Were the Shaykhayn like angels or were they evil?

[Eddie Mecca]

On 10/31/2024 at 5:32 PM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

instead of going overboard like Sunnis (by overly praising all companions) or Imamiyya (by acting as if most companions were apostates and hypocrites). Allah ta'ala is the Best of Judges and the Most Just. 

S.H.M. Jafri says that early Shi'i sources has Ali (peace be upon him) disagreeing with the first two caliphs on nearly everything...while early proto-Sunni sources presents a rose-tinted picture of Ali agreeing and rubberstamping all of the decisions made by Shaykhayn 

[Eddie Mecca]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:14 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Genghis Khan & Alexander & Hitler & other ruthless conquerors  tried to be just rulers. 

Imam Ali (peace be upon him) helped Genghis Khan consolidate his iron fisted power...Roger that...are you guys hearing yourselves?

[Eddie Mecca]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:14 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Sahabis likewise Salman "Al-Farsi" (Muhammadi) have cooperated with them to do damage control

I agree...Imam Ali (peace be upon him) participated largely to do damage control

Edited November 3 by Eddie Mecca

[Ashvazdanghe]

4 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Imam Ali (peace be upon him) helped Genghis Khan consolidate his iron fisted power...Roger that...are you guys hearing yourselves?

Salam lol it has been for giving examples which even such people have been endorsed by their fans as great just rulers in similar fashion of endorsing three Shaykhayn by Sunnis ; even there is a video which Imam Khamenei in his young age as speaker Friday jumma prayer has mentioned a story about effort of second Sunni caliph  for establishing justice which when cursed Amr ibn Al-As has been his governor in egypt one day son of cursed Amr ibn Al-As  hit an innocent person so then his father supported him so then that Egyptian person besides his father went ot Median for  asking for justice from Umar in Medina which Umar ordered that cursed Amr ibn Al-As & his son come to Medina so then punished both of them .

https://www.aparat.com/v/JhoCv

Anyway such stories about justice of Umar & two other Shaykhayn doesn't mean that they have had qualification for being caliph which all of their good deeds in this world has been nullified by usurping right of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & doing most greatest injustice about lady Fatima (sa) & Imam Ali (عليه السلام) .

Edited November 3 by Ashvazdanghe

[Sabrejet]

On 11/2/2024 at 7:44 PM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

And is the above narration established and did the person in question die in a state of doubt? Or is anything you can get your hands on to justify Takfir acceptable? 

There is a quite lengthy narration in Sahih al-Bukhari, but look at one of the narrators! Al-Zuhri! The same guy, who "narrated" that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) tried to commit suicide. 

 

I find this behavior really strange. Acting as if you have been given the keys to paradise and as if you know with certainity who exactly will enter it and who not. If the person, you hate so much, died upon disbelief, then Allah ta'ala will surely know this and if not, then Allah ta'ala also knows this. Leave the judgement to the Creator jalla jalaluhu. 

 

At the same time: There are things, which pertain to us and our salvation and the state of this Umma!

Allah ta'ala says:

53:32
ٱلَّذِينَ يَجْتَنِبُونَ كَبَـٰٓئِرَ ٱلْإِثْمِ وَٱلْفَوَٰحِشَ إِلَّا ٱللَّمَمَ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ وَٰسِعُ ٱلْمَغْفِرَةِ ۚ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِكُمْ إِذْ أَنشَأَكُم مِّنَ ٱلْأَرْضِ وَإِذْ أَنتُمْ أَجِنَّةٌۭ فِى بُطُونِ أُمَّهَـٰتِكُمْ ۖ فَلَا تُزَكُّوٓا۟ أَنفُسَكُمْ ۖ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنِ ٱتَّقَىٰٓ ٣٢

Those who avoid the major sins and immoralities, only [committing] slight ones. Indeed, your Lord is vast in forgiveness. He was most knowing of you when He produced you from the earth and when you were fetuses in the wombs of your mothers. So do not claim yourselves to be pure; He is most knowing of who fears Him.

___

 

What do most Sunni and most Imami Mashayikh however say? "No even those who commit major sins will ultimately enter paradise as long as they were from our group!". They got this position from Bani Umayya, because according to Banu Umayya it was enough to claim belief in Islam and do some worship, but at the same time commit all kinds of major crimes and sins.

Do not underestimate the destructiveness of this position of theirs. Our state is connected to this very position! 

A very lengthy non answer, like all of your other posts on this thread.

I ask again. What is the standing of a person who does this? Is he an angel or is he evil?

[Eddie Mecca]

On 11/3/2024 at 4:10 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

for giving examples which even such people have been endorsed by their fans as great just rulers

I realize Sunnis have exaggerated the true status of the three caliphs...for example, Egyptian journalist and politician Mohammed Hussein Heikal in his book 'Life of Muhammad' makes this same point and cites the ḥadīṯh "I am the city of knowledge and 'Ali is its gate."...there's the original and authentic version in Sunni narrations...the one that most people are familiar with...then there's another Sunni version that adds "and Abu Bakr is the wall of the city and Umar is the cobbled floor of the city" (or some such nonsense...I forgot the exact wording)...but do you mean to tell me that EVERY SINGLE POSITIVE ATTRIBUTE attributed to the three caliphs by the Sunnis is false and fabricated?

[Ashvazdanghe]

29 minutes ago, Eddie Mecca said:

but do you mean to tell me that EVERY SINGLE POSITIVE ATTRIBUTE attributed to the three caliphs by the Sunnis is false and fabricated?

Salam no I don't say that they have not any positive attribute although majority of mentioned positive attributes which have been mentioned in sunni books are fabrications which have been made based  original positive attributes of amir al-Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) for censoring positive attributes of Imam Ali(عليه السلام) or accustoming his positive attributes to three sunni caliphs & degrading his status by making fabrications & forging of hadiths about positve attributes of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & rest of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) likewise your famous example about hadith of city of knowledge which another famous example is about Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) & Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) which they have been introduced as masters of youth of Pardise by prophet Muhammad (pbu) so then in Sunni sources Abubakr &Umar have been introduced as masters of old people of heaven  while even according from another Sahih narration from prophet Muhammad (pbu) there is no old person in Paradise which also according to holy Quran there is no defection likewise oldness in Paradise/heaven. 

Edited November 6 by Ashvazdanghe

[Eddie Mecca]

1 hour ago, Eddie Mecca said:

do you mean to tell me that EVERY SINGLE POSITIVE ATTRIBUTE attributed to the three caliphs by the Sunnis is false and fabricated?

@Ashvazdanghe, salaam...I'll answer my own question...the Shaykhayn plus Uthman performed many good works...Abu Bakr freed Bilal and spent 100% of his accumulated wealth on the cause of infant Islam...Umar had one candle for his personal needs and used another candle for the state affairs...Umar used to disguise himself and roam the streets to make sure the masses weren't in need of anything...that's why Imam Ali (peace be upon him) accepted an official advisory and administrative post in Abu Bakr's government...he (peace be upon him) refused to serve under Umar however...he (a) helped Umar unofficially from a distance and didn't take part in Umar's military campaigns to open Palestine, Persia etc....there must have been something about Umar's style of rule that kept him (a) away...probably Umar's innovations, his temper, lack of Islamic knowledge etc...Imam's (a) thinking probably went something like " hey, this guy is a loose cannon and a wild card...best if I keep my distance"

Edited November 6 by Eddie Mecca
Adding

[Ashvazdanghe]

3 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Abu Bakr freed Bilal and spent 100% of his accumulated wealth on the cause of infant Islam

Salam even Bilal not accepted to call Adhan for Abubakr after demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu) which it has been negative resistance against Abubakr although he freed Bilal so he owed his freedom to him but Bilal (رضي الله عنه) neglected it because he didn't see him as legitimate successor of prophet Muhammad (pbu) but he has no power so therefore he refrained from call Adhan for him in similar fashion of prophet Muhammad (pbu) in order to show he doesn't recognize him as legitimate succesor or his savior.

Saga of spending wealth of Abubakr has been forged for degrading status of lady Khadija which prophet Muhammad (pbu) only mentioned her sacrifices including spending 100% of her accumulated wealth on cause of infant Islam ; which prophet has not mentioned anyone else likewise Abubakr or abdulrahman ibn Awf who he has been a wealthy man who offered a great amount of dawry for giving proposal of marriage to lady Fatima (sa) which it has been rejected by prophet Muhammad (pbu).

