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
Hopeless wonderer

What are the main things that make you a Shia?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

You're obviously quite mistaken! 

God hasn't taught the details of the religion in His book, including details related to the pillars of the religion, such as Salat and Hajj. 

God, almost always, provides the framework, the big-picture in His book, and the narrations, in turn, provide the details. 

And the narrations are very clearly about Tawalla and Tabarra. 
 

no one denies Tawalla  and Tabarra.  We deny the way you misapply this.  

8 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

 

This is all I wanted to add. No more comments from me. 

 

Share this post


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

Acceptable (if that) is much different than legitimate. Edit: By acceptable I mean 'not going to war with'.

He had a different view than Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه).  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was the ideal leader. Let me give you an example:

It is like taking the most saintly figure and making him a leader.  Would it be nice?  Yes.  It would be ideal.  But can the world handle it?  Obviously NOT.  And history shows that the world could not handle and be receptive to benefitting from the perfection of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) when he (عليه السلام) was the fourth Caliph.  He was faced with so many civil wars that he was hardly given a chance to properly rule in a stable atmosphere.  These are facts that even a Sunni can agree with!  This in NO way means that Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) was a usurper!  Caliphate is not a divinely decreed affair and one just has to point to history to see the truth of this!  If it was a divine decree then it would be impossible to USURP!  Imamat is a divine decree but not caliphate.  An Imam CAN be a caliph but is not necessarily a caliph!  Obviously!!

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brothers, in this thing of ours, Islam cannot exist in a monolithic sense.

No one can claim a monopoly on Allah, his messengers, his Qur'an , the Companions and most importantly the Household of the Prophet.

Dialogue without action, matching the intensity of the discussion, is useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@eThErEaL What qualifications are necessary for Khalifa? Consider this first, and consider how you are undermining it. If anyone can be a caliph, then what's the point?

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

Caliphate is not a divinely decreed affair and one just has to point to history to see the truth of this!

I think this is the biggest difference in where Shias and Sunnis lie. 'What happened' is not necessarily the truth.*

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

He was faced with so many civil wars that he was hardly given a chance to properly rule in a stable atmosphere.

This is not a good argument, Abu Bakr launched the ridda wars and he was only in power for ~2yrs. Umar and Uthman added many haram biddah into Islam.

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

If it was a divine decree then it would be impossible to USURP!

*just because something 'should be' doesn't mean it 'would be'. Ali (a) should have been caliph, but this worldly position to which he was divinely appointed was usurped from him. This was part of God's test, but in no way does it mean that the people were in the right.

This usurpation is a historical event. In no way did Ali (a) give allegiance to Abu Bakr. They went behind his back and plotted against him, then through hadith literature was propagated the false narrative of 'shura' for selecting caliphs.

You can choose to accept a different historical account, but for me the Shias have successfully proven what truly occured.

Wasalam.

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@eThErEaL Quick final question, so basically you completely separate Caliph from Imamate, correct?

That being said, you also seem to think that the Rashidun Caliphs are moral actors worthy of praise (due to supposed approval of Imam Ali). Aside from obviously Imam Hasan (a) for 6-7 months, which other Caliphs do you take as morally praiseworthy. Any Umayyads or Abbasids?

As another semi-related question, do you think Muawiyah's  leadership was acceptable because of the peace treaty with him and Hassan (a) [ignoring that it was designed to show that each article would eventually be violated -- I'm just saying this before someone else mentions it]. If I recall correctly, you did praise Muawiyah once before, though correct me if I am wrong.

In this respect, do you not accept Yazid's leadership because Imam Hussein (a) fought against him?

Recall, that I say this in light of your reasoning: 

Quote

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) found it acceptable

P.S. You are the first person I have ever met who holds such an opinion of believing in the first 3 Rashidun Caliphs (as moral non-usurpers) while also believing in the 12 Imams, so I am not mocking, but genuinely curious.

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

@eThErEaL What qualifications are necessary for Khalifa? Consider this first, and consider how you are undermining it. If anyone can be a caliph, then what's the point?

