Unity between muslims

[Faruk]

Salam,

Was the reason that Imam Ali a.s. pledged allegiance to the first three Caliphs to preserve the unity and not to cause a rift between muslims?

Edited April 30, 2016 by Faruk

[celestial]

32 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Salam,

Was the reason that Imam Ali a.s. pledged allegiance to the first three Caliphs to preserve then unity and not to cause a rift between muslims?

He didn't even pledge alliance, he made his hand a fist, refused to open, and abubakr touched his fist, it wasn't even a proper allegiance.

[Faruk]

13 minutes ago, celestial said:

He didn't even pledge alliance, he made his hand a fist, refused to open, and abubakr touched his fist, it wasn't even a proper allegiance.

Salam,

So technically he a.s. did not pledge allegiance?

[celestial]

3 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Salam,

So technically he a.s. did not pledge allegiance?

As far as i know, yes. He was brought to the masjid by force.

Though someone with more knowledge can enlighten us...

[sakura1994]

Quote: According to Shias he pledged baiah to  the first three caliphs to not cause rifts

^ doesn't this mean he failed in end , cuz the shia/sunni split did happen in end , so his sacrifice was all in vain cuz it still didn't prevent the rifts .

[celestial]

54 minutes ago, sakura1994 said:

doesn't this mean he failed in end , cuz the shia/sunni split did happen in end , so his sacrifice was all in vain cuz it still didn't prevent the rifts .

If Imam Ali a.s. revolted against them from the very beginning, Islam would be in danger. It would vanish before even spreading. Plus, he didn't have enough supporters. People betrayed him, they abandoned their allegiance which they gave on Ghadeer day.

The main goal wasn't about rifts, it was about protecting Islam. So he had to practise patience, and prophet also foretold about this.

Edited April 30, 2016 by celestial

[Faruk]

54 minutes ago, sakura1994 said:

doesn't this mean he failed in end , cuz the shia/sunni split did happen in end , so his sacrifice was all in vain cuz it still didn't prevent the rifts .

Don't forgot that the attitude of the followers is also a main factor. Did Prophet Isa a.s. failed when his followers messed up and disagreed? Did Prophet Musa failed when he a.s. came down from the mountain and saw his people worshipping the Golden Calf?

Imam Ali a.s. never failed in a thing. It was the Ummah driven by jealousy and hunger for power.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Faruk

[sakura1994]

2 hours ago, Faruk said:

Don't forgot that the attitude of the followers is also a main factor. Did Prophet Isa a.s. failed when his followers messed up and disagreed? Did Prophet Musa failed when he a.s. came down from the mountain and saw his people worshipping the Golden Calf?

Imam Ali a.s. never failed in a thing. It was the Ummah driven by jealousy and hunger for power.

I don't know if Isa pbuh failed or not , but he did say to his followers that their is many things have have to say to them but they can't par them now so he entrusted the rest to the spirit of truth to guide them to all truth , and we muslims believe that the spirit of truth is prophat mohammed pbuh .. so I think Isa s.a.w did fullfill his word and we muslims follow prophat mohammed s.a.w .

as for you saying the ummah was driven by jealousy and hunger for power , well shouldn't imam ali r.a as leader have done something about this , instead he give the caliphate to Muawiya !  

[Faruk]

18 minutes ago, sakura1994 said:

I don't know if Isa pbuh failed or not

You should check the Islamic basics before talking about Prophets. Sunni nor Shia believes Isa a.s. failed in his mission. Also the Quran mentions this.

 

 

18 minutes ago, sakura1994 said:

as for you saying the ummah was driven by jealousy and hunger for power , well shouldn't imam ali r.a as leader have done something about this , instead he give the caliphate to Muawiya !  

There were two groups at that moment. It wouldn't make much sense to wage a war because they were diffirent. Second, bloodshed was avoided, third, it was Imam Hasan a.s. and he did not hand over the caliphate. Imam Hasan did not pledge allegiance to him. There were just two regions, one of Muawiyah and the other with a majoritystill considering Imam Hasan a.s. to be their Imam/Caliph and the life of a Shia in both regions was guaranteed because of that treaty.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Faruk

[sakura1994]

2 hours ago, Faruk said:

You should check the Islamic basics before talking about Prophets. Sunni nor Shia believes Isa a.s. failed in his mission. Also the Quran mentions this.

where ?

[celestial]

22 hours ago, sakura1994 said:

where ?

We have the original Islam today with us, Shia Islam.

Thus, Imam Ali a.s. was successful.

[Panzerwaffe]

On 4/30/2016 at 7:41 AM, celestial said:

If Imam Ali a.s. revolted against them from the very beginning, Islam would be in danger. It would vanish before even spreading. Plus, he didn't have enough supporters. People betrayed him, they abandoned their allegiance which they gave on Ghadeer day.

