The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba - Islam for Muslims - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Islam for Muslims / The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba (16131 Views)
On The Sahaba Again: A Reminder May Benefit The Believers.... / The Views Of Ahlus Sunnah Towards The Sahaba / Refuting Shia Baseless Theology (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)
| The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by Zhulfiqar1: 5:01pm On Dec 11, 2011 |
The actual Shi'a Position On The Sahaba This is not a topic that should cause discord and hatred between Muslims. Whilst we acknowledge there is a difference between the way Sunni and Shi'a approach the issue of the Sahaba - it is incorrect to conclude that the Shi'a reject the Sahaba. We should point out that our books are replete with chapters praising the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s). We however do not ascribe to the belief that one should blindly follow and respect an individual because he benefited from Rasulullah's blessed company, we deem adherence and respect to be based on what we learn about them from the Qur'an, Sunnah and history. We acknowledge the sacrifices that the Sahaba had made, BUT our yardstick for determining the truth is the Qur'an and Sunnah. Hence both schools believe in the Sahaba the only difference being one school examines each individual in relation to their manners / attitude, whilst the other does not deem this to be a necessary component. As Shi'a we look at the character of a companion against the Qur'an, Sunnah and history and then decide on his reliability. The (14th) century, the well known Sunni scholar, Maulana Wahidu 'z Zaman of Hyderabad Deccan explains the point: "Those that sat in the company of Rasulullah (s) are true Sahaba. Those deserving of the title 'Sahaba' are those that bore love and respect of Rasulullah (s) and his Ahl'ul bayt (as). The title 'Sahaba' does not suffice, we shall cite an example: 'A King has some servants, on account of their love for their king they also love one another. Then one of the servants rebels against the King, he kills the Kings family, relations and friends, and becomes their enemy. In light of such facts should we STILL love the servant, on the sole basis that he was the kings servant?" Anwaru 'l-lughah Volume 14 page 20 Earlier on in the same book Zaman states: "The verses and hadith praising the Sahaba refers to those that sat in the midst of Rasulullah (s) and showed love and respect towards his Ahl'ul bayt and supported them". Anwaru 'l-lughah Volume 14 page 10 Shia scholar Allamah Sayyid Asad Haider writing on the Shi'a aqeedah on the Sahaba states: [b] "The Shi'a of the Ahl'ul bayt respect Rasulullah's Sahaba, they do not play down respect for them, but when following the life of Rasulullah (s) they stress that the Shari'a applies equally to Sahaba and non Sahaba - the Sahaba's position and status is in accordance with their deeds and actions". Taken from al Sahabeeyat fi Nazhar Shi'a page 32, printed in Egypt Let us now present a detailed Shia concept of Sahaba advanced by Shia scholar Sharfuddin al-Mousawi in his famed work Ajwebat Masail Jarallah, pages 14-16: Whoever researches our view with regard to the sahaba will find it the most moderate of views. We neither go to extremes in this regard as the ghulat have done, labelling them all as apostates, nor do we go to extremes in accepting them as trusted authorities as most [Sunni] Muslims have done. Those who attribute their perfection, as well as those who go to the opposite extreme and label them as apostates, are all in the same box. Sunnis are of the view that anyone who heard or saw the Prophet is absolutely equitable. They support their view from the tradition saying, `, whoever traversed or walked on the earth from them without any exception.' But as far as we are concerned, although we regard keeping company with the Prophet as a great honor, it, as is, does not render one infallible. Like all other men, the sahaba included equitable persons who are their scholars and greatest men, whereas some of them are hypocrites who committed crimes. The condition of some of them is unknown; so, we rely on the equitable ones among them and accept them as our masters in the life of this world as well as in the life to come. As for those who oppressed the wasi and the Prophet's brother, as well as all those who committed crimes such as Hind's son [Abu Sufyan], the son of the genius, the son of "the blue woman," the son of Uqbah, the son of Arta'a, etc., and their likes, these have nothing to be honored for, nor does their hadith hold water. It is of an undecided nature, and we have to carefully scrutinize it. Such is our view with regard to the sahaba who narrate hadith. The Qur'an and the Sunnah are our argument to pack this view as explained wherever appropriate in our books that deal with the basics of jurisprudence. But the majority of Muslims have gone too far in sanctifying the hadith they hear from any sahabi, so much so that they swayed from moderation and sought their arguments from those who are good as well as from those who are bad, blindly emulating every Muslim individual who had heard or seen the Prophet. They resented others who differed from them in going to such extremes and went beyond all limits in denouncing them. "How intense their denunciation of us when they find us rejecting the hadith of many sahaba whose integrity we publicly challenge or whose condition is not fully ascertained! While doing so, we simply follow the binding legislative obligation in verifying religious facts and looking for authentic Prophetic legacy. "It is for this reason that they cast doubt about us, piling their accusations on us, charging us with unfounded charges, vying with one another to remain in ignorance about us. Had they recalled their wisdom and consulted the bases of knowledge and scholarship, they would have come to know that equity as a basic ingredient in all the sahaba cannot be proven. Had they delved in depth into the meanings of the Qur'an, they would have found it full of references to a number of sahabi hypocrites. Suffices you, for example, Surat al-Tawbah and Surat al-Ahzab." [/b] Appraisal of the Sahaba by the Imams of Ahl'ul bayt (as) To counter the lies of the Nasibi we present the comments of two of our Imams (peace be upon them) that sets out their views on the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s): Imam Zaynul Abideen (as) our fourth Imam is known in Muslim and non-Muslim circles for his beautiful supplications, some of which have been complied into book format in Sahifa al-Kamilah. One of his (as) specific du'as was for the pious Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) may Allah be well pleased with them: "O God, and as for the Companions of Muhammad specifically, those who did well in companionship, who stood the good test in helping him, responded to him when he made them hear his messages' argument, separated from mates and children in manifesting his word, fought against fathers and sons in strengthening his prophecy, and through him gained victory; those who were wrapped in affection for him, hoping for a commerce that comes not to naught in love for him; those who were left by their clans when they clung to his handhold and denied by their kinsfolk when they rested in the shadow of his kinship; forget not, O God, what they abandoned for Thee and in Thee, and make them pleased with Thy good pleasure for the sake of the creatures they drove to Thee while they were with Thy Messenger, summoners to Thee for Thee". Imam Zayn al-'Abidin, Sahifa al-Kamilah, (English translation, London, 1988), p. 27 Imam Jafar as-Sadeq (as) had praised the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) as follows: "Allah (swt) from amongst the Sahaba had selected a group, and showered them with respect, they were successful and the blessed lips of Rasulullah (s) praised them for virtues. You should [likewise] love them, extol their virtues and separate from the people of Bidah as sitting with them leads to one's heart being filled with kufr and hatred". Misbah al Shariah page 67 |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by Zhulfiqar1: 5:03pm On Dec 11, 2011 |
