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

Imam Ali (as) and burnin people.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member
49 minutes ago, Fouad4 said:

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) burned homosexuals

Not true. Just the dead bodies of homosexuals. Might be to check diseases like HIV.

Edited by The Green Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I personally don't believe it there are a lot of dodgy so called Sahih hadiths, but here's my 2 cents on the issue:

It was narrated from 'Ikrimah:
 
"Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.' If it had been me, I would have killed them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"
 
 
If we believe that Imam 'Ali was the most expert on the Quran and Sunnah then it is doubtful he would of flagrantly disobeyed such Sunnah. It would seem more likely that Abu Bakr had burned them as he encouraged Khalid ibn al-Walid to do when the people refused to pay his zakaat and he classed them apostates. In fact, apparently even Umar warned Abu Bakr about this. So does Umar have more knowledge than Imam 'Ali?

In his book Al-Riyad al-Nadira, al-Tabari indicates that Banu Saleem (after the prophet's death) had reneged, whereupon Abu Bakr sent them Khalid ibn al-Walid who gathered some of their men inside animal sheds then set them to fire. When ‘’Umar ibn al-Khattab came to know about this incident, he went to see Abu Bakr and said, "Why do you let a man employ the same method of torture employed by Allah, the Most Exalted One, the Great [i.e. burning with fire]?" Abu Bakr answered him by saying, "By Allah! I shall not shame a sword which Allah unsheathed against His foes till He Himself shames it," then he ordered him to leave, whereupon he instantly went out to see Musaylamah the Liar. This is how "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’a" came to call Khalid "The Sword of Allah" even though he had disobeyed the order of the Messenger of Allah (S) and burnt people with fire, thus totally discarding the Sunnah.In his Sahih, al-Bukhari indicates that the Messenger of Allah (S) had said, "Nobody employs the fire for torture except Allah," and also, "None torments with the fire except the fire's God." And we have already indicated how Abu Bakr used to say before his death, "I wish I never burnt al-Salami!"
 
 
If you put the two traditions togther I personally think it was Imam 'Ali who really objected to Abu Bakr all along, as 'Umar was best friends with Abu Bakr and they both attained the caliphate with each other's assistance. 'Umar had clearly demonstrated by that point his willingness to use burning to get what he wanted. Even if we assume it was 'Umar making the objection, it was Abu Bakr who had clearly the propensity for burning people and began this trend after the prophet's (s) passing, often for his own reasons despite objections by companions as it was against the Sunnah.
 
It would seem that narrators later on have tried to legitimise Abu Bakr's actions by saying that other people did it too, but we Shias do not believe Imam 'Ali disregards the Sunnah, although others may choose to do so. The incidents quoted above are highly similar and both clearly make the point that is against the Sunnah to do such things. Many of these narrations have been twisted and turned even in the Shia books. Remember when a person writes Sahih they are saying the chain is Sahih, not necessarily the narration especially in Shia hadith studies.
 
Also if you read the narration in al-Tabari's history I think it is, 'Umar's reason for then listening to Abu Bakr seems rather weak, he says "Then suddenly my heart agreed with what Abu Bakr said about fighting them". It's obviously been fabricated to make 'Umar sound concerned and it was more likely Imam 'Ali rejecting Abu Bakr's "itjihad" which would of been embarassing from a Sunni perspective. This was a very controversial incident in Islam and was the first takfir in reality, where Abu Bakr classed those who didn't pay zakaat as apostates and allowed them to be burned.. Of course this incident reflects very poorly on Abu Bakr and his knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah, hence the scribes have had to make it seem like other people did it, despite it being against the Sunnah.
 
Do we really believe that Imam 'Ali chose to follow in the footsteps of Abu Bakr regarding the Sunnah? Do we really believe that Imam 'Ali continued this innovation (bidah) started by Abu Bakr, despite the favourite quote from 'Umar saying that if "It wasn't for 'Ali then 'Umar would be ruined!" after 'Umar was about to punish someone when they were not eligible for punishment? Clearly Imam 'Ali had a track record for intervening when he saw injustice carried out by the caliphs, much to the embarassment of those who rank them above him. These events have been clearly narrated in both Sunni and Shia books. Imam 'Ali was even clear about not acting on the "judgements of the two sheikhs" when he was offered the caliphate after the death of 'Umar (see al-Tabari's Conquest of Iran Vol 9 I think). It was for this reason which he did not get the caliphate but 'Uthman accepted on these terms!
 
Thus it seems more logical to conclude Imam 'Ali actually objected to this all along because he was strict in obeying the Sunnah, so much so that he even forfeited leadership when the terms hindered him following it.
 
The explanation above might sound a bit far fetched, but it is not when you consider how Muawiyah and his comrades paid people to fabricate hadiths specifically about the two sheikhs and against Imam 'Ali, which you can easily find in al-Bukhari and Muslim.. Read here https://www.al-islam.org/sulh-peace-treaty-imam-al-hasan-shaykh-radi-aal-yasin/muawiya-and-shia-ali-peace-be-him
 
These narrations belong in the dustbin along with the narrations about the goat eating verses of the Quran which had the "stoning verses" on.
Edited by gharib570
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Fouad4 said:

There are Hadith I’ve read that have been graded sahih by al majlesi and khoei etc. Saying that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) burned homosexuals and other people is this true or what is the explanation for this as it’s graded sahih?

Thanks. 

