Were the Shaykhayn like angels or were they evil?

[StrangerInThisWorld]

Salamun 'alaykum, 

this is one of the topics were most Sunnis and Shi'a today can only think in a "black or white"-manner and as such are unable to accept any criticism of their views in one direction or the other. 

Instead of thinking of the Shaykhayn as two angels (as most Sunnis today do) or as two evil persons (as most Shi'a today do), there is also the option to look at them from a more balanced perspective: They were two Muslim rulers, who tried to be just - that's why the majority of the Muhajirin and Ansar did not oppose their rule - but had also mistakes. 

The view of them being similar to angels and the view of them being evil are both based upon narrations. These narrations - especially concerning this subject - were heavily influenced by politics and as such far away from being reliable unlike what the two opposing sides claim. 

We know that Allah ta'ala has praised the Sabiqun al-Awwalun from among the Muhajirin and the Ansar and we also know that the majority of them did not oppose the rule of the Shaykhayn. 

We also know - unlike what some Shi'a today claim - that they did care for justice and would for example never accepted that anyone hits Fatima (peace be upon her) as is claimed in some narrations. (There are different versions, some are nearer to the truth, while other contain clear exaggerations, which are insulting towards all Muslims of that time in reality.)

How does it come that the same Muhajirin and Ansar were not pleased when 'Uthman bin 'Affan started to put his relatives in positions of power? How does it come that the majority of the Muslims that participated in the Battle of Badr and those who pledged allegiance to the Best of Creation (peace and blessings be upon him) under the tree sided with the Prince of the Believers (peace be upon him) against Mu'awiya and his ilk.

How does it come that the same Muhajirin / Ansar and their children stood against Yazid after the martyrdom of Imam al-Hussayn (peace be upon him) and were likewise martyred as a result. 

Then: Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) was in the Majlis al-Shura of 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, who would usually take the position of Imam 'Ali, if he would have a recommendation regarding an issue. Not just that: Major companions that were close to Imam 'Ali, were in positions of power under 'Umar. 

What people do not take into consideration is that some positions became issues of creed later on, but were not understood as such by earlier Muslims. 

Take the event of Ghadir: Yes, it's not possible to get out of this event without acknowledging a special status and religious leadership to Imam 'Ali bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him) upon all believers and without understanding that Imam 'Ali is with the truth and those opposing him are upon falsehood, but it does not necessitate political leadership. Especially when Imam 'Ali did not declare himself as such (which he could have done from the very beginning on) and only drew the sword when it came to Mu'awiya and his likes and not before. 

Even if political leadership is meant, then it's still possible that the Shaykhayn knew that the Bani Umayya would not accept such a leadership and would cause problems and tried to find another solution. Think about it: 'Umar put those close to Imam 'Ali in positions of power and would have even preferred him as the Khalifa after his rule. 

What is ironic here is that the above mentioned way of thinking is closer to that of the companions, who supported Imam 'Ali (meaning the very first real Shi'a), which is why they had no problems to be under the Shaykhayn (even in positions of power!), but clearly had a problem with Mu'awiya. 

I personally believe that the Zaydiyya (majority of Shi'a were Zaydiyya or close to them in the past) and someone like Shakyh Ahmad al-Waeli from among the Twelvers had a more balanced view than many Sunnis and Shi'a today. 

Edited October 25 by StrangerInThisWorld

[dragonxx]

Majority rule means nothing, as the Quran re-iterates many times.

When you come uninvited to the House of Fatima ((عليه السلام)), you're evil already, let alone any of the utterances and actions that followed...

A "balanced" view doesn't exist in the context of God's appointed leader. It's either truth (Imam Ali ((عليه السلام))) or falsehood (fill in the names). Take your pick.

Anyway bottom line is God knows best. If you knowingly oppose that, conceal the truth, no matter the excuse... you're doomed to hell.

 

 

[dragonxx]

1 hour ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Yes, it's not possible to get out of this event without acknowledging a special status and religious leadership to Imam 'Ali bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him) upon all believers and without understanding that Imam 'Ali is with the truth and those opposing him are upon falsehood, but it does not necessitate political leadership.

forgot to laugh at this typical comment,

you must be flexible... my back would break trying to bend back that far...

The Prophet (pbuhf) tells you how to live 99.99% of your life, the order to cut your fingernails even, yet this single "issue" of "political" leadership is omitted out of "religion".

[Abu Nur]

There is too much evidence of their negative actions and beliefs that Sunnis will mostly weak them or inteprate them to protect them. And then we have authentic hadiths with us Shias that exactly show their true intentions, so as Shia it is very hard to look at them to be exactly of what you have described.

