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

Some Questions from a Sunni brother

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

:salam:

A Sunni brother in my acquaintance is genuinely interested in Shia Islam . Nevertheless , he has some confusions regarding this matter. He has following Questions , I will be very grateful if any knowledgeable brother or sister can give valuable input in response to his Questions. 

1- If Abu Bakar , Umar and Uthman were bad people or usurpers then why didn't Imam Ali (as) revolt against them just like Imam Hussain (as) did against a tyrant Yazeed? When we read Kitab Sulaym we find that Shia Hadith says that Imam Ali (as) didn't fight against caliphs because he had not enough number of helpers. Now this is not very convincing because Imam Hussain (as) too didn't have enough number of supporters with him in Karbala. So why there is an apparent contradiction in the actions of Imams when their purpose was preserve religion and fight against the corruption . Why do we see Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Ali (as) compromising and giving allegiance to the usurpers unlike Imam Hussain (as) ?

2- When we envisage historical reports then we see that Imam Ali (As) used to be a member of Shura made by caliphs. It is also very fascinating to see that the Caliphs used to seek Imam Ali (as) advice and preferred his opinions over their opinions . So if they were unjust and enemies of Imam (as) then why do we see them doing this ? We also see in narrations where Imam Ali (as) acknowledged that sheikhain were superior to him . Why he considered the killers of his wife to be superior to him?

3- It is a fact Shia books of Hadith were compiled way after Sunni books of Hadith were. Doesn't this fact technically make sunni books more authentic then shia books provided the fact that shia books were compiled later and concomitantly the probability of errors in their collection is higher ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Goswami said:

:salam:

A Sunni brother in my acquaintance is genuinely interested in Shia Islam . Nevertheless , he has some confusions regarding this matter. He has following Questions , I will be very grateful if any knowledgeable brother or sister can give valuable input in response to his Questions. 

1- If Abu Bakar , Umar and Uthman were bad people or usurpers then why didn't Imam Ali (as) revolt against them just like Imam Hussain (as) did against a tyrant Yazeed? When we read Kitab Sulaym we find that Shia Hadith says that Imam Ali (as) didn't fight against caliphs because he had not enough number of helpers. Now this is not very convincing because Imam Hussain (as) too didn't have enough number of supporters with him in Karbala. So why there is an apparent contradiction in the actions of Imams when their purpose was preserve religion and fight against the corruption . Why do we see Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Ali (as) compromising and giving allegiance to the usurpers unlike Imam Hussain (as) ?

2- When we envisage historical reports then we see that Imam Ali (As) used to be a member of Shura made by caliphs. It is also very fascinating to see that the Caliphs used to seek Imam Ali (as) advice and preferred his opinions over their opinions . So if they were unjust and enemies of Imam (as) then why do we see them doing this ? We also see in narrations where Imam Ali (as) acknowledged that sheikhain were superior to him . Why he considered the killers of his wife to be superior to him?

3- It is a fact Shia books of Hadith were compiled way after Sunni books of Hadith were. Doesn't this fact technically make sunni books more authentic then shia books provided the fact that shia books were compiled later and concomitantly the probability of errors in their collection is higher ?

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

For the points i will make, i will draw upon some of the content used in the following article: https://whoaretheshia.com/2017/10/31/aftermath-ix/

Response to first question:

Let us first start addressing this question by using sources reliable to both Shias and Sunnis. Once we have done that, we can look at common ground based on established history we both agree on, and then work our way from that. What do we know about the actions of Ali ibn Abi Talin [as] and do they best fit the Shia narrative, or the Sunni narrative?

 

Umar ibn Al Khattab narrates in Saheeh Al Bukhari the following:

 “And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr.”

Reference: Sahih Bukhari :Book 86 [Kitab Al Hudud] Chapter 31.

 

It is mentioned in Saheeh-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim by Umar ibn Al Khattab: 

So Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from it to Fatima who got angry with Abu Bakr for this reason. She forsook him and did not talk to him until the end of her life. She lived for six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). When she died, her husband. ‘Ali b. Abu Talib, buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about her death and offered the funeral prayer over her himself. During the lifetime of Fatima, ‘All received (special) regard from the people. After she had died, he felt estrangement in the faces of the people towards him. .. He had not yet owed allegiance to him as Caliph during these monthsHe sent a person to Abu Bakr requesting him to visit him unaccompanied by anyone (disapproving the presence of Umar). ‘Umar said to Abu Bakr: By Allah, you will not visit them alone. Abu Bakr said: What will they do to me? By Allah, I will visit them. And he did pay them a visit alone. “

References:  [1] Sahih-Muslim: Book 019, Number 4352 [2] Sahih Bukhari :Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546.  [3] Sahih-Muslim: Book 019, Number 4352

 

Thus, as we can clearly see here, Ali ibn Abi Talib withheld his oath of allegiance from Abu Bakr. Not only did he do that, he also opposed him, stayed away from him, and buried his wife without informing him, at night. We find in the tradition and part agreed upon, after many months of opposition, Umar ibn al-Khattab revealing tells Abu Bakr 'By Allah you will not visit them alone'. Why is Umar worried, about a so-called loving fellow companion in Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] ? 

To any unbiased individual, the above two traditions are compelling evidence for the fact something deeper went on between them, so much so it led Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] to oppose the Abu Bakr and Umar, something which would make no sense if the Sunni narrative were true; if Ali [as] had close ties with them, believed in their superiority, and wanted them as Caliph away. The reality is, if as Sunnis argue in an attempt to justify the tradition, he was only upset at not being consulted, then pray do tell, would he have voted for anyone other than Abu Bakr? Do boon companions not discuss their differences civilly and resolve them quickly? 

We know the first few months of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr were famous for the apostatising tribes en-masse in Arabia, and incredible trouble for Abu Bakr. Would Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] choose this a moment to 'throw a strop' at something superfluous, when his 'superior' and a man he supposedly loved immensely as a boon companion was in crisis? Or, does the Shia narrative make sense: He knew his right had been taken, however he was evaluating the situation whether or not he should act and how he may do so. The fact is, Ali ibn Abi Talib rose against them in the form of opposing them, boycotting them, and actions at times speak louder than words. His refusal to pledge his allegiance for many months during a tumultuous period for the Caliph is a sign for all to see.

Now, if we go into the more specific aspect of your question: why did he not rise up in the way of Imam al-Hussain [as]? One could also ask, why did Imam al-Hasan sign a peace treaty, while Imam al-Hussain  [asws] fight to the death? Why did Imam Zain al-Abideen, Muhammed al-Baqir, and Jaffer as-Sadiq [asws] employ taqqiyah and not assist in rebellions of others? Why did Imam al-Ridha occupy a close position with the caliph ? Each individual time period has unique contextual factors that must be taken into account.

With Yazid, you were looking at a man who didn't just have hidden hypocrisy, but it was out in the open. He brought his sins out, and his corruption well out into the open and wasn't even concerned with being like his father, who at the very least showed Islam outwardly. Abu Bakr and Umar for all their faults did not commit Zina, drink alcohol, play with monkeys and engage in vices publicly. Yazid on the other hand, was someone who threatened Islam at its core. Furthermore, his policies were those whereby he did no mind attacking Makkah and the K'aba, or entering the Holy City of Medina and slaughtering scores of companions.  Giving your allegiance to a man like that, whose hypocrisy is open and not just hidden, means in the public eye you give him the mandate to continue as he is publicly and regard him as the patron of your affairs publicly.

As for Ali ibn Abi Talib, not only were the rulers not open with things, but Islam had only just grieved from the death of its symbol and rock - the Messenger of Allah [saw]. The nation was in its infancy, and the Romans and Persians were looking from the outside at the nascent Muslim community and as all enemies do, feeling this may have well been an opportune moment to attack for the Muslims certainly lost leadership, unity, and morale that the Prophet [saw] brought. Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] starting a civil war at this time period, when you also had other tribes of Arabia apostatising en-masse, when the support of the majority were not with him, nor could he cause much of an effect at all, would have threatened the very survival of the Ummah.