I think this is the biggest difference in where Shias and Sunnis lie. 'What happened' is not necessarily the truth.*

1) The Caliphate in itself had nothing to do with Imamat per se

2) Not anyone can be a Caliph.  But at the same time, there are no absolute qualifications necessary to be a Caliph, they (the qualifications) are arbitrarily selected, decided upon, or agreed upon during the time period in question. The very selection of qualifications can itself (upon hindsight) be judged to be either prudent in certain respects or not so prudent (or even a failure) in other respects.  There is no absolute rule or theology for this.  No need to turn this into a dogmatic theology.  It is a man made system subject to flaws and errors - it can be critiqued in certain respects and it can also be praised in certain respects. 

3) The point is, "stop making this into a dogmatic theology when it isn't!"  

4) Shias should follow the actions of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) when he advised the Caliphs before him, when he (عليه السلام) gave his allegiance to them (عليه السلام).  This is what happened. Shias say that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was "forced" to give bay'a to a Usurper and that the Prophet (S) advised him (عليه السلام) not to raise his hand after his (S) demise.  This is an insult to Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and the Prophet (S).  How can the Prophet (S) advise Imam Ali (عليه السلام) not to raise his (عليه السلام) hand to a Usurper/ Hypocrite /Kafir that went against the EXPLICIT words of the Prophet (S)?  Is it so that today Shia Islam (the So called Truth Bearers) can only constitute less than only 3% of the human population?  Is this the wisdom?  

   

17 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

This is not a good argument, Abu Bakr launched the ridda wars and he was only in power for ~2yrs. Umar and Uthman added many haram biddah into Islam.

They accomplished a lot. 

And by the way it is Bidatun Hasana.  Umar (رضي الله عنه) knows the the essence of the religion of the Prophet (S) better than any Shia that comes after and who has to rely on their compilation of weak narrations called "Al-Kafi".  I trust Umar (رضي الله عنه) than a Shia that curses the Companions of the Prophet (S)

 

17 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

*just because something 'should be' doesn't mean it 'would be'. Ali (a) should have been caliph, but this worldly position to which he was divinely appointed was usurped from him. This was part of God's test, but in no way does it mean that the people were in the right.

We both agree that Immamat qua Immamat cannot be usurped.  What you are saying, however, is that Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) Immamat qua Calipahte can be usurped and was usurped.  You are basically saying that Immamat qua Caliphate is a legislative command that has been obligated upon people to follow.  So. no problem, this way of formulating your position is not an inherent contradiction.  

However, the reason why I disagree with the above is because it undermines our Prophet's (S) impact on his (S) Ummah, or it undermines the impression he (S) left on his Ummah (especially those very close to him (S)).  Undermining the Prophet's (S) efficacy is tantamount to undermining the Prophet (S) himself.  

17 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

This usurpation is a historical event. In no way did Ali (a) give allegiance to Abu Bakr. They went behind his back and plotted against him, then through hadith literature was propagated the false narrative of 'shura' for selecting caliphs.

At the beginning he did not give bay'a but then he did.  Isn't this what Shias believe.  They say that he gave bay'a but it was "forced"?  Isn't it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

@eThErEaL Quick final question, so basically you completely separate Caliph from Imamate, correct?

I believe that they don't necessarily have to be together in the same person.  And this is something you and I can agree on!  What I disagree with you on is that you your saying that the Imam qua Caliph is a legislative command and as such is binding on the Ummah to follow.  I disagree with this for the reasons I gave above.

Quote

That being said, you also seem to think that the Rashidun Caliphs are moral actors worthy of praise (due to supposed approval of Imam Ali). Aside from obviously Imam Hasan (a) for 6-7 months, which other Caliphs do you take as morally praiseworthy. Any Umayyads or Abbasids?

Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه), Umar (رضي الله عنه), Uthman (رضي الله عنه) Imam Ali (عليه السلام), Imam Hasan (عليه السلام), Muawiyyah (رضي الله عنه).  Not all are equal.  

The Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) have a superior rank compared to all of them with respect to their spiritual inheritance / knowledge from Seyyidna Muhammad Mustafa (S).

Quote

 

 

 

Quote

In this respect, do you not accept Yazid's leadership because Imam Hussein (a) fought against him?

No traditional Sunni accepts Yazid.

Quote

 



Recall, that I say this in light of your reasoning: 

 

Quote

P.S. You are the first person I have ever met who holds such an opinion of believing in the first 3 Rashidun Caliphs (as moral non-usurpers) while also believing in the 12 Imams, so I am not mocking, but genuinely curious.

