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

Why Umar Ra Nominated Ali Ra As His Successor?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

If I agree to shia myth that Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA were greedy for government and they did not give Ali RA his right, then why Umar RA nominated Ali RA as his successor on his death bed and not his son? Neither he nominated Abu Bakr's RA son, neither any of his relatives. See this reference,

"Umar RA finally appointed a committee of six persons comprising Abdur Rahman RA bin Awf, Saad RA ibn Abi Waqqas, Talha RA ibn Ubaidullah, Uthman RA ibn Affan, Ali RA ibn Abi Talib and Zubayr RA ibn al-Awwam.[91]

Their task was to choose a caliph from amongst them. All of the six are amongst the ten people promised paradise according to Sunnis.[92] The only one out of the 'famous ten' left out of the committee who was still alive at the time was Saeed ibn Zaid RA the cousin and brother in law of Umar RA. He was excluded on the basis of having blood relations and being of the same tribe as of Umar RA. Umar RA had a policy of not appointing anyone related to him to a position of authority even if they were qualified by his standards.[93]"

 

Out of the six members, Zubair RA withdrew his candidature in favor of Ali RA. Sa'd RA ibn Abi Waqas withdrew in favor of Uthman RA.[2] Out of the three remaining candidates Abdur Rahman RA decided to withdraw, leaving Uthman RA and Ali RA.
Abdur Rahman RA was appointed as the arbitrator to choose between the remaining two candidates. Contacting the two candidates separately, he put to them the question whether they would follow in the footsteps of the previous caliphs. Ali RA said that he would follow the Quran and the Sunnah of Muhammed. Uthman RA replied to the question in the affirmative without any reservation. Thereupon, Abdur Rahman RA gave his verdict in favor of the election to Uthman RA.[3]

 

  1. "Umar Ibn Al-Khattab : His Life and Times, Volume 2". archive.org.
  2. "Hadith - Book of Model Behavior of the Prophet (Kitab Al-Sunnah) - Sunan Abi Dawud - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)". sunnah.com.
  3. "Umar Ibn Al-Khattab : His Life and Times, Volume 2". archive.org.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_Uthman#cite_note-Succession-2

     

 

Edited by Ramis Khan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The hadith of hudhayfah is key to the Sunni puzzles of nomination of caliph by abu bakr then appointment of shoora by umar and then that shoora's strange proceedings itself in order to nominate uthman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It is in Quran the when Shura makes a decision, we have to obey it. (In sorah Shura)

 

And Uthman RA was not blood relative of Umar RA. Umar RA did not nominate Abdullah Bin Umar RA as his successor. So your point invalidates here.

Second thind is, Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA were fathers in law of Rasoolullah SAW and Uthman RA and Ali RA were sons in law, so what is the problem remaining? And Uthman RA married two of Rasoolullah's SAW daughters. And Rasoolullah SAW was pleased with him being his son in law and he is known as "Zun-Noorain," or "the possesor of two lights."

Edited by Ramis Khan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

I seriously doubt that. The Qur'an is a Shia book and it is our religion to adhere to it and we do not ignore its commands like the others.

 

- If you can see some rule of obeying the "shura" in the Quran then why the holy Prophet (pbuh), Abu Bakr and Uthman did not appoint shuras?

- If a caliph can simply name a successor then why Umar named out a small shoora and specify the names of its members? Did he not trust other sahabis?

- Kinship in general holds no value in Islam, shariah and the hereafter.

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

You all are skipping the point, Umar RA did not nominate his son but Ali RA. So if he RA was greedy for government, he RA would have nominated Abdullah Bin Umar RA at his death bed.

And about Shura, here is the verse.

42:38 And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend.

and

 

Surat An-Nisa' [verse 59] - O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The condition of following the seerah of umar and abubakr that was put forth by abdur rehman bin auf was a highly implausible one. Did he not know the merits of Ali ibne abi Talib(AS)? Forsure,he did but it was nothing but,''nifaq"  that forced him to come-up with such a sickening & an incongrous condition. Having said that, i highly doubt the intentions of a biased & perverted electoral committee as they did their best to let uthman be the next caliph after umar.May Allah's(SWT) wrath be upon usurpers.

B/w,since when did wikipedia become a credible source to cite from?

Edited by Doctor_Naqvi
Link to post
Share on other sites

You all are skipping the point, Umar RA did not nominate his son but Ali RA. So if he RA was greedy for government, he RA would have nominated Abdullah Bin Umar RA at his death bed.

And about Shura, here is the verse.

