Taqiyyah of Imam Ja'far AS to save Zurarah..

[Islami313]

Salams to all

To all my shi'i brothers.. i need help in this issue! This is what ive read/heard soo far..correct me if im wrong.. that its confirmed Zurarah was cursed a few times by Imam Ja'far, BUT it was to save him as narrated by his son. Do we have a better argument/explanation than this?

The words used by Imam Ja'far seems explicitly clear.. and sounds like something someone would say in anger. He lied upon me.. may Allah curse Zurarah etc.. this is the worst thing an Imam can say about a person.. It totally destroys a persons credibility! And im guessing the Imam said it openly.. thats how it reached Zurarah's own ears.

My question is this.. if this 'curse to Zurarah' IS confirmed. If for example.. i personally heard Imam Ja'far clearly and explicitly curse Zurarah and call him a liar in all seriousness, why would i believe what Zurarah's son narrated in his defence? Why would i believe in what anyone else says in his defence? Being a shi'i; i believe in the Imam and follow him. After hearing what the Imam said clearly and harshly,  am i to reject what i KNOW the Imam said and meant.. and instead believe in this supposed meeting where the Imam says he didnt mean it and it was to protect him.

Im sorry for going around in circles to paint this picture.. it just doesnt sit right soo far. Its like taking the ambiguous instead of what is clear. Leaving the open and known words for the secret and hidden ones.. This and a few other issues have put me in a lot of doubt. Please help me in clarifying how we accept and understand this.

[Sirius_Bright]

On 7/8/2018 at 12:53 PM, Islami313 said:

Salams to all

To all my shi'i brothers.. i need help in this issue! This is what ive read/heard soo far..correct me if im wrong.. that its confirmed Zurarah was cursed a few times by Imam Ja'far, BUT it was to save him as narrated by his son. Do we have a better argument/explanation than this?

Alaikas Salaam brother, 

[Islami313]

Salams.. and thank you for the reply sirius_bright. @Sirius_Bright

Ive read this article and i still have a few questions.. if not more from it. Why should we view all the negative statements of the Imam about Zurarah through this lens? why do we believe in his son's defence if the father was cursed? Is the narration authentic? Is that the ONLY narration defending him after the 'curse'? 

Does this narration not seem a bit too convenient..??? Could it not be fabricated for obvious reasons?? it deals with two major issues in one simple hit. It clears Zurarah AND explains away all the contradictions of the narrators.

Please help and clear these doubts.. 

[Sirius_Bright]

On 7/9/2018 at 7:21 AM, Islami313 said:

Salams.. and thank you for the reply sirius_bright. @Sirius_Bright

Ive read this article and i still have a few questions.. if not more from it. Why should we view all the negative statements of the Imam about Zurarah through this lens? why do we believe in his son's defence if the father was cursed? Is the narration authentic? Is that the ONLY narration defending him after the 'curse'? 

Does this narration not seem a bit too convenient..??? Could it not be fabricated for obvious reasons?? it deals with two major issues in one simple hit. It clears Zurarah AND explains away all the contradictions of the narrators.

Please help and clear these doubts.. 

Alaikas Salaam brother, 

I will not be the right person for your queries. The article was written by brother @Ibn al-Hussain, he might be able to answer your doubts.

[Islami313]

Thanks brother.. ill try msg him.

[Follower of Ahlulbayt]

On 7/9/2018 at 2:53 AM, Islami313 said:

Salams to all

To all my shi'i brothers.. i need help in this issue! This is what ive read/heard soo far..correct me if im wrong.. that its confirmed Zurarah was cursed a few times by Imam Ja'far, BUT it was to save him as narrated by his son. Do we have a better argument/explanation than this?

The words used by Imam Ja'far seems explicitly clear.. and sounds like something someone would say in anger. He lied upon me.. may Allah curse Zurarah etc.. this is the worst thing an Imam can say about a person.. It totally destroys a persons credibility! And im guessing the Imam said it openly.. thats how it reached Zurarah's own ears.

 My question is this.. if this 'curse to Zurarah' IS confirmed. If for example.. i personally heard Imam Ja'far clearly and explicitly curse Zurarah and call him a liar in all seriousness, why would i believe what Zurarah's son narrated in his defence? Why would i believe in what anyone else says in his defence? Being a shi'i; i believe in the Imam and follow him. After hearing what the Imam said clearly and harshly,  am i to reject what i KNOW the Imam said and meant.. and instead believe in this supposed meeting where the Imam says he didnt mean it and it was to protect him.

 Im sorry for going around in circles to paint this picture.. it just doesnt sit right soo far. Its like taking the ambiguous instead of what is clear. Leaving the open and known words for the secret and hidden ones.. This and a few other issues have put me in a lot of doubt. Please help me in clarifying how we accept and understand this.