And opposing them was the best he could do at the time. So much so was he considered a threat, that early into his opposition, Umar ibn al-Khattab threatened to burn down the house of Ali and Fatima [asws] , and you can see the rage, fear and anger in the words of the second Caliph:

“Narrated Muhammad bin Bashir from Ubaidllah bin Umar from Zaid bin Aslam that his father Aslam said: ‘When the homage (baya) went to Abu Bakr after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and Zubair were entering into the house of Fatima to consult her and revise their issue, so when Umar came to know about that, he went to Fatima and said : ‘Oh daughter of Messenger of Allah, no one is dearest to us more than your father and no one dearest to us after your father than you, I swear by Allah, if these people gathered in your house then nothing will prevent me from giving order to burn the house and those who are inside.’

References: [1] Musnaf of Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah, Volume 7 page 432 Tradition 37045. [Saheeh Chain - Sunni source]

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Goswami said:


2- When we envisage historical reports then we see that Imam Ali (As) used to be a member of Shura made by caliphs. It is also very fascinating to see that the Caliphs used to seek Imam Ali (as) advice and preferred his opinions over their opinions . So if they were unjust and enemies of Imam (as) then why do we see them doing this ? We also see in narrations where Imam Ali (as) acknowledged that sheikhain were superior to him . Why he considered the killers of his wife to be superior to him?

 

Ali ibn Abi Talib , despite having his right taken from him, still cared deeply about the state of the Ummah. This was the nation he gave his sweat and blood for, being the man at whose hands the  Muslims won battles time and time again. This was the Ummah he loved deeply, and one he sacrificed everything for. He wanted its survival, its strength, and thus advised where he felt he could for the sake of the Ummah - not for the Caliphs.

Let us not forget, there are many times we find Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] defiantly opposing them and correcting them:

I saw `Uthman and `Ali. `Uthman used to forbid people to perform Hajj-at-Tamattu` and Hajj-al- Qiran (Hajj and `Umra together), and when `Ali saw (this act of `Uthman), he assumed Ihram for Hajj and `Umra together saying, “Lubbaik for `Umra and Hajj,” and said, “I will not leave the tradition of the Prophet (ﷺ) on the saying of somebody.”

Reference: Saheeh Bukhari: 1563 ,Book 25, Hadith 49/ Vol. 2, Book 26, Hadith 634

And: 

Narrated Sa`id bin Al-Musaiyab:

`Ali and `Uthman differed regarding Hajj-at-Tamattu` while they were at 'Usfan (a familiar place near Mecca). `Ali said, "I see you want to forbid people to do a thing that the Prophet (ﷺ) did?" When `Ali saw that, he assumed Ihram for both Hajj and `Umra.

[Saheeh Bukhari: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/25/55]

 

As for being consulted, despite his efforts to guide and give his verdicts, when he saw corruption, many times the caliphs threw his advice back onto his face. This is all evidenced for anyone to read:

 

If `Ali had spoken anything bad about `Uthman then he would have mentioned the day when some persons came to him and complained about the Zakat officials of `Uthman. `Ali then said to me, “Go to `Uthman and say to him, ‘This document contains the regulations of spending the Sadaqa of Allah’s Apostle so order your Zakat officials to act accordingly.” I took the document to `Uthman. `Uthman said, “Take it away, for we are not in need of it.” I returned to `Ali with it and informed him of that. He said, “Put it whence you took it.”

Reference: Saheeh-Bukhari 3111,  Book 57, Hadith 20 / Vol. 4, Book 53, Hadith 343 ENG

 

Picture for a moment  Ali ibn Abi Talib hearing about the corruption of Uthmans tax officials, and drafting a document based on the Sunnah for Uthman to act properly. Rather than Uthman reading the document, keeping it as a reminder and guidance, he tells the man to go way for he is not in need of the advice of Ali [as]

 

Shurah

As for being part of the Shurah, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] could have refrained from it, but then people would have interpreted it as him never wanting to be the caliph and not showing any interest - a position put forward by Sunnis anyway. If he goes ahead and takes part, where he can assert his right, people will say he agreed to be confined by the boundaries set by Umar. He can't win in any case.

However, there is something very revealing about this 'Shurah':

"So I called them for him and he consulted them and then called me saying, 'Call `Ali for me." I called `Ali and he held a private talk with him till very late at night, and then 'Ali, got up to leave having had much hope (to be chosen as a Caliph) but `Abdur-Rahman was afraid of something concerning `Ali. "

Source: Saheeh Bukhari : https://sunnah.com/bukhari/93/67]

How interesting, Abd ar-Rahman bin Awf, a man who decided to be the arbiter and the consulter in this Shurah, looked at each individual to determine who ought to be Caliph. Yet, after talking to Ali ibn abi Talib into the dead of the night, he himself is afraid of something Ali said. What could is possibly be? Furthermore, Ali ibn Abi Talib is shown here as someone eager to become the Caliph, perhaps feeling he made a compelling case, again refuting the idea he never wanted to become one. It is clear here there was a clear desire to be one.

Killers of his wife?

There is no consensus in Shia Islam as to how Fatima [as] died. Furthermore, there are no reliable historical sources which attest to that, rather there are only weak sources which all contradict each other. We do know however, the evidence for Umar threatening to burn down the house of Fatima [as] is strong. If he went ahead and did it, then no doubt Fatima [as] being the one calling out to them to leave by her honour as the daughter of the apostle, may have been indirectly hurt as they tried to break open the door. However, the idea Umar went inside the house, and not only in front of Ali [as], but also in front of grown men of the Banu Hashim, man-handled her, slapped her, and began to hit her, makes absolutely no sense. As i have said, historical sources all differ and contradict, and because we strongly do not revere Umar does not mean we take anything and everything negative. 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Goswami said:

3- It is a fact Shia books of Hadith were compiled way after Sunni books of Hadith were. Doesn't this fact technically make sunni books more authentic then shia books provided the fact that shia books were compiled later and concomitantly the probability of errors in their collection is higher ?

This is another lie. 

If we just look at this from a very basic perspective, our main book is al-Kafi, which has more unique and reliable traditions than all of the most authentic six Sunni compilations [Kutub as Sittah] combined.

These are:

1. Saheeh al-Bukhari [most reliable to them]

2. Saheeh Muslim [second most reliable, a minority argue most reliable]

3. Sunan an-Nasai' [accepted as third most reliable]

4. Sunan Abu Dawud

5. Jami' at-Tirmidhi

6. Sunan ibn Majah

 

Now, let us look at the birth/death dates of the respective compilers:

1. Bukhari was born:  194AH, and died 256AH

2. Muslim was born:  204AH and died 261AH

3. Nasai' was born 214AH and died 303AH

4.  Abu Dawood was born 202AH and died 274AH

5. Tirmidhi was born 209AH and died 279AH

6. ibn Majah born 209 AH, and died 273AH 

 

What about al-Kulayni, the author of al-Kafi? 

1. Muhammed ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni was born 250AH, and died 329AH. This means he was born not long after the major Sunni Imams, and had already started compiling al-Kafi while some of them may have still been alive and continuing to compile their own books. In fact, the compilation of al-Kafi, and the the work of Imam Nasai' are very close in completion date.  Al-Kafi differs only by 50 or so years at most from the time the other compilations were complete. Therefore it actually was compiled at pretty much a very similar time as the six main books of the Sunnis. 