3 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Umar had one candle for his personal needs and used another candle for the state affairs...Umar used to disguise himself and roam the streets to make sure the masses weren't in need of anything

These two attributes have been attributes of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) not Umar which have been accustomed to Umar by Sunnis which umar roamed in streets for spying about private matters of people against order of holy Quran which his roaming also has been for spreading fear among people for keeping order in viewpoint of umar.

3 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

.there must have been something about Umar's style of rule that kept him (a) away.

Umar conquered Palestine by advise of Ka'ab al Ahbar which in similar fashion Persia has been conquered due to achieving it's resources  which spreading Islam has done due to accepting it by Iranians due to seeking for better religion & getting rid of corruption & injustice of Sassanid era  which there is no evidence about spreading Islam by Arab army which for centuries even during Abbasids era taking Jizya from Iranians has been most great source of income for both of cursed umayyads & Abbasids which Iranians have accepted Shia Islam due to great efforts of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) which even Sunnis in eastern region of Iran have been lovers of Ahlulabyt (عليه السلام) which it's only sunni region which they have refrained from cursing of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) although of killing them by cursed Umayyads due to refraining from it ;

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) just generally supported Umar because other people have accepted as their leader which opposing him or being neutral about his mistakes has not been in favor of Islam .

3 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

this guy is a loose cannon and a wild card...best if I keep my distance"

This is low key understanding which doesn't match with attributes of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which he has helped whoever has been accepted  by muslims as their leader for sake of Islam not for his personal matters. 

3 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

.probably Umar's innovations, his temper, lack of Islamic knowledge etc.

This has been a great factor which Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has done damage control for preserving Islam which these shortcomings of Umar have been exposed centuries later by Shia scholars since ending years of of Abbasids era  when they have been weakened by shia uprisings specially Buyid uprising  which has great rule in weakening Abbasids & preparing situation for exposing short comings sunni leaders likewise Umar  which even now majority of sunnis are not aware of it or deny it. 

Edited November 6 by Ashvazdanghe

[layman]

On 10/26/2024 at 5:01 AM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

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. 

Salam,

My personal view on this topic:

I view the rank of Companions from the history of 4 battles where Islam was at critical junctions: Badr, Uhud, Khandaq and Khaibar.

The same should be applied at another  critical junction, when the wafat of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) approached.

In Uhud we know there were companions that disobeyed directives of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).  Some ran away from battlefield.  In Khandaq, we know the victory was given to a person whom Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and Prophet (phuh) love the most.

The politics in Islam started when Islam was made public and having followers, and a place to have gathering to discuss issues that concerns the progress of followers.  It was likely started after the migration to Madinah. All the battles occured after migration. The politics didn't start at the moment after the wafat of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

Wallahualam 

[Eddie Mecca]

In my opinion, Twelvers should harshly criticize and critique the behavior of the Shaykhayn and Uthman...you heard that right...I'm in favor of Shi'i criticism...largely because of the deafening silence on the other side regarding wrongful acts committed against Ahl-ul Bayt (a), Bani Hashim etc....so the criticism creates a sort of balance in the Ummah...but I believe we should take a cautious approach and refine our arguments accordingly...the arguments we put forward should be airtight and ironclad...they should be based on reason, history, Qur'an, authentic ahadith etc....also, we should refrain from exaggeration, emotionality, contradiction, cursing etc....these are Shirazi tactics and techniques...Shi'i layman are being effected by Shirazi infiltration...just as the Sunni rank-and-file are being influenced by Wahhabism but can't realize it...placing Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman into the same category as Muʿāwiyah, Yazid, Hind, Abu Sufyan, Ibn Ziyad, Marwan, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwn etc. etc. is miscategorization and exaggeration...it weakens Twelver Shi'ism...it doesn't strengthen it...the Shirazis and Wahhabis want to destroy Islam from within

[Panzerwaffe]

13 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

In my opinion, Twelvers should harshly criticize and critique the behavior of the Shaykhayn and Uthman...you heard that right...I'm in favor of Shi'i criticism...largely because of the deafening silence on the other side regarding wrongful acts committed against Ahl-ul Bayt (a), Bani Hashim etc....so the criticism creates a sort of balance in the Ummah...but I believe we should take a cautious approach and refine our arguments accordingly...the arguments we put forward should be airtight and ironclad...they should be based on reason, history, Qur'an, authentic ahadith etc....also, we should refrain from exaggeration, emotionality, contradiction, cursing etc....these are Shirazi tactics and techniques...Shi'i layman are being effected by Shirazi infiltration...just as the Sunni rank-and-file are being influenced by Wahhabism but can't realize it...placing Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman into the same category as Muʿāwiyah, Yazid, Hind, Abu Sufyan, Ibn Ziyad, Marwan, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwn etc. etc. is miscategorization and exaggeration...it weakens Twelver Shi'ism...it doesn't strengthen it...the Shirazis and Wahhabis want to destroy Islam from within

Putting the corrupt uthman in same category as first 2 caliphs is a huge injustice to them 

[Panzerwaffe]

On 11/6/2024 at 1:51 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam even Bilal not accepted to call Adhan for Abubakr after demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu) which it has been negative resistance against Abubakr although he freed Bilal so he owed his freedom to him but Bilal (رضي الله عنه) neglected it because he didn't see him as legitimate successor of prophet Muhammad (pbu) but he has no power so therefore he refrained from call Adhan for him in similar fashion of prophet Muhammad (pbu) in order to show he doesn't recognize him as legitimate succesor or his savior.

Saga of spending wealth of Abubakr has been forged for degrading status of lady Khadija which prophet Muhammad (pbu) only mentioned her sacrifices including spending 100% of her accumulated wealth on cause of infant Islam ; which prophet has not mentioned anyone else likewise Abubakr or abdulrahman ibn Awf who he has been a wealthy man who offered a great amount of dawry for giving proposal of marriage to lady Fatima (sa) which it has been rejected by prophet Muhammad (pbu).

These two attributes have been attributes of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) not Umar which have been accustomed to Umar by Sunnis which umar roamed in streets for spying about private matters of people against order of holy Quran which his roaming also has been for spreading fear among people for keeping order in viewpoint of umar.

Umar conquered Palestine by advise of Ka'ab al Ahbar which in similar fashion Persia has been conquered due to achieving it's resources  which spreading Islam has done due to accepting it by Iranians due to seeking for better religion & getting rid of corruption & injustice of Sassanid era  which there is no evidence about spreading Islam by Arab army which for centuries even during Abbasids era taking Jizya from Iranians has been most great source of income for both of cursed umayyads & Abbasids which Iranians have accepted Shia Islam due to great efforts of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) which even Sunnis in eastern region of Iran have been lovers of Ahlulabyt (عليه السلام) which it's only sunni region which they have refrained from cursing of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) although of killing them by cursed Umayyads due to refraining from it ;

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) just generally supported Umar because other people have accepted as their leader which opposing him or being neutral about his mistakes has not been in favor of Islam .

This is low key understanding which doesn't match with attributes of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which he has helped whoever has been accepted  by muslims as their leader for sake of Islam not for his personal matters. 

This has been a great factor which Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has done damage control for preserving Islam which these shortcomings of Umar have been exposed centuries later by Shia scholars since ending years of of Abbasids era  when they have been weakened by shia uprisings specially Buyid uprising  which has great rule in weakening Abbasids & preparing situation for exposing short comings sunni leaders likewise Umar  which even now majority of sunnis are not aware of it or deny it. 

Bilal then leaves Ali for Syria for rest of his life 

what a loyal disciple he was 

seriously status of Abi hudhayfa should be far more than that of Bilal 

 

so in Iran there was no cursing of Ali during ummayad times what’s the evidence for that ? 
what about revolt of fars against Ali during his reign ? 

Edited November 7 by Panzerwaffe

[dragonxx]

On 11/3/2024 at 3:32 PM, Sabrejet said:

A very lengthy non answer, like all of your other posts on this thread.

I ask again. What is the standing of a person who does this? Is he an angel or is he evil?

Yeah I noticed that with his initial response to me and figured he would never give a straight answer to anyone...

Dude comes off as wanting open, honest dialogue but his inner colours shine through nonetheless the more he types.

