Why did companions not follow Ali bin Abi Talib?

[Afzali]

Being the Prophet’s companions, early Muslims were expected to follow Ali bin Abi Talib who was so close to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and had topped all excellences standing next to the Prophet in terms of virtues and good deeds, but they failed, to our surprise, to accomplish their obligation. Though it is the duty of historians and sociologists to determine the real cause or causes of this devastating failure, we can only make in this regard certain guesses based on our limited knowledge of the history. The reasons that led the companions to turn their back to Ali bin Abi Tablib are numerous but top among them are, according to us, the following:

a)      Lack of understanding of Islam: There were many who did not have any understanding of Islamic general principles let alone its details and specifics. They had only heard something vague about Islam and based on it they embraced Islam not knowing what Islam really was and what its requirements were. Verse no. 14, of Hujraat chapter of the Holy Quran may stand witness to the existence of such type of people. The number of such people was not few and far between. They constituted the bulk of the community. Being unaware of profound Islamic principles, they could be easily exploited and deceived.

b)     Lack of true understanding of Islam: Many of those who supposedly knew about Islam did not have sound knowledge of Islamic worldview and Islamic values. Being under the impression of their own previous tribal and religious values they could hardly have any sound and pure understanding of Islamic values and principles. Many of those who were operating under the guise of reporters and narrators were falling under this category. They were broadcasting their own voices but under the shade of Islam. These people whose number was unfortunately alarmingly high did not try to grasp the true image of Islam nor did they allow others to do so.

c)      Moral problems: There were many who because of being long in the company of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) had a good understanding of Islamic principles, but despite that they failed to fulfill their obligation due to certain moral problems. They wanted a free and luxurious life distanced from any sort of anxiety and concern. If Ali bin Abi Talib came to power he would not according to their calculations, let them lead such an irresponsible life. In addition, many of them had hatred towards Ali bin Abi Talib because he had previously killed their kin in the battlefields. Last but not least, many had hatred towards the Prophet himself, but since they could not reach the Prophet, they targeted Ali bin Abi Talib instead. (See, Tarikh Medina Demeshq, vol 42, p. 290, al-Tazkira al-Hamduniyya, vol. 7, p. 168 etc.) It was because of all these that there happened what should have happened! by Afzali       

 

 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Afzali

[Ya_isa (as)]

4 minutes ago, Afzali said:

Lack of understanding of Islam: There were many who did not have any understanding of Islamic general principles let alone its details and specifics

Salam,What do you expect from someone who was worshipping a God made from dates to do after the Holy Prophet (pbuh and his family ) ? Be honourable ? And give Imam Ali his due rights ! Even though they all pledged allegiance to him on ghadir.....

[SayedAA]

The actions of the majority of companions were fake. They would act a certain way in front of the prophet, but when he died, who's there to impress? Allah isn't on their list. Omar and Abu Bakr didn't even attend the Prophet's (pbuh&hf) funeral! So many cases prove to us that the position of khalifa was usurped from Imam Ali(as), and sermon #3 in Nahjol Balagha illustrates that the best as it comes from the Imam himself.

[Nadir]

are you talking specifically about the muslims at large or the main ones? if it's the latter, some were instigated, some held grudges, some were jealous, some were power-hungry, and some were simply hypocrites - they sought to infiltrate the religion and destroy it from the inside.

 

if you're asking about the muslims at large, well, the sincere lovers of truth have always been a minority man.

[`Umar bin `Ali]

@Ya_isa (as)

• ((Salam,What do you expect from someone who was worshipping a God made from dates to do after the Holy Prophet (pbuh and his family ) ? Be honourable ?))

Wait wait wait.. You just insulted pretty much every single person who embraced Islam, what did you expect people to be guided before Islam came to them so they may be descent and honorable? What if a Christian converted to Islam, would he be indecent and dishonorable by default since he used to worship a piece of wood!? Is Salman al-Farsi an indecent and dishonorable person since he was a Zoroastrian Majoosi who later turned Christian then Muslim?

This is evil logic!

• ((Even though they all pledged allegiance to him on ghadir))

O No they didn't, why the heck would they give allegiance to another leader while their first leader was still alive and in authority!? That's forbidden by authentic narrations and unacceptable. You guys can barely even prove that the text of Ghadir is related to leadership now you want to jump forward and say he received Bay`ah on top of it!?

@SayedAli

• ((The actions of the majority of companions were fake. They would act a certain way in front of the prophet, but when he died, who's there to impress? Allah isn't on their list.))

Seriously? So those that sacrificed everything they have for Islam, were ALL fake!? If they disliked this matter they wouldn't have joined it in the first place and the Prophet (saw) would have lost the support of the majority of people and retreated. These people you're insulting are the actual armies who fought for the spreading and success of Islam. It wasn't a matter of impressing some random Arab called Muhammad that they never believed in as you imply. Have some common sense.

• ((Omar and Abu Bakr didn't even attend the Prophet's (pbuh&hf) funeral!))

Yes they did, the Prophet (saw) remained on his bed for a couple of days before they buried him and everyone attended the funeral and prayed Janazah.

PS. You can't prove that Sermon 3 of Nahj-ul-Balaghah is reliable or authentic, it's a random text found in a book written 400 years after `Ali passed without chains.

@Nadir

• ((if you're asking about the muslims at large, well, the sincere lovers of truth have always been a minority man.))
   

That's why Isma`ili Shia are right and Twelvers are wrong, because they're minority. Or maybe Zaydis. Very reasonable folks you all are.

[Ya_isa (as)]

1 minute ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

Is Salman al-Farsi an indecent and dishonorable person since he was a Zoroastrian Majoosi who later turned Christian then Muslim?

I suggest you read up on zoarastrian for it is the first monotheistic religion in the world !

i was referring to umar only not the rest of the people who actually sacrificed for Islam. 

3 minutes ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

• Omar and Abu Bakr didn't even attend the Prophet's (pbuh&hf) funeral!))

 

What's next they were there when they buried HZ Fatima (as) you're a good joker take up comedy lessons 

[Ya_isa (as)]

5 minutes ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

Very reasonable folks you all are.

Reasonable yeah because we don't respect people like umar and Abu Bakr who usurped the right of ahlulbayt and got us in this mess that we are all in. I have posted on the other forum but I will post here for you too since you're so reasonable. 

[Ya_isa (as)]

Bukhari wrote in his book: "When Umar was stabbed he felt great pain and Ibn Abbas wanted to comfort him, so he said to him, "O Commander of the Believers, you accompanied the Messenger of Allah and you were a good companion to him, and when he left you, he was very pleased with you. Then you accompanied Abu Bakr, and you were a good companion to him, and when he left you, he was pleased with you. Then you accompanied their companions and you were a good companion to them, and if you left them, they would remember you well." He said, "As for the companionship of the Messenger of Allah and his satisfaction with me, that is a gift that Allah, the Most High, has granted to me. As for the companionship of Abu Bakr and his satisfaction with me, that is a gift that Allah, Glory be to Him, has granted to me. But the reason you see me in pain is for you and your companions. By Allah, if I had all the gold on earth I would use it to ransom myself from the torture of Allah, Glory and Majesty be to Him, before I saw Him.

 

Sahih, Bukhari, vol 2 p 201

 He has also been quoted as saying the following, "I wish I was my family's sheep. They would have fattened me up to the maximum. When they were visited by friends, they would have killed me and roasted part of me, and made qadid (meat cut into strips and dried) from the other part of it, then they would have eaten me, and lastly, they would have relieved me with their bowel evacuation ... I wish I had been all that, rather than a human being."  

MinHajj as Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyya, vol 3 p 131;

Hilyat al Awliya, Ibn Abi Nuaym, vol 1 p 52 

 

As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom.For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers. (Surah Al-Imran, 91)

[Ya_isa (as)]

Abu Bakr apparently said a similar thing to umar. He looked at a bird on a tree, and then said, "Well done bird ... you eat the fruits, you stand on the trees and you are not accountable to anybody nor indeed can anybody punish you. I wish I was a tree by the road and that a camel would come along and eat me. Then relieve me with his bowel evacuation ... I wish that I had been all that, rather than a human being."

Tarikh, Tabari, p 41; al Riyadh al Nadira, vol 1 p 134; Kanz al Ummal, p 361

 

doesnt sound rightly guided does it ?

 

 

[`Umar bin `Ali]

Now you're expecting me to comment on these random narrations you sent? Great.

Firstly, if fire worshipers were so monotheistic why did Salman downgrade to Christianity? Why'd he even convert to Islam if Zoroastrianism was a rightly-guided religion?

Secondly, I don't understand, are you trying to praise `Umar? You quoted Ibn `Abbas saying in an authentic report:

"you accompanied the Messenger of Allah and you were a good companion to him, and when he left you, he was very pleased with you."

Wow he was VERY PLEASED? Seems like you guys misunderstood the pen and paper incident then.

Then you mention `Umar's humble words, which are beautiful and show his Taqwa and fear of God almighty and you think it's criticism!? `Ali said in the authentic narration after the battle of the Camel: "O Hasan, I wish I were dead twenty years ago!"

So I guess `Ali was such a big sinner according to you that he wished to have died 20 years before the battle.

 

Please no more random junk, I can't entertain random posts.

 

[Ya_isa (as)]

1 minute ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

Then you mention `Umar's humble words, which are beautiful

Hahahahaahha okay get lost 

[Ya_isa (as)]

The Companions and the Raziyat Yawm al Khamis (The Calamity of Thursday)

Ibn Abbas said: Thursday, and what a Thursday that was! The Messenger's pain became very severe, and he said, "Come here, I will write you a document which will prevent you from straying from the right path." But Umar said that the Prophet was under the spell of the pain, and that they had the Qur'an which was sufficient being the Book of Allah. People present then differed and quarreled amongst themselves, some of them agreeing with what the Prophet said, while others supported Umar's view. When the debate became heated and the noise became louder, the Messenger of Allah said to them, "Leave me alone."
Ibn Abbas said: “The disaster was that the disagreement among the Companions prevented the Messenger from writing that document for them.”

 Sahih, Bukhari, Chapter: About the saying of the sick, vol 2, Sahih, Muslim, End of the book of al Wasiyyah, vol 5 p 75, Musnad, Ahmed, vol 1 p 335, vol 5 p 116 Tarikh, Tabari, vol 3 p 193, Tarikh, Ibn al Athir, vol 2 p 320

O You who believe! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, and do not speak loud to him as you speak loud to one another, lest your deeds become null while you do not perceive.” (Holy Qur'an 49:2)

Edited September 22, 2016 by Ya_isa (as)

[power]

Imam Ali (as) age  could've been  problematic for the senior companions to accept. Remember the event where Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) had appointed Usama bin Zaid as the commander of the battalion, he was only 18 or 20 years of age. The seniors complained about him being to young.

[Ya_isa (as)]

 

And whoever is blind in this [life] will be blind in the Hereafter and more astray in way. Holy Quran 

[Nadir]

1 hour ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

 

@Nadir

• ((if you're asking about the muslims at large, well, the sincere lovers of truth have always been a minority man.))
   

That's why Isma`ili Shia are right and Twelvers are wrong, because they're minority. Or maybe Zaydis. Very reasonable folks you all are.

