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

[Panzerwaffe 1,103]

6 hours ago, Warilla said:

Abu bakar was the political leader. He lead the ummah.

This debate/point is not needed to be honest.

As the Ummah eventually accepted Imam Ali leadership so there is no problem.

So all Muslims agree Hazarat Ali was the leader of the ummah. ( I don't think there are any present khawarij or Muawiya supporters.)

 

 

Ahle sunnah to their credit attempted to heal the scars of civil wars by adopting a compromise position that brought some semblance of peace , but did not appease any of the partisan groups in the long run and at the cost of political correctness.

 

[layman 629]

2 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 

We are not taught to curse people.  We are taught to seek protection in God from those God has cursed.

Do you see the difference?  Or no?

It amazes me to what extent you will go to try to prove your beliefs and practices.

And how many times does one have to REPEAT that sending "la'nat" on a group is alright according to Ahlul Sunnah Wal' Jamah.  But cursing out individuals that God has not named is forbidden according to Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamah.

Do we have to keep repeating this over and over again?  So even if you say God is teaching us to send lan'at on Iblees when we recite the Istiaza,..... So what??  He isn't teaching you to curse out whoever you want!  And, believe me, the reason hy Ahlul Sunnah are against sending "lanat" is not because they are merely trying to defend themselves against Shias, it isn't really about such polemics, but rather, it is about following the Sunnah of the Prophet (S) who forbade people to send la'nat on specific individuals that God did not himself mention in revelation.  Again, I repeat, "Against SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS THAT God DID NOT MENTION IN Qur'an",  Al-Ghazali has written extensively about this subject and has quoted numerous sayings of the Holy Prophet (S) forbidding people to curse individuals.  

 

 

 

 

Better still, we remove names.  We curse those where hate, fought, went against Ali (as ), because they are hypocrites.  Names are not important (because it is only relevant to Shias), but we know who they are, if this to satisfy the Ahlul Sunnah groups.

Edited February 5 by layman

[Abu Nur 4,091]

Quote

We curse those where hate, fought, went against Ali (as ), because they are hypocrites. 

But if they repent after that, we can not curse. Only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows who repents and who is hypocrites. And I will not base much proof from narrations of who repent and who not. The only narration that I take seriously in such a situation is sahih and widely narrated hadith of someone hypocrisy. 

[Cool 298]

2 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Only Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows who repents and who is hypocrites. And I will not base much proof from narrations of who repent and who not.

A greatest hypocrite who fought war with Imam Ali (عليه السلام), then he came with his army to fight with Imam Hassan (عليه السلام), then he plotted against Imam Hassan (عليه السلام), then he ruined the treaty made with Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) by nominating Yazeed as caliph. 

Ohh yes, people really don't know whether or not he repented. So why not start adding radi Allaho anh after the name of Yazeed because you really don’t know whether he repented or not....

[Abu Nur 4,091]

14 minutes ago, Cool said:

A greatest hypocrite who fought war with Imam Ali (عليه السلام), then he came with his army to fight with Imam Hassan (عليه السلام), then he plotted against Imam Hassan (عليه السلام), then he ruined the treaty made with Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) by nominating Yazeed as caliph. 

Ohh yes, people really don't know whether or not he repented. So why not start adding radi Allaho anh after the name of Yazeed because you really don’t know whether he repented or not....

You should calm down and read very carefully the rest part what I wrote in previous post. I clearly mentioned about sahih and wide narrations.

There is a lot proof of his hypocrite, same goes with his family who were archenemies of Prophet for all his Prophet-hood time. Actually when you see Sunnis have doubts about Muawiya, you will clearly see that are two groups in Sunni Islam, those who curse him and those who praise him.

Edited February 5 by Abu Nur

[Shahrukh K 250]

44 minutes ago, Cool said:

A greatest hypocrite who fought war with Imam Ali (عليه السلام), then he came with his army to fight with Imam Hassan (عليه السلام), then he plotted against Imam Hassan (عليه السلام), then he ruined the treaty made with Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) by nominating Yazeed as caliph. 