[StrangerInThisWorld]

On 11/7/2024 at 6:34 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

In my opinion, Twelvers should harshly criticize and critique the behavior of the Shaykhayn and Uthman...you heard that right...I'm in favor of Shi'i criticism...largely because of the deafening silence on the other side regarding wrongful acts committed against Ahl-ul Bayt (a), Bani Hashim etc....so the criticism creates a sort of balance in the Ummah...but I believe we should take a cautious approach and refine our arguments accordingly...the arguments we put forward should be airtight and ironclad...they should be based on reason, history, Qur'an, authentic ahadith etc....also, we should refrain from exaggeration, emotionality, contradiction, cursing etc....these are Shirazi tactics and techniques...Shi'i layman are being effected by Shirazi infiltration...just as the Sunni rank-and-file are being influenced by Wahhabism but can't realize it...placing Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman into the same category as Muʿāwiyah, Yazid, Hind, Abu Sufyan, Ibn Ziyad, Marwan, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwn etc. etc. is miscategorization and exaggeration...it weakens Twelver Shi'ism...it doesn't strengthen it...the Shirazis and Wahhabis want to destroy Islam from within

 

The thing however is that even many mainstream 12ers have already extreme views.

Examples would be not just their general hate against most Muhajirin and Ansar (so the issue doesn't simply stop at the Shaykhayn) and acting as if all their sacrifice for Islam meant nothing (sometimes even denying their sacrifice), but also other issues like their extreme attachment to graves and over-reliance on the A`imma as Asbab (which makes it easier for the Wahhabiyya to accuse them of grave worship), staying silent on weird actions during 'Ashura (like self-flaggelation, crawling on the ground and other issues), not having a clear and harsh stance against those who believed in Tahrif al-Quran (because some of their classical scholar held this position), sectarian mindset against most other Muslims (similar to the Wahhabiyya, but usually still better than them, because no one can reach the Wahhabiyya in sectarian hatred), having no clear conditions for temporary marriage (thereby making it similar to fornication) and other such issues. 

If you ask me, then I would say that many 12ers (obviously not all) are among the major reasons why other Muslims don't even consider Tashayyu'. I can tell you from my own experience that I did not realize the Imama of the Prince of the Believers (peace be upon him) and that Sunnis were wrong on many issues (including major ones!) mostly due to how 12ers present Tashayyu'. 

When I however read what the Shaykh Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki wrote and what the Zaydiyya stated, it made me reconsider my positions, because they presented evidence from the Quran, from what is established from Islamic history and also from reason and this without the typical exaggerations that we know from Sunnis and Shi'a. 

One thing that I can't really emphasize enough is that history should be studied in order to learn from past mistakes and in order to improve ourselves. The aim should not be spreading blind hatred and feeling yourself better than others. 

Edited November 8 by StrangerInThisWorld

[Panzerwaffe]

9 minutes ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

 

The thing however is that even many mainstream 12ers have already extreme views.

Examples would be not just their general hate against most Muhajirin and Ansar (so the issue doesn't simply stop at the Shaykhayn) and acting as if all their sacrifice for Islam meant nothing (sometimes even denying their sacrifice), but also other issues like their extreme attachment to graves and over-reliance on the A`imma as Asbab (which makes it easier for the Wahhabiyya to accuse them of grave worship), staying silent on weird actions during 'Ashura (like self-flaggelation, crawling on the ground and other issues), not having a clear and harsh stance against those who believed in Tahrif al-Quran (because some of their classical scholar held this position), sectarian mindset against most other Muslims (similar to the Wahhabiyya, but usually still better than them, because no one can reach the Wahhabiyya in sectarian hatred), having no clear conditions for temporary marriage (thereby making it similar to fornication) and other such issues. 

If you ask me, then I would say that many 12ers (obviously not all) are among the major reasons why other Muslims don't even consider Tashayyu'. I can tell you from my own experience that I did not realize the Imama of the Prince of the Believers (peace be upon him) and that Sunnis were wrong on many issues (including major ones!) mostly due to how 12ers present Tashayyu'. 

When I however read what the Shaykh Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki wrote and what the Zaydiyya stated, it made me reconsider my positions, because they presented evidence from the Quran, from what is established from Islamic history and also from reason and this without the typical exaggerations that we know from Sunnis and Shi'a. 

One thing that I can't really emphasize enough is that history should be studied in order to learn from past mistakes and in order to improve ourselves. The aim should not be spreading blind hatred and feeling yourself better than others. 

Even those Sahaba who clearly supported Ali are hardly known ( apart from 3 ) outside of the literary circles 

and even then their achievements are only seen in the context of highlighting the superhuman or supernatural status of imams 

to be fair Sunnis also only highlight the superstar quraishi Sahaba too but not to the same extent 

here I must give modern Lebanese and Iranian scholars credit for bringing lives of the companions of imams  to a wider audience but its effect is minuscule at best 

 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

On 11/7/2024 at 6:34 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

but I believe we should take a cautious approach and refine our arguments accordingly...the arguments we put forward should be airtight and ironclad...they should be based on reason, history, Qur'an, authentic ahadith etc....also, we should refrain from exaggeration, emotionality, contradiction, cursing etc....

This is a good point. The thing here is that a lot of narrations from both sides regarding the Shaykhayn can not be trusted. 

There are however things, which are difficult to deny for both sides.

Let me give an example: Abu Bakr must have had some good qualities such that our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) trusted him enough to let him accompany him during the Hijra. 

At the same time his behavior (and that of others) at Saqifa was wrong, because they chose a leader in the absence of Bani Hashim and many other important Muslims and only asked for opinion afterwards, when the issue had been already decided. No honest Sunni will be able to tell me that it was okay to make such a big decision without the Mawla of all believers (peace be upon him) and without the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) or the Bani Hashim being present. 

According to the very Hadith in Muslim our Prophet (may endless peace and blessings be upon him) reminded the people three times regarding his family. Was this in order for people to decide regarding leadership without them being present?!?

The issue here is not to justify Takfir or take it a step further and act as if most Muhajirin and Ansar were dishonest (as if we know what was in their hearts or as if all their sacrifice meant nothing and as if we're the ones, who decide who attains salvation and who not), but rather in order to know what went wrong and what we can learn from these mistakes. 

Later on - especially when the Bani Umayya came to power - much greater mistakes were committed and a group from this Umma tries to hide all of this till this day! That's why most of our countries are ruled today by Tawaghit and puppets! That's all thanks to your "we must obey the ruler, no matter if he's just or oppressive"-claim (which was invented by Bani Umayya in order to justify their rule!), o Sunnis, that can be found in your relied upon 'Aqida works, wallahul musta'an! 

 

Edited November 8 by StrangerInThisWorld

[Panzerwaffe]

Just now, StrangerInThisWorld said:

This is a good point. The thing here is that a lot of narrations from both sides regarding the Shaykhayn can not be trusted. 

There are however, which are difficult to deny for both sides.

Let me give an example: Abu Bakr must have had some good qualities such that our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) trusted him enough to let him accompany him during the Hijra. 

At the same time his behavior (and that of others) at Saqifa was wrong, because they chose a leader in the absence of Bani Hashim and many other important Muslims and only asked for opinion afterwards when the issue had been already decided. No honest Sunni will be able to tell me that it was okay to make such a big decision without the Mawla of all believers (peace be upon him) and without the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) or the Bani Hashim being present. 

According to the very Hadith in Muslim our Prophet (may endless peace and blessings be upon him) reminded the people three times regarding his family. Was this in order for people to decide regarding leadership without them being present?!? 

The issue here is not to justify Takfir or take it a step further and act as if most Muhajirin and Ansar were dishonest (as if we know what was in their hearts or as if all their sacrifice meant nothing and as if we're the ones, who decide who attains salvation and who not), but rather in order to know what went wrong and what we can learn from these mistakes. 

Another issue I have here is there are over a dozen adult Sahaba from bani Hashim at time of saqifa

where is their support then ? 
And where were they later when umar allegedly attacked ? 
I mean if zubair is there where are the other cousins ? 

 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

On 11/3/2024 at 9:32 PM, Sabrejet said:

A very lengthy non answer, like all of your other posts on this thread.

I ask again. What is the standing of a person who does this? Is he an angel or is he evil?

 

20 hours ago, dragonxx said:

Yeah I noticed that with his initial response to me and figured he would never give a straight answer to anyone...

Dude comes off as wanting open, honest dialogue but his inner colours shine through nonetheless the more he types.

