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  
Common

Caliphate Of 1St Caliph

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

All 4 caliphs love each other and Islam start from Ali he was running all of Islam as a family business to run it he was caliph maker not money grabber like some extreme Shia who are comparing him with there own desire kingship and family throne hunger for gardens,for Allah and his rasool stop

Why do not you study your own books !?

No one insults (except stupid people), the point is not insulting, the point is truth.

Many religions were deviated from it's own path, Judaism, Christianity and Islam is not an exception.

 

How can all religions of God had a leader. One by one they came after each other, suddenly Islam came and Muhammad PBUH died without any successor !

Muhammad PBUH died and Sahabies fought with each other !

First caliph appointed second caliph, but Muhammad PBUH had no right to appoint a true guider !!

They did not let Muhammad PBUH to write his testament !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Muslims were weak that`s why Ali (RA) did not fought for succession which was rightfully his after the Prophet (pbuh), this excuse is not going to work because were Muslims even weaker than at  the time of battle of Badr ??? did the numbers prevented the Prophet (pbuh) from marching for haq ??? what is the purpose of a divinely appointed Imam if he did not even stood up for his own rights and a whole bunch of Muslims became kaffirs because they did not believed in his right to succession and the concept of Imamah ??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamalykum,

WHEN CALIPHATE OF 1ST CALIPH WAS WRONG THEN WHY 1ST IMAM OF SHIA(as he was lion of god)HAD NOT TAKEN ARMS AGAINST FALSEHOOD OF 1ST CALIPH?

Why did not prophet Harun fight with the Israel tribe when majority of them worshiped a goat as a God during the absence of Moses !?

Why did not lion of God (Ali) attend the wars at the time of caliphs !?

Edited by maes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did not prophet Harun fought with the Israel tribe when majority of them worshiped a goat as a God in the absence of Moses !?

Why did not lion of God (Ali) attend the wars at the time of caliphs !?

 

you just accused Prophet Harun (as) of not stopping the bani israel from worshipping that calf.

 

now provide daleel(evidence) to back this or else you will be held accountable for lying about a Prophet of Allah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you just accused Prophet Harun (as) of not stopping the bani israel from worshipping that calf.

now provide daleel(evidence) to back this or else you will be held accountable for lying about a Prophet of Allah.

Quran 7:150

Sahih International

And when Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, "How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?" And he threw down the tablets and seized his brother by [the hair of] his head, pulling him toward him. [Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, indeed the people oppressed me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And when Musa (Moses) returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said: "What an evil thing is that which you have done (i.e. worshipping the calf) during my absence. Did you hasten and go ahead as regards the matter of your Lord (you left His worship)?" And he threw down the Tablets and seized his brother by (the hair of) his head and dragged him towards him. Harun (Aaron) said: "O son of my mother! Indeed the people judged me weak and were about to kill me, so make not the enemies rejoice over me, nor put me amongst the people who are Zalimun (wrong-doers)." (Al Quran 7:150)

 

@laithAlIRAQI

 

JazakAllahu Khairan for proving my point  :lol:

 

when Prophet Harun (AS) opposed the actions of Bani Israel and tried to stop them from worshiping that calf, they found him weak as they were too many and they even threatened to KILL HIM.

 

the point here is that Prophet Harun (AS) raised his voice against Fitnah, he tried to save his people shirk and misguidence.

 

while you on the other hand say Hazrat Ali (RA) never raised his voice for Khilafah, he remained silent for 24 YEARS and never ever challenged the khalifahs before him for it. this is believed by all Shiites and i can give you references from authentic Shiite books to prove it. 

 

so @maes no matter how many incidents of the past you try to use in order to justify his (RA) silence, you only get more strangled in weakening your own claims.

