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

Why didn't the Kharwijites do takfir of Abu Bakr and Umar?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Okay before anyone assumes wrongfully of what I'm about to argue let me just lay out a few points 

 

-The Kharwijites disavowed Ali because they believe he violated verse 49:5 or 49:9, they were willing to die for him in anycase and would have continued fighting for him, this shows there level of loyalty to what they interpreted to be the correct Islam and to their leader, it also means that whatever Ali thought prior to this issue of arbitration they were likely to follow and agree with it, if they believed Imam Ali was divinely appointed they would have this in this there own theology, they saw as the rightful leader but nothing about divine appointment 

-Abu Bakr and Omar are viewed as righteous by the Kharwijites, unlike Uthman, this matches up with the pretext of the Battle of Jamal (whatever your opinion of it), it also links up to Tabari's history, where he discussed the relationship between Othman and Ali in Othmans final days, which makes me think this was the actual Alid view considering kharwijite offshoots the ibadhis used to hold the same views, and could technically claim they are oldest form of Islam in a general sense.

- Sunnis hadiths show Abu Bakr and Umar being praised by Ali quite a bit, infact the sermon at the Mosque of Kufa has 80+ isnads going back to Ali in which Abu Bakr and Omar are praised, infact look at all these hadiths which Ali praises Abu Bakr and Umar https://sunnah.com/search?q=ali+umar+abu+bakr ... The weird thing is hardly any mention of Uthman at all! This relates to the earlier points, suspicious right? Basically it seems Imam Ali wasn't on totally bad terms with Abu Bakr or Omar as the now Shi'as suggest, yet history shows a bit of a funny history between the Alids and the Umayyads...

Even more suspicious is this hadith from Imam Ali's own son Mohammad bin Hanafiyyah https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3671

 

I'm wondering what your opinions on all this is, I mean once he had control did he really have to do taqiyyah anyways? I mean if we do say that he was divinely appointed, then he had the perfect opportunity to show this to his original followers (funnily enough even though they thought he was the rightful leader they seemed to forget the whole Ghadir incident...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
1 hour ago, Labbayka said:

Okay before anyone assumes wrongfully of what I'm about to argue let me just lay out a few points 

 

-The Kharwijites disavowed Ali because they believe he violated verse 49:5 or 49:9, they were willing to die for him in anycase and would have continued fighting for him, this shows there level of loyalty to what they interpreted to be the correct Islam and to their leader, it also means that whatever Ali thought prior to this issue of arbitration they were likely to follow and agree with it, if they believed Imam Ali was divinely appointed they would have this in this there own theology, they saw as the rightful leader but nothing about divine appointment 

-Abu Bakr and Omar are viewed as righteous by the Kharwijites, unlike Uthman, this matches up with the pretext of the Battle of Jamal (whatever your opinion of it), it also links up to Tabari's history, where he discussed the relationship between Othman and Ali in Othmans final days, which makes me think this was the actual Alid view considering kharwijite offshoots the ibadhis used to hold the same views, and could technically claim they are oldest form of Islam in a general sense.

- Sunnis hadiths show Abu Bakr and Umar being praised by Ali quite a bit, infact the sermon at the Mosque of Kufa has 80+ isnads going back to Ali in which Abu Bakr and Omar are praised, infact look at all these hadiths which Ali praises Abu Bakr and Umar https://sunnah.com/search?q=ali+umar+abu+bakr ... The weird thing is hardly any mention of Uthman at all! This relates to the earlier points, suspicious right? Basically it seems Imam Ali wasn't on totally bad terms with Abu Bakr or Omar as the now Shi'as suggest, yet history shows a bit of a funny history between the Alids and the Umayyads...

Even more suspicious is this hadith from Imam Ali's own son Mohammad bin Hanafiyyah https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3671

 

I'm wondering what your opinions on all this is, I mean once he had control did he really have to do taqiyyah anyways? I mean if we do say that he was divinely appointed, then he had the perfect opportunity to show this to his original followers (funnily enough even though they thought he was the rightful leader they seemed to forget the whole Ghadir incident...)

I am not the most well equipped person in ilm al rijaal so take my opinion how you will there are many hadith with weak chains in the link you provided so I will only be focusing on the strong chains. They all lead back to Abdullah ibn salimah, Abu juhaifah and Abd khair. These were all supporters of the so called rightly guided caliphs so it is very possible they fabricated these traditions. As for the hadith that Abu bakr and umar are leaders of the elderly of Paradise, we know that hadith to be false because everyone will be a youth in Jannah. The hadith from ibn Abbas is also false because Imam Ali as was locked in a room for 3 days after the death of Omar in the "shura" for the next caliph. The claim that there 80+ chains is a claim I have heard before however I have researched this claim and found it to be a false one, next time a sunni tells claims such a thing ask him to bring the source for these 80 chains. Now we do have an actual mutawattir hadith where he AS criticises the first 3 caliphs which is the sermon of shaqsiffiyah which I am sure you are aware of. Also there is a hadith in sahih Muslim where Omar says that imam Ali as thought of Abu bakr as a liar, sinner and treacherous person if Omar thinks Imam Ali as thought this there must be some truth to the claim. And there is also another hadith which I don't remember exactly so I am paraphrasing. 