The problem here is that I don't accept the premise of the question and that's why I'm not directly answering. 

It's obvious that a person, who knew our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam), and died upon doubting him or upon knowingly rejecting something he was sent with, will not attain salvation and falls under the evil-doers. We all agree on this. 

The question however is, where you get this certainity from that this was the case for specific persons? 

Another problem is that you will most likely not stop at this point and then try to include a lot more people (that's why I'm mentioning the Muhajirin and Ansar) into the ranks of hypocrites and evil-doers and this without good evidence.

What is the point of this? What benefit lies in doing so?

 

Edited November 8 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

19 minutes ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Another issue I have here is there are over a dozen adult Sahaba from bani Hashim at time of saqifa

where is their support then ? 
And where were they later when umar allegedly attacked ? 
I mean if zubair is there where are the other cousins ? 

 

Would be interested in your view. What's your explanation? 

[Panzerwaffe]

11 minutes ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Would be interested in your view. What's your explanation? 

It could be a number of scenarios we just don’t have enough early  sources 

1 their opposition is not recorded and is lost to history

2 they didn’t really care much about the right of Ali ( most unlikely given even some Umayyad’s supported Ali then ) 

3 their opposition was intentionally suppressed by anti Ali accounts 

4 the incident was exaggerated by later sources and at that time, it was not such a big deal other than a local brawl 

im inclined to believe a combination of 1 & 4 

It is known to us that bani Hashim in general solidarity with Ali refused to take bayah  for six months

But the fact the later did not seek out vengeance like was the typical tribal custom points to the face that the incident at the door may have been exaggerated 

if we contrast that with the furious response beating of Ammar a client of mukhdum created in time of Othman it’s inconceivable that such a muted response would have been possible to murder Fatima the lady of paradise 

we should also not accept the harmonizing Sunni accounts either as they would tend to be just as biased and are IMHO much later than proto Shia ones 

but God knows best 

Edited November 8 by Panzerwaffe

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 11/7/2024 at 11:00 PM, Panzerwaffe said:

Bilal then leaves Ali for Syria for rest of his life 

what a loyal disciple he was 

seriously status of Abi hudhayfa should be far more than that of Bilal 

 

so in Iran there was no cursing of Ali during ummayad times what’s the evidence for that ? 
what about revolt of fars against Ali during his reign ? 

Salam Bilal died era of Umar around three years before death of Umar before inclination of people  to Amir Al-Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to be their caliph ; which he just has had a limited respect by people due to being Muezzin of prophet Muhammad (pbu) which after demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu) he just has been a black slave  with no Arab tribal support so he only could do a negative resistance .

Abi hudhayfa (رضي الله عنه) at least has had limited Arab tribal support so he could do more objection than bila (رضي الله عنه) which his resistance has been negative resistance in similar fashion of Bilal (رضي الله عنه) by not participating in Salatul-Mayyit [Salat over the Dead Person] of hypocrites & people who have participated in assassination of prophet Muhammad (pbu) in Aqaba after battle of Tabuk which there is a famous story that umar has asked from him about hypocrites & people who have participated in assassination of prophet Muhammad (pbu) which he has not given a straight clear answer to Umar which his response has been justified by Sunnis in order to whitewash Umar .  

Quote

Once Umar asked Hudhayfa if there were any munafiqs among his governors. Hudhayfah told him that there was one but declined to say the name.

Sunni justification of Umar   

Quote

Umar found out about that person later and dismissed him. [1]

[1]Usdul-Ghaba, 1: 391.

:https://questionsonislam.com/article/hudhayfa-bin-yaman-ra

 

Quote

Muhammad: Abu Hudhayfa's Offspring

After Abu Hudhayfa's death, Uthman took the responsibility of his son, Muhammad's, life expenses. However, when Uthman was besieged by people, Muhammad was one of those who rebelled against him and encouraged the people of Egypt to stand up against him. After Uthman's murder, he fled to Syria and was murdered by Rashidin, Mu'awiya's slave.^[25]

 

I have said it has not happened in eastern region of Iran likewise Zahedan & Sistan & Baluchistan region  which still has Sunni majority ; while some cities likewise Isfahan have had majority Nasibi population which majority people of  Fars  have been Zoroastrians  during reign of  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which they have rioted after killing of Uthman  for reducing their taxes which cursed Ziyad b. Abih (la) has been became governor of Fars during reign of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) by recommendation of  of Ibn Abbas  which he could manage their riot which after Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has given a warning letter to him about treating with people of Fars.

 

Quote

Caliphate of Imam Ali (a)

As recommended by Ibn 'Abbas, Imam Ali (a) sent Ziyad b. Abih to suppress the rioters in Fars.^[5] He later became the agent of Imam (a) in Istakhr, Fars. Ziyad took part in the Battle of Siffin and fought alongside Imam Ali (a) against Mu'awiya; he even refused to accept Mu'awiya's invitation to join him.^[6]

 

Hadith n. 476

476. When Amir al-mu'minin, peace be upon him, put Ziyad ibn Abih in place of Abdullah ibn Abbas over Fars (in Persia) and its revenues, he had a long conversation with him in which he prohibited him from advance recovery of revenue. Therein he said: Act on justice and keep aloof from violence and injustice because violence will lead them to forsake their abodes while injustice will prompt them to take up arms.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/selections-sayings-and-preaching-amir-al-muminin-ali#hadith-n-478

476. وقال عليه السلام لزياد بن أبيه. وقد استخلفَهُ لعبد الله بن العباس على فارس وأَعمالها، في كلامٍ طويلٍ كان بينهما، نهاه فيه عن تقدم الخَراج : اسْتَعْمِلِ الْعَدْلَ، وَاحْذَرِ الْعَسْفَ والْحَيْفَ فَإِنَّ الْعَسْفَ يَعُودُ بِالْجَلاَءِ، وَالْحَيْفَ يَدْعُو إِلَى السَّيْفِ.

Letter 20: To Ziyad ibn Abih

To Ziyad ibn Abih (son of his [unknown] father), when 'Abdullah ibn al-'Abbas was the Governor of Basrah, the suburbs of Ahwaz, Fars and Kirman while Ziyad was his deputy in Basrah.

 

I truthfully swear by Allah that if I come to know that you have misappropriated the funds of the Muslims, small or big, I shall inflict upon you such punishment which will leave you empty handed, heavy backed and humiliated; and that is an end to the matter.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-20-ziyad-ibn-abih

Quote

Letter 21: Also to Ziyad

Give up lavishness and be moderate. Every day remember the coming day. Hold back from the funds what you need and send forward the balance for the day of your need.

Do you expect that Allah may give you the reward of the humble while you yourself remain vain in His view? And do you covet that He may give you the reward of those practising charity while you enjoy comforts and deny them to the weak and the widows? Certainly, a man is awarded according as he acts and meets what he has sent forward; and that is an end to the matter.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-21-also-ziyad

9 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Another problem is that you will most likely not stop at this point and then try to include a lot more people (that's why I'm mentioning the Muhajirin and Ansar) into the ranks of hypocrites and evil-doers and this without good evidence.

What is the point of this? What benefit lies in doing so?

Knowing that this virtuous Companion is prudent, sagacious and wise, the Messenger of Allah stated the following about him:

“If I were to appoint a successor over you, and you were to disobey him, you would be punished. However, whatever Hudhayfa narrates to you, believe him and accept what he says.”[5]

[5]Tirmdhi, Manaqib: 39.

https://questionsonislam.com/article/hudhayfa-bin-yaman-ra

The Narration (Hadith) of Hudhayfah Ibn Al-Yaman

Then Rasul Allah (S) departed at a speedy and consistent pace to arrive at Medina to appoint Ali (‘a) to the people. On the fourth night, Gabriel (‘a) descended at the end of the night and revealed to him this verse:

{O Messenger, convey what you have received from your Lord and if you don’t, you would have not conveyed anything from His Message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Allah does not guide the nonbelievers}. (5:67)

Those Kuffar were the ones who plotted against Rasul Allah (S).

Quote

So Rasul Allah (S) said to Gabriel (‘a), ‘O Gabriel, don’t you see me proceeding fast and continuously towards Medina to declare the Wilayat (guardianship) of Ali to those present and absent.’ Gabriel replied, ‘Allah orders you to enforce the Wilayat (guardianship) of Ali tomorrow morning when you stop in your resting place.’ Then Rasul Allah (S) said, ‘Yes, Gabriel, tomorrow I will do that inshallah (God Willing).’