The main goal wasn't about rifts, it was about protecting Islam. So he had to practise patience, and prophet also foretold about this.

Also first 2 caliphs conduct was not outrageous like that of uthman ...the biggest reason people overthrew uthman yet imami shias fail to mention it often

[Sirius_Bright]

It was Holy Prophet's  (sawa) wasiyat to Imam Ali (a.s.) that if you don't get 40 helpers then restrain from fighting. Imam Ali (a.s.) had only 4 at that time. 

 

... Then the Holy Prophet looked at Hadhrat Ali (AS) and said: “Oh Ali, no doubt, after me you will face a lot of harshness from Quraysh, in such a manner that they will overpower you and harass you. If you find helpers to fight then with those who obey you , fight with those who oppose you. If you cannot find helpers, then have patience and restrain your hands and do not let yourself be destroyed. Because, surely, your status to me is like the status that Haroon had with Musa and for you, the footsteps of Haroon are present. He (Haroon) had told his brother: “Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well nigh slained me” (Surah Araf: 150)

(Kitab sulaym bin Qais, Hadith no. 1)

Edited May 5, 2016 by Lover of Ahlulbait (ams)

[Faruk]

On ‎3‎-‎5‎-‎2016 at 3:33 PM, Panzerwaffe said:

Also first 2 caliphs conduct was not outrageous like that of uthman ...the biggest reason people overthrew uthman yet imami shias fail to mention it often

The strange thing is that Uthman actually killed nobody contrary to Abu Bakr who started the Ridda wars and Umar who sent a Jinn to As-Sham to kill Sa'd bin Ubadah.

It is however true that Abu Dharr r.a. died as a result of his exile from Uthman. And he let people imprison and torture.

[Panzerwaffe]

1 hour ago, Faruk said:

The strange thing is that Uthman actually killed nobody contrary to Abu Bakr who started the Ridda wars and Umar who sent a Jinn to As-Sham to kill Sa'd bin Ubadah.

It is however true that Abu Dharr r.a. died as a result of his exile from Uthman. And he let people imprison and torture.

That's one way to look at it but there is a deafning silence when it comes to criticism of first 2 caliphs even from Alis closest supporters 

Putting aside ibn nuwaira incident which was a war crime and acknowledged even by umar there was no popular outrage over the principles of Ridda wars even by Alis closest suporters e.g Malik b harith earned the nick al ashtar while fighting in muslim armies in Ridda wars.There intially misgivings even by umar but by the time rubber hits the road the medina establishment ansar and muhajireen seem to have been prowar

so if Ridda wars were unjustified then Alis closest supporters are also complicit in it by their enthusiastic participation

regarding saad b ubaidah I'll just have the same opinion of his death as his son qays b saad who was a loyal supporter of Ali

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by Panzerwaffe

[sefket83]

I know one part of the Quran says do not split into sects. So why do muslim follow hadiths which makes them seperate instead of following those which make them unitied?

[Panzerwaffe]

37 minutes ago, sefket83 said:

I know one part of the Quran says do not split into sects. So why do muslim follow hadiths which makes them seperate instead of following those which make them unitied?

Hadith are a great resource of sunnah of the prophet and sahaba but problem occurs when they are interpreted differehtly for sectarian reasons 

[DigitalUmmah]

On 30/04/2016 at 9:54 AM, Faruk said:

Salam,

Was the reason that Imam Ali a.s. pledged allegiance to the first three Caliphs to preserve the unity and not to cause a rift between muslims?

he never pledged allegiance, this is a sunni lie.

even if we only look at sunni hadith, he apparantely was dragged to the first one, and "forced" to give allegiance. is allegiance by force accepted by Allah?

[DigitalUmmah]

1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

That's one way to look at it but there is a deafning silence when it comes to criticism of first 2 caliphs even from Alis closest supporters 

Putting aside ibn nuwaira incident which was a war crime and acknowledged even by umar there was no popular outrage over the principles of Ridda wars even by Alis closest suporters e.g Malik b harith earned the nick al ashtar while fighting in muslim armies in Ridda wars.There intially misgivings even by umar but by the time rubber hits the road the medina establishment ansar and muhajireen seem to have been prowar

so if Ridda wars were unjustified then Alis closest supporters are also complicit in it by their enthusiastic participation

regarding saad b ubaidah I'll just have the same opinion of his death as his son qays b saad who was a loyal supporter of Ali

 

werent the ridda wars done because a whole load of muslims became apostates and tried to kill the muslims? that was a matter for all muslims regardless of which liar sat as caliph, the presence of shia within the army is hardly suprising or controversial or any sort of proof that they were supporting the father of goats

[Faruk]

