Were the Shaykhayn like angels or were they evil?

[Eddie Mecca]

On 11/17/2024 at 3:11 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

This has been proven even from fair sunni persons & sources which your denying it has been refuted countless time in related threads about it. 

@Ashvazdanghe, regarding surrounding the house of Fatima (a) and forcefully pushing the door open and subsequent miscarriage etc..."Western scholars tend to agree that Ali believed he had a clear mandate to succeed Muhammad offer differing views as to the extent of use of force by Umar in an attempt to intimidate Ali and his supporters. For instance, Madelung discounts the possibility of the use of force and argues that:

Isolated reports of use of force against Ali and Banu Hashim who unanimously refused to swear allegiance for six months are probably to be discounted. Abu Bakr no doubt was wise enough to restrain Umar from any violence against them, well realizing that this would inevitably provoke the sense of solidarity of the majority of Abdul Mannaf whose acquiescence he needed. His policy was rather not isolating Banu Hashim as far as possible." Wikipedia 

Edited November 21, 2024 by Eddie Mecca

[Ashvazdanghe]

3 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

"Western scholars tend to agree that Ali believed he had a clear mandate to succeed Muhammad offer differing views as to the extent of use of force by Umar in an attempt to intimidate Ali and his supporters. For instance, Madelung discounts the possibility of the use of force and argues that:

Isolated reports of use of force against Ali and Banu Hashim who unanimously refused to swear allegiance for six months are probably to be discounted. Abu Bakr no doubt was wise enough to restrain Umar from any violence against them, well realizing that this would inevitably provoke the sense of solidarity of the majority of Abdul Mannaf whose acquiescence he needed. His policy was rather not isolating Banu Hashim as far as possible." Wikipedia 

Salam as i have mentioned before which Western scholars have taken information from distorted Sunnis sources which in all of Sunni sources all atrocities of Three Sunni Shaykhayn have been justified which according to both of westerner & radical wahabi viewpoints Amir Al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) nauzubillah has been a greedy person for taking power & source of violence & split of muslim community while even some of the Western scholars have endorsed  cursed Muawyiah  in similar fashion of radical Wahabis & three Sunni Shaykhayn as best role models of leadership in Muslim community while based on mixed westerner mindset & distorted sunni viewpoint  so then they have criticized Amir Al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as worst leader of Muslim community . 

[Panzerwaffe]

15 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

@Ashvazdanghe, regarding surrounding the house of Fatima (a) and forcefully pushing the door open and subsequent miscarriage etc..."Western scholars tend to agree that Ali believed he had a clear mandate to succeed Muhammad offer differing views as to the extent of use of force by Umar in an attempt to intimidate Ali and his supporters. For instance, Madelung discounts the possibility of the use of force and argues that:

Isolated reports of use of force against Ali and Banu Hashim who unanimously refused to swear allegiance for six months are probably to be discounted. Abu Bakr no doubt was wise enough to restrain Umar from any violence against them, well realizing that this would inevitably provoke the sense of solidarity of the majority of Abdul Mannaf whose acquiescence he needed. His policy was rather not isolating Banu Hashim as far as possible." Wikipedia 

Bro these people think scholars like Madelung , Hinds, Morony , hawting ,  kister,  caskel are just mere charlatans compared to graduates of seminaries 

so you are wasting your time 

now if we bring in Allahyari that’s a whole new discussion 

[Panzerwaffe]

On 11/8/2024 at 10:23 PM, Ashvazdanghe said:

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 .  

Sunni justification of Umar   

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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

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

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).

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.

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.’

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.

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).

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.’

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.

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;

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

Aws b hadathan basri can we get more information on him? What was his life after the passing away of the prophet

Also Abu musa , his nomination was very contentious as a leader of the people of kufa but initially he was also the choice of Al Ashtar , it is a strange that such a close companion of imam was not aware of him being a hypocrite specially if he was being selected for such a critical role in the most important city of the caliphate

such Hadith on both 12er and Sunni sides make perfect sense when we look at them retrospectively, but they are rarely narrated during the time those events were happening. 

Edited November 23, 2024 by Panzerwaffe

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 11/22/2024 at 3:23 AM, Panzerwaffe said:

Bro these people think scholars like Madelung , Hinds, Morony , hawting ,  kister,  caskel are just mere charlatans compared to graduates of seminaries 

so you are wasting your time 

now if we bring in Allahyari that’s a whole new discussion 

They are not charlatans, but there are defects and inconsistencies in their methodology (as is with whatever springs from the epistemology of secular-liberalism and the modern historical-critical method which they use) and many a times they don't substantiate what they say, make faulty generalizations, and ignore evidence on the contrary. 

There's tonnes of critique on both their epistemology and conclusions (from the likes of Sheikh Rasul Ja'fariyaan, Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Subhani and Dr. Ahmad Pakchi, from both the hawza and secular academia), and about the larger theme of representing Islamic intellectual history in the Western academia (a stalled project which never really took off since the demise of Shaheed Baqir al-Sadr Alayhirrahmah), very powerful critiques but they are almost all in Farsi and never make their way out of the seminaries. 