Ohh yes, people really don't know whether or not he repented. So why not start adding radi Allaho anh after the name of Yazeed because you really don’t know whether he repented or not....

2:141 Those are a people who have passed away; theirs is that which they earned and yours that which ye earn. And ye will not be asked of what they used to do.

[baqar 1,358]

3 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Muawiya, you will clearly see that are two groups in Sunni Islam, those who curse him and those who praise him.

If there are Sunnis who curse him, they are much too few to be compared with the vast majority who 

• either praise him 
• or prefer to have no opinion in the matter. 

[Abu Nur 4,091]

39 minutes ago, baqar said:

If there are Sunnis who curse him, they are much too few to be compared with the vast majority who 

• either praise him 
• or prefer to have no opinion in the matter. 

I agree. That is their own matter. Sometimes we must say it directly, in this issue they are misguided or make wrong conclusion. And may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us.

Edited February 5 by Abu Nur

[Guest Pschological Warfare]

On 1/26/2020 at 2:45 PM, 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.

1) As to the question why some say he should be the ruler- Ask him directly according to Sahah al- Bukhari- 

Quote

Narrated 'Aisha:

(the wife of the Prophet) Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) died while Abu Bakr was at a place called As-Sunah (Al-'Aliya) 'Umar stood up and said, "By Allah! Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) is not dead!" 'Umar (later on) said, "By Allah! Nothing occurred to my mind except that." He said, "Verily! Allah will resurrect him and he will cut the hands and legs of some men." Then Abu Bakr came and uncovered the face of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), kissed him and said, "Let my mother and father be sacrificed for you, (O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)), you are good in life and in death. By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, Allah will never make you taste death twice." Then he went out and said, "O oath-taker! Don't be hasty." When Abu Bakr spoke, 'Umar sat down. Abu Bakr praised and glorified Allah and said, No doubt! Whoever worshipped Muhammad, then Muhammad is dead, but whoever worshipped Allah, then Allah is Alive and shall never die." Then he recited Allah's Statement.:-- "(O Muhammad) Verily you will die, and they also will die." (39.30) He also recited:--

"Muhammad is no more than an Apostle; and indeed many Apostles have passed away, before him, If he dies Or is killed, will you then Turn back on your heels? And he who turns back On his heels, not the least Harm will he do to Allah And Allah will give reward to those Who are grateful." (3.144)

The people wept loudly, and the Ansar were assembled with Sad bin 'Ubada in the shed of Bani Saida. They said (to the emigrants). "There should be one 'Amir from us and one from you." Then Abu Bakr, Umar bin Al-Khattab and Abu 'baida bin Al-Jarrah went to them. 'Umar wanted to speak but Abu Bakr stopped him. 'Umar later on used to say, "By Allah, I intended only to say something that appealed to me and I was afraid that Abu Bakr would not speak so well. Then Abu Bakr spoke and his speech was very eloquent. He said in his statement, "We are the rulers and you (Ansars) are the ministers (I.e. advisers)," Hubab bin Al-Mundhir said, "No, by Allah we won't accept this. But there must be a ruler from us and a ruler from you." Abu Bakr said, "No, we will be the rulers and you will be the ministers, for they (I.e. Quarish) are the best family amongst the 'Arabs and of best origin. So you should elect either 'Umar or Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah as your ruler." 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No but we elect you, for you are our chief and the best amongst us and the most beloved of all of us to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)." So 'Umar took Abu Bakr's hand and gave the pledge of allegiance and the people too gave the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. Someone said, "You have killed Sad bin Ubada." 'Umar said, "Allah has killed him."

حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ بِلاَلٍ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ بْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ زَوْجِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم مَاتَ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ بِالسُّنْحِ ـ قَالَ إِسْمَاعِيلُ يَعْنِي بِالْعَالِيَةِ ـ فَقَامَ عُمَرُ يَقُولُ وَاللَّهِ مَا مَاتَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم‏.‏ قَالَتْ وَقَالَ عُمَرُ وَاللَّهِ مَا كَانَ يَقَعُ فِي نَفْسِي إِلاَّ ذَاكَ وَلَيَبْعَثَنَّهُ اللَّهُ فَلَيَقْطَعَنَّ أَيْدِيَ رِجَالٍ وَأَرْجُلَهُمْ‏.‏ فَجَاءَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَكَشَفَ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَبَّلَهُ قَالَ بِأَبِي أَنْتَ وَأُمِّي طِبْتَ حَيًّا وَمَيِّتًا، وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لاَ يُذِيقُكَ اللَّهُ الْمَوْتَتَيْنِ أَبَدًا‏.‏ ثُمَّ خَرَجَ فَقَالَ أَيُّهَا الْحَالِفُ عَلَى رِسْلِكَ‏.‏ فَلَمَّا تَكَلَّمَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ جَلَسَ عُمَرُ‏.‏ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ وَقَالَ أَلاَ مَنْ كَانَ يَعْبُدُ مُحَمَّدًا صلى الله عليه وسلم فَإِنَّ مُحَمَّدًا قَدْ مَاتَ، وَمَنْ كَانَ يَعْبُدُ اللَّهَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ حَىٌّ لاَ يَمُوتُ‏.‏ وَقَالَ ‏{‏إِنَّكَ مَيِّتٌ وَإِنَّهُمْ مَيِّتُونَ‏}‏ وَقَالَ ‏{‏وَمَا مُحَمَّدٌ إِلاَّ رَسُولٌ قَدْ خَلَتْ مِنْ قَبْلِهِ الرُّسُلُ أَفَإِنْ مَاتَ أَوْ قُتِلَ انْقَلَبْتُمْ عَلَى أَعْقَابِكُمْ وَمَنْ يَنْقَلِبْ عَلَى عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَنْ يَضُرَّ اللَّهَ شَيْئًا وَسَيَجْزِي اللَّهُ الشَّاكِرِينَ‏}‏ قَالَ فَنَشَجَ النَّاسُ يَبْكُونَ ـ قَالَ ـ وَاجْتَمَعَتِ الأَنْصَارُ إِلَى سَعْدِ بْنِ عُبَادَةَ فِي سَقِيفَةِ بَنِي سَاعِدَةَ فَقَالُوا مِنَّا أَمِيرٌ وَمِنْكُمْ أَمِيرٌ، فَذَهَبَ إِلَيْهِمْ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ وَأَبُو عُبَيْدَةَ بْنُ الْجَرَّاحِ، فَذَهَبَ عُمَرُ يَتَكَلَّمُ فَأَسْكَتَهُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَكَانَ عُمَرُ يَقُولُ وَاللَّهِ مَا أَرَدْتُ بِذَلِكَ إِلاَّ أَنِّي قَدْ هَيَّأْتُ كَلاَمًا قَدْ أَعْجَبَنِي خَشِيتُ أَنْ لاَ يَبْلُغَهُ أَبُو بَكْرٍ، ثُمَّ تَكَلَّمَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ فَتَكَلَّمَ أَبْلَغَ النَّاسِ فَقَالَ فِي كَلاَمِهِ نَحْنُ الأُمَرَاءُ وَأَنْتُمُ الْوُزَرَاءُ‏.‏ فَقَالَ حُبَابُ بْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ لاَ وَاللَّهِ لاَ نَفْعَلُ، مِنَّا أَمِيرٌ وَمِنْكُمْ أَمِيرٌ‏.‏ فَقَالَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ لاَ، وَلَكِنَّا الأُمَرَاءُ وَأَنْتُمُ الْوُزَرَاءُ هُمْ أَوْسَطُ الْعَرَبِ دَارًا، وَأَعْرَبُهُمْ أَحْسَابًا فَبَايِعُوا عُمَرَ أَوْ أَبَا عُبَيْدَةَ‏.‏ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ بَلْ نُبَايِعُكَ أَنْتَ، فَأَنْتَ سَيِّدُنَا وَخَيْرُنَا وَأَحَبُّنَا إِلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم‏.‏ فَأَخَذَ عُمَرُ بِيَدِهِ فَبَايَعَهُ، وَبَايَعَهُ النَّاسُ، فَقَالَ قَائِلٌ قَتَلْتُمْ سَعْدَ بْنَ عُبَادَةَ‏.‏ فَقَالَ عُمَرُ قَتَلَهُ اللَّهُ‏.‏