We have explicit hadith from the Imams praising Zurarah, not coming from his sons. So now we have two things. Hadith cursing, and hadith praising. Is there anything that indicates reconciliation? Yes, from Zurara's son. It does not matter that Zurara's son narrates the praise, as we have already confirmed hadtih from other than sons of Zurara praising the Imam. Usually we would just conclude Taqiyyah but since we have explicit evidence, we know it was taqiyyah. 

[Islami313]

Salams and thank you for the reply @Follower of Ahlulbayt.. sorry but im just trying to make sense of this and cover all the loopholes. Is it not possible that Zurarah was praiseworthy but then later on became blameworthy?? Or that the narrrations praising him were fabricated to prop up his status since he narrated many hadith? Im sure you've read the salafi arguments.. some even say he rarely ever met Imam Ja'far AS. How do i reconcile this? Shouldnt it be well known amongst the ahlul sunnah of the time and even today that Zurarah is indeed a close companion of the Imams? 

[Follower of Ahlulbayt]

On 7/18/2018 at 7:30 AM, Islami313 said:

Salams and thank you for the reply @Follower of Ahlulbayt.. sorry but im just trying to make sense of this and cover all the loopholes. Is it not possible that Zurarah was praiseworthy but then later on became blameworthy?? Or that the narrrations praising him were fabricated to prop up his status since he narrated many hadith? Im sure you've read the salafi arguments.. some even say he rarely ever met Imam Ja'far AS. How do i reconcile this? Shouldnt it be well known amongst the ahlul sunnah of the time and even today that Zurarah is indeed a close companion of the Imams? 

Sunnis will try absolutely everything to prove our religion is false and theirs is right. Don't learn Shiism from them but learn it from our scholars. No is is not possible for Zurara to become blameworthy later on bc we have hadith from Imam as-Sadiq saying that he will be in Jannah. Also we have Imam al -Kathim praising Zurara after Zurara's death:

I talked to Abi al-Hasan the first (al-Kadhim) عليه السلام and mentioned to him Zurara and his act of sending his son Ubayd to Madina, so Abu al-Hasan عليه السلام said: I hope/wish Zurara to be among those about whom Allah has said: 'and whoever comes out of his home emigrating to Allah and his messenger - and death overtakes him (in such a state) - then he has already secured his reward from Allah'.

Source: Rijaal al-Kashi by al-Kashi, pg 155, H 255
Grading:

Shiekh Muhsin Amin: "Saheeh Sanad" (Ayan al-Shiah 7/53)

Abu Ghalib az-Zurari: "Saheeh" (Tareekh Aal Zurara, pg 57)

http://discovershiaislam.blogspot.com/2013/11/controversies-surrounding-zurarah-bin.html

It is not true to say that ahadith were fabricated praising Zurara because of the reason that the chains are Sahih. Also, we have over 4000 narrations from a narrator, Sahl b. Ziyad (this is btw double the number of narrations from Zurara). However, no one has fabricated narrations were he was praised by our Imams and our scholars have actually weakened Sahl. So in conclusion there is no way that Sunnis can argue that the hadith we have praising Zurara were fabricated because he narrated a lot.

Claiming the Imams never met Zurara is laughable. They argue this because Zurara was born in Kufa while the Imam was born in Medina. However, people use to travel. The Imam would often go to Kufa and Zurara would also definitely meet the Imam at places such as Hajj. 

Anyways brother this Zurara doubt which Sunnis often bring isn't really strong. This is because, from what I've heard, Zurara has narrated around 2,000 narrations (if we discount the weak chains to him and the repeats, the number is probably a lot less). Ayatullah al-Muhsini in his book of compiling reliable narrations, has collected around 11,500 reliable narrations. If we discount Zurara, we still have around 10,000 reliable narrations. So no big deal. 

[Islami313]

Salams and thank you for the reply @Follower of Ahlulbayt. I guess it is a simple issue of taqiyyah to save a life if there are praises of him from Imam Ja'far and Imam Musa AS. Can i ask you a more general question in regards to this..? Did the Imams AS really use taqiyyah this much?? I've read that post where it says the Imam intentionally divides his 'flock'.. answers to his own close companions differently.. to ensure there is no uniformity.. so nothing links back to the Imams etc.. on the other hand i hear Imam Ja'far taught openly to over 4000 students! What was he teaching to these masses? the shia way or...? 

[Follower of Ahlulbayt]

On 7/21/2018 at 11:22 PM, Islami313 said:

Salams and thank you for the reply @Follower of Ahlulbayt. I guess it is a simple issue of taqiyyah to save a life if there are praises of him from Imam Ja'far and Imam Musa AS. Can i ask you a more general question in regards to this..? Did the Imams AS really use taqiyyah this much?? I've read that post where it says the Imam intentionally divides his 'flock'.. answers to his own close companions differently.. to ensure there is no uniformity.. so nothing links back to the Imams etc.. on the other hand i hear Imam Ja'far taught openly to over 4000 students! What was he teaching to these masses? the shia way or...? 

