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
Sign in to follow this  
Kalepaceh

Why is it that Sunnis think that Abu Bakr should been the leader?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

We have both Sunni and Shia hadith saying that the Prophet (S) stopped over 600000 people in the dust, and then he build a place where he could speak. It was here that the Prophet said that Imam Ali is the Mowlar. The Sunnis think that Mowlar means friend, but why would the Prophet stop 600000 in the dust just to say that Ali is your friend. But why do Sunnis think that it should be Abu Bakr that should be the leader? And did Abu Bakr claimed that he should be the leader? And was Imam Ali friend with Abu Bakr? Many Shia scholar said that Ali took to Iraq Because he was arguing with Abu Bakr, BUT WHY WOULD HE NAME ONE OF HIS SON Abu Bakr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alireza Yasini said:

BUT WHY WOULD HE NAME ONE OF HIS SON Abu Bakr.

It was a common name and Imam Ali had a close friend by the name of Abu Bakr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

We don’t think he should have been the leader Akhi.  We all know that he was the leader.  It has become a historical fact now.  

IT'S a statment by weak mind naive people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

We don’t think he should have been the leader Akhi.  We all know that he was the leader.  It has become a historical fact now.  

First things first, please specify what do you mean by 'We'. Because no Shia think he was a leader appointed by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alireza Yasini said:

But why would he name one of his sons Abu Bakr.

No one knows who why he named one of his sons Abu Bakr.

Probably because he liked the name.

Probably because he had a friend called Abu Bakr.

It appears there was more than one Abu Bakr among people that he knew.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

We don’t think he should have been the leader Akhi.  We all know that he was the leader.  It has become a historical fact now.  

That is quite correct.

In reality, he should not have aspired for leadership. But he did and he was successful.

But I don't think he wanted to be leader himself as much as he wanted to keep Imam Ali out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sirius_Bright said:

First things first, please specify what do you mean by 'We'. Because no Shia think he was a leader appointed by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or his Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

He is Sunni, not Shi’a. Check is account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because its easier to just go along with the flow and bow down to power politics rather than to take a stance and stand up for what's right.

We see the same weakness of human nature today. Everyone knows Israel is oppressive but acting against them can cost you dearly so most governments put their own interests first and go along with the status quo.

The few who speak out get labelled and targeted for it, but in principle they are loudly saying something that everyone else silently knows is true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 We all know that he was the leader.  It has become a historical fact now.  

Salam, 

Do you know him as "Khalifatullah" or "Khalaftul Muslimeen"? What was the status of his leadership? Selected by people or selected by God? 
If he was selected by people, was he from those who are "protected by God" so that one can find hisself under obligation to obey him as per the commands mentioned in Qur'an? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Salam, 

Do you know him as "Khalifatullah" or "Khalaftul Muslimeen"? What was the status of his leadership? Selected by people or selected by God? 
If he was selected by people, was he from those who are "protected by God" so that one can find hisself under obligation to obey him as per the commands mentioned in Qur'an?

 

Whether it is known by us or not, khalifatullah (God’s Vicegerent) is every human being (by virtue of the fact that he/ she is the son of Adam, the one in whom God blew of His Spirit).  So, since Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) was a human being, and since all human beings are vicegerents of God, Abu Bakr was a vicegerent of God as well.  Even Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is a vicegerent of God simply because he (عليه السلام) was a human being.  Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) became a leaders of the Muslims because of the events that had transpired in Saqifa.  Umar (رضي الله عنه) became a leader of the Muslims because Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) selected him (رضي الله عنه).  Uthman (رضي الله عنه) became a leader because of the Committee.  And finally Imam Ali (عليه السلام) became the leader because of the people who came to him.  As for the question regarding “protection from God” (I’sma) yes.  I am not sure what the consensus is on Uthman (رضي الله عنه), but the rest of the three were definitely (Awliya Allah).  I personally believe that because of the fact that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was of the Ahlul Bayt and because of the Al-Ghadeer, “Man Kuntu Mawla, Fa Haza Aliyyun Mawla” he (عليه السلام) was a special wali of God (beyond ordinary).
 

 

 

Quote

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alireza Yasini said:

We have both Sunni and Shia hadith saying that the Prophet (S) stopped over 600000 people in the dust, and then he build a place where he could speak. It was here that the Prophet said that Imam Ali is the Mowlar. The Sunnis think that Mowlar means friend, but why would the Prophet stop 600000 in the dust just to say that Ali is your friend. But why do Sunnis think that it should be Abu Bakr that should be the leader? And did Abu Bakr claimed that he should be the leader? And was Imam Ali friend with Abu Bakr? Many Shia scholar said that Ali took to Iraq Because he was arguing with Abu Bakr, BUT WHY WOULD HE NAME ONE OF HIS SON Abu Bakr.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) named two of his sons “Umar”.  And both of them got martyred in Karbala.  This goes to show how much love Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had for Umar Ibn Khattab (رضي الله عنه).  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I am not sure what the consensus is on Uthman (رضي الله عنه), but the rest of the three were definitely (Awliya Allah).