 

As`salamu Alaykum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when Musa (Moses) returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said: "What an evil thing is that which you have done (i.e. worshipping the calf) during my absence. Did you hasten and go ahead as regards the matter of your Lord (you left His worship)?" And he threw down the Tablets and seized his brother by (the hair of) his head and dragged him towards him. Harun (Aaron) said: "O son of my mother! Indeed the people judged me weak and were about to kill me, so make not the enemies rejoice over me, nor put me amongst the people who are Zalimun (wrong-doers)." (Al Quran 7:150)

@laithAlIRAQI

JazakAllahu Khairan for proving my point :lol:

when Prophet Harun (AS) opposed the actions of Bani Israel and tried to stop them from worshiping that calf, they found him weak as they were too many and they even threatened to KILL HIM.

the point here is that Prophet Harun (AS) raised his voice against Fitnah, he tried to save his people shirk and misguidence.

while you on the other hand say Hazrat Ali (RA) never raised his voice for Khilafah, he remained silent for 24 YEARS and never ever challenged the khalifahs before him for it. this is believed by all Shiites and i can give you references from authentic Shiite books to prove it.

so @maes no matter how many incidents of the past you try to use in order to justify his (RA) silence, you only get more strangled in weakening your own claims.

As`salamu Alaykum.

no because the incident of imam Ali (as) is different, the people knew the position of imam Ali (as), but they denied it. However, imam Ali (as) was still an imam for Abu dhar (ra), salman (ra) and many more of the great companions. Imam Ali (as) said he would fight if he had 40 men to support him, but they never showed up. The prophet (pbuh) said that imam Ali (as) would go through much oppression and that he must be patient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when Musa (Moses) returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said: "What an evil thing is that which you have done (i.e. worshipping the calf) during my absence. Did you hasten and go ahead as regards the matter of your Lord (you left His worship)?" And he threw down the Tablets and seized his brother by (the hair of) his head and dragged him towards him. Harun (Aaron) said: "O son of my mother! Indeed the people judged me weak and were about to kill me, so make not the enemies rejoice over me, nor put me amongst the people who are Zalimun (wrong-doers)." (Al Quran 7:150)

@laithAlIRAQI

JazakAllahu Khairan for proving my point :lol:

when Prophet Harun (AS) opposed the actions of Bani Israel and tried to stop them from worshiping that calf, they found him weak as they were too many and they even threatened to KILL HIM.

the point here is that Prophet Harun (AS) raised his voice against Fitnah, he tried to save his people shirk and misguidence.

while you on the other hand say Hazrat Ali (RA) never raised his voice for Khilafah, he remained silent for 24 YEARS and never ever challenged the khalifahs before him for it. this is believed by all Shiites and i can give you references from authentic Shiite books to prove it.

so @maes no matter how many incidents of the past you try to use in order to justify his (RA) silence, you only get more strangled in weakening your own claims.

As`salamu Alaykum.

(Salam)

Please tell me how you know they wouldn't of killed Imam Ali (A) if he spoke against them. It's not like the caliphas as we're scare of killing anybody even later on uthman would come to kill Abu Dhar and he would be killed by rebels. I think the threat of being killed was just as high for those ruling and those living under the caliphate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LoL, Sunnies know and believe that Ali disagreed and did not pledge allegiance to first caliph for six months till Fatima died. He showed his disagreement many times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no because the incident of imam Ali (as) is different, the people knew the position of imam Ali (as), but they denied it. However, imam Ali (as) was still an imam for Abu dhar (ra), salman (ra) and many more of the great companions. Imam Ali (as) said he would fight if he had 40 men to support him, but they never showed up. The prophet (pbuh) said that imam Ali (as) would go through much oppression and that he must be patient.

 

if both incidents are different then why was @Maes trying to use one in order to justify the other ? 

 

nobody is saying why didn`t Hazrat Ali went on war with the first caliph but he didn`t even protested against them.

 

Imam Baqir  (as) said that he (Ali  (as)) preferred that they should err and not forsake Islam rather than that he should call upon them and that they should refuse him and thereby become unbelievers. 

 

Al-Sadooq, ‘ilal Al-Sharaa-‘, vol. 1, pg. 150, hadeeth #10

Al-Majlisi, Bihaar Al-Anwaar, vol. 29, pg. 440

 

Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6)

 
the question is if Ali (RA) did not protested against the previous caliphs then why are people saying he was robbed of his rights ?

 

(salam)

Please tell me how you know they wouldn't of killed Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã if he spoke against them. It's not like the caliphas as we're scare of killing anybody even later on uthman would come to kill Abu Dhar and he would be killed by rebels. I think the threat of being killed was just as high for those ruling and those living under the caliphate

 

this totally wrong to say Hazrat Ali al murtaza (RA) feared for his life and preferred not to rise against injustice because he feared for his life. you are in fact insulting Imam Ali by saying that he didn`t even spoke out against batil while his son fearlessly marched against batil and got martyred ???