Rasul Allah (S) ordered immediate movement and the people proceeded with him till he arrived at Ghadir Khumm. 

Rasul Allah (S) continued his procession the rest of the day and night till he approached the cliff of Harish. The plotters had advanced there before him and they hid in the turn of the cliff. They carried with them special containers full of small rocks.

Hudhayfah added, “Rasul Allah (S) invited A’mmar ibn Yasir and I and ordered A’mmar to drive the camel while I lead it till we reached the top of the cliff. The plotters created a noise from behind us and rolled the containers, which were full of small rocks, between the legs of the camel.

Quote

So the Prophet’s (S) camel panicked and was about to run away with Rasul Allah (S) riding on it. Then Rasul Allah (S) called her saying, ‘Be quiet and you will not be hurt.’ Then the camel replied with a clear Arabic voice saying, ‘Oh Rasul Allah (S), by Allah, I will not take my feet more than its usual step while you are on my back!’

Then the plotters came to the camel by themselves and pushed it.

So A’mmar and I came and tried to repel them with our swords, and it was a very dark night. We repelled them until they retreated and abandoned their plot. Then I said, ‘Oh Rasul Allah (S), who are those people, and what do they want?’ He answered, ‘Oh Hudhayfah, those are the true hypocrites in the life of this world and the hereafter.’

Quote

I asked, ‘Oh Rasul Allah (S), why don’t you send a group of fighters to bring you their heads?’ He answered, ‘Allah ordered me to ignore them and I hate for the people to say that Muhammad invited individuals from his clan and his companions to his religion and they responded to him and fought with him till he overcame his enemy, then he turned back on them and killed them.

But Oh Hudhayfah, leave them, because Allah is watching them and standing against them and He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will give them some respite, then he will give them a heavy punishment.’ I asked, ‘Oh Rasul Allah (S), who are those hypocrites? Are they from the Muhajireen or from the Ansar?’ Then Rasul Allah (S) named them to me one by one till he finished. There were people among them whom I couldn’t believe that they were hypocrites. So I kept silent.

Then Rasul Allah (S) said, ‘Oh, Hudhayfah, it appears you are doubting some of these names.

Quote

So raise your head to them.’ So, I raised my head and looked towards the plotters while they were standing on the cliff. Then suddenly, a lightening took place which lighted all surrounding areas. The lightening continued till I thought it was the sun rising and I looked towards the plotters and saw them very clearly because of the lightening. By Allah, I recognized them one by one, exactly as Rasul Allah (S) had informed me! They were fourteen men. Nine were from Quraish and five were others.”

The Lad said, “Tell us their names may Allah cover you with His mercy.” Hudhayfah said, “By Allah, they were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, U’thman, Talha, Abd Al Rahman ibn A’wf, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas, Abu U’baydah ibn Al-Jarrah, Mua’wiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, and A’mr ibn Al-As. Those were from Quraish. The other five were Abu Musa Al-Asha’ri, Al Mughira ibn Shu’aba Al-Thaqafi, A’us ibn Al-Hadathan Al-Basri, Abu Hurayrah, and Abu Talha Al-Ansari.” Hudhayfah added, “Then we went down to the cliff while dawn started to appear. Rasul Allah (S) descended from the camel and did his ablution and waited for his companions to come down from the cliff. They gathered and I saw the plotters, all of them, while they joined the other companions and prayed behind Rasul Allah (S).

Quote

When Rasul Allah (S) finished his Salat (prayer), he turned his head and looked at Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Abu U’baydah and saw them whispering to each other. So he ordered a caller to call the people saying, ‘It is not allowed for three persons among the people to whisper to each other secretly.’ Then Rasul Allah (S) (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) departed with the people and on his next resting place, Salim, the slave of Abu U’baydah, saw Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Abu U’baydah whispering to each other. So Salim stood in front of them and said, ‘Didn’t Rasul Allah (S) order that no three persons are allowed to gather and whisper to each other about a secret? By Allah, either you inform me about what you were whispering about or I will go to Rasul Allah (S) and inform him about you.’

Abu Bakr said, ‘Oh Salim, do you promise us, by Allah, that if you wish to share us in it, you will be one of us, and if you reject it, not to tell anyone.’ Salim answered, ‘I agree and promise you on that.’ This Salim was a fierce enemy of Ali ibn Abi Talib (‘a), and they knew that about him. So they told Salim, ‘We have agreed to make an alliance and a pact not to obey Muhammad in his order of Wilayat to Ali ibn Abi Talib after him.’ Salim replied, ‘Do you swear by Allah that you were whispering and talking about this matter?’ They said, ‘Yes, we swear by Allah that we were talking about that matter only, and nothing else.’ Salim said, ‘By Allah, I will be the first one to enter your pact in this matter and will not differ with you in it. By Allah, the sun never rose on a household more hateful to me more than Bani Hashim. And there is no one in Bani Hashim most hateful to me than Ali ibn Abi Talib. So do in that matter as you wish. I will be one of you.’ They made their pact from this time on and they dispersed.

Then Rasul Allah (S) gathered all the plotters and their allies and all the enemies of Ali ibn Abi Talib (‘a) including the Tulaqaa and hypocrites. They were about four thousand men. He made them under the leadership of Usama ibn Zayd and ordered him to leave and head towards Syria. They said, ‘Oh Rasul Allah (S), we have just come from our traveling with you. We ask your permission to stay for awhile in Medina to prepare ourselves for our next travel.’

Quote

Rasul Allah (S) ordered them to stay in Medina till they prepare themselves. Then he ordered Usama to camp with them a couple of miles away from Medina. So Usama camped in the place which Rasul Allah (S) specified for him, waiting for the people to join him after finishing their preparations. Rasul Allah (S) wanted by that to make Medina free from them so that no hypocrites remain there. They stayed a while in Medina while Rasul Allah (S) was continuously urging and ordering them to leave and join Usama to go to Syria.

Then suddenly, Rasul Allah (S) became sick - the sickness in which he died. When they saw that, they procrastinated from obeying Rasul Allah (S)’s orders in departing.So Rasul Allah (S) ordered Qais ibn Sa’d ibn U’bada, his executioner, and ordered Al Hubab ibn Al Munthir with a group of Ansar to accompany them to the camp of Usama outside Medina.

Quote

Then Qais ibn Sa’d and Hubab ibn Al Munthir took all of them until they joined the camp. Qais and Al Hubab said to Usama, ‘Rasul Allah (S) didn’t give you permission to stay and be late. So depart immediately now and we will go back to Rasul Allah (S) and inform him of your departure.’ Then Usama departed with them and Qais and Hubab returned back to Rasul Allah (S) informing him that the army departed. He answered to both of them saying, ‘No, the people did not depart from their place.’

What really happened was that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Abu U’baydah met with Usama and a group of his companions. They told him, ‘To where are we going? Are we going to leave Medina while we are most needed to stay there?’ Usama told them, ‘And why is that?’ They answered, ‘Rasul Allah (S) is very sick and he is about to die. By Allah, if we leave Medina, serious matters will occur that cannot be reversed and dealt with. We suggest to you that we stay for awhile so we can see what will happen to Rasul Allah (S). Then we can depart at any time we want.’

So the army returned back to the original camp and stayed there. The plotters sent an informant to get an update about the condition of Rasul Allah (S). The informant came to A’isha and asked her about that secretly. She told him, ‘Go back to my father Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and their companions and tell them that Rasul Allah (S) is very sick. So don’t leave at all. I will update you with his condition day by day.’

The sickness of Rasul Allah (S) got worse. So A’isha sent Suhayb and told him, ‘Go to Abu Bakr and inform him that Muhammad is in a hopeless state. So come to us;

Quote

you, ‘Umar and Abu U’baydah and anyone else you want to be with you. Let your entrance to Medina be secretly and at night.’ When Suhayb informed them of this, they took him to Usama. They informed Usama of the news and told him, ‘How could we be absent in seeing Rasul Allah (S)?!’ Usama gave them his permission to return to Medina and ordered them not to let anyone know of their entrance. He instructed them that if Rasul Allah (S) is cured, that they must immediately return to the camp and that if he dies, they must inform him so he can be with the people.