Someone said to Imam Ali as we will pledge allegiance to you as caliph if you follow the sunnah of the Prophet sawa, the quran and the sunnah of the two sheikhs (Abu bakr and omar) and imam Ali as said I will follow the sunnah of the Prophet and the quran but not of the two sheikhs 

This means that imam Ali as thought that Omar and Abu bakr didn't follow the quran and the sunnah otherwise why would he reject them? 

The tradition from Mohammad SA is worrisome and I am sure some brother that is learned in ilm al rijaal can refute the tradition based upon a weakness in the chain. But as it stands there are more (authentic) haidth of imam Ali as criticising Abu bakr and omar than praising them. 

Allah the Almighty and exalted knows best 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, Mohammad farid said:

I am not the most well equipped person in ilm al rijaal so take my opinion how you will there are many hadith with weak chains in the link you provided so I will only be focusing on the strong chains. They all lead back to Abdullah ibn salimah, Abu juhaifah and Abd khair. These were all supporters of the so called rightly guided caliphs so it is very possible they fabricated these traditions. As for the hadith that Abu bakr and umar are leaders of the elderly of Paradise, we know that hadith to be false because everyone will be a youth in Jannah. The hadith from ibn Abbas is also false because Imam Ali as was locked in a room for 3 days after the death of Omar in the "shura" for the next caliph. The claim that there 80+ chains is a claim I have heard before however I have researched this claim and found it to be a false one, next time a sunni tells claims such a thing ask him to bring the source for these 80 chains. Now we do have an actual mutawattir hadith where he AS criticises the first 3 caliphs which is the sermon of shaqsiffiyah which I am sure you are aware of. Also there is a hadith in sahih Muslim where Omar says that imam Ali as thought of Abu bakr as a liar, sinner and treacherous person if Omar thinks Imam Ali as thought this there must be some truth to the claim. And there is also another hadith which I don't remember exactly so I am paraphrasing. 

Someone said to Imam Ali as we will pledge allegiance to you as caliph if you follow the sunnah of the Prophet sawa, the quran and the sunnah of the two sheikhs (Abu bakr and omar) and imam Ali as said I will follow the sunnah of the Prophet and the quran but not of the two sheikhs 

This means that imam Ali as thought that Omar and Abu bakr didn't follow the quran and the sunnah otherwise why would he reject them? 

The tradition from Mohammad SA is worrisome and I am sure some brother that is learned in ilm al rijaal can refute the tradition based upon a weakness in the chain. But as it stands there are more (authentic) haidth of imam Ali as criticising Abu bakr and omar than praising them. 

Allah the Almighty and exalted knows best 

Wow, the hadith thing has blown my mind, I just double checked my self, I can't believe I never noticed these before, very interested points, thank you! Regarding the 80  chains hadith, what exactly is your counter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
2 hours ago, Labbayka said:

Wow, the hadith thing has blown my mind, I just double checked my self, I can't believe I never noticed these before, very interested points, thank you! Regarding the 80  chains hadith, what exactly is your counter?

The first people to claim the hadith had 80 chains was sunnah discourse if I remember properly but they didn't back it up with any proof, I don't think there is a hadith where imam Ali as praises Abu bakr and omar that has 80 chains. It is most likely a lie to create false virtues for the so called rightly guided. 

 

If there is such a hadith do link its source so the brothers in the forum can analyse it and find its truthfulness. 

 

May the peace of Allah be upon you dear brother 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Assalama alaykum.

21 hours ago, Mohammad farid said:

I am not the most well equipped person in ilm al rijaal so take my opinion

First, you are disqualifying yourself- and then are giving your distinctly biased opinions – It doesn’t work like this.

21 hours ago, Mohammad farid said:

They all lead back to Abdullah ibn salimah, Abu juhaifah and Abd khair. These were all supporters of the so called rightly guided caliphs so it is very possible they fabricated these traditions.

Your sectarian bias is evident – showing desperate wish for evidence to be fabricated.

21 hours ago, Mohammad farid said:

Now we do have an actual mutawattir hadith where he AS criticises the first 3 caliphs which is the sermon of shaqsiffiyah which I am sure you are aware of.

I am sure that you are referring to Al-Shaqshaqiyya Sermon.  You deem it to be fine as it fits in with your sectarian requirements. 

There doubts about it’s authenticity.    Don’t just dismiss it saying: wabahi site! (I have deliberately mis-spelled it as WAHAB is one of Allah Almighty’s name)   Read what is said.

http://nahjul-balagha.net/shaqshaqiya-grading/

21 hours ago, Mohammad farid said:

Also there is a hadith in sahih Muslim where Omar says that imam Ali as thought of Abu bakr as a liar, sinner and treacherous person if Omar thinks Imam Ali as thought this there must be some truth to the claim.