 

 

 

LoL, Sunnies know and believe that Ali disagreed and did not pledge allegiance to first caliph for six months till Fatima died. He showed his disagreement many times.

 

and you suppose the khilafat of Abu bakr as siddiq (RA) became legitimate after six months ??? LOL make up your mind first then commect my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if both incidents are different then why was @Maes trying to use one in order to justify the other ?

nobody is saying why didn`t Hazrat Ali went on war with the first caliph but he didn`t even protested against them.

Imam Baqir (as) said that he (Ali (as)) preferred that they should err and not forsake Islam rather than that he should call upon them and that they should refuse him and thereby become unbelievers.

Al-Sadooq, ‘ilal Al-Sharaa-‘, vol. 1, pg. 150, hadeeth #10

Al-Majlisi, Bihaar Al-Anwaar, vol. 29, pg. 440

Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6)

the question is if Ali (RA) did not protested against the previous caliphs then why are people saying he was robbed of his rights ?

this totally wrong to say Hazrat Ali al murtaza (RA) feared for his life and preferred not to rise against injustice because he feared for his life. you are in fact insulting Imam Ali by saying that he didn`t even spoke out against batil while his son fearlessly marched against batil and got martyred ???

and you suppose the khilafat of Abu bakr as siddiq (RA) became legitimate after six months ??? LOL make up your mind first then commect my friend.

u miss understood me, I said the incident of imam Ali (as) is different because they knew his position, but they denied it and they wanted to became Khalifa. the prophet (pbuh) doesn't know to choose a leader to lead the Muslims? What were Abu Bakr and Umar doing in Medina anyway? Didn't the prophet (pbuh) order them to go with Osama (ra) to battle? But they never went and the prophet (pbuh) have la'nat to anyway who didn't go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if both incidents are different then why was @Maes trying to use one in order to justify the other ?

nobody is saying why didn`t Hazrat Ali went on war with the first caliph but he didn`t even protested against them.

Imam Baqir (as) said that he (Ali (as)) preferred that they should err and not forsake Islam rather than that he should call upon them and that they should refuse him and thereby become unbelievers.

Al-Sadooq, ‘ilal Al-Sharaa-‘, vol. 1, pg. 150, hadeeth #10

Al-Majlisi, Bihaar Al-Anwaar, vol. 29, pg. 440

Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6)

the question is if Ali (RA) did not protested against the previous caliphs then why are people saying he was robbed of his rights ?

this totally wrong to say Hazrat Ali al murtaza (RA) feared for his life and preferred not to rise against injustice because he feared for his life. you are in fact insulting Imam Ali by saying that he didn`t even spoke out against batil while his son fearlessly marched against batil and got martyred ???

and you suppose the khilafat of Abu bakr as siddiq (RA) became legitimate after six months ??? LOL make up your mind first then commect my friend.

(Salam)

Imam Ali didn't fear his life but he feared for the Muslim ummah. If he was killed then there would of been even more confusion and corruption then there already was

Secondly why do sunnis always take the same letter out of context and post half of it

[ The following is a letter to Mu'awiya and in it Imam Ali (a) has used the same principle that he applied on Talha and Zubayr. Imam Ali (a) in this letter has raised all the points which were once quoted against him. He says if an election on the basis of general franchise is the criterion to decide such a caliphate, then general election took place to elect him the Caliph and nobody can deny this fact, and if limited franchise (Shura) was the criterion then those who represented this group (Muhajirs and Ansars) were amongst those who elected him and therefore even according to the rules formulated by opponents of Imam Ali (a) his election was lawful, regular and bonafide. Thus no Muslim has a right to speak or act against him. ]

Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.

O Mu'awiya! I am sure that if you give up self-aggrandizement and self-interest, if you forsake the idea of being alive only to personal profits and pleasures, if you cease to be actuated solely by selfishness and if you ponder over the incident leading to the murder of Uthman, you will realize that I cannot at all be held responsible for the affair and I am the least concerned with the episode. But it is a different thing that you create all these false rumours and carry on this heinous propaganda to gain your ulterior motives. Well you may do whatever you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Imam Ali didn't fear his life but he feared for the Muslim ummah. If he was killed then there would of been even more confusion and corruption then there already was

Secondly why do sunnis always take the same letter out of context and post half of it

[ The following is a letter to Mu'awiya and in it Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã has used the same principle that he applied on Talha and Zubayr. Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã in this letter has raised all the points which were once quoted against him. He says if an election on the basis of general franchise is the criterion to decide such a caliphate, then general election took place to elect him the Caliph and nobody can deny this fact, and if limited franchise (Shura) was the criterion then those who represented this group (Muhajirs and Ansars) were amongst those who elected him and therefore even according to the rules formulated by opponents of Imam Ali Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã his election was lawful, regular and bonafide. Thus no Muslim has a right to speak or act against him. ]

Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.

