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

I don’t get the emphasis on hatred

Rate this topic


Billy Saltzman

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, power said:

Brother, how can you honour someone who  had instigated a war where 1000's people had died for defending the truth? On bases can you honour someone when he/she perpetuated a crime on a false pretenses ? FurthermoreI, what  rational or a logical reasons can a murderer can be honoured with the killing of masses? 

And finally I would say, those who fought on the side of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and gave their lives in upholding the truth, the Honour belongs to those soldiers.   

 Its unjustness by honouring the culprits and dismissing  those who fought for justice.

 

 

No I don’t honor her more than what she deserved. She was with the group of transgressors. If anything it’s only for the sake of Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). I don’t have to prove anything, we all know how she behaved, part of the party who created mischief and loss of life, acting very badly in front of Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). To the extent that her faith was put into question, Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) couldn’t even take it her insolence, but Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was patient. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) acted just like Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), patient and treated her with respect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
20 minutes ago, 145_turbo_16V said:

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) acted just like Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), patient and treated her with respect. 

Imam Sajjad ((عليه السلام)) treated the mal'oon killer of Ali Akbar ((عليه السلام)) with courtesy too; so did Maula Ali ((عليه السلام)) with Ibn Muljim (L.A).

There is a difference between respect and reverence, and a basic level of decency and manners.

She doesn't suddenly become ((رضي الله عنه)) just because she was shown human decency becoming of a M'asoom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

That greeting of radhi Allah anha is up to you, neither wajib nor prohibited. I chose to do it for her, because she is Rasulullah's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wife. Whether or not Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will be pleased with her is not up to me. She has to answer for the blood that has been shed for the mischief she created.

Edited by 145_turbo_16V
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Actually the reason why he acted in that way is to protect his shias that would have been killed and abused more by his enemies. 

I don't entirely agree.

Disagree part: he was khalifa at the time, won the battle, and could have razed any opposition down and ripped her and any leftover supporters into pieces, re-written history, etc. just like Bani Ummaya l.a did.

Agree part: however because he is honourable, he would never be cunning, and therefore in this sense, sure. Possibly he was protecting his shia from what could happen in the future. I don't buy this explanation though unless we have some sort of hadith that alludes to this in the correct context

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 hours ago, dragonxx said:

I don't entirely agree.

Disagree part: he was khalifa at the time, won the battle, and could have razed any opposition down and ripped her and any leftover supporters into pieces, re-written history, etc. just like Bani Ummaya l.a did.

Agree part: however because he is honourable, he would never be cunning, and therefore in this sense, sure. Possibly he was protecting his shia from what could happen in the future. I don't buy this explanation though unless we have some sort of hadith that alludes to this in the correct context

InshaAllah I try to find out the narration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
22 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

 

 

 

I'm aware of his views. The point was, you mentioned that quite a few scholars have raised doubts on this Ziarat, especially the la'an part. Aside from Ayatollah Fadhlullah, are there any significant number of other scholars who have raised doubts on it's authenticity?

There are a number of ulema who raised doubts about the x100 lanat part because there are copies of the Ziyarat dating from the time of Sh. Toosi that do not include the x100 Lanat. There are a number of Sanad for this Ziyarat, some include the x100 Lanat and some don't. There have been other threads of SC about this, as well as articles written about it. Here are a few examples

http://ahlulbaitgn.blogspot.com/2012/03/is-ziyarat-ashoora-authentic.html

 

The Sanad for the Ziyarat (the part not including the Lanat) is not weak and it is considered authentic, almost universally. Apart from the strength of the Sanad, and the fact that this Ziyarat has an early date, the Ziyarat contains many passages that are also in other Ziyarat that are confirmed authentic, so those parts are not controversial at all, at least amoung Shia. It is only the last part. There is a possibility that this part was added after the original Ziyarat was narrated by the Imam((عليه السلام)). 

Even for the x100 Lanat part, Sayyid Fadlallah((رضي الله عنه)) does not say that you cannot recite this part, i.e. it is haram to recite it and you must leave it. He said you can recite it but just know that you may be reciting something that is not authentic(i.e. not from the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام))). 