 

[AbdusSibtayn]

5 hours ago, dragonxx said:

"balanced" view doesn't exist in the context of God's appointed leader. It's either truth (Imam Ali ((عليه السلام))) or falsehood (fill in the names). Take your pick.

I have a nomenclature for these equivocations but then apparently it's 'against the site rules' so I'll pass. 

[Eddie Mecca]

@StrangerInThisWorld, your views on these matters are very similar to mine...most of those who to follow Sunnism and Shi'i Islam enjoy behaving like third graders...they're comfortable in their little boxes and refuse to acknowledge valid points made by the opposing camp...in my experience, the majority of Shi'i Muslims acknowledge a gaping difference between ʾAbū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān on one hand...and Muʿāwiyah, Abū Sufyān, Banū Umayyah etc. on the other...I can't necessarily blame the sizeable chuck of Twelvers who hold a grudge against the aforementioned personalities either...I understand how they're viewing certain historical events and there's Islamic evidence backing their stance and their claims...the gap and inability to see the other's perspective is largely due to laziness and stubbornness and prejudice based on sectarian inflexibility..the popularity of Salafism among duped Sunnis isn't helping matters...neither is MI6 Shi'ism in London

[Eddie Mecca]

@StrangerInThisWorld, the relationship between these personalities and Ali was extremely complicated and intricate...there was love between them...and animosity existed as well...the relationship between them was highlighted by conflicting nuance...for a lot of Twelvers, ʾAbū Bakr was born, oppressed Fatima and died and went to hell...open and shut case...very simple, uncomplicated and straightforward...his entire life is summed up or encapsulated in this one event...they refuse to see him freeing Bilal...they don't care that he showed extreme regret for surrounding the house of Fatima (e.g. al Ṭabarī, al Masʿūdī etc.)...they're unable to see him refusing to show favoritism and personally lashing his own son TO DEATH for committing zinā (contrast this behavior with the bias conduct or selective implementation of Islamic law during the caliphate of Banū Umayyah)

[StrangerInThisWorld]

8 hours ago, dragonxx said:

Majority rule means nothing, as the Quran re-iterates many times.

When you come uninvited to the House of Fatima ((عليه السلام)), you're evil already, let alone any of the utterances and actions that followed...

A "balanced" view doesn't exist in the context of God's appointed leader. It's either truth (Imam Ali ((عليه السلام))) or falsehood (fill in the names). Take your pick.

Anyway bottom line is God knows best. If you knowingly oppose that, conceal the truth, no matter the excuse... you're doomed to hell.

 

 

Allah ta'ala has praised the Sabiqun al-Awwalun from among the Muhajirin and Ansar and declared that He's pleased with them. That's why we can't simply act as if their opinion doesn't hold any weight. 

Then: Misunderstandings happen even among very close people, but this doesn't necessitate one side to be evil. 

Regarding "actions": The things that are described in some versions of the narration are simply not true. You really believe the Muslims at that time would have tolerated such a thing?

Like previously stated: This is an insult against ALL Muslims of that time.

 

Also: If Abu Bakr and 'Umar were like Mu'awiya (as is claimed by some Shi'a), then it will be really difficult to explain the actions of Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) and that of his close companions. 

Why was Imam 'Ali in the Majlis al-Shura of 'Umar? The same 'Umar that is claimed to be responsible for the death of Fatimatul Zahra (peace be upon her)! 

Or why was Salman al-Farisi the governer of Madain under 'Umar? 

Why did al-Miqdad bin al-Aswad fight under the banner of 'Umar? 

8 hours ago, dragonxx said:

forgot to laugh at this typical comment,

you must be flexible... my back would break trying to bend back that far...

The Prophet (pbuhf) tells you how to live 99.99% of your life, the order to cut your fingernails even, yet this single "issue" of "political" leadership is omitted out of "religion".

And who gave you a guarantee that these narrations are all correct?

Rather a good portion of these narrations are from the inventions of the men of Bani Umayya and Bani al-'Abbas, who tried to make the Muslims busy with secondary things and even made up narrations in direct opposition to the Quran al-karim (the "even if he commits Zina or steals"-Hadith comes to the mind, which they unjustly reported through Abu Dharr!). 

And: Rasulullah (may endless peace and blessings be upon him) stressed upon the issue of justice. Does this not pertain to politics also? 