I didn't give "the sincere lovers of truth" a label. I didn't say they were twelvers or non twelvers. Nor did I say the lovers of truth are the group that contains the fewest followers. A sincere lover and follower of truth can be found anywhere, in any group. And when such a person expresses the truth, chances are they will be condemned and marginalised by the majority. 

Brother, I was merely mentioning a historical trend. Whether that condemns your beliefs is your problem. I can't care less if you agree or not, but the vast majority of us are sheep. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Nadir

[`Umar bin `Ali]

1 hour ago, power said:

Imam Ali (as) age  could've been  problematic for the senior companions to accept. Remember the event where Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) had appointed Usama bin Zaid as the commander of the battalion, he was only 18 or 20 years of age. The seniors complained about him being to young.

Some complained about Usamah being to young and unexperienced but notice that they still accepted his leadership and obeyed him as leader of that army even after the Prophet (saw) died.

In `Ali's case he wasn't even appointed.

 

@Ya_Isa

You post the calamity of Thursday as narrated by ibn `Abbas, since ibn `Abbas was an eye witness he proves that the Sunni understanding of the event is correct since he said as you quoted above: "The Prophet (Saw) died while being VERY PLEASED with you O `Umar."

 

[Megatron]

2 hours ago, power said:

Imam Ali (as) age  could've been  problematic for the senior companions to accept. Remember the event where Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) had appointed Usama bin Zaid as the commander of the battalion, he was only 18 or 20 years of age. The seniors complained about him being to young.

How old to Shias reckon Ali was at the time of the Prophet (SAW) death? I believe according to Sunni narrations he was about 33?

Ironically enough, Umar challenged Abu Bakr to replace Usamah right after the Prophet's (SAW) funeral, but Abu Bakr rebuked Umar, and insisted he will not undo what the Prophet (SAW) had put in place. Some of the companions certainly had reservations, but in the end they still went through with the expedition. So, that argument really doesn't suggest anything.

Besides there is a bit of difference, Usamah is a teenager/young adult at best, and Ali by that time too was a full adult who had his own family. I really don't think it had anything to do with age. They understood the incident Ghadir racially different, and these are the same companions you're accusing of treachery who mass-narrated the Hadith of Ghadir.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Megatron

[Ya_isa (as)]

9 hours ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

You post the calamity of Thursday as narrated by ibn `Abbas, since ibn `Abbas was an eye witness he proves that the Sunni understanding of the event is correct since he said as you quoted above: "The Prophet (Saw) died while being VERY PLEASED with you O `Umar."

When thou lookest at them, their exteriors please thee; and when they speak, thou listenest to their words. They are as (worthless as hollow) pieces of timber propped up, (unable to stand on their own). They think that every cry is against them. They are the enemies; so beware of them. The curse of Allah be on them! How are they deluded (away from the Truth)! (Surah Al-Munafiqun, 4)

 

9 hours ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

You post the calamity of Thursday as narrated by ibn `Abbas, since ibn `Abbas was an eye witness he proves that the Sunni understanding of the event is correct since he said as you quoted above: "The Prophet (Saw) died while being VERY PLEASED with you O `Umar."

As for people who can't see the truth and it's right in front of them :

And whoever is blind in this [life] will be blind in the Hereafter and more astray in way.

Quran 17:72

 

did the Prophet say I leave behind Quran and sunnah ? Even in your own books with all the hate and propaganda through out the years we still find them and condemn you soulless irrational sub human salafis Sunni wahabi 

 

[Ya_isa (as)]

9 hours ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

You post the calamity of Thursday as narrated by ibn `Abbas, since ibn `Abbas was an eye witness he proves that the Sunni understanding of the event is correct since he said as you quoted above: "The Prophet (Saw) died while being VERY PLEASED with you O `Umar."

 

And among the ones around you of the Arabs (of the desert) there are hypocrites and among the population of Al-Madinah: they are ever-insurgent with hypocrisy. You (i.e., the prophet) do not know them. We, Ever We, know them. We will soon torment them twice; thereafter they will be turned back to a tremendous torment. Quran 9/101

umar and abu Bakr are the ones the Prophet didn't know according to you but Allah (swt) did.

 

 

 

The messenger of Allah (saw) said: “O People, I leave amongst you two things which if you follow, you will never go astray. They are the Book of Allah and my Ahl al-Bayt (family). He also said: The messenger of my God is about to come to me and I shall answer. I am leaving with you the two weighty things: The first is the Book of Allah, in which you find guidance and enlightenment, and the people of my household. I remind you, by Allah, of the people of my household...I remind you by Allah of the people of my household.

"Sahih, Muslim, Chapter on the Virtues of Imam ‘Ali (as), vol 5 p 122, Sahih, al Tirmdhi, vol 5 p 328, Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 148 Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 3 p 17

[power]

16 hours ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

Some complained about Usamah being to young and unexperienced but notice that they still accepted his leadership and obeyed him as leader of that army even after the Prophet (saw) died.

In `Ali's case he wasn't even appointed.

 

The seniors companion had disobey  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) command, Rasulillah had enlisted Abu Bakr umar and other seniors  under Usama bin zaid command, they complained about Usama being to young, and refused to depart from Medina.

[power]

19 hours ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

Some complained about Usamah being to young and unexperienced but notice that they still accepted his leadership and obeyed him as leader of that army even after the Prophet (saw) died.

In `Ali's case he wasn't even appointed.

 

The seniors companion had disobey  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) command, Rasulillah had enlisted Abu Bakr umar and other seniors  under Usama bin zaid command, they complained about Usama being to young, and refused to depart from Medina.

2 hours ago, power said:

 

17 hours ago, Megatron said:

How old to Shias reckon Ali was at the time of the Prophet (SAW) death? I believe according to Sunni narrations he was about 33?

Ironically enough, Umar challenged Abu Bakr to replace Usamah right after the Prophet's (SAW) funeral, but Abu Bakr rebuked Umar, and insisted he will not undo what the Prophet (SAW) had put in place. Some of the companions certainly had reservations, but in the end they still went through with the expedition. So, that argument really doesn't suggest anything.

Besides there is a bit of difference, Usamah is a teenager/young adult at best, and Ali by that time too was a full adult who had his own family. I really don't think it had anything to do with age. They understood the incident Ghadir racially different, and these are the same companions you're accusing of treachery who mass-narrated the Hadith of Ghadir.

.

It is also evident from your post, that you have tiptoed around the event of Usama bin Zaid expedition in its entirety ! It is  further  apparent from your post, that you are fully aware of the event but have shown an act of disingenuous in the matter pertaining the event of Usama bin Zaid expedition!

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 552:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

Allah's Apostle appointed Usama bin Zaid as the commander of some people. Those people criticized his leadership. The Prophet said, "If you speak ill of his leadership, you have already spoken ill of his father's leadership before. By Allah, he deserved to be a Commander, and he was one of the most beloved persons to me and now this (i.e. Usama) is one of the most beloved persons to me after him

Now, if we to  analysis the events surrounding  just before the demise of Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) You will come to realize, that senior companions had displayed downright act of disobedience to the Prophet (pbuh&hf)

Umar had denied Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) writing material, Then on his deathbed Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) had ordered the senior companions to join  Usama bin Zaid battalion, and the seniors  Nauzaibillah had criticised the prophet (pbuh&hf)  for appointing such individual because of his age! So, the Sahabhas were capable of defying Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) while he was alive, if they disregard his command and order in his lifetime, then they can also disregard his commands in the matter of succession! 

 

[`Umar bin `Ali]

12 hours ago, Ya_isa (as) said:

did the Prophet say I leave behind Quran and sunnah ? Even in your own books with all the hate and propaganda through out the years we still find them and condemn you soulless irrational sub human salafis Sunni wahabi 

 

Very rude bro, I do not ascribe to the two groups you mentioned.

Also the fact that the narration of Thaqalayn and Ghadeer are plastered all over our books, disproves your point and shows that we are lovers of Ahlul-Bayt but we only accept what is authentically attributed to them, not some weak rumors by Koufans or later Qummies.

 

• ((The messenger of Allah (saw) said: “O People, I leave amongst you two things which if you follow, you will never go astray. They are the Book of Allah and my Ahl al-Bayt (family). He also said: The messenger of my God is about to come to me and I shall answer. I am leaving with you the two weighty things: The first is the Book of Allah, in which you find guidance and enlightenment, and the people of my household. I remind you, by Allah, of the people of my household...I remind you by Allah of the people of my household.
• "Sahih, Muslim, Chapter on the Virtues of Imam ‘Ali (as), vol 5 p 122, Sahih, al Tirmdhi, vol 5 p 328, Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 148 Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 3 p 17))

 

Yes and? Why you mixing sources and texts bro? Is it because the text in Sahih Muslim shows your understanding of Thaqalayn is flawed?

 

@POwer

• ((The seniors companion had disobey  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) command, Rasulillah had enlisted Abu Bakr umar and other seniors  under Usama bin zaid command, they complained about Usama being to young, and refused to depart from Medina.))

 

According to us Abu Bakr wasn't even in the army, he was appointed as Imam in the authentic traditions. As for `Umar, Abu Bakr requested from Usamah to leave him behind as adviser. Abu Bakr fulfilled the Prophet's (saw) request of sending Usamah's army. This shows they're obedient and God fearing.

 

• ((Now, if we to  analysis the events surrounding  just before the demise of Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) You will come to realize, that senior companions had displayed downright act of disobedience to the Prophet (pbuh&hf)))

 

Who told you they were "Senior"? Secondly, who told you Abu Bakr and `Umar were among them? If they were, then they wouldn't have later dispatched his large army under his command.

 

So for sure it wasn't Abu Bakr, maybe it was abu Dharr or Salman? Seriously, how do you guys just pick randomly and assume things? Maybe it was the hypocrites and not the believers? Maybe only 1 or 2 people complained whereas all 100,000 Companions had no issue?

 

• ((Nauzaibillah had criticised the prophet (pbuh&hf)  for appointing such individual because of his age! So, the Sahabhas were capable of defying Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) while he was alive, if they disregard his command and order in his lifetime, then they can also disregard his commands in the matter of succession! ))

 

So Abu Bakr criticized the Prophet (saw) in his life for appointing young Usamah as leader of a large army, then after the Prophet (saw) died he made sure to dispatch that same army? This makes no sense and proves without a doubt that Abu Bakr was not from those who complained. 

Edited September 23, 2016 by `Umar bin `Ali

[Ya_isa (as)]

13 minutes ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

Very rude bro, I do not ascribe to the two groups you mentioned.

I'm not your brother ! For someone to know these things and still abandon ahlulbayt is beyond words for me. 

Surely I am at peace with those who are at peace with you and I am at war with those who are at war with you and I am a friends to those who are friends to you and I am an enemy to those who are enemies to you

 

if a Sunni is ignorant to these facts then it's not his fault but for someone to know the right of Imam Ali (as) were usurped and don't care .... 

The first time the Holy Prophet ( pbuh and his family ) called his tribe to invite them to Islam, who was the first to accept Islam ? Imam Ali (as) And what did the Holy Prophet (pbuh and his family ) say ? That he (as) would be the successor after him. But again you Sunnis make excuse for your rightly guided caliphs.  He was a kid you say ! The Holy Prophet (pbuh and his family ) was joking probably right ? Or you say maula doesn't mean maula right ? Just excuse after excuses  don't you see ??? 

