Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Cursing Umar

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
On 2/17/2017 at 3:37 PM, shiaman14 said:

This always amazes me that 2 people read the exact same thing but reach complete opposite conclusions.

What brother @Mansur Bakhtiari and @Hassan Y said...

 

@Talut has questions and it is our obligation to explain things as best as we can. Then the rest is up to him.

The diffirence between brother Hassan Y and Mansur Bakhtiari is that the last still uses his brain while the first maybe used his brain to come to the conclusion he now has but closed doors definitely.

So my replies are somewhat irritating to him.

That'is why he reacts so emotionally.

My advise to brother Hassan Y is however to find a way to harmonize and re-settle his own view after getting to know the arguments of my view instead of insisting on me agreeing with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 17/02/2017 at 3:31 PM, Hassan Y said:

"Verily, those who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman have sworn allegiance 1 to me on the same basis on which they swore allegiance to them. (On this basis) he who was present has no choice (to consider), and he who was absent has no right to reject; and consultation is confined to the muhajirun and the ansar. If they agree on an individual and take him to be Caliph it will be deemed to mean Allah's pleasure.

If any one keeps away by way of objection or innovation they will return him to the position from where he kept away. If he refuses they will fight him for following a course other than that of the believers and Allah will put him back from where he had run away.

By my life, O Mu'awiyah, if you see with your intellect without any passion you will find me the most innocent of all in respect of `Uthman's blood and you will surely know that I was in seclusion from him, unless you conceal what is quite open to you (and accuse me of a crime I have not committed). Then you may commit any outrage (on me) as you wish and that is an end to the matter."

 

However @Talut didn't understand the meaning of the letter. Read this below:

When all the people of Medina unanimously swore allegiance to Amir al-mu`minin, Mu`awiyah refused to acquiesce apprehending danger for his own power, and in order to contest Amir al-mu'minin's caliphate he concocted the excuse that it had not been agreed to unaulmously and that there fore after cancelling it there should be another general election, although the caliphate from which (the process of) election was started was the result of a timely situation. There was no question of the common vote therein so that it could be called the result of the people's election. However, it was imposed on the people and assumed to be their verdict. From then it became a principle that whomever the nobles of Medina elected would be deemed to represent the entire world of Islam and no person would be allowed to question it, whether he was present at the time of election or not. In any case, after the establishment of the principle, Mu`awiyah had no right to propose a re-election nor to refuse allegiance when he had in practice recognized these caliphates which, it was alleged, had been settled by the important people of Medina. That is why when he held this election to be invalid and refused allegiance,
Amir al-mu'minin pointed out to him the (recognized) way of election and demolished his argument. It was a method known as arguing with the adversary on the basis of his wrong premises so as to demolish his argument, since Amir al-mu'minin never at any state regarded consultation (with chiefs) or the common vote to be the criterion of validity of the caliphate. Otherwise, in connection with the caliphate about which it is alleged that they were based on the unanimity of the muhajirun and the ansar, he would have regarded that unanimity of vote as a good authority and held them as valid; but his refusal for allegiance in the very first period, which cannot be denied by anyone, is a proof of the fact that he did not regard these self-concocted methods as the criterion of (validity of) the caliphate. That is why at all times he continued pressing his own case for the caliphate, which was also established on the basis of the Prophet's saying and deeds. However, to place it before Mu`awiyah meant opening the door to questions and answers. He therefore attempted to convince him with his own premises and beliefs so that there could be no scope for interpretation or for confusing the matter, in fact Mu'awiyah's real aim was to prolong the matter so that at some point his own authority might get support.

@Talut you dont get the point of the letter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 2/18/2017 at 4:05 AM, Talut said:

The diffirence between brother Hassan Y and Mansur Bakhtiari is that the last still uses his brain while the first maybe used his brain to come to the conclusion he now has but closed doors definitely.

So my replies are somewhat irritating to him.

That'is why he reacts so emotionally.

My advise to brother Hassan Y is however to find a way to harmonize and re-settle his own view after getting to know the arguments of my view instead of insisting on me agreeing with him.
 

I haven't seen any emotional replies from brother Hassan. It just seems this argument is going nowhere.

Maybe 3 or 4 pages are just you, Hassan Y and Fahad Sani.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
37 minutes ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

I haven't seen any emotional replies from brother Hassan. It just seems this argument is going nowhere.

Maybe 3 or 4 pages are just you, Hassan Y and Fahad Sani.

If you read carefully, brother Hassan gave some lightly ad hominem flavoured replies here and there.

It maybe didn't caught your intention but I am experienced enough to notice.

Maybe Shiaman can explain you more on this. He knows what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 2/17/2017 at 3:31 PM, Hassan Y said:

since Amir al-mu'minin never at any state regarded consultation (with chiefs) or the common vote to be the criterion of validity of the caliphate.

but his refusal for allegiance in the very first period, which cannot be denied by anyone, is a proof of the fact that he did not regard these self-concocted methods as the criterion of (validity of) the caliphate.