O Mu'awiya! I am sure that if you give up self-aggrandizement and self-interest, if you forsake the idea of being alive only to personal profits and pleasures, if you cease to be actuated solely by selfishness and if you ponder over the incident leading to the murder of Uthman, you will realize that I cannot at all be held responsible for the affair and I am the least concerned with the episode. But it is a different thing that you create all these false rumours and carry on this heinous propaganda to gain your ulterior motives. Well you may do whatever you like.

 

in any case if he remained silent for 24 years and choose not to speak badly of the previous caliphs then why do you bring it up again and again ? why did he (RA) do bayyah after six months if the khilafat of Abu bakr (RA) was illegitimate ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

u miss understood me, I said the incident of imam Ali (as) is different because they knew his position, but they denied it and they wanted to became Khalifa. the prophet (pbuh) doesn't know to choose a leader to lead the Muslims? What were Abu Bakr and Umar doing in Medina anyway? Didn't the prophet (pbuh) order them to go with Osama (ra) to battle? But they never went and the prophet (pbuh) have la'nat to anyway who didn't go.

edit= and the prophet (pbuh) cursed the people who didn't go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in any case if he remained silent for 24 years and choose not to speak badly of the previous caliphs then why do you bring it up again and again ? why did he (RA) do bayyah after six months if the khilafat of Abu bakr (RA) was illegitimate ?

First of all who told you he gave bayyah please quote references

And he brought it up when he came calipha have you heard of this sermon in Najal Balagah

Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah(1)

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.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(Then he quoted al-A`sha's verse).

My days are now passed on the camel's back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir's brother Hayyan.(3)

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group(4) and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! what had I to do with this "consultation"? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high. One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah's wealth(5) like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats. When I took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not heard the word of Allah saying:

That abode in the hereafter, We assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for the pious ones. (Qur'an, 28:83)

Yes, by Allah, they had heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes and its embellishments seduced them. Behold, by Him who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat.

(It is said that when Amir al-mu'minin reached here in his sermon a man of Iraq stood up and handed him over a writing. Amir al-mu'minin began looking at it, when Ibn `Abbas said, "O' Amir al-mu'minin, I wish you resumed your Sermon from where you broke it." Thereupon he replied, "O' Ibn `Abbas it was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided." Ibn `Abbas says that he never grieved over any utterance as he did over this one because Amir al-mu'minin could not finish it as he wished to.)

Sermon 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all who told you he gave bayyah please quote references

And he brought it up when he came calipha have you heard of this sermon in Najal Balagah

Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah(1)

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.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death). I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(Then he quoted al-A`sha's verse).

My days are now passed on the camel's back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir's brother Hayyan.(3)

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group(4) and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! what had I to do with this "consultation"? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high. One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah's wealth(5) like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats. When I took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not heard the word of Allah saying:

That abode in the hereafter, We assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for the pious ones. (Qur'an, 28:83)

Yes, by Allah, they had heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes and its embellishments seduced them. Behold, by Him who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat.

(It is said that when Amir al-mu'minin reached here in his sermon a man of Iraq stood up and handed him over a writing. Amir al-mu'minin began looking at it, when Ibn `Abbas said, "O' Amir al-mu'minin, I wish you resumed your Sermon from where you broke it." Thereupon he replied, "O' Ibn `Abbas it was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided." Ibn `Abbas says that he never grieved over any utterance as he did over this one because Amir al-mu'minin could not finish it as he wished to.)

Sermon 3

I personally find a problem with the matn of this sermon. Specifically, that Ali only would act towards Caliphate if it was a divine duty of the knowledgeable One to not let the oppressed be oppressed...I feel even if it was not a divine duty,  his love of justice and people, would make him act. Therefore I find a problem with this sermon. God knows best.

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

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...