Would you raise your voice above the Holy Prophet (pbuh and his family ) and call him delusional ? And say we have the Quran it is sufficient for us ? Did umar bring the Quran ? If the Holy Prophet (pbuh and his family ) thought the Quran was sufficient he wouldn't stress the fact to write something down! If you wouldn't pervent the Holy Prophet (pbuh and his family ) to write something down then why defend someone who did ? Or you wouldn't raise your voice above his (pbuh and his family ) so why defend someone who would ?? You wouldn't call the Messenger of Allah (saw) delirious ? So why defend someone who would ?? 

please don't quote me, I'm not trying to change your opinion, as a Muslim I did my part and shared few and I stress few facts with you. And you decide to throw them on your back and continue with your biase opinion instead of trying to be objective. 

God Bless take care 

[`Umar bin `Ali]

Why you angry bro? If Sunni/Shia discussions make you so angry, don't participate. I'm very comfortable here.

Abandoning the Prophet's (saw) religion is a lot more important than siding with some political party that ascribes itself to the Prophet's (saw) family yet butchers his legacy and distorts his message.

Enough said!

As for Mawla, you've no idea what it means nor can you read a proper Arabic text. As for `Ali embracing Islam, it is an honor for him to have been fortunate to grow up in a Prophet's (saw) house as a kid and adopt the faith of his caretaker. I see Abu Bakr's experience as a lot more admirable and rich, an accomplished and mature man, with everything to lose, embraces a strange faith only because he sees the truth and then faces trials and tribulations as a result.

As for `Umar, it is as you guys quoted: "Allah's Messenger (saw) died while being VERY PLEASED with him." How then can it be as you describe!? Surely you've missed the truth in your malicious assumptions.

Edited September 23, 2016 by `Umar bin `Ali

[power]

54 minutes ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

Very rude bro, I do not ascribe to the two groups you mentioned.

Also the fact that the narration of Thaqalayn and Ghadeer are plastered all over our books, disproves your point and shows that we are lovers of Ahlul-Bayt but we only accept what is authentically attributed to them, not some weak rumors by Koufans or later Qummies.

 

• ((The messenger of Allah (saw) said: “O People, I leave amongst you two things which if you follow, you will never go astray. They are the Book of Allah and my Ahl al-Bayt (family). He also said: The messenger of my God is about to come to me and I shall answer. I am leaving with you the two weighty things: The first is the Book of Allah, in which you find guidance and enlightenment, and the people of my household. I remind you, by Allah, of the people of my household...I remind you by Allah of the people of my household.
• "Sahih, Muslim, Chapter on the Virtues of Imam ‘Ali (as), vol 5 p 122, Sahih, al Tirmdhi, vol 5 p 328, Mustadrak, al Hakim, vol 3 p 148 Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 3 p 17))

 

Yes and? Why you mixing sources and texts bro? Is it because the text in Sahih Muslim shows your understanding of Thaqalayn is flawed?

 

@POwer

• ((The seniors companion had disobey  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) command, Rasulillah had enlisted Abu Bakr umar and other seniors  under Usama bin zaid command, they complained about Usama being to young, and refused to depart from Medina.))

 

According to us Abu Bakr wasn't even in the army, he was appointed as Imam in the authentic traditions. As for `Umar, Abu Bakr requested from Usamah to leave him behind as adviser. Abu Bakr fulfilled the Prophet's (saw) request of sending Usamah's army. This shows they're obedient and God fearing.

 

• ((Now, if we to  analysis the events surrounding  just before the demise of Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) You will come to realize, that senior companions had displayed downright act of disobedience to the Prophet (pbuh&hf)))

 

Who told you they were "Senior"? Secondly, who told you Abu Bakr and `Umar were among them? If they were, then they wouldn't have later dispatched his large army under his command.

 

So for sure it wasn't Abu Bakr, maybe it was abu Dharr or Salman? Seriously, how do you guys just pick randomly and assume things? Maybe it was the hypocrites and not the believers? Maybe only 1 or 2 people complained whereas all 100,000 Companions had no issue?

 

• ((Nauzaibillah had criticised the prophet (pbuh&hf)  for appointing such individual because of his age! So, the Sahabhas were capable of defying Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) while he was alive, if they disregard his command and order in his lifetime, then they can also disregard his commands in the matter of succession! ))

 

So Abu Bakr criticized the Prophet (saw) in his life for appointing young Usamah as leader of a large army, then after the Prophet (saw) died he made sure to dispatch that same army? This makes no sense and proves without a doubt that Abu Bakr was not from those who complained. 

Yes and? Why you mixing sources and texts bro? Is it because the text in Sahih Muslim shows your understanding of Thaqalayn is flawed?

 

@POwer

• ((The seniors companion had disobey  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) command, Rasulillah had enlisted Abu Bakr umar and other seniors  under Usama bin zaid command, they complained about Usama being to young, and refused to depart from Medina.))

 

According to us Abu Bakr wasn't even in the army, he was appointed as Imam in the authentic traditions. As for `Umar, Abu Bakr requested from Usamah to leave him behind as adviser. Abu Bakr fulfilled the Prophet's (saw) request of sending Usamah's army. This shows they're obedient and God fearing.

 

• ((Now, if we to  analysis the events surrounding  just before the demise of Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) You will come to realize, that senior companions had displayed downright act of disobedience to the Prophet (pbuh&hf)))

 

Who told you they were "Senior"? Secondly, who told you Abu Bakr and `Umar were among them? If they were, then they wouldn't have later dispatched his large army under his command.

 

So for sure it wasn't Abu Bakr, maybe it was abu Dharr or Salman? Seriously, how do you guys just pick randomly and assume things? Maybe it was the hypocrites and not the believers? Maybe only 1 or 2 people complained whereas all 100,000 Companions had no issue?

 

• ((Nauzaibillah had criticised the prophet (pbuh&hf)  for appointing such individual because of his age! So, the Sahabhas were capable of defying Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) while he was alive, if they disregard his command and order in his lifetime, then they can also disregard his commands in the matter of succession! ))

 

So Abu Bakr criticized the Prophet (saw) in his life for appointing young Usamah as leader of a large army, then after the Prophet (saw) died he made sure to dispatch that same army? This makes no sense and proves without a doubt that Abu Bakr was not from those who complained. 

1. Those who criticized the appointment of Usama was because of his young age.
2. The prophet called upon Abu Bakr, who was part of the army, to come and lead the congregational prayers.

al-Waqidi in al-Maghazi and al-Tabari in his Tarikh have both reported similar stories except for the part where the prophet called Abu Bakr to lead the congregational prayer.

ibn Sayid al-Nass in his book U'uyun al-Athar, ibn Athir in his al-Kamel and al-Waqidi in al-Maghazi have also reported similar story:

قالوا: لما كان يوم الاثنين لأربع ليال بقين من صفر سنة إحدى عشرة مهاجرة، أمر رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) الناس بالتهيؤ لغزو الروم، فلما كان من الغد دعا أسامة بن زيد فقال: سر إلى موضع مقتل أبيك، فأوطئهم الخيل، فقد وليتك هذا الجيش فاغز صباحا على أهل أبني، وحرق عليهم، وأسرع السير تسبق الأخبار، فإن ظفرك الله فأقل اللبث فيهم، وخذ معك الأدلاء، وقدم العيون والطلائع معك، فلما كان يوم الأربعاء بدئ برسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) وجعه فحم، وصدع، فلما أصبح يوم الخميس، عقد لأسامة لواء بيده ثم قال:
اغز بسم الله، وفي سبيل الله، فقاتل من كفر بالله. فخرج بلوائه معقودا فدفعه إلى بريدة بن الحصيب الأسلمي، وعسكر بالجرف، فلم يبق أحد من وجوه المهاجرين والأنصار إلا انتدب في تلك الغزوة منهم:
أبو بكر، وعمر بن الخطاب، وأبو عبيدة بن الجراح، وسعد بن أبي وقاص، وسعيد بن زيد، وقتادة بن النعمان، وسلمة بن أسلم بن جريس. فتكلم قوم وقالوا:
يستعمل هذا الغلام على المهاجرين الأولين.

ibn Sa'ad reported in his Tabaqat that the prophet, while he was sick, sent an army including Abu Bakr and Umar, under the leadership of Usama ibn Zayd. But some people criticized the leadership of Usama because of his young age. When the prophet heard that, he ascended his Minbar and said: "Some of you people are criticizing Usama's leadership, you have already criticized the leadership of his father before. By Allah they are both competent for it. Usama is one of the most beloved persons to me so I entrust you to treat him well."

ذكر كاتب الواقدي تحت عنوان: " ذكر ما قاله رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) في مرضه لأسامة بن زيد رحمه الله ". عن ابن عمر أن النبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) بعث سرية فيهم أبو بكر وعمر واستعمل عليهم أسامة بن زيد فكان الناس طعنوا فيه - أي في صغره - فبلغ ذلك رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) فصعد المنبر فحمد الله وأثني عليه وقال: إن الناس قد طعنوا في إمارة أسامة وقد كانوا قد طعنوا في إمارة أبيه من قبله وإنهما لخليقان لها وإنه لمن أحب الناس إلي ألا فأوصيكم بأسامة خيرا؟؟ ".

Ibn Hajar al-A'asqalani wrote in his book Fat-hul Barri and said that Abu Bakr, Umar, Ubaydallah, Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas, Sae'id, Qatada ibn Nu'uman and Salama ibn Aslam were among those who were assigned to the army, and some people criticized the prophet's appointment of Usama:

كان تجهيز أسامة يوم السبت قبل موت النبي صلى الله عليه [وآله] وسلّم بيومين... فبدأ برسول الله صلى الله عليه [وآله] وسلم وجعه في اليوم الثالث، فعقد لأسامة لواء بيده، فأخذه أسامة فدفعه إلى بريدة وعسكر بالجرب، وكان ممن انتدب مع أسامة كبار المهاجرين والأنصار منهم أبوبكر وعمر وأبو عبيدة وسعد وسعيد وقتادة بن النعمان وسلمة بن أسلم، فتكلم في ذلك قوم... ثم اشتد برسول الله وجعه فقال: أنفذوا بعث أسامة.
وقد روي ذلك عن الواقدي وابن سعد وابن إسحاق وابن الجوزي وابن عساكر...

In the same book, ibn Hajar al-A'asqalani wrote that al-Waqidi, ibn Sa'ad, ibn Ishaq, ibn Jawzi, ibn A'asakir and many others have reported that Abu Bakr was called to join the expedition.

al-Muttaqi al-Hindi added some details to his report:

قبل وفاة النبي بيومين فقط، وعاد النبي وقعد على فراش الموت ثانية، فلما ثقل جعل يقول: جهزوا جيش أسامة، أنفذوا جيش أسامة، أرسلوا بعث أسامة وكرر ذلك مرات متعددة وهم متثاقلون

Here are few more details from al-Muttaqi al-Hindi:

1. The prophet repeatedly said while on his deathbed: "Prepare the army of Usama, join his army and send his army.
2. But the participants slackened!

[power]

5 minutes ago, power said:

1 hour ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

 

@POwer

• ((The seniors companion had disobey  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) command, Rasulillah had enlisted Abu Bakr umar and other seniors  under Usama bin zaid command, they complained about Usama being to young, and refused to depart from Medina.))