 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
28 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

There are a number of ulema who raised doubts about the x100 lanat part because there are copies of the Ziyarat dating from the time of Sh. Toosi that do not include the x100 Lanat. There are a number of Sanad for this Ziyarat, some include the x100 Lanat and some don't. There have been other threads of SC about this, as well as articles written about it.

On the other hand, quite a few ulema have pointed out that Shaykh Tusi most definitely had a copy that had the 100x lanat part deleted for various reasons; manuscripts older than his time are available in hawzas that have that part included. Ulema have solid reasons to declare this ziarat in its entirety authentic, and cautioned us from doubting it (specifically the 100x lanat part).

We can either trust them, or we can follow our own personal preferences. 

Either way, I don't think we should be telling non shia that a majority of shia don't practice such strict tabarra, or it isn't part of our religion, because that's remotely not the case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
13 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

On the other hand, quite a few ulema have pointed out that Shaykh Tusi most definitely had a copy that had the 100x lanat part deleted for various reasons; manuscripts older than his time are available in hawzas that have that part included. Ulema have solid reasons to declare this ziarat in its entirety authentic, and cautioned us from doubting it (specifically the 100x lanat part).

We can either trust them, or we can follow our own personal preferences. 

Either way, I don't think we should be telling non shia that a majority of shia don't practice such strict tabarra, or it isn't part of our religion, because that's remotely not the case.

 

Firstly, I am offended by your statement 'We can either trust them or follow our own personal preference' 

Sayyid Fadlallah((رضي الله عنه)) is a marja taqleed and I am his muqaled. How is this personal preference ? How do you even know what my personal preference is ? 

Your phrase implies that I just made this up out of thin air. I didn't 

I said that I agree with you that the majority opinion amoung ulema is that the x100 Lanat is authentic and they have proofs for this. I am not denying this. They accept those Sanad that include that Lanat, because through their exercise of Ilm Al Rijal they have concluded that those narrators are sahih, therefore the Sanad is sahih. This is the process, and I respect that, but if the majority is always right, then we should all be Sunni then. Right ?

But your conclusion is not the same as theirs. You think that because that majority opinion amoung ulema is that the x100 Lanat is authentic, then anyone who disagrees with the authenticity is 'following their own preferences'. Even if you ask those other ulema who accept the Sanad, do you think they would say that ? Absolutely not. They wouldn't say what you are saying and start accusing people of following their own preferences and saying we shouldn't say that majority of Shia don't practice strict tabarra. 

First, what percentage of Shia actually do the 'x100 Lanat' on a regular basis, even if they believe it is authentic. How many Shia even read Dua Kumayl on Thursday night even though (basically) 100% of Shia believe this Dua is authentic, in it's entirety, from the first letter to the last, and most know the thawab (reward) for reciting it ? How many, maybe 10%, if even. So please rexamine your premises. Also, ask those same ulema what is the real tabarra ? They will tell you it is thru actions, not words only. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Firstly, I am offended by your statement 'We can either trust them or follow our own personal preference' 

Sayyid Fadlallah((رضي الله عنه)) is a marja taqleed and I am his muqaled. How is this personal preference ? How do you even know what my personal preference is ? 

Your phrase implies that I just made this up out of thin air. I didn't

I meant no offence, and I apologise for causing it.

Every shia has a right to do taqleed of marja' that they deem most knowledgeable.

However, we have to acknowledge that his views differ from a vast majority of mainstream scholars.

If one goes through this thread from the beginning, it seems that the view of the mainstream shia is being sidelined, and I disagree with that.

Now, allow me to elaborate on the "personal preference" part.

It seems that common shia nowadays want to present a tamer form of Islam, that personally resonates with a misplaced idea of "unity" (not pointing fingers here).

If a marja' says its forbidden to insult certain figures, then their followers will try to portray more than what that fatwa actually meant. They will attempt to include la'an in that fatwa, when that's not what he said at all.

If Ayatollah Sistani says, for example, that sunnis are our "nafs", thats the part that will get touted the most; the fact that he later clarified that this was meant in a political sense, and not a religious one, is something that never gets discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
13 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

I meant no offence, and I apologise for causing it.

Every shia has a right to do taqleed of marja' that they deem most knowledgeable.

However, we have to acknowledge that his views differ from a vast majority of mainstream scholars.

If one goes through this thread from the beginning, it seems that the view of the mainstream shia is being sidelined, and I disagree with that.