This leads on to another topic which is Taqiyyah. Yes, the Aimmah used Taqiyyah. Why wouldn't they? All the aimmah were martyed/killed/poisoned. The rulers of their times were always trying to find excuses so that they could prosecute the imams. Now as for the aimmah using Taqiyyah amongst their own companions, then there are reasons and explanations for this. Some companions were stronger than others. Some companions would be more vocal to the public, and this would mean the aimmah would be very careful what information he gave to the companion as he did not want certain things to be known by the public otherwise the ruler would execute the imam. There are many more reasons and explanations. In general though, we are able to tell what truly the Imam said when not in Taqiyyah through a number of methods. For example if the aimmah narrates hundreds of ahadith to their companions saying one thing, and then we find a hadith to say the exact opposite it to one companion in another, we can conclude that one thing said to one companion would be Taqiyyah. Our scholars have investigated our narrations and amongst our maraji' today there are hardly any difference of opinion (yes there are few). This is not like the Sunnis who have trouble in even deciding where to place their hands during Prayer. Generally this is how we still the difference in narrations:

[2/-] The Treatise on the ‘Status of the Narrations of our Companions and Establishing their Authenticity’ authored by Sa’d b. Hibat Allah al-Rawandi: al-Saduq from his father from Sa’d b. Abdallah from Ayyub b. Nuh from Muhammad b. Abi Umayr from Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Abdillah who said: al-Sadiq عليه السلام said: if there comes to you two divergent Hadith then compare them with the book of Allah, then take the one which agrees with the book of Allah and reject the one that opposes the book of Allah, so if you do not find anything to do with them in the book of Allah then compare both to the reports of the Amma, so the one that agrees with their reports then leave it, and the one that opposes their reports then take it.       (https://sites.google.com/site/mujamalahadith/vol1/book-of-principles-of-jurisprudence/judging-conflict-between-narrations)

As for Imam as-Sadiq, then yes we say he was much more free compared to the rest of the Aimmah, and was thus able to narrate more hadith. Also he knew that the upcoming Imams after his son were going to be under enormous pressure by the rulers, so Imam as-sadiq would have also told his companions to write down narrations. But yes again he was careful in what he let out and to what people. I don't know where you got the number 4000 from or if it was open, but even if we accept it is not necessary that he was teaching controversial issues. He could have taught grammar, tafsir, fiqh, history etc. So there is no problem. 

[Islami313]

@Sirius_Bright @Follower of Ahlulbayt @Islami313

Salams brother.. thanks for the reply. I understand they used taqiyyah.. but i wouldve thought it was to do more with Imamah or leadership.. khilafa etc.. issues that challenge the caliph of the day. It seems it also extends to fiqh issues as well..?? correct me if im wrong brother. I had read somewhere that Sheikh Tusi said something like theres not one narration that doesnt contradict another.. and that was the primary reason for Tahdhib.

Which brings me to the next point.. im glad you mentioned that hadith about opposing the Amma to solve conflicting narrations. I really have my doubts about this hadith being true let alone the fact that we use it as a rule. Im a little baffled by this.. i wouldve thought the opposite!

Does it not make more sense that we take what agrees with the Amma..? Shouldnt the fact that the other major party corroborates the report give it much more strength and credibility?  kind of like independent researchers arriving at the same conclusion..? Why are they definitely in the wrong that we must oppose them? Are we assuming that they were all corrupt.. that they were not truth- seeking scholars, that they intentionally oppose truth and Ahlul Bayt's AS positions? I find this hard to believe.

I wish we had a fiqh book from Imam Ja'far or one of the Imams. This would clear everything up. Ive heard a few times the Sunni ulama say our madhab is disconnected.. that it doesnt have a connecting chain to the Imams and the Prophet SAW. 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Hameedeh
Tagging

[Follower of Ahlulbayt]

On 7/24/2018 at 8:18 PM, Islami313 said:

@Sirius_Bright @Follower of Ahlulbayt @Islami313

Salams brother.. thanks for the reply. I understand they used taqiyyah.. but i wouldve thought it was to do more with Imamah or leadership.. khilafa etc.. issues that challenge the caliph of the day. It seems it also extends to fiqh issues as well..?? correct me if im wrong brother. I had read somewhere that Sheikh Tusi said something like theres not one narration that doesnt contradict another.. and that was the primary reason for Tahdhib.