 

According to us Abu Bakr wasn't even in the army, he was appointed as Imam in the authentic traditions. As for `Umar, Abu Bakr requested from Usamah to leave him behind as adviser. Abu Bakr fulfilled the Prophet's (saw) request of sending Usamah's army. This shows they're obedient and God fearing.

 

• ((Now, if we to  analysis the events surrounding  just before the demise of Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) You will come to realize, that senior companions had displayed downright act of disobedience to the Prophet (pbuh&hf)))

 

Who told you they were "Senior"? Secondly, who told you Abu Bakr and `Umar were among them? If they were, then they wouldn't have later dispatched his large army under his command.

 

So for sure it wasn't Abu Bakr, maybe it was abu Dharr or Salman? Seriously, how do you guys just pick randomly and assume things? Maybe it was the hypocrites and not the believers? Maybe only 1 or 2 people complained whereas all 100,000 Companions had no issue?

 

• ((Nauzaibillah had criticised the prophet (pbuh&hf)  for appointing such individual because of his age! So, the Sahabhas were capable of defying Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) while he was alive, if they disregard his command and order in his lifetime, then they can also disregard his commands in the matter of succession! ))

 

So Abu Bakr criticized the Prophet (saw) in his life for appointing young Usamah as leader of a large army, then after the Prophet (saw) died he made sure to dispatch that same army? This makes no sense and proves without a doubt that Abu Bakr was not from those who complained. 

1. Those who criticized the appointment of Usama was because of his young age.
2. The prophet called upon Abu Bakr, who was part of the army, to come and lead the congregational prayers.

al-Waqidi in al-Maghazi and al-Tabari in his Tarikh have both reported similar stories except for the part where the prophet called Abu Bakr to lead the congregational prayer.

ibn Sayid al-Nass in his book U'uyun al-Athar, ibn Athir in his al-Kamel and al-Waqidi in al-Maghazi have also reported similar story:

قالوا: لما كان يوم الاثنين لأربع ليال بقين من صفر سنة إحدى عشرة مهاجرة، أمر رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) الناس بالتهيؤ لغزو الروم، فلما كان من الغد دعا أسامة بن زيد فقال: سر إلى موضع مقتل أبيك، فأوطئهم الخيل، فقد وليتك هذا الجيش فاغز صباحا على أهل أبني، وحرق عليهم، وأسرع السير تسبق الأخبار، فإن ظفرك الله فأقل اللبث فيهم، وخذ معك الأدلاء، وقدم العيون والطلائع معك، فلما كان يوم الأربعاء بدئ برسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) وجعه فحم، وصدع، فلما أصبح يوم الخميس، عقد لأسامة لواء بيده ثم قال:
اغز بسم الله، وفي سبيل الله، فقاتل من كفر بالله. فخرج بلوائه معقودا فدفعه إلى بريدة بن الحصيب الأسلمي، وعسكر بالجرف، فلم يبق أحد من وجوه المهاجرين والأنصار إلا انتدب في تلك الغزوة منهم:
أبو بكر، وعمر بن الخطاب، وأبو عبيدة بن الجراح، وسعد بن أبي وقاص، وسعيد بن زيد، وقتادة بن النعمان، وسلمة بن أسلم بن جريس. فتكلم قوم وقالوا:
يستعمل هذا الغلام على المهاجرين الأولين.

ibn Sa'ad reported in his Tabaqat that the prophet, while he was sick, sent an army including Abu Bakr and Umar, under the leadership of Usama ibn Zayd. But some people criticized the leadership of Usama because of his young age. When the prophet heard that, he ascended his Minbar and said: "Some of you people are criticizing Usama's leadership, you have already criticized the leadership of his father before. By Allah they are both competent for it. Usama is one of the most beloved persons to me so I entrust you to treat him well."

ذكر كاتب الواقدي تحت عنوان: " ذكر ما قاله رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) في مرضه لأسامة بن زيد رحمه الله ". عن ابن عمر أن النبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) بعث سرية فيهم أبو بكر وعمر واستعمل عليهم أسامة بن زيد فكان الناس طعنوا فيه - أي في صغره - فبلغ ذلك رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) فصعد المنبر فحمد الله وأثني عليه وقال: إن الناس قد طعنوا في إمارة أسامة وقد كانوا قد طعنوا في إمارة أبيه من قبله وإنهما لخليقان لها وإنه لمن أحب الناس إلي ألا فأوصيكم بأسامة خيرا؟؟ ".

Ibn Hajar al-A'asqalani wrote in his book Fat-hul Barri and said that Abu Bakr, Umar, Ubaydallah, Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas, Sae'id, Qatada ibn Nu'uman and Salama ibn Aslam were among those who were assigned to the army, and some people criticized the prophet's appointment of Usama:

كان تجهيز أسامة يوم السبت قبل موت النبي صلى الله عليه [وآله] وسلّم بيومين... فبدأ برسول الله صلى الله عليه [وآله] وسلم وجعه في اليوم الثالث، فعقد لأسامة لواء بيده، فأخذه أسامة فدفعه إلى بريدة وعسكر بالجرب، وكان ممن انتدب مع أسامة كبار المهاجرين والأنصار منهم أبوبكر وعمر وأبو عبيدة وسعد وسعيد وقتادة بن النعمان وسلمة بن أسلم، فتكلم في ذلك قوم... ثم اشتد برسول الله وجعه فقال: أنفذوا بعث أسامة.
وقد روي ذلك عن الواقدي وابن سعد وابن إسحاق وابن الجوزي وابن عساكر...

In the same book, ibn Hajar al-A'asqalani wrote that al-Waqidi, ibn Sa'ad, ibn Ishaq, ibn Jawzi, ibn A'asakir and many others have reported that Abu Bakr was called to join the expedition.

al-Muttaqi al-Hindi added some details to his report:

قبل وفاة النبي بيومين فقط، وعاد النبي وقعد على فراش الموت ثانية، فلما ثقل جعل يقول: جهزوا جيش أسامة، أنفذوا جيش أسامة، أرسلوا بعث أسامة وكرر ذلك مرات متعددة وهم متثاقلون

Here are few more details from al-Muttaqi al-Hindi:

1. The prophet repeatedly said while on his deathbed: "Prepare the army of Usama, join his army and send his army.
2. But the participants slackened!

If you require further proofs please do not hesitate to ask.....

[Megatron]

6 hours ago, power said:

It is also evident from your post, that you have tiptoed around the event of Usama bin Zaid expedition in its entirety ! It is  further  apparent from your post, that you are fully aware of the event but have shown an act of disingenuous in the matter pertaining the event of Usama bin Zaid expedition!

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 552:

Narrated Ibn Umar:

Allah's Apostle appointed Usama bin Zaid as the commander of some people. Those people criticized his leadership. The Prophet said, "If you speak ill of his leadership, you have already spoken ill of his father's leadership before. By Allah, he deserved to be a Commander, and he was one of the most beloved persons to me and now this (i.e. Usama) is one of the most beloved persons to me after him

Now, if we to  analysis the events surrounding  just before the demise of Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) You will come to realize, that senior companions had displayed downright act of disobedience to the Prophet (pbuh&hf)

Umar had denied Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) writing material, Then on his deathbed Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) had ordered the senior companions to join  Usama bin Zaid battalion, and the seniors  Nauzaibillah had criticised the prophet (pbuh&hf)  for appointing such individual because of his age! So, the Sahabhas were capable of defying Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) while he was alive, if they disregard his command and order in his lifetime, then they can also disregard his commands in the matter of succession! 

 

*scratches head*

No, I think you need to review the word disobedience.

Yes, many of the companions expressed reservations being lead by someone so young in age, and experience when it comes to war, but in the end the expedition still resumed. This means the companions in the end carried out the instructions of the Prophet (SAW). There was no demotion of Usamah ibn Zayd, or any senior companions that remained behind. If you have narrations from our sources saying otherwise, I welcome you to share them.

It's very convenient for you to nit-pick incidents (in your mind) where the companions allegedly disobeyed the Prophet (SAW), but ignorantly turned a blind eye to the fact they were ready to lay down their very lives for Allah, and His Prophet (SAW). Allah recognised such intentions, and praised them in the Qur'an multiple times. I'm not an Arabic linguistic, but I can bet my lucky energon that Allah wasn't referring to a small batch of companions either. I'll have you know Abu Bakr, and Umar are included collectively in many of those verses. So, when it comes to the very end they have a bad say, and Iblis gets the best of them, and they judicially refuse to accept Ali as the Amir? Yeah, right - try again. For, what reason? Even to this day Shia are rambling among themselves what caused these loyal disciples who were subservient to the Prophet (SAW) in every way possible for years to self destruct right at the end! 

The reason why Ali was not given bayah is because he was never appointed, or elected. He wasn't the best candidate for the role. That's how the many of the Mujajireen, and Ansar saw it. They both called it right.

The "pen and paper" Hadith we can discuss in another thread.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Megatron

[power]

On 9/24/2016 at 0:45 AM, Megatron said:

*scratches head*

No, I think you need to review the word disobedience.

Yes, many of the companions expressed reservations being lead by someone so young in age, and experience when it comes to war, but in the end the expedition still resumed. This means the companions in the end carried out the instructions of the Prophet (SAW). There was no demotion of Usamah ibn Zayd, or any senior companions that remained behind. If you have narrations from our sources saying otherwise, I welcome you to share them.

It's very convenient for you to nit-pick incidents (in your mind) where the companions allegedly disobeyed the Prophet (SAW), but ignorantly turned a blind eye to the fact they were ready to lay down their very lives for Allah, and His Prophet (SAW). Allah recognised such intentions, and praised them in the Qur'an multiple times. I'm not an Arabic linguistic, but I can bet my lucky energon that Allah wasn't referring to a small batch of companions either. I'll have you know Abu Bakr, and Umar are included collectively in many of those verses. So, when it comes to the very end they have a bad say, and Iblis gets the best of them, and they judicially refuse to accept Ali as the Amir? Yeah, right - try again. For, what reason? Even to this day Shia are rambling among themselves what caused these loyal disciples who were subservient to the Prophet (SAW) in every way possible for years to self destruct right at the end! 

The reason why Ali was not given bayah is because he was never appointed, or elected. He wasn't the best candidate for the role. That's how the many of the Mujajireen, and Ansar saw it. They both called it right.

The "pen and paper" Hadith we can discuss in another thread.