What is more interesting is that we follow the Quran and the Ahlulbayt. Our traditions mainly go back to Imam Jaffer as-Sadiq, and Imam Muhammed al-Baqir [asws] who narrate through their forefathers from the Prophet [saw], and from them is a golden chain going back to the Prophet [saw], particularly given the knowledge had been passed down to them through the impeccable chain.  Therefore you find we often have shorter chains, with fewer individuals between us and an Imam [proof for us] than they do between them and the Prophet. 

Additionally, many of the companions of the Imams wrote traditions in note books, and there were several different men coming much earlier who began compiling traditions. 

Brother 'Cake' in his post here makes it clear:http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235023659-comparison-between-kulayni-and-bukharis-shaykhs/

"With regard to the comparision between Kulayni reporting from a smaller number of narrators than the number that Bukhari directly reported from, then this presumes that Kulayni was serving as the "primary" collector of these narrations in al-Kafi and the primary one to collect them together. We can categorise the Shia works of hadith into three "generations" of works. The first were the usul and similar works, which were either composed by the Imam's companion or his student or their like, with very short chains back to the Imam. The second were the compilations that gathered together a number of the usul. A famous example would be Nawadir al-Hikma by Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya. Some of these second generation works were organised properly - often by topic - and some were not. For example, the Nawadir of Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa and the Kitab al-Mashaykha were organised into chapters by Dawud bin Kura. The third were the works that absorbed and selected from various second generation works. Two very famous examples of these would be al-Kafi and Man La Yahduru al-Faqih. (The division of works and their authors into this three categories is rough, and not black-and-white; hence, for example, sometimes second generation authors report from second generation authors).

So, in some ways (and not all), Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya, Ahmad bin Muhammad bin `Isa, and others like them, are the ones who should be compared to Bukhari, not Kulayni; because although Kulayni exerted much effort in collecting, selecting, compiling and organising al-Kafi, he was relying on the second generation works that had already collected many of the primary works together. Kulayni would be better compared, in this specific context, to someone who collected some of the (Sunni) Five/Six Books together, or collected from them and included other narrations."

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

Salam alaikum,

For the first part, that wasn't the only reason, there's a narration which states that Rasullulah(sawas) told Imam Ali (as) to not fight them no matter how much grief they put on him and his family and told him to remain patient.

Imam Ali(as) didn't want to fight them because he did not want to divide the ummah, which is why he also didn't fight for the caliphate.

Imam Ali(as) refused to battle Aisha but her along with Talhah and Zubayr kept nagging him and he had no choice, that was the first fitnah where Muslims fought eachother.

For the second part, it is related to what I mentioned before; Imam Ali(as) didn't want to tear up the ummah. But he did tell them on numerous occasions about how Rasululah(sawas) would say about Imam Ali(as) being the first caliph and reminded them of the importance of his AhlulBayt(as)

For the third part; that's not a valid point to say that Sunni books are more authentic than Shia books. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

1. Imam Hussain (AS) went to talk to Yazeed LA, not to take his position or to battle him. If it was a battle then he would not have had women and children on the journey with him. When he was stopped in Karbala and told to turn back and not come to Yazeed is when the conflict officially started. The 3 caliphs never stopped Imam Ali (AS) if he ever wanted to meet them nor threatened war against him. It was against only Aisha who raises an army against him and even then he had gone to talk her out of the battle. Before that things were tensed but the Ummah was young and Imam Ali (AS) did not want to fight at all because there wasn't such bad tyranny. In Imam Hussain's (AS) time, Yazeed was in power and he drank and had many vices that reflected extremely bad upon the Ummah. 

2. Yes, THEY* came to him for advice. Imam Ali despite not being the caliph was still the leader of the muslims whether they acknowledged it or not. As a leader his job isn't to deprive wisdom and guidance. Regardless of his personal woes, he put the affairs of the state first and separate from his personal affairs. He would even switch over his oil lamp filled with oil of his earning when someone would visit him to discuss personal matters other than state related. 

True and good leaders don't kill off those that oppose them. Only tyrants act like that. Also the 3 caliphs aren't the only ones that knew that Imam Ali (AS) was the most learned out of all the companions. Everyone mostly understood this and many went Imam Ali (AS), despite supporting the caliphs, it's just how politics work. Because it hard to accept and imagine a person being good at everything. Abu Bakr might have known about theology very well (which is the most important), Umar was a soldier, Uthman was the richest (economically smart), each played a role that at the time was needed for the Ummah by the grace and will of God, Imam Ali did have it all, but tribal ties and interests were more important to community still which was newly learning how to manage without the Rasool PBUH. It is a fact that the political environments were shaped in order to satisfy the tribes. 

3. Our books maybe compiled later but most of our info directly can be seen relative to the Quran. Also early shias were oppressed and this is exactly why we know the books could have problems. We don't claim them to be perfect. And the main conflict with Sunnis and shias isn't that whose books are better* but more so that one side refuses to question and refuses to think their books might be tampered with while the other (shias) acknowledge the possibility of the books having conflicting infos. At least what we have we have tested them out. We weeded out the questionable hadeeses. We accept all of them to be sahih! 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Quote

Umar ibn Al Khattab narrates in Saheeh Al Bukhari the following:

 “And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr.”

Reference: Sahih Bukhari :Book 86 [Kitab Al Hudud] Chapter 31.

Now this is another problematic part. Why did the ansar gather at Saqifa first? Didn't they know Imam Ali (as) was divinely appointed Imam ? 

Beside this , you have made many good points like Imam Ali (as) not informing sheikhain of Hazrat Fatima's(sa) burial. He didn't give allegiance to them for six months which He (as) should have given if he had held sheikhain in high regard. Nevertheless , Sunnis adduce that initially there was an conflict between Sheikhain and Imam (as) but when the sheikhain ruled in their caliphate the conflict was resolved (means they ruled justly). To substantiate this , they give the following hadith : 

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: When (the dead body of) `Umar was put on his deathbed, the people gathered around him and invoked (Allah) and prayed for him before the body was taken away, and I was amongst them. Suddenly I felt somebody taking hold of my shoulder and found out that he was `Ali bin Abi Talib. `Ali invoked Allah's Mercy for `Umar and said, "O `Umar! You have not left behind you a person whose deeds I like to imitate and meet Allah with more than I like your deeds. By Allah! I always thought that Allah would keep you with your two companions, for very often I used to hear the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went (somewhere); I, Abu Bakr and `Umar entered (somewhere); and I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went out."'

: Sahih al-Bukhari 3685

So what the brother is suggesting that Sahaba being the fallible can have conflict among them but this Hadith shows that Imam Ali (as) was later pleased with the sheikhain . Rest of your answer is perfect brother. I am very grateful for your input. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, Goswami said:

Now this is another problematic part. Why did the ansar gather at Saqifa first? Didn't they know Imam Ali (as) was divinely appointed Imam ? 

Beside this , you have made many good points like Imam Ali (as) not informing sheikhain of Hazrat Fatima's(sa) burial. He didn't give allegiance to them for six months which He (as) should have given if he had held sheikhain in high regard. Nevertheless , Sunnis adduce that initially there was an conflict between Sheikhain and Imam (as) but when the sheikhain ruled in their caliphate the conflict was resolved (means they ruled justly). To substantiate this , they give the following hadith : 

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: When (the dead body of) `Umar was put on his deathbed, the people gathered around him and invoked (Allah) and prayed for him before the body was taken away, and I was amongst them. Suddenly I felt somebody taking hold of my shoulder and found out that he was `Ali bin Abi Talib. `Ali invoked Allah's Mercy for `Umar and said, "O `Umar! You have not left behind you a person whose deeds I like to imitate and meet Allah with more than I like your deeds. By Allah! I always thought that Allah would keep you with your two companions, for very often I used to hear the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went (somewhere); I, Abu Bakr and `Umar entered (somewhere); and I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went out."'

: Sahih al-Bukhari 3685

So what the brother is suggesting that Sahaba being the fallible can have conflict among them but this Hadith shows that Imam Ali (as) was later pleased with the sheikhain . Rest of your answer is perfect brother. I am very grateful for your input. 