Now, allow me to elaborate on the "personal preference" part.

It seems that common shia nowadays want to present a tamer form of Islam, that personally resonates with a misplaced idea of "unity" (not pointing fingers here).

If a marja' says its forbidden to insult certain figures, then their followers will try to portray more than what that fatwa actually meant. They will attempt to include la'an in that fatwa, when that's not what he said at all.

If Ayatollah Sistani says, for example, that sunnis are our "nafs", thats the part that will get touted the most; the fact that he later clarified that this was meant in a political sense, and not a religious one, is something that never gets discussed.

Thank you for the apology. I realize there are different opinions on this. 

The view of Shia, almost universally, is that these figures that are mentioned in Ziyarat Ashura Muawiya(la), Yazid(la), Shimr bin Jawshawn(la), Marwan ibn Hakam(la), Umar ibn Saad(la), Harmala(la), etc, are cursed individuals, entitled to be cursed and they are cursed by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) because of their actions which are 'beyond the pale' of even the evil actions. The other opinion, that is almost, and I would say actually, universal amoung Shia is that the actions of Abu Bakr and Umar at Saqifa, their snatching of the Caliphate from it's rightful owner, who was given that right by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), at Ghadir Khum and many other times, is the root cause of the fitna, in the past and present, amoung Muslims. That the turning over of the Caliphate from Abu Bakr to Umar, and the turning over of the Caliphate from Umar to Uthman was illegitimate and unjust and they had no right to this position. 

That the actions of Aisha at Jamal were an open rebellion against the Imam of her time, i.e. Imam Ali, and this rebellion of Aisha set the stage for the rebellion of Muawiya(la) and legitimized it, and this rebellion led directly to the events of Karbala and all the other tragedies that came after it. 

This is the majority opinion amoung Shia, and I would say pretty much the universal opinion amoung Shia as well as some of our Sunni brothers who care to study Islamic history from authentic sources. Sayyid Fadlallah((رضي الله عنه).) has spoken about this many, many times in his Khutbas. I have many posts about these events which you can read. I don't think any Shia whether alim or lay person who has an ounce of ilm will disagree with any of that. I haven't heard of anyone here, that I know of, trying to backpedal, misrepresent, or apologize for any of those clear facts of history which are not in dispute. This is the heart of the Shia position regarding Islamic history and Caliphate and Imamate which will never change.

Now, as to what we disagree about, it is a small issue, but it has big consequences in the world we currently live in today. If it were not for the fact that there are many well funded organizations that exist in the world today whose sole purpose is to cause fitna between Muslims of different opinions on this, I would be more frank and more elaborate about these facts. As I said in my previous post on this thread, Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) could have confronted Abu Bakr and Umar with the sword and he would have been victorious and would have been the Caliph(from the first moments after the passing of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). But what would the c consequences of this have been ? Islam would have split into different religions and not been one religion as it is today. With all the fitna that is going on, Islam is still one religion. Preserving that is more important, and this can be demonstrated clearly by the actions of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) after the events of Saqifa. So if we are Shia(i.e. the followers), we should imitate our leader. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/25/2021 at 2:56 PM, Abu Hadi said:

His first objection is based on a very thorough and detailed study of t in our time.

he personality of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) and the Imams of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). It says in the Holy Quran that Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) was sent as a Rahma lil Alameen, as a mercy to all the worlds. His mercy and compassion extended to all of creation, even to his enemies.

Salam I totally  agree with you anyway both of cursed Muawiah  & Marwan have been cursed by prophet  Muhammad (pbu) himself which story of their cursing has been mentioned in both of Sunni & Shia narrations which cursing of Muawiah  has been justified  by wahabists  & Salafist as a blessing from prophet  for Muawiah which I have not found any reffering  to Ayatollah  Ayatollah Fadlalulah  (رضي الله عنه) about denying of cusing part which because   during his era cursing revered sunni figures   & doing Tatbir has been common between  Shias of Lebanon  so therefore he prohibited  cursing of revered figures of Sunnis in name doing mourning  & prevention  from adding names by extremists  to Lanat  part in similar fashion of Shirazi grouplet which in abstract of his book Hadith of Ashuraحدیث عاشورا" I have not found denying of cursing part 

http://ido.ir/post/1077708/بررسی-کتاب-«حدیث-عاشورا»-نوشته-علامه-سید-محمدحسین-فضل-الله

Quote

 

Unity of Muslims

"The issue is not Sunni or Shia; but rather it is the world's imperialists and Israel." This is a quote from al-Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadl Allah in his interview with OTV channel in April 2008.