Reservation!! where did that come from? Rasulillah(pbuh@hf) Has clearly said:Those people criticized his leadership. The Prophet said, "If you speak ill of his leadership, you have already spoken ill of his father's leadership before. By Allah, he deserved to be a Commander, and he was one of the most beloved persons to me and now this (i.e. Usama) is one of the most beloved persons to me after him in the light of this narration the Prophet (pbuh&hf) had shown their true colors, these companion had yet again had found fault in Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) decision! And here you are trying to defend those sinful companion who were undermining   Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) wisdom and decision! Are you conveniently forgetting that   all Prophets are guided by Allah swt? Or are from those who believe that Prophets can make mistake? Either way  Their disobedience is wrongful and sinful in the light of the narration.  Rasulilllah (pbuh&hf) knows the best about the safety and  interest of Islam, and not the companions, Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) Is their guidance.  Furthermore,  your assertion shows lack of inability to comprehend "disobedience" Finally  I will leave you  with a verse from the Quran:

033.036 
YUSUFALI: It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

Edited September 25, 2016 by power

[Megatron]

17 hours ago, power said:

Reservation!! where did that come from? Rasulillah(pbuh@hf) Has clearly said:Those people criticized his leadership. The Prophet said, "If you speak ill of his leadership, you have already spoken ill of his father's leadership before. By Allah, he deserved to be a Commander, and he was one of the most beloved persons to me and now this (i.e. Usama) is one of the most beloved persons to me after him in the light of this narration the Prophet (pbuh&hf) had shown their true colors, these companion had yet again had found fault in Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) decision! And here you are trying to defend those sinful companion who were undermining   Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) wisdom and decision! Are you conveniently forgetting that   all Prophets are guided by Allah swt? Or are from those who believe that Prophets can make mistake? Either way  Their disobedience is wrongful and sinful in the light of the narration.  Rasulilllah (pbuh&hf) knows the best about the safety and  interest of Islam, and not the companions, Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) Is their guidance.  Furthermore,  your assertion shows lack of inability to comprehend "disobedience" Finally  I will leave you  with a verse from the Quran:

033.036 
YUSUFALI: It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

Let's take this from the top.

My question is are you aware of the all the facts regarding this incident? I take it you're not, so let me help you fill in the gaps.

Let's review the definition of the word "disobedience":

failure or refusal to obey rules or someone in authority.

Taken from him a simple google search.

Now, we need to ascertain whether the companions failed, or refused to accept Usamah as their leader.

According to al-Tabari after the Prophet's (SAW) sermon where he reprimanded the companions for their unwillingness to accept Usamah as their leader, the companions along with their leader marched on, and camped at a place called al-Sunh which, is approximately 15 minutes outside Madinah then after a while they were beckoned back after a messenger was sent to deliver the heart-wrenching news that the Prophet (SAW) had left this world, and eventually when the matter regarding the Caliphate was settled they were instructed to leave once more to battle the Romans at the instruction of Abu Bakr. An interesting tid-bit, it was Umar who still insisted to Abu Bakr that Usamah should be replaced, but Abu Bakr grabbed Umar's beard and admonished him harshly, and refused to do such a thing. When the army returned with Usamah as the Amir, it was deemed as successful expedition, Alhamdulillah, 

So, we can glean the following from this:

- The companions not once, but twice were ready to sacrifice their lives for Islam by going up north, and to battle the Romans with the leader the Prophet (SAW) had appointed.

- The companions did not refuse, or fail in what was commanded upon them by replacing Usamah at any point.

- Abu Bakr is the one who ultimately insisted that the army should continue on it's course, and not look back as he was someone who tried his utmost best to adhere to the Sunnah.

It's one thing to criticise, or have reservations about a decision, but it's not the same as not getting the job done. The companions in the end had achieved what the Prophet (SAW) had intended, and, yes, we agree the companions were wrong/sinful for questioning the Prophet's (SAW) choice. At the same time one cannot say they disobeyed, if they had started a protest and giving ultimatums  then we'd agree with you hands down. However, I can say with optimal confidence no such narrations in our literature exist to suggest such afairy-tale ever came to pass. We know that's be music to your ears, but that's not the reality that transpired. Thus, this does not support your absurd notion that if the companions fictitiously disobeyed the Prophet (SAW) here then they can disobey him when it comes to the Imamat of Ali. What's more challenging traveling for weeks to lock horns with an empire, and risking getting decapitated thereby leaving your Mrs. as a widow, and kids orphans, or refusing to accept someone as your next leader? So, they refused to obey the Prophet (SAW) when he's already left this dunya in regards to something that required no practical effort, but still fulfilled his command that involved losing their lives which, he made whilst he was still alive? That makes as much sense as square wheels. 

Your understanding of the verse is incorrect. Yes, anything that is decided by Allah, and his Messenger (SAW) becomes binding upon the Ummah to accept unconditionally. Having said that there are many instances in the Seerah when the Prophet (SAW) did his own ijtehad, and on many occasions it was perfect, but on other occasions that ijtehad was improved after consultation with the companions. A classic example of this is right before the Battle of Badr where the Prophet (SAW) was unsure whether to battle Quriah with a small entourage, but after consulting his companions they decided as a unit they'll take it to the Quraish. It gets better even right after Badr the Prophet (SAW) had decided to take the advise of Abu Bakr, and turned down Umar's to what to do with the remaining captives who didn't face execution. Allah sent down verses certifying in his divine wisdom that Umar's choice to execute them was the better option, but nonetheless accepted the choice of Abu Bakr & the Prophet (SAW) to pardon them, There are umpteen examples of these, but you'd know this if you weren't overly obsessed just by focusing on the events that took place after Islam had been finalised.

Let me ask you a question, or two that's semi-related to this topic. Since you believe the verse above applies to every decision the Prophet (SAW) made in his life whether that's personal, political, emotional etc then it was Allah who inspired the Prophet (SAW) to:

- Appoint Abu Bakr to lead the salah for the Muslims in Madinah, and not Ali?

- Appoint Abu Bakr as the leader for the Haj, and not Ali?

- Selected Abu Bakr to join him for the hijrah, and not Ali?

Such responsibilities cannot be designated to someone with a Jekyll and Hyde trait (as you characterise him), nor is thid a sign of someone who would disobey a simple/direct (according to Shias) command to accept the next leader. 

[power]

On 9/24/2016 at 0:45 AM, Megatron said:

22 hours ago, Megatron said:

Let's take this from the top.

My question is are you aware of the all the facts regarding this incident? I take it you're not, so let me help you fill in the gaps.

Let's review the definition of the word "disobedience":

failure or refusal to obey rules or someone in authority.

Taken from him a simple google search.

Now, we need to ascertain whether the companions failed, or refused to accept Usamah as their leader.

According to al-Tabari after the Prophet's (SAW) sermon where he reprimanded the companions for their unwillingness to accept Usamah as their leader, the companions along with their leader marched on, and camped at a place called al-Sunh which, is approximately 15 minutes outside Madinah then after a while they were beckoned back after a messenger was sent to deliver the heart-wrenching news that the Prophet (SAW) had left this world, and eventually when the matter regarding the Caliphate was settled they were instructed to leave once more to battle the Romans at the instruction of Abu Bakr. An interesting tid-bit, it was Umar who still insisted to Abu Bakr that Usamah should be replaced, but Abu Bakr grabbed Umar's beard and admonished him harshly, and refused to do such a thing. When the army returned with Usamah as the Amir, it was deemed as successful expedition, Alhamdulillah, 

So, we can glean the following from this:

- The companions not once, but twice were ready to sacrifice their lives for Islam by going up north, and to battle the Romans with the leader the Prophet (SAW) had appointed.

- The companions did not refuse, or fail in what was commanded upon them by replacing Usamah at any point.

- Abu Bakr is the one who ultimately insisted that the army should continue on it's course, and not look back as he was someone who tried his utmost best to adhere to the Sunnah.

It's one thing to criticise, or have reservations about a decision, but it's not the same as not getting the job done. The companions in the end had achieved what the Prophet (SAW) had intended, and, yes, we agree the companions were wrong/sinful for questioning the Prophet's (SAW) choice. At the same time one cannot say they disobeyed, if they had started a protest and giving ultimatums  then we'd agree with you hands down. However, I can say with optimal confidence no such narrations in our literature exist to suggest such afairy-tale ever came to pass. We know that's be music to your ears, but that's not the reality that transpired. Thus, this does not support your absurd notion that if the companions fictitiously disobeyed the Prophet (SAW) here then they can disobey him when it comes to the Imamat of Ali. What's more challenging traveling for weeks to lock horns with an empire, and risking getting decapitated thereby leaving your Mrs. as a widow, and kids orphans, or refusing to accept someone as your next leader? So, they refused to obey the Prophet (SAW) when he's already left this dunya in regards to something that required no practical effort, but still fulfilled his command that involved losing their lives which, he made whilst he was still alive? That makes as much sense as square wheels. 

Your understanding of the verse is incorrect. Yes, anything that is decided by Allah, and his Messenger (SAW) becomes binding upon the Ummah to accept unconditionally. Having said that there are many instances in the Seerah when the Prophet (SAW) did his own ijtehad, and on many occasions it was perfect, but on other occasions that ijtehad was improved after consultation with the companions. A classic example of this is right before the Battle of Badr where the Prophet (SAW) was unsure whether to battle Quriah with a small entourage, but after consulting his companions they decided as a unit they'll take it to the Quraish. It gets better even right after Badr the Prophet (SAW) had decided to take the advise of Abu Bakr, and turned down Umar's to what to do with the remaining captives who didn't face execution. Allah sent down verses certifying in his divine wisdom that Umar's choice to execute them was the better option, but nonetheless accepted the choice of Abu Bakr & the Prophet (SAW) to pardon them, There are umpteen examples of these, but you'd know this if you weren't overly obsessed just by focusing on the events that took place after Islam had been finalised.

Let me ask you a question, or two that's semi-related to this topic. Since you believe the verse above applies to every decision the Prophet (SAW) made in his life whether that's personal, political, emotional etc then it was Allah who inspired the Prophet (SAW) to:

- Appoint Abu Bakr to lead the salah for the Muslims in Madinah, and not Ali?

- Appoint Abu Bakr as the leader for the Haj, and not Ali?

- Selected Abu Bakr to join him for the hijrah, and not Ali?

Such responsibilities cannot be designated to someone with a Jekyll and Hyde trait (as you characterise him), nor is thid a sign of someone who would disobey a simple/direct (according to Shias) command to accept the next leader. 

 

Your rhetoric is nothing but a smoke screen in protecting the honours of those who had grieved Rsulillah (pbuh&hf) on his death bed, and whether you liked it or not this is  the undeniable fact! Let me ask you this: If a dyeing person request a glass of water and maybe it could be his last glass of water in this dunya ,would you delay the dyeing person request ? And what good is it when the water dose eventually arrive the person had passed away! And furthermore, what purpose would it serve to the dead person? These companion had disobeyed Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) during his serious illness! And Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) had died whilst knowing that his command was disobey! 

 

Moreover, why were these same Sahabaas committing the same mistake? Weren't they wrong in their decision when Usama bin Zaid father was appointed by Rasulillah(pbuh&hf) Surely, one would've not committed same act when they was proven wrong in the first intense! Or did they have agenda or a  motive in deliberately delaying Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) command? 

 

Before i discuss their possible motive in detail, i want to raise a pertinent  point that is  not being  addressed by Megatron. From the narration that i have provided, it is mentioned that Abu Bakr was also listed under Usama bin Zaid command and not the other way around. I will post the narration for you to see. 

 

Ibn Hajar al-A'asqalani wrote in his book Fat-hul Barri and said that Abu Bakr, Umar, Ubaydallah, Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas, Sae'id, Qatada ibn Nu'uman and Salama ibn Aslam were among those who were assigned to the army, and some people criticized the prophet's appointment of Usama:

 

In the same book, ibn Hajar al-A'asqalani wrote that al-Waqidi, ibn Sa'ad, ibn Ishaq, ibn Jawzi, ibn A'asakir and many others have reported that Abu Bakr was called to join the expedition.

from al-Muttaqi al-Hindi: The prophet repeatedly said while on his deathbed: "Prepare the army of Usama, join his army and send his army.