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3667, 3668

In-book reference : Book 62, Hadith 19

USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 5, Book 57, Hadith 19

https://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/19

2) As for the name- Is this a Actual Name or a Nickname(Kuniyat) ? 

Here how he was addressed 

Quote

Beware! By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)2

https://www.al-Islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-Allah-son-Abu-quhafah

Quote

'And you claim now that we have no inheritance! Don't you know? O yes, it has uncovered for you like mid-morning sun that I am his daughter... O son of Abu Quhafah [I.e. Abu Bakr]! 

https://www.al-Islam.org/fatimah-al-masumah-role-model-men-and-women-ayatullah-Sayyid-Muhammad-husayn-fadlullah/chapter-3#excerpts-her-sermon-mosque

3) As for the word Mawla, if they insist it  mean beloved friend -

The friend was missing from Saqifah. So, they did not follow the command. 

More importantly, You can't choose your own leader, if you need to be dictated who your friend should be. Meaning you don't have the wisdom to even recognize your friends after all the help in  wars and night of migration and all that was done- Muslims could not figure this out on their own. 

Quote

Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of 'Ali as the leader of the Muslim ummah.  The Prophet held up the hand of 'Ali and said: 

"For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), 'Ali is his Leader (mawla)."

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

[Kirmani 399]

A common thing I keep seeing here, about Imam Ali (عليه السلام) naming his son Abu Bakr.

First, Abu Bakr is NOT A NAME. It's a Kunya (Title), just like Imam Ali (عليه السلام)'s title was "Abul Hasan" and Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) title was "Abul Qasim" etc etc. Abu Bakr literally means "Father of the young camel". There were LOTS of people named Abu Bakr. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had a son named Abdullah who just happened to be given the same Kunya of "Abu Bakr" by people.

The Abu Bakr whom Sunnis regard as the first caliph's REAL NAME was Atiq ibn Qahafa. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had NO SON named Atiq, and therefore did not have a son named after him.

Another point which is also interest is WHY Umar and Uthman are called by their real names but Atiq ibn Qahafa was always historically called Abu Bakr? Could it be the amount of times his real name (ibn Qahafa) is used in the negative sense in many hadith? Go through Sahih Bukhari and Muslim with regards to how Bibi Fatimah S.A referred to Ibn Qahafa in certain hadiths and you will know what I mean.

[Guest Justice]

1 hour ago, Kirmani said:

A common thing I keep seeing here, about Imam Ali (عليه السلام) naming his son Abu Bakr.

First, Abu Bakr is NOT A NAME. It's a Kunya (Title), just like Imam Ali (عليه السلام)'s title was "Abul Hasan" and Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) title was "Abul Qasim" etc etc. Abu Bakr literally means "Father of the young camel". There were LOTS of people named Abu Bakr. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had a son named Abdullah who just happened to be given the same Kunya of "Abu Bakr" by people.

The Abu Bakr whom Sunnis regard as the first caliph's REAL NAME was Atiq ibn Qahafa. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) had NO SON named Atiq, and therefore did not have a son named after him.

Another point which is also interest is WHY Umar and Uthman are called by their real names but Atiq ibn Qahafa was always historically called Abu Bakr? Could it be the amount of times his real name (ibn Qahafa) is used in the negative sense in many hadith? Go through Sahih Bukhari and Muslim with regards to how Bibi Fatimah S.A referred to Ibn Qahafa in certain hadiths and you will know what I mean.