 Which brings me to the next point.. im glad you mentioned that hadith about opposing the Amma to solve conflicting narrations. I really have my doubts about this hadith being true let alone the fact that we use it as a rule. Im a little baffled by this.. i wouldve thought the opposite!

 Does it not make more sense that we take what agrees with the Amma..? Shouldnt the fact that the other major party corroborates the report give it much more strength and credibility?  kind of like independent researchers arriving at the same conclusion..? Why are they definitely in the wrong that we must oppose them? Are we assuming that they were all corrupt.. that they were not truth- seeking scholars, that they intentionally oppose truth and Ahlul Bayt's AS positions? I find this hard to believe.

 I wish we had a fiqh book from Imam Ja'far or one of the Imams. This would clear everything up. Ive heard a few times the Sunni ulama say our madhab is disconnected.. that it doesnt have a connecting chain to the Imams and the Prophet SAW. 

Why are you considering the Sunnis to be truthful? Do you know that their scholars consider anyone who is a Shia to be liars? Come on bro, just be a bit logical and fair. Of course the Sunnis oppose Ahlulbayt. They love the ones who fought Ahlulbayt. They do not believe in the Wilaya of Ahlulbayt. Again bro I will advise you if you don't know much of your religion, don't go out and watch people that give you doubts. First learn the religion, then you can watch these people. I'm guessing you watch people such as Adnan Rashid who say things like we don't have a chain to the imams. Again this is because they claim that people like Zurara were cursed by the Imams. And i have already answered this previously.

[Ahmed_516478]

On 7/24/2018 at 3:18 AM, Islami313 said:

Does it not make more sense that we take what agrees with the Amma..? Shouldnt the fact that the other major party corroborates the report give it much more strength and credibility?  kind of like independent researchers arriving at the same conclusion..? Why are they definitely in the wrong that we must oppose them? Are we assuming that they were all corrupt.. that they were not truth- seeking scholars, that they intentionally oppose truth and Ahlul Bayt's AS positions? I find this hard to believe.

Brother this is very faulty logic. By this logic Islam itself is false. Islam implicitly makes the claim that the majority of the early Christians were flat out wrong on how they viewed Jesus (as). They deified him. So if we are to give credence to majority Islam is false on its teachings on Jesus. But furthermore most Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah so by that logic Christianity is false and Jesus is not the messiah. But when we go back we see that most of bani israel worshiped the golden calf. Being the majority party proves nothing if anything it proves the opposite given a general Islamic view of history shows most people were wrong. Were there not many truth seeking jewish and christian scholars? Yes but it doesn't mean they were right.  Banu Umayya and banu abbas sought out to maintain their political power and it isn't surprising they'd suppress the imams (as) and their shia. 

[Islami313]

Salams.. and thank you for the replies brothers. @Follower of Ahlulbayt Why should i not consider them to be truthful? When we say 'Sunnis'.. who do we intend by this? There have been many pious, knowledgeable ulama' in both sects, and sunnis and sunnism is an absolute major part of Islam.. so lets be fair.

Sunnis oppose Ahlul bayt.. loves those who fought Ahlulbayt..?? How?? When there are soo many Sayyid Sunni scholars and saints renowned throughout time. Its illogical. And most sufis believe in the wilayah of ahlul bayt (as). Anyways.. this is my thinking.. take for example Imam Shafii. He was famous for his love and inclination for Imam Ali and the ahlulbayt.. and he openly made statements to that effect. Why should i not trust him? He was a well known, brilliant scholar, pious etc.. and his positions are clear, wrote his books. Why should i not take my fiqh through this chain say.. It might seem like a new question but its not.. this is kind of what i wanted to get to. Lolll your guessing adnan rashid aye.

And @Shi3i_jadeed.. all that logic gave me a head spin lol. I understand that banu umayya and banu abbas were all about maintaining power..  and the Imams (as) would be under the biggest scrutiny since they were most deserving of this post. But i have also read that Imam Abu Hanifa supported and gave fatwas for people to join Imam Zayd's uprising, that Imam Malik was beaten by the authorities, Imam Shafi'i was almost charged for supporting an alawite uprising i think.. etc.. the point is that they the sunni ulama' were not necessarily in bed with the State, also had their differences with the State and supported the ahlulbayt. As far as i know.. the Imams (as) after Imam Husain and karbala, stayed out of politics and whilst occasionally disturbed, they were left alone to their worships and teaching. Other members of the ahlulbayt led rebellions and uprisings and were crushed and killed.