I appreciate and thank you for your intelligent questions.   

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


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

Is it so that today Shia Islam (the So called Truth Bearers) can only constitute less than only 3% of the human population?  Is this the wisdom?  

You can't possibly think this is a good argument. Idek what to say. Lol, it's an argument against Sunni Islam too, not that it matters, it's illogical.

10 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

I trust Umar (رضي الله عنه) than a Shia that curses the Companions of the Prophet (S)

Well this opens up a whole new can of worms as to why or why not all the companions were trustworthy.

....

To be honest, the rest of the discussion has gotten a bit too technical for me.  I ask another member to pick up the Shia position from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

You can't possibly think this is a good argument. Idek what to say. Lol, it's an argument against Sunni Islam too, not that it matters, it's illogical.

How is it illogical exactly?

Just now, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Well this opens up a whole new can of worms as to why or why not all the companions were trustworthy.

Mind explaining more.

Just now, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

....

To be honest, the rest of the discussion has gotten a bit too technical for me.  I ask another member to pick up the Shia position from here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't trust any self-reported authentic Source 100%. I take all my sources with a grains of salt, my deen just tastes better after that.

 

Share this post


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

I appreciate and thank you for your intelligent questions.   

Thanks. Last clarification.

You believe that The Caliphate in itself had nothing to do with Imamat per se, and it is legitimate so long as it exists, unless it goes against an Imam's (a) wish/approval -- is what goes against his approval determined merely by the criteria of an Imam going to war with the Caliph, with no other significant considerations being made?

 ...

Or is this a too 'dogmatic' understanding of your belief?

...

If this post doesn't make sense, don't respond. It was meant to be posted earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

You believe that The Caliphate in itself had nothing to do with Imamat per se, and it is legitimate so long as it exists, unless it goes against an Imam's (a) wish/approval -- is what goes against his approval determined merely by the criteria of an Imam going to war with the Caliph, with no other significant considerations being made?

That is not the criteria.   Each caliphate will have to be assessed case by case.  It can be praised in some respects and critiqued in other respects.  

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was the ideal Caliph, and he knew that.  But Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه) sincerely and honestly didn't think that because they knew that the ideal is not necessarily the most practical or the most expedient.  You have the ideal vs the practical.  Ideally, it would be nice if things were perfect (like heavenly), but, alas, nothing in terrestrial existence is perfect and so one has to settle for that which is less than perfect.  You have two opposing valid points of view which are based on sincere intentions.      

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 4:22 AM, Hopeless wonderer said:

What do you believe are the main things that make you Shia

 

3 main things for me; Logic, Love, Hate

It's logical (as per Qur'an) God chooses the leader.

"Verily, your guardian (wali) is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers—those who perform the prayers and give zakat (alms) while bowing down (ruku)." Qur'an 5:55

It's logical (as a believer in Allah) to love those who Allah chose.

"Say: I don’t ask you any wage except to love my near kin. And if anyone earns any good We shall give Him an increase of good” Qur'an 42:23

It's logical to hate those who fight against Allah's chosen ones.

"Those who denied/disbelieved, and died while disbelieving, on them are the curse of Allah, the angels, and mankind all. They will be in (curse) forever. And their penalty will not be lightened, nor will they be respited." Qur'an 2:161-2

Share this post


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

sincerely and honestly didn't think that because they knew that the ideal is not necessarily the most practical or the most expedient.  You have the ideal vs the practical.  Ideally, it would be nice if things were perfect (like heavenly), but, alas, nothing in terrestrial existence is perfect and so one has to settle for that which is less than perfect. 

This seems like a cop out, no offense. I could just as easily say:

They knew that Ali (a) was supposed to be Caliph [which they did]. Imam Ali (a) would have accomplished what was most practical and expedient. The non- divinely appointed failed to accomplish  what was best, most practical, or most expedient for the Ummah.

Speaking of being insulting (a point you brought up earlier), it's quite insulting to think that Imam Ali (a) would not have had the most 'practical and expedient' Caliphate leadership.