He also declared a banner for truth (i.e. the Prince of the Believers) due to his knowledge regarding the Fitan that would happen after him. 

 

 

 

 

[Eddie Mecca]

14 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

etc.)...they're unable to see him refusing to show favoritism and personally lashing his own son TO DEATH for committing zinā

He would have killed another son during Badr if the opportunity would have presented itself..."Later Abdul Rahman became a Muslim. He told his father that at the battle there were occasions when he could strike at him, but then out of love for him he turned aside. Abu Bakr said, "If I had such an occasion, you being kāfir, I would not have spared you"."...when measuring a man...you have to look extremely deep...with penetrating insight and evaluate the heart and the mind brethren 

Edited October 26 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

@StrangerInThisWorld, when the Sunnis are excusing you of being a diehard and uncompromising Shi'i...and Shi'i Muslims are excusing of you of being an undercover Sunni agent or Sunni apologist...and the rigid ultra-lieralist (e.g. Salafi) is attempting to categorize you as a flowery ambiguous mystic (i.e. Sufi) and vice-versa...and the ʾUṣūli vehemently maintains that you're an ʾAkhbāri and vice-versa...that's a good space to be in...that's where you want to be 

Edited October 26 by Eddie Mecca

[Panzerwaffe]

Couple of points

Fighting under banner of even yazid against enemies of Islam is understandable 

Also earliest Shia had a deep dislike of uthman ( considered him worthy of being killed ) unlike first 2 caliphs that is unlike what we see today 

[Muslim2010]

9 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Allah ta'ala has praised the Sabiqun al-Awwalun from among the Muhajirin and Ansar and declared that He's pleased with them. That's why we can't simply act as if their opinion doesn't hold any weight. 

Then: Misunderstandings happen even among very close people, but this doesn't necessitate one side to be evil. 

Regarding "actions": The things that are described in some versions of the narration are simply not true. You really believe the Muslims at that time would have tolerated such a thing?

Like previously stated: This is an insult against ALL Muslims of that time.

The Quran addresses the companions in three tones ie praising, warning and taunting that they may turn from the religion, thus divides them into three groups as already quoted above:

1-    The First group addressed by Quran as believers, and they are righteous. Quran praises them.

All Muslims respect them as Quran praises them.

2-    The Second Group addressed by Quran as believers and they are not sincere in their actions. Quran warns them.

The believers are companions, they are similarly addressed as in the verses for the first group, but they are warned for their actions.

Authentic Sunni traditions confirm that there have been some companions who used to oppose the Prophet's order and quarrel with him in several occasions, etc.

3.    The Third Group addressed by Quran who are hypocrites (Munafiqeen) among sahaba they may turn away from religion. Quran taunts them.

I quote one verse confirming the presence of hypocrites (munafiqeen) among the sahaba:

وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الْأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ ۖ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ ۖ مَرَدُوا عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لَا تَعْلَمُهُمْ ۖ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ ۚ سَنُعَذِّبُهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ

And among those around you of the Arabs (Bedouins) are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment. (9:101)

Allah talks about the hypocrites in this verse who are around the Prophet who pretend to be his sincere companions and even Prophet does not know them according to the above verse.

Further details can be seen at the given link:

 

wasallam

Edited October 26 by Muslim2010

[StrangerInThisWorld]

On 10/26/2024 at 12:55 AM, Abu Nur said:

There is too much evidence of their negative actions and beliefs that Sunnis will mostly weak them or inteprate them to protect them. And then we have authentic hadiths with us Shias that exactly show their true intentions, so as Shia it is very hard to look at them to be exactly of what you have described.

 

If we take Sunni Ahadith, then it's close to impossible to have a negative view of them, because in Sunni Ahadith they are depicted almost similar to angels.

As for "Shi'a" Ahadith, then different factions among the Shi'a do not accept the same Ahadith to be true. In fact there is even difference among the scholars of the 12ers regarding which Ahadith to accept and which not and this also has an effect on how to view some of the famous companions.

This is unlike the issue regarding Mu'awiya, where one can easily see that he was an evil person (Sunnis are therefore definitely wrong when they defend him), no matter which Ahadith one considers to be true. (This is why a even a lot of Sunni scholars will not really praise him and maybe just say something like "he was a Sahabi, so let's not attack him".) 

 

By the way: This whole obsession with Ahadith was introduced to the religion by the people who served Bani Umayya and Bani al-'Abbas directly or indirectly and the aim of both states was to use the religion to their own favour and they were quite successful to the degree that even many Shi'a ended up believing in a portion of these made up Ahadith. 