You actually should first prove his refusal for allegiance in the very first period instead of starting with claiming it while it is actually not proven yet.

In such a matter disputed, only Najhul Balagha is not enough for a non-Twelver.

FACTS:

- Imam Ali a.s. was elected by the people according to the same standards as the former three calips

- He a.s. used this as an counter-argument to the refusal of allegiance of Muawiya

CONCLUSION:

Once Imam Ali a.s. used this as an argument means that from that moment on, people could use the same argument towards Imam Ali a.s.

And I actually do not believe he a.s. could intend it if he a.s. was such a staunch and unconditional supporter of Imamate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 2/18/2017 at 6:08 PM, Talut said:

You actually should first prove his refusal for allegiance in the very first period instead of starting with claiming it while it is actually not proven yet.

In such a matter disputed, only Najhul Balagha is not enough for a non-Twelver.

FACTS:

- Imam Ali a.s. was elected by the people according to the same standards as the former three calips

- He a.s. used this as an counter-argument to the refusal of allegiance of Muawiya

CONCLUSION:

Once Imam Ali a.s. used this as an argument means that from that moment on, people could use the same argument towards Imam Ali a.s.

And I actually do not believe he a.s. could intend it if he a.s. was such a staunch and unconditional supporter of Imamate.
 

Imam Ali (as) was chosen for Imamate

Allah gave him the knowledge to govern, and he may have pledged allegiance to avoid Muslims being taken over by Non-Muslims. Islam was very weak at the time.

I'm done with this argument brother

Salam alaikom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Talut said:

You actually should first prove his refusal for allegiance in the very first period instead of starting with claiming it while it is actually not proven yet.

In such a matter disputed, only Najhul Balagha is not enough for a non-Twelver.

FACTS:

- Imam Ali a.s. was elected by the people according to the same standards as the former three calips

- He a.s. used this as an counter-argument to the refusal of allegiance of Muawiya

CONCLUSION:

Once Imam Ali a.s. used this as an argument means that from that moment on, people could use the same argument towards Imam Ali a.s.

And I actually do not believe he a.s. could intend it if he a.s. was such a staunch and unconditional supporter of Imamate.

 

(1) Abu Ja'far Baladhuri Ahmad Ibn Yahya Ibn Jabir Baghdadi, one of the reliable sunni traditionists and historians, writes in his History that when Abu Bakr called ‘Ali to swear allegiance, ‘Ali refused. Abu Bakr sent ‘Umar who went with a torch to set fire to ‘Ali's house. Fatima came to the door and said: "O son of Khattab! Have you come to set my house on fire?" He said: "Yes, this is more effective than anything your father did."

(2) Izzu'd-Din Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali, and Muhammad Ibn Jarir Tabari, narrate that ‘Umar went to the door of ‘Ali's house with Usayd Ibn Khuza'i, Salama Ibn Aslam and a group of men. ‘Umar then called out, "Come out! Or else I'll set your house on fire!"

(3) Ibn Khaziba reports in his Kitab al-Gharrar from Zaid Ibn Aslam, who said: "I was one of those who went with ‘Umar with torches to Fatima's door. When ‘Ali and his men refused to offer allegiance, ‘Umar said to Fatima, "Let whoever is inside come out. Otherwise, I will set the house on fire along with whoever is inside." ‘Ali, Hasan, Husain, Fatima, and a party of the Prophet's companions, and the Bani Hashim were inside. Fatima said: "Would you set my house on fire along with me and my sons?" He said: "Yes, by Allah, if they do not come out and pay allegiance to the caliph of the Prophet."

(4) Ibn Abd Rabbih, one of the famous sunni ulama’, writes in his Iqdu'l-Farid, Part III, page 63, that ‘Ali and Abbas were sitting in Fatima's house. Abu Bakr told ‘Umar: "Go and bring these people. If they refuse to come, fight them." So ‘Umar came to Fatima's house with torches. Fatima came to the door of the house and said: "Have you come to burn our house?" He said: "Yes..." and so on.

(5) Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali in his Shahre Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 134, quoting from Jauhari's Kitab al-Saqifa, writes in detail about the affair of the Saqifa al-Bani Sa'ad. "The Bani Hashim and ‘Ali were assembled in ‘Ali's house. Zubair was also with them since he considered himself one of the Bani Hashim. ‘Ali used to say, 'Zubair was always with us until his sons were grown up.

They turned him against us.' ‘Umar went to Fatima's house with a group of men. Usayd and Salma were also with him. ‘Umar asked them to come out and swear allegiance. They refused. Zubair drew his sword and came out. ‘Umar said: 'Get hold of this dog.' Salma Ibn Aslam snatched the sword and threw it against the wall. Then they dragged ‘Ali to Abu Bakr.

Other Bani Hashim also followed him and were waiting to see what ‘Ali would do. ‘Ali was saying that he was the servant of Allah and the brother of the Holy Prophet. Nobody listened to him.