He told 'Okaz, (a Saudi gazette): "We do not believe in the apostasy of the Companions. In this particular issue, we follow the manner of Imam Ali (a) and the way he dealt with the Companions. In most occasions, He (a) even tried to give his advice to them because they were Muslims . He (a) even told the Caliph 'Umar, "Be the pole and turn around the mill of Arabs."

In October 2005, Fadl Allah informed the reporter of a Kuwaiti newspaper of his ruling on prohibition of questioning or profaning the Companions.

Mourning

Many scholars believe that mourning sessions devoted for Ahl al-Bayt (a) (like sessions held in Muharram) should be held in accordance to its traditions. In his interview with al-Watan, a Kuwaiti newspaper, al-Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Fadl said, "traditional chest-beating which harms the body has problems." He believed that "Qamezani" and "Zanjirzani" (as forms of self-injury) are forbidden.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Al-Sayyid_Muhammad_Husayn_Fadl_Allah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators
On 11/25/2021 at 11:26 AM, Abu Hadi said:

He knew that some people would stubbornly resist his Message and would die in that state, and would therefore go to hell. At the same time, this fact made him sad, and he definitely didn't prefer this and he preferred that everyone, from the first to the last, would enter Paradise because of their following of his Message.

Although the above may be true, from some of the words in Dua 27 of Sahifa Sajjadia, (from vs.26-38). I get the impression that Muslims did (and in places still do) face an existential struggle with the enemies of Islam and the associated prayers don't hold back.

http://www.duas.org/mobile/sahifasajjadia-dua27-prayer-for-people-of-frontiers.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/26/2021 at 11:22 AM, Abu Hadi said:

There are a number of ulema who raised doubts about the x100 lanat part because there are copies of the Ziyarat dating from the time of Sh. Toosi that do not include the x100 Lanat. There are a number of Sanad for this Ziyarat, some include the x100 Lanat and some don't.

Assalama alaykum brother.

Sh. Toosi was born in
995AD in Tus, Iran and died in 1067AD Najaf, Iraq. Though he was Persian, his scholarly life was spent in Iraq around Najaf and Baghdad. At this time in history Iran was overwhelmingly Sunni nation with few areas around the Caspian Sea under the control of Ismaili and Zaidi Shia sects. 12er Shia presence in Iran was negligible and only nominally present in Qom due the site of Fatima Masumeh Shrine.

So, Sh. Toosi lived all his life under Abbasid Khilafat. Understandably he did not include the ‘X100 Lanat. I am sure you will agree with the reason he didn’t do this. :)

History of Iran changes dramatically when Safavids conquered Iran from 1501AD and with brutal force and savagery changed Iran from overwhelming Sunni state to Shia state. Safavid Empire lasted up to 1736.

 

Shah Ismail I the founder of the Safavid dynasty of Iran ruled from 1501 to 1524

Ironically, this was to the extent that up until the end of the 15th century the Ottoman Empire (the most powerful and prominent Sunni state and future arch-enemy of the Shia Safavids) used to send many of its Ulama (Islamic scholars) to Iran to further their education in Sunni Islam, due to a lack of Madrasahs (Islamic schools) within the Ottoman Empire itself.*[9] Persia was also a seat of Sunni learning.*[10] The Sunni Iranians had always held the family of Muhammad in high esteem.*[11] In contrast, before the Safavid period, a minority of Iranians were Shia and there had been relatively few Shia Ulama in Iran.*[12]

References:

*9) The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300–1600, by Halil Inalcik, pg.167.

*10) "The Origins Of The Shiite-Sunni Split". NPR.org. Retrieved 14 February 2021.

 *11) Subtelny, Maria (2007). Timurids in Transition: Turko-Persian Politics and Acculturation in Medieval Iran. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-16031-6.

*12) John Obert Voll (1994). Islam, continuity and change in the modern world. Internet Archive. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-2639-8.