Inb4 you say 'he was the most practical, and that's why he approved of Abu Bakr'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@eThErEaL How do you reconcile Immamate with your belief? There were two leaderships going on at the same time? Imam Ali and his companions were just chilling under the systems of the Rashidun caliphs? Nope  they were actively against what was going on, and preaching what was correct. 

I don't think you understand just how contrived your belief system is, and how incongruent with reality it is...sorry

The role of the Imams is to perfectly protect the message of Rasulullah (s) and to demonstrate perfect leadership. 

Share this post


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

 

Asking God to send Lanat to someone He Himself has not sent Lamar to is more disrespectful than insulting him or her!

 

It’s like saying, “ I won’t call you names out of respect for you but I’ll just pray to God that you burn in Hell”!

I'm confused 

What does this have to do with uthmans killers ?

I'm asking you to give them the same benefit of doubt as other killers of the same era 

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


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

This seems like a cop out, no offense. I could just as easily say:

They knew that Ali (a) was supposed to be Caliph [which they did]. Imam Ali (a) would have accomplished what was most practical and expedient. The non- divinely appointed failed to accomplish  what was best, most practical, or most expedient for the Ummah.

It is because perfection does not fair well with an imperfect world, Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه) did excellent for the Ummah (more than what Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would have been able to do if he were given the Caliphate from the beginning).  Your interpretation is problematic to me because it boils down to you attributing evil intent on Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه).  It depends on your choice of narrative.  You see, you don't need to harbor such an unsubstantiated opinion (especially when you compare it with the Sunni narrative).  In other words, why interpret an event negatively when you can do so positively?  I am not saying you can make up your own history. No!  But why do you want to believe something that frankly doesn't make much sense and which is offensive to the Prophet's (S) mission?  You are putting at stake your soul - it is being darkened by your judgement on those who loved the Prophet (S) and migrated with him (S).  I am saying this out of sympathy for you knowing the narrative you were brought up with.  If all you want and need is to honor the Ahlul Bayt (عليه السلام) then do just that. You don't have to do so by attributing evil intention to those who disagreed with them.  Disagreements and arguments happen a lot!  But this does not mean that one of parties is necessarily evil and wretched.  You should be worried about your projection of evil on them.       

Quote

Speaking of being insulting (a point you brought up earlier), it's quite insulting to think that Imam Ali (a) would not have had the most 'practical and expedient' Caliphate leadership.

I find it as a praise for Imam Ali (عليه السلام) because his manner of leading was totally and 100% pure.  This purity cannot be contained in a tarnished realm.  Abu Bakr and Umar recognized this purity and they respected it by preserving it and by keeping it hidden.  Even Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not want to be a Caliph.  He (عليه السلام) was not interested in the Caliphate.  He (عليه السلام) had no desire to rule.  To say that he had a passion to rule but was denied it, is actually insulting to Imam Ali (عليه السلام).  He only ruled when the Ummah was in dire need of someone like him to rule.  Otherwise, he was more than comfortable to let Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه), Umar (رضي الله عنه), and Uthman (رضي الله عنه) to lead while teaching and advising them from behind a curtain.  

Quote

Inb4 you say 'he was the most practical, and that's why he approved of Abu Bakr'

Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه) were practical.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


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

I trust Umar (رضي الله عنه) than a Shia that curses the Companions of the Prophet (S)

Say Ameen - May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) raise all of us with those we love. You with Umar ibn Khattab and us with Imam Ali (عليه السلام). 

Share this post


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

Say Ameen - May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) raise all of us with those we love. You with Umar ibn Khattab and us with Imam Ali (عليه السلام). 

Ameen.

 

By the way, Umar and Ali will be raised with each other since they loved each other. lol

 

I am now convinced Shiasm is a lie.  

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

The things that make me a Shia? Lets see. A zulfiqar necklace, a silver wrist ring, a silver ferozeh ring, a silver ear ring, a short beard, saying Ya Ali madat, being hostile to wahhabis and saying lots of tabarrah openly. I also wear a nice hairstyle and I know women steal looks at me their dreamy mutah guy.

:salam:

Works on almost every Shia ethnic group. Nice checklist !