They took him to Abu Bakr, who asked him to take the oath of allegiance to him. ‘Ali said: "I am the most deserving person for this position, and I will not pay allegiance to you. It is incumbent on you to pay allegiance to me. You took this right from the Ansar based on your relationship with the Prophet.

I also, on the same ground, protest against you. So be just. If you fear Allah, accept my right, as the Ansar did yours. Otherwise, you should acknowledge that you are intentionally oppressing me.' ‘Umar said: 'We will not leave you until you swear allegiance.'

‘Ali said: 'You have conspired well together. Today you support him, so that tomorrow he may return the caliphate to you. I swear by Allah that I will not comply with your request and will not take the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr). He should pay allegiance to me.'

Then he turned his face toward the people and said: 'O Muhajirs! Fear Allah. Do not take away the right of authority of Muhammad's family. That right has been ordained by Allah. Do not remove the rightful person from his place.

By Allah, we Ahlul Bayt have greater authority in this matter than you have. There is a man among you who has the knowledge of the Book of Allah (The Qur'an), the Sunna of the Prophet, and the laws of our Religion. I swear by Allah that we possess all these things. So do not follow yourselves lest you should stray from the truth.'" ‘Ali returned home without offering allegiance and secluded himself in his house until Fatima died. Thereafter, he was forced to offer allegiance.

(6) Abu Muhammad Abdullah Ibn Muslim Ibn Qutayba Ibn ‘Umar Al-Bahili Dinawari, who was one of the sunni ulama’ and an official Qazi of the city of Dinawar, writes in his famous Ta'rikhu'l-Khulafate Raghibin wa Daulate Bani Umayya, known as Al-Imama wa's-Siyasa, Volume I, page 13: "When Abu Bakr learned that a group hostile to him had assembled in ‘Ali's house, he sent ‘Umar to them.

When ‘Umar shouted to ‘Ali to come out and to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, they all refused to come out. ‘Umar collected wood and said 'I swear by Allah, Who has my life in His control, either you will come out, or I will set the house with all those in it on fire.'

People said: 'O Abu Hafsa! Fatima is also present in the house.' He said: 'Let her be there. I will set fire to the house.' So all of them came out and offered allegiance, except ‘Ali, who said: 'I have taken a vow that until I have compiled the Qur'an, I will neither go out of the house nor will I put on full dress.'

‘Umar did not accept this, but the plaintive lamentation of Fatima and the snubbing by others, forced him to go back to Abu Bakr. ‘Umar urged him to force ‘Ali to swear allegiance. Abu Bakr sent Qanfaz several times to summon ‘Ali, but he was always disappointed.

At last ‘Umar, with a group of people went to the door of Fatima's house. When Fatima heard their voices, she cried out 'O my father, Prophet of Allah! What tortures we are subjected to by the son of Khattab and the son of Abi Quhafa!

‘When the people heard Fatima's lamentation, some went back with their hearts broken, but ‘Umar remained there with some others until finally they dragged ‘Ali from the house. They took ‘Ali to Abu Bakr, and told him to swear allegiance to him. ‘Ali said: 'If I do not swear allegiance what will you do to me?' They said: 'We swear by Allah that we will break your neck.' ‘Ali said: 'Will you kill the servant of Allah and the brother of His Prophet?' ‘Umar said: 'You are not the brother of the Prophet of Allah.'

While all this was going on, Abu Bakr kept silent. ‘Umar then asked Abu Bakr whether he (‘Umar) was not following Abu Bakr's orders in this matter. Abu Bakr said that so long as Fatima was alive he would not force ‘Ali to swear allegiance to him. ‘Ali then managed to reach the grave of the Prophet, where, wailing and crying, he told the Prophet what Aaron had told his brother, Moses, as recorded in the Holy Qur'an: 'Son of my mother! Surely the people reckoned me weak and had well nigh slain me.' (7:150)

(7) Ahmad Ibn Abdu'l-Aziz is one of the sunni ulama’. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid writes about him in the following words: "He was a man of learning, a traditionist, a great literary figure." He writes in his Kitab al-Saqifa and Ibn Abi'l-Hadid Mu'tazali also quotes from him in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, page 9, on the authority of Abi'l-Aswad, who said: "A group of the companions and prominent Muhajirin expressed their indignation at Abu Bakr's caliphate and asked why they were not consulted.

Also ‘Ali and Zubair expressed their anger, refused to swear allegiance, and retired to Fatima's house. Fatima cried aloud and made solemn entreaties, but to no effect. They took away ‘Ali's and Zubair's swords and hurled them against the wall, breaking them. Then they dragged them to the mosque to force them to swear allegiance."

(8) Jauhari reports from Salma Ibn Abdu'r-Rahman that when Abu Bakr heard that ‘Ali, Zubair, and a party of the Bani Hashim were assembled in Fatima's house, he sent ‘Umar for them. ‘Umar went to the door of Fatima's house and shouted, "Come out, otherwise, I swear I will set your house on fire!"