Then Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and Abu U’baydah entered Medina secretly during the night while Rasul Allah (S) was getting weaker. Then suddenly that night, Rasul Allah (S) awakened and regained some consciousness and said, ‘A great evil has entered this Medina this night!’ Those around asked, ‘Oh Rasul Allah (S), what is this great evil?’ He answered, ‘A group of those who were in the army of Usama have returned to Medina disobeying my orders. They don’t belong to me in front of Allah. Woe be to you, let the army of Usama depart!’ He kept saying that many times.

Then the Lad asked Hudhayfah, “Name me the other plotters who signed and witnessed the written statement in the house of Abu Bakr.” Hudhayfah answered, “They were Abu Sufyan, Ikrimah ibn Abu Jahl, Ridwan ibn Umayyah, both Khalaf and Sa’id ibn Ala’s, Khalid ibn Al-Waleed, A’yash ibn Abi Rab’iah, Bishr ibn Sa’d, Suhayl ibn A’mr, Hakeem ibn Hizam, Suhayb ibn Sannan, Abu A’wwar Al Salami, Mut’i ibn Al Aswad Al Muddari and others I forgot their names. These are the additional names to the fourteen who plotted to kill Rasul Allah (S).”

The Lad said, ‘Oh Abu A’bdillah, all those you mentioned are not companions of Rasul Allah (S). So how did all the people turn back on their heels because of them?” Hudhayfah answered, “Those plotters were the chiefs of the tribes and its nobles. Each had a lot of followers who listened to him and obeyed him. Their hearts were attached to Abu Bakr as the heart of Bani Israel was attached to the Calf of Samiri until they abandoned Harun (Aaron) and overpowered him.” The Lad said, “Then I truly swear by Allah that I will continue to hate them and I detach myself from them and their deeds in front of Allah and I will continue to follow and support Amir Al-Mu’minin (‘a). I will be an enemy to his enemies and I will join him. I hope to be granted martyrdom from Allah with him.”

The Lad asked, “Oh Abu Abdillah, may Allah have mercy upon you. Let us say that those plotters accepted Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and Abu U’baydah because they are from the elders of Quraish and from the first Muhajireen. Then why did they accept Salim who was not form Quraish nor was he from the Muhajireen or the Ansar? He was just a slave to a woman from the Ansar.” Hudhayfah answered, “Oh Lad, all the plotters made their pact to remove the caliphate away from Ali ibn Abi Talib (‘a). This was envy and hatred from them to him. They added that to what was in their hearts against him because of the blood he had shed from Quraish. And Ali was the most closest to Rasul Allah (S). They wanted their revenge from Rasul Allah (S) in Ali and from Bani Hashim. Their pact was to remove this matter away from Ali ibn Abi Talib (‘a). They considered Salim as one of them.”

The Lad said, “Tell me, may Allah have mercy upon you, what did they write in their statement so I can know?” Hudhayfah said, “Asma bint U’mays Al Khatha’mia, the wife of Abu Bakr, narrated to me that the plotters met in the house of Abu Bakr and they conspired while she heard all what they were doing until they concluded and they ordered Sa’id ibn Ala’s Al Amaur to write the statement to them. The copy of this statement was exactly as follows:

https://www.al-islam.org/articles/narration-hadith-hudhayfah-ibn-al-yaman

Edited November 9 by Ashvazdanghe

[StrangerInThisWorld]

2 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

The Lad said, “Tell us their names may Allah cover you with His mercy.” Hudhayfah said, “By Allah, they were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, U’thman, Talha, Abd Al Rahman ibn A’wf, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas, Abu U’baydah ibn Al-Jarrah, Mua’wiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, and A’mr ibn Al-As. Those were from Quraish. The other five were Abu Musa Al-Asha’ri, Al Mughira ibn Shu’aba Al-Thaqafi, A’us ibn Al-Hadathan Al-Basri, Abu Hurayrah, and Abu Talha Al-Ansari.” Hudhayfah added, “Then we went down to the cliff while dawn started to appear. Rasul Allah (S) descended from the camel and did his ablution and waited for his companions to come down from the cliff. They gathered and I saw the plotters, all of them, while they joined the other companions and prayed behind Rasul Allah (S).

I have read about the hypocrites that tried to assassinate the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) at 'Aqaba after Tabuk. 

There is however one thing to consider: Are there just one version of Riwayat or different versions with different names? 

The Shaykh Hassan bin Farhan al-Maliki mentioned some of the names, where it is sure that they belonged to those who conspired at 'Aqaba. 

All those you mentioned (and for some of them there is strong proof to suggest that they were hypocrites and for some not really) are not among us anymore. Allah ta'ala will judge all of them according to His knowledge and justice. 

But what should we do today? 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

5 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

But what should we do today? 

My point here is that we should study history in order fo learn from the past and not repeat the same mistakes. This is also one of the major aims of the Quran al-karım when mentioning the stories of the nations before us. 

Regarding the Shaykhayn there are different and contradictory narrations. This is why taking a more neutral stance would make more sense, especially when we don't find Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) openly fighting them or the like. 

In the case of Mu'awiya however the issue is much clearer and the proofs against him and his group are many. 

 

Another point: With the narrations giving a contradictory view of some events, how is the normal Muslim supposed to act?! It's difficult - even for experts - to really know what Ahadith are right and what wrong. 

Another issue: Many narrations highlight things that are neither mentioned nor even indicated towards in the Quran al-karim, while they do not give importance to most issues highlighted in the Quran.

A brother mentioned the order of cutting fingernails. I personally believe that these type of narrations were simply invented (by those close to the rulers) in order to make Muslims busy with secondary issues. At the same time one will find close to no narrations regarding something important like thinking about the signs that Allah ta'ala has put in the heavens and the earth, despite this being mentioned in the Quran repeatedly. We can be sure that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be him) mentioned this issue, but it did not make into the narrations. 

The Shaykh 'Adnan Ibrahim had a good point when he likened the narrations to the corrupted Tawrat and Injeel, because the bible - that the Ahl al-Kitab claim to be the Book of Allah ta'ala - contains truth and falsehood and because its protection was the job of their scholars (meaning similar to Ahadith). 

As for the Quran al-karim, then Allah ta'ala protected it Himself. If we as Muslims would give precedence to the Quran, then we would surely see a change in our societies towards goodness. Allah ta'ala mentions faith again and again TOGETHER with good deeds. He jalla jalaluhu clearly tells us that there is NO salvation for those, who commit major sins and crimes and remain upon it. Do we take this into consideration? Do most Mashayikh really make the people understand this point? Or do they rather lie against the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) and claim things like "my intercession is for those from my Umma, who have committed major sins" (which is a motivation towards major sins!). 

Allah ta'ala says:

29:2
أَحَسِبَ ٱلنَّاسُ أَن يُتْرَكُوٓا۟ أَن يَقُولُوٓا۟ ءَامَنَّا وَهُمْ لَا يُفْتَنُونَ ٢

Do the people think that they will be left to say, "We believe" and they will not be tried?

29:3
وَلَقَدْ فَتَنَّا ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ ۖ فَلَيَعْلَمَنَّ ٱللَّهُ ٱلَّذِينَ صَدَقُوا۟ وَلَيَعْلَمَنَّ ٱلْكَـٰذِبِينَ ٣

But We have certainly tried those before them, and Allāh will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars.

29:4
أَمْ حَسِبَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَعْمَلُونَ ٱلسَّيِّـَٔاتِ أَن يَسْبِقُونَا ۚ سَآءَ مَا يَحْكُمُونَ ٤

Or do those who do evil deeds think they can outrun [i.e., escape] Us? Evil is what they judge.

___

 

Do not forget that we're also getting tested and that we need to prove ourselves and that a sectarian label is not enough for salvation. 

19:95
وَكُلُّهُمْ ءَاتِيهِ يَوْمَ ٱلْقِيَـٰمَةِ فَرْدًا ٩٥

And all of them are coming to Him on the Day of Resurrection alone.

___

 

[dragonxx]

23 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

What is the point of this? What benefit lies in doing so?

 

To delineate good from evil.

4 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

A brother mentioned the order of cutting fingernails. I personally believe that these type of narrations were simply invented (by those close to the rulers) in order to make Muslims busy with secondary issues. At the same time one will find close to no narrations regarding something important like thinking about the signs that Allah ta'ala has put in the heavens and the earth, despite this being mentioned in the Quran repeatedly. We can be sure that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be him) mentioned this issue, but it did not make into the narrations.