2 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

That's one way to look at it but there is a deafning silence when it comes to criticism of first 2 caliphs even from Alis closest supporters 

Putting aside ibn nuwaira incident which was a war crime and acknowledged even by umar there was no popular outrage over the principles of Ridda wars even by Alis closest suporters e.g Malik b harith earned the nick al ashtar while fighting in muslim armies in Ridda wars.There intially misgivings even by umar but by the time rubber hits the road the medina establishment ansar and muhajireen seem to have been prowar

so if Ridda wars were unjustified then Alis closest supporters are also complicit in it by their enthusiastic participation

regarding saad b ubaidah I'll just have the same opinion of his death as his son qays b saad who was a loyal supporter of Ali

 

The point is that lot of muslims had been killed and that their blood had not much value while Uthman tried to avoid bloodshed of muslims at any cost.

Paricipation or no participation of Imam Ali's a.s. supporters are no justification for the above stated fact.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Faruk

[Panzerwaffe]

26 minutes ago, Faruk said:

The point is that lot of muslims had been killed and that their blood had not much value while Uthman tried to avoid bloodshed of muslims at any cost.

Apples and oranges i think

I'll base my judgment of the 3 caliphs on what Alis supporters thought of them ....and the vast majority of them abhorred uthman far more than any other caliph and I think those who lived fought and died with Ali knew his thoughts better than shias of today

When asked about uthman the famous shis martyr hujr b adi said he was "first one open the doors of injustice and close the doors of righteousness " I'm paraphrasing but his condemnation of uthman as number 1 culprit of fitna is obvious 

 

[Faruk]

18 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Apples and oranges i think

I'll base my judgment of the 3 caliphs on what Alis supporters thought of them ....and the vast majority of them abhorred uthman far more than any other caliph and I think those who lived fought and died with Ali knew his thoughts better than shias of today

When asked about uthman the famous shis martyr hujr b adi said he was "first one open the doors of injustice and close the doors of righteousness " I'm paraphrasing but his condemnation of uthman as number 1 culprit of fitna is obvious 

 

No, I don't base my judgment upon  the early Shia's of Imam Ali a.s. I prefer to base it on reason and the law of cause and effect. The letter of  Mu'awiyah to Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr is a illustration of it:

Mu`awiyah Answers Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr's Letter

From Mu`awiyah son of Sakhr to the one who faults his own father, Muhammad son of Abu Bakr:

Peace unto those who obey Allah.
I have received your letter wherein you state what Allah has indicated of His Greatness, Might, and Omnipotence, and what He bestowed upon the Messenger of Allah, in addition to a great deal of talk which you authored to your own liking and which faults you and is offensive to your father.

In it you stated the merits of the son of Abu Talib and his age-old feats and kinship to the Messenger of Allah, his having supported and solaced the Prophet in each and every precarious and perilous situation. Your argument against me was produced by you praising someone else rather than demonstrating your own merits; so, you should praise the Lord Who has deprived you of such merits and bestowed them upon someone else.

I and your father used, during the life-time of our Prophet, to recognize the merits of Abu Talib's son, and the fact that his feats were greater than ours. When Allah chose for His Prophet (upon whom be peace and blessings) that which He has with him, completing His promise to him, permitting his mission to supersede that of all others, making his argument the uppermost, Allah caused him (blessings of Allah be upon him) to die.

Your father and his Farooq were the first to snatch his right away from him and dispute with him regarding what rightfully belonged to him. This is something which they both agreed upon and for which they coordinated their efforts. Then they invited him to swear the oath of allegiance to them, but he slackened and was hesitant, so they harbored evil intentions against him and plotted to kill him. He, therefore, swore the oath of allegiance to them later on and yielded.

Then their third person, Uthman, stood up to follow their guidance and walk in their footsteps, whereupon you and your friend faulted him for doing so. You did so to the extent that [you caused] even those who went to extremes in sinning to covet his post. You both harbored evil intentions against him till you achieved your common goal.

So be on your guard, O son of Abu Bakr, for you will see the evil of your affair. And do measure your span according to your own measure: you will then neither equal nor parallel one whose vision weighs as much as a mountain. Do not incline to overpower him, for even the most far-sighted person cannot realize the limits of his patience.

It was your father who paved for him what he paved, building his domain. If our condition is sound, your father is the first to receive credit for it, but if it is oppression, then your father went to extremes in oppressing, and we all are his accomplices: It was his guidance that we followed and whose conduct we emulated.

Had it not been for what your father had done, we would not have disputed with the son of Abu Talib, and we would have surrendered to him. But we found your father doing so before us; therefore, we followed his example and emulated his deeds. Find fault with your father, then, for what he did, or refrain, and peace be with whoever returns to his senses, to the right guidance, and who repents.