I spent an enormous amount of time researching, posting, and also posting a summary in response to the brother on this thread, but it was not approved, which is disheartening. I don't have it in me to do that all over again, given how often that happens, so here is the link to the original article:

Here's the link: https://shiaresponses.wordpress.com/2019/07/02/did-Imam-Ali-Hasan-and-hussain-name-a-son-Abu-bakr/

Brother, your line of reasoning isn't bad, but if we look at the facts, Abu Bakr was not that widely used as a Kunya at that particular time. However, I have presented compelling evidence to suggest this Kunya was imposed on them, using Sunni and Shia sources. 

[786:) 297]

I just glanced through this thread. @eThErEaL You brought up a point that hits home for me. The current mainstream Shiaism appears to be distant from the founder of Islam (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This is what makes me want to distance myself from Shiaism. What I find even more disturbing is that the Shia laymen have all the excuses in the world to justify this implicit distance from the Holy Prophet Muhammad al-Mustafa (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

I have raised this point over the years on Shiachat only to be ridiculed, but this is the true weakness of Shia Islam in its current state in my honest and sincere opinion. How do you propagate Islam without Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) chose Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to propagate Islam.

[eThErEaL 2,414]

34 minutes ago, 786:) said:

I just glanced through this thread. @eThErEaL You brought up a point that hits home for me. The current mainstream Shiaism appears to be distant from the founder of Islam (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This is what makes me want to distance myself from Shiaism. What I find even more disturbing is that the Shia laymen have all the excuses in the world to justify this implicit distance from the Holy Prophet Muhammad al-Mustafa (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

I have raised this point over the years on Shiachat only to be ridiculed, but this is the true weakness of Shia Islam in its current state in my honest and sincere opinion. How do you propagate Islam without Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) chose Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to propagate Islam.

When the Imams (عليه السلام) were alive, they didn't point to themselves, they always pointed to the Sunnah of the Prophet (S).  The "Shias around them looked up to them (عليه السلام) as a way of connecting to the Prophet (S).  But slowly, over time, as people start making references to the Imams and emphasizing their importance, the "Shias" made the Seyyidna Muhammad Mustafa (S) take a back seat (astaghfirullah).  I say "in practice", but not "on tongue".  On tongue, they say the Prophet (S) is the most important etc etc.  But we all know what Shias do in practice.  In practice, no Shia cares to read, for example, the Shamaail of the Seyyidna Muhammad (S) (because it by Sunni reporters),  Most Shias, in practice, put the Prophet (S) on the same level as the Imams (عليه السلام).   For example, look at how regular the Sunnis are in doing the Sunnah prayers.  Shias don't even call these extra prayers "Sunnah", they call them "Nawafil".  You might say it is the same thing, but I can guarantee you that for most Shias, nawafil simply means extra recommended prayers (they don't see it as connected directly to the Prophet (S).  In the imagination of Sunnis, however, they see Sunnah prayers and Sunnah of the Prophet (S) and they envision the Prophet (S) praying and so they themselves pray. 

In any case, I am not against Shiaism per se.  But I am just noticing what I see as a weakness.  And God knows best,       

 

You know, this is what happens to every religion, the sacred element or "the sacred rites" slowly gets watered down.  In order to understand this we have to get into the world of the other religions.  For example, in Christianity the Eucharist (a holy rite) in the Orthodox Church is not practiced by later forms of Christianity like the Protestants.  Look at how bereft Protestants and Evangalicals are, with respect to "sacred rites".  Just look and see how empty they are!  Firstly they don't even have a proper "Churches", They don't use sacred icons of the Holy Virgin and Jesus, they don't use the Latin language at all.  Instead you find that for their Churches they use stadiums or commercial buildings, they introduce their own methods and ways praying to God (there is no Mass).  It is totally bereft and empty.     

Look at the difference visually:

 

Orthodox Church:

 

Vs Non-Orthodox Church

 

 

In Islam the sacred rites are the Sunnah of Seyyidna Muhammad Mustafa (S).  It was a complete way of life.  It is not about the "doing" of this and that.  It was about being transmuted through the Presence of Seyyidna Muhammad Mustafa (S) found in those rites.  

