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

Delay in Prophet's Burial & Leadership

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Salam!!

It is mentioned in multiple sources that the burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was delayed for one to two days. 

"Abul-Fida' and Ibn al-Wardi indicate that the Prophet died on Monday and was buried the next day, i.e. Tuesday. And in one tradition, it is said that he was buried in the night between Tuesday and Wednesday. This appears to be more factual. But according to some others, he was not buried for three days after his death."

What may be the reason for this delay in his burial?

It is said that since the matter of leadership was so sensitive that it is necessary for the Muslims to elect their leader/caliph/successor of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Therefore the burial was delayed.

This is a very surprising argument. Muslims, immediate after the death of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) have realized the most important task but neither God nor His Apostle have realized the importance of this matter and have left this important issue to ummah.

So religion become perfected in the life of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but that perfect religion never mentioned who to follow after Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Quran mentions the "Ulil Amr" but neither Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) nor His Apostle explained the term to Muslims who actually is the "Ulil Amr" after Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) whose obedience is made obligatory? 

I am sorry to say that if this is the reason for delayed burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) then the Muslims have thrown a lie on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle. 

Infact the sensitivity of this matter is mentioned in Quran too. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has revealed to His Apostle this verse:

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ

5:67) O Messenger! deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.

What is that command which if gone undelivered, tantamount to not delivering the whole message? 

We Shia's know very well what this command is. 

So I am inviting the comments on this thread to understand the shi'i perspective for delay in the burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and understanding the Sunni perspective for the same.

Wassalam!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Here is one Sunni perspective, don't know which branch of Sunni's it belongs. 

"The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) had been very ill, at the age of 63 in Madina in the end of Safar, 11th year of Hijrah.  Everyone was very worried about what was going to happen. As he was bedridden (Allah bless him and grant him peace), he gave express instructions to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), the Truthful One (siddiq) of this nation (ummah), to lead the Muslims in the daily prayers.

At times while the prayer was going on, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would peek through the curtain from his room which adjoined the masjid, making sure that his community was ready to be on its own.  Then, reassured, he would smile and go back.  Sometimes, he would feel better and take the help of two men to attend the prayer whilst seated on the ground, too weak to raise his voice (Allah bless him and grant him peace).

Then, one Monday in the month of Rabi’ al-Awwal, news came that he had returned to Allah and passed away.  The Muslims were in shock and besides themselves with grief, not knowing what had really happened.  After assessing the situation and verifying the news, the one Companion that managed to compose himself and steer the community towards clarity was Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him).

As news of the death spread like wildfire across Madina, meetings and talks sprung up around the city as to who would take charge of the community and guide the Muslims back to a sense of order and calm at this difficult time.  There was already talk of having two co-rulers from the Ansar and Muhajireen respectively – others disagreed.

The unity of the Muslims was threatened by the vacuum of leadership, so Abu Bakr and other senior Companions went to address the grave danger of disharmony and anarchy, with the result that all sides present united to nominate Abu Bakr as the first caliph of the Muslim community.

During this time on Tuesday, an honorary bathing (ghusl) of the Prophet’s (Allah bless him and grant him peace) ever-pure and blessed body was taking place, conducted by his closest relatives, as is the norm in Islamic law.  They were ‘Ali his cousin, al-‘Abbas his uncle and his two sons al-Fadl and Qutham, and his two freedmen Usamah and Shuqran, with an Ansari attending to them, may Allah be pleased with them.

The clothes were left on out of respect, and nothing impure left his blessed body, so they shrouded him and ‘Ali said, “Allah’s blessing be upon you, you were pure in both life and death.” [al-Hakim, Mustadrak; Ahmad, Musnad]."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

Wa ’alaykum Salaam

3 hours ago, Cool said:

I am sorry to say that if this is the reason for delayed burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) then the Muslims have thrown a lie on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle. 

Indeed! And for such people Allah Almighty has promised to disgrace them in this world (for all to see)

The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and feet be cut off on the opposite sides or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.” [Quran 5:33]

If anyone had done anything wrong surely, Allah Almighty would have disgraced and punished the culprits there and then for all to see. As it happened to all those who opposed Islam!

Then the particular people you have in mind – Did Allah Almighty punish them and disgrace them for all to see?

No!  In fact, history is witness that these two Noble personalities (may Allah be pleased with them both) you have in mind, Allah Almighty rewarded them with Leadership of all Muslims. 

1) Under their Noble leadership stability was established.
2) Sasanian and Roman Empires were brought crushing down to their knees
3) Islam was introduces into these areas
4) The Blessed Al Quds – the first Islamic Qiblah was brought to Islamic control.
5) The second of these Noble Souls was honoured by Allah Almighty to accept the surrender of Al Quds to Muslims. And a Mosque is named after him in the vicinity of Al Quds.
6) When these Noble Souls (may Allah be pleased with them both) passed away, they were honoured to be buried next to the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) by Allah Almighty’s Will.
7) All Muslims from that time on to present and the coming future till the end, who are blessed to perform Hajj or Umrah and visit the City of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to pay him their respects, Salutations and Blessings have only to take on small step to the right to pay their respects and blessings to these two Noble Souls.  What a great honour! 

Do you honestly think that those who have thrown a lie on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle would be rewarded this great honour!!

3 hours ago, Cool said:

We Shia's know very well what this command is. 

So I am inviting the comments on this thread to understand the shi'i perspective for delay in the burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and understanding the Sunni perspective for the same.

 

Luckily, you will get a lot of views from shi'i perspectives here – trust me, a lot.

Unfortunately, and I am disappointed to say this that you will be lucky to get any good Sunni perspective for the same. All those who could have responded and are knowledgeable are banned here. :(
Brothers Cherub786 and Nightclaw (May Allah Bless them) participation would have been very fruitful.

To get a good Sunni perspective, I suggest that you post this in some good Sunni site.  You will definitely get a good response.  Please count me out to debate.  I am just a Debate Follower.  I said what I had to say.

Wassalaam.

 

 

Edited by Debate follower
grammar ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Indeed! And for such people Allah Almighty has promised to disgrace them in this world (for all to see)

The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and feet be cut off on the opposite sides or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.” [Quran 5:33]

If anyone had done anything wrong surely, Allah Almighty would have disgraced and punished the culprits there and then for all to see. As it happened to all those who opposed Islam!

Salam!

Thanks for your input.

As I have said that thse people have thrown a lie on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle, so I think the most relevant verse to quote for such people is this:

وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ يُعْرَضُونَ عَلَىٰ رَبِّهِمْ وَيَقُولُ الْأَشْهَادُ هَٰؤُلَاءِ الَّذِينَ كَذَبُوا عَلَىٰ رَبِّهِمْ ۚ أَلَا لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ {18}

[Shakir 11:18] And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah? These shall be brought before their Lord, and the witnesses shall say: These are they who lied against their Lord. Now surely the curse of Allah is on the unjust.

5 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Then the particular people you have in mind – Did Allah Almighty punish them and disgrace them for all to see?

No!  In fact, history is witness that these two Noble personalities (may Allah be pleased with them both) you have in mind, Allah Almighty rewarded them with Leadership of all Muslims. 

The question was asked about the delayed burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). I have no personalities in mind at the moment unless someone come up with the explanation. 

Secondly, as the verse quoted by me mentions that the disgrace and punishment for such people has been arranged in hereafter. Here is another relevant verse:

وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ تَرَى الَّذِينَ كَذَبُواْ عَلَى اللَّهِ وُجُوهُهُم مُّسْوَدَّةٌ أَلَيْسَ فِي جَهَنَّمَ مَثْوًى لِّلْمُتَكَبِّرِينَ

39:60

5 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Do you honestly think that those who have thrown a lie on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle would be rewarded this great honour!!

Your 7 points are not an honour. Even disbelievers & mushriks were given the rulership, they were given the lands & wealth.