Yet another example of a lengthy non-answer. The specific example of 'fingernails' isn't the point. The point is Islam is a way of life that touches ALL aspects of life, major and minor. To even fathom that the Prophet (pbuhf) left this world without appointing a leader, especially something as crucial as "politics", is delusional. Once you accept that, you know that the people at Saqifa are evil because they concealed truth and committed evil knowingly, like the Jews before them. 

"Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation."

23 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Let me give an example: Abu Bakr must have had some good qualities such that our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) trusted him enough to let him accompany him during the Hijra. 

You continuously (intentionally) miss the point. Nobody cares whether someone may have had good qualities at one point in time or not. A child, often times, grows up innocent and pure. It's only later in life they may kill innocent people, or worse. Even if I were to accept your premise that the Prophet (pbuhf) trusted a grown man crying out of fear despite reassurance from the greatest Prophet, that means nothing. A grandmother may trust the child she raised, but that child could still grow up to turn Dahmer.

23 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

At the same time his behavior (and that of others) at Saqifa was wrong, because they chose a leader in the absence of Bani Hashim and many other important Muslims and only asked for opinion afterwards, when the issue had been already decided. No honest Sunni will be able to tell me that it was okay to make such a big decision without the Mawla of all believers (peace be upon him) and without the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) or the Bani Hashim being present. 

According to the very Hadith in Muslim our Prophet (may endless peace and blessings be upon him) reminded the people three times regarding his family. Was this in order for people to decide regarding leadership without them being present?!?

The issue here is not to justify Takfir or take it a step further and act as if most Muhajirin and Ansar were dishonest (as if we know what was in their hearts or as if all their sacrifice meant nothing and as if we're the ones, who decide who attains salvation and who not), but rather in order to know what went wrong and what we can learn from these mistakes. 

This reminds me of legacy media Zionist tactics. There was this article about Amsterdam describing what the Zionists screamed as just "slogans" but what the Muslims retaliated with as "slurs".

You try and soften up your reader by seemingly agreeing initially. Only to walk back your "agreement" simultaneously by using soft words.

What they did was "wrong"? That's it? People who apparently have the wisdom of the Prophet, fully trusted, know the religion inside out did something "wrong"?
Despite the Prophet reminding them three times about the "Mawla of all believers", they simply may have made an 'innocent mistake' that caused colossal, unprecedented disunity in worshipping Allah?
During the burial of the Prophet?
Stood on that 'mistake' for months and months?
Threatening to burn the house of Fatima ((عليه السلام)) at minimum?
And we're meant not only to give 'benefit of the doubt', but to take Hadiths from these, and fold our arms during prayer like how Jews pray?
Cool. 

"I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself."

Seems like sincere repentance to me (sarcasm).

At the end of the day if God forgives them for that, God will forgive me for anything I believe or act on a trillion times over. So save your breath, because according to your logic, you're not saving anyone by 'teaching' them anything.

 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

12 minutes ago, dragonxx said:

To delineate good from evil.

Yet another example of a lengthy non-answer. The specific example of 'fingernails' isn't the point. The point is Islam is a way of life that touches ALL aspects of life, major and minor. To even fathom that the Prophet (pbuhf) left this world without appointing a leader, especially something as crucial as "politics", is delusional. Once you accept that, you know that the people at Saqifa are evil because they concealed truth and committed evil knowingly, like the Jews before them. 

"Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation."

You continuously (intentionally) miss the point. Nobody cares whether someone may have had good qualities at one point in time or not. A child, often times, grows up innocent and pure. It's only later in life they may kill innocent people, or worse. Even if I were to accept your premise that the Prophet (pbuhf) trusted a grown man crying out of fear despite reassurance from the greatest Prophet, that means nothing. A grandmother may trust the child she raised, but that child could still grow up to turn Dahmer.

This reminds me of legacy media Zionist tactics. There was this article about Amsterdam describing what the Zionists screamed as just "slogans" but what the Muslims retaliated with as "slurs".

You try and soften up your reader by seemingly agreeing initially. Only to walk back your "agreement" simultaneously by using soft words.

What they did was "wrong"? That's it? People who apparently have the wisdom of the Prophet, fully trusted, know the religion inside out did something "wrong"?
Despite the Prophet reminding them three times about the "Mawla of all believers", they simply may have made an 'innocent mistake' that caused colossal, unprecedented disunity in worshipping Allah?
During the burial of the Prophet?
Stood on that 'mistake' for months and months?
Threatening to burn the house of Fatima ((عليه السلام)) at minimum?
And we're meant not only to give 'benefit of the doubt', but to take Hadiths from these, and fold our arms during prayer like how Jews pray?
Cool. 

"I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself."

Seems like sincere repentance to me (sarcasm).

At the end of the day if God forgives them for that, God will forgive me for anything I believe or act on a trillion times over. So save your breath, because according to your logic, you're not saving anyone by 'teaching' them anything.

 

I mentioned some options how it could be understood (like religious leadership being intended or that the Nass is khafi) in order not to end up accusing pretty much all Muhajirin and Ansar of Nifaq. I'm sure that many of them had no ill intentions and many of them clearly cared for Islam enough to risk their lives. At the same time I do not deny that there were also hypocrites among them. 

My own understanding is that since Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) was clearly declared as the Mawla of all believers, his command would have to be obeyed and anyone knowingly disobeying and dying in that state died the death of Jahiliyya. The thing however is that it doesn't seem that he called towards his political leadership in a clear and open manner and only did so later on. So the criterion for me here is how Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) behaved. 

Edited November 9 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

2 hours ago, dragonxx said:

At the end of the day if God forgives them for that, God will forgive me for anything I believe or act on a trillion times over. So save your breath, because according to your logic, you're not saving anyone by 'teaching' them anything.

 

I didn't claim that Allah ta'ala forgives them or not, because there are conflicting narrations of what happened and what not. I neither trust the Sunni account, nor the account in a book that is filled with claims of Tahrif al-Quran or the claims of those who rely upon such a book. 

I also don't understand your harshness and I do not accept you comparing me with genocidal criminals! 

According to the Quran al-karim Allah ta'ala does not forgive anyone, who dies upon major sins or crimes without repentance. So if anyone from the companions died upon major sins, then they will not attain salvation and the same is true of the people living today. 

Edited November 9 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

2 hours ago, dragonxx said:

And we're meant not only to give 'benefit of the doubt', but to take Hadiths from these, and fold our arms during prayer like how Jews pray?

Cool. 

Where do you get these accusations from? 

I don't fold my hands (I pray like the Zaydiyya) and folding was usually only done in long prayers in order to make it easier on the people. It only became the norm later on (I don't think this was in the time of the Shaykhayn in the first place). 

My own understanding is that one should stay silent on the Shaykhayn and not curse them, but affirm that the Prince of the Believers (peace be upon him) had more right towards leading the Umma, because the Prince of the Believers himself did not curse them nor fight them. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

21 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

But what should we do today? 

Salam @dragonxx has responded you ; which still policy of three sunni Shaykhayn is following by majority of Sunni Muslims specially by Wahabis & similar groups which order of Allah & prophet Muhammad (pbu) has been knowingly disobeyed about following Amir al Muminin (prince of believers) Imam  Ali & rest of infallible Imams which is now Imam Mahdi (aj) is in charge which even now groups likewise Wahabis & salafis are trying to revive cursed Umayyad era based on olicy of three sunni Shaykhayn or some sunnis are dodging to alternatives to Zaydism & etc because still they can't realese themselves from mind prison of policy of three sunni Shaykhayn .

9 hours ago, dragonxx said:

To delineate good from evil.

 

9 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

My own understanding is that since Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) was clearly declared as the Mawla of all believers, his command would have to be obeyed and anyone knowingly disobeying and dying in that state died the death of Jahiliyya. The thing however is that it doesn't seem that he called towards his political leadership in a clear and open manner and only did so later on. So the criterion for me here is how Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) behaved. 

In opposition to your claim it alos includes obeying Amir al Muminin Imam  Ali (عليه السلام) in all aspects of life including political leadership which denying his political leadership & justification injustice of three Shaykhayn & accepting  three Shaykhin as your political leaders is as same as knowingly disobeying commands of Amir al Muminin (prince of believers) Imam  Ali (عليه السلام) which later in similar fashion political leadership & commands of rest of infallible Imams have been knowingly disobeyed by followers of three sunni Shaykhayn. 