And one of those Awliya, with his utmost ijtihad, gave you the phrase "assalato khayrun min an-nowm" :D.

Anyway, you have the potential to mix truth with falsehood so you have rightly selected for you the Sunni way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunnis have no real consensus on why they believe Abu Bakar had to be the first khalifa. 

Some say it was God's order to make Abu Bakar caliph but some say God left it entirely up to people. Others say Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was completely silent about it, yet some say he gave direct hints by asking Abu Bakar to lead prayer (which he actually never did). 

Some Sunnis even believe Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) personally wanted Ali (عليه السلام) to be caliph but it was only a personal choice and not a divine order. 

Some Sunnis claim God strictly ordered Prophet (s) to appoint Abu Bakar and God was not ready to accept even Umar as the first caliph. So Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) asked Abu Bakar to lead prayer. 

All of these are nonsense claims which have no grounds in reality. Because Abu Bakar was a false caliph, so the Sunnis have no ONE, single real solid basis for this. Every Sunni will come up with his own confused reason to justify how Abu Bakar was meant to be the caliph. That's why you would receive different answers from Sunnis for questions like...Did Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) appoint Abu Bakar or not. 

On the other hand, every single Shia in the world has ONE clear opinion that Ali (عليه السلام) was appointed by Allah himself and Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) repeatedly and clearly proclaimed this throughout his life - culminating at Ghadeer. There is no dispute amongst Shias on this - while Sunnis are disputed themselves. This is because there are many fake and false paths in this world, but the right path is only one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it. How blind are some of you people, to even believe that the Holy Prophet (sawas) did not appoint Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as successor. How can one refute the narration of when the revelation was revealed for the Messenger to warn thy kin, the Prophet literally called Imam Ali his successor and executor. How does that even require an interpretation? The message is already made clear, but instead you choose to find a way to interpret the word mawla as a friend or something.

@eThErEaL why don't you try to prove your claim by sending us a narration that directly calls Abu Bakr as caliph by the Prophet (sawas) himself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 3wliya_maryam said:

I recommend reading Peshawar nights

I recommend purification of the heart inshallah.  
 
it is unfortunate how the Intellectual Shiite Tradition has degraded to a religion bereft of spirituality and true gnosis.  It is mostly all about how Shiasm is right and how they have the right history and how the other is wrong.

Please head this call.  I am not against Shiaism, but I am against its degradation.  Shiaism is now an insult to the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

I recommend purification of the heart inshallah.  
 
it is unfortunate how the Intellectual Shiite Tradition has degraded to a religion bereft of spirituality and true gnosis.  It is mostly all about how Shiasm is right and how they have the right history and how the other is wrong.

Please head this call.  I am not against Shiaism, but I am against its degradation.  Shiaism is now an insult to the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام)

You don't think this trend is the same in Sunni Islam as well. I've spent many years as Sunni and could find, with a few exceptions, any serious purification of the heart going on. I met many pious individuals don't get me wrong, but Arguing points of fish and Aqida seemed to be a favorite pastime amongst many the religiously minded people 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 3wliya_maryam said:

I don't get it. How blind are some of you people,

This is rude behavior.  Just letting you know.  

Quote

to even believe that the Holy Prophet (sawas) did not appoint Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as successor.

God chooses people.  And Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is an Imam from eternity.  And yes I am Sunni.  And because I am of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamah this is why I am A Shia of Imam Ali (عليه السلام).  

Quote

How can one refute the narration of when the revelation was revealed for the Messenger to warn thy kin, the Prophet literally called Imam Ali his successor and executor.

We don’t deny any of that.  And yes, I am Sunni.

Quote


How does that even require an interpretation?

it requires understanding from the heart.  Not beliefs and dogma of a cult.

Quote

The message is already made clear, but instead you choose to find a way to interpret the word mawla as a friend or something.

You are veiled and imprisoned without you realizing it by the deceptive knowledge (Shubuhat) that has been fed into you all these years.  You are already assuming so many things about me that it has become impossible to even discuss anything with you.

Quote

 

@eThErEaL why don't you try to prove your claim by sending us a narration that directly calls Abu Bakr as caliph by the Prophet (sawas) himself. 