Their burial beside Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is not an honour either. Taqwa is the actual honour and those who have thrown lie on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle are neither Mo'min nor are the Muttaqi. 

5 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Unfortunately, and I am disappointed to say this that you will be lucky to get any good Sunni perspective for the same. All those who could have responded and are knowledgeable are banned here. :(
Brothers Cherub786 and Nightclaw (May Allah Bless them) participation would have been very fruitful.

lol, I had discussions with both of them. They indeed are knowledgeable people but what their knowledge benefit them if they keep mixing the truth & falsehood. 

I hope that someone else will appear to present the Sunni perspective or perhaps we may see a response from these two, they can post their comment as guest.

5 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Please count me out to debate.  I am just a Debate Follower.  I said what I had to say.

Okk,  I have addressed your points. 

Wassalam!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Debate follower said:

No!  In fact, history is witness that these two Noble personalities (may Allah be pleased with them both) you have in mind, Allah Almighty rewarded them with Leadership of all Muslims. 

1) Under their Noble leadership stability was established.
2) Sasanian and Roman Empires were brought crushing down to their knees
3) Islam was introduces into these areas
4) The Blessed Al Quds – the first Islamic Qiblah was brought to Islamic control.
5) The second of these Noble Souls was honoured by Allah Almighty to accept the surrender of Al Quds to Muslims. And a Mosque is named after him in the vicinity of Al Quds.
6) When these Noble Souls (may Allah be pleased with them both) passed away, they were honoured to be buried next to the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) by Allah Almighty’s Will.
7) All Muslims from that time on to present and the coming future till the end, who are blessed to perform Hajj or Umrah and visit the City of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to pay him their respects, Salutations and Blessings have only to take on small step to the right to pay their respects and blessings to these two Noble Souls.  What a great honour! 

Do you honestly think that those who have thrown a lie on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle would be rewarded this great honour!!

Salam all of these achievement have  happened by Muslims not by any of three caliphs which majority of muslims have partipated in wars for sake of Islam not for sake of obying any of three caliphs likewise these wars have been continued by Ummayids &  Abbasids which both of dynasties have "thrown a lie on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle" however since time of second caliph these wars by wrong policy of second caliph  step by step has been altered to doing wars for gaining wealth through collecting  booty of war & taking Jaziah  which leads to corruption of companions likewise Talha & Zubair & spreading injustice specially in financial issues against teachings of Islam & prophet Muhammad(pbu) which Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in contrast with three caliphs has devoted all of his life for safeguarding original teaching of Islam & prophet Muhammad (pbu) during time of three caliphs & trying hardly for fixing their deviations & restoring everything to original teachings of Islam & prophet Muhammad (pbu) during after becoming caliph although he knew that majority of people will stand against him after his reforms as caliph which it has been a reason for tating his quote about preferring for not being as caliph in Nahjul Balagha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Swimming past the lengthy material available on web for mentioning the reason for delay in the burial of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). I am now sharing the conclusion which I got:

Conclusion

The Ijma as-Sahabah over the delay of the Prophet’s ﷺ burial is an evidence on the obligation of establishing the Khilafah. This is not the only evidence but supplements those found in the Qur’an and Sunnah and derived from the shariah principle, “That which is necessary to accomplish a Wajib is itself a Wajib.” These evidences are well known and discussed elsewhere.[25]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/islamciv.com/2013/08/25/why-was-prophet-muhammads-%EF%B7%BA-burial-delayed/amp/

This has strengthen my view and I am very logical to ask that why Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has not guided the ummah with respect to this matter for which companions were needed to delay the burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) for 2 days? 

I am very logical to ask why Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) himself never realized that the Ummah will face this problem? 

Fact of the matter is that, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle, both have mentioned it clearly. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has commanded the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) several times in the following verses:

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَبِّكَ ۖ وَإِنْ لَمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ

5:67

فَإِذَا فَرَغْتَ فَانْصَبْ

94:7

And Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) did deliver the divine message in the sermon of Ghadir by stating من كنت مولا فهذا علي مولا

1) So while it is established that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His Apostle have already addressed the issue, why Muslims were needed to ignore or perhaps dislike the divine command?

Just for gaining the power!!!

2) Is it possible that a believer can dislike the command of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & his Apostle?

Yes, it is possible according to Quran and there are many verses mentioning this possibility:

لَقَدِ ابْتَغَوُاْ الْفِتْنَةَ مِن قَبْلُ وَقَلَّبُواْ لَكَ الأُمُورَ حَتَّى جَاء الْحَقُّ وَظَهَرَ أَمْرُ اللّهِ وَهُمْ كَارِهُونَ

9:48

In Sura e Muhammad, you will find these verses:

ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَرِهُوا مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأَحْبَطَ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

47:9 

ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا لِلَّذِينَ كَرِهُوا مَا نَزَّلَ اللَّهُ سَنُطِيعُكُمْ فِي بَعْضِ الْأَمْرِ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِسْرَارَهُمْ

47:26

ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمُ اتَّبَعُوا مَا أَسْخَطَ اللَّهَ وَكَرِهُوا رِضْوَانَهُ فَأَحْبَطَ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

47:28 

It is unbelievable that out of more than hundred thousand Muslims, only few remembered what Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said in Ghadir. A huge majority just ignored or disliked the divine selection and go to the extent that they started throwing lies on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle. 

They understood the obligation of selecting the Caliph but Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle never understood the importance of matter & left it on Ummah!!! The ummah which instead of rushing to the Prophet's body for offering the funeral prayer, started appointing one or two caliphs and they left his blessed body unattended for two days!!! 

I think this alone is the black day for all so called Muslims who are bent on denying that Prophet did nominate his successor in his life time. He was even willing to write it down on paper.

Alas!!! That never happened. 

The tragic days of Prophet's illness never end after his death. To his very blessed body, they appeared with a clear disobedience of his command given at Ghadir. To his blessed body they gathered after appointing their caliph and after rejecting the divine pleasure (رضوانه) for which they even denied the timely burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

There was a delay in burying his body? I never heard this before..i thought Imam Ali(عليه السلام) buried him while the others were busy trying to decide who would succeed him..

I never heard there was a delay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 hours ago, PureExistence1 said:

There was a delay in burying his body?

Salam

Quote

Hazrat Imam  Baqir (عليه السلام) says:

"People have prayed on the body of the prophet  on Monday and Tuesday night, and majority of  public, even the relatives and friends of the prophet ,have  prayed on the body of the prophet , but none of the people of Saqifa  have attended for bathing, shrouding and burial of the prophet . Amir al-Mu'minin (AS)" has sent " Burayda  Aslamī " to inform them, but they did not pay attention, and after burying him, their allegiance is ended too."

Ayesha has a confession about this that is interesting. She said:

"By Allah, we did not know about the burial of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) until we heard the sound of shovels and pickaxes from his room," that is, we realized after the burial.

Source:

Shiite Calendar, Abdolhossein Neyshabouri, Publisher: Dalil Ma, 2008.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Just now, Ashvazdanghe said:

Shiite Calendar, Abdolhossein Neyshabouri, Publisher: Dalil Ma, 2008

https://www.isna.ir/news/92101306390/پیکر-پیامبر-گرامی-اسلام-ص-چه-زمانی-دفن-شد

Burayda b. al-Ḥuṣayb al-Aslamī 

Quote

After the Prophet (s)'s Demise

After the Prophet (s) demise, Burayda al-Aslami refused to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr and supported Imam 'Ali (a).[6] He continued to live in Medina until Basra was built, when he moved to Basra. He fought in Khorasan and resided in Merv.[7]

According to Ibn Kathir[8] and al-Baladhuri,[9] he and Rabi' b. Ziyad were among the 50,000 people who moved from Basra and Kufa to Khorasan in 51/671 at the command of Ziyad b. Abih.