 

Edited February 8 by eThErEaL

[dragonxx 724]

"I followed him wherever he went like a baby camel following its mother."

What better way to learn how to copy the Prophet (pbuhf) than by learning from Ali ibn Abi Talib ((عليه السلام))?

 

It's ok though, some prefer learning about the Prophet (pbuhf) from his enemies and some hypocrites.

[The Green Knight 7,652]

Just one undeniable clue from the Qur'an:

 

سَأَلَ سَائِلٌ بِعَذَابٍ وَاقِعٍ {1}

[Shakir 70:1] One demanding, demanded the chastisement which must befall
 

[Pooya/Ali Commentary 70:1]

Abu Ishaq Thalabi, in Tafsir al Kabir, while commenting on al Ma-arij has recorded from two authentic sources the tradition that on the day of Ghadir Khum the Holy Prophet summoned the people and said: "Ali is the mawla of whom I am mawla" (see commentary of Ma-idah: 67). The news quickly spread over all urban and rural areas. When Harith ibn Numan al-Fahri came to know of it he rode his she-camel and came to Madina to see the Holy Prophet. When he reached his destination he made the she-camel sit, alighted from it, approached the Holy Prophet and said:

"You commanded us to testify that there is no God but Allah and that you are the messenger of Allah. We obeyed you. You ordered us to say prayers five times a day and we obeyed. You directed us to pay zakat and we obeyed. You ordered us to observe fasts during Ramadan and we obeyed. Then you commanded us to perform pilgrimage to kabah and we obeyed. But you are not satisfied with all this and you raised your cousin by the hand and imposed him upon us as our master by saying: 'Ali is the mawla of whom I am mawla' Is this imposition from you or from Allah?"

The Holy Prophet said:

"By Allah who is the only God, this is from Allah, the mighty, the glorious."

On hearing this Harith turned back and proceeded towards his she-camel saying:

"O Allah, if what Muhammad says is true then fling on us a stone from the sky and make us suffer severe pain and torture."

He had not yet reached his she-camel when a stone came at him and struck him on his head, penetrated into his body and passed out through his anus leaving him dead. It was on this occasion that Allah revealed these verses of al Ma-arij.

This is a literal translation of the tradition recorded by Thalabi. Many eminent Muslim traditionists have copied this tradition from Thalabi, e.g., Shablanji in his book Nur al Absar on page 11; it is also mentioned in Sirat al Halabiyah, vol. 2, page 214; and Mustadrak, vol. 2, page 502.

[Cool 298]

15 hours ago, 786:) said:

This is what makes me want to distance myself from Shiaism

یک نہ شد دو شد

So we have two ex-Shias here, one becomes reformist while other become Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'h. 

15 hours ago, 786:) said:

The current mainstream Shiaism appears to be distant from the founder of Islam (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

And you find Ahlul Sunnah attached closely to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) by attaching (رضي الله عنه) to hypocrites like Muawiyah. 

I do observe severe "fuqr" of the ability to distinguish between truth & falsehood.

[Mahdavist 1,079]

32 minutes ago, Cool said:

یک نہ شد دو شد

So we have two ex-Shias here, one becomes reformist while other become Ahlul Sunnah wal Jama'h. 

And you find Ahlul Sunnah attached closely to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) by attaching (رضي الله عنه) to hypocrites like Muawiyah. 

I do observe severe "fuqr" of the ability to distinguish between truth & falsehood.

I don't think their issue is with shi'ism rather its with trends among contemporary shi'a. I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions or positions, but I do agree that most of our communities today are not staying true to our core teachings. 

Having said that this also applies to muslimeen in general, regardless of their sect. I don't think any Muslim can honestly take a look at our general state today and claim that we are (as a community) following the teachings of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم))

[Cool 298]

1 minute ago, Mahdavist said:

but I do agree that most of our communities today are not staying true to our core teachings. 