Those who swear by these scholars or even the likes of Akbar Ganji, Mohsen Kadivar, Etan Kohlberg don't know that there is a sea of differences between the methodologies and epistemologies of someone like, say Hugh Kennedy, Patricia Crone, or even Ignaz Goldziher and Fred Donner, so they are not all on the same page regarding the very fundamentals. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 11/21/2024 at 11:28 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

@Ashvazdanghe, regarding surrounding the house of Fatima (a) and forcefully pushing the door open and subsequent miscarriage etc..."Western scholars tend to agree that Ali believed he had a clear mandate to succeed Muhammad offer differing views as to the extent of use of force by Umar in an attempt to intimidate Ali and his supporters. For instance, Madelung discounts the possibility of the use of force and argues that:

Isolated reports of use of force against Ali and Banu Hashim who unanimously refused to swear allegiance for six months are probably to be discounted. Abu Bakr no doubt was wise enough to restrain Umar from any violence against them, well realizing that this would inevitably provoke the sense of solidarity of the majority of Abdul Mannaf whose acquiescence he needed. His policy was rather not isolating Banu Hashim as far as possible." Wikipedia 

Laughable. 

Of course, no substantiation, not even a shred of contrarian evidence, just sweeping generalization and brushing away what is unpalatable to him as 'isolated reports'(of course he'd have no trouble accepting similar 'isolated reports' when they fit his created narrative....!) 

Madelung (if he indeed wrote that) is embarrassing himself for being the August historical authority that he is. 

Let's say Abu Bakr wanted to keep Bani Hashim on board fearing hostility from Bani Abd Manaaf (which ironically, as he very well knows, included the Umayyads too, right?). But where is the substantiation? Without substantiation, there's no history, just guesswork and claims. And a guess is not really an argument, and a claim without substance may be dismissed without substance. 

In fact, the acts of his cabal, and that of his supporters from Bani Aslam in downtown Medina, point to the exact opposite of what Madelung wants to argue- they were determined to have their way by hook or crook, no matter who the casualty was, even if it were Fatima (sa) herself. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

Forget Ali (عليه السلام), Fatima (sa), Zubayr ibn al-Awwam and Abi'l Aas ibn al-Rabi' (Imam Ali's brother in law) who were in the house. 

Let's agree that the Shi'a rawafid manufactured reports about tensions between them and the Shaykhayn as a post-hoc justification for their theology. Let's also dismiss that any force was used to bring them to heel. 

 

What happened to Sa'd ibn Ubadah? Or even Usama ibn Zayd?

Was force and coercion absent from these instances too? 

If the Shaykhayn had reasons to fear opposition from Bani Hashim, they had even more reason to fear opposition from Sa'd, who had good standing among the ansaar, and from Usama, who had a literal army under his command at that very moment. 

Why were they not brought on board? Why was force and coercion used against them (Sa'd had a literal scuffle with Umar in the Saqifa Bani Sa'da)? 

So if force could be used against much more potent threats without fear of repercussions, what to say of Fatima and Ali, who had virtually no support? 

Madelung's own argument ('he needed their support thus no force could've been used') recoils against himself- those two did use force against more formidable enemies than the Hashemites; enemies whose support they had greater need for. 

Edited November 23, 2024 by AbdusSibtayn

[Muslim2010]

On 11/21/2024 at 9:48 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

@Ashvazdanghe, salaam...the three caliphs aren't role models for us...I'd rather spend my precious free time learning or reading about the fourteen infallibles (peace be upon them)...or personalities like Khadijah, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah, Imam Zayd, Salman al-Farsi (may Allah be pleased with them)...or modern-day heroes like Imam Khomeini, Hasan Nasrallah, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi etc....my contention here is that it's unfair, unjust, exaggeration and borderline extremist mentality and sloppy scholarship to place Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman in the same category as Muʿāwiyah, Yazid, Hind etc....this should be a relatively easy argument to grasp...like @Muslim2010 explained on page 1...everything deserves to be properly categorized and there are many levels, degrees and categories...

Thanks for your remarks.

As far as categories defined inline with the verses of quran which mainly address the happenings during the life of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).  The caliphs can be placed in the second category.

But keeping in view their role for events after  the life of the prophet s.aw. ie astrocities towards the progeny of the prophet this does not remain the same but it may be taken to third category.

wasalam

[StrangerInThisWorld]

After thinking about this topic for a longer time I have to admit that I understand why one would have a negative view of the Shaykhayn. 

Taking the event of Raziyyat al-Khamis, the event at Saqifat Bani Sa'ida and the threat to burn down the house of Fatima (peace be upon her) and also the issue of Fadak and acting as if Ghadir never happened are serious mistakes. 

Even if they thought that the Tulaqa would have not accepted to be under the leadership of Amir al-Muminin (peace be upon him), they should have trusted the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) and not acted according to their own opinions.

Edited December 23, 2024 by StrangerInThisWorld