Share this post


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

1) The Caliphate in itself had nothing to do with Imamat per se

2) Not anyone can be a Caliph.  But at the same time, there are no absolute qualifications necessary to be a Caliph, they (the qualifications) are arbitrarily selected, decided upon, or agreed upon during the time period in question. The very selection of qualifications can itself (upon hindsight) be judged to be either prudent in certain respects or not so prudent (or even a failure) in other respects.  There is no absolute rule or theology for this.  No need to turn this into a dogmatic theology.  It is a man made system subject to flaws and errors - it can be critiqued in certain respects and it can also be praised in certain respects. 

 

 

:salam:

The battle of Karbala is precisely what may happen when people take positions that they do not deserve : a non divine Caliph who slays a divine figure and his companions.

In the Qur'an, Caliph and Imam are both designated by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). No popular election.

I took the conclusion with my little understanding of Islam that they mean the same, but in a different context :

Khilafa is khalf which implies following the principles of Allah when there are no believers - like in the times of Adam

Imam implies leading believing men once the sunnah of Allah is recognised on Earth and Its subjects need guidance and Haqq.

The 'Sunni' version of khilafa refers to a following of the Prophet (sawas), which is not a Quranic sunnah. 

Edited by realizm

Share this post


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

What is there to be confused about?  Those that killed Uthman (رضي الله عنه) were not Sahabi.

well there is some dispute regarding who actually stabbed him but it is clear Sahaba were involved in uprising against him

Even if the person who struck him were not sahabi they were tabeen , they were trusted companions of sahaba and of the salaf ,why are you not treating them the same way as others ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, realizm said:

In the Qur'an, Caliph and Imam are both designated by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). No popular election.

I took the conclusion with my little understanding of Islam that they mean the same, but in a different context :

Khilafa is khalf which implies following the principles of Allah when there are no believers - like in the times of Adam

Imam implies leading believing men once the sunnah of Allah is recognised on Earth and Its subjects need guidance and Haqq.

JazakAllah Khair for the clarification.

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


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

By the way, Umar and Ali will be raised with each other since they loved each other. lol

I am now convinced Shiasm is a lie. 

Umar loved Imam Ali (عليه السلام) so much that he murdered his wife and dragged Imam Ali (عليه السلام) across with rope around his neck. 

I am now convinced Sunnism is stupidity. 

Share this post


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

Umar loved Imam Ali (عليه السلام) so much that he murdered his wife and dragged Imam Ali (عليه السلام) across with rope around his neck. 

I am now convinced Sunnism is stupidity. 

I’m not Sunni nor am I your conventional Shia, but your really believe that fairytale? I grew up believing it simply because that’s what was taught, but it makes zero sense when you take into consideration the actions of Imam Ali.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 786:) said:

I’m not Sunni nor am I your conventional Shia, but your really believe that fairytale? I grew up believing it simply because that’s what was taught, but it makes zero sense when you take into consideration the actions of Imam Ali.

Oppressions on Ahlul Bayt (عليهم اسلام) seems fairytale to you? 

Having Husne zann and considering you never saw the proof, here are some documentation from Sunni sources - 

http://www.shiavault.com/books/a-victim-lost-in-saqifah-1-4/chapters/60-discourse-twoefforts-to-obtain-Imam-Ali-s-a-s-bay-at-after-the-Prophet-s-demise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 786:) said:

your really believe that fairytale?

Which part is a "fairytale"? From WikiShia:

Quote

Under the governance of first three caliphs, which lasted 25 years, Imam 'Ali (a) did not alienate himself from the affairs of the Muslim community. In fact, he contributed to many scholarly endeavors and social services. This included activities like the compilation of the Qur'an (Mushaf of Imam 'Ali), and advising the three caliphs with regards to religious issues, conquests, and governance. He continued to give extensive charity to the poor and the orphans, and bought and freed a thousand slaves. He would farm and plant trees, dig canals, build mosques (like the Fath mosque in Medina, a mosque near the grave of Hamza, in Miqat, in Kufa, and in Basra). He would also dedicate (waqf) real estates and places for religious causes, whose annual income was 40,000 dinars.[122] Some of the most important historical events of the period is as follows.

During the Caliphate of Abu Bakr

With the beginning of the caliphate of Abu Bakr some tragic events occurred to the Ahl al-Bayt (a), such as: invasion to the home of 'Ali (a) in order to secure his allegiance for Abu Bakr,[123] the illegal confiscation and usurpation of Fadak, and the martyrdom of the Lady Fatima (a).