Edited November 10 by Ashvazdanghe

[StrangerInThisWorld]

11 hours ago, dragonxx said:

Yet another example of a lengthy non-answer. The specific example of 'fingernails' isn't the point. The point is Islam is a way of life that touches ALL aspects of life, major and minor. To even fathom that the Prophet (pbuhf) left this world without appointing a leader, especially something as crucial as "politics", is delusional. Once you accept that, you know that the people at Saqifa are evil because they concealed truth and committed evil knowingly, like the Jews before them. 

I agree that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) declared Imam Ali ('alayhi salam) as the leader upon all believers. 

As for what the intention of everyone present at Saqifa was, then I don't know that. What you don't seem to take into consideration is the fear that the Tulaqa could take over power or cause other problems for the Muslims. Imam 'Ali (peace be upon) did not give Bay'a for the first 6 months (and likewise other major supporters), but later on still advised the Khulafa and some of his supporters accepted official positions. So there must have been some Maslaha in doing so. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 10 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

On 10/29/2024 at 7:43 AM, Sabrejet said:

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.

You have a point here, because in my example Talut was indeed made a king upon Bani Israil by Allah ta'ala. 

Even in the case of Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him), then Allah ta'ala had made him the Mawla of all believers and he was the most deserving of leadership. 

There is a point, which however I don't think is correct and that is your claim "and will be". Who is the leader appointed upon us today or even before 1000 years? This is why I stated that the Zaydi or even the Mu'tazila solution seems to more practical regarding leadership, because it can be implemented at all times. 

[dragonxx]

On 11/9/2024 at 3:21 PM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

The thing however is that it doesn't seem that he called towards his political leadership in a clear and open manner and only did so later on. So the criterion for me here is how Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) behaved. 

He doesn't need to repeatedly call people to it. The good people follow him and his rulings regardless. The people need him, not the other way around.

On 11/9/2024 at 5:11 PM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

I also don't understand your harshness and I do not accept you comparing me with genocidal criminals! 

I am harsh towards them, not towards you. I am not comparing you to them. I am alluding to your repeated soft claims such as 'only God can judge them, we should remain silent'.

23 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Where do you get these accusations from? 

I wasn't implying you. I was implying Ibn al khattab introducing the innovation of folding arms during prayer, "what a good innovation that is!"

23 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

My own understanding is that one should stay silent on the Shaykhayn and not curse them

Goodness me.

[StrangerInThisWorld]

1 hour ago, dragonxx said:

He doesn't need to repeatedly call people to it. The good people follow him and his rulings regardless. The people need him, not the other way around.

I am harsh towards them, not towards you. I am not comparing you to them. I am alluding to your repeated soft claims such as 'only God can judge them, we should remain silent'.

I wasn't implying you. I was implying Ibn al khattab introducing the innovation of folding arms during prayer, "what a good innovation that is!"

Goodness me.

 

 

 

 

 

The statement "what a good innovation" is actually regarding uniting the people upon one Qari / Imam in praying Nawafil in the nights of Ramadan (i.e. Tarawih), because many people used to pray them in small groups in the Masjid with different leaders. 

 

Then: Let's simply say I'm wrong in my understanding and that one shouldn't stay silent regarding the Shaykhayn, but rather openly oppose them and declare them as Kuffar and Munafiqin. Then what now? Is this how people will find the correct way? 

 

According to the statement of the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) we should hold to the Book of Allah ta'ala and to His blessed family ('alayhim al-salam).

Did Sunnis do so? No, they rather relied upon Ahadith narrated to them through non-Ahl-Bayt and thereby reached all kinds of false conclusions and one of the worst being the necessity of obedience to an oppressive ruler as long as he claims Islam. 

What did Imamis do? They likewise relied upon Ahadith narrated to them by non-Ahl-al-Bayt - like Zurara bin A'yan or Burayd bin Mu'awiya - and thereby ended up with a lot of confusion and weird positions without any real proofs and from among that is paying money to people who claim to have connection to a savior in occultation (thereby opening the door to exploiting people the very same way the monks and priests of Ahl al-Kitab would do). 

 

There was another option and that would have been to refer to the scholars of Ahl al-Bayt directly (and NOT accusing them of Taqiyya the moment one hears something from them, that one doesn't want to hear!) and rely on their agreement and NOT accept all kinds of claims of what they said and did not say "narrated" by non-Ahl-al-Bayt.

From the actions of the progeny of al-Hasan wal Hussayn (peace be upon them) we see that they believed in commanding good and forbidding evil in speech and actions and those among them who had the ability drew their swords against the oppressors and tyrants and a group among them got martyred similar to how their grandfather al-Imam al-Hussayn (peace be upon him) achieved martyrdom when he stood up for justice in the face of the tyrant of his time. 

To summarize: Kitab Allah wa 'Itrati Ahlu Bayti!

And NOT: Ahadith by random people. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

7 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

What did Imamis do? They likewise relied upon Ahadith narrated to them by non-Ahl-al-Bayt - like Zurara bin A'yan or Burayd bin Mu'awiya - and thereby ended up with a lot of confusion and weird positions without any real proofs and from among that is paying money to people who claim to have connection to a savior in occultation (thereby opening the door to exploiting people the very same way the monks and priests of Ahl al-Kitab would do). 

Salam respectfully people likewise  Zurara bin A'yan or Burayd bin Mu'awiya have not been random people which confusion about narrated narration by them has been created by Anti shia people while Imamis (Twelvers) have many ways for examinig narrated narrations by anyone which a lot of confusion has been resolved by Tweler shia Imami scholars which also weird positions have been refuted by  real poofs by them which you can find many examples of it here in Shiachat too. 

According to Twelver Imami Shias anyone who claims that he has direct connection to him as his special deputy during occultation in similar fashion of four special duty of Imam Mahdi (aj) before his occultation is a liar  .  

Which previously you couldn't prove your accusation against Shia Marjas about accusing them to using religion 7 money for their worldly matters.

7 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

From the actions of the progeny of al-Hasan wal Hussayn (peace be upon them) we see that they believed in commanding good and forbidding evil in speech and actions and those among them who had the ability drew their swords against the oppressors and tyrants and a group among them got martyred similar to how their grandfather al-Imam al-Hussayn (peace be upon him) achieved martyrdom when he stood up for justice in the face of the tyrant of his time. 

To summarize: Kitab Allah wa 'Itrati Ahlu Bayti!

And NOT: Ahadith by random people. 

Ahadith from your favorit Zaydi & Mu'tazila can be from random people too;  also every infallible Imam has done best action based on situation of his era which blind uprising against oppressor and tyrants without knowing situation of your era & people around you   is just wasting life & blood not martyrdom ;which if Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) has been second Imam in position of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) so then he would do exact action of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) which in similar fashion if Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) has been in situation of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) so then he would do exactly as same as  Imam Hussain (عليه السلام)  which deciding about doing best action based on situation of your era & people around you must be decided by infallible Imam of each time  which we must follow his orders no more no less which giving empty Bollywoodian/Holliwodian slogans so then making a corrupted copy of uprising of imam Hussain (عليه السلام) has no point which it will be just wasting blood & life of muslims due misunderstanding of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) so then try to solve every problem just by sword & brute force . 

 

 

Edited November 11 by Ashvazdanghe

[Muslim2010]

20 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Did Sunnis do so? No, they rather relied upon Ahadith narrated to them through non-Ahl-Bayt and thereby reached all kinds of false conclusions and one of the worst being the necessity of obedience to an oppressive ruler as long as he claims Islam. 

What did Imamis do? They likewise relied upon Ahadith narrated to them by non-Ahl-al-Bayt - like Zurara bin A'yan or Burayd bin Mu'awiya - and thereby ended up with a lot of confusion and weird positions without any real proofs and from among that is paying money to people who claim to have connection to a savior in occultation (thereby opening the door to exploiting people the very same way the monks and priests of Ahl al-Kitab would do). 

Would you please mention a single  hadith for the imams of Zaidis naming them as Imams chosen after Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) from shia or sunni sources?

OR even simple hadith mentioning the name of Zaid bin Ali as Imam after the Imam Ali bin Hussain from the progeny of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This is necessary to just verification of your claims for spreading the false zaidis assumptions in this thread.

wasallam

Edited November 11 by Muslim2010