 Now, we can conclude without any ambiguity, from the  above narration that a senior companion Abu Bakr was also ordered by Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) to join Usama bin Zaid command, a boy who was merely a teenager. This order alone by Rasulllah (pbuh&hf) raises some serious question? We know whatever Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) dose or commands it is done through wisdom or guidance from the Almighty. moreover, a dyeing person in his last moments, he or she would want to be spend the last moments of  their life in the company of their family and close friends, where in this occasion we see the opposite, we see one of his closet friend also his father in law is being told to vacate from Medina! interesting. Why would Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) wanted his most closes friend to vacate Medina knowing that he was going to a Caliph? Also there is every possibility that in military war  you won't come back!

 

Assuming that the army had left, who do you think the caliph would have been? The fact that most of the senior companions had joined under the command of a teenager excluding close relatives of Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) then this prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the caliphate was not for Abu Bakr and his companions! 

 

More to the fact that Abu Bakr and Umar were in this army means that the Rasulillah (pbuh&hf)did not want any of them to be in Medina when he dies. That means he did not want any of them to have anything to do with his successorship. The fact is that the Rasulillah (pbuh&hf)wanted the transition of the caliphate to Imam Ali  (as)to be as smooth as possible.  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) officially appointed  Imam Ali as his successor at Ghadeer Khum and many of the Quraysh did not like that, although they congratulated him for it. They did not want the caliphate to remain with Bani Hashim and particularly with Ahlul Bayt. The prophet was well aware of their plots and intentions and wanted to prevent the usurpation of the caliphate from their rightful owners. Why else would the prophet empty Medina and leave most of the Bani Hashim, if not all, in it, and in particular the Ahlul Bayt, when he was about to die

[`Umar bin `Ali]

On 9/23/2016 at 2:51 PM, power said:

On 9/23/2016 at 1:56 PM, `Umar bin `Ali said:

 

@POwer

• ((The seniors companion had disobey  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) command, Rasulillah had enlisted Abu Bakr umar and other seniors  under Usama bin zaid command, they complained about Usama being to young, and refused to depart from Medina.))

 

According to us Abu Bakr wasn't even in the army, he was appointed as Imam in the authentic traditions. As for `Umar, Abu Bakr requested from Usamah to leave him behind as adviser. Abu Bakr fulfilled the Prophet's (saw) request of sending Usamah's army. This shows they're obedient and God fearing.

 

• ((Now, if we to  analysis the events surrounding  just before the demise of Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) You will come to realize, that senior companions had displayed downright act of disobedience to the Prophet (pbuh&hf)))

 

Who told you they were "Senior"? Secondly, who told you Abu Bakr and `Umar were among them? If they were, then they wouldn't have later dispatched his large army under his command.

 

So for sure it wasn't Abu Bakr, maybe it was abu Dharr or Salman? Seriously, how do you guys just pick randomly and assume things? Maybe it was the hypocrites and not the believers? Maybe only 1 or 2 people complained whereas all 100,000 Companions had no issue?

 

• ((Nauzaibillah had criticised the prophet (pbuh&hf)  for appointing such individual because of his age! So, the Sahabhas were capable of defying Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) while he was alive, if they disregard his command and order in his lifetime, then they can also disregard his commands in the matter of succession! ))

 

So Abu Bakr criticized the Prophet (saw) in his life for appointing young Usamah as leader of a large army, then after the Prophet (saw) died he made sure to dispatch that same army? This makes no sense and proves without a doubt that Abu Bakr was not from those who complained. 

1. Those who criticized the appointment of Usama was because of his young age.
2. The prophet called upon Abu Bakr, who was part of the army, to come and lead the congregational prayers.

al-Waqidi in al-Maghazi and al-Tabari in his Tarikh have both reported similar stories except for the part where the prophet called Abu Bakr to lead the congregational prayer.

ibn Sayid al-Nass in his book U'uyun al-Athar, ibn Athir in his al-Kamel and al-Waqidi in al-Maghazi have also reported similar story:

قالوا: لما كان يوم الاثنين لأربع ليال بقين من صفر سنة إحدى عشرة مهاجرة، أمر رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) الناس بالتهيؤ لغزو الروم، فلما كان من الغد دعا أسامة بن زيد فقال: سر إلى موضع مقتل أبيك، فأوطئهم الخيل، فقد وليتك هذا الجيش فاغز صباحا على أهل أبني، وحرق عليهم، وأسرع السير تسبق الأخبار، فإن ظفرك الله فأقل اللبث فيهم، وخذ معك الأدلاء، وقدم العيون والطلائع معك، فلما كان يوم الأربعاء بدئ برسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) وجعه فحم، وصدع، فلما أصبح يوم الخميس، عقد لأسامة لواء بيده ثم قال:
اغز بسم الله، وفي سبيل الله، فقاتل من كفر بالله. فخرج بلوائه معقودا فدفعه إلى بريدة بن الحصيب الأسلمي، وعسكر بالجرف، فلم يبق أحد من وجوه المهاجرين والأنصار إلا انتدب في تلك الغزوة منهم:
أبو بكر، وعمر بن الخطاب، وأبو عبيدة بن الجراح، وسعد بن أبي وقاص، وسعيد بن زيد، وقتادة بن النعمان، وسلمة بن أسلم بن جريس. فتكلم قوم وقالوا:
يستعمل هذا الغلام على المهاجرين الأولين.

ibn Sa'ad reported in his Tabaqat that the prophet, while he was sick, sent an army including Abu Bakr and Umar, under the leadership of Usama ibn Zayd. But some people criticized the leadership of Usama because of his young age. When the prophet heard that, he ascended his Minbar and said: "Some of you people are criticizing Usama's leadership, you have already criticized the leadership of his father before. By Allah they are both competent for it. Usama is one of the most beloved persons to me so I entrust you to treat him well."

ذكر كاتب الواقدي تحت عنوان: " ذكر ما قاله رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) في مرضه لأسامة بن زيد رحمه الله ". عن ابن عمر أن النبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) بعث سرية فيهم أبو بكر وعمر واستعمل عليهم أسامة بن زيد فكان الناس طعنوا فيه - أي في صغره - فبلغ ذلك رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) فصعد المنبر فحمد الله وأثني عليه وقال: إن الناس قد طعنوا في إمارة أسامة وقد كانوا قد طعنوا في إمارة أبيه من قبله وإنهما لخليقان لها وإنه لمن أحب الناس إلي ألا فأوصيكم بأسامة خيرا؟؟ ".

Ibn Hajar al-A'asqalani wrote in his book Fat-hul Barri and said that Abu Bakr, Umar, Ubaydallah, Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas, Sae'id, Qatada ibn Nu'uman and Salama ibn Aslam were among those who were assigned to the army, and some people criticized the prophet's appointment of Usama:

كان تجهيز أسامة يوم السبت قبل موت النبي صلى الله عليه [وآله] وسلّم بيومين... فبدأ برسول الله صلى الله عليه [وآله] وسلم وجعه في اليوم الثالث، فعقد لأسامة لواء بيده، فأخذه أسامة فدفعه إلى بريدة وعسكر بالجرب، وكان ممن انتدب مع أسامة كبار المهاجرين والأنصار منهم أبوبكر وعمر وأبو عبيدة وسعد وسعيد وقتادة بن النعمان وسلمة بن أسلم، فتكلم في ذلك قوم... ثم اشتد برسول الله وجعه فقال: أنفذوا بعث أسامة.
وقد روي ذلك عن الواقدي وابن سعد وابن إسحاق وابن الجوزي وابن عساكر...

In the same book, ibn Hajar al-A'asqalani wrote that al-Waqidi, ibn Sa'ad, ibn Ishaq, ibn Jawzi, ibn A'asakir and many others have reported that Abu Bakr was called to join the expedition.

al-Muttaqi al-Hindi added some details to his report:

قبل وفاة النبي بيومين فقط، وعاد النبي وقعد على فراش الموت ثانية، فلما ثقل جعل يقول: جهزوا جيش أسامة، أنفذوا جيش أسامة، أرسلوا بعث أسامة وكرر ذلك مرات متعددة وهم متثاقلون

Here are few more details from al-Muttaqi al-Hindi:

1. The prophet repeatedly said while on his deathbed: "Prepare the army of Usama, join his army and send his army.
2. But the participants slackened!

Bro don't over exert yourself by bringing me 4 texts, just bring ONE authentic text. As I can bring authentic mass transmitted texts proving Abu Bakr was charged with leading prayer not being sent on some expeditions. 

[Megatron]

3 hours ago, power said:

 

*round of applause*

Bravo, this keeps on getting better, and BETTER!

Emotional tantrums, and wild theories will get you no where my confused soul.

You've side-stepped to a whole new tangent. You're now basing your argument that just because they grieved the Prophet (SAW) then it means they're inner intention was always screaming treachery. You serious?

Before, I address your points, I implore you to answer the following questions:

-  After expressing disappointment to the choice of the Prophet (SAW), why did the companions still accept the Usamah as their leader when they embarked on their journey? They certainly were not forced since it's an army versus one individual.

- Why did they not get rid him half way through the journey?

- If you're going to say the majority of them supported hm, and only a few objected then why didn't they just throw in the towel, and say the hell with it? Why risk their lives if they weren't going to get a leader of their preference?

al-Tabari narrates the entire incident with a good (jayyid) chain of narrators that when they returned the expedition was deemed a success with no mention of Usamah being replaced as the Prophet (SAW) had intended. If you ponder over the questions you'll hopefully come to the conclusion that this means mission accomplished! In simple terms the very same companions you shamelessly accuse of disobeying still spent their wealth, and left their families for the sake of this deen.

*points finger in his face* - answer accordingly as cowardice is not a trait of someone who loves Ahlul Bhayt, right?

As for the narration you mentioned let's examine the chain, and verify whether it is authentic, so, I invite @submitter71 to carry out this task as this is his forte. Your argument about Abu Bakr, and the other companions conspiring behind the Prophet's (SAW) back can be smashed to pieces with authentic narrations from Bukhari which, confirms a few days before the death of the Prophet (SAW) he nominated Abu Bakr to lead the salah, and confirmed Abu Bakr's status as the number 1 companion of all. This opens up a spectrum of uncertainty whether the historical narration presented by the historians you listed is authentic or not. I won't share the narrations as I know it in my bones you've come across them before, and will just conveniently dismiss them as fabrications without academic rebuttal. If that's going to be your game then the onus is on you to prove how the historical narration above is authentic, and by extension refuting @submitter71's research when he shares it otherwise your entire argument falls flat on it's face because a debate of this nature is not won by Hadith-pickin' narrations that's compatible with your whims/desire then emotionally rant how you "feel" it supports your narrative, and place other Hadith which, portray a totally different even in the trash. That seems to be your approach:

Quote

Before i discuss their possible motive in detail,

Theories, too many assumptions, and less corroborating evidence.

Quote

 

Assuming that the army had left, who do you think the caliph would have been? The fact that most of the senior companions had joined under the command of a teenager excluding close relatives of Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) then this prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the caliphate was not for Abu Bakr and his companions!