This is what surprises me. I mean community not following core teachings doesn't make the teachings wrong, rather it will remain the lacking of community. So how can one chose to quit what has been acknowledged as fact or truth? I am pointing towards a Shia brother who is now calling himself Sunni. 

[Mahdavist 1,079]

On 2/2/2020 at 9:33 PM, eThErEaL said:

Evaluating their actions is not discouraged by Majority of Sunnis.  Majority of Sunnis agree that Muawiyyah and Ayesha were wrong to have done what they did.

But why feel so compelled to call someone a kafir or a hypocrite?  Perhaps due to your social conditioning and your Narrative?  Consider the possibility that the narrative you were brought up with may have been an exaggeration.  no one is saying we shouldn’t love the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام).  We should love them and exalt their status.  We should seek their intercession and pray that we should always be on their side.  Are you really on their side by calling Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiyyah, and Ayesha kafirs and hypocrites?  
 

1) Would Imam Ali (عليه السلام) protect Uthman (Who you claim is a Usurper, a munafiq, a kafir, a fasiq) using Imam Hussein (عليه السلام)  and Imam Hassan (عليه السلام)

2) Would Imam Ali (عليه السلام) Advice a Umar (who you claim is a Usurper, a kafir, a Munafiq, a Fasiq) not to go to the front lines because the Ummah needs a caliph? 

3) Would Imam Ali (عليه السلام) have treated Ayesha with dignity and respect after battle of Jamal if she just committed the worst of sins and the most unforgivable act one can do that would classify her as a munafiq, a fasiq, and a kafir?

—-  I think we should use our discernment dear brother

Adalat is a Mutazilite influence.  It developed as a stance they took in answering Euthephro’s dilemma.  And all these theological positions, whether hambalite or Mutazilite are just theological disputes that arose once Islam interacted with the outside world.  These theological disputes were extrinsic to the lived reality of Islam.  The lived reality of a Islam was the attachment Muslims had towards the Prophet (S) via his spiritual heirs.  

Does calling Muawiyyah a hypcrite make your Salah better?  Does it make you more prayerful, more God conscious?  

it doesn’t!  In fact it is a distraction.  It hampers you by filling you up with hatred and anger.  And by no means is this hatred or anger holy or praiseworthy is it does not directly result in God consciousness and humility.  

 

 

 

 

I must have skipped this earlier post, my apologies. My point was not about calling someone a munafiq or a kafir, rather it was about supporting what is right and condemning what is wrong as opposed to simply going with the flow.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not fight for power, his authority had already been established by the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and it was up to the muslimeen to follow this. Sadly most of them simply followed whoever was in power, regardless of how they got there. 

The approach of simply looking away and saying 'its better for our salah to ignore these things', can be dangerous because its the same mindset that has resulted in quietism among Muslims when it comes to oppression by our own.

As the Saudi regime bombs the Yemeni muslimeen most of us are silent because 'its better to focus on our salah' 

In fact many Muslims struggled to even establish a stance on ISIS because 'the khilafah' was something they had been taught to obey and follow. 

Ignoring early day oppression just for the sake of convenience is not only dishonest but also has real modern day implications. 

[Ashvazdanghe 6,777]

16 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Look at the difference visually:

Are Muslim Shia Becoming like Christians ?

 

[Ashvazdanghe 6,777]

16 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

they say the Prophet (S) is the most important etc etc.  But we all know what Shias do in practice.  In practice, no Shia cares to read, for example, the Shamaail of the Seyyidna Muhammad (S) (because it by Sunni reporters),  Most Shias, in practice, put the Prophet (S) on the same level as the Imams (عليه السلام).   For example, look at how regular the Sunnis are in doing the Sunnah prayers.  Shias don't even call these extra prayers "Sunnah", they call them "Nawafil".

it proves o don't know nothing about Shia Islam except wahabi/Salafi propaganda against Shias that you are spreading their nonsense in name of Sunnis because we put Prophet Muhammad (pbu) over than other Prophets so he is over all Imams that confirmed by Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & rest of Imams that are mentioned in Nahjul Balagha so even Shias don't read rest of Shia hadith books but it mentioned in Nahjulbalagha & Sahifa Sajjadia and 'Nafila" or "Nawafil" are a part of Sunnah for Shias not whole of it .