Did the vast bulk of the Sahaba apostatize after the death of Rasulullah (s)? This is one of the favourite traditions that are cited by the Nasibi against the followers of Ahl'ul bayt (as). We had already cited the comments of Imam Zaynul Abideen (as) and Imam Sadiq (as) where they had set out their admiration and love for the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s). Is it believable that these two Imams were praising just three individuals? Not only do these traditions go against those explicit traditions that we have cited, we should also point out that one of the narrators of this tradition is Muhammad bin Uthman who has not been authenticated by the scholars (see Mu'ajam Rijal al-Hadith, Volume 17 page 294) while another narrator namely Hanaan bin Sudair was a follower of Waqifi sect (see Rijal al-Tusi, page 334). If the Minhajj are still going insist that we adhere to this belief then we would suggest that examine the testimony in Sahih Bukhari your most authentic book: Narrated 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount". 'Abdullah added: The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will be brought in front of me till I will see them and then they will be taken away from me and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'you do not know what they did after you had left.' Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 578 Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognise them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you." 1. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 584 2. Sahih Muslim, part 15, pp 53-54 Narrated Abu Hazim from Sahl bin Sa'd: The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-Fount, and whoever will pass by there, he will drink from it and whoever will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will come to me some people whom I will recognise, and they will recognise me, but a barrier will be placed between me and them." Abu Hazim added: Nu'man bin Abi 'Aiyash, on hearing me, said. "Did you hear this from Sahl?" I said, "Yes." He said, " I bear witness that I heard Abu Said al-Khudri saying the same, adding that the Prophet said: 'I will say: They are my companions. Then it will be said to me, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you left'. I will say, 'Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed after me." Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said, "On the Day of Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be driven away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, 'O Lord (those are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge as to what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as renegades (reverted from the true Islam)" Sahih al Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 585 Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), 'Come along.' I asked, 'Where?' He said, 'To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah' I asked, 'What is wrong with them?' He said, 'They turned apostate as renegades after you left.' Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); 'Come along.' I asked, 'Where?' He said, 'To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.' I asked, 'What is wrong with them?' He said, 'They turned apostate as renegades after you left.' So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd". Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 587 Faced with such explicit traditions Nasibis try and re-define Sahaba here, namely the words don't refer to the Sahaba per se but in fact refer to the Ummah i.e. the vast bulk of the Ummah will be in the fire. To counter this we suggest our readers check the Arabic it says the words "Sahaba". We are yet to find any Arabic dictionary that states Sahaba means Ummah. Further proofs come from the wording of the traditions. In addition 8: 587 'They turned APOSTATE as renegades after you left.' When you LEAVE somebody, you do so having already BEEN WITH THEM, i.e. he had been amongst them. The words "after you left" clearly indicate that the group being referred to are those who survived the Prophet (S) i.e. the Sahaba. This is absolutely logical, when a parent dies, they leave behind them their children - they have survived their parents. Moreover in tradition 8: 585 Rasulullah (s) say's: "There will come to me some people whom I will RECOGNIZE" and in 8: 587 "While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I RECOGNIZED them". Now in both hadith our infallible Prophet (S) refers to a group "whom I will recognise" - I can only recognise someone if I have SEEN that person - common sense. Rasulullah (s)'s surprise is because he is seeing those who he sat with (companions) being lead into the fire. These authentic traditions make it clear that the vast bulk of Sahaba (1) Innovated (2) Became Kaffir (3) Only a few will be saved from the fire! We read in al Istiab, Volume 3 page 390 and Kanz al Ummal, Volume 6 page 67 that: عن أم سلمة قالت: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: " إن من أصحابي من لا أراه ولا يراني بعد أن أموت أبداً " Um Salama narrated that the prophet (pbuh) said: 'Among my companions are some whom I will never see and they will never see me after my death'. Commenting on this hadith Deobandi scholar Shaykh ul Hadith Maulana Sarfaraz Khan Safdar states; "These are those individuals that recited the Shahada before Rasulullah (s) and after him became murtad (apostates), this includes later generations that became murtad and the people of Bidah" Taken from Izalath al Rahab page 398 For further details one can consult Sharh Nawawi Volume 1 page 129. Whilst we have not gleamed into the particulars of this narration one should point out to the Minhajj that they have traditions in their beloved Sahih al Bukhari that not only places Talha and Zubayr in the fire, but also the vast bulk of the Sahaba that according their traditions have been guaranteed paradise! We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 30: Narrated Al-Ahnaf bin Qais: While I was going to help this man ('Ali Ibn Abi Talib), Abu Bakra met me and asked, "Where are you going?" I replied, "I am going to help that person." He said, "Go back for I have heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'When two Muslims fight (meet) each other with their swords, both the murderer as well as the murdered will go to the Hell-fire.' I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! It is all right for the murderer but what about the murdered one?' Allah's Apostle replied, "He surely had the intention to kill his companion." We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 204: Narrated Al-Hasan: (Al-Ahnaf said  I went out carrying my arms during the nights of the affliction (i.e. the war between 'Ali and 'Aisha) and Abu Bakra met me and asked, "Where are you going?" I replied, "I intend to help the cousin of Allah's Apostle (i.e.,'Ali)." Abu Bakra said, "Allah's Apostle said, 'If two Muslims take out their swords to fight each other, then both of them will be from amongst the people of the Hell-Fire.' It was said to the Prophet, 'It is alright for the killer but what about the killed one?' He replied, 'The killed one had the intention to kill his opponent.'"We would urge our readers to examine these two 'sahih' hadith from the Sahih Bukhari. These hadith clearly infer that all those involved in the Battles of Jamal, Sifeen and the tragedy of Karbala are destined for Hell. And among them are Ummul-Momineen Hadhrath Ayesha and the eminent personalities of Hadhrath Imam Ali (AS) & Imam Hussain (AS) and all their martyred companions (AS), and of course Talha & Zubair. What is the fatwa of Minhajj al Nasibi here? |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by Zhulfiqar1: 5:05pm On Dec 11, 2011 |