 

Quote

Love of Imam 'Ali (a)

His love for Imam 'Ali (a) goes back to his company of the Imam (a) during a trip to Yemen. On this trip, Khalid b. al-Walid who was dissatisfied with Imam 'Ali's (a) performance, sent Burayda to the Prophet (s) in order to express his complaints of Imam 'Ali (a).[10] When he went to the Prophet (s) and heard the Prophet's (s) word about Imam 'Ali (a), he began to love the Imam (a). When Abu Bakr was appointed as the caliph after the demise of the Prophet (s), he went to the Banu Aslam tribe and installed a flag among them, calling people to object to Abu Bakr's caliphate and pledge their allegiance to Imam 'Ali (a).[11]

He narrated many hadiths from the Prophet (s) with regard to the virtues of Imam 'Ali (a), including:

  • The Event of Ghadir Khumm.[12]
  • The story of the Prophet (s) taking back the flag from Abu Bakr and giving it to 'Ali (a) in the Battle of Khaybar.[13] The Prophet (s) had said: "tomorrow I will give the flag to someone who is loved by God and His prophet, and God will bring about the victory on his hands, and he never runs away." The next day he gave the flag to 'Ali (a) and he conquered the battle.[14]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Burayda_b._al-Husayb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, PureExistence1 said:

never heard there was a delay

Alaikas Salam!!

Perhaps because this is not what we 12er believe. For us, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was buried on the same day he died. 

It is however, the ijmaa of Ahlul Sunnah that Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was buried two days after his death. And they unanimously hold this view and say that the reason of this delay was the necessity of appointing the caliph. 

I am challenging their point of view and arguing that the reason they give tantamount to throwing lie on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle. 

We have reports that when Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was informed about the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr, and he was levelling the grave of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) at that time, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) recited the first four verses of Al-Ankaboot. 

Edited by Cool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 8/2/2021 at 6:50 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam all of these achievement have  happened by Muslims not by any of three caliphs which majority of muslims have partipated in wars for sake of Islam not for sake of obying any of three caliphs

Wa ‘alaykum Salaam, Alhamdulillah!  Glad to hear that you take to them be Muslims and not as apostates!  Very refreshing!  Generally, Shias believe that all Muslims committed apostasy. except for very, very few. Right?

I know it is very difficult for you to give credit where it is due. Understandably so, you just can’t help it.  These Noble people (may Allah be pleased with them) were the Khalifs and they were in Authority and running the affairs. All these ‘good’ things happened under their watch and their reward is with Allah Almighty.

On 8/2/2021 at 6:50 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

however since time of second caliph these wars by wrong policy of second caliph  step by step has been altered to doing wars for gaining wealth through collecting  booty of war & taking Jaziah 

How ungrateful of you! You must be thankful to the second Khalif (may Allah be pleased with him). Under his wise leadership and guidance, the great Iranian Nation was freed from tyrannical Sasinian rule and was incorporated into Islamic Khilaafat.  Later, in return, this great Iranian nation gave Muslims some of the most prominent scholars – par excellence!

On 8/2/2021 at 6:50 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in contrast with three caliphs has devoted all of his life for safeguarding original teaching of Islam & prophet Muhammad (pbu) during time of three caliphs & trying hardly for fixing their deviations & restoring everything to original teachings of Islam & prophet Muhammad (pbu) during after becoming caliph although he knew that majority of people will stand against him after his reforms as caliph which it has been a reason for tating his quote about preferring for not being as caliph in Nahjul Balagha.

Glad to see that you mentioned Nahjul Balagha

Please refer to letter 58 sent by Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) to the people of various provinces, giving them the causes of the Battle of Siffin.  I have quoted the relevant part of it addressing the false accusations that you have made. Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) completely and thoroughly negates your false accusations!!!!

The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it.

I advised them that this problem cannot be solved by excitement. Let the excitement subside, let us cool down; let us do away with sedition and revolt; let the country settle down into a peaceful atmosphere and when once a stable regime is formed and the right authority is accepted, then let this question be dealt with on the principles of equity and justice because only then the authority will have power enough to find the criminals and to bring them to justice. They refused to accept my advice and said that they wanted to decide the issue on the point of the sword……………………. Letter 58 Nahjul Balagha

https://english.almaaref.org/essaydetails.php?eid=578&cid=102

Note: Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) states categorically without any ambiguity that they were “on the same principles and canons of religion” – No deviations  as you falsely allege!

1) we had common faith in one Allah
2) in the same Prophet (peace be upon him and his household)
3) and on the same principles and canons of religion

Let’s see how you wiggle out of this without contradicting Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him).

And then ponder very conscientiously and diligently over the following (continuation of letter 58)

1) So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in
2) and they did not want us to change our faith
3) Both of us were united on these principles

Did Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) mention that He was the Imam of that time? 

Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) has stated very clearly, categorically without any ambiguity that he and his opponents were on same page, on same lines and same word by word principles and canons of religion.

And yet you seem to be completely contradicting him!

Let’s see how you wiggle out of this without contradicting Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him).

Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) stated very clearly, categorically without any ambiguity that he and his opponents ONLY disagreed upon murder of Hz. Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him)

The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it.”

Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) stated very clearly, categorically without any ambiguity that they had the same Aqeeda with no differences whatsoever.

Every Muslim agrees to this! Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) was on the Haq (Truth) and the Haq was with him.

Let me also state that I am glad that I was not born in those turbulent times.  If it was Allah Almighty’s for me to be born in that time, I would have been honoured to be a foot soldier from the sincere followers of Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) not from the troublemakers and opportunists who were hiding in the ranks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

Assalama alaykum Cool – I got the following – I hope it helps you.

https://mahajjah.com/accusation-regarding-abu-bakr-and-umar-not-being-present-at-the-janazah-of-rasulullah/

As I advised you earlier, to get in-depth information you have to post your query in a good Sunni Website – otherwise it’s going to be Shia-Shia talk on Shia-Sunni issues. 

How I wish brothers Cherub786 and Nightclaw were here.  It would and interesting debate.

5 hours ago, Cool said:

Perhaps because this is not what we 12er believe. For us, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was buried on the same day he died. 

 

On 8/1/2021 at 5:54 PM, Cool said:

"Abul-Fida' and Ibn al-Wardi indicate that the Prophet died on Monday and was buried the next day, i.e. Tuesday. And in one tradition, it is said that he was buried in the night between Tuesday and Wednesday. This appears to be more factual. But according to some others, he was not buried for three days after his death."

 

Edited by Debate follower
grammar ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
52 minutes ago, Debate follower said:

Assalama alaykum Cool – I got the following – I hope it helps you.

https://mahajjah.com/accusation-regarding-abu-bakr-and-umar-not-being-present-at-the-janazah-of-rasulullah

Salam & thanks for sharing this article. 

My problem is not that who has attended the tajheez & takfeen. I am unable to understand the thing which is mentioned in your quoted  article too. Here it is:

"Worthy of note

It is very important to note that Caliphate (and imamah) has a great status in Islam and the perpetuity of din relies on it. Din is that specific entity for which Allah Ta’ala especially sent His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This is not some general work.

If Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and others went to Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, in order to fulfil the duty of Caliphate, then it was for the work of Islam."

See where the problem lies!! The deen is perfected according to Quran. And here in this article too, the writer is emphasizing that Deen is lacking very important thing i.e., Imamate or Caliphate. Neither Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) nor His Apostle have addressed this important issue and have not guided the ummah in this matter hence they have left this matter totally on Ummah. And Ummah realized the seriousness of the issue and delayed the burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

This is tantamount to throwing lies on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle. This was my argument from the beginning. 

Hope that you have now understood the point which I am making.

Wassalam!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Cool said:

This is tantamount to throwing lies on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle. This was my argument from the beginning. 