That which happened to the Ahl al-Kitab before us, happened to us also! 

Allah ta'ala gave them the Tawrat and its preservance was the job of their scholars. What did they do? They deleted and added things, changed interpretations and mixed their own ideas into it.

Allah ta'ala sent our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) as the Seal of all Prophets and sent the Quran as a light for those who fear their Lord and protected it from any changes. What did a good portion of our scholars however do instead? They brought up narrations from here and there and put them on the same station - or even higher - as the Quran and made up all kinds of groups based upon this and started attacking eachother.

I will give just one example that I have also mentioned elsewhere repeatedly: The idea that Allah ta'ala forgives major sinners and criminals - even if they died without Tawba! - is supported by the majority of Sunnis and Shi'a today, despite this directly opposing the Quran al-karim in an open and explicit manner. They did this based upon the Ahadith that the Shayatin from among Bani Umayya invented.

Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) did not tell us to follow the Ahadith, but rather the Book of Allah ta'ala and his pure Ahl al-Bayt. When the Umma fell into dispute after him (peace and blessings be upon him), then it was necessary for everyone to obey Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him), because he was declared as the Mawla upon every believer and it was clarified that truth was with him. 

When we look at how the supporters of Imam 'Ali in general acted, we see that they clearly differentiated between the Shaykhayn on one side and Mu'awiya and his Bani Umayya ilk on the other side. With regarding the Shaykhayn they had no problem to serve under them or to fight under their banner and clearly treated them as legitimate Muslim rulers, but with regarding Mu'awiya's group they regarded him a Taghut and acted accordingly (i.e. drew their swords against him). These people were the real and original Shi'a.

Why should I put their position aside for some dubious Ahadith here and there? 

 

Note: I'm not saying that Ahadith have no benefit, but rather only that the Quran al-karim should be given precedence, because it's protected by Allah ta'ala. 

 

 

Edited October 27 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

21 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

The Quran addresses the companions in three tones ie praising, warning and taunting that they may turn from the religion, thus divides them into three groups as already quoted above:

I agree, but this is not disputed here. 

I explicitly mentioned the Sabiqun al-Awwalun from among the Muhajirin and Ansar, who fall into the first category, because Allah ta'ala explicitly praised them. 

Were they enemies of the Shaykhayn? 

What people do not seem to even consider is that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) trusted Abu Bakr enough in order to let him accompany him during the Hijra, but somehow we're today in the position to insult him left and right based upon some dubious narrations here or there. 

As for Mu'awiya, then Rasulullah (peace and blessings be upon him) supplicated AGAINST (!) him and this even according to Ahadith accepted by Sunnis (one of their major classical scholars tried to even hide his name when reporting the incident!), so consider this great difference! 

And we also see this difference in the way Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) and his supporters acted towards the Shaykhayn in comparison to how they acted towards Mu'awiya and his group.

Edited October 27 by StrangerInThisWorld

[Panzerwaffe]

On 10/26/2024 at 10:06 AM, Muslim2010 said:

The Quran addresses the companions in three tones ie praising, warning and taunting that they may turn from the religion, thus divides them into three groups as already quoted above:

1-    The First group addressed by Quran as believers, and they are righteous. Quran praises them.

All Muslims respect them as Quran praises them.

2-    The Second Group addressed by Quran as believers and they are not sincere in their actions. Quran warns them.

The believers are companions, they are similarly addressed as in the verses for the first group, but they are warned for their actions.

Authentic Sunni traditions confirm that there have been some companions who used to oppose the Prophet's order and quarrel with him in several occasions, etc.

3.    The Third Group addressed by Quran who are hypocrites (Munafiqeen) among sahaba they may turn away from religion. Quran taunts them.

I quote one verse confirming the presence of hypocrites (munafiqeen) among the sahaba:

وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الْأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ ۖ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ ۖ مَرَدُوا عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لَا تَعْلَمُهُمْ ۖ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ ۚ سَنُعَذِّبُهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ

And among those around you of the Arabs (Bedouins) are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Madinah. They have become accustomed to hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them, [but] We know them. We will punish them twice [in this world]; then they will be returned to a great punishment. (9:101)

Allah talks about the hypocrites in this verse who are around the Prophet who pretend to be his sincere companions and even Prophet does not know them according to the above verse.

Further details can be seen at the given link:

 

wasallam

Can you give me at least 10 names of sahaba in each of these groups? And where did you get them from ?

[StrangerInThisWorld]

Another issue is the following point:

When we speak about history our aim should be to learn lessons and avoid the mistakes that were committed in the past. 