(9) Jauhari, according to Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in his Sharhe Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume II, page 19, narrates on the authority of Sha'bi: "When Abu Bakr heard about the gathering of the Bani Hashim in ‘Ali's house, he said to ‘Umar: 'Both you and Khalid go and bring ‘Ali and Zubair to me so that they can take the oath of allegiance.' So ‘Umar entered Fatima's house and Khalid stayed outside. ‘Umar said to Zubair 'What is this sword?' He replied, 'I have acquired it for allegiance to ‘Ali.'

‘Umar snatched the sword and hurled it at the stone inside the house and broke it. Then he brought him out to Khalid. He came back into the house, where there were many people, including Miqdad, and all the Bani Hashim. Addressing ‘Ali, he said: 'Get up! I'm taking you to Abu Bakr. You must pay allegiance to him.'

‘Ali refused. ‘Umar dragged him to Khalid. Khalid and ‘Umar forced him along the road which was packed to capacity with men who witnessed this scene. When Fatima saw ‘Umar's behavior, she, along with many women of the Bani Hashim (who had come to console her), came out. They were lamenting and wailing with high-pitched cries. Fatima went to the mosque where she said to Abu Bakr: 'How soon have you sacked the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet of Allah.

I swear by Allah, I will not talk with ‘Umar until I see Allah.' Fatima showed her extreme disapproval of Abu Bakr and did not speak to him for the rest of her life." (See Sahih Bukhari, Part V and VII).

(10) Abu Walid Muhibu'd-Din Muhammad Ibn Muhammad Ibn Ash-Shahna Al-Hanafi (died 815 A.H.), one of the leading sunni ulama’ writes in his Rauzatu'l-Manazir Fi Khabaru'l-Awa'il wa'l-Awakhir, in connection with the Saqifa affair: "‘Umar came to ‘Ali's house prepared to set it on fire with all its inmates. ‘Umar said: 'Enter into what the community has entered.'"

(11) Tabari, in his Ta'rikh Volume II, page 443, reports from Ziyad Ibn Kalbi that "Talha, Zubair, and some of the Muhajirin were at ‘Ali's house. ‘Umar Ibn Khattab went there and demanded that they come out. If they did not, he said, he would set the house on fire."

(12) Ibn Shahna, in Hashiyya al-Kamil of Ibn Athir, Volume XI, page 112, writes in connection with the Saqifa that: "Some of the Prophet's companions, and the Bani Hashim, Zubair, Atba Ibn Abi Lahab, Khalid Ibn Sa'id Ibn As, Miqdad Ibn Aswad Kindi, Salman al-Farsi, Abu Dharr Ghifari, Ammar Ibn Yasir, Bara'a Ibn Azib, and Ubai Ibn Ka'b refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. They assembled in ‘Ali's house. ‘Umar Ibn Khattab went there intending to burn down the house. Fatima protested to him. ‘Umar said: 'Enter where all others have entered.'"

 

 

From the book Peshawar Nights (The author arguing with a sunni scholar):

If you rely on consensus as the basis of the caliphate and consider it permissible from the side of Allah and the Holy Prophet then whenever a caliph died, the whole Community should have gathered together to appoint a caliph. Whoever would have been unanimously elected would have been the caliph of the people (of course not of the Holy Prophet of Allah). And this procedure should have been followed in all ages.

You must, however, acknowledge that such an Ijma or consensus has never been held. Even the incomplete consensus for which the Bani Hashim and the Ansar were not present was not held for any one except Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Qahafa. The caliphate of ‘Umar, according to the opinion of all historians and traditionists of Islam, was based on the solitary verdict of Abu Bakr Ibn Qahafa. 

You believe that the acknowledged caliph has the right to nominate his successor. It is his responsibility not to leave the Community confused and unguided, and his decision is sufficient for the appointment of the caliph. But if you believe this, why do you deprive the Holy Prophet of this right?

And why do you disregard all those clear indications which the Holy Prophet explicitly and repeatedly gave on different occasions, naming ‘Ali as his successor, and which are all present in your authentic books. You simply sidetrack the issue and advance irrelevant interpretations just as Ibn Abi'l-Hadid has rejected the hadith of Umm Salma on ridiculous grounds.

Moreover on what basis can you claim that the first caliph, who was appointed by means of consensus, had the right to nominate his successor? Did the Holy Prophet give any such instruction? No. You also claim that when the first caliph secured his appointment through consensus, there was no need for the appointment of other of the caliphs through ijma. The same caliphs had the authority from the Community to nominate the caliph after them. 

If that were so, why was that principle adopted for the caliphate of ‘Umar alone? For the caliphate of Uthman this principle was not followed. Instead of nominating a caliph after him, ‘Umar left the question to be decided by a consultative body of six members. I do not know what you consider the principle on which the selection of a caliph is based. You know that if there are basic differences in the arguments, the real issue becomes void.