Does cursing the Sahaba make the Shi'a kaffir? Whilst we will Inshallah refute the collection of fatwas in the final chapter we felt that it would be appropriate for us to reply to three fatwas that had been cited suggesting that the Shi'a are kaffir due to their position on the Sahaba. It is sad that Nasibi cults such as this group seek to vent maximum emotion amongst actual Sunni's by highlighting Shi'a criticism of the Sahaba with the sole aim that this will lead to them joining them in the chorus of takfeer against the Shi'a. We will Inshallah address Imam Malik's Fatwa separately in the final chapter, suffice it to say the Shi'a views on the Sahaba do NOT in any way mean that one can conclude that the Shi'a are kaffir. These Nasibis cannot prove from the Qur'an or hadith that either Allah (SWT) or Rasul (S) ever declared Sahaba who cursed one another to have become Kaffir. This is a fact, they quarreled, fought each other in his blessed presence and he NEVER said that they had become kaffir. In fact Sahaba even criticized him (S) accusing him of being delirious on his deathbed and yet curiously we never hear these Deobandi and Salafi Nasibis ever running to the aid of our Rasul and deeming such individuals as Kaffir. When a person enters into the fold of Islam, he is required to recite the Kalima tayyiba and Shahada, upon doing so he comes under the umbrella of Islam. It is following this recital that he can be told about the core components of Iman / beliefs that make up this declaration. From the texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah we learn that the declaration of Iman, is as follows: "I believe in Allah, in his Angels, In his Books, in the Day of Judgment, the fact that everything good and bad is from Allah and that Life exists after death". These are the conditions of Iman, there exists no requirement to have faith in the iman of Abu Bakr, Umar or for that matter any other Sahaba. In the absence of this fact, on what basis do these so-called scholars conclude that disrespect of the Sahaba makes you a kaffir? If one examines the entire contents of the Holy Qur'an there exists no evidence that entry into the fold of Islam is dependent on testifying to the iman of the Sahaba. Some individuals will seek to cite verses and suggest that these pertain to Abu Bakr, Umar etc, thus concluding that to reject these individuals' means that one is rejecting the Qur'an. From this view point they will argue that believing in the iman of the Sahaba is a necessity since without them, the link to guidance shall be broken - hence to reject them makes one a kaffir. When debating on the issue of takfeer one needs to recognize that this is such a serious matter that a fatwa can only be issued when there is no doubt whatsoever. There is no arguing that general verses came down with regards to specific individuals, but one needs to appreciate that Abu Lahab and Zaid bin Harith are the only individuals that are mentioned by name in the Qur'an. Even if we are to accept the claim that verses descended with regards to Abu Bakr and Umar, this can not in any way be deemed to proof beyond a doubt, since commentators of the Qur'an interpreted these verses according their knowledge, thoughts and personal viewpoints i.e., they interpreted verses according to their own school of thought. Whilst some for example cite the verse that refers to Abu Bakr in the cave, deeming this as a verse of appraisal, others have criticized his Iman on this particular occasion. This is a very common Nasibi argument. Since the Deen (Qur'an / Sunnah) reached us via the Sahaba, loving them is part of the Deen. We would state that this is matter of personal preference, since it is these Ulema and their neo Nasibi followers that have made the mistake of wrongly deeming this to be a part of Iman, they are now seeking to force the Shi'a to embrace this incorrect notion. The Ahl'ul Sunnah deem every companion as reliable due to the fact that he professed belief in Rasulullah (s) and had the benefit of seeing him - hence he is a 'Sahaba'. At the time of the Farewell Pilgrimage there were at least 100,000 Sahaba, is it correct to conclude that every one of these individuals was just? If it is not, then why do the majority school uphold the belief that ALL the Sahaba were just? In addition we are also expected to believe that all the Sahaba are like stars, whoever amongst them you follow will lead you to guidance. We will answer this claim by citing this example: "If Rasulullah (s) appeared in this present era, and a Shepherd, bus conductor, street cleaner, barber, butcher, Doctor, engineer, Professor and trader all saw Rasulullah (s) and embraced Islam having met him and hence with that were deemed Sahaba, would it be fair to conclude that they ALL developed the same knowledge, sagacity, piety, mental attitude? Can we deem them ALL to be on an equal level BECAUSE they saw Rasulullah (s) and were hence his Sahaba? On the 'Stars' principle you will have a choice to follow a street cleaner or professor, can we conclude that both will be equal in knowledge? The majority school deem all those who saw Rasulullah (s) to be his Sahaba no matter how far away they were from him, when in fact the sad fact is even those that sat close to him, behaved inappropriately as can be vouched for in history. The books of history testify that on the day of Hudaibiya, one particular Sahaba raised doubts on the Prophethood of Muhammad (s), at Uhud prominent Sahaba fled for the mountains, one fled so far that he returned to Madina after three days. At Khayber the companions led by prominent Sahaba fled in retreat from the enemy. We also know that when Rasulullah (s) asked for writing materials on his deathbed, Sahaba said he was delirious. Rasulullah (s) ordered the army of Usamah to leave Makka, Sahaba refused to go, after the demise of Rasulullah (s) Sahaba were debating over his succession at Saqifa rather than participating in his funeral arrangements. These are clearly historical problems, so whoever's heart wishes to gleam over these facts then they can choose such personalities as their guides, and whoever accepts these facts is entitled to reject these individuals as guides. If the majority school does indeed want to grasp such individuals would the better approach not be to grasp those individuals with an exemplary character, and declare such persons as the necessary components of the Deen? The reality is that the necessary parts of Deen are the Ahl'ul Bayt (as) and Rasulullah (s) had told the Sahaba at the Farewell Pilgrimage "I am leaving amongst you two weighty things if you follow them you will never go astray, the Qur'an and my Ahl'ul bayt". Rasulullah (s) also identified Imam Ali (as) to be the Gate of knowledge, if the Ummah had decided to close the door themselves, grasp the Qur'an and turn their backs on the Ahl'ul bayt (as) then that is their loss, why are they demanding that we do likewise? If the Minhajj group are seeking to cook up a frenzy citing the fact that the Shi'a are opposed to the Sahaba and certain wives of the Prophet (s), then allow us to cite some traditions and look in to the facts of history. We will cite the treatment of the beloved daughter of Rasulullah (s) Sayyida Fatima (sa). After Rasulullah's demise she remained alive only for a further six months, during which time her treatment at the hands of Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr became so bad that not only did she stop talking to him, she left an explicit instruction that he not attend her funeral. We read in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4 hadith 325 that Ayesha stated: "After the death of Allah 's Apostle Fatima the daughter of Allah's Apostle asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give her share of inheritance from what Allah's Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Our property will not be inherited, whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity)." Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah's Apostle". She died angry with Abu Bakr and Rasulullah (s) warned of the consequences of upsetting Sayyida Fatima, we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61 "Allah's Apostle said, "Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry." In relation to Imam Ali (as), He (as) testified to hearing these words of Rasulullah (s) as recorded in Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0141: Zirr reported: 'Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me. It is little wonder that we have the testimony of Abu Said al Khudri: "We recognized the hypocrites by their hatred of Ali." 1. Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p639, Tradition 1086 2. al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p47 - al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhibb al-Tabari, v3, p242 From these traditions it is clear that Ali (as) was the subject of hatred, and that those that held enmity towards him were in fact only 'pretending' to be Muslims. Upon the death of Rasulullah (s) this hatred became more open. Whilst it is difficult to visualize the events with the passage of some 1400 years, it is clear that the situation deteriorated to such an extent that swords were raised against Imam Ali (as), that being the case how difficult can it be to identify and name the enemies of Imam Ali (as)? Rasulullah (s) declared that a momin would never hate Imam Ali, but Ummul Momineen Ayesha and the Sahaba fought the rightly guided khalifa and in the process were responsible for causing the bloodshed of thousands. In light of these facts what fatwa will Minhajj al Nasibi and their Imams invoke on Hadhrath Ayesha based on these facts? "Hatred of Ali is such a thing that no good deeds will benefit, whilst love of Ali is such a thing that no bad deeds will harm you". al-Nasa'ih al-Kaafiyah page 67 Hatred did not just end there Mu'awiya's hatred of Imam Ali (as) was such that as Khalifa he made the cursing of Imam Ali (as) a compulsory practice. Maulana Sayyid Abu'l Ala Maudoodi records this fact in his "Khilafat wa Mulukiyaat". On page 174 he writes: "Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah records that one unlawful and outrageous practice started by Mu'awiya was that he and his governors would curse Hadhrath Ali during the Friday sermon from the Imam's position. This took such an extreme that this practised even took place in the Mosque of the Prophet, in front of the grave of the Prophet (saws), the cursing of the most beloved relative would take place, in the presence of Hadhrath Ali's family who would hear this abuse with their own ears." also: 1.Tabari Volume 4 page 188 2. Ibn Athir Volume 3 page 234 3. al Bidayah Volume 8 page 259 and Volume 9 page 80 So, where were the Minhajj and their Deobandi ancestors at this time? Why did they not take a stand and seek to prevent the cursing of Imam Ali (as)? Why did they not expose Mu'awiya and write eloquent articles like the one that we are refuting here? If despite his being an alleged Sahaba and jurist Minhajj can find it in their hearts to forgive Mu'awiya for cursing Imam Ali (as) the Sahaba and cousin of Rasulullah (s), why can they not forgive the Shi'a likewise? If our sin is that we distance ourselves from one group of Sahaba, it is on account of the fact that we love Rasulullah (s) and his Ahl'ul bayt (as). How can we be forced to have a heart that loves the Ahl'ul bayt (as) and at the same time also professes love for their enemies? It is indeed incredible that these Nasibis like Minhajj have a deep affection for the enemies of Ahl'ul bayt (as) such as Mu'awiya, Marwan and Yazeed. The Shi'a are kaffir because they curse the Sahaba, whilst those that cursed, oppressed and killed them are radhiallah-ta'ala-anho! Take the example of Marwan, ask any Deobandi or Salafi about him, and they will extol him as a pious Sahaba (ra), but Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah, al Muhaddith Shah 'Abdul Aziz declares: "Love of the Ahl'ul Bayt is a part of religion it is not a Sunnah, love of Ahl'ul Bayt means hating Marwan, and speaking ill of him. He treated Imam Hussain and the other members of Ahl'ul Bayt badly, and was their enemy. We denounce this Shaytaan". Fatwa Azizi, page 225 What is of interest is this article appears on a Deobandi Website, and yet the Minhajj al Nasibi have failed to cite even a single opinion of 'Abu Hanifa on those that curse the Sahaba? Why is that? This is because this would go against their beliefs. Allamah Tahavi whilst setting out Abu Hanifa aqeedah states: We love the Companions of the Messenger of Allah but we do not go to excess in our love for any one individual among them nor do we disown any one of them. We hate anyone who hates them or does not speak well of them. So here based on the fatwa of Imam Numan one who curses the Sahaba may not be a likeable person BUT he cannot be deemed a kaffir. We should also point out that Imam Abu Hanifa must have stated this (i.e. not a likeable person) in a context since he had disrespect of Hadhrath Abu Bakr and Hadhrath Umar in his heart, as we learn of… |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by ghazzal: 9:16pm On Sep 27, 2012 |
glorified is most high God above all associated with him. i now understand why rasullullah(saw) several times make it known that he is scared of his ummah after his death. so you mean within 6 months after he died, the ummah was divided despite how much he stressed unity of muslims. may peace and blessings of most high God be upon him. quran says...... each group rejoices thinking his own group is the best ...but Allah alone knows what is best. may Allah guide us all and make us better muslims. 3 Likes |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by tbaba1234: 11:46pm On Sep 27, 2012 |
^ Remember, This is the shia narrative, n it is not accurate: You have to be careful what you take; Many of the references in the post above are either poorly presented, interpreted or just inaccurate. The major conflicts started after the murder of Uthman and even then, you could see the point of views of each of the Sahaba and where they were coming from. May Allah be pleased with them and forgive their shortcomings.... “That was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do” [al-Baqarah 2:134]. 1 Like |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 1:19am On Sep 28, 2012 |
tbaba1234: ^ Remember, This is the shia narrative, n it is not accurate: You have to be careful what you take; Many of the references in the post above are either poorly presented, interpreted or just inaccurate. Tbaba,hypocrisy is a sin.it is worse than kufr. You repeatedly avoided debating these Shia/Sunni issues like a coward.now you suddenly became an expert in telling us what is accurate and what isn't. Do us a favor and point out what isn't accurate.do that if you're truthful or hold your peace and go about your robotic threads like you've done without anyone offending you. The issue did not start with usthman's murder.are you lying here or are you displaying the sunni art of concealing historical facts? The problem started in Saqifa Banu Saeda.read about Saqifa Banu Saeda.it then continued with Fadak.read about Fadak.it then continue with Umar's assault on Lady Fatima's house.read about that too.don't be ashamed of your "heroes" you dedicated a thread to.you don't need to rewrite history for their sake.or do you? Heck,we find mistakes and even "sins" Prophet Muhammad (sa) is said to have committed in sunni books because he was "human".but we can't find the actual mistakes and sins of men like abu bakr and umar.in fact we read that shaitan can tempt the Prophet (sa) in sunni books.but we read in sunni books that shaitan is scared of umar and flees away because of umar's presence.who's therefore your prophet: Muhammad (sa) or umar? These are the materials in sunni books christian missionaries use to attack the infallible personality of Prophet Muhammad (sa) thanks to hadith forgery. And you have the liver to talk about "accurate"? Shame on you! I had respect for you but I'm disappointed. Tell us about righteous sahaba (companions) like Hujr Ibn Adi,Abu Dharr al-Ghiffari,Mukhtar al-Thaqafi and Ammar Ibn Yassir (ra)-the Shia respect and honor- who were killed by the swords of tyrants sunnis respect under the guise of "companions".to this day Sunnis have issues with these (four notable)companions in particular.but funny enough the Shia don't make false and generalized claims that sunnis hate the companions. And yes these are a people that have passed away.but no one is saying you or I shall be held accountable for their deeds.no! But you and I shall be held accountable for our deeds and beliefs even about these people gone away.the Quran is full of stories about pharoah and Moses (as).you have no right to make pharoah a good person by rewritinhg history when he was certainly a tyrant.you'd be held accountable for falsehood. |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 1:36am On Sep 28, 2012 |
ghazzal: glorified is most high God above all associated with him. i now understand why rasullullah(saw) several times make it known that he is scared of his ummah after his death. so you mean within 6 months after he died, the ummah was divided despite how much he stressed unity of muslims. may peace and blessings of most high God be upon him. Brother the horns of shaitan were visible even before the death of the Prophet (sa).find out who disobeyed and insulted the Prophet (sa) at the treaty of hudaibiyyah.who abandoned Islam at the battle of uhud.who insulted the Prophet (sa) another time on his deathbed.who refused the Prophet's (sa) command to join the expedition of Usama Ibn Zaid (ra).who the Prophet (sa) warned on the battle of jamal.there are people who want to avoid reality.companions of prophets always erred and went astray.ofcourse not all but at least some who wrecked havoc.so why try to conceal the facts as if companions are prophets chosen by Allah (swt)? The belief or Islam of any muslim is not tied to any companion,especially those who fought themselves or caused fitna. |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by tbaba1234: 4:55am On Sep 28, 2012 |