If we look at the time of the Shaykhayn we see that a clear way of choosing a new leader was not established (which was exploited by Mu'awiya later on), but Shura was established to aid in finding solutions to new problems (something that Bani Umayya basically abolished). They were not totalitarian rulers and would take criticism into consideration. They fought the disbelievers, who were a threat to Muslims, and also fought those people, who were a threat to Islamic unity.

'Uthman bin 'Affan ruled in the beginning in the same way and the people had no problem with his rule. Then his relatives exploited his goodwill towards them and were installed into positions of power. From there on the real problems started, because nepotism was introduced into the system thereby leading to corruption. The Muhajirun and the Ansar became dissatisfied with the situation to the degree that their majority favored 'Uthman to step down from power. Marwan bin al-Hakam, Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan and their likes were planning in the background in order for Bani Umayya to completely take over the rule and reestablish their pre-Islamic dominance not just upon al-Hijaz, but over all Arabs this time (because they were basically still Jahili in their hearts). They not just hoped for 'Uthman to be killed, but planned towards it.

After his killing Mu'awiya used the incident directly in his own favor, obviously not out of love towards 'Uthman (because 'Uthman was despite his mistakes not a person of evil intention), but in order to simply ignore the allegiance that was given by the Muhajirin and Ansar towards the Prince of the Believers (peace be upon him). 

After the martyrdom of the Prince of the Believers and after Imam Hassan (peace be upon them) backed down from leadership in hope that civil war would end, Mu'awiya again proved his evil intentions by trying to force a hereditary rule upon Muslims. His wretched son Yazid was worse and more open in disobedience and wickedness. When Imam Hussayn (peace be upon him) saw this, he understood the great danger that this style of rule poses to Muslims and intended to bring back justice. Yazid's army attacked and martyred him alongside other precious souls from the Prophetic family (peace be upon them). 

Bani Umayya established a totalitarian rule, where any criticism was answered with state terrorism. 

 

 

Now let's come back to the present time. I will use a country where one finds Sunnis and Shi'a as an example in order to see whether any of the groups learned from the mistakes of the past:

Iraq was invaded in 2003. Before that it was ruled by the Baath party in the very same style as Bani Umayya ruled (i.e. through force and state terrorism). After the invasion groups from among Sunnis and Shi'a started resisting the American invaders to the degree that the US had serious problems in controlling the country. Then AQI - due to their sectarian hatred - started attacking the Shi'a and from there on everything got out of control. Shi'a groups started to respond, but also attacked normal Sunnis. They then obviously also responded. Over the next years everyone started to attack eachother with AQI (being led by a very extreme bloodthirsty psycho) being the worst by basically trying to slaughter Sunnis and Shi'a alike. The US was very happy, because they regained control due to these Fitan. 

Let us now skip the events until we reach this day: Today the direct invasion is not present anymore, but in reality Iraq is still not independent, because all their money goes to America and only if America gives a green light, they will receive their own money. Every region is controlled by a different group and most groups operate in a mafia-style. Nepotism and clientelism are everywhere, leading to an absolutely disgusting amount of corruption. Criticism is answered by force by the mafia-style political parties. 

 

So what did they learn? Let's see:

The Sunnis are like "it's all the fault of Iran... and the Shi'a invited America..." and they do not even realize that the foundation for this was set by Mu'awiya (because he was not interested in justice, but rather power and money!), whom they protect from criticism till this day. When the Shaykh Ahmad al-Kubaysi spoke the truth regarding him, they rushed towards silencing him.

And the Shi'a are like "it's all the fault of the Saudis... and Abu Bakr and 'Umar were the real reason behind all our problems". As if anyone among them is able to reach even 50 % of the justice of the Shaykhayn! And they use the Prince of the Believers (peace be upon him) only as a slogan without following him in reality. 

As for the Kurds, fa hadith wa la haraj! A good portion of them sold their souls to the accursed Shaytan and are serving the enemies in a clear manner and most of them can be fooled by some stupid nationalistic and racist slogans! 

As for other minority groups (Turkmen, Christians, etc.), fa la hawla lahum wa la quwwa. 

Wallahi, it's a shame that this happened to the land that was once a place of knowledge and learning! No reflection and no intention to correct mistakes! Just mindless accusations against each other without any solutions. 

 

 

Edited October 27 by StrangerInThisWorld

[Abu Nur]

6 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

As for "Shi'a" Ahadith, then different factions among the Shi'a do not accept the same Ahadith to be true. In fact there is even difference among the scholars of the 12ers regarding which Ahadith to accept and which not and this also has an effect on how to view some of the famous companions.