More to the fact that Abu Bakr and Umar were in this army means that the Rasulillah (pbuh&hf)did not want any of them to be in Medina when he dies. That means he did not want any of them to have anything to do with his successorship. The fact is that the Rasulillah (pbuh&hf)wanted the transition of the caliphate to Imam Ali  (as)to be as smooth as possible.  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) officially appointed  Imam Ali as his successor at Ghadeer Khum and many of the Quraysh did not like that, although they congratulated him for it. They did not want the caliphate to remain with Bani Hashim and particularly with Ahlul Bayt. The prophet was well aware of their plots and intentions and wanted to prevent the usurpation of the caliphate from their rightful owners. Why else would the prophet empty Medina and leave most of the Bani Hashim, if not all, in it, and in particular the Ahlul Bayt, when he was about to die

 

, nice one.

How many of the "men" of Banu Hashim were living in Madinah? Abbas, ibn Abbas, Ali, and who else? For argument sake even if they were conspicuously plotting to usurp the leadership from Ali, you think they weren't in a position to wrestle it back? The army was in thousands, and the Banu Hasim in Madinah were not even a dozen, so what was Ali, ibn Abbas, (who was not even a teenager at the time), and Abbas going to do? Sacrifice themselves, and refuse to give ba'yah to a bunch of usurping oppressors like Hussain, and his companions did? Oh, wait:

Your bredrins admitted that 'Ali was neither in a potion to go to war with less arms, nor did he intend to in order to avoid Islam being overrun by the Kuffar which, begs the question didn't the Prophet (SAW) anticipate the same?

Furthermore doesn't that sorta' contradict your own Hadith that says the Prophet (SAW) predicted the usurpation of this Imamat, and therefore instructed Ali to exercise patience?

You don't have an arm, and leg to stand on dude. The Qur'an, and in plethora of authentic Hadith confirm beyond a spec of doubt the Prophet (SAW) expressed his divine satisfaction with the senior companion's contributions to Islam, and how they're abode in the Akirah will be Jannah'. Your rage for them, and misconstrued interpretations of nit-picked narrations isn't going to change that.

You're essentially leveling blame on a group of Jannadians of committing the one of the gravest sins in our religion, and if I'm not mistaken left the fold of Islam? Either way, what paradoxical delusions.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Megatron

[power]

On 9/25/2016 at 10:26 PM, Megatron said:

20 hours ago, Megatron said:

*round of applause*

Bravo, this keeps on getting better, and BETTER!

Emotional tantrums, and wild theories will get you no where my confused soul.

You've side-stepped to a whole new tangent. You're now basing your argument that just because they grieved the Prophet (SAW) then it means they're inner intention was always screaming treachery. You serious?

Before, I address your points, I implore you to answer the following questions:

-  After expressing disappointment to the choice of the Prophet (SAW), why did the companions still accept the Usamah as their leader when they embarked on their journey? They certainly were not forced since it's an army versus one individual.

- Why did they not get rid him half way through the journey?

- If you're going to say the majority of them supported hm, and only a few objected then why didn't they just throw in the towel, and say the hell with it? Why risk their lives if they weren't going to get a leader of their preference?

al-Tabari narrates the entire incident with a good (jayyid) chain of narrators that when they returned the expedition was deemed a success with no mention of Usamah being replaced as the Prophet (SAW) had intended. If you ponder over the questions you'll hopefully come to the conclusion that this means mission accomplished! In simple terms the very same companions you shamelessly accuse of disobeying still spent their wealth, and left their families for the sake of this deen.

*points finger in his face* - answer accordingly as cowardice is not a trait of someone who loves Ahlul Bhayt, right?

As for the narration you mentioned let's examine the chain, and verify whether it is authentic, so, I invite @submitter71 to carry out this task as this is his forte. Your argument about Abu Bakr, and the other companions conspiring behind the Prophet's (SAW) back can be smashed to pieces with authentic narrations from Bukhari which, confirms a few days before the death of the Prophet (SAW) he nominated Abu Bakr to lead the salah, and confirmed Abu Bakr's status as the number 1 companion of all. This opens up a spectrum of uncertainty whether the historical narration presented by the historians you listed is authentic or not. I won't share the narrations as I know it in my bones you've come across them before, and will just conveniently dismiss them as fabrications without academic rebuttal. If that's going to be your game then the onus is on you to prove how the historical narration above is authentic, and by extension refuting @submitter71's research when he shares it otherwise your entire argument falls flat on it's face because a debate of this nature is not won by Hadith-pickin' narrations that's compatible with your whims/desire then emotionally rant how you "feel" it supports your narrative, and place other Hadith which, portray a totally different even in the trash. That seems to be your approach:

Theories, too many assumptions, and less corroborating evidence.

, nice one.

How many of the "men" of Banu Hashim were living in Madinah? Abbas, ibn Abbas, Ali, and who else? For argument sake even if they were conspicuously plotting to usurp the leadership from Ali, you think they weren't in a position to wrestle it back? The army was in thousands, and the Banu Hasim in Madinah were not even a dozen, so what was Ali, ibn Abbas, (who was not even a teenager at the time), and Abbas going to do? Sacrifice themselves, and refuse to give ba'yah to a bunch of usurping oppressors like Hussain, and his companions did? Oh, wait:

Your bredrins admitted that 'Ali was neither in a potion to go to war with less arms, nor did he intend to in order to avoid Islam being overrun by the Kuffar which, begs the question didn't the Prophet (SAW) anticipate the same?

Furthermore doesn't that sorta' contradict your own Hadith that says the Prophet (SAW) predicted the usurpation of this Imamat, and therefore instructed Ali to exercise patience?

You don't have an arm, and leg to stand on dude. The Qur'an, and in plethora of authentic Hadith confirm beyond a spec of doubt the Prophet (SAW) expressed his divine satisfaction with the senior companion's contributions to Islam, and how they're abode in the Akirah will be Jannah'. Your rage for them, and misconstrued interpretations of nit-picked narrations isn't going to change that.

You're essentially leveling blame on a group of Jannadians of committing the one of the gravest sins in our religion, and if I'm not mistaken left the fold of Islam? Either way, what paradoxical delusions.

 

of course i don't expect you Sunnis to be logical and rational, when the  companions integrity is questioned, and their behaviour is scrutinised! and to be honest i didn't really  expect anything other than a policy of denial and a blanket cover for those Sahabaas, who were  tainted with "Duplicity ". And with that  said, history and many verses of the Holy Quran gives testimony, there was those who were close to some Prophets of the past era also committed act of transgression and " Duplicity" and some of these companions are no different from past. Furthermore, you keep on reiterating  there is plethora of hadiths and verses of Quranic text that praises the companions, dose  praises gives  an unconditional guarantee that they will not turn back on their heels? Did you know there are over one hundred verses of the holy Quran which talks about Munafiqeens! related to those who were close to the Prophet or amongst with him.  

Anyway, back to your contentions. So you ask me a very simplistic question why didn't they remove Usama? Well the fact is; those companions who were listed in under Usama  command did not participate, and directly disobey the command of the  Prophet. such as Abu bakr  Umar and other companions. And it must noted this battalion did not depart until Abu bakr became caliph. Then whole dimension of the battalion had changed. 

Well of course the dimension of the battalion had changed, those  who had Nauzabillah criticised the Prophet decision had now achieved what they wanted to accomplish. And as for those who wanted their preference leader possibly stayed behind, that is if there was anybody wanted who Imam Ali as their leader. this question itself is based upon your assumption. 

Anyway, here is list of facts that cannot be denied:

Fact-1 Rasulillah  (pbuh&hf) did not appoint Abu bakr to lead the prays. 

Fact-2 Abu Bakr was camped outside of Medina, under Usama command. 

Fact -3 Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) was  seriously ill when he had assigned Usama bin Zaid as the commander of the  battalion.

Fact-4 The companions did not comply with Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) command.

Fact-5  The companions criticised Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) decision.

Fact-6  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) had condemned these same companions, who had also shown disapproval for Usama bin Zaid father.

Fact-7  Senior companions were listed under Usama bin Zaid command, such Abu bakr and umar.

Fact-8  History is testimony that Abu bakr was never at Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) bedside when he was ill, where was he?

Fact-9 The greatest warrior of Islamic History  Imam Ali (as) was not commanded by Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) to join Usama bin Zaid army.

Fact-10 Quran states: Quran 33:36

It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. 

This verse demonstrate those who disobey the messenger of Allah swt  are on the wrong path!

This will suffice for now....

Edited September 27, 2016 by power

[Megatron]

Hi,

Wow, and I thought you could not stoop much lower.

I'm well aware of the verses of Munafiqun, and it relates to the hypocrites of Madinah not the senior companions otherwise, please provide evidence from the Sunnah. Baseless conjectures is not sufficient. The verse 1:44 exclusively refers to the Battle of Uhud, and there many other verses following the battle of Uhud where Allah proclaimed unquestionably he is happy with the companions, and such verses are not exclusively to the supporters of Ali, or who accepted the Ali's delusive Imamat. Why, would Allah refer to a few people as a group if it was only a handful of men that the verses were eluding to.There is wide spread ijtema that when Allah says (at least a dozen times) he is pleased with then, and they're pleased at least a dozen with them referred to the companions. Show evidences from our literature that the verses in Surah Munafiqun pertains to the holy Sahaba otherwise you're just chuntering nothing more than wishful bakwaas.

Quote

Anyway, back to your contentions. So you ask me a very simplistic question why didn't they remove Usama? Well the fact is; those companions who were listed in under Usama  command did not participate, and directly disobey the command of the  Prophet. such as Abu bakr  Umar and other companions.

Oh, yeah? Prove it was a fact? More tasteless assumptions, hehe. I can sense your desperation. I can say for a fact that al-Tabari who narrates the entire incident does not mention even a single companion not participating.

Quote

And it must noted this battalion did not depart until Abu bakr became caliph. Then whole dimension of the battalion had changed. 

Well of course the dimension of the battalion had changed, those  who had Nauzabillah criticised the Prophet decision had now achieved what they wanted to accomplish. And as for those who wanted their preference leader possibly stayed behind, that is if there was anybody wanted who Imam Ali as their leader. this question itself is based upon your assumption.

Eh-eh, wrong again. It was dispatched in the time of the Prophet (SAW), but then they were summoned back because of the news the Prophet (SAW) had passed away. I mentioned this before, don't you read, or are you typically ignoring what you can't prove? If nothing is mentioned in the incident then you accept it as is instead of making radical assumptions that are based on nothing more than emotional insecurities. The dimension had not changed in the slightest because the same contingent returned victorious, and with the same leader. <<----- To pin-point to the nazireen (readers) he is comfortably over-looking this paramount fact, and therefore can't distinguish the difference because disobeying a command, and initially critiquing a command.

Quote

Fact-1 Rasulillah  (pbuh&hf) did not appoint Abu bakr to lead the prays. 

Fact, again? You haven't proven the narration is authentic, and disproved the narration in Bukhari where the Prophet (SAW) demanded Abu Bakr lead the salah. If I'm not mistaken the narration itself is tawatir which, strengthens the notion to fact that Abu Bakr was never to be in the army of Usamah, but close to the Prophet (SAW).

Quote

Fact-2 Abu Bakr was camped outside of Medina, under Usama command. 

Not a fact, but wishful thinking. He was in the mosque showing off his credentials as the only qualified person to take over.

Quote

Fact -3 Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) was  seriously ill when he had assigned Usama bin Zaid as the commander of the  battalion.

True, but doesn't support your weak argument.

Quote

Fact-4 The companions did not comply with Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) command.