[eThErEaL 2,414]

3 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it proves o don't know nothing about Shia Islam except wahabi/Salafi propaganda against Shias that you are spreading their nonsense in name of Sunnis because we put Prophet Muhammad (pbu) over than other Prophets so he is over all Imams that confirmed by Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & rest of Imams that are mentioned in Nahjul Balagha so even Shias don't read rest of Shia hadith books but it mentioned in Nahjulbalagha & Sahifa Sajjadia and 'Nafila" or "Nawafil" are a part of Sunnah for Shias not whole of it .

I am talking about “in practice”.  But yes.  I could be wrong about my conclusions.  I am simply projecting my own Shia upbringing on everyone else.  And for this, I could be mistaken.  At the end of the day, each of us has to ask ourselves about their spiritual progress.  If they aren’t becoming more and more humble via God Consciousness then they need to seek help elsewhere!

 Ask those who know!
 

May God guide us all! 

[baqar 1,358]

14 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

 Ask those who know!

Brother, you don't need to ask anyone.

Because in the present world, it is very difficult to get access to the most knowledgeable men.

All you need to do is to observe the way our Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and our Holy Imam (عليه السلام) dealt with the problems of life.

They were all the best of people and the best exemplars.

[eThErEaL 2,414]

36 minutes ago, baqar said:

Brother, you don't need to ask anyone.

Because in the present world, it is very difficult to get access to the most knowledgeable men.

All you need to do is to observe the way our Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and our Holy Imam (عليه السلام) dealt with the problems of life.

They were all the best of people and the best exemplars.

So long as whatever you are doing is helpful!  Mashallah!  
continue...  would never want anyone to stop doing what is beneficial.  

Edited February 10 by eThErEaL

[ali47 120]

On 1/26/2020 at 10:45 PM, 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.

Abu Bakr is a kunya many people would be called Abu Bakr - just means father of the camels generally the person who would look after the animals. Many Shia hadith narrators are called Umar, Yazid and Muawiyah - it didn't mean that much at the time - these were common names

For the question on why they claimed Abu Bakr should be the leader:

They thought Abu Bakr should be the leader because of certain claims made by Abu Bakr, Umar and three other companions. They said the leadership and prophethood would not come together and Prophet's do not leave inheritence etc. The vast majority of people were tribal and if their tribal chief made a decision the rest would follow suit. Abu Bakr also used 'Ali's right of closeness to the Prophet (s) and early entry into Islam (known as sabiqa), although it is obvious that 'Ali was the closest in both cases.

From a Shia perspective the caliphs seized the leadership and had planned this event in advance, so this is why most people were confused and accepted his leadership. In 'Umar's words it was a hasty decision (falta) and it was only later that people began to question for example https://sunnah.com/bukhari/86/57 (the so and so is Ammar and such and such is 'Ali - this speech was made by 'Umar when people starting doubting Abu Bakr's entitlement to the leadership). Abu Bakr even gave a speech saying I am not the most worthy amongst you for this position and showed signs of doubting it, although his companions encouraged him to continue. Later on certain "proofs" mostly created in the Umayyad dynasty were created for Abu Bakr's leadership including:

He lead the final prayers of the Prophet (s) [disputed]

He was Muhammad's (s) best friend [disputed]

He was the first man to embrace Islam [disputed]

His financial contributions [acceptable, but does not excuse his later behaviour]

His religious knowledge [disputed]

Events like this in all cultural histories are nothing new - lies, betrayal and deceit is often a way to attain power in this dunya. It was far from a "democratic procedure" which is sometimes a view given in some books. These men saw an opportunity for a new imperial power that was opening up and took that opportunity. For a man like Imam 'Ali though spirituality always came first and the ends never justified the means. He did not approve of the often harsh methods of the previous rulers and squandering of wealth which often took place.

Edited February 18 by ali47