They lived in the same times, under the same cruel rulers.. there are reports they studied under the Imams (as). The Imams (as) taught many famous scholars, Imam Sadiq's (as) classes were full. So heres my dillema.. The sunni imams have their fiqh well established, their positions clear, recognised, they wrote books. Imam Shafii has two different positions and theyre both known and documented. Why is our madhab, the fiqh of the Imams (as) surrounded in soo much controversy, why so mysterious, why so much taqiyya? Why do i feel like i have to be jason bourne just to get the fiqh position of the Imam (as)? We make it out as if they were teaching scientology lol. Werent there many scholars and all had different opinions.. why isnt it recognised in the same sense as the sunni schools? Am i going in circles.. Sorry for the long reply.

[Follower of Ahlulbayt]

14 hours ago, Islami313 said:

Salams.. and thank you for the replies brothers. @Follower of Ahlulbayt Why should i not consider them to be truthful? When we say 'Sunnis'.. who do we intend by this? There have been many pious, knowledgeable ulama' in both sects, and sunnis and sunnism is an absolute major part of Islam.. so lets be fair.

 Sunnis oppose Ahlul bayt.. loves those who fought Ahlulbayt..?? How?? When there are soo many Sayyid Sunni scholars and saints renowned throughout time. Its illogical. And most sufis believe in the wilayah of ahlul bayt (as). Anyways.. this is my thinking.. take for example Imam Shafii. He was famous for his love and inclination for Imam Ali and the ahlulbayt.. and he openly made statements to that effect. Why should i not trust him? He was a well known, brilliant scholar, pious etc.. and his positions are clear, wrote his books. Why should i not take my fiqh through this chain say.. It might seem like a new question but its not.. this is kind of what i wanted to get to. Lolll your guessing adnan rashid aye.

 And @Shi3i_jadeed.. all that logic gave me a head spin lol. I understand that banu umayya and banu abbas were all about maintaining power..  and the Imams (as) would be under the biggest scrutiny since they were most deserving of this post. But i have also read that Imam Abu Hanifa supported and gave fatwas for people to join Imam Zayd's uprising, that Imam Malik was beaten by the authorities, Imam Shafi'i was almost charged for supporting an alawite uprising i think.. etc.. the point is that they the sunni ulama' were not necessarily in bed with the State, also had their differences with the State and supported the ahlulbayt. As far as i know.. the Imams (as) after Imam Husain and karbala, stayed out of politics and whilst occasionally disturbed, they were left alone to their worships and teaching. Other members of the ahlulbayt led rebellions and uprisings and were crushed and killed.

They lived in the same times, under the same cruel rulers.. there are reports they studied under the Imams (as). The Imams (as) taught many famous scholars, Imam Sadiq's (as) classes were full. So heres my dillema.. The sunni imams have their fiqh well established, their positions clear, recognised, they wrote books. Imam Shafii has two different positions and theyre both known and documented. Why is our madhab, the fiqh of the Imams (as) surrounded in soo much controversy, why so mysterious, why so much taqiyya? Why do i feel like i have to be jason bourne just to get the fiqh position of the Imam (as)? We make it out as if they were teaching scientology lol. Werent there many scholars and all had different opinions.. why isnt it recognised in the same sense as the sunni schools? Am i going in circles.. Sorry for the long reply.

You are again using weak logic. Just because someone is pious and a brilliant scholar, does not mean he is truthful. How many brillant Chrisitian scholars have there been? Are they all truthful when they say Jesus is God. Just because someone loves Imam ali, does not mean he is truthful. There have been many Christians who have written books on the biography of Imam ali and writing about how great of a man he was. Does that mean we can trust everything they say now?

[Islami313]

@Follower of Ahlulbayt Salams.. and thanks for the quick reply bro, but you didnt touch on any of my points and questions. And honestly i think its a bit extreme to not acknowledge someone like imam shafii.. and compare him to christian writers and fans of Imam Ali (as). 

[786:)]

@Islami313 when I was younger I blindly accepted the narrative that all Sunnis hated AhlulBayt as that was the narrative given to me at the center and at home. As I grew older and began researching, I came to realize how far from the truth that was.

I agree with you, it is foolish to say the Sunni fuqaha hate Ahlul Bayt or steered away from them due to hatred. I believe it is simply a convenient narrative to promote sectarianism because at the end of the day sectarianism sells.

I also have my doubts about the convenient taqiyya card. I find that practice very far from the sunnah of our Holy Prophet (saw). I believe the imams all emulated the Holy Prophet (saw). The Prophet (saw) never said there were 2 gods when he was in “danger”. Instead he fought for Tawhid. I just find it strange that his grandchildren would lie over petty matters such as wiping or washing feet in order to save their lives—BUT the Imams don’t use taqiyya when they knowingly drink the poison. Just seems a bit strange.

[Follower of Ahlulbayt]

15 hours ago, Islami313 said:

@Follower of Ahlulbayt Salams.. and thanks for the quick reply bro, but you didnt touch on any of my points and questions. And honestly i think its a bit extreme to not acknowledge someone like imam shafii.. and compare him to christian writers and fans of Imam Ali (as). 