Imam Ali(as) never pleased with the sheikhain if he did that he would be third caliph Imam Ali didn't  accept tradition of Sheikhain but Uthman accepted that thus became thir caliph 

the hadith enlightend  what nowadays Shia muslims says that every ruler must appoint someone after him to people not astray but after death of prophet(pbu) because of eagerness to power they neglected Prophet (pbu) advises about Imam Ali (as). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 14/01/2018 at 6:18 PM, Goswami said:

Now this is another problematic part. Why did the ansar gather at Saqifa first? Didn't they know Imam Ali (as) was divinely appointed Imam ? 

 

This is a great question, and one which i feel has been addressed quite well in the Shia Book : https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy  under the 'Saqifah' section.

Here's a summary:

1. One must ask why the Ansaar event went to Saqifah in the first place? The reality is, the Ansaar had heard of plots by some members of the Muhajireen to take power. They knew that if this occurred, they would be maligned and sidelined. They were aware of the position of Ali ibn Abi Talib, but recognised some key companions out of want for power and authority, were going against the Prophet [saw]. In my view , what they did was not right, but to some of them, it was damage limitation.

We read in Saheeh al-Bukhari: "“And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `

What does that mean? It is clear: The Ansaar had heard of plans of some members of the Muhajirs to obtain power. They opposed that, and sought to preempt such a measure and select one from their own.

 

We read in the Tarikh of Imam Tabari:

Abu Bakr had stood up to debate with the Ansaar, and told them about the qualities of Umar and Abu Ubaidah, and that they should choose one of them. in response, they replied while they knew about Umar and Abu Ubaidah, there was one among them [i.e Muhajir] if that man were to seek Authority and rise up, no-one would dispute it. 

” We do not deny the merits of those you have mentioned. Indeed there is among you a person with whom if he seeks authority, none will dispute [i.e. Ali]‘”.

Reference: [1] Tarikh, by al Yaqubi, Volume 2 page 113-114, quoted from History of Tabari, Volume 9 English translation.

This is very revealing. At Saqifah, you had Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubaidah. The Ansaar at first rejected all three according to reliable Sunni reports and quarried. Yet here we find a mention whereby the Ansaar claim there is someone among the Muhajireen , whom if he wanted to be Caliph, no-one would dispute it. This means they recognise there is only one true claimant of it.  However they know that man is not going to be in power, for key notable and powerful men among the Muhajiroon have sought power for themselves, and they - the Ansaar, do not want to be sidelined, which was part of the reason they went into Saqifah in the first place, to pre-empt the plan of the notable members of the Muhajiroon.

In fact, in another report in Tarikh of Tabari, you find echoes of this:

[Tarikh -At Tabari[: Ibn Humayd-Jarir – Abu Ma’shar Ziyad b. Mughzrahl-Kulayb-Abu Ayyub-Ibrahim- “The Ansar gathered in a roofed building (saqifah) of the Banu Sa’idah to render their oath of allegiance to Sa’d b. Ubadah. This news reached Abu Bakr, so he came to them with’Umar and Abu’Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah, asking [them] why [they had gathered]. They replied, “Let us have a ruler (amir) from us and another from you.” Abu Bakr said, “The rulers will be from us, and the viziers from you.” Abu Bakr then added, “I am pleased [to offer] you one of these two men: ‘Umar or Abu ‘Ubaydah. Some people came to the Prophet asking him to send a trustworthy man with them. The Messenger of God said that he would send a truly trustworthy man with them, and he sent Abu ‘Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah. I am pleased [to offer] you Abu ‘Ubaydah.” ‘Umar stood up saying, “Who among you would be agreeable to leave Abu Bakr whom the Prophet gave precedence? and he gave him the oath of allegiance. The people followed [‘Umar]. The Ansar said, or some of them said, “We will not give the oath of allegiance [to anyone] except ‘Ali.”

You'll find some people claiming both reports have weak narrators in the chain, however it is ridiculous to judge history from a pure Rijal perspective, we've got to look at this all holistically, particularly when we have two independent reports like this. 

 

" The Ansar knew that caliphate was Ali's right but they also knew about the “resolution” of the “Arabs” to keep caliphate out of the house of the Prophet. Their interpretation of this “resolution” was that the Muhajireen would not let Ali reach the throne of caliphate.

But if not Ali, then who else would be Muhammad's successor? The only obvious answer to this question was: some other Muhajir. But any Muhajir other than Ali was not acceptable to them – to the Ansar. They, therefore, decided to put forward their own candidate for the leadership of the umma. After all it was their support, they argued, and not the support of the Muhajireen, that had made Islam viable.

The anxiety of the Ansar is perfectly understandable. To them, the prospect of the government of Medina falling into the hands of the Umayyads, the traditional enemies of God and His Messenger, who had now become Muslim, was extremely frightful. They (the Ansar) had killed many of them in the battles of Islam. 

If the government of Medina which was consolidated with their (the Ansars') support, was ever captured by the children of those pagans whom they (the Ansar) had killed, how would they treat them (the Ansar), was the unspoken question in the heart of every Ansari. Events proved that their fears were not generated by any hallucination."

From: : https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy  under the 'Saqifah' section.

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 1/14/2018 at 1:18 PM, Goswami said:

Nevertheless , Sunnis adduce that initially there was an conflict between Sheikhain and Imam (as) but when the sheikhain ruled in their caliphate the conflict was resolved (means they ruled justly). To substantiate this , they give the following hadith : 

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: When (the dead body of) `Umar was put on his deathbed, the people gathered around him and invoked (Allah) and prayed for him before the body was taken away, and I was amongst them. Suddenly I felt somebody taking hold of my shoulder and found out that he was `Ali bin Abi Talib. `Ali invoked Allah's Mercy for `Umar and said, "O `Umar! You have not left behind you a person whose deeds I like to imitate and meet Allah with more than I like your deeds. By Allah! I always thought that Allah would keep you with your two companions, for very often I used to hear the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went (somewhere); I, Abu Bakr and `Umar entered (somewhere); and I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went out."'

: Sahih al-Bukhari 3685

So what the brother is suggesting that Sahaba being the fallible can have conflict among them but this Hadith shows that Imam Ali (as) was later pleased with the sheikhain . Rest of your answer is perfect brother. I am very grateful for your input. 

Sunnis adduce this based on idealism, not realism. They recognise there are acts and facts of history that they have to water down to conform to their narrative.

To begin with, this tradition is fabricated, and it is not fair for a Sunni or Shia to bring their own traditions because they have absolutely no wait to the other party unless they can both agree on them. So this itself proves nothing at all.

Now, for the point out the Sahaba disagreeing, i have to ask out dear Sunni brother one question:

1. Do you believe Ali ibn Abi Talib knew full well Abu Bakr was superior to him?

2. Do you believe it was widely known that Abu Bakr was the greatest of men after the Prophet [saw] based on alleged authentic Hadiths in Sunni works?

3. Do you believed while the companions disagreed, they loved and respected each other?

If you have said yes to all three points, kindly do explain the following:

1. If Ali ibn Abi Talib believed Abu Bakr was superior to him why would he oppose him [according to Bukhari] for many months until the death of Fatima [as]? If he was upset at not being consulted, would he have chosen anyone other than Abu Bakr if he were consulted? Did the outcome not become what he himself would have so desperately prayed for and wished?

2. If Ali ibn bi Talib loved Abu Bakr, do people who love one another oppose each other for months on end on a serious and grave matter? Was Abu Bakr not presiding over an infant Ummah who were now seeing tribes apostate left, right and centre? Did Ali think it was wise to oppose his best friend, his superior, and his beloved companion at a time the Ummah was already unstable by all the apostates , let alone enemies such as the Romans and Persians looking from outside at any opportune moment to strike? 