If your position is that the basis of the caliphate is consensus and the entire Community should unanimously make the decision (not to mention the fact that such a consensus was not held for the caliphate of Abu Bakr) why then was such a consensus not held for the caliphate of ‘Umar?

If you consider that consensus was necessary only for the first caliphate, and for the appointment of the future caliphs the verdict of the elected caliph was sufficient, then why was this principle not followed in the case of Uthman? Why did Caliph ‘Umar abandon the principle enunciated by Abu Bakr?

Why did he leave the selection of the caliph to a Majlis al-Shura (a consultative committee)? Caliph ‘Umar arbitrarily nominated the committee though it should have been the representative body of the community (so that there might be some slight representation of the views of the majority). 

When we consider the matter carefully we find that it was a dictatorial order issued under the guise of Shura (consultation). Even today we see that the principles of democracy are completely contrary to it. But the Holy Prophet repeatedly said, "‘Ali revolves round the truth and truth revolves around ‘Ali." Also the Holy Prophet said:

"‘Ali is the 'Faruq' (Discriminator) of this Community and draws a distinction between right and wrong." Hakim in his Mustadrak, Hafiz Abu Nu'aim in Hilya; Tabrani in Ausat; Ibn Asakir in Ta'rikh; Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Ganji Shafi'i in Kifayatu't-Talib; Muhibu'd-din Tabari in Riyazu'n-Nuzra; Hamwaini in Fara'id; Ibn Abi'l-Hadid in Sharh al-Nahju'l-Balagha and Suyuti in Durru'l-Mansur narrate from Ibn Abbas, Salman, Abu Dharr and Hudhaifa that the Holy Prophet said, "Soon after me a disturbance will take place.

On that occasion it will be necessary for you to attach yourselves to ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib since he is the first man who will clasp hands with me on the Day of Judgement. He is the most truthful one and is the Faruq of his Community; he draws a distinction between right and wrong, and he is the chief of the believers."

According to a hadith from Ammar Yasir (to which I have referred earlier with full details of its sources) the Holy Prophet said: "If all the people go one way and ‘Ali goes the other, you should follow ‘Ali and leave all the others. O Ammar! ‘Ali will not misguide you and will not lead you to destruction O Ammar! Obedience to ‘Ali is obedience to me, and obedience to me is obedience to Allah."

Even then, Caliph ‘Umar, defying the instructions of the Holy Prophet, makes ‘Ali subordinate to Abdu'r-Rahman in the Shura. Is that authority justified which repudiates the distinguished Companions? Respected men! Be fair! Study the historical accounts of this period, such as Isti'ab, Isaba and Hilyatu'l-Auliya. Then compare ‘Ali with Abdu'r-Rahman, and see whether he deserved to have the right of veto or Amiru'l-Mu'minin. You will find that it was through political manipulation that ‘Ali's right was usurped.

Moreover, if the method of selection adopted by Caliph ‘Umar Ibn Khattab was worth following, that is, if the Majlis al-Shura was necessary for the appointment of the caliph, why was it not done when Amiru'l-Mu'minin was made caliph?

It is strange that for the caliphate of the four caliphs (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthman, and ‘Ali) four different methods were adopted. Now which of those methods was basically right and which one was void? If you say that all four methods were justified, then you must admit that you have no fundamental principle for the establishment of the caliphate.

The Holy Imam assumed the caliphate by way of taking back his right. If somebody's right has been usurped, he may take it back whenever he gets the opportunity to do so. Accordingly, when there were no obstructions and the atmosphere demanded it, the Holy Imam secured his right.

If you have forgotten the points we have made previously, you may consult the newspapers, which reported information we presented regarding this issue. We have proved that ‘Ali's occupying the caliphate was based on Qur'anic verses and on the hadith of the Holy Prophet.

You cannot cite a single hadith accepted by both sects in which the Holy Prophet said that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, or Uthman were his successors. Of course, apart from hadith in Shi’as books, there are a large number of hadith from the Holy Prophet recorded in your own authentic books, which show that the Holy Prophet expressly appointed ‘Ali as his successor.

Apparently you have forgotten my argument of previous nights which disproves the acceptability of those hadith. I will, however, reply again tonight. Sheikh Mujaddidu'din Firuzabadi, the author of Qamusu'l-Lughat says in his Kitab al-Safaru's-Sa'adat: "What ever has been said in praise of Abu Bakr is based on such fictitious stories that common sense does not admit them as true."

If you properly scrutinize the problem of the caliphate, you will find that there was actually no consensus for any of the four major caliphs (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthman and ‘Ali) or for any of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs. The whole Community was never assembled nor were representatives of the entire community gathered together to cast their vote. But, comparatively speaking, we find that ‘Ali's caliphate was supported by what was very close to consensus.