Forced Allegiance

When Imam 'Ali (a) and a few companions refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr, this proved to be a serious problem for Abu Bakr and 'Umar. The two decided to address this problem by forcing Imam 'Ali (a) into pledging allegiance with Abu Bakr.[124]

After refusing to pledge allegiance several times, Qunfudh was sent by Abu Bakr to Imam 'Ali's house in order to secure allegiance for Abu Bakr. Imam 'Ali (a) refused again. 'Umar then advised Abu Bakr: "You yourself should get up and go to Imam 'Ali." Thus, Abu Bakr, Umar, 'Uthman, Khalid b. al-Walid, al-Mughira b. Shu'ba, Abu 'Ubayda al-Jarrah and Qunfudh went to the house of Imam 'Ali (a).

When they arrived at his house, they insulted Lady Fatima (a) and slammed the door on her such that she became stuck between the door and the wall (which caused her a severe injury which later lead to her martyrdom). When she came out of house, they whipped her and attacked Imam 'Ali (a), wrapping his clothes over his neck, and taking him by force towards Saqifa Bani Sa'ida.

When he was taken towards Saqifa Bani Sa'ida, they asked him to pledge allegiance with Abu Bakr. Imam 'Ali (a) replied: "I am worthier than you with regards to the caliphate and I shall never pledge allegiance to you. Rather, you ought to pledge allegiance to me, since you took the caliphate over the Ansar according to your relationship with the Prophet (s) [while my relationship is closer], and now you usurp it from me...."[125]

There is disagreement among the historians as to Imam Ali's (a) pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr. Some believe that it occurred after the martyrdom of Lady Fatima (a), some maintain that it occurred forty days (or six months, according to others) after the Event of Saqifa. However, al-Shaykh al-Mufid holds that Ali (a) never pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr.

 

Share this post


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

I am saying this out of sympathy for you knowing the narrative you were brought up with.

I was brought up knowing NO Islam. But nice try.

8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

this does not mean that one of parties is necessarily evil and wretched. 

Unfortunately, they were evil and wretched, and there is more than sufficient proof to confirm this.

That's okay though...Rasulullah (s) said Ali (a) is my successor. So regardless, they didn't respect Rasulullah (s)

8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

his manner of leading was totally and 100% pure.  This purity cannot be contained in a tarnished realm.

I thought it was the Shias that exaggerate the Imams' status to lunacy.

...

Lastly, let's not act as if you really follow the 12 Imams. You don't even accept Shia books, because the companions (who apparently could not have ulterior motives -- because God would have protected the Ummah from that -- I.e. more Sunni exaggeration) are better to be narrated from because they supposedly would adhere to Rasulullah (s) forever -- because they themselves chose to be companions or were allowed to be companions, etc. Alternatively, you can take from narrators of the Ahlul-Bayt (a) and the righteous companions of Rasulullah (s) whom accepted his command to hold onto the Qu'ran and Ahlul-Bayt as Khalifa and Imam, which was a command from God. 

It appears that the reason you take from the former ahadith books, is because you can look at what happened on the surface of history, and confirm it with the ahadith. You can't do that with the latter.

If you were to look deeper, you'd have seen that Imam Ali (a) should have been the first caliph. You'd have seen him teaching the truth to those who made baya to him.

14 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

And by the way it is Bidatun Hasana.  Umar (رضي الله عنه) knows the the essence of the religion of the Prophet (S) better than any Shia that comes after and who has to rely on their compilation of weak narrations called "Al-Kafi".  I trust Umar (رضي الله عنه) than a Shia that curses the Companions of the Prophet (S)

At best, you can say you're a follower of Ali (a), none of the other infallibles are even narrated or spoken of enough in Sunni works of exegesis to say that you follow them.

Unless, you are saying you accept al-Kafi, but will put Bidatun Hasana > Four Shia Books & all Shia exegesis & scholarly works. However, with the latter denouncing the former, it is certainly illogical.

Basically, where are you getting your deen from?

...

For whatever reason, you don't want to admit the transgressions of the companions and you have repeatedly raised their status.

On what basis do you say the proof of their transgressions against God is insufficient. Maybe clarify your stance, because to us it sounds like there are competing historical claims and you pick and chose as you please.