3. Surely, if the Sunni narrative were correct, should Ali have not gone and given his allegiance right away?  Even if we take the weak argument he only wanted to be consulted, surely he would have sat down with Abu Bakr and Umar, and asked them to explain why they went on their own ? Surely after hearing their alleged fear of division in the Ummah at having two leaders, or a leader from the Ansaar, he , like every Sunni today, would have appreciated why they went to Saqifah?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 1/16/2018 at 12:33 AM, Intellectual Resistance said:

We read in Saheeh al-Bukhari: "“And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `

What does that mean? It is clear: The Ansaar had heard of plans of some members of the Muhajirs to obtain power. They opposed that, and sought to preempt such a measure and select one from their own.

:bismillah:

Where does it say "Ansar heard of plans"? It is just an speculation from your part (also report you quoted from tabari says no such thing) . When the Prophet (saw) died the Ansar gathered to appoint Saad bin Ubada (ra) as the leader then the news of their gathering reached the Muhajireen who went to the scene. However, the Ansar eventually agreed on the leadership of Abubakr (ra).

 

Quote

We read in the Tarikh of Imam Tabari:

Abu Bakr had stood up to debate with the Ansaar, and told them about the qualities of Umar and Abu Ubaidah, and that they should choose one of them. in response, they replied while they knew about Umar and Abu Ubaidah, there was one among them [i.e Muhajir] if that man were to seek Authority and rise up, no-one would dispute it.

 

[Tarikh -At Tabari[: Ibn Humayd-Jarir – Abu Ma’shar Ziyad b. Mughzrahl-Kulayb-Abu Ayyub-Ibrahim- “The Ansar gathered in a roofed building (saqifah) of the Banu Sa’idah to render their oath of allegiance to Sa’d b. Ubadah. This news reached Abu Bakr, so he came to them with’Umar and Abu’Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah, asking [them] why [they had gathered]. They replied, “Let us have a ruler (amir) from us and another from you.” Abu Bakr said, “The rulers will be from us, and the viziers from you.” Abu Bakr then added, “I am pleased [to offer] you one of these two men: ‘Umar or Abu ‘Ubaydah. Some people came to the Prophet asking him to send a trustworthy man with them. The Messenger of God said that he would send a truly trustworthy man with them, and he sent Abu ‘Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah. I am pleased [to offer] you Abu ‘Ubaydah.” ‘Umar stood up saying, “Who among you would be agreeable to leave Abu Bakr whom the Prophet gave precedence? and he gave him the oath of allegiance. The people followed [‘Umar]. The Ansar said, or some of them said, “We will not give the oath of allegiance [to anyone] except ‘Ali.”

You'll find some people claiming both reports have weak narrators in the chain, however it is ridiculous to judge history from a pure Rijal perspective, we've got to look at this all holistically, particularly when we have two independent reports like this. 

 

Yes, both reports quoted from Tabari are terribly weak and unreliable thus can not be used as an evidence especially when they contradict with established historical facts. Ali (ra) was not mentioned at all in Saqifa. Notice even in this weak report there is no mention of so called Ghadir appointment.

 

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 1/14/2018 at 6:18 PM, Goswami said:

Now this is another problematic part. Why did the ansar gather at Saqifa first? Didn't they know Imam Ali (as) was divinely appointed Imam ? 

:bismillah:

Exactly! It further proves there was no appointment of a successor at Ghadir. 

 

On 1/14/2018 at 6:18 PM, Goswami said:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: When (the dead body of) `Umar was put on his deathbed, the people gathered around him and invoked (Allah) and prayed for him before the body was taken away, and I was amongst them. Suddenly I felt somebody taking hold of my shoulder and found out that he was `Ali bin Abi Talib. `Ali invoked Allah's Mercy for `Umar and said, "O `Umar! You have not left behind you a person whose deeds I like to imitate and meet Allah with more than I like your deeds. By Allah! I always thought that Allah would keep you with your two companions, for very often I used to hear the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went (somewhere); I, Abu Bakr and `Umar entered (somewhere); and I, Abu Bakr and `Umar went out."'

: Sahih al-Bukhari 3685

So what the brother is suggesting that Sahaba being the fallible can have conflict among them but this Hadith shows that Imam Ali (as) was later pleased with the sheikhain . Rest of your answer is perfect brother. I am very grateful for your input. 

This is a powerful narration. Thanks for sharing.

The issue with Shia thinking is they see every disagreement or dispute between Sahaba as some kind of permanent war and hatred.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Unregistered
58 minutes ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

:bismillah:

Exactly! It further proves there was no appointment of a successor at Ghadir. 

 

This is a powerful narration. Thanks for sharing.

The issue with Shia thinking is they see every disagreement or dispute between Sahaba as some kind of permanent war and hatred.

https://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm

Quote

"As for Lordship in Divine Legislation, we know that from the Islamic perspective and in accordance with the teachings which the Holy Our’ an presents, the origin of deviation in belief and action is Iblis which is the same being who had been created before Hazrat Adam (AS) and had been engaged in worshipping Allah for many years. Amirul-Mu’mineen (The commander of the faithful) Al- Imam ‘Ali (AS) says in "Nahjul- Balaghah":

“Iblis worshipped Allah for six thousand years, while we do not know whether it was the years of this world or of the years of the hereafter6

Iblis worshipped Allah for six thousand years and yet it is not known whether these years have been of the years of this world each year of which is 365 days or of the years of the other world each day of which is one thousand years. Anyhow, for a very long period of time which is not quite imaginable for us, Iblis had existed and had been worshipping Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى, so that the angels had though that Iblis was of the angels and had given it a place in their own ranks. But Iblis had a two-sided nature (namely, like man, it had free will) and had to be tested so that the level of its At-Tawhid and knowledge of Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى would emerge and it would become clear whether he had the necessary level of At-Tawhid or not.

The test of Iblis was realized through Hazrat Adam (AS), in the way that after the creation of Hazrat Adam (AS), Iblis was commanded (By Allah) to perform sajdah (prostration) to Adam (AS). But Iblis disobeyed this Divine command and because of this disobedience, it was driven away from the nearness to Allah and became the head of the inmates of hell and the rest of the inmates of hell will go to hell for following Iblis.

But why the one who has worshipped Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى in His Oneness is driven away from His nearness for one opposition and one sin and reaches such a level of wretchedness which is unthinkable for us? What is the secret behind the fact that so much worship is ignored and Iblis falls so low because of just one sin?

The analysis which on the basis of Islamic outlook can be made on this matter is that the sin of Iblis stemmed from defect in its At-Tawhid, manifested itself in the form of a practical disobedience (to Allah) and caused its fall. Because in reality Iblis did not believe in whatever Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى commands, His creatures should accept His command unquestionably, Iblis said;

..أَنَا خَيْرٌ مِنْهُ خَلَقْتَنِي مِنْ نَارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُ مِنْ طِينٍ

“…I am better than he; You have created me out of fire, while him did you create out of dust (7:12).”

What is this command You are giving me, how should I prostrate to Adam while I am better than him? These words in fact arose from Iblis spirit of disbelief and unfaithfulness and were demonstrative of his inner and hidden kufr. The Holy Qur’an says:

..وَكَانَ مِنَ الْكَافِرِينَ

“…And he was one of the disbelievers (2:34)”

Such disbelief existed in Iblis before, but it had not yet emerged and turned into the stage of action. Iblis did not have belief up to the required level of At-Tawhid and did not believe that the right to command order and inhabit unquestionably belongs exclusively to Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى and whatever He commands has to be fulfilled: otherwise, Iblis believed in the One God and he also talked to Allah.

..خَلَقْتَنِي مِنْ نَارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُ مِنْ طِينٍ

“…You have created me out of fire, while him did you create out of dust (7:12).”