Incorrect because the expedition marched on, and returned with the same leader.

Quote

Fact-5  The companions criticised Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) decision.

No, denying this. Yes, they did, and were wrongful to do so hence, why the Prophet (SAW) rebuked them.

Quote

Fact-6  Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) had condemned these same companions, who had also shown disapproval for Usama bin Zaid father.

Possibly because one interpretation according to our Hadith commentators is the Prophet (SAW) meant this is the second occasion where his choice if leader was being questioned. and not necessarily laying blame to the same companions who did so with Zaid. Both interpretations are likely.

Quote

Fact-7  Senior companions were listed under Usama bin Zaid command, such Abu bakr and umar

You wish, but not according to stronger reports in Bukhari.

Quote

Fact-8  History is testimony that Abu bakr was never at Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) bedside when he was ill, where was he?

He was actually, and I'll locate the reference a little later.

Quote

Fact-9 The greatest warrior of Islamic History  Imam Ali (as) was not commanded by Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) to join Usama bin Zaid army.

Definitely a great warrior, but again Ali not being including doesn't support your narrative that it's due to the planning of the Prophet (SAW) to set him as the next leader. There are a TON of narrations that can refute this "theory" (not factual research) that the companions purposefully rebelled against the Prophet's (SAW) family, and commands which, is why what you're desperately trying prove, but you'll end up making yourself look silly.

So, this is your homework:

1) Provide evidence to support your "fact-finding" that the Abu Bakr (RA) was definitely in the army of Usamah i.e. prove the narration mentioned ibn Hajar, and narrated by the historians (which, is probably one narration if I bet my energon) is authentic then prove how the multiple narrations in Bukhari where the Prophet (SAW) appointed Abu Bakr as the Imam, and referred to him as a "Khalaial is batil/weak. Both incidents were just days before his (SAW) passing.

2) Provide evidence that the companions withdrew from the arm if Usamah as you said this is a fact.

3) I'd love to see evidence how the 100 of verses in Surah Munfiqun is addressing the senior companions, and not the companions of Abdullah ibn ubayy ibn Salool.

 

Take your time matie as you'll need it.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Megatron

[power]

On 9/27/2016 at 9:33 PM, Megatron said:

Hi,

Wow, and I thought you could not stoop much lower.

I'm well aware of the verses of Munafiqun, and it relates to the hypocrites of Madinah not the senior companions otherwise, please provide evidence from the Sunnah. Baseless conjectures is not sufficient. The verse 1:44 exclusively refers to the Battle of Uhud, and there many other verses following the battle of Uhud where Allah proclaimed unquestionably he is happy with the companions, and such verses are not exclusively to the supporters of Ali, or who accepted the Ali's delusive Imamat. Why, would Allah refer to a few people as a group if it was only a handful of men that the verses were eluding to.There is wide spread ijtema that when Allah says (at least a dozen times) he is pleased with then, and they're pleased at least a dozen with them referred to the companions. Show evidences from our literature that the verses in Surah Munafiqun pertains to the holy Sahaba otherwise you're just chuntering nothing more than wishful bakwaas.

Oh, yeah? Prove it was a fact? More tasteless assumptions, hehe. I can sense your desperation. I can say for a fact that al-Tabari who narrates the entire incident does not mention even a single companion not participating.

Eh-eh, wrong again. It was dispatched in the time of the Prophet (SAW), but then they were summoned back because of the news the Prophet (SAW) had passed away. I mentioned this before, don't you read, or are you typically ignoring what you can't prove? If nothing is mentioned in the incident then you accept it as is instead of making radical assumptions that are based on nothing more than emotional insecurities. The dimension had not changed in the slightest because the same contingent returned victorious, and with the same leader. <<----- To pin-point to the nazireen (readers) he is comfortably over-looking this paramount fact, and therefore can't distinguish the difference because disobeying a command, and initially critiquing a command.

Fact, again? You haven't proven the narration is authentic, and disproved the narration in Bukhari where the Prophet (SAW) demanded Abu Bakr lead the salah. If I'm not mistaken the narration itself is tawatir which, strengthens the notion to fact that Abu Bakr was never to be in the army of Usamah, but close to the Prophet (SAW).

Not a fact, but wishful thinking. He was in the mosque showing off his credentials as the only qualified person to take over.

True, but doesn't support your weak argument.

Incorrect because the expedition marched on, and returned with the same leader.

No, denying this. Yes, they did, and were wrongful to do so hence, why the Prophet (SAW) rebuked them.

Possibly because one interpretation according to our Hadith commentators is the Prophet (SAW) meant this is the second occasion where his choice if leader was being questioned. and not necessarily laying blame to the same companions who did so with Zaid. Both interpretations are likely.

You wish, but not according to stronger reports in Bukhari.

He was actually, and I'll locate the reference a little later.

Definitely a great warrior, but again Ali not being including doesn't support your narrative that it's due to the planning of the Prophet (SAW) to set him as the next leader. There are a TON of narrations that can refute this "theory" (not factual research) that the companions purposefully rebelled against the Prophet's (SAW) family, and commands which, is why what you're desperately trying prove, but you'll end up making yourself look silly.

So, this is your homework:

1) Provide evidence to support your "fact-finding" that the Abu Bakr (RA) was definitely in the army of Usamah i.e. prove the narration mentioned ibn Hajar, and narrated by the historians (which, is probably one narration if I bet my energon) is authentic then prove how the multiple narrations in Bukhari where the Prophet (SAW) appointed Abu Bakr as the Imam, and referred to him as a "Khalaial is batil/weak. Both incidents were just days before his (SAW) passing.

2) Provide evidence that the companions withdrew from the arm if Usamah as you said this is a fact.

3) I'd love to see evidence how the 100 of verses in Surah Munfiqun is addressing the senior companions, and not the companions of Abdullah ibn ubayy ibn Salool.

 

Take your time matie as you'll need it.

Here are some reports which will corroborate and uphold my statements:

 

1) bn Sa'ad in his Tabaqat al-Kubra: It was a Monday and 4 nights were left before the month of Safar expired, in year 11 Hijra. The prophet ordered the people to prepare for a battle against the Romans. The next day (Tuesday) the prophet called upon Usama and told him: "Go to where your father was killed. I have put an army under your commandment...". On Wednesday, the pain of the prophet got worse. On Thursday, the prophet told Usama: "Battle in the name of Allah and fight whoever disbelieves in Allah..." There was no one left from the Muhajireens and Ansars but was assigned to that army

 

2) al-Muttaqi al-Hindi: "Ahmed ibn Ishaq ibn Salih has narrated a tradition to us from Ahmed ibn Siyar from Sa`d ibn Kathir al-Ansari whose men quote `Abdullah ibn `Abdul-Rahman saying that when the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) fell sick shortly before his death, he appointed Usamah ibn Zayd ibn Harithah to take charge in leading an army most of which were men from the Muhajirün and the Ansar. Among them were: Abu Bakr, `Umer, Abu `Ubaydah ibn al-Jarrah, `Abdul-Rahmn ibn `Awf, Talhah, and al-Zubayr, and ordered him to invade Mu'ta, where his father Zayd had been murdered, and to invade the valley of Palestine.

 

3)The holy Prophet had sent Abu Bakr, Umar and many other elder muslims for the expedition to Rome, under the command of Usamah. How then did he had repeatedly asked them to join the army  Ibn Kathir Vol. 5, P. 235 and Mohammad Ibn Umar have narrated that Abu Bakr prayed 20 times with people.

of Usamah. The holy Prophet cursed these who would disobey the army of Usamah

4) The Prophet (s), directed Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas, Abu Ubaida bin al-Jarrah and all the Muhajirin and the Ansar, except Imam Ali (a.s), under the command of Usama bin Zaid.  At-Tabari, vol.3, p.188-189, Habibus Sayyar, vol. 1, Part 3, p.77, Madarijun Nubuwwa, vol. 2, p.530, Tarikh al-Khamis, vol. 2 p.171, Ibnul Athir, vol. 2,p.120, ibn Abil Hadid, vol. 1 p.53, vol.2 p.20.

5) ibn Hajar al-A'asqalani wrote that al-Waqidi, ibn Sa'ad, ibn Ishaq, ibn Jawzi, ibn A'asakir and many others have reported that Abu Bakr was called to join the expedition

Some Views Of Other Scholars:

Sir William Muir

On the Wednesday following, Mohammed was seized with a violent headache and fever; but it passed off. The next morning he found himself sufficiently recovered to bind with his own hand upon the Flagstaff a banner for the army.

He presented it to Usama with these words: 'Fight thou beneath this banner in the name of the Lord, and for His cause. Thus thou shalt discomfit and slay the people that disbelieveth in the Lord.' The camp was then formed at Jorf; and the whole body of fighting men, not excepting even Abu Bakr and Umar, were summoned to join it. (The Life of Mohammed, London, 1877)

 

Muhammad Husayn Haykal

The Muslims did not stay long in Madinah following their return from the Farewell Pilgrimage in Makkah. The Prophet had immediately ordered the mobilization of a large army and commanded it to march on al-Sham. He sent along with that army a number of the elders of Islam, the earliest Muhajirun, among whom were Abu Bakr and Umar. He gave the command of the army to Usama ibn Zayd ibn Harithah. (The Life of Muhammad, Cairo, 1935)

So without hesitating there is consensus amongst historians and scholars of the past and present, Abu Bakr  Umar were present in Usama bin Zaid  expedition. Hence, you will not find any historical narratives which Abu bakr was at the bedside of Rasulillah (pbuh&hf)  during his illness.

Now, this again brings us back to my assertion that Rasulillah (pbuh&hf) did not order Abu Bakr to lead the Prays, because he was listed under the command of Usama, and was  camped outside Medina and causing Rasulilllah (pbuh&hf) grief, As did Umar with pen and paper incident. 

And of course Abu Bakr and Umar were sinful, and had  displayed an act of Hypocrisy in the dyeing moments the Prophet…..

[48:18] GOD is pleased with the believers who pledged allegiance to you under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts and, consequently, He blessed them with contentment, and rewarded them with an immediate victory

48:29] Muhammad - the messenger of GOD - and those with him are harsh and stern against the disbelievers, but kind and compassionate amongst themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating, as they seek GOD's blessings and approval. Their marks are on their faces, because of prostrating. This is the same example as in the Torah. Their example in the Gospel is like plants that grow taller and stronger, and please the farmers. He thus enrages the disbelievers. GOD promises those among them who believe, and lead a righteous life, forgiveness and a great recompense.

As we can see, Allah swt was pleased with these "Sahabaas" for what they did at that time, supporting the Rasulillah (pub&hf) and standing with him against the aggressors. There is no guarantee or promise by Allah swt  these verses that these "Sahabaas" would not make any mistakes, turn back on their heels or stay on the right path. Notice the expression in  "THOSE AMONG THEM", which tells you, it is not ALL of them. Alllah swt in the Quran told us about those who believe, then disbelieve then believe again then disbelieve, (4:137) Allah will neither forgive nor show the right way to those who believed, and then disbelieved, then believed, and again disbelieved, and thenceforth became ever more intense in their disbelief.

So at this stage, i will not burden you with  any more verses of Manafiqeens as i have  made my point, that vast amount of demigod that you Sunnis taken for sincere companions may turn out to be your worst nightmares!!