I don't want to go to this uncertainty of two factors holding different opinions when we all generally accept their usurping the right of leading of the Ummah and Fadak and others events and innovations that seperated the religion in different sections. No Shias deny this. But I agree that they were not totally wrong in some of their doing, specially when Imams and rightful companions advice them and followed them in some of the wars etc. But there is nothing to praise about them because they have mix deeds of good and bad. Even some famous companions did not like them. So for me I just ignore them and send general La'nah to the usurpers of right of Prophet and His family without naming any.

 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

2 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

I don't want to go to this uncertainty of two factors holding different opinions when we all generally accept their usurping the right of leading of the Ummah and Fadak and others events and innovations that seperated the religion in different sections. No Shias deny this. But I agree that they were not totally wrong in some of their doing, specially when Imams and rightful companions advice them and followed them in some of the wars etc. But there is nothing to praise about them because they have mix deeds of good and bad. Even some famous companions did not like them. So for me I just ignore them and send general La'nah to the usurpers of right of Prophet and His family without naming any.

 

Regarding usurping the right of leading: This depends whether one understands the event of Ghadir as religious leadership or political leadership.

(By the way: Religious leadership is higher than political one.)

The Mu'tazila for example believed that Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) was the best of this Umma after our noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), but they at the same time accepted that someone else can be a political leader, if he is just. 

It seems that this was also the view of the majority of early Muslims including people whom no one in his right mind would accuse of Nifaq. 

Take Salman al-Farisi. Why would he be a governer under an "usurper"? 

 

As for Fadak:

It depends whether it was a genuine mistake or one with an evil intention. 

Edited October 27 by StrangerInThisWorld

[Abu Nur]

41 minutes ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Regarding usurping the right of leading: This depends whether one understands the event of Ghadir as religious leadership or political leadership

Sunnis did regarded the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar as religious and political one. Ghadir established a divine leadership that included any Islamic subject, be it political, spiritual, religious, social leadership etc. Actually it established the leadership of Prophet Muhammad (saws) as continue to next person which is Imam Ali (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).  This is because he declared if he was not awla (lit. 'have more authority over' or 'closer to') the believers than themselves, evidently a reference to verse 33:6 of the Qur'an. Then whoever took the Prophet as the one who have more authority over themselves then they need to take exactly Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as having more authority over themselves.

This means it is impossible for Abu Bakr to declare any leadership or authority trough shura or any other method.

Edited October 27 by Abu Nur

[Guest Husayn1987]

I think these questions need to be sited to our brothers fron ahul al sunnah from within their sahih books is a better idea. Whatever the topic is, avoid sectarian rift. On both sides, I just feel like certain questions may anger some. The wording of questions or concerns. The whole point is to have a open dialogue. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

8 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Take Salman al-Farisi. Why would he be a governer under an "usurper"? 

It's Salaman al-Farsi (Muhammadi) which arabized of Parsi  while Farisi means a  Jewish social movement however your doubt has clear reponse which he has accepted this status by advise of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) not order of  usurper caliph under doctrine of Taqiyya for showing real image of Islam to Iranians & introducing Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) to them without distortion & innovations of pan Arabs who have introduced Islam as religion of Arabs which has been mixed with distortions & innovations of three sunni caliphs & enemies of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) which Salman al-Farsi has brought some justice for Iranians based on teachings of Ahlubayt  (عليه السلام) after suppression of new Iranian muslims by pan Arabs & enemies of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) which another example is Ali ibn Yaqtin (رضي الله عنه) who under doctrine of Taqiyya has served to Harun al-Rashid while he has served to shia community by order of Imam Kadhim (عليه السلام) .

8 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

As for Fadak:

It depends whether it was a genuine mistake or one with an evil intention.

It's undoubtedly usurped by evil intentions which there is countless refutation to your doubt. 

for example:

 

 

 

Edited October 28 by Ashvazdanghe

[Sabrejet]

11 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

mix deeds of good and bad

Even if someone has nothing but good deeds their entire life, they can become null and void in cases. Any perceived deeds would be wiped out.