I just like to quote the verses that serve as food for thought as given below:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَن تُؤَدُّوا الْأَمَانَاتِ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِهَا وَإِذَا حَكَمْتُم بَيْنَ النَّاسِ أَن تَحْكُمُوا بِالْعَدْلِ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ نِعِمَّا يَعِظُكُم بِهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا

4:58

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا

4:59

إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ

5:55

The above verse are quite evidently mention that he matter was already been decided by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and the confirmation comes at ghadeer by the following verse:

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ وَاللّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ5:67

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, Cool said:

It is very important to note that Caliphate (and imamah) has a great status in Islam and the perpetuity of din relies on it. Din is that specific entity for which Allah Ta’ala especially sent His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This is not some general work.

If Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and others went to Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, in order to fulfil the duty of Caliphate, then it was for the work of Islam."

See where the problem lies!! The deen is perfected according to Quran. And here in this article too, the writer is emphasizing that Deen is lacking very important thing i.e., Imamate or Caliphate. Neither Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) nor His Apostle have addressed this important issue and have not guided the ummah in this matter hence they have left this matter totally on Ummah. And Ummah realized the seriousness of the issue and delayed the burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

This is tantamount to throwing lies on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle. This was my argument from the beginning. 

Hope that you have now understood the point which I am making.

Assaalama ‘alaykum – Indeed, Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and others went to Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, in order to fulfil the duty of Caliphate.

Both (Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, Sayyidina ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu) were with the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when he had passed away.  They were called urgently to Saqifah bani Sai'dah as Ansar were in process of electing a Khalifah of their own.  (See my next post where I have given an extract detailing the events from the link provided)
They went there to stop the fitnah fracturing the nascent Ummah.  And they were aware that enough members of the Blessed Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) immediate family were there to make arrangements for the funeral.

Indeed, the deen is perfected according to Quran.  – That’s why the Blessed Qur’an has advised the Muslims to conduct their affairs by mutual consultation among themselves.  And the Surah is adeptly named Ash-Shuraa (The Consultation).

And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] mutual consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend. Ayah 38 Surah Ash-Shuraa (The Consultation)

The Ummah was not left clueless how to conduct it’s affairs.  The passing away of the the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had a shattering effect on everyone. It was a great calamity for everyone. 

And there are numerous hadith about Khilafah after passing the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)

"The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be mulk aduud (hereditary rule) after that." (Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud (2/264), Musnad of Ahmad (1/169))

"The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wills it to be. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be the khilafah upon the Prophetic method. And it will last for as long as Allah wills it to last. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be biting mulk, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be forceful mulk and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be a Khilafah upon the Prophetic method.”
Then he (the Prophet) was silent. (Ahmad and Abu Dawud)

Wasalaam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Debate follower said:

(See my next post where I have given an extract detailing the events from the link provided)

News of a National Emergency

Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) stayed by the Prophet’s body. In some time, however, a man by the name of Mughirah bin Shubah (رضّى الله عنه) approached Umar (رضّى الله عنه) and notified him of an impending emergency. Answering-Ansar quoted the following in their article:

It is related by Umar that as they were seated in the Prophet’s house, a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: “O Son of Khattab (i.e., Umar), pray step out for a moment.” Umar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occurred: the Ansar were gathering in force at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, and–as the situation was grave–it was necessary that he (Umar) should go and look into the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a (civil) war. On this, Umar said to Abu Bakr: “Let us go.”  (Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1, p.87)

Based on what the Shia have quoted on their very own website, we see that the matter was not at all as our Shia brothers portray. Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) were devastated by the Prophet’s death, and they wanted very much to stay with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). In fact, “Umar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet.” Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was only convinced when the man said that the Ansar were about to do something that would lead to a civil war. Likewise, when Umar (رضّى الله عنه) first informed Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) that they must head out towards Saqifah, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) refused to come out and disregarded Umar (رضّى الله عنه); it was only when Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was convinced of the dire situation that he was able to pull himself away from the Prophet’s side. We read:

Umar learned of this (i.e., the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the Prophet’s house and sent (a message) to Abu Bakr, who was in the building…[Umar] sent a message to Abu Bakr to come to him. Abu Bakr sent back (a message) that he was occupied (i.e., with caring for the Prophet’s body), but Umar sent him another message, saying: “Something (terrible) has happened that you must attend to personally.”  So, he (Abu Bakr) came out to him… (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)

The Shaikhayn very much wanted to stay with the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) throughout his funeral, and they were only persuaded to come out because of the warnings of a third man who implored upon them to save the Ummah from civil war. The Ansar were about to declare their own Caliph by force of arms, ready to declare war on any tribe that denied their leadership. The Ansar had adopted a most belligerent attitude and were prepared to declare war; it is this precarious situation that the Shaikhayn sought to diffuse peaceably. We read:

(The) Ansar said: “In case they reject our Caliph, we shall drive them out from Al-Medinah at the point of our swords.”

However, the few Muhajirs in the assembly protested against this attitude and this led to a dispute and disorder of a serious nature and a war between the Muhajirs and Ansars seemed possible. When the situation took this ugly turn, Mughirah ibn Shubah left the trouble spot and came to the Prophet’s Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Sa’idah. - (Tareekh Al-Islam, Vol.1, p.273-274)

Sometimes our Shia brothers fail to realize (or rather, insist on not understanding) how volatile the situation was: the Ansar were ready to elect their own man and declare war on any tribe which rejected their leader, and some of the Ansar were even ready to wage war on the Muhajirs. The Ansar had adopted a very belligerent attitude, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) therefore went as peacemakers and conflict resolvers, to prevent the Ansar from placing themselves at loggerheads with the rest of Arabia.

http://www.chiite.fr/en/history_11.html

I hope the above answers the points raised by you

Wasalaam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Sometimes our Shia brothers fail to realize (or rather, insist on not understanding) how volatile the situation was: the Ansar were ready to elect their own man and declare war on any tribe which rejected their leader, and some of the Ansar were even ready to wage war on the Muhajirs. The Ansar had adopted a very belligerent attitude, and Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) therefore went as peacemakers and conflict resolvers, to prevent the Ansar from placing themselves at loggerheads with the rest of Arabia.

http://www.chiite.fr/en/history_11.html

I hope the above answers the points raised by you

Salam!!

I am well aware of the history. I know the volatility of situation since the illness of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) began. I know what happened when Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) nominated Usama bin Zayd as chief of Jesh e Usama and commanded the army to leave madina as soon as possible. I knew when people started criticizing the nomination of Zayd and some of the most senior of the companions refused to go with Jesh e Usama. 

I have given this reference just to remind you that if we were to look at the history, we will start looking at it from this stage where senior companions have shown the potential to disobey the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

Anyway, the matter is very simple and limited to just one single point. Why did Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His Apostle not addressed this important issue which according to your point of view is like this:

10 hours ago, Cool said:

Caliphate (and imamah) has a great status in Islam and the perpetuity of din relies on it. Din is that specific entity for which Allah Ta’ala especially sent His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This is not some general work

So you have said that:

 1. this caliphate is a matter of Ummah.

2. And God has commanded the Ummah to resolve their issues by consultation according to the verse of chapter Shura.

But just look at the bolded statement in above quote " and the perpetuity of din relies on it"

It is not possible that this important task will be left over to ummah and Allah would reveal in advance the verse that "today I have perfected the religion for you". How can the din be perfected while the Ummah still don't know who will going to lead the ummah after Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who already made announcement that soon I will leave this world? 

And he said in advance that I am leaving behind two weighty things, if you will cling to them you will not be misguided. This means he already worried about the misguidance of his ummah and pointing towards the things which will prevent the ummah from misguidance. 