What is the fault in the comparison? Christians loved Imam ali, Imam as-Shafii loved him as well. Christians don't believe in the Imamah of Imam ali, and neither does al-Shafii. I did not address your other points because tbh with all due respect they were based on ignorance. You said Sufis believe in the Wilayah of Ahlulbayt. This is simply not true. They might love Imam ali (as) and believe in his high spiritual status, but they also respect the first three usurpers of Imam Ali's (as) rightful position. So just loving Imam ali (as) is not enough to believe in his Wilayah. Scholars have mentioned that Wilayah is split into different categories, and one of them is the political leader. Sufis do not believe that.

[Follower of Ahlulbayt]

54 minutes ago, 786:) said:

@Islami313 when I was younger I blindly accepted the narrative that all Sunnis hated AhlulBayt as that was the narrative given to me at the center and at home. As I grew older and began researching, I came to realize how far from the truth that was.

I agree with you, it is foolish to say the Sunni fuqaha hate Ahlul Bayt or steered away from them due to hatred. I believe it is simply a convenient narrative to promote sectarianism because at the end of the day sectarianism sells.

I also have my doubts about the convenient taqiyya card. I find that practice very far from the sunnah of our Holy Prophet (saw). I believe the imams all emulated the Holy Prophet (saw). The Prophet (saw) never said there were 2 gods when he was in “danger”. Instead he fought for Tawhid. I just find it strange that his grandchildren would lie over petty matters such as wiping or washing feet in order to save their lives—BUT the Imams don’t use taqiyya when they knowingly drink the poison. Just seems a bit strange.

Ammar b. Yasser commited Shirk when he was in danger. The Prophet (saw) did not openly convey the message in the first three years of his announcing. The reason why the Prophet (saw) did not do taqiyyah when he went to Medina, was because he had an army and thousands of people that were with him. 

[Islami313]

Salams everyone and thanks for the replies. @786:) thank you.. as a background info i come from a sunni sayyid family, the hate was non existent, rather the sunnis loved and respected us as the descendants of the Prophet (Saw). I think we are trying to push wahhabism as sunnism, which is definitely convenient.

And taqiyyah.. i get it.. Ammar b Yasir.. well understood. But your right, thats what confuses me.. for even the little things! And i thought there were tens of different opinions in those days.. 

And @Follower of Ahlulbayt.. loll enough with the Christian comparisons bro its a dead point. Save face and stop..jokes. Here are two quotes i found off a quick search.. just some of his lies lol.

O those who ask me about my love of Ahlul-Bayt (as); should I confess openly that I love them or should I deny that? Never shall I deny their love because their love and affinity is blended in my flesh and blood. Their love is a means of my guidance and growth. O family of Muhammad, O those whom I turn to, O those whose love is my reliance, you are my intercessors on the Day of Judgment. Why should I be afraid when I trust you and have confidence in you? He who loves you will reside eternally in Paradise and your enemies will be for ever in Hell fire” 

When I saw different religions and jurisprudential schools steering towards ignorance and misguidance, I embarked in the name of God on the ark of salvation i.e. the family of the Seal of Prophets and got hold of the divine covenant which is the very love of them. Indeed, God has commanded us to hold fast to the divine covenant. 

As to the second point about the sufis.. most of the chains go through Imam Ali (as). They believe in the legitimacy of the three caliphs but the spiritual heir of the Prophet (Saw) is Imam Ali, and after him Imam Hasan, then Imam Husain and so on.. And just to get it straight.. to believe in the wilayah of ahlulbayt you must disrespect the 3 caliphs? Thats what i find sad a bit.. we are soo stuck on this political leadership and it overshadows everything else. But lets not get off the main topic just yet.. i did ask many questions in that post earlier. Clear some of my ignorance and maybe others could also contribute. Shukron.

[Follower of Ahlulbayt]

10 hours ago, Islami313 said:

Salams everyone and thanks for the replies. @786:) thank you.. as a background info i come from a sunni sayyid family, the hate was non existent, rather the sunnis loved and respected us as the descendants of the Prophet (Saw). I think we are trying to push wahhabism as sunnism, which is definitely convenient.

And taqiyyah.. i get it.. Ammar b Yasir.. well understood. But your right, thats what confuses me.. for even the little things! And i thought there were tens of different opinions in those days.. 

And @Follower of Ahlulbayt.. loll enough with the Christian comparisons bro its a dead point. Save face and stop..jokes. Here are two quotes i found off a quick search.. just some of his lies lol.