@lagosshia, First of all, Salam, In three lines, you have 'almost' called me a hypocrite, called me a coward and one with 'robotic' threads (whatever that means)... You see why a debate with you can quickly degenerate. From my position (and i know you do not agree), with all due respect, I think the distortion is coming from the your side.... The incident at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah is clearly not as narrated by the shia. Our positions are very different on this issue, i will be brief... What did Umar (RA) and Abu bakr (RA) do wrong at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah? They probably saved a revolt. 1. They did not claim nor did they demand Khilaafat for themselves, rather after explaining to the Ansaar, Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) proposed Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Abu Ubaidah ibnul Jarrah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) to be appointed as the Khalifah and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) proposed Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) to be the Khalifah and all the present Muhaajir and Ansaar Sahabah accepted the proposal of Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu). 2. It is not proven from any authentic text that Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) has conspired to do something and gathered the Ansaar at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah and their going there was part of the conspiracy. 3. Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and other Muhaajir Sahabah did not take part in this Bay’at because they were engaged in the burial arrangements of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and apparently they did not even know what transpired outside of the house. One cannot say that Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and other Muhaajir Sahabah’s failure to take the Bay’at was because they disagreed with it, rather this is the reason why those Sahabah who were not present at the time of the Bay’at were not taunted. 4. It is also incorrect to level accusations against Abubakar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and Umar (Radhiallaahu Anhu) of not calling Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and other Sahabah to Saqeefa Bani Saaidah because when they left the home of Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) they did not know what was going to happen, neither did they go there with the intention of obtaining the Khilaafat themselves. Whatever happened at Saqeefa Bani Saaidah was a coincidence and unexpected. As regards the 'attack on fatima's (RA) house'  1. Umar (R.A) associated with Fatima (R.A.) in a very respectful manner and also mentioned to her that she was more beloved to him than his own children. 2. Umar (R.A) did not threaten Fatima (R.A.) in any way. 3. When Umar (R.A) left Fatima (R.A.)’s house, both Fatima (R.A.) and her home were sound and intact. No harm was afflicted on either of them. Later when Ali (R.A.) arrived Fatima (R.A.) did not complain of Umar (R.A) behaving in a disrespectful manner, rather she advised him not to oppose Umar (R.A) and not to conspire against the Khilaafat of Abubakar (R.A.) in her house in future. 4. Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (R.A.) without any coercion. Accusations of broken doors and miscarriages are flatly wrong... Ali (RA), we know, was no coward.... He would have taken such matters seriously... Ali(RA) could have demanded blood money when he became the khilafah but there was no such thing. Many of the shia references on these issues have no chain of narration, and to me do not give any kind of confidence. This is our position on these incidents... |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by maclatunji: 9:22am On Sep 28, 2012 |
Shaking me head. |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 11:43am On Sep 28, 2012 |
tbaba1234: @lagosshia, First of all, Wa alaikum assalam, Firstly I must congratulate you that you have finally come out of your shell to talk.that is a commendable act.I am pleased to engage you and I will not degenerate into any name calling or whatever if you respectfully want the facts.in this my post I am going to touch two point for clarification before dissecting your post into shreds and pieces. Firstly you claiming that the Shia narrations have no chain is baseless and irrelevant to our discussion.all the narrations I will present are and will be from Sunni narrations including sahih bukhari and sahih muslim. The second point is the many claims you have made shying from the truth.this is much work for me to do to bring the facts out.but inshaAllah within the next 24 hours all facts would be available.each of the claims you made trying to polish history and rebrand it would be exposed.you should brace yourself because if you're serious with this our discussion,it would change your life forever. Also thanks for the laugh.your claims in the points you made and how polished they were gave me an endless laughter.thanks! |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 11:52am On Sep 28, 2012 |
maclatunji: Shaking me head. You really got lot of shaking to do.and by the time I'm done,your head would be shaking on its own.it would not only be shaking but it will spin also! |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by ghazzal: 1:12pm On Sep 28, 2012 |
tbaba1234: ^@tbaba, very valuable Quote A causin of my Wife said he is sunni, and i wondered what really is sunni, Shia (never really cared)he is dead now(may God forgive his sins ".....This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion........" Q5:3 It says that day Islam became perfect... any addition, subtraction, modification is not needed... and we know that Allah rewards all for what we do. That day, there was no Sunni/Shia. Sahabas should be leaders according to the Life of the Prophet and not a reason to divide Islam. If truely "according to LagosShia, Some Sahabas fall in character", how does that affect my Relationship with my God? This is my thinking.... or maybe we need another group that will pick islam from "Q5:3" (or better when Rasulullah (SAW) died) again and not care of what happens between then and now. cos this is very synonymous to "Jesus died on the cross" the truth was not known until the Quran came. How do we know THIS "truth" but to avoid what is not clear (colour btw black and white)....... Lets embrace all good teaching and remain brothers in Islam... I think The Prophet will LOve That but i would love to learn to know what was the main issue. not to join a side (inshaAllah) cos id rather not judge with History... one good lesson from History 1 Like |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 2:01pm On Sep 28, 2012 |
ghazzal: @tbaba, very valuable Quote Alhamdulillah you mentioned verse 5:3 which is known as "the verse of completion of religion".please find out when,why and where that verse was revealed.then also find out which verse was revealed chronologically preceeding it.this would help you get an idea of the entire issue at hand.I would have given the tafsir of the two relevant verses but I don't want to sidetrack.I want to stay in tune with tbaba. |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by ghazzal: 6:53pm On Sep 28, 2012 |
@lagosshia, im reading though i dont know whose version i hv. according to d battle of the cammel, its great Alli(ra) was able to calm the tide but he still gave Aisha(ra) regard. why do shias now disregard her? |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by tbaba1234: 7:59pm On Sep 28, 2012 |
ghazzal: @tbaba, very valuable Quote The majority of muslims are sunni whether you use the name or not... The shia represent only btw 10-20% of muslims in the world. The fact that you do not call yourself a name means you are sunni. I do not identify myself as sunni either. The reason you are muslim today is because of the companions of the prophet and the work they put in spreading this message. To denigrate all of them as the shia do is really sad because Allah himself praises them in the Quran... How can you curse the ones praised by Allah? Allah calls the prophet's wives the mother of the believers, yet they insult one of their own mothers.... The history of the shahaba after the prophet is straightforward, the problem occurred after the death of Uthman (RA) and the need to punish the killers.... To get a proper and balanced perspective on what transpired. I would suggest you watch the video below, the shahaba had so many difficult choices to make, it is unfair to lay blame on them. Whoever erred will face judgement. that is not our place: Kamal El Mekki - The Fitnah - 1/6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgd9gH59-IM |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 9:51pm On Sep 28, 2012 |