The claim that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His Apostle never introduced the successor of Prophet, is looks false while there are verses in Quran like this:

On 8/2/2021 at 3:57 PM, Cool said:

 

يَا أَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِنْ رَبِّكَ ۖ وَإِنْ لَمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ النَّاسِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْكَافِرِينَ

5:67

This verse was revealed immediate after the last hajj. And we have seen in your books the evidence that this verse is revealed just prior to nominating Ali (عليه السلام).as "mowla" of believers at Ghadir. We have seen in your books the evidence that immediate after the sermon of Ghadir, the verse:

اليوم اكملت لكم دينكم و اتممت عليكم نعمتي

was revealed. We also see a clear command of God, commanding the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to "nominate" when become free from his present tasks:

فاذا فرغت فنصب و الى ربك فرغب

These verses are evidence that:

1. the successor/Imamate/caliphate, is not the matter of Ummah

2. and therefore, the clause of "consultation" is not applicable here. 

It is very strange that if Abu Bakr and Umar were worried about the misguidance or division of Ummah, they should have remembered the hadith of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم):

اني تارك فيكم الثقلين، كتاب الله و عترتي اهل بيتي

They should have come to the things which assures that guidance of Ummah and who will never separate from each other, according to this hadith.

One of them once said "book is sufficient for us" and denied paper & pen to Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). He forgot the two weighty things that day, which would never separate from each other. And both of them forgot or perhaps ignored the two weighty things on the day of saqifah when they took the charge in their hands for settling this matter. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Wa ‘alaykum Salaam, Alhamdulillah!  Glad to hear that you take to them be Muslims and not as apostates!  Very refreshing!  Generally, Shias believe that all Muslims committed apostasy. except for very, very few. Right?

Salam beleiving to apostasy of muslims  is a batalant lie which has been spread by wahabis & salafis against shias through wrong intrpretation of breaking oath of majority of muslims about successorship & caliphate of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which has been announced in day of Ghadeer & choosing three calips against order of Allah & prophet Muhammad (pbu) .

12 hours ago, Debate follower said:

know it is very difficult for you to give credit where it is due. Understandably so, you just can’t help it.  These Noble people (may Allah be pleased with them) were the Khalifs and they were in Authority and running the affairs. All these ‘good’ things happened under their watch and their reward is with Allah Almighty.

show me a good thing which maybe happened under watch of three calips maybe you refer  attacking to lady Fatima (sa) & martyring her & killing muslims by accusing them to apostasy by first caliph & causing corruption of companions by second & third caliph as ' good ' things happened under their watch however expanding territories by three caliphs although their procedure has been against orders of Islam maybe reffered as ' good' things under their watch by salafis & wahabists.

12 hours ago, Debate follower said:

How ungrateful of you! You must be thankful to the second Khalif (may Allah be pleased with him). Under his wise leadership and guidance, the great Iranian Nation was freed from tyrannical Sasinian rule and was incorporated into Islamic Khilaafat.  Later, in return, this great Iranian nation gave Muslims some of the most prominent scholars – par excellence!

We own everything to Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) specially Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which only agenda of second caliph has been enslaving Iranians & lootin Iran under guise of expansioning Islam which his agenda has been followed by cursed Ummayid dynasty & service of Iranians to Islam has been started sinc presence of Salman Muhammadi /Farsi (رضي الله عنه) besides of prophet Muhammad & later his support from will of prophet Muhammad (pbu) about Imamate & successorship/caliphate of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) also sunni  Iranian scholars have given service to Islam for love of Islam & science not for love of three caliphs as has been mentioned by prophet (pbu) that people from Fars/Iran will reach to Faiths  "Even if Faith were at (the place of) Ath-Thuraiya (Pleiades, the highest star), then some man or men from these people (i.e. Salman's folk) would attain it." Therefore has no relation to any of threecaliphs specially the second caliph , likewise now Iran is most advanced country  in science as a shia country in contrast to any sunni country which UAE only buys science but as most advanced sunni country has no prominant figure in science & faith.

12 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Note: Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) states categorically without any ambiguity that they were “on the same principles and canons of religion” – No deviations  as you falsely allege!

The letter 58 of Nahjulbalagha is for seperating truth from falshood of cursed Muawiah & bringing  unity between  muslims however majority of people  of Shaam/Syria have been under influence  of deviations of cursed Muawiah & later cursed Ummyids which likewise of other muslims whether  Sunni or Shia we have same 

Quote

1) we had common faith in one Allah
2) in the same Prophet (peace be upon him and his household)
3) and on the same principles and canons of religion

but on other hand still majority of muslims are under influence  of deviations of cursed Muawiah & later cursed Ummyids U Abbasids .

12 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Did Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) mention that He was the Imam of that time? 

Yeah which it has been proved multiple  times in previous  debates & threads until now however It has been stated by prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) by mentioning  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as Mawla of muslims likewise of himself  in day of Ghadeer.

12 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) stated very clearly, categorically without any ambiguity that they had the same Aqeeda with no differences whatsoever.

This is totally  wrong coclusion  because  he has refused to follow tradition  of two previous  caliph in court which has been made by second  caliph which Imam Ali(عليه السلام) clearly   has stated clearly  that outcome of Shura of of second  caliph has been just for usurpation of his right & installation  of anyone  than him as caliph specially  Uthman.

12 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Let me also state that I am glad that I was not born in those turbulent times.  If it was Allah Almighty’s for me to be born in that time, I would have been honoured to be a foot soldier from the sincere followers of Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (عليه السلام) not from the troublemakers and opportunists who were hiding in the ranks!

I only totally  agree with this part.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_Persian_Men

4 hours ago, Debate follower said:

In some time, however, a man by the name of Mughirah bin Shubah 

There is no mercy on this Nasibi & hypocrite  which he has been  cursing Imam Ali(عليه السلام) & He has been a wretched enemy  of Amir al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) , so consequently  any narration from him has no weight/value or credibility  for us also I recommend  you to diassociate from Nasibis likewise  him if you really love Imam  Ali (عليه السلام) 

13 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) has stated very clearly, categorically without any ambiguity that he and his opponents were on same page, on same lines and same word by word principles and canons of religion.

opponents   of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) are not on same page with him in anything  even they pray whole of life besides Kaaba between  Rukn & Maqam & fast whole of their lifetime but if they have haterd of Imam Ali (Aas) likelwise grain of salt in their heart in similar fashion of Mughirah bin Shubah  . consequently  They will enter hell & reside in it forever.

4 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Sometimes our Shia brothers fail to realize (or rather, insist on not understanding) how volatile the situation was: the Ansar were ready to elect their own man and declare war on any tribe which rejected their leader, and some of the Ansar were even ready to wage war on the Muhajirs. The Ansar had adopted a very belligerent attitude

It was due usurpation  right of Imam  Ali(عليه السلام) by three caliphs & breaking their oath with prophet  Muhammad  (pbu) & trouble making of Nasibis likewise  Mughirah bin Shubah which he has in indirect rule in assassination  of second caliph  by his slave.

Quote

After the Demise of Prophet Muhammad (s)

According to al-Shaykh al-Mufid, al-Mughira b. Shu'ba played a role in the attack to Lady Fatima's (a) house in order to force 'Ali b. Abi Talib (a) and his close companions to take oath of allegiance to the first caliph, Abu Bakr.[7] Based on al-Ihtijaj, Imam al-Hasan (a) condemned al-Mughira and said: "You hit Lady Fatima (a) so harsh that she was injured and it led to miscarry (Muhsin b. Ali)."[8]

 

Quote

Opposition against Ali b. Abi Talib (a)

Al-Mughira is mentioned as an opponent of Ali b. Abi Talib (a);[19] he also cursed Imam (a) When he was appointed as the governor of Kufa by Mu'awiya, he gave speeches in the Masjid al-Kufa in which he cursed Imam Ali (a) and Shi'a Muslims.[20]

Once al-Mughira addressed Sa'sa'a b. Sawhan, a companion of Imam Ali (a) and an orator, saying : "Avoid fault-finding with 'Uthman. Avoid mentioning Ali's virtues. I know his virtues more than you. But the power is in the hands of this ruler [Mu'awiya] who will punish anyone who criticizes Uthman."[21]

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Al-Mughira_b._Shu'ba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member
On 8/1/2021 at 2:50 PM, Debate follower said:

If anyone had done anything wrong surely, Allah Almighty would have disgraced and punished the culprits there and then for all to see. As it happened to all those who opposed Islam!