O those who ask me about my love of Ahlul-Bayt (as); should I confess openly that I love them or should I deny that? Never shall I deny their love because their love and affinity is blended in my flesh and blood. Their love is a means of my guidance and growth. O family of Muhammad, O those whom I turn to, O those whose love is my reliance, you are my intercessors on the Day of Judgment. Why should I be afraid when I trust you and have confidence in you? He who loves you will reside eternally in Paradise and your enemies will be for ever in Hell fire” 

When I saw different religions and jurisprudential schools steering towards ignorance and misguidance, I embarked in the name of God on the ark of salvation i.e. the family of the Seal of Prophets and got hold of the divine covenant which is the very love of them. Indeed, God has commanded us to hold fast to the divine covenant. 

As to the second point about the sufis.. most of the chains go through Imam Ali (as). They believe in the legitimacy of the three caliphs but the spiritual heir of the Prophet (Saw) is Imam Ali, and after him Imam Hasan, then Imam Husain and so on.. And just to get it straight.. to believe in the wilayah of ahlulbayt you must disrespect the 3 caliphs? Thats what i find sad a bit.. we are soo stuck on this political leadership and it overshadows everything else. But lets not get off the main topic just yet.. i did ask many questions in that post earlier. Clear some of my ignorance and maybe others could also contribute. Shukron.

Just saying it is a 'dead point' doesn't actually make it a dead point. First you have quoted something which is without a reference and may not be authentic. Second as I already said, forget quoting two paragraphs, Christians have written whole volumes on the life of Imam ali (as). Again, both of them reject his imamah. 

You ran away from the actual point. Sufis clearly do not believe in the political successorship of the Imams, which is a component of Wilayah. And yes, one of the Furoo' al-deen is to disassociate from the enemies of Ahlulbayt. This included the ones that stole the right of Imam ali (as) and the rest of the aimmah.

[Urwatul Wuthqa]

On 8/14/2018 at 8:18 AM, 786:) said:

 when I was younger I blindly accepted the narrative that all Sunnis hated AhlulBayt as that was the narrative given to me at the center and at home.

Since you belongs to Pakistan, So let me correct you here. It was never and is never a Shia narrative that all Sinnis hate Ahlul Bayt (asws). 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 8/14/2018 at 8:44 AM, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

Ammar b. Yasser commited Shirk when he was in danger. The Prophet (saw) did not openly convey the message in the first three years of his announcing. The reason why the Prophet (saw) did not do taqiyyah when he went to Medina, was because he had an army and thousands of people that were with him. 

Salam Ammar b.Yasser didn't commit shirk he just say words to release him but his heart was full of Iman committing Shirk means that in your heart you believe another phenomenon beside Allah , also Prophet (saw) was still in danger of Jews & Monafeqin   till his last day and was doing Taqyia in front of them , that he knew thier intentions. 

[Islami313]

Salams.. and Subhanallah! A christian does not believe in Allah Swt, Nabi Muhammad Saw, Islam or anything of the ahlulbayt!! Imam shafii had to clarify that he wasnt a rafidhi!!! Forget these two quotes.. there are many others soo famous it doesnt need a reference! Personally.. from reading some of his quotes, it feels like he believed in the wilayah of ahlul bayt and the imamah of Imam Ali (as). Maybe there was a bit of taqiyyah involved.. lol but sure.. i get your point so lets move on.

Which point did i run from brother?? Sufis have just accepted the reality.. it is not a perfect world. Imam Ali was the 4th caliph in terms of political succession. In him was combined the worldly khilafah and the spiritual khilafah. And after him his son Imam Hasan. After him the worldly khilafah was held by kings! and spiritual succession continued to Imam Husain, Imam Sajjad and imam Baqir and so on..

Disassociate from the enemies of ahlulbayt.. agreed 100%. But its not agreed that these were the enemies of ahlulbayt! Sometimes i feel the hadith about the ahlulbayt.. 'do not go ahead of them' applies here. An easy question.. did Imam Ali (as) disassociate from them, disrespect them.. and treat them as his enemies?? 

[Urwatul Wuthqa]

13 minutes ago, Islami313 said:

But its not agreed that these were the enemies of ahlulbayt!

What do you think who are the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (asws)? Only those who have killed them or poisoned them? 

If you believe in the "wilayah" and understand that it is a divine covenant, an authority introduced, approved and recognized by Allah (s.w.t), then who are those who have refused to accept the command of ghadeer? Who are those who tried to changed the meanings of "mowla" and have imposed limits on the role of "mowla"? Who have knowingly usurped the right of Imam Ali (asws) and by doing that have tried to change the divine plan and tried to (apparently) create deviation in the straight path? 

[786:)]

3 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

What do you think who are the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (asws)? Only those who have killed them or poisoned them? 

