. Also that means there were people who didn't vote for him, am I right?

Ima just tell you what they tell you in Bukhari is fabricated. For example, I asked Sunni scholars about why there are two dates when the Prophet migrated to medina and saw jews fasting in bukhari regarding Ashura and they said they didn't know or they didn't want to look at it. Yet they still continue to fast on Ashura LOL Now does that seem like the type of people you should trust?

Edited by narcotic_ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Prophet (saww) left this important matter to other people than him, he knew about successorship, and that all the prophets before him had appointed a successor, yet sunni claim that he didn't appoint and left the less knowledgeable decide his (saww) matter. 

Anyone without his (saww) permission could be a caliph. 

While shias say that Allah has chosen a successor for him (saww), like for every prophet. While sunnis state that Allah hasn't chosen anyone, but if Allah hasn't chosen anyone, this means that Allah didn't oblige us to follow those whom He didn't chose. 

Can't Allah decide who will be the successor of his dearest creation?

(Bismillah)

Salam Brother,

From a Sunni point of view (and I as a Shia also maintain that) the majority of Muslims cannot possibly all decide not to follow the Prophet (S) on such an important matter. So your interpretation of Ghadir-e-Kum (which was a highly significant event indeed) must not be so accurate as you imagine.

Please take care

Masalama

Ethereal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since Abu Bakr was chosen by fallible people, it's not necessary for you to accept his caliphate. You're basically a Muslim if you believe in one God and his (last) messenger :)

Wa salam.

Salamun Alaykum,

To reject a figure like Abu Bakr and Umar is to reject the Sunnah and Law of the Prophet (S) of which the two of them embodied and implemented across the whole Muslim Ummah. The reason why we should "accept them" is because of the way they ruled. There is a reason only the first 4 caliphs are called righteous and not the ones that come after (except for Umar Ibn Abd Al Aziz).

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bismillah)

Salam Brother,

From a Sunni point of view (and I as a Shia also maintain that) the majority of Muslims cannot possibly all decide not to follow the Prophet (S) on such an important matter. So your interpretation of Ghadir-e-Kum (which was a highly significant event indeed) must not be so accurate as you imagine.

Please take care

Masalama

Ethereal

Well, I can follow Mohammed (saww) but without Abu Bakr as a leader, since nor he (saww) nor Allah have chosen him to be a leader, so I am not obliged to follow him. And a group of people who made him the leader, can't male him a holy person, or can they?

Salamun Alaykum,

To reject a figure like Abu Bakr and Umar is to reject the Sunnah and Law of the Prophet (S) of which the two of them embodied and implemented across the whole Muslim Ummah. The reason why we should "accept them" is because of the way they ruled. There is a reason only the first 4 caliphs are called righteous and not the ones that come after (except for Umar Ibn Abd Al Aziz).

While Ali belongs in the verse of the purified family, sunnis put him as the 4th caliph, while according to the Qur'an he is the best after the Prophet (saww). And also, how can I be sure that those who chose Abu Bakr as a caliph, didnt fabricate hadiths to support his caliphate for that time and the future. The same people praise everyone before those who are the purified and who are those of Mubahala, also according to the verses of Qur'an. So one must close the eyes at the verses and chose Abu Bakr, if not then how can one follow Qur'an and not to chose the one who is among the 5 purified and sinless, from Mohammad's (saww) family, Ali.

Please tell me how can a group of people make someone more worthy than the chosen one from Allah who is in the Qur'an?

Edited by BrainUser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamun Alaykum,

To reject a figure like Abu Bakr and Umar is to reject the Sunnah and Law of the Prophet (S) of which the two of them embodied and implemented across the whole Muslim Ummah. The reason why we should "accept them" is because of the way they ruled. There is a reason only the first 4 caliphs are called righteous and not the ones that come after (except for Umar Ibn Abd Al Aziz).

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 reconcile your current belief with the fact of Abu Bakr's and Umar's invasion on the house of Imam Ali's ع and Sayeda Fatima ع in forcing them to give Bay'ah to Abu Bakr after they refused to do so for 6 months? The invasion took place once Abu Bakr heard the Ansar gather in a meeting at the house if Ali ع. As for the sources that discuss it, they are Mutawatur both in Sunni and Shi'a sources. In regards to the Sunni sources which narrate it, for example, Sunni reformist Hassan Al-Farhan Al-Maliki acknowledges that this event most certainly did occur based on the fact that the reports in Sunni sources alone reach 36 different chains of narrators. This is more than the chain of narrators of the Ahadith that discuss the supposed Fadhil of Abu Bakr and Umar combined.

If you can read Arabic, I can bring you the Ahadith which narrates this event and post them here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bismillah)

Salam Brother,

From a Sunni point of view (and I as a Shia also maintain that) the majority of Muslims cannot possibly all decide not to follow the Prophet (S) on such an important matter. So your interpretation of Ghadir-e-Kum (which was a highly significant event indeed) must not be so accurate as you imagine.

Please take care

Masalama

Ethereal

Maybe there's the problem. Why couldn't the majority of Muslims do this? Apparently, they did. Don't forget that many people were jealous of Imam Ali (as), greedy for money and power and just held a dislike/hatred for Imam Ali (as). So, I doubt it was that hard for the opposition gather people for their course, especially since Imam Ali (as) was busy otherwise (and one would think that the prophet saaw should be more important than usurping anyone else's right...) And that they had to try to force bayah from Imam Ali (as) is an indication that the Imam was anyhing but content with their decision (I thunk it's not even clear whether he ever gave his bayah. Didn't he also refuse to be 3rd caliph because they expected him to rule as Abu Bakr and Umar ruled?)

Besides, there's this very nice verse in the Qu'ran which states that we shouldn't follow the masses (majority of people) for they will lead us astray. Allah swt is all knowing and left everything for us in his holy book- if people see it or not is up to them.

And I thought the first three are called 'righteous' to justify their caliphate. Did you know that the early Sunnis even considered not to put Imam Ali (as) as a righteous caliph? Tells a lot about them... And I say that you don't have to believe in them simply because it's not important. Allah and his messenger are the highest. The Qu'ran doesn't put them on a pedestal, either. End of story.

Wa salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quote you a simple answer, check the following hadith of sahih bukhari for belief as muslim:

 

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 7: Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: Islam is based on (the following) five (principles):

 

1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle.

2. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly.

3. To pay Zakat (i.e. obligatory charity) .

4. To perform Hajj. (i.e. Pilgrimage to Mecca)

5. To observe fast during the month of Ramadan.

 

It makes it clear that you are not forced to give allegiance to first caliph for being a muslim.

 

Regards

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I want an answer on my question. If I was alive at the time when he was chosen to be the caliph, and I rejected to pledge allegiance to him, what would happen to me, while stating that I am muslim?

If you rejected Abu Bakr then the question is... on what grounds?

I quote you a simple answer, check the following hadith of sahih bukhari for belief as muslim:

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 7: Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: Islam is based on (the following) five (principles):

1. To testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and Muhammad is Allah's Apostle.

2. To offer the (compulsory congregational) prayers dutifully and perfectly.

3. To pay Zakat (i.e. obligatory charity) .

4. To perform Hajj. (i.e. Pilgrimage to Mecca)

5. To observe fast during the month of Ramadan.

It makes it clear that you are not forced to allegiance to first caliph for being a muslsim.

Regards

But that is Islam as far as "Shariah" is concerned.

But Islam as far as "Faith" is concerned has been discussed by theologians/philosophers.

So check out Aqida Tahawiyya which is the most popular of Aqida doctrines.

Edited by eThErEaL

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...