42:38 And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend.

and

 

Surat An-Nisa' [verse 59] - O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.

 

Your point doesn't make sence to be honest. He wasn't greedy for government, when he was on his deathbed? Of course he wasn't greedy anymore, some minutes before leaving this dunya, when he already showed his greed for 10 years as a usurper, ruling at the expense of Amirul Momineen A.S. So this was his guilt that showed on his deathbed by mentioning Amirul Momineen's A.S. name on his deathbed. And Imam Ali a.s. reaction to the so called "election" gives you a bright answer.

"consultation among themselves, and what We have provided them they spend."  and not "consultation among themselves what they elect", because election of the Caliph is predetermined, because it is the most important matter, which only Allah swt decides and he has said it clearly: "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a Successor (Caliph)  al-Baqarah 30" 

 

"Obey the messenger and those in authority among you."  But the Pharaoh l.a. and Nimrod l.a. also had authority amongst them, but they shouldn't have to be obeyed because they were tyrants. So this verse is about the Authority which Allah swt chooses and which the Prophets pbut have chosen after them. 

 

And Moses a.s. who was an infallable prophet chose the best men amongst Bani Israil, who apostated, so if an infallable prophet can not make such a decision, how can the likes of Abu Bakr and Umar do it.

 

And Imam Ali's a.s. reaction to Umar's decision is enough as a proof.

Edited by Khayat
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

If I agree to shia myth that Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA were greedy for government and they did not give Ali RA his right, then why Umar RA nominated Ali RA as his successor on his death bed and not his son? Neither he nominated Abu Bakr's RA son, neither any of his relatives. See this reference,

"Umar RA finally appointed a committee of six persons comprising Abdur Rahman RA bin Awf, Saad RA ibn Abi Waqqas, Talha RA ibn Ubaidullah, Uthman RA ibn Affan, Ali RA ibn Abi Talib and Zubayr RA ibn al-Awwam.[91]

Their task was to choose a caliph from amongst them. All of the six are amongst the ten people promised paradise according to Sunnis.[92] The only one out of the 'famous ten' left out of the committee who was still alive at the time was Saeed ibn Zaid RA the cousin and brother in law of Umar RA. He was excluded on the basis of having blood relations and being of the same tribe as of Umar RA. Umar RA had a policy of not appointing anyone related to him to a position of authority even if they were qualified by his standards.[93]"

 

Out of the six members, Zubair RA withdrew his candidature in favor of Ali RA. Sa'd RA ibn Abi Waqas withdrew in favor of Uthman RA.[2] Out of the three remaining candidates Abdur Rahman RA decided to withdraw, leaving Uthman RA and Ali RA.

Abdur Rahman RA was appointed as the arbitrator to choose between the remaining two candidates. Contacting the two candidates separately, he put to them the question whether they would follow in the footsteps of the previous caliphs. Ali RA said that he would follow the Quran and the Sunnah of Muhammed. Uthman RA replied to the question in the affirmative without any reservation. Thereupon, Abdur Rahman RA gave his verdict in favor of the election to Uthman RA.[3]

 

  1. "Umar Ibn Al-Khattab : His Life and Times, Volume 2". archive.org.
  2. "Hadith - Book of Model Behavior of the Prophet (Kitab Al-Sunnah) - Sunan Abi Dawud - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)". sunnah.com.
  3. "Umar Ibn Al-Khattab : His Life and Times, Volume 2". archive.org.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_Uthman#cite_note-Succession-2

     

 

 

 

OK, so, answer me this: if Ali deliberately chose to stop at Qur'an and Sunnah of Muhammad, consciously excluding the previous two Caliphs, what does that say of his opinion of them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Because Umar knew that Ali (as) would never become a Caliph out of that Shura !

 

"""On the third day, 'Abdu 'r-Rahman ibn 'Awf withdrew his name and told 'Ali that he would make him caliph if; Ali pledged to follow the Book of Allah, the traditions of the Holy Prophet and the system of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. 'Abdu 'r-Rahman knew very well what his reply would be. 'Ali (as) said, "I follow the Book of Allah, the traditions of the Holy Prophet and my own beliefs."

Then 'Abdu'r-Rahman put the same conditions to 'Uthman, who readily accepted. Thus, 'Abdu 'r-Rahman declared 'Uthman to be the caliph."""

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_Uthman

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

What was wrong with the Sunna of the two Shuyukh before him a.s.?


Surat An-Nisa' [verse 59] - O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you.

 

 

In Islam 'those in authority among you' are appointed by Allah and His Messenger s.a.w. 