If you believe in the "wilayah" and understand that it is a divine covenant, an authority introduced, approved and recognized by Allah (s.w.t), then who are those who have refused to accept the command of ghadeer? Who are those who tried to changed the meanings of "mowla" and have imposed limits on the role of "mowla"? Who have knowingly usurped the right of Imam Ali (asws) and by doing that have tried to change the divine plan and tried to (apparently) create deviation in the straight path? 

See your narrative just doesn’t quite add up to me. How come Imam Ali (as) allowed the change in divine plan? Why did he allow usurpers to deviate the teachings of Muhammad (saw)? Imam Hussain (as) stood up to Yazid when Islam was at the helm of a corrupt ruler who could deviate Islam.

[Urwatul Wuthqa]

2 hours ago, 786:) said:

See your narrative just doesn’t quite add up to me.

Was that my narrative or were they my questions? 

 

 

[786:)]

They were all rhetorical questions. So answer my questions.

[Islami313]

Salams.. and thanks for the replies.@Salsabeel it doesnt matter who we think is an enemy.. did Imam Ali (as) see them as an enemy and disassociate from them??

And i understand the theory.. but im a simpleton.  Imam Ali is the Imam.. whether he is a caliph or not! After Nabi Muhammad Saw, he is the Imam of men and jinn.. birds and trees.. etc. This is not a position that can be taken or 'usurped'. What Allah Swt gives.. none can withold!

This is my thinking.. and excuse the bad example; Imam Ali owned a seat.. some people wanted it, so instead of fighting for it he said take it! He pledged his allegiance to the first.. helped out the second caliph in his decision making on many occasions.. and sent his two sons Imam Hasan and Imam Husain to protect the third. Where is the grudge, disassociation, cursing or disrespect? What a spin! Lol. Isnt our whole claim about following Imam Ali? 

Lastly..  4:28 man is created weak. And.. 12:53  "Nor do I absolve my own self (of blame): the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy: but surely my Lord is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." The Sahaba were human beings.. they were not purified or ma'sum. 

[Urwatul Wuthqa]

11 hours ago, Islami313 said:

did Imam Ali (as) see them as an enemy and disassociate from them??

As per the sermon of shaqshaqiyyah in nehjul balagha, we can imagine what were his views: 

 

Quote

Beware! By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr) dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death).

I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was [Edited Out]ing in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(Then he quoted al-A’sha’s verse):

My days are now passed on the camel’s back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir’s brother Hayyan.

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! What had I to do with this “consultation”? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high.

One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah’s wealth like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

 

 

11 hours ago, Islami313 said:

He pledged his allegiance to the first.. helped out the second caliph in his decision making on many occasions.. and sent his two sons Imam Hasan and Imam Husain to protect the third. Where is the grudge, disassociation, cursing or disrespect?

He cannot pledge allegiance to anyone of them technically. The designation he hold, prohibits him to pledge allegiance & start obeying them. And I think the above quoted sermon is sufficient for making clear everything. Being student of Islamic history, I find the first one as well as the second one more evil, they are responsible for the spreading of  "recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation" as per the words of Imam Ali (asws). 

 

11 hours ago, Islami313 said:

The Sahaba were human beings..

Yes they were human beings not ma'sum, so why the insistence that all of them were aadil? Why no one can criticize wrong doing of Abu Bakr or Umar or Usman or even Muawiyah? 
And if the relationship between them is like how you are trying to describe, why them launched attack on the house of Syeda Fatima? Why was Abu Dhar (r.a) forced to leave Madina?

Brother, excuse me, but what I see is that you although seems to recognize "haqq" but at the same time trying to mix the "haqq" with "batil". The next step after "haqq shanasi" (recognizing truth) should be "haqq parasti" (worshiping/obeying/accepting truth).  

[Oneplus]

Can someone please explain this to me. If imam Jafar cursed zurarah but it is now understood that he was doing taqiyyah. But what about the people at the time of Imam Jafar and zurarah. How would they know this is taqiyyah and if they didn't then isn't the truth being mixed with falsehood and noone know when someone is doing taqiyyah and when someone isn't?? 

[Ali bin Hussein]

Due to the conflicting hadith. It would be better to disregard zurara as a narrator. This would be the most sensible option.

Zurara is the 12er version of Abu Hurreira. Sunnis should take the sensible approach but can not due to his large number of narrations being needed for stance.

[Sirius_Bright]

6 hours ago, Warilla said:

Zurara is the 12er version of Abu Hurreira.

That means you know nothing about Zurarah. Did you read the article in second post of this thread? 

[Sirius_Bright]

On 7/12/2018 at 9:04 PM, Sirius_Bright said:

The article was written by brother @Ibn al-Hussain,

Sorry, it was written by Brother Islamic Salvation. 

[Ali bin Hussein]

2 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

That means you know nothing about Zurarah. Did you read the article in second post of this thread? 

Yes I did and I also have read many articles defending Abu Hurreira.