يٰۤاَيُّهَا الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَرۡفَعُوۡۤا اَصۡوَاتَكُمۡ فَوۡقَ صَوۡتِ النَّبِىِّ وَلَا تَجۡهَرُوۡا لَهٗ بِالۡقَوۡلِ كَجَهۡرِ بَعۡضِكُمۡ لِبَعۡضٍ اَنۡ تَحۡبَطَ اَعۡمَالُكُمۡ وَاَنۡـتُمۡ لَا تَشۡعُرُوۡنَ‏ ٢

Edited October 28 by Sabrejet

[Abu Nur]

6 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

Even if someone has nothing but good deeds their entire life, they can become null and void in cases. Any perceived deeds would be wiped out.

يٰۤاَيُّهَا الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا تَرۡفَعُوۡۤا اَصۡوَاتَكُمۡ فَوۡقَ صَوۡتِ النَّبِىِّ وَلَا تَجۡهَرُوۡا لَهٗ بِالۡقَوۡلِ كَجَهۡرِ بَعۡضِكُمۡ لِبَعۡضٍ اَنۡ تَحۡبَطَ اَعۡمَالُكُمۡ وَاَنۡـتُمۡ لَا تَشۡعُرُوۡنَ‏ ٢

Of course, for afterlife it is not benefit.

[Muslim2010]

On 10/27/2024 at 7:42 PM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

I agree, but this is not disputed here. 

I explicitly mentioned the Sabiqun al-Awwalun from among the Muhajirin and Ansar, who fall into the first category, because Allah ta'ala explicitly praised them. 

For shia interpretation it means Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as others did not comply the condition of obeying in goodness rather others obeyed them (shaikhain)  in their actions like burning or threatening to burn the house of the daughter of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and keeping her devoid of rights like fadak etc.

Edited October 28 by Muslim2010

[Muslim2010]

23 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Can you give me at least 10 names of sahaba in each of these groups? And where did you get them from ?

Are you not aware of history  in islam brother?

[Panzerwaffe]

30 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

Are you not aware of history  in islam brother?

I’m not 

Also I want to hear your perspective 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

20 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Sunnis did regarded the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar as religious and political one. Ghadir established a divine leadership that included any Islamic subject, be it political, spiritual, religious, social leadership etc. Actually it established the leadership of Prophet Muhammad (saws) as continue to next person which is Imam Ali (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).  This is because he declared if he was not awla (lit. 'have more authority over' or 'closer to') the believers than themselves, evidently a reference to verse 33:6 of the Qur'an. Then whoever took the Prophet as the one who have more authority over themselves then they need to take exactly Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as having more authority over themselves.

This means it is impossible for Abu Bakr to declare any leadership or authority trough shura or any other method.

Is it possible to have a prophet and a legitimate non-prophet leader at the same time? Yes, because Allah ta'ala made Talut a king upon Bani Isra`il and this while there was a prophet among them. 

If the above is possible despite prophethood being present, then it's also possible that Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) is the Mawla of every believer while there is legitimate non-Ahl-al-Bayt leader. 

This seems to be the mindset of the majority of the early supporters of Imam 'Ali. Because if they really thought that the Shaykhayn were Tawaghit, then they would not have served under them or fought under their banner or taken part in the goverment in any way or form.

The real problem was with Mu'awiya and not the Shaykhayn.

 

[Abu Nur]

1 hour ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Is it possible to have a prophet and a legitimate non-prophet leader at the same time? Yes, because Allah ta'ala made Talut a king upon Bani Isra`il and this while there was a prophet among them. 

That is irrelevant because Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was appointed exactly as legitimate leader with the same authority of leadership than the Prophet Muhammad (saws).

[Sabrejet]

10 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Allah ta'ala made Talut a king upon Bani Isra`il

Please read your own sentence again. Allah Himself appointed a leader through Nass, not the people. This has been the Sunnah of Allah, and it always has been and will be.

[StrangerInThisWorld]

The problem is that you're claiming something that basically has no implications for the manner future generations should govern their countries. It's simply your opinion, which doesn't seem to even fit with the actions of Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) or that of his early supporters. 

If you say that someone, who is Ma'sum, should be the leader, then there is no such person right now. 

So what should Muslims do? Just keep on making accusations against each other based upon dubious narrations and everyone is happen with his version of Islamic history? 

A system based upon justice and consultation is what Muslims should implement as this is what is supported by the Quran al-karim. Any objections? 

 

What we find instead in most of our countries is nepotism and clientelism that leads to corruption. 

Some of you living in the West will not understand my point except if you live in one of our countries for a certain amount of time. There is a reason why most of our countries are weak and unable to stand up against the enemies. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 29 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

2 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

So what should Muslims do? 