Your own historians and ulama’ write that for the caliphate of Abu Bakr at first only ‘Umar and Abu Ubaida Jarra, the grave digger, were present. Later some of the Aus clan swore allegiance to him only because they were opposed to the Khazraj clan which had nominated Sa'd Ibn Ubaida as a candidate. Later on others through intimidation, (as I have stated in detail earlier) and another group prompted by political considerations swore allegiance to Abu Bakr. The Ansars, who followed Sa'd Ibn Ubaida, did not acknowledge the caliphate till the last moment.

Then the caliphate of ‘Umar was founded only on Abu Bakr's proposal, which had nothing to do with consensus. Uthman subsequently became caliph through the decision of the Majlis al-Shura (consultative committee) which had been arbitrarily formed by Caliph ‘Umar.

At the time of ‘Ali's caliphate a majority of the representatives of most of the Islamic countries, who by chance had come to Medina to seek redress of grievances, insisted on ‘Ali being the caliph.

Edited by Hassan Y
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
18 hours ago, Talut said:

Nowhere did I say that an Imam cannot be a caliph at the same time. Rather, those best qualified to become a caliph are in fact the Imams a.s.

My point is that they a.s allowed non-Imams to be caliphs as well as long they did not violate the rights of the Ummah. 

 

Brother -  are you familiar with the reigns of Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman?

Ridda wars

beating and oppression of sahaba

Nepotism and rise of the Ummayads?

18 hours ago, Talut said:

Above all, this theory is perfectly in line with history and explains all regarding the attitude of the Imams towards certain personalites 
 

You are telling me what happened in history; where is the theory?

18 hours ago, Talut said:

the only one who came to power and was resisted by the Imams a.s. was Yazid who was the first king of the Umayyads.

He in fact wiped out caliphacy and that was because Imam Hussayn a.s. resisted so totally and unconditionally.

 

Correction - Muawiya was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Brother -  are you familiar with the reigns of Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman?

Ridda wars

beating and oppression of sahaba

Nepotism and rise of the Ummayads?

Yes I am familliar with these.

I judge these events according to the attitude of Imam Ali a.s.

Imam Ali a.s. got involved in matters only during the last six years of Uthman.

Why would he a.s. keep silent at the Ridda wars and not in the cases of Uthman?

My problem with the Twelver approach is the inconsistency of actions of the Imams a.s.

Then they did so because ..

Then they didn't because ..

 

4 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

You are telling me what happened in history; where is the theory?

That Imam Ali a.s. pledged allegiance and accepted caliphacy.

It explains his attitude clearly if we look at the course of events.

His silence, his actions, etc.

 

4 hours ago, shiaman14 said:

Correction - Muawiya was.

Muawiya was to a certain extent but not to such that negotiation wasn't impossible anymore.

Yazid went over the line openly and definitely.

That is why the stance of Imam Hussayn a.s. was definite as well.

Muawiya was allowed to rule as long he held on to the treaty with Imam Hassan a.s.

But when Yazid came to power and refused to give it back, caliphacy became dynasty and so he had to be overthrown or at least there had to be a statement to be made that his rulership was illegitimate.

 

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Talut said:

Yes I am familliar with these.

I judge these events according to the attitude of Imam Ali a.s.

Imam Ali a.s. got involved in matters only during the last six years of Uthman.

Why would he a.s. keep silent at the Ridda wars and not in the cases of Uthman?

The bravest warrior of Islam does not participate in the Ridda wars or any war after the demise of the Prophet until Jamal. 

To you, it means he was in agreement with them. To me, it showed that he was against them.

He was dragged into the Uthman issue rather reluctantly.

1 hour ago, Talut said:

My problem with the Twelver approach is the inconsistency of actions of the Imams a.s.

Then they did so because ..

Then they didn't because ..

It is a simply case of you don't know what you are asking.

You ask me if it's daylight at noon - I say yes.

You ask me if it's daylight at midnight - I say no.

You say - look at shiaman14, he changes his mind every 12 hours.

The Imams handled each situation according to the times.

Imam Hasan made peace; Imam Hussain went into war. If the Imams were switched, they would have done exactly like the other. Imam Hussain would have made peace with Muawiya; Imam Hasan would have gone to war.

 

1 hour ago, Talut said:

That Imam Ali a.s. pledged allegiance and accepted caliphacy.


It explains his attitude clearly if we look at the course of events.

His silence, his actions, etc.

No such thing happened. What happened was Imam Ali made peace with Abu Bakr and then Umar for the sake of the Ummah. Biggest proof is that the person who was at the front of all actions of the Prophet kept away from everything and everyone for 25 years.

You think Imam Ali's silence is a reflection of his acceptance. That makes the Caliphs look even worse. The Sunnah of the Prophet clearly was to put Ali at the forefront of everything but they didn't follow the sunnah. Shame of them.

At least, when we say Imam Ali moved himself out of the picture, it's a slightly better reflection on the Caliphs because they could always say "we wanted Ali involved but he wasn't willing" .