 

Methods of converting Iran and Azerbaijan

Ismail consolidated his rule over the country and launched a thorough and, at times, brutal campaign to convert the majority Sunni population to Twelver Shiism and thus transform the religious landscape of Iran. *[21]

His methods of converting Iran and Azerbaijan included:

Imposing Shiism as the state and mandatory religion for the whole nation and much forcible conversion of Iranian Sufi Sunnis to Shiism. *[22] *[23] *[24]

He reintroduced the Sadr (Arabic, leader) – an office that was responsible for supervising religious institutions and endowments. With a view to transforming Iran into a Shiite state, the Sadr was also assigned the task of disseminating Twelver doctrine. *[25]

He destroyed Sunni mosques. This was even noted by Tomé Pires, the Portuguese ambassador to China who visited Iran in 1511–12, who when referring to Ismail noted: "He (i.e., Ismail) reforms our churches, destroys the houses of all Moors who follow (the Sunnah of) Muhammad…"*[26]

He enforced the ritual and compulsory cursing of the first three Sunni Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman) as usurpers, from all mosques, disbanded Sunni Tariqahs and seized their assets, used state patronage to develop Shia shrines, institutions and religious art and imported Shia scholars to replace Sunni scholars. *[27] *[28] *[29]

He killed Sunnis and destroyed and desecrated their graves and mosques. This caused the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid II (who initially congratulated Ismail on his victories) to advise and ask the young monarch (in a "fatherly" manner) to stop the anti-Sunni actions. However, Ismail was strongly anti-Sunni, ignored the Sultan's warning, and continued to spread the Shia faith by the sword. *[30]*[31]

He persecuted, imprisoned, exiled, and executed stubbornly resistant Sunnis. *[32]*[33]

With the establishment of Safavid rule, there was a very raucous and colourful, almost carnival-like holiday on 26 Dhu al-Hijjah (or alternatively, 9 Rabi' al-awwal) celebrating the Eid-e-Shuja' or Celebration of assassination of Caliph Umar. The highlight of the day was making an effigy of Umar to be cursed, insulted, and finally burned. However, as relations between Iran and Sunni countries improved, the holiday was no longer observed (at least officially).[34]

In 1501, Ismail invited all the Shia living outside Iran to come to Iran and be assured of protection from the Sunni majority. *[35]

references:

*21) The modern Middle East: a political history since the First World War. Mehran Kamrava, p. 29.

*22) Modern Iran: roots and results of revolution]. Nikki R Keddie, Yann Richard, pp. 13, 20

*23) The Encyclopedia of world history: ancient, medieval, and modern. Peter N. Stearns, William Leonard Langer, p. 360.

*24) Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Steven R Ward, pg.43

*25 Iran: a short history: from Islamization to the present. Monika Gronke, p. 91.

*26) The Judeo-Persian poet ‘Emrānī and his "Book of treasure": ‘Emrānī's Ganǰ… 'Emrānī, David Yeroushalmi, p. 20.

*27) A new introduction to Islam. Daniel W Brown, p. 191.

*28) Encyclopaedic Historiography of the Muslim World. NK Singh, A Samiuddin, p. 90.

*29) The Cambridge illustrated history of the Islamic world. Francis Robinson, p. 72.

*30) Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. Steven R. Ward, p. 44.

*31) Iran and America: re-kindling a love lost]. Badi Badiozamani, pp. 174–5.

 *32) The Cambridge illustrated history of the Islamic world. Francis Robinson, p. 72.

*33) Iraq: Old Land, New Nation in Conflict. William Spencer, p. 51.

*34) Culture and customs of Iran. Elton L Daniel, 'Alī Akbar Mahdī, p. 185.

*35) Iraq: Old Land, New Nation in Conflict. William Spencer, p. 51.

Abbas I of Persia

Shiism did not become fully established until the reign of Abbas I of Persia (1587–1629). *[64] Abbas hated the Sunnis, and forced the population to accept Twelver Shiism. *[65] Thus by 1602 most of the formerly Sunnis of Iran had accepted Shiism. A significant number, however, did not accept Safavid rule, prompting Abbas to institute a number of administrative changes in order to further transform Iran into a Twelver Shia state. *[66]

*[64] Safavid Iran: rebirth of a Persian empire. Andrew J Newman, p. 118.