ghazzal: @lagosshia, im reading though i dont know whose version i hv. according to d battle of the cammel, its great Alli(ra) was able to calm the tide but he still gave Aisha(ra) regard. why do shias now disregard her? Brother,I don't know what you define as "disregard". We simply state the facts that Aisha disobeyed the Prophet's (sa) warning for her not to wage war.she did.she did not contain herself in her house as adviced by the Prophet (sa).as Prophet Muhammad (sa) had foretold the dogs of hawab barked at Aisha on her way to wage war against "the imam of her time" and shed the blood of muslims,companions inclusive.these are facts of history we state.but our Sunni brothers want a hush hush situation where we don't even bring up these issues.that is not the way to reveal the truth. Let us also examine how Imam Ali (as) acted towards Aisha after she was defeated in the battle of jamal.he ultimately got her arrested by females and placed her in house arrest.now let us see what the sharia says about a mother that kills her child.Aisha is referred to among the other wives of the Prophet (sa) as "mother of the believers".a mother in islam that kill her own children gets the capital punishment.ofcourse discussing why Imam Ali (as) didn't do that among other things (like reclaiming fadak which was usurped by abu bakr under a false premise) he chose not to do is a discussion for another day and have to do with analyzing the situation on ground. |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 1:04am On Sep 29, 2012 |
tbaba1234: @lagosshia, First of all,I wouldn't have "almost" called you a hypocrite if you'd have readily come out from "hiding" to face these issues at hand.you insisted on not talking about these issues and you even once as I recall opened a thread to complain about how the "Sunni-Shia division is destroying the ummah".but suddenly when you sensed someone (ghazzal) is ready to examine the facts you popped from no where to display the Sunni art of concealing the truth. I'm sorry if I offended you but next try to be even handed.instead of coming to act as the referee,you could have instead tackle the OP. all narrations about the saqifa banu saeda and other infamous events are narrated in Sunni sources and reliable ones for that matter.but obviously your "positions" are based not on what is found in Sunni sources but on tradition based on desires and your whims and caprices. Your "positions" are simply put "an attempt to rewrite the past with your mouths".your Sunni narrations hit you guys hard on these issues.it is just like when we Muslims use the bible against christians.the same the Shia use Sunni sources against Sunnis and their "positions",which ofcourse are baseless,shying from the truth and begging to rewrite history. I will quote Sunni sources on what they did and how they misbehaved. Saved a revolt? A "revolt" by who? If Islam is the "perfect and complete religion" then no one needs to act as "superman" or "spiderman" because everyone or the majority would know what to do and who to pay allegiance to as successor to the Prophet (sa).ofcourse Islam is perfect and complete and people knew who was the rightful successor of the Prophet (sa).but the coup at the saqifa banu saeda changed everything.the point is you don't make a revolt to save another "revolt".the saqifa banu saeda was a revolt on its own.
The history of al Tabari, Volume 9 page 193, English translation by Ismail Poonawalla "Umar said: When I saw that they wanted to cut us from our root and wrest authority from us, I wanted to make a speech, which I had composed in my mind. As I used to treat Abu Bakr with gentle courtesy to some extent and considered him more sober and gentler than me I conferred with him about the speech. When I wanted to speak he said gently so I did not like to disobey him...He said 'Now then: O men of the Ansar, you deserve all the fine qualities that you have mentioned about yourselves, but the Quraysh, for they represent the best in lineage and standing. I am pleased to offer you one of these two men; render your oath of allegiance to any one of them you like. Thus saying he took hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubaydah b. al-Jarrah".  I would only deal with the preceedings at the saqifa.but as a note of reminder,both abu bakr and umar were supposed to be away from arabia as at the time the Prophet (sa) was ill.Prophet Muhammad (sa) had insisted they both join the expedition under the leadership of Usama Ibn Zaid (ra),a lad in his late teens.but they refused to do that even when the Prophet (sa) had insisted.they finally had to suspend the expedition when the Prophet (sa) passed away.just before that there was the "incident of the pen and paper" when umar had disobeyed the Prophet (sa) on his deathbed and insulted him.read "hadith of pen and paper".ofcourse in all these incidents,Sunnis resort to finding excuses for their heroes. [I]When talking about the saqifa banu saeda,one cannot help but keep in mind that Prophet Muhammad (sa) had already nominated a successor who is to assume leadership and allegiance paid to him (i.e. Imam Ali a.s. ). [/i] Now let us examine this and pay attention to the last sentence: Tarikh, by al Yaqubi, Volume 2 page 113-114, quoted from History of Tabari, Volume 9 English translation by Ismail Poonawalla p 193 - 194: "By God we cannot give preference over you while you are the companion of the Messenger of God and the second of the two [in the cave at the time of the Hijrah]". Abu Ubaydah put his hand on Abu Bakr's hand and Umar did the same [in ratifying the bargain]. The Meccans who were with them did the same. Then Abu Ubaydah cried "O people of the Ansar, you were the first to help [the Prophet] so do not be the first to change and convert back to paganism". Next Abd al-Rahman b. Awf stood up and said, 'O people of the Ansar, although you do not have among you [anyone] like Abu Bakr, Umar and Ali'. [Thereupon] Mundhir b. al-Aqram stood up saying, 'We do not deny the merits of those you have mentioned. Indeed there is among you a person with whom if he seeks authority, none will dispute [i.e. Ali]". What happens next is a proposed compromise by Hubab i.e. that there be two Khalifa, one from the Ansar the other from the Quraysh 1 Hadhrath Umar immediately rejected the proposal: History of Tabari, English translation, Volume 9 p 194 "How preposterous! Two swords cannot be accommodated in one sheath. By God the Arabs will never accept your rule since their Prophet is not from you, but they will not reject the rule of one from whom is their Prophet. If anyone refuses our authority, we will [produce] a clear rebuttal and an evident proof. Who would dispute us with regard to Muhammad's authority and rule except the falsely guided one, or the erring one, or the one damned when we are his close associates and kinsfolk". History of Tabari, English translation, p 194 see footnote 1347 quoted Tabari Vol 1 p 1841 Umar's own commentary of what went on following his rejection of Hubab's proposal, he is narrating this event to the people during his period as Khalifa: History of Tabari, English translation, Volume 9 p 194 "Voices rose and clamorous speech waxed hotter. I feared [total] disagreement so I said to Abu Bakr, 'Stretch out your hand so that I may give you the oath of allegiance'. He did so and I gave [him] the oath of allegiance; the Muhajirun followed and then the Ansar. [In so doing] we jumped on Sa'd b. Ubadah so someone said that we had killed him. I said, '[May] God kill him! By God, nothing was mightier than the rendering of the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. We feared that if [we] left [without rendering the oath of allegiance], no agreement would be hammered out later. It was either to follow the Ansar in what we did not like, or else to oppose them, which would have led to disorder (fasad)". What Umar seems to have forgotten when recollecting the event is the fact that not all those present in the Saqifa gave Bayya (allegiance) to Abu Bakr, and they were adamant that their loyalties lay with another man who was not even present at the saqifa (i.e. Imam Ali a.s. ) : History of Tabari, English translation, Volume 9 p 186 "Umar stood up saying, "Who among you would be agreeable to leave Abu Bakr whom the Prophet gave precedence?" and he gave him the oath of allegiance. The people followed [Umar]. The Ansar said, or some of them said "We will not give the oath of allegiance [to anyone] except Ali".