 

1 hour ago, Talut said:

Muawiya was to a certain extent but not to such that negotiation wasn't impossible anymore.


Yazid went over the line openly and definitely.

That is why the stance of Imam Hussayn a.s. was definite as well.

Muawiya was allowed to rule as long he held on to the treaty with Imam Hassan a.s.

But when Yazid came to power and refused to give it back, caliphacy became dynasty and so he had to be overthrown or at least there had to be a statement to be made that his rulership was illegitimate.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Muawiya was the second Bani Ummaya ruler after Caliph Uthman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

Imam Hasan made peace; Imam Hussain went into war. If the Imams were switched, they would have done exactly like the other. Imam Hussain would have made peace with Muawiya; Imam Hasan would have gone to war.

The question is WHY they would handle the same.

Answer is because Muawiya did not appoint himself the leader so making peace was still an option.

He became the leader after that but only in agreement with the Imams a.s.

This was not the case with Yazid.

 

 

1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

The bravest warrior of Islam does not participate in the Ridda wars or any war after the demise of the Prophet until Jamal. 

To you, it means he was in agreement with them. To me, it showed that he was against them.

In Islam we judge the apparent. Not that we have no knowledge of.

If we'd only check the facts and consider that what we see is that what we have. He a.s. did not resist, so agreed.

You're interpretation is possible but based on speculation and I try to avoid that field as much as possible.

 

 

1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

No such thing happened. What happened was Imam Ali made peace with Abu Bakr and then Umar for the sake of the Ummah. Biggest proof is that the person who was at the front of all actions of the Prophet kept away from everything and everyone for 25 years.

You think Imam Ali's silence is a reflection of his acceptance. That makes the Caliphs look even worse. The Sunnah of the Prophet clearly was to put Ali at the forefront of everything but they didn't follow the sunnah. Shame of them.

At least, when we say Imam Ali moved himself out of the picture, it's a slightly better reflection on the Caliphs because they could always say "we wanted Ali involved but he wasn't willing" .

I don't know brother. It's also possible that they wanted to keep him a.s. out of all as much as possible.

It's clear there was a fear for or grudge against Banu Hasyim.

 

 

1 hour ago, shiaman14 said:

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Muawiya was the second Bani Ummaya ruler after Caliph Uthman.

I nowhere denied that. What I was trying to say is that Yazid was the first ruler who wasn't elected according the accepted caliphacy methods/procedures.

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam,

However, after all that is said,

The original Shia were on the truth and the Ahlus Sunnah were actually those supporting the Umawi dynasty.

I want to conclude with the following as it is the stance I totally agree with:

One common mistake is to assume that Sunnis represent Islam as it existed before the divisions, and should be considered as normative, or the standard. This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni and this narrative suits their denomination, even though it is far from accurate.  Both Sunnism and Shi'ism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and divisions.



 

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Mansur Bakhtiari said:

Imam Ali (as) was chosen for Imamate

Allah gave him the knowledge to govern, and he may have pledged allegiance to avoid Muslims being taken over by Non-Muslims. Islam was very weak at the time.

I'm done with this argument brother

Salam alaikom

Wa alaykum Salaam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
7 hours ago, Talut said:

The question is WHY they would handle the same.

Answer is because Muawiya did not appoint himself the leader so making peace was still an option.

He became the leader after that but only in agreement with the Imams a.s.
 

Brother -  are you not aware of history. Muawiya's whole contention with Imam Ali was over the Caliphate. He did elect himself caliph.

Imam Hasan made peace with him to save thousands and thousands of Muslims lives.

You consider the sacrifice of Imam Hasan to mean acceptance. It's highly naive brother.

7 hours ago, Talut said:

In Islam we judge the apparent. Not that we have no knowledge of.


If we'd only check the facts and consider that what we see is that what we have. He a.s. did not resist, so agreed.

You're interpretation is possible but based on speculation and I try to avoid that field as much as possible.

 

 

I don't know brother. It's also possible that they wanted to keep him a.s. out of all as much as possible.

It's clear there was a fear for or grudge against Banu Hasyim.

Is it not apparent to you that Imam Ali was at the forefront of all decisions and actions of the Prophet? Doesn't that make it sunnah to keep Imam Ali at the forefront of all actions by the Caliphs? So the question again is did Imam Ali back off or did they push him away. Either way, the Caliphs and Imam Ali did not live happily ever after. Turning a blind eye to the truth doesn't change it.

7 hours ago, Talut said:

I nowhere denied that. What I was trying to say is that Yazid was the first ruler who wasn't elected according the accepted caliphacy methods/procedures.

Yazid was selected exactly like Caliph Abu Bakr selected Caliph Umar.

And in exact similar fashion, all Muslims had to accept it whether they liked it or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 2/19/2017 at 12:54 PM, shiaman14 said:

Brother -  are you not aware of history. Muawiya's whole contention with Imam Ali was over the Caliphate. He did elect himself caliph.