In order to satisfy your ego, you needed to reconcile this doctrine with your belief in the Imams. 

It all reminds me of your "I am I am" or whatever it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

I was brought up knowing NO Islam. But nice try.

Unfortunately, they were evil and wretched, and there is more than sufficient proof to confirm this.

That's okay though...Rasulullah (s) said Ali (a) is my successor. So regardless, they didn't respect Rasulullah (s)

I thought it was the Shias that exaggerate the Imams' status to lunacy.

...

Lastly, let's not act as if you really follow the 12 Imams. You don't even accept Shia books, because the companions (who apparently could not have ulterior motives -- because God would have protected the Ummah from that -- I.e. more Sunni exaggeration) are better to be narrated from because they supposedly would adhere to Rasulullah (s) forever -- because they themselves chose to be companions or were allowed to be companions, etc. Alternatively, you can take from narrators of the Ahlul-Bayt (a) and the righteous companions of Rasulullah (s) whom accepted his command to hold onto the Qu'ran and Ahlul-Bayt as Khalifa and Imam, which was a command from God. 

It appears that the reason you take from the former ahadith books, is because you can look at what happened on the surface of history, and confirm it with the ahadith. You can't do that with the latter.

If you were to look deeper, you'd have seen that Imam Ali (a) should have been the first caliph. You'd have seen him teaching the truth to those who made baya to him.

At best, you can say you're a follower of Ali (a), none of the other infallibles are even narrated or spoken of enough in Sunni works of exegesis to say that you follow them.

Unless, you are saying you accept al-Kafi, but will put Bidatun Hasana > Four Shia Books & all Shia exegesis & scholarly works. However, with the latter denouncing the former, it is certainly illogical.

Basically, where are you getting your deen from?

...

For whatever reason, you don't want to admit the transgressions of the companions and you have repeatedly raised their status.

On what basis do you say the proof of their transgressions against God is insufficient. Maybe clarify your stance, because to us it sounds like there are competing historical claims and you pick and chose as you please.

In order to satisfy your ego, you needed to reconcile this doctrine with your belief in the Imams. 

It all reminds me of your "I am I am" or whatever it was.

Discussion is not going anywhere now.  I agree to disagree.

 

Thanks for your time though

Ethereal

Share this post


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

Oppressions on Ahlul Bayt (عليهم اسلام) seems fairytale to you? 

Having Husne zann and considering you never saw the proof, here are some documentation from Sunni sources - 

http://www.shiavault.com/books/a-victim-lost-in-saqifah-1-4/chapters/60-discourse-twoefforts-to-obtain-Imam-Ali-s-a-s-bay-at-after-the-Prophet-s-demise

The point is that Sunnis don't accept that because it doesn't make any sense.  How can the Lion of God (عليه السلام) accept humiliation like that?  I have heard it said from the minbar in Shia Majlises that the Prophet (S) commanded Al (عليه السلام) not raise his hand to fight against any injustice committed against him (عليه السلام).   

This doesn't make much sense to me.  

Share this post


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

The point is that Sunnis don't accept that because it doesn't make any sense.  How can the Lion of God (عليه السلام) accept humiliation like that?  I have heard it said from the minbar in Shia Majlises that the Prophet (S) commanded Al (عليه السلام) not raise his hand to fight against any injustice committed against him (عليه السلام).   

I was replying to another member who claimed he's not Sunni but Shia. So I provided proofs to show that even Sunnis has documented so many proofs regarding Umar's zulm even when it goes against them and their caliph. And it is in so many different sources that Sunnis can't deny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, realizm said:

:salam:

The battle of Karbala is precisely what may happen when people take positions that they do not deserve : a non divine Caliph who slays a divine figure and his companions.

You are making it like theological dogma (which is clearly human constructed after the fact).  One just has to keep things simple and say (without the need for theological dogma) that:  The battle of Kerbala occurred simply because of people in power can commit injustice.  You seem to imply that every single persn in power who is not an Imam is unjust and is a Zalim.  This is precisely what you are implying and this is NOT true!

9 hours ago, realizm said:

In the Qur'an, Caliph and Imam are both designated by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). No popular election.

So, every single ruler of today tat s not the Imam is an unjust ruler and oppressor and is a usurper.  ??

Tell me how you are not implying this please.

 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...