IDK about that I know he burnt the one  guy alive y know the guy who said that Maaz Allah Ali un Allah yh he burnt him and another guy who commited a crime i will not write down but i heard this somewhere aswell remember Imam (ASWS) did things for a reason he is wiser then the whole ummah put toghehter x100000 x every ummah before x500000 x angles because he is teacher of Gibrail (ASWS)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
15 hours ago, Fouad4 said:

There are Hadith I’ve read that have been graded sahih by al majlesi and khoei etc. Saying that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) burned homosexuals and other people is this true or what is the explanation for this as it’s graded sahih?

Thanks. 

Do you have any proof for this brother? The Hadith says he burned them alive and it is graded sahih by several scholars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
13 hours ago, gharib570 said:

I personally don't believe it there are a lot of dodgy so called Sahih hadiths, but here's my 2 cents on the issue:

It was narrated from 'Ikrimah:
 
"Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.' If it had been me, I would have killed them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"
 
 
If we believe that Imam 'Ali was the most expert on the Quran and Sunnah then it is doubtful he would of flagrantly disobeyed such Sunnah. It would seem more likely that Abu Bakr had burned them as he encouraged Khalid ibn al-Walid to do when the people refused to pay his zakaat and he classed them apostates. In fact, apparently even Umar warned Abu Bakr about this. So does Umar have more knowledge than Imam 'Ali?

In his book Al-Riyad al-Nadira, al-Tabari indicates that Banu Saleem (after the prophet's death) had reneged, whereupon Abu Bakr sent them Khalid ibn al-Walid who gathered some of their men inside animal sheds then set them to fire. When ‘’Umar ibn al-Khattab came to know about this incident, he went to see Abu Bakr and said, "Why do you let a man employ the same method of torture employed by Allah, the Most Exalted One, the Great [i.e. burning with fire]?" Abu Bakr answered him by saying, "By Allah! I shall not shame a sword which Allah unsheathed against His foes till He Himself shames it," then he ordered him to leave, whereupon he instantly went out to see Musaylamah the Liar. This is how "Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama’a" came to call Khalid "The Sword of Allah" even though he had disobeyed the order of the Messenger of Allah (S) and burnt people with fire, thus totally discarding the Sunnah.In his Sahih, al-Bukhari indicates that the Messenger of Allah (S) had said, "Nobody employs the fire for torture except Allah," and also, "None torments with the fire except the fire's God." And we have already indicated how Abu Bakr used to say before his death, "I wish I never burnt al-Salami!"
 
 
If you put the two traditions togther I personally think it was Imam 'Ali who really objected to Abu Bakr all along, as 'Umar was best friends with Abu Bakr and they both attained the caliphate with each other's assistance. 'Umar had clearly demonstrated by that point his willingness to use burning to get what he wanted. Even if we assume it was 'Umar making the objection, it was Abu Bakr who had clearly the propensity for burning people and began this trend after the prophet's (s) passing, often for his own reasons despite objections by companions as it was against the Sunnah.
 
It would seem that narrators later on have tried to legitimise Abu Bakr's actions by saying that other people did it too, but we Shias do not believe Imam 'Ali disregards the Sunnah, although others may choose to do so. The incidents quoted above are highly similar and both clearly make the point that is against the Sunnah to do such things. Many of these narrations have been twisted and turned even in the Shia books. Remember when a person writes Sahih they are saying the chain is Sahih, not necessarily the narration especially in Shia hadith studies.
 
Also if you read the narration in al-Tabari's history I think it is, 'Umar's reason for then listening to Abu Bakr seems rather weak, he says "Then suddenly my heart agreed with what Abu Bakr said about fighting them". It's obviously been fabricated to make 'Umar sound concerned and it was more likely Imam 'Ali rejecting Abu Bakr's "itjihad" which would of been embarassing from a Sunni perspective. This was a very controversial incident in Islam and was the first takfir in reality, where Abu Bakr classed those who didn't pay zakaat as apostates and allowed them to be burned.. Of course this incident reflects very poorly on Abu Bakr and his knowledge of the Quran and Sunnah, hence the scribes have had to make it seem like other people did it, despite it being against the Sunnah.
 
Do we really believe that Imam 'Ali chose to follow in the footsteps of Abu Bakr regarding the Sunnah? Do we really believe that Imam 'Ali continued this innovation (bidah) started by Abu Bakr, despite the favourite quote from 'Umar saying that if "It wasn't for 'Ali then 'Umar would be ruined!" after 'Umar was about to punish someone when they were not eligible for punishment? Clearly Imam 'Ali had a track record for intervening when he saw injustice carried out by the caliphs, much to the embarassment of those who rank them above him. These events have been clearly narrated in both Sunni and Shia books. Imam 'Ali was even clear about not acting on the "judgements of the two sheikhs" when he was offered the caliphate after the death of 'Umar (see al-Tabari's Conquest of Iran Vol 9 I think). It was for this reason which he did not get the caliphate but 'Uthman accepted on these terms!
 
Thus it seems more logical to conclude Imam 'Ali actually objected to this all along because he was strict in obeying the Sunnah, so much so that he even forfeited leadership when the terms hindered him following it.
 
The explanation above might sound a bit far fetched, but it is not when you consider how Muawiyah and his comrades paid people to fabricate hadiths specifically about the two sheikhs and against Imam 'Ali, which you can easily find in al-Bukhari and Muslim.. Read here https://www.al-islam.org/sulh-peace-treaty-imam-al-hasan-shaykh-radi-aal-yasin/muawiya-and-shia-ali-peace-be-him
 
These narrations belong in the dustbin along with the narrations about the goat eating verses of the Quran which had the "stoning verses" on.

Salam, what about in wasa’il al Shia where it says he burned them alive? This was graded sahih by several major scholars.

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...