Then the particular people you have in mind – Did Allah Almighty punish them and disgrace them for all to see?

No!  In fact, history is witness that these two Noble personalities (may Allah be pleased with them both) you have in mind, Allah Almighty rewarded them with Leadership of all Muslims.  .

 

 

Salaam brother,

Hope you are well.

So in your opinion, did Allah reward Yazid with Leadership of all Muslims?

And Bani-Abbas?

And Al-Saud?

I miss @Cherub786.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 8/13/2021 at 4:09 AM, ShiaMan14 said:

Salaam brother,

Hope you are well.

Wa ‘Alaykum Salaam brother, Alhamdulilah I am well by the Grace of Allah Almighty and pray for the same for you and your dear family.

Before, I answer your questions, I’ll refer you to following hadith which I had posted earlier.

"The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be mulk aduud (hereditary rule) after that." (Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud (2/264), Musnad of Ahmad (1/169))

"The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wills it to be. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be the khilafah upon the Prophetic method
And it will last for as long as Allah wills it to last. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be biting mulk, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be forceful mulk and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be a Khilafah upon the Prophetic method.”
Then he (the Prophet) was silent. (Ahmad and Abu Dawud)

The first 30 years of Khilafat was on upon the Prophetic method, this begins from Hz. Abu Bakr and ends with Khilafat of Hz. Hassan (may Allah be pleased with them both)

After this the Khilafah will pass on to ‘Kingdoms’.

On 8/13/2021 at 4:09 AM, ShiaMan14 said:

So in your opinion, did Allah reward Yazid with Leadership of all Muslims?

Yazid inherited Khilafah – His deeds and historical facts are proof of it – that he was a tyrant, he was not from the righteous. Yazid was given the opportunity with Leadership of all Muslims.  He failed drastically, he will be accounted for his deeds and will be ‘rewarded’ justly for them.

On 8/13/2021 at 4:09 AM, ShiaMan14 said:

And Bani-Abbas?

Quoted from hadith posted above

Then there will be biting mulk, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.

Then there will be forceful mulk and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it.

Bani-Abbas will be accounted for their deeds.  Any good deeds done by anyone of them will be rewarded justly, for any misdeeds committed by anyone of them will be accounted for and charged for them and pay the price. 

On 8/13/2021 at 4:09 AM, ShiaMan14 said:

And Al-Saud?

Same applies to Al-Saud as Bani Abbas - I reckon should a lot more.  Since 1980s they have gone from worse to more worse. Sooner they go the better.  I’ll rate them same as Pahlavi Shahs of Iran.

 

The khilafah upon the Prophetic method lasted for 30 years as foretold by the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). From then on as foretold by the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) it tuned into hereditary rule.  This just became a political/administrative office.

The Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) clearly told us to follow the righteous scholars.

That’s why all schools of thought of Ahlul Sunnah are named after the righteous scholars.

Abu Darda reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The scholars are the successors of the prophets. Verily, the prophets do not pass on gold and silver coins, but rather they only impart knowledge.” Musnad al-Bazzār 10/68

Hadith is reported from Anas ibn Malik with the following wording: “The scholars are the trustees of the Prophets as long as they do not associate with the sultan or engage in worldly life. If they do, they have betrayed the Messengers, so avoid them.” – Musnad Al-Hasan ibn Sufyan

Since you asked me about ruling dynasties of (Sunni) Islam, May I ask you about your views on Safavids of Iran who brutely, and with shedding a lot of blood, forcefully converted Sunni Iran and Azerbaijan to Shia States.  See the following link. 

I really hope that brother Ashvazdanghe doesn’t take offense to these facts in the link – then press the disagree button as usual - then approach (at full speed) the Moderators to get it sorted (vanished)

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_to_Shia_Islam

On 8/13/2021 at 4:09 AM, ShiaMan14 said:

I miss @Cherub786.

Me too! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

Wa ‘Alaykum Salaam brother, Alhamdulilah I am well by the Grace of Allah Almighty and pray for the same for you and your dear family.

Before, I answer your questions, I’ll refer you to following hadith which I had posted earlier.

"The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be mulk aduud (hereditary rule) after that." (Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud (2/264), Musnad of Ahmad (1/169))

"The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allah wills it to be. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be the khilafah upon the Prophetic method
And it will last for as long as Allah wills it to last. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be biting mulk, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be forceful mulk and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it.
Then there will be a Khilafah upon the Prophetic method.”
Then he (the Prophet) was silent. (Ahmad and Abu Dawud)

The first 30 years of Khilafat was on upon the Prophetic method, this begins from Hz. Abu Bakr and ends with Khilafat of Hz. Hassan (may Allah be pleased with them both)

After this the Khilafah will pass on to ‘Kingdoms’.

Yazid inherited Khilafah – His deeds and historical facts are proof of it – that he was a tyrant, he was not from the righteous. Yazid was given the opportunity with Leadership of all Muslims.  He failed drastically, he will be accounted for his deeds and will be ‘rewarded’ justly for them.

Quoted from hadith posted above

Then there will be biting mulk, and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it.

Then there will be forceful mulk and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it.

Bani-Abbas will be accounted for their deeds.  Any good deeds done by anyone of them will be rewarded justly, for any misdeeds committed by anyone of them will be accounted for and charged for them and pay the price. 

Same applies to Al-Saud as Bani Abbas - I reckon should a lot more.  Since 1980s they have gone from worse to more worse. Sooner they go the better.  I’ll rate them same as Pahlavi Shahs of Iran.

 

The khilafah upon the Prophetic method lasted for 30 years as foretold by the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). From then on as foretold by the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) it tuned into hereditary rule.  This just became a political/administrative office.

The Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) clearly told us to follow the righteous scholars.

That’s why all schools of thought of Ahlul Sunnah are named after the righteous scholars.

Abu Darda reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The scholars are the successors of the prophets. Verily, the prophets do not pass on gold and silver coins, but rather they only impart knowledge.” Musnad al-Bazzār 10/68

Hadith is reported from Anas ibn Malik with the following wording: “The scholars are the trustees of the Prophets as long as they do not associate with the sultan or engage in worldly life. If they do, they have betrayed the Messengers, so avoid them.” – Musnad Al-Hasan ibn Sufyan

Since you asked me about ruling dynasties of (Sunni) Islam, May I ask you about your views on Safavids of Iran who brutely, and with shedding a lot of blood, forcefully converted Sunni Iran and Azerbaijan to Shia States.  See the following link. 

I really hope that brother Ashvazdanghe doesn’t take offense to these facts in the link – then press the disagree button as usual - then approach (at full speed) the Moderators to get it sorted (vanished)

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_to_Shia_Islam

Me too! :(

Brother,

You wrote a lot of words to a Y/N question.

I think we are agreement that leadership of Muslims is not a reward so your initial arguement is negated that the first 3 Caliphs became caliphs as a reward for their service. 

If service to Islam was the criteria, then obviously no one served Islam and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) more than Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Moreover, Caliph Abu Bakr was not selected at Saqifah because of his service to Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salaams
 

17 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

You wrote a lot of words to a Y/N question.

Brother, show me that it was Y/N question session! :)

17 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I think we are agreement that leadership of Muslims is not a reward so your initial arguement is negated that the first 3 Caliphs became caliphs as a reward for their service. 

In agreement!??!   I think you are just skimming through and not reading or are just reading what suits you.