Iblis even believed in Allah’s Lordship in creation and in the Resurrection Day.

..أَنْظِرْنِي إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ يُبْعَثُونَ

“…Respite me until the day when they are raised up (7:14)”.

So, Iblis had neither any defect in the principle of belief in Allah’s being the Creator, or in belief in Allah’s Lordship in creation and nor in belief in ma’ad. But still he falls so much! Why? Because he does not believe in Allah’s Lordship in Law-giving (Divine legislation) and docs not regard Allah’s command to be obeyed unquestionably, unless Allah’s command would be consistent with (Ibis’s) own thought and desire." 2

*****

few minor disagreements and disputes..

Saqifa - 

Fadak-

Battle of Jamal

Battle of Siffin

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

Exactly! It further proves there was no appointment of a successor at Ghadir. 

Sorry Brother but sunni version of Ghadir doesn't make sense to me. Why was umer congratulating Imam Ali (as) ? This does indicate that Prophet (saw) announced Imam Ali (as) as his successor else there was no point for umar in congratulating him. Furthermore , if we go by sunni version then it proves that sahaba were hypocrites and they were not the people one can wish to emulate. Qur'an has instructed its followers on numerous places that how a believer should be in conduction and Prophet (saw) during his entire life has taught the same thing by setting his character as an example even then we see that prophet (saw) had to remind sahaba that imam Ali (as) was their friend (as per sunni version) . Beside this , Prophet (saw) had always called Imam Ali (as) as his brother then why he would demote Ali(as) to his friend on Ghadeer? This doesn't make sense. Also according to Ibn Taymiyah majority of Sahaba and Tabieen used to hate Imam Ali (as) , this shatters sunni notion of friendly relations between Ahlul Bait (as) and Sahaba. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

:bismillah:

Where does it say "Ansar heard of plans"? It is just an speculation from your part (also report you quoted from tabari says no such thing) . When the Prophet (saw) died the Ansar gathered to appoint Saad bin Ubada (ra) as the leader then the news of their gathering reached the Muhajireen who went to the scene. However, the Ansar eventually agreed on the leadership of Abubakr (ra).

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

The really is, the Ansaar were well aware that there were some from the Muhajiroon who undoubtedly felt power and authority belonged to them. Any fair reading of their behaviour will show that it was rather clear they wished to quickly and covertly obtain power and rule, before anyone else had the chance to interfere. For one, they hurried to Saqifah, they began to try to choose a leader among themselves, and they tried to close the matter quickly. Would they have acted in that way had they not suspected that the Muhajiroon may have imminently sought to malign them from power and have plans of their own to procure rule and authority? Such behaviour is a clear indicator that they were well aware the Muhajiroon - or key members from them- wanted rule and power. 

Umar ibn Al Khattab narrates the event as chaotic and a catastrophe the Ummah in his eyes, had been saved from. In Saheeh-Al-Bukhari: https://whoaretheshia.com/2017/10/31/aftermath-viii-pb/

“And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr, ‘Let’s go to these Ansari brothers of ours.’ So we set out seeking them, and when we approached them, two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final decision of the Ansar, and said, ‘O group of Muhajirin (emigrants) ! Where are you going?’ We replied, ‘We are going to these Ansari brothers of ours.’ They said to us, ‘You shouldn’t go near them. Carry out whatever we have already decided.‘ I said, ‘By Allah, we will go to them.’ And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of Bani Sa`da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped in something. I asked, ‘Who is that man?’ They said, ‘He is Sa`d bin ‘Ubada.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with him?’ They said, ‘He is sick.’ After we sat for a while, the Ansar’s speaker said, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and praising Allah as He deserved, he added, ‘To proceed, we are Allah’s Ansar (helpers) and the majority of the Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and some people among you came with the intention of preventing us from practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.’

Umar ibn al-Khattab makes a rather revealing point: After the death of the Prophet [saw] he and a few others were informed that the Ansaar had disagreed with them [about something] , and had gathered among themselves. Ali ibn Abi Talib, Zubayr, and a number of others had opposed Abu Bakr and Umar. Was this based on them knowing about plans among the Muhajiroon for selecting those among themselves as leaders, or was it going to Saqifah? I believe both are valid and not mutually exclusive.  Furthermore, as soon as Abu Bakr and Umar arrived, the Ansaar quickly make the accusation that the sole intention they had arrived was to prevent them from coming into power and depriving them of it, which clearly demonstrates the Ansaar suspected or had heard that the Muhajiroon - or some among them- wished to procure power among themselves and to exclude the Ansaar from it. This is very clear.

8 hours ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

However, the Ansar eventually agreed on the leadership of Abubakr (ra).

When one reads what occurred in Saqifah, as narrated by Umar ibn al-Khattab, to the objective reader, it was nothing more or less than a chaotic struggle for power.  From Saheeh al-Bukhari:

“..And then one of the Ansar said, ‘I am the pillar on which the camel with a skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e., I am a noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There should be one ruler from us and one from you.’ Then there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose so that I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, ‘O Abu Bakr! Hold your hand out.’ He held his hand out and I pledged allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became victorious over Sa`d bin Ubada (whom Al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler).”

1. As soon as Abu Bakr and Umar arrive in Saqifah, there is no understanding among the Ansaar about the superiority of Abu Bakr, or Umar, or the fact he is the one the Prophet [saw] would have wanted to be leader. Rather, they have somehow decided to strongly and silently choose among themselves, quickly, and have the matter closed before anyone can do anything about it.

2. Even after Abu Bakr gives a speech whereby he extols their merits, explains why they can not be leaders, and asks them to choose between Umar and Abu Ubaidah, they totally ignore Abu Bakrs words, and one of them stands up and proposes there ought to be a ruler from either of the two. Furthermore, an enormous quarrel and argument sparks, and the scenes become chaotic, and Umar ibn al-Khattab in a sort of reflex reaction suddenly asks Abu Bakr to hold his hand out so he can give him the oath of allegiance. Now what is a mystery is how you can go from people quarrelling, fighting, vehemently opposing, to giving allegiance? 

Rather between Umar ibn al-Khattab asking Abu Bakr to hold his hands out, and key members of the Ansaar agreeing to it, some key things had to have happened for them to have suddenly shift their position totally. 

I say that there were a lot of potential causes but i will touch on one key one:

1. Old-age enmity rising from the Aws and Khazraj tribes among the Ansaar, which may have emerged and resurfaced amid the power struggle for one reason or another.

This is an interesting theory, and the historian Sir John Glubb , neither Sunni nor Shia, but trying to look at this objectively from the outside, suggests that the one who had informed Abu Bakr and Umar about what the Ansaar were going were likely to have been from the Aws tribe, as it is known Sa'd ibn Ubada was from the Khazraj tribe. It would make little sense for a fellow Khazraji to expose themselves, when the imminent leader would have been from their own.

The following is from: https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/critique-saqifa

"But the Ansar were outmaneuvered by the Muhajireen. The Ansar did not have an intelligence system working for them but the Muhajireen had. The man who informed Abu Bakr and Umar what the Ansar were doing, was himself an Aussite of Medina. As already pointed out, he squealed on the Khazraj. Actually this spy met Umar and informed him about the assembly of the Ansar in Saqifa. Abu Bakr was in the chamber of the Prophet. Umar called him out. He came out and both of them sped toward Saqifa. They also took Abu Obaida with them. They formed the “troika” of king-makers. The Ansar in Saqifa were not conspiring against Abu Bakr or Umar or against anyone else. They were debating a matter that affected Islam and all Muslims. The arrival of the “troika” in their assembly, surprised the Khazraj but pleased the Aussites. The latter now hoped to foil their rivals – the Khazraj – with the help of the “troika.”