The entire Quran is about following Allah as an authority and not the majority vote. This was never the case in appointment of messengers, kings and their successors. 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

 

If I agree to shia myth that Abu Bakr RA and Umar RA were greedy for government and they did not give Ali RA his right, then why Umar RA nominated Ali RA as his successor on his death bed and not his son? Neither he nominated Abu Bakr's RA son, neither any of his relatives. See this reference,

"Umar RA finally appointed a committee of six persons comprising Abdur Rahman RA bin Awf, Saad RA ibn Abi Waqqas, Talha RA ibn Ubaidullah, Uthman RA ibn Affan, Ali RA ibn Abi Talib and Zubayr RA ibn al-Awwam.[91]

Their task was to choose a caliph from amongst them. All of the six are amongst the ten people promised paradise according to Sunnis.[92] The only one out of the 'famous ten' left out of the committee who was still alive at the time was Saeed ibn Zaid RA the cousin and brother in law of Umar RA. He was excluded on the basis of having blood relations and being of the same tribe as of Umar RA. Umar RA had a policy of not appointing anyone related to him to a position of authority even if they were qualified by his standards.[93]"

 

Out of the six members, Zubair RA withdrew his candidature in favor of Ali RA. Sa'd RA ibn Abi Waqas withdrew in favor of Uthman RA.[2] Out of the three remaining candidates Abdur Rahman RA decided to withdraw, leaving Uthman RA and Ali RA.

Abdur Rahman RA was appointed as the arbitrator to choose between the remaining two candidates. Contacting the two candidates separately, he put to them the question whether they would follow in the footsteps of the previous caliphs. Ali RA said that he would follow the Quran and the Sunnah of Muhammed. Uthman RA replied to the question in the affirmative without any reservation. Thereupon, Abdur Rahman RA gave his verdict in favor of the election to Uthman RA.[3]

 

  1. "Umar Ibn Al-Khattab : His Life and Times, Volume 2". archive.org.
  2. "Hadith - Book of Model Behavior of the Prophet (Kitab Al-Sunnah) - Sunan Abi Dawud - Sunnah.com - Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)". sunnah.com.
  3. "Umar Ibn Al-Khattab : His Life and Times, Volume 2". archive.org.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_Uthman#cite_note-Succession-2

     

 

 

You have missed the most important rule of that Shura committee. In case of tie, Abdur Rehman Ibn Awf's vote would decide who the next caliph would be. And we all know Abdur Rehman was Uthman's brother in law. So the setting up of this Shura committee was nothing but an eye wash.

 

Imam Ali (as) knew the outcome of this drama even before he attended it. Read his dialogue with Abbas (ra) on this meeting. 

 

 

I have a couple of questions for you.

 

1) If Shura is as per Quran the agreed way of electing a caliph then why weren't the previous two caliphs elected that way? Why do we find every caliph being elected differently?

 

2) If Sunnah of Abu Bakr & Umar was same as the Sunnah of Prophet (pbuh), then why did Imam Ali (as)  refused to follow their sunnah?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

 

1) If Shura is as per Quran the agreed way of electing a caliph then why weren't the previous two caliphs elected that way? Why do we find every caliph being elected differently?

 

That was the problem I had when still a sunni. 

There was not one persistent line of succession and it was and is still my conviction that Islam is persistent and is not about the right of the most sly and survival of the fittest.

Imamate on the other hand is much more clear and follow just one line. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is in Quran the when Shura makes a decision, we have to obey it. (In sorah Shura)

 

 

 

Ok...then answer this

“Remember that whoever gives the Pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the Pledge of allegiance was given are to be supported, lest they both should be killed”

Umar was stating that if the methods used to get Abu Bakr to power were repeated again, then the punishment would be death, why, because no shura had taken place.

 

Ayseha (ra) said: ‘Uthman was writing the will of Abu Bakr, then Abu Bakr fainted, thus Uthman wrote the name of Umar. When Abu Bakr woke up and asked: ‘Waht you have written?’ He (Uthman) replied: ‘I wrote ‘Umar’’. He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘you wrote the thing which I wanted to tell, even if you wrote your own name instead it, you would be suitable for it’’. 

Tarikh al-Madina, Volume 2 page 667

Uthman wrote down Umar;’s name and Abu Bakr conformed it, where is the Shura in that?

Umer Further said 

“It has reached me that someone of you said ‘If the Commander of the Faithful is dead, I will give the oath of allegiance to so and so’. Let a man not deceive himself by saying that the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was an event that happened without consultation (faltah). Admittedly it was so, but God averted it’s evil”.