The first 3 Khalifs plus the fourth (may Allah be pleased with them all) – Their Leadership of Muslims was on the Prophetic method – A great reward. (Maybe not to your liking)

19 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Then there will be the khilafah upon the Prophetic method
And it will last for as long as Allah wills it to last. Then Allah will raise it when He wills to raise it. - (Ahmad and Abu Dawud)

 

17 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

If service to Islam was the criteria, then obviously no one served Islam and the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) more than Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

That’s the view of around 12% of Muslims.  Around 88% have views contrary to this (Can’t please everybody)

17 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Moreover, Caliph Abu Bakr was not selected at Saqifah because of his service to Islam.

That’s the view of around 12% of Muslims.  Around 88% have views contrary to this (Can’t please everybody)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Brother, show me that it was Y/N question session! :)

I thought the question was pretty straightforward. Sometimes people get verbose when they don't want to answer a simple question.

3 hours ago, Debate follower said:

The first 3 Khalifs plus the fourth (may Allah be pleased with them all) – Their Leadership of Muslims was on the Prophetic method – A great reward. (Maybe not to your liking)

Prophetic method? How? 

So your stance is that Caliphate over Muslims can be reward from Allah or not. Is that right?

3 hours ago, Debate follower said:

That’s the view of around 12% of Muslims.  Around 88% have views contrary to this (Can’t please everybody)

One of my very first posts on ShiaChat was listing just 20 accomplishments of Hz Ali (عليه السلام) during the lifetime of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and I challenged my sunni brothers to come up with 20 accomplishments of the first 3 caliphs during the lifetime of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) combined. That challenge is still unanswered. So 88% are wrong. 

3 hours ago, Debate follower said:

That’s the view of around 12% of Muslims.  Around 88% have views contrary to this (Can’t please everybody)

The very fact that Saqifah happened is proof that service to Islam was not a criteria. Plus there are no narrations (that I know off) where the conversation was, "Abu Bakr served Islam the most so he should be caliph".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Prophetic method? How? 

So your stance is that Caliphate over Muslims can be reward from Allah or not. Is that right?

إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى

Verily, the people who paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have paid allegiance to me based on the same principles as the allegiance to them. So, anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegiance, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So, if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him.  Nahjul Balagha letter 6

Please refer to the above letter written by Hz. Ali in Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him).

1) So, anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegiance
2) and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it
3) And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar
4) So, if they decide upon a man and declare him
their imam
5)  then it is with the pleasure of Allah

Hz. Ali in Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) clearly states the the selection of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) as Imams of Muslims it is with PLEASURE of Allah Almighty!

Isn't pleasure of Allah Almighty a great reward?

33 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

The very fact that Saqifah happened is proof that service to Islam was not a criteria. Plus there are no narrations (that I know off) where the conversation was, "Abu Bakr served Islam the most so he should be caliph".

Brother, we do have this in our books so should be of no use to you.

Anyway, I am away for a few weeks so won't be posting for a while.  And thanks for your nice and polite posts. 

Edited by Debate follower
grammar ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, Debate follower said:

The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be mulk aduud (hereditary rule) after that." (Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud (2/264), Musnad of Ahmad (1/169))

Salam, 

Lets see more ahadith and please explain them to me:

Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (volume four page 273) narrated from al-Nu’man Ibn Bashir (رضي الله عنه) as saying that the Prophet had stated, “Prophethood will last with you for as long as Allah wants it to last. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be Khilafah according to the method of prophethood, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be a hereditary rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be an oppressive rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be a Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood.” Then he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) fell silent”

Please explain what is meant by the "method of Prophethood" by which khulafa will be made? 

23 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Then there will be the khilafah upon the Prophetic method

What is Prophetic method? 

And why this hadith is contradicting with the other ahadith which categorically mentions the 12 caliphs all of them will be from Quraish? 

And if you would stress that "Shura" is the prophetic method, lets see the verse of shura first:

وَالَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُوا لِرَبِّهِمْ وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ

42:38) Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance.

You need to prove first of all, that the Caliphate is "their matter". 

Wassalam!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
19 minutes ago, Debate follower said:

Nahjul Balagha letter 6

Please elaborate to whom Imam Ali (عليه السلام) wrote this letter? And he is using these arguments against whom? 

I think the matter will resolve automatically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Debate follower said:

إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى

Verily, the people who paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have paid allegiance to me based on the same principles as the allegiance to them. So, anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegiance, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So, if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him.  Nahjul Balagha letter 6

Please refer to the above letter written by Hz. Ali in Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him).

1) So, anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegiance
2) and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it
3) And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar
4) So, if they decide upon a man and declare him
their imam
5)  then it is with the pleasure of Allah

Hz. Ali in Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) clearly states the the selection of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) as Imams of Muslims it is with PLEASURE of Allah Almighty!

Isn't pleasure of Allah Almighty a great reward?

So we are circling back to the my original question. All Muslims or tribe leaders accepted Yazid with the exception of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and Ibn Zubayr.

So then Yazid was Caliph with the pleasure of Allah because the entire ummah with the exception of a few accepted him.

2 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Brother, we do have this in our books so should be of no use to you.

No you don't. There are no authentic narrations about Saqifah where Abu Bakr was selected based on service to Islam. Heck, I don't even think there are fake narrations about this.

2 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Anyway, I am away for a few weeks so won't be posting for a while.  And thanks for your nice and polite posts. 

Good luck brother.

Until next time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 8/15/2021 at 5:34 PM, Cool said:

Please elaborate to whom Imam Ali (عليه السلام) wrote this letter? And he is using these arguments against whom? 

I think the matter will resolve automatically.

Assalama alaykum,

The letter was addressed to Mu’awiyah.

All that he is saying to Mu`awiyah (ibn Abi Sufyan) is that his election to the Khilaafat was on the same basis/standard* that of Hz. Abu Bakr, Hz. Umar and Hz. `Uthman (May Allah be pleased with them).

He is qualifying his election to Khilafaat by saying that it was that in same standards* to his predecessors.

 And deemed election of of Hz. Abu Bakr, Hz. Umar and Hz. `Uthman (May Allah be pleased with them) pleasure of Allah.
*
1) So, anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegiance

2) and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it

3) And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar

4) So, if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam

5)  then it is with the pleasure of Allah

Hz. Ali in Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) clearly states the the selection of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) as Imams of Muslims it is with PLEASURE of Allah Almighty!
 

And further Hz. Ali in Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) adds:

If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him.

Keep in mind that Hz. Ali (رضي الله عنه) was also called Al Natiq – Because was one of the most Eloquent Decisive Rational Articulate speakers. He could say a lot in a very few words.  He chose his words very carefully and was never ambiguous.

Note:

1) That Hz. Ali (رضي الله عنه) NEVER put forward his claim forward of being appointed as Imam by Allah Almighty.

2) He did not recall the event of Ghadeer Khumm of his Divine appointment as the Imam/Chief.

3) How can he claim that Election of his predecessors be deemed Allah’s pleasure if the Imamate/Khilafaat was usurped from him unjustly?

4) He has not expressed any annoyance at his predecessors’ election.

5) He has not claimed that his ‘Divine-given’ rights have been usurped!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/15/2021 at 7:32 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

So we are circling back to the my original question. All Muslims or tribe leaders accepted Yazid with the exception of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and Ibn Zubayr.

So then Yazid was Caliph with the pleasure of Allah because the entire ummah with the exception of a few accepted him.

Assalama alaykum brother  - :)Yazid was not a popular selection, in fact he was imposed upon the Ummah.  Yazid is the most hated from among all the Khalifas – that’s enough evidence of Allah Almighty’s displeasure.

and You bestow honour on whom You will and bring disgrace to whom You will. Ayah 26 Ali 'Imran

On 8/15/2021 at 7:32 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

No you don't. There are no authentic narrations about Saqifah where Abu Bakr was selected based on service to Islam. Heck, I don't even think there are fake narrations about this.