It makes perfect sense. The Ansaar if they had unity, were far too great in number than the small group among the Muhajiroon. If they had unity and resolve, there was nothing Abu Bakr or Umar could have done to have broken their decision.  Rather, like in all political realities, this too was multidimensional. Not only did you have the Ansaar who had known of plans of the Muhajiroon to exclude them for power and select one from their own, they had now realised that it was better for them to pre-empt this as i have proven earlier. However, it wasn't so simple; the Ansaar were well known to have been divided into two major groups, the Aws and Khazraj who for much of their history had been bitter enemies who constantly warred on each other. While the presence of the Prophet [saw] did some good in helping them have unity, unfortunately, his death resurfaced enmity which may have always remained there to some extent, especially when power, rule and authority were now on the cards.

For a group as powerful and large as the Ansaar to have suddenly given up on S'ad ibn Ubada, the only logical way i see that happening is if the Ansaar among themselves began to implode and divide, and the clearest cause of this division were the obvious tribal rivalries they had.

Once again from: https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/critique-saqifa

"The Aus and the Khazraj were jealous and suspicious of each other. They were, therefore, open to exploitation by their opponents. And since their leaders were aware of this weakness in their ranks, they were on the defensive in Saqifa. And when one of their leaders said to the Muhajireen: “We shall choose two leaders – one from us and one from you,” it became obvious that he was speaking from a position of weakness, not strength. Merely by suggesting joint rule, the Ansar had betrayed their own vulnerability to their opponents."

 

 

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

 

Yes, both reports quoted from Tabari are terribly weak and unreliable thus can not be used as an evidence especially when they contradict with established historical facts. Ali (ra) was not mentioned at all in Saqifa. Notice even in this weak report there is no mention of so called Ghadir appointment.

 

What is your username on TSN? I'm well aware Hani has spread the gradings and i have admitted both are weak by chain. However your claim that they contradict established historical facts is false. Claiming Ali ibn Abi Talib was not mentioned at Saqifah is an opinion, and there was no need for the Ghadir appointment to be mentioned.

Let me adress this:

My use of this two historical reports comes after i have concluded based on background history, what we know to have genuinely occurred, and logic. We know the Ansaar were well aware that some among the Muhajiroon wanted power for themselves, and that the Ansaar would be maligned and kept out of it. I have demonstrated this in my last post. We also know from many historical sources we both consider reliable the Ansaar often expressed insecurity. One example is asking whether the Prophet [saw] would return to Makkah. Another questioning how he divided the booty. They had always been worried that despite their significant contributions, greater number, and sacrifices, they may be maligned. Therefore it is not implausible to suggest that the Ansaar generally may well have gone for Ali ibn Abi Talib, however, knowing that key members of the Muhajiroon had ignored the Prophets [saw] command , they realised that it was now a power struggle and damage limitation and so they took it on themselves to put their own interests forward - the way some members of the Muhajiroon were putting theirs forward. This led them to preemptively go into Saqifah, try to select a leader from themselves quickly, before the Muhajiroon could have a chance to react. 

Coincidentally, we someone find two independent reports which seem to corroborate what we already have established by basic reason and facts we already know. Somehow, two independent sources exist whereby the Ansaar clearly state:

1. There is one among the Muhajiroon which if that man wished to claim caliphate, no-one would oppose [this could only have been Ali [as] as Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaidah were present at Saqifah whilst the Ansaar were opposing them and arguing with them.

2.  Another independent historical report is clear whereby it states that there was a contingent who resisted by stating they would not give their allegiance to anyone but Ali ibn Abi Talib. 

You don't need to see an explicit mention of 'Ghadir Khumm'. The suggestion that these reports clearly denote that a large contingent had preferences for Ali ibn Abi Talib to the extent they were clear in wishing to select him, means they believed he was the rightful one to lead and by definition, clearly means they understood Ghadir Khumm to be designation.

We didn't need these reports to make what is a strong theory. However the fact we have two independent reports which coincidentally corroborate that theory cannot be dismissed easily.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

 

The issue with Shia thinking is they see every disagreement or dispute between Sahaba as some kind of permanent war and hatred.

Not really brother. Rather we view things with realism, and not idealism. We don't go so far into the other direction and say:

1. M'uawiyah did not give allegiance to Ali , fought him in a civil war right after Ali had another one, and then forced his son into a peace treaty, before appointing his son Yazid as Caliph forcefully, and this wicked man happened to slaughter the son of Ali. In the time of M'uawiyah his governors would curse Ali ibn Abi Talib, however, they all love each other, it was just a small disagreement they had which caused major war, major bloodshed, and fitnah that lasted decades. Allah will give Ali two 'karma' and M'uawiyah one 'karama' for striving to exercise his Ijtihad. 

With respect brother, that is pure idealism.

2. Ali loved Abu Bakr and Umar, and saw them as his superiors and rightful successors of the Prophet, most suited to lead after him. However he decided to oppose them for many months, during a time when tribes were apostatising and chaos was engulfing the Ummah, because he was upset he wasn't consulted. He didn't go and sit down with them and talk his disagreement through, he didn't think that he would have chosen and selected Abu Bakr anyway, but he went on and opposed them. 

There are many more examples i can give to you , but anyone who is willing to for one moment park aside ideological dogmatic beliefs that everything was fine between the companions, and allow their minds to look at the scenario objectively without any preconceived biases, will come to a far more reasoned conclusion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Goswami said:

Sorry Brother but sunni version of Ghadir doesn't make sense to me. Why was umer congratulating Imam Ali (as) ? This does indicate that Prophet (saw) announced Imam Ali (as) as his successor else there was no point for umar in congratulating him. Furthermore , if we go by sunni version then it proves that sahaba were hypocrites and they were not the people one can wish to emulate. Qur'an has instructed its followers on numerous places that how a believer should be in conduction and Prophet (saw) during his entire life has taught the same thing by setting his character as an example even then we see that prophet (saw) had to remind sahaba that imam Ali (as) was their friend (as per sunni version) . Beside this , Prophet (saw) had always called Imam Ali (as) as his brother then why he would demote Ali(as) to his friend on Ghadeer? This doesn't make sense. Also according to Ibn Taymiyah majority of Sahaba and Tabieen used to hate Imam Ali (as) , this shatters sunni notion of friendly relations between Ahlul Bait (as) and Sahaba. 

I'm going to reply to this so i pre-empt what our brother may say to you.

1. Our brother will rightly claim that the tradition is weak by some Sunni standards and so can not be used as proof for him and his group. This doesn't mater, we never required this one small and insignificant tradition to prove our claims.

2. He will also perhaps try to show you that Ghadir had nothing to do with appointment. Rather Ali ibn Abi Talib had a dispute a few weeks earlier on the way to Hajj, where he slept with a slave girl [we don't deny this may have happened] and upset a group among the small battalion of a few hundred by asking them to remove the armour they had worn from their victory. Therefore Muhammed [saw] took the opportunity a couple of weeks after to address the dispute at Ghadir Khum. He may tell you Mawla has almost two dozen meanings, and that the root meaning means 'closeness' and this was to demonstrate to those who had animosity towards Ali that whoever was beloved to the Prophet can't have a grudge against Ali. 

However, i highly recommend you to read this, where all of their main arguments have been deconstructed:  https://whoaretheshia.com/ghadeer-response/

Edited by Intellectual Resistance
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

https://whoaretheshia.com/ghadeer-response/

Edited just now by Intellectual Resistance

These links don't proof anything just repeats stereotypes of Salafis  now compare their logic with Shia muslims & real sunnis

Who are the Shia

Who are the shias?