 

[Panzerwaffe]

^if u base it on reason then caliphate shud go to ansar as medina is their city

regarding muawyiah claim don't u think the diehard supporters of Ali knew of his right better than him ? 

Muawiyah was clearly trying to snub and discredit a inexperienced ibn abibakr 

[GreatChineseFall]

3 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

werent the ridda wars done because a whole load of muslims became apostates and tried to kill the muslims? that was a matter for all muslims regardless of which liar sat as caliph, the presence of shia within the army is hardly suprising or controversial or any sort of proof that they were supporting the father of goats

Werent the ridda wars because people didnt want to pay zakat to Abu Bakr but Ali instead?

[Panzerwaffe]

2 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

Werent the ridda wars because people didnt want to pay zakat to Abu Bakr but Ali instead?

No

they didn't want to pay zakat to medina govt whether Ali or abubakr

some followed new prophets which posed a big threat to mEdina 

[DigitalUmmah]

11 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

Werent the ridda wars because people didnt want to pay zakat to Abu Bakr but Ali instead?

 

8 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

No

they didn't want to pay zakat to medina govt whether Ali or abubakr

some followed new prophets which posed a big threat to mEdina 

right, so the fact that there were shia involved in the ridda wars isnt that big a shocker then is it? not like shia did it because they love abu bakr so much

[Panzerwaffe]

2 hours ago, DigitalUmmah said:

 

right, so the fact that there were shia involved in the ridda wars isnt that big a shocker then is it? not like shia did it because they love abu bakr so much

Edited May 6, 2016 by Panzerwaffe

[Panzerwaffe]

^ that's what I meant why do u guys then blame abu bakr govt alone for riddah wars and forget participation of Alis supporters in them sane goes for the futuhat

[DigitalUmmah]

24 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

^ that's what I meant why do u guys then blame abu bakr govt alone for riddah wars and forget participation of Alis supporters in them sane goes for the futuhat

I think ur crossing your wires man - i hate abu bakr because Sayyeda Fatima (sa) hated him

[Panzerwaffe]

28 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

I think ur crossing your wires man - i hate abu bakr because Sayyeda Fatima (sa) hated him

Ok that's fine seperate issue ...but don't use the ridda wars as If it was purely a abu bakr undertaking it wasn't as it abundantly clear

[DigitalUmmah]

1 hour ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Ok that's fine seperate issue ...but don't use the ridda wars as If it was purely a abu bakr undertaking it wasn't as it abundantly clear

understood - wasnt the point I made but I see what you are saying. 

[Faruk]

18 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

^if u base it on reason then caliphate shud go to ansar as medina is their city

Leadership over Medina was the concern of the gathering at Saqifah in the first place but after involvement of certain individuals it became leadership over Medina, Mecca and all the tribes of Arabia that were converted to Islam in shiort the entire Islamic community of Aeabia and beyond.

 

 

18 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

regarding muawyiah claim don't u think the diehard supporters of Ali knew of his right better than him ? 

Muawiyah was clearly trying to snub and discredit a inexperienced ibn abibakr 

The claim was that it indirectly started with the event of Saqifah and it seemed that the Falta Umar was afraid of did maybe not take place during his lifetime but started to become visible during the reign of Uthman and after.

[ShiaMan14]

6 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Ok that's fine seperate issue ...but don't use the ridda wars as If it was purely a abu bakr undertaking it wasn't as it abundantly clear

It was Abu Bakr's initiative perhaps at the behest of Umar so as such, they should be held responsible for it. You always go for the head and not the tail.

[Abu Nur]

15 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

^ that's what I meant why do u guys then blame abu bakr govt alone for riddah wars and forget participation of Alis supporters in them sane goes for the futuhat

We don't blame Imam Ali (as) decisions and support on Ridda wars against the rebels that threat Islam and its Ummah, rather we don't accept the definition of Abu Bakr of the Apostasy who included among them those who did not accept him or those who did not pay zakat. If Imams (as) were in same situation, they would have war against the rebels too.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Dhulfikar

[only1]

On 4/30/2016 at 8:57 AM, sakura1994 said:

I don't know if Isa pbuh failed or not , but he did say to his followers that their is many things have have to say to them but they can't par them now so he entrusted the rest to the spirit of truth to guide them to all truth , and we muslims believe that the spirit of truth is prophat mohammed pbuh .. so I think Isa s.a.w did fullfill his word and we muslims follow prophat mohammed s.a.w .

as for you saying the ummah was driven by jealousy and hunger for power , well shouldn't imam ali r.a as leader have done something about this , instead he give the caliphate to Muawiya !  

You don't know if the Prophet Isa failed or not????!!! Like how does one claim that a Prophet that spoke in the cradle failed? Is that even logical? Funny you would run to Muawiya yet fail to stand up for the Prophet...It fails logic.