Muawiya did not elect himself caliph. He just condemned the selection, and declared his decision not to recognize him a.s.

This almost resulted in an armed confrontation until Imam Hasan a.s. offered him a treaty.
 

On 2/19/2017 at 12:54 PM, shiaman14 said:

Imam Hasan made peace with him to save thousands and thousands of Muslims lives.

And why wouldn't he a.s.?

On 2/19/2017 at 12:54 PM, shiaman14 said:

You consider the sacrifice of Imam Hasan to mean acceptance. It's highly naive brother.

It wasn't just acceptance. It was a treaty.

On 2/19/2017 at 12:54 PM, shiaman14 said:

Is it not apparent to you that Imam Ali was at the forefront of all decisions and actions of the Prophet? Doesn't that make it sunnah to keep Imam Ali at the forefront of all actions by the Caliphs?

I honestly don't know if you can call it a sunnah.

On 2/19/2017 at 12:54 PM, shiaman14 said:

So the question again is did Imam Ali back off or did they push him away.

They probably pushed him a.s. away as was apparant right from the start (after the demise of Rasullullah s.a.w.a.s.) at the old assembly hall of Saqifah.

On 2/19/2017 at 12:54 PM, shiaman14 said:

Either way, the Caliphs and Imam Ali did not live happily ever after. Turning a blind eye to the truth doesn't change it.

Probably but what has that to do with the legitimacy of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr?

On 2/19/2017 at 12:54 PM, shiaman14 said:

Yazid was selected exactly like Caliph Abu Bakr selected Caliph Umar.

What about the treaty?

On 2/19/2017 at 12:54 PM, shiaman14 said:

And in exact similar fashion, all Muslims had to accept it whether they liked it or not.

And because the treaty was broken Imam Hussayn a.s. rised up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

@Talut you seemed to have ignored my previous reply. I proved to you the illegitimacy of caliph abu bakr and how he forced Ali (as) to pledge. I also proved to you how the common vote to be the criterion of validity of the caliphate is not legitimate. Can you please tell me your thoughts? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
29 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

@Talut you seemed to have ignored my previous reply. I proved to you the illegitimacy of caliph abu bakr and how he forced Ali (as) to pledge. I also proved to you how the common vote to be the criterion of validity of the caliphate is not legitimate. Can you please tell me your thoughts? 

I am not a text man and got tired from scrolling your reply let alone reading it.

I like the more dynamic debates with logical reasoning.

The textual debates with ahaadith and degrading etcetera is really not my field.

Same counts when I have such debates with Sunni's.

I am sceptical towards ahaadith anyway after I noticed that it many times was used as propaganada tool for political and ideological purposes. Maybe that's the reason why.

There are however historical events which are conformed by both unanimously.

The disputed events I judge by myself.

Edited by Talut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 minute ago, Talut said:

I am not a text man and got tired from scrolling your reply let alone reading it.

I like the more dynamic debates with logical reasoning.

The textual debates with ahaadith and degrading etcetera is really not my field.

I am sceptical towards ahaadith anyway after I noticed that it many times was used as propaganada tool for political and ideological purposes.

Ok I understand, may Allah guide you to the right path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 2/19/2017 at 1:45 PM, Talut said:

Muawiya did not elect himself caliph. He just condemned the selection, and declared his decision not to recognize him a.s.

This almost resulted in an armed confrontation until Imam Hasan a.s. offered him a treaty.

Lol. Okay.

So you are saying that Muawiya had no interest in the caliphate and reluctantly accepted the role rather graciously when Imam Hasan offered it to him. That sound right?

On 2/19/2017 at 1:45 PM, Talut said:

It wasn't just acceptance. It was a treaty.

The Treaty of Imam Hasan (as) was exactly like the Treaty of Hudaibiya. In both cases, a representative of Allah made peace with a kafir for the greater good.

On 2/19/2017 at 1:45 PM, Talut said:

I honestly don't know if you can call it a sunnah.

I honestly dont know how you can't call it sunnah.

Perhaps we have different definitions of sunnah. If chewing miswak is sunnah, then surely keeping Ali at the front of all things related to Islam is Sunnah too.

On 2/19/2017 at 1:45 PM, Talut said:

They probably pushed him a.s. away as was apparant right from the start (after the demise of Rasullullah s.a.w.a.s.) at the old assembly hall of Saqifah.

Probably but what has that to do with the legitimacy of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr?

There is a famous hadith that "Ali is with the truth and the truth is with Ali". So if Ali has a problem with the caliphate of Abu Bakr, then Ali is right. Therefore, the caliphate is illegitimate.

On 2/19/2017 at 1:45 PM, Talut said:

What about the treaty?

And because the treaty was broken Imam Hussayn a.s. rised up.

Was Yazid selected by his predecessor?

Was Caliph Umar selected by his predecessor?

You will not find a single sermon from Imam Hussain (as) that he rose to gain the caliphate. If that was his goal, surely he would have raised a larger army than the 100-odd men or so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...