Are the Shia muslims?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Goswami said:

 

I'll summarise for you Ghadir Khumm in a short post i feel is the strongest way to argue for our view with regards to its true interpretation. This is based on this rebuttal which is currently under progress [from what i've heard speaking to the WATS team]:  https://whoaretheshia.com/ghadeer-response/ 

1.  Would the Prophet [saw] who never left a city without leaving behind a governor, who was well aware of the rise of hypocrites, potential apostate tribes, and enemies from other nations , not recognise the importance of stability in his Ummah? By stability i mean the pertinent issue of addressing what was to become of leadership after him. We know that had the Ansaar successfully chosen a leader at Saqifah, it may have sparked civil war, for they may have fought the Muhajiroon and those who may have sided with them. This would have occurred at a time whereby the Byzantine and Persians were looking from the outside at a nascent Muslim community recently orphaned of its talisman and gravity: Muhammed [saw]. Would it not have made sense for him to have either chosen himself, like Abu Bakr did, or provided a criteria for people to choose, like Umar did ? Does it make any sense that he did not give consideration to this pertinent issue and left it wide open? 

2. There is good evidence for the claim some among the small battalion sent with Ali [as] to Yemen expressed some resent against him. We also agree when they began to reach Makkah voices began to rise. However, the Prophet [saw] was cognisant of this, and he observed this occurring and would not have ignored it.  Therefore before he continued and showed the people the rites of Hajj, he ensured he addressed the issue by rising up and sending out a call:

 It is written in the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq [earliest biography of the Prophet [saw] ever], as well as that of Ibn Hisham the following:

“The army showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali,the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed…”…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..”  

 

Therefore the Prophet [saw] ended it there and then. The article i linked at the beginning addresses counter claims and goes into this in more depth. However, anyone who respected the Prophet [saw] should immediately have recognised that Ali [as] was in the right, that he gave a clear command not to blame Ali. The Prophet [saw] felt his response was adequate, and everyone continued likewise onto Hajj. 

3. Everyone already knew Ali was beloved to the Prophet [saw]. Everyone knew of his rank, and his status.  This was a man made honorary 'brother' to the Prophet [saw] in both Makkah and Medina when the Prophet [saw] began to pair up the Muhajiroon and Ansaar. This was a man married to the daughter of the apostle, the greatest woman, Fatima [as], one of the leaders of the women of paradise. This was a man who killed and helped kill the most at the battle of Badr according to historians. This was a man who took on Amr at the battle of Khandaq, slaying a ferocious warrior. This was a man who the Prophet [saw] declared was the one who loved Allah and his Messenger, and Allah and his Messenger loved him, and after being given the flag, slaughtered Harith and Marhab, and took Khaybar, which would have been the talk of the town upon the return of the Muslims to Medina. This was a man only a year earlier was brought along with Fatima, Hassan and Hussain [asws] to represent the Muslims at the Mubahilah.  This was a man who was constantly praised by the Prophet [saw] numerously, to whom the Prophet [saw] famously declare that love for him was belief, hatred for him was hypocrisy.  Did anyone actually need to hear he was beloved to the Prophet [saw] ? They knew that already. The problem the small force of a few hundred [or a percentage among them] had with Ali [as] is whether or not the action he took was right or wrong. When the Prophet [saw] clarified that in no ambiguous terms before he continued to the Hajj almost two weeks prior to Ghadir Khumm, the matter should have ended there and then.

4. You will see attempts by some people to try to distort what the word 'Mawla' means. Yes, while it has a dozen or two dozen meanings, like many words in Arabic, the reality is that the Prophet [saw] said 'Whomsoevers Mawla i am'. This immediately discounts many of the meanings and leaves the only valid interpretations to mean 'Master/Patron/Leader or Ally /Friend'. 

In fact, Lisan al-Arab , the most famous and well respected Arabic dictionary states: "...Thus, the real meaning of this word (mawla) is to take charge of a matter and to carry it out."

Read the full analysis here: https://whoaretheshia.com/2017/10/31/declaration-vi-b/

Many other highly respected Sunni scholars in the field of Arabic and grammar have also suggested it means 'more worthy' as its real root meaning (I've cited the link which has all of this).

Therefore, when the Prophet [saw] says: 

ألَسْتُ أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم؟ قالوا بلى يارسول الله. قال: من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه [Am i not more worthy[AWLA] /have a greater right over the believers than they are over their own selves? They replied ‘Yes’ O Messenger of Allah. He said whomsoever i am his Mawla, Ali is his Mawla].

He has used the word 'Awla' which means more worthy/closer to , denoting the absolute authority the Prophet [saw] has and this is admitted by ibn Kathir in his Tafsir.  “Allah tells us how His Messenger is merciful and sincere towards his Ummah, and how he is closer to them than they are to themselves. His judgement or ruling takes precedence over their own choices for themselves”

When the Prophet [saw] then says, after having established his absolute authority over them using a word which denotes being more worthy and closer, he then states 'so whomsoever i am more worthy over [Mawla] , Ali is more over over [Mawla]. This would render the meaning of Malwa to mean 'master', considering the word 'Awla' used before denotes absolute authority, and Mawla being used after is therefore linked in meaning to it. 

Let me turn this on its head: If Master / taking charge of a matter is the main meaning of Mawla, why did the Prophet [saw] not explicitly use a word meaning beloved? There are many words in the Arabic language which mean beloved, close to, friend, but do not have important connotations such as leadership, authority, mastership and the like.

 

There are many more points i would like to make, but do read the article. It essentially goes through this all in a much more thorough and systematic way and is far more rigorous. 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

These links don't proof anything just repeats stereotypes of Salafis  now compare their logic with Shia muslims & real sunnis

 

The link is of a Shia website. Whoaretheshia.com is a Shia website, designed at examining the arguments of the Salafis/Sunnis and deconstructing them and providing a rational narrative that represents the Shia school of thought. The articles on there are pretty thorough and go into far more depth than the videos do, although the videos are also great brother. 

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

Abu al-Azhar – Abd al-Razzaq – Ma’mar – al-Zuhri – Ubaydallah b. Abdallah – Ibn Abbas رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا who said: The Prophet صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ glanced at Ali and said: O Ali, you are a leader in the world, and a leader in the hereafter. Your friend is my friend, and my friend is the friend of Allah. Your enemy is my enemy, and my enemy is the enemy of Allah. Woe be upon the one who hates you after me [Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn, al-Hakim grades it Sahih]

The chain has no defects. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 1/17/2018 at 3:59 PM, Goswami said:

Sorry Brother but sunni version of Ghadir doesn't make sense to me. Why was umer congratulating Imam Ali (as) ? This does indicate that Prophet (saw) announced Imam Ali (as) as his successor else there was no point for umar in congratulating him. Furthermore , if we go by sunni version then it proves that sahaba were hypocrites and they were not the people one can wish to emulate. Qur'an has instructed its followers on numerous places that how a believer should be in conduction and Prophet (saw) during his entire life has taught the same thing by setting his character as an example even then we see that prophet (saw) had to remind sahaba that imam Ali (as) was their friend (as per sunni version) . Beside this , Prophet (saw) had always called Imam Ali (as) as his brother then why he would demote Ali(as) to his friend on Ghadeer? This doesn't make sense. Also according to Ibn Taymiyah majority of Sahaba and Tabieen used to hate Imam Ali (as) , this shatters sunni notion of friendly relations between Ahlul Bait (as) and Sahaba. 

 

:salam:

The narrations mentioning congratulations are not reliable so the claim is not true. The following Sunni website has responded to this:

http://ghadirkhumm.com/congratulating-ali-at-ghadir-khumm/

You also see to have misconception about the issue of Ghadir as your questions show. Perhaps, if you read the context of Ghadir things will make sense to you,

http://ghadirkhumm.com/context-of-ghadir-khumm/

 

You have misunderstood the statement of Ibn Taymiyah - he didn't really mean it. Please see the context behind his statement. Remember, he was responding  to Shia scholar Ibn Mutahar al-Hili's ridiculous arguments .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...