Because I am not a dogmatic cult follower.   This might sound bizarre to most of you.  My religion is not a religion of dogmatic beliefs and blind reasoning.  My religion, inshallah, is that  tasted and experienced.  I know the truth when I experience it.  I don’t know the truth by mere conceptualizations and rationalizations.  One can rationalize anything.  Even People who lack faith can be the best in rationalizing their lack of faith.  
 

There probably was a time when Shiaism was strong, but this Shiaism was the Shiaism that was during the time of the Shiite Imams themselves.  Maybe there are some few exceptional Shias who have access to the 12th Imam (عليه السلام).  But, by and large, I can see that Shiasm has By a large extent become decayed and corrupt.  It is now mostly dead.  It is becoming IMpOSSIBLE to resuscitate.  The damage is too great now.  The only solution is to follow Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamah (and that also one has to look for Traditional Sunnis who ARE ALIVE AND WHO CAN GIVE LIFE TO DEAD HEARTS). Only the one who is alive can activate life in someone else.  One who is dead cannot give life to dead hearts.  
 

you asked me For my proof.  My proof is for me and me alone.  My proof is my experience.  My experience of a tree that does not yield good fruit is proof that the tree is decayed.  I see the communities are dead.  The tree is therefore dead.  
 

salams

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

This is rude behavior.  Just letting you know.  

God chooses people.  And Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is an Imam from eternity.  And yes I am Sunni.  And because I am of Ahlul Sunnah wal Jamah this is why I am A Shia of Imam Ali (عليه السلام).  

We don’t deny any of that.  And yes, I am Sunni.

it requires understanding from the heart.  Not beliefs and dogma of a cult.

You are veiled and imprisoned without you realizing it by the deceptive knowledge (Shubuhat) that has been fed into you all these years.  You are already assuming so many things about me that it has become impossible to even discuss anything with you.

Because I am not a dogmatic cult follower.   This might sound bizarre to most of you.  My religion is not a religion of dogmatic beliefs and blind reasoning.  My religion, inshallah, is that  tasted and experienced.  I know the truth when I experience it.  I don’t know the truth by mere conceptualizations and rationalizations.  One can rationalize anything.  Even People who lack faith can be the best in rationalizing their lack of faith.  
 

There probably was a time when Shiaism was strong, but this Shiaism was the Shiaism that was during the time of the Shiite Imams themselves.  Maybe there are some few exceptional Shias who have access to the 12th Imam (عليه السلام).  But, by and large, I can see that Shiasm has By a large extent become decayed and corrupt.  It is now mostly dead.  It is becoming IMpOSSIBLE to resuscitate.  The damage is too great now.  The only solution is to follow Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamah (and that also one has to look for Traditional Sunnis who ARE ALIVE AND WHO CAN GIVE LIFE TO DEAD HEARTS). Only the one who is alive can activate life in someone else.  One who is dead cannot give life to dead hearts.  
 

you asked me For my proof.  My proof is for me and me alone.  My proof is my experience.  My experience of a tree that does not yield good fruit is proof that the tree is decayed.  I see the communities are dead.  The tree is therefore dead.  
 

salams

Ok..this is your basis of your belief. "since others have not experienced the truth, there exist no truth in their belief".  You and your group are with the truth because you have seen the truth that others are veiled from.

Others will come and say to you, we experience the truth 24 hrs and in their entire time after accepted the path of  Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام). What you have to say about it?  They remain muted to save guard what they experienced.

Your believe in "I" has deceived you, similiar to Iblis.  All your basis is "I"... your own spiritual experiences.  This is not the way to communicate the public about Islam and the truth.  This is to insult others and say you are the chosen one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I don’t know the truth by mere conceptualizations

from your posts over the years, you seem to have made it clear you have some pretty abstract... eccentric thinking processes, that I daresay one can easily confuse with "conceptualizations", so not sure what you're trying to claim here... correct me if I'm wrong...

2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

My religion is not a religion of dogmatic beliefs and blind reasoning.

define dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
 
define incontrovertible: not able to be denied.
 
What about the principles set forth by Allah, through Ahlul Bayt ((عليه السلام)), is deniable?
 
Who shares your religion if it is not based on dogmatic belief? it's paradoxical to say I belong to so-and-so sect/religion then make such a statement. Unless of course that religion is one of human subjectivity... I guess hence your statement:
2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 My religion, inshallah, is that  tasted and experienced.  I know the truth when I experience it.

 

 
And believe me, nobody needs "blind" reasoning when comparing the epitome of reason - Ahlul Bayt ((عليه السلام)) - to those simpleton laymen you revere. Or is the light equivalent to the dark? Apparently so, seeing you can "rationalize" and "conceptualize" such a thing.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...