 You must be alluding to the following.

Sahih Muslim » The Book of Jihad and Expeditions - كتاب الجهاد والسير » Hadith 1757

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1757c

It is very long hadith, and your interest is in the following portion, right?

Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity." So, both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) used it. So, both of you got it. He said: Wasn't it like this? They said: Yes.

So, this is portion you seem to agree with as it meets your sectarian views.

Now let me the cite the beginning portion of the same hadith:

Then he (Yarfa') came again and said: What do you say about 'Ali and Abbas (who are present at the door)?  He said: Yes and permitted them to enter.

Abbas said: Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar.

Now, how Hz. Al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib (may Allah be pleased with him) is saying the same about whom?

21 hours ago, Mohammad farid said:

The tradition from Mohammad SA is worrisome and I am sure some brother that is learned in ilm al rijaal can refute the tradition based upon a weakness in the chain. But as it stands there are more (authentic) haidth of imam Ali as criticising Abu bakr and omar than praising them. 

Yes, your desperation is so apparent – Just eagerly waiting for someone to just say it is wrong. And you will lap it up!

21 hours ago, Mohammad farid said:

Allah the Almighty and exalted knows best 

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

Now let me the cite the beginning portion of the same hadith:

Then he (Yarfa') came again and said: What do you say about 'Ali and Abbas (who are present at the door)?  He said: Yes and permitted them to enter.

Abbas said: Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar.

Now, how Hz. Al-Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib (may Allah be pleased with him) is saying the same about whom?

This problem actually falls on you since it's in your book, not ours. We couldn't care less what Sahih Muslim has to say, the brother only quoted it because he wants to prove that in Sunni works (meaning from the Sunni perspective) that the Sahabas, specially Ali and the Shaykhayn didn't get along AT ALL, and the hadith from Muslim proves it. Can you imagine a person calling someone else "liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest" and still believing that they loved each other ?

"But 'Abbas also said Ali was a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest" ! As I said, so what ? 

1) It's in your books, so why should I care or even attempt to answer back ?

2) It still doesn't change the fact that the Shaykhayn were still liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest, according to Ali. Will you ignore or deny this ?

Why don't you also take a look at this hadith, from Musannaf 'Abd al-Razzaaq as-San'aani, page 104, hadith 10532:

image.png.766bbe69ca19e4da24dc6fce95f55b43.png

It's practically the same hadith, where we see that here 'Abbas doesn't insult Ali, but later Ali still insults the Shaykhayn, calling them Dhaalim and Faajir, ظالم and فاجر, meaning someone that is unjust and that speaks with very bad manners.

Now you can't use the excuse that 'Abbas insulted Ali, and Ali still insulted the Shaykhayn, so do you have anything to say regarding this hadith too ?

Regarding these traits that Ali (عليه السلام) has mentionned, also take a look at this hadith: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:34

So according to this hadith, the one who is 1- a traitor (خائن, Khaa'in), 2- a liar (كاذب, Kaadhib), 3- treacherous (غادر, Ghaadir), 4- speaks with insulting manners (فاجر, Faajir) is a PURE HYPOCRITE. All these traits are the exact same words that Ali (عليه السلام) used against the Shaykhayn. Coincidence ? So according to your books, the Shaykhayn are pure hypocrites (even having only 1 of these traits makes them a "simple" hypocrite, according to the hadith). Now remind me, what does the Qur'an say regarding the hypocrites ?

وَعَدَ اللّٰہُ الۡمُنٰفِقِیۡنَ وَالۡمُنٰفِقٰتِ وَالۡکُفَّارَ نَارَ جَہَنَّمَ خٰلِدِیۡنَ فِیۡہَا ۚ ہِیَ حَسۡبُہُمۡ ۚ وَلَعَنَہُمُ اللّٰہُ ۖ وَلَہُمۡ عَذَابٌ مُّقِیۡمٌ

"Allah promises the hypocrites, men and women, and the disbelievers the fire of Hell, wherein they shall abide. It will suffice them. And Allah has cursed them. And they shall have a lasting punishment" (Surah at-Tawba 9:68)

Form your own conclusions. And remember, I'm not the one who's saying this, I simply mentionned everything that is in your books.

And indeed Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows best.

Edited by Mohamad Abdel-Hamid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member

If we look at the actions of the Kharijites, they seem to be yet another Umavi tool to destablize Imam Ali (عليه السلام) caliphate. 

They came into prominence right after Siffin and disappeared mostly after Imam Ali's demise. They had a few run-ins with Umavi forces but they were splinter groups from the original Kharijites....similiar to Al-Qaida --> ISIS --> Al Nusra, etc.

That's my take at least.

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...