*[65] Distant relations: Iran and Lebanon in the last 500 years. H. E. Chehabi, Rula Jurdi Abisaab, Centre for Lebanese Studies (Great Britain), p. 88.

*[66] The failure of political Islam. Olivier Roy, Carol Volk, p. 170.

Baqir Majlisi -

Under the guidance of Muhammad Baqir Majlisi (1616–98, one of the most important Shiite clerics of all time), who devoted himself to (among other things) the eradication of Sunnism in Iran, *[67] the Safavid state made major efforts, in the 17th century to Persianize Shiite practice and culture in order to facilitate its spread in Iran among its Sunni populace. *[68] It was only under Majlisi that Shi'a Islam truly took hold among the masses. *[69]

*[67] The Encyclopedia of world history: ancient, medieval, and modern. Peter N. Stearns, William Leonard Langer, p. 363.

*[68] The Arab Shi'a: The Forgotten Muslims. Graham E. Fuller, Rend Rahim Francke, p. 76.

*[69] Molavi, Afshin, The Soul of Iran, Norton, 2005, p. 170.

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam

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

Introduction of Shia practices by Baqir Majlisi.

He also re-established clerical authority under his leadership, "and renewed the impetus for conversion from Sunni to Shi'a school."* [5] Majlesi is "credited with propagating numerous Shi'a rituals that Iranians regularly practice", such as mourning ceremonies for the fallen Twelve Imams, particularly the martyrdom of Husayn ibn Ali at Karbala, and pilgrimages to shrines of imams and their families. *[6]

References

* [5] Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, (2004), p.425

*[6] Molavi, Afshin (2002). Persian Pilgrimages: Journeys Across Iran. Norton. p. 170. ISBN 978-0-393-05119-3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad-Baqer_Majlesi

With Safavid take over of Iran and enforcing Shiaism Qom started gaining prominence over Najaf in Iraq as Shia seat of learning. This brought in Persian influence on Shiaism. For instance, there were no pictures of Shia Imams prior to Safavids, with their take over of Iran, pictures of Shia Imams with Persian looks became very popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/26/2021 at 1:07 PM, Abu Hadi said:

The other opinion, that is almost, and I would say actually, universal amoung Shia is that the actions of Abu Bakr and Umar at Saqifa, their snatching of the Caliphate from it's rightful owner, who was given that right by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), at Ghadir Khum and many other times, is the root cause of the fitna, in the past and present, amoung Muslims. That the turning over of the Caliphate from Abu Bakr to Umar, and the turning over of the Caliphate from Umar to Uthman was illegitimate and unjust and they had no right to this position. 

It's so sad that Shias pay no heed to what Imam Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) statements:

A letter sent by Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) to the people of various provinces, giving them the causes of the Battle of Siffin.

“Verily, those who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman have sworn allegiance to me on the same basis on which they swore allegiance to them. (On this basis) he who was present has no choice (to consider), and he who was absent has no right to reject; and consultation is confined to the muhajirun and the ansar. If they agree on an individual and take him to be IMAM, it will be deemed to mean Allah's pleasure.

If anyone keeps away by way of objection or innovation, they will return him to the position from where he kept away. If he refuses, they will fight him for following a course other than that of the believers and Allah will put him back from where he had run away.”  Letter 6 Nahjul Balagha

Any unbiased person can clearly see that Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is justifying his election as the Khalif as legitimate on the same grounds as that of his 3 predecessors (Hz. Abu Bakr, Hz. Umar bin Al Khattab and Hz. Uthman bin Affan (may Allah Be pleased with them all).

And he deemed their selection as earning Allah Almighty’s Pleasure!!!!!! Yet you deem it to be a Fitnah.

Also refer to Arabic version – the actual words uttered by Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him).

“If they agree on an individual and take him to be IMAM, it will be deemed to mean Allah's pleasure.”

He used the word IMAM – Well knowing all the meanings and implications of this word.