The History of Tabari, Volume 9, The Last Years of the Prophet, translated by Ismail Poonawalla, p193

 

You all are skipping the point, Umar RA did not nominate his son but Ali RA. So if he RA was greedy for government, he RA would have nominated Abdullah Bin Umar RA at his death bed.

 

If Umar really wanted Ali (as) to be Khalifa he would have appointed him, that is a fact.  We already cited the fact that he had made it clear on his death bed “… If my term overtakes me, and Abu Ubaydah al Jarrah is still alive, then I would appoint him as Khalifa. If my Lord asked me, I would say, ‘I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying ‘Every Prophet has a trustworthy (companion), and my trustworthy companion is Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah’. If my time overtakes me and Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah has died, I would appoint Mu’adh ibn Jabal as Khalifas. If my Lord asked me ‘Why did you appoint him as a Khalifah’, I would say, ‘I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying ‘He will be raised up on the Day of Resurrection a distance in front of the men of knowledge’. They had both died during his Khalifah”. 

History of the Khalifas who took the right way (Part English translation of Suyuti’s Tarikh’ul Khulafa), page 135

 

Now if Umar was prepared to appoint the above deceased individuals on the basis of nass why did he not do the same in the case of Ali (as) who as per his own admission:

 

“Ali was given three qualities any of which I should prefer the gift of over high-bred camels’.  He was asked ‘And what are they?’  He said, ‘He married him his daughter Fatimah; his dwelling at the mosque, and the standard on the day of Khaybar.’

 

Umar rigged the whole Shura in a manner that would ensure that Ali (as) would not be appointed

There is the prove

Umar’s first option was to appoint men directly due to their excellences but those whom he deemed worthy were deceased. When it came to the shura discussions, Abdul Rahman bin Auf chose himself as the self appointed king maker  nd as Hizb ut Tahrir in their lead work “al Khilafah” page 37 states:

“… As for the appointment of the six people by ‘Umar, it was a nomination to them by him upon the request of the Muslims. Then ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf consulted the Muslims about whom they wanted from the six people. The majority wanted ‘Ali if he adhered to the practices of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, otherwise they wanted ‘Uthman. When ‘Ali rejected to adhere to the practices of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, ‘Abdul Rahman ibn ‘Auf gave the pledge to ‘Uthman and the people gave their pledge”.

With Abdul Rahman bin Auf the cousin of Uthman at the helm it was clear that this whole process was a ruse, and was in fact geared towards securing Caliphate for Uthman, Imam Ali (as) knew that the process was a ruse and stated:

“Ali said to some Banu Hashim who were with him, “If your people are obeyed [only] among themselves, you will never be appointed to positions of leadership”.  Al Abbas came tp him, and [Ali] said “(the caliphate) has slipped from us!” [Al Abbas) asked him how he knew.  He continued, (Umar) paired me with Uthman and told us [all] to fall in with the majority.  If two approve of one, and two other he said we should be on the same side as Abd-al Rahman b. Awf.  Sa’d will not go against his cousin, Abd-al Rahman who is related by marriage to Uthman.  They will all (three) in their opinion.  Abd-al Rahman will appoint Uthman to the caliphate”

The History of Tabari, Volume 14  page 147

 

 Abdullah ibne Abbas narrates that Hadhrath Umar asked:

 

“..Ibn Abbas! What prevented ‘Ali from coming with us?’ I replied, ‘I do not know’. He continued, ‘Ibn Abbas your father is the paternal uncle of the Messenger of God. You are his cousin. What has prevented your people from putting you [in authority]?’ I replied that I did not know. He continued ‘But I do know, they do not like you being put in charge of them’. I said ‘Why, when we are good to them?’ Umar replied O God [grant] forgiveness. They do not like you to combine Prophethood and the caliphate among yourselves, less it bring about self-aggrandizement and pride. You will perhaps say, ‘Abu Bakr did this’. No indeed, but Abu Bakr did the most resolute thing he could. If he had made (the caliphate) yours, he would not have benefited you despite your close ties of relationship [to the Prophet]“.

The History of Tabari, Volume 14, English translation, by G. Rex Smith, pages 136-137

Anything more to say..??

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Basic Members

one group claimed that the prophet saw DID appoint ali bin abi tholib his successor - this is clear cut & straight forward.

another group claimed that the prophet saw DID NOT. 

my question: why DID abu bakar appoint umar his sucessor & umar DID shortlist 6 candidates for voting. did they or not follow the sunnah? 

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...