If we would let the theology of most Sunnis and Shi'a today answer the above question, we would get the following:

Sunnis: Obey a Qurayshi leader no matter whether he's just or oppressive.

Shi'a: Obey Ma'sum leader. But what if there is no such leader among you?

 

As for the Sunni "solution": It's one of the reasons why Muslim countries are so far away from justice today.

As for the Shi'a "solution": It's basically only a historical position and doesn't help at all. 

 

There are other solutions, which make more sense:

Zaydi position: A just leader from the Ahl al-Bayt is to be obeyed. 

Mu'tazila: A just Muslim leader is to be obeyed. 

 

Comment: Justice is the foundation for good leadership. If Muslims do not understand this, then they will continue in their weak state. 

 

(The Sunni position is the worst option out of all, because it includes obedience towards oppressive rulers, while the rest of the options all regard justice as a necessary condition. The most rational position seems that of the Mu'tazila, especially when it's based upon the condition of the Quran.) 

Edited October 29 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

On 10/28/2024 at 7:42 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

It's Salaman al-Farsi (Muhammadi) which arabized of Parsi  while Farisi means a  Jewish social movement however your doubt has clear reponse which he has accepted this status by advise of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) not order of  usurper caliph under doctrine of Taqiyya for showing real image of Islam to Iranians & introducing Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) to them without distortion & innovations of pan Arabs who have introduced Islam as religion of Arabs which has been mixed with distortions & innovations of three sunni caliphs & enemies of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) which Salman al-Farsi has brought some justice for Iranians based on teachings of Ahlubayt  (عليه السلام) after suppression of new Iranian muslims by pan Arabs & enemies of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام)  

As for "al-Farisi"-issue: That's how it's pronounced in Arabic. You can't dictate how another language works. 

Then: Your justification is simply a later apologetic attempt as to why major famous companions, whom all sides regard in high regards, served under the Shaykhayn. You simply don't want to admit the most obvious reason: Because the Shaykhayn were trying to be just rulers. 

Then: The pan-Arab-issue is true regarding Bani Umayya and wrong regarding the Shaykhayn. Just because you have a certain view of them, doesn't mean that you accuse them of things that are simply not true. 

 

And by the way: The Shaykhayn and those who served under them were a Sabab for the Fath of Iraq and Iran. This means their forefathers entered into Islam thanks to the Shaykhayn. It's therefore ironic for them to hate them. 

[Eddie Mecca]

On 10/26/2024 at 10:46 AM, Panzerwaffe said:

Also earliest Shia had a deep dislike of uthman

The Sunnis are puffed with pride because they constitute the majority...they're always talking about THE MAJORITY, THE MAJORITY, THE MAJORITY etc. The funny thing is during the First Fitnah...their beloved "MAJORITY" stood against the third caliph...here they must take a decisive stance against one of their core tenets / concepts (always siding with the majority and never disturbing or disrupting the cohesiveness of the Jamāʻah)...if they (Sunni brethren) choose to side with the so-called rebels and the people of Miṣr (مِصر)...than they violate another key principle of Sunnism...namely, standing against the third Rightly Guided Caliph and siding with his killers...it's sort of a catch 22 for Sunnis...if they side with Uthman...then they go against the majority of Muslims...if they side with the majority of Muslims...then they can't help but to stand against Uthman and his later policies...you can have one...you can the other...but you can't have both and be theologically consistent.

Edited October 30 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

46 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

it's sort of a catch 22 for Sunnis

A lot of Twelvers end up contradicting Ali's (peace be upon him) actions...a Shi'i will never overtly declare Imam Ali's stance to be the wrong one...but they'll declare Ali's stance was the wrong stance in a subtle manner...a sizeable portion of Twelvers side with those who led or participated in the uprising against Uthman...for example, it's rare these days to hear a Twelver say, "we must defend Uthman at all costs" or "the people of Egypt could've handled that differently"...yet this was the very position that Imam Ali (peace be upon him) took historically...Ali's stance was a middle or medium stance...this cannot be denied...he (Ali) opposed the last 6 years of Uthman's despotic rule...but he believed in the rule of law and opposed anarchy and insurrection and vigilantism...Uthman should have been brought before the magistrate...brought to court and charged accordingly...according to due process and standard Islamic legal procedures 

[Eddie Mecca]

4 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

the last 6 years of Uthman's despotic rule

The Sunnis only like to discuss the first six years of Uthman's rule...the Shi'is only emphasize the last six years of Uthman's reign...I want to discuss all twelve years fairly and objectively...enough nonsense 

 

Edited October 30 by Eddie Mecca