إِنَّهُ بَايَعَنِي الْقَوْمُ الَّذِينَ بَايَعُوا أَبَا بَكْر وَعُمَرَ وَعُثْمانَ عَلَى مَا بَايَعُوهُمْ عَلَيْهِ، فَلَمْ يَكُنْ لِلشَّاهِدِ أَنْ يَخْتَارَ، وَلاَ لِلغَائِبِ أَنْ يَرُدَّ، وَإنَّمَا الشُّورَى لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالاْنْصَارِ، فَإِنِ اجْتَمَعُوا عَلَى رَجُل وَسَمَّوْهُ إِمَاماً كَانَ ذلِكَ لله رِضىً، فَإِنْ خَرَجَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِمْ خَارِجٌ بِطَعْن أَوْبِدْعَة رَدُّوهُ إِلَى مَاخَرَجَ منه، فَإِنْ أَبَى قَاتَلُوهُ عَلَى اتِّبَاعِهِ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، وَوَلاَّهُ اللهُ مَا تَوَلَّى

Also note that he never mentioned about his Divine Appointment at Khum Ghadeer.

The best Shias can do is to dismiss this letter as fake or weak narration. Easy way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/26/2021 at 1:07 PM, Abu Hadi said:

As I said in my previous post on this thread, Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) could have confronted Abu Bakr and Umar with the sword and he would have been victorious and would have been the Caliph(from the first moments after the passing of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h). But what would the c consequences of this have been ? Islam would have split into different religions and not been one religion as it is today. With all the fitna that is going on, Islam is still one religion. Preserving that is more important, and this can be demonstrated clearly by the actions of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) after the events of Saqifa. So if we are Shia(i.e. the followers), we should imitate our leader. 

Brother, you are just speculating or second guessing on Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib’s (may Allah Almighty be pleased with him) Stance. He SHOULD HAVE confronted Hz. Abu Bakr and Hz. Umar (may Allah be pleased with them), more so, as you have already claimed that he would have been victorious!!!!!!

Then why should one let the usurpers get away with it when you have the means and surety of victory and the Haq is on your side?

Shouldn’t the Fitnah have been obliterated/nipped in the bud right on the first day when it appeared? With promised victory, as you have foretold, all the matters should be on smooth sailing from then on.

It doesn’t make sense when you when you claim that after victory “Islam would have split into different religions”.

What makes you say this? In fact, after victory, would not Islam have been set on the right course with Imamate restored to it’s rightful Divinely appointed candidates?

Divinely appointed Imam is not supposed to stand aside and watch helplessly the plundering of their Divinely bestowed inheritance.

He would have followed the illustrious example of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and fought for his cause not caring for the consequences. Following is reply of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when his dear Uncle had requested him mute down his opposition to the Mushrikeens!

“By Allah, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand on condition that I abandoned this course, I would not abandon it until Allah has made it victorious, or I perish therein.”" 

Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) would have done the same, no doubt about this.

The Sermon 3 (Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyah) * should have been said just after the funeral of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) if he was Divinely Ordained.

Note also that he never recalled the event of Khum Ghadeer. Never mentioned his Divine Appointment. This is the oft-repeated mantra by our Shia brethren (sisters included) as the strongest point in the Divine Appointment.

 As per Shia beliefs the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had conveyed the message and Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is duty bound to implement it come what may, trusting that Allah Almighty will protect him just as Allah Almighty had promised to protect the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

Now this blessed Surah comes into effect.

O Messenger! Convey everything revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you have not delivered His message. Allah will ˹certainly˺ protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the people who disbelieve. Al-Maida:67

* Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyah

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-allah-son-abu-quhafah

He would have followed the illustrious example of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and fought for his cause not caring for the consequences. Following is reply of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when his dear Uncle had requested him mute down his opposition to the Mushrikeens!

“By Allah, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand on condition that I abandoned this course, I would not abandon it until Allah has made it victorious, or I perish therein.”" 

Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) would have done the same, no doubt about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 11/26/2021 at 1:07 PM, Abu Hadi said:

Preserving that is more important, and this can be demonstrated clearly by the actions of Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) after the events of Saqifa. So if we are Shia(i.e. the followers), we should imitate our leader. 

Earlier Shia Imams (may Allah be pleased with them all) had no qualms of naming their sons Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman. I believe Iman Jaffar as-Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him) named his daughter, Aisha. I have also seen many companions of Shia Imams named Mu’awiyah!!!!

So, why do not Shias imitate their Imams in this respect. This was stopped due to Safavid/Baqir Majlisi’s influence.

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...