Abu Sa'id reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sat on the pulpit and said: Allah gave a choice to His servant that he may opt the beauties of the world or that which is with Him, and the servant chose that which was with Him. Thereupon Abu Bakr wept, and he wept bitterly and said: Let our fathers and our mothers be taken as ransom for you. It was Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) who had been given the choice and Abu Bakr knew it better than us, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) is reported to have said: Behold, of all people the most generous toward me in regard to his companionship and his property was Abu Bakr and were I to choose anyone as my bosom friend, I would have chosen Abu Bakr as my dear friend, but (for him) I cherish Islamic brotherliness and love. There shall be left open no window in the mosque except Abu Bakr's window. Number 5869 Book 31 Sahih Muslim

Also, in his last days, when the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was seriously unwell and could lead the prayers, appointed Hz. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) to lead the prayers!  Says a lot about status of Hz. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him).

This will be my last post in this thread and I have said a lot for a few days on Shiachat - I'll take a break for a few weeks.  Too much debating hardens the heart. Not good

And thanks again for nice and polite posts. Ma Salaama

Edited by Debate follower
Forgot to say Salaam first
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

Assalama alaykum brother  - :)Yazid was not a popular selection, in fact he was imposed upon the Ummah.  Yazid is the most hated from among all the Khalifas – that’s enough evidence of Allah Almighty’s displeasure.

and You bestow honour on whom You will and bring disgrace to whom You will. Ayah 26 Ali 'Imran

All tribal leaders gave their bayah to Yazid with the exception of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and Ibn Zubayr (عليه السلام) (may be a couple of others). This is a fact.

Yazid is hated now but back them, people paid allegiance to him.

 

1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

Abu Sa'id reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sat on the pulpit and said: Allah gave a choice to His servant that he may opt the beauties of the world or that which is with Him, and the servant chose that which was with Him. Thereupon Abu Bakr wept, and he wept bitterly and said: Let our fathers and our mothers be taken as ransom for you. It was Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) who had been given the choice and Abu Bakr knew it better than us, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) is reported to have said: Behold, of all people the most generous toward me in regard to his companionship and his property was Abu Bakr and were I to choose anyone as my bosom friend, I would have chosen Abu Bakr as my dear friend, but (for him) I cherish Islamic brotherliness and love. There shall be left open no window in the mosque except Abu Bakr's window. Number 5869 Book 31 Sahih Muslim

Also, in his last days, when the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was seriously unwell and could lead the prayers, appointed Hz. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) to lead the prayers!  Says a lot about status of Hz. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him).

Coincidentally, none of the above was used in Saqifah as a argument for Abu Bakr's caliphate which makes these narrations dubious at best.

1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

This will be my last post in this thread and I have said a lot for a few days on Shiachat - I'll take a break for a few weeks.  Too much debating hardens the heart. Not good

And thanks again for nice and polite posts. Ma Salaama

Good luck brother and wish you well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, Debate follower said:

The letter was addressed to Mu’awiyah.

Salam!!

Then you need to see on which context he is arguing against Muawiyah. Here is the explanation:

"When all the people of Medina unanimously swore allegiance to Amir al-mu`minin, Mu`awiyah refused to acquiesce apprehending danger for his own power, and in order to contest Amir al-mu'minin's caliphate he concocted the excuse that it had not been agreed to unaulmously and that there fore after cancelling it there should be another general election, although the caliphate from which (the process of) election was started was the result of a timely situation. There was no question of the common vote therein so that it could be called the result of the people's election. However, it was imposed on the people and assumed to be their verdict. From then it became a principle that whomever the nobles of Medina elected would be deemed to represent the entire world of Islam and no person would be allowed to question it, whether he was present at the time of election or not. In any case, after the establishment of the principle, Mu`awiyah had no right to propose a re-election nor to refuse allegiance when he had in practice recognized these caliphates which, it was alleged, had been settled by the important people of Medina. That is why when he held this election to be invalid and refused allegiance.


Amir al-mu'minin pointed out to him the (recognized) way of election and demolished his argument. It was a method known as arguing with the adversary on the basis of his wrong premises so as to demolish his argument, since Amir al-mu'minin never at any state regarded consultation (with chiefs) or the common vote to be the criterion of validity of the caliphate. Otherwise, in connection with the caliphate about which it is alleged that they were based on the unanimity of the muhajirun and the ansar, he would have regarded that unanimity of vote as a good authority and held them as valid; but his refusal for allegiance in the very first period, which cannot be denied by anyone, is a proof of the fact that he did not regard these self-concocted methods as the criterion of (validity of) the caliphate. That is why at all times he continued pressing his own case for the caliphate, which was also established on the basis of the Prophet's saying and deeds. However, to place it before Mu`awiyah meant opening the door to questions and answers. He therefore attempted to convince him with his own premises and beliefs so that there could be no scope for interpretation or for confusing the matter, in fact Mu'awiyah's real aim was to prolong the matter so that at some point his own authority might get support."

5 hours ago, Debate follower said:

And deemed election of of Hz. Abu Bakr, Hz. Umar and Hz. `Uthman (May Allah be pleased with them) pleasure of Allah.

Although the explanation given above is sufficient but since you are talking with reference to Nehjul Balagha, I would like to refer you one of its sermon known as "Shaqshaqqiya". You can cite the sermon to know what he deem actually. 

And now on the basis of this sermon you shared and exolanation you have given, I would like to ask you as to why the scholars of Ahlul Sunnah deem this rebellious behavior of Muawiyah as his ijtihadi mistake? and despite of his refusal to pledge allegiance to an elected caliph, fought war against an elected caliph, Ahlul Sunnah gives him one goodness because of his ijtihadi mistake why? 

5 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Note:

1) That Hz. Ali (رضي الله عنه) NEVER put forward his claim forward of being appointed as Imam by Allah Almighty.

2) He did not recall the event of Ghadeer Khumm of his Divine appointment as the Imam/Chief.

3) How can he claim that Election of his predecessors be deemed Allah’s pleasure if the Imamate/Khilafaat was usurped from him unjustly?

4) He has not expressed any annoyance at his predecessors’ election.

5) He has not claimed that his ‘Divine-given’ rights have been usurped!

I think it is your ignorance of Islamic history and from your own books which contain sufficient material for refuting these notes. 

1. According to your history and hadith books, he never paid allegiance to Abu Bakr immediate after his election. At least till the death of Syeda Zehra s.a who too refused to pledge allegiance.

The ones before whom you want him to present his case, already congratulated him at Ghadir e Khum in the very life of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). They not even waited for the burial of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and rushed to saqifah to settle the matter of caliphate.

2. Recall before whom? Those who congratulated him by saying "bakhun bakhun laka ya Ali:

وقال الامام الالباني : " ما روى مطر الوراق عن شهر بن حوشب عن أبي هريرة قال: من صام يوم ثمان عشرة من ذي الحجة؛ كتب له صيام ستين شهراً، وهو يوم غدير (خم) ، لما أخذ النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - بيد علي بن أبي طالب فقال: "ألست ولي المؤمنين؟! ". قالوا: بلى يا رسول الله! قال:
"من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه". فقال عمر بن الخطاب: بخ بخ لك يا ابن أبي طالب!! أصبحت مولاي ومولى كل مسلم! فأنزل الله: (اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم) . ومن صام يوم سبعة وعشرين من رجب؛ كتب له صيام ستين شهراً، وهو أول يوم نزل جبريل عليه السلام على محمد - صلى الله عليه وسلم - بالرسالة.
أخرجه الخطيب في "التاريخ" (8/ 290) ، وابن عساكر (12/ 118/ 1-2)

3. He never deemed it Allah's pleasure. Rather Muawiyyah deems it Allah's pleasure & he was countering him as explained in the exolanation given above.

4. Again ignorance. Please go through your history & hadith books and read shahqshaqiyah sermon.

5. Sermon Shaqshaqiyah of nehjul balagha.

Wassalam.

Link to comment
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...