According to Sunni narrations,it took Imam Ali (as) six months and until after the death of his wife,Sayyida Fatima Az-Zahraa (as) before he accepted the caliphate of abu bakr.based on Shia narrations,Imam Ali (as) never paid allegiance to abu bakr and coming to terms with abu bakr's rule is in no way justifying abu bakr or what happened at saqifa. The point that perplexing that Sunnis should answer is why were some people in the absense of the majority busy wrestling for power at a time when the Prophet (sa) passed away and his body wasn't even buried? -Umdahthul Qaree Volume 11 page 167 Bab Rajm -Saheeh al Bukharee, Sharh Kirmanee, Volume 23 page 219 -Irshad al Saree Volume 10 page 35 All three contain the proud admission of Umar: "By Allah, when matters that we were faced with following the death of the Prophet, namely his Ghusl, shrouding and funeral, we deemed the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr to be of greater importance". I will shortly present the Sunni narration from "Sahih Bukhari",only second to the Quran for Sunnis,which show clearly Imam Ali (as) rejected abu bakr's caliphate for nothing less than 6 months. Ofcourse to "tbaba",abu bakr and umar did nothing wrong leaving the body unattended to wrestle for power,nothing wrong in wrestling for power when the majority of people were busy with the Prophet's funeral.nothing wrong in usurping another man's right to leadership and nothing wrong in disregarding the Prophet's (sa) will.I will also shortly quote what Umar himself said about saqifa banu saeda disproving the sunni excuse that abu bakr was chosen by shura (consultation). That is solely your opinion.the events from when the Prophet (sa) was on his deathbed,name the "event of pen and paper" and the expedition of Usama Ibn Zaid (ra) show abu bakr and umar were up to something.their presence at saqifa to wrestle with the ansar and saad ibn ubaydullah ,instead of attending the Prophet's (sa) burial show they were power hungry.I kust quoted a hadith where umar admitted installing abu bakr as leader was more important to him than burying the Prophet (sa).
Here is your "mother" Aisha contradicting you Mr.tbaba: Sahih Bukhari Volume #: 5 Hadith #: 546 Narrator: 'Aisha "Fatima the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah's Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, "Allah's Apostle said, "Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.' By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah's Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah's Apostle used to do." So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect 'Ali much, but after her death, 'Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. 'Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet's death and Fatima's death). 'Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, "Come to us, but let nobody come with you," as he disliked that 'Umar should come, 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone " Abu Bakr said, "What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them' So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then 'Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), "We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Apostle ." Thereupon Abu Bakr's eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah's Apostle is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah's Apostle following, in disposing of it, but I will follow." On that 'Ali said to Abu Bakr, "I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon." So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of 'Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered; Then 'Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) for forgiveness, he uttered Tashah-hud, praised Abu Bakr's right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with. 'Ali added, "But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry." On that all the Muslims became happy and said, "You have done the right thing." The Muslims then became friendly with 'Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr)". Please note that the above narration is solely quoted by me to establish the fact that there was disagreement and malice between the Prophet's (sa) Household members and abu bakr and umar,the heros of sunnis.whatever sugarcoating is found in the above narration doesn't negate the fact that Lady Fatima (as) died in a state of anger at abu bakr and umar,she was buried at night to avoid abu bakr's presence and Imam Ali (as) didn't give the oath of allegiance for 6 months until his wife passed away.ofcourse I don't entirely agree with the narration on some points of sugarcoating.but nonetheless quoting the narration is useful because it is found in sunni book and it establishes there was dispute,some tbaba is denying entirely. Imam Ali (as) was no coward,accepted.but he wasn't a brute either.he was a wise man too who knew when and how to act and protest.and indeed he protested on a number of occassions for his right and that of his wife. umar's assault on the house of Lady Fatima (as) History of al Tabari (English translation), Volume 9 page 187: "Ibn Humayd - Jarir - Mughirah - Ziyad b. Kulayb:Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: "By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire." al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him."- History of al-Tabari, Volume 9 page 187 "Although the timing is not clear, it seems that Ali and his group came to know about Saqifa after what had happened there. At this point, his supporters gathered in Fatimah's house. Abu Bakr and Umar, fully aware of Ali's claims and fearing a serious threat from his supporters, summoned him to the mosque to swear the oath of allegiance. Ali refused, and so the house was surrounded by an armed band led by Abu Bakr and Umar, who threatened to set it on fire if Ali and his supporters refused to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene grew violent and Fatimah was furious".-Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri in his, v1, pp 582-586;Tareekh Ya'qubi, v2, p116;al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20. The names of those people who brought firewood to burn the House of Fatima (as) 1) Umar Ibn al-Khattab 2) Khalid Ibn al-Walid 3) Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf 4) Sabit Ibn Qais 5.) Ziad Ibn Walid 6) Mohammad Ibn Muslam 7) Zaid Ibn Sabit 8 ) Salamah Ibn Salamah 9) Salman Ibn Aslam 10) Aseed Ibn Hazeer (Reference:Kitab-ahlus-Sunnah,Tareekh al-Yaqoobi, J-2 Page #126). Umar's "love" for the Prophet (sa) : Umar went to Fatimah and said: "O' daughter of the Prophet! I didn't love anyone as much as I loved your father, nor anyone after him is more loving to me as you are. But I swear by Allah that if these people assemble here with you, then this love of mine would not prevent me from setting your house on fire." History of Tabari, in the events of the year 11 A Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri reported in his book Ansab al-Ashraf that Abu Bakr ordered Umar to get Ali with violence, then there was some talk between the two (Ali and Umar) and Ali said: "By Allah you are protective of his Imarat (reign) today so you can get it tomorrow..." Ibn Qutaybah in al Imamah wa al Siyasa page 14 records that: "Fatima said 'When I meet my father the Prophet (s), then I shall complain about the both of you (Abu Bakr and Umar), and said to Abu Bakr 'By Allah I shall curse you after every Salat". Note: in 'sahih bukhari',it is reported from the Prophet (sa) who said:"Fatima is a part of me.whoever angers her has angered me,and whoever anger me has angered Allah". Please check this out on the truth about abu bakr and the confiscation of fadak and the anger of Lady Fatima (from Sunni sources as usual): www.abubakr.org The Sermon Of Lady Fatima (as) To Abu Bakr https://www.nairaland.com/573841/sermon-lady-fatima-abu-bakr Please watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfV728bGtgw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEfV728bGtgw tbaba1234: ^ Remember, This is the shia narrative, n it is not accurate: You have to be careful what you take; Many of the references in the post above are either poorly presented, interpreted or just inaccurate.Your allegation is meaningless because when a Shia debate a Sunni the narrations the Shia give are from Sunni books of hadith.the next tactic you obviously would apply is to deny what is found in Sunni sources.like I earlier stated,you should tell us what is not accurate. The companions of medina in collaboration with egyptian rebels besieged Usthman and eventually murdered him.the precedence for all this turmoil was set in the Saqifa Banu Saeda where the caliphate was usurped by abu bakr and umar from the man the Prophet (sa) through divine order had nominated for Imamate.Aisha herself was among those who was inciting for the murder of Usthman: Ibn Qutayba in his book Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa records: Abdullah bin Muslim (ibn Qutayba) from Ibn Abi Maryam and Ibn Ufair – from Ibn Uon – from Mukhol bin Ibrahim and Abu Hamza al-Thumali – from Ali bin al-Hussain who said: ‘… then Ubaid said to her: ‘The first one to incite the people against him was you, and you used to say, ‘kill this Nathal because he has become dissolute.’’’ Ibn Atheer in ‘Al-Nahayah’, Volume 5 page 80 stated: The hadith “kill Nathal, may Allah kill Nathal" refers to Uthman. That happened from her when she got angry and went to Makka. |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 1:12am On Sep 29, 2012 |
umar's admission there was no shura (consultation) at saqifa banu saeda and why according to him Imam Ali (as) was deprived of his right Whilst the Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars proudly declare that the appointment of Abu Bakr was a model reflection of democracy in motion, the reality could not be much further, and what more honest an observation of Hadhrath Umar. He made this confession during his own Khilafath. This is what we find in Tabari, Ibne Abbas narrates: "While I was waiting in a station (manzil) in Mina, Abd-al Rahman bin Awf came to me saying came to me saying, "Today I saw a man who came to the Commander of the Faithful (i.e. Umar) and said I have heard so and so saying: If the Commander of the Faithful is dead I would give my oath of allegiance to so and so. The Commander of the Faithful said that he would get up among the people that evening and warn them against the group of the Faithful who want to usurp power". The History of Tabari, Volume 9, The Last Years of the Prophet, translated by Ismail Poonawalla, p191-192 Tabari then goes on to record the momentous speech given by Hadhrath Umar in a famous tradition: "It has reached me that someone of you said 'If the Commander of the Faithful is dead, I will give the oath of allegiance to so and so'. Let a man not deceive himself by saying that the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was an event that happened without consultation (faltah). Admittedly it was so, but God averted it's evil". The History of Tabari, Volume 9, The Last Years of the Prophet, translated by Ismail Poonawalla, p193 al Bukhari also records Hadhrath Umar's sermon in similar wording, and this addition: "I have been informed that a speaker among you says, By Allah if 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such and such person'. One should not deceive oneself by saying that the Pledge of allegiance given to 'Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of 'Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the Pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the Pledge of allegiance was given are to be supported, lest they both should be killed".  Sahih al Bukhari, Arabic-English Volume 8 hadith number 817, page 540 This speech itself nullifies any argument advanced by the majority school, i.e. that the coming to power of Abu Bakr was legitimate. There was no (shura) consultation, ijma the cornerstone of Sunni theology did not take place, Hadhrath Umar made it clear that it was 'evil' should the process be repeated again, the individuals concerned should be put to death. Whilst the majority school proclaim the legitimacy of Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr's khilafath, Hadhrath Umar not only rejected the validity of Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr's khilafath on the premise that no consultation had occurred, he was also negating his own khilafath for he was appointed by Hadhrath 'Abu Bakr - without consulting the companions. It is a reflection of the dedication to the institution of the apparent Khilafath of man that turns otherwise rational men to forsake the testimony of history and their own analysis of the key players themselves and rather to present the appointment of Hadhrath Abu Bakr in such terms as 'democratic', or a representation of the opinion of the Muslim majority (ijma). It is, of course, a baseless opinion, but one propagated in the form of such unrelenting dogma that one must at least admire the loyalty of the espousers of the institution if not their misplaced devotions. The reason for making this speech is what needs to be gleaned. Hadhrath Umar had heard that upon his death people would pledge allegiance to "so and so". Who was this "so and so" that Hadhrath Umar was referring to, that was the cause of this speech. Poonawalla in his translation of this edition of Tabari writes in footnote 1308 relating to Hadhrath Umar's speech as follows: "According to Baladhuri, Ansab I, 581, this was Zubayr, and the person whom he wanted to hail as caliph was 'Ali. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, on the other hand reports that the person who said it, according to al-Jahiz, was Ammar b. Yasir or, according to ahl al hadith, Talha; but the person they wanted to hail as caliph was 'Ali. It was thus Ali's name that made 'Umar disturbed and caused him to deliver a fiery speech".  The History of Tabari, Volume 9, The Last Years of the Prophet, translated by Ismail Poonawalla, p189, footnote 1308 In these early days both Ammar bin Yasir and Zubayr were Shi'i. So, the motive for the speech was to quash the rumors that the intention was to make Imam Ali the next Khalifa. This was merely a continuation of the policy that was implemented in the venets surrounding the Saqifa meeting. This was part of an unrelenting / systematic campaign to keep the khilafath out of the reach of the designated and rightful successor to the Holy Prophet and to instead formulate a counter, a perpetuation of the now entrenched Khalifa of Men, chosen by a handful of men to rule over men as opposed to the Khalifa of Allah chosen by Allah (swt) to serve Allah (swt) by guiding mankind. Hadhrath Umar's attitude to the issue surfaces during his khilafat, in one of those brief interludes between the demands that statesmanship make on a man. Speaking with impunity now as the second Khalifa and the designated 'Commander of the Faithful', Hadhrath Umar stated the following, as recorded by al Tabari who documents the following conversation between Abdullah ibne Abbas and Hadhrath Umar. Abdullah ibne Abbas narrates that Hadhrath Umar asked: "..Ibn Abbas! What prevented 'Ali from coming with us?' I replied, 'I do not know'. He continued, 'Ibn Abbas your father is the paternal uncle of the Messenger of God. You are his cousin. What has prevented your people from putting you [in authority]?' I replied that I did not know. He continued 'But I do know, they do not like you being put in charge of them'. I said 'Why, when we are good to them?' Umar replied O God [grant] forgiveness. They do not like you to combine Prophethood and the caliphate among yourselves, less it bring about self-aggrandizement and pride. You will perhaps say, 'Abu Bakr did this'. No indeed, but Abu Bakr did the most resolute thing he could. If he had made (the caliphate) yours, he would not have benefited you despite your close ties of relationship [to the Prophet]".  The History of Tabari, Volume 14, English translation, by G. Rex Smith, p136-137 Courtesy: http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/saqifa/en/chap6.php |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by tbaba1234: 6:42am On Sep 29, 2012 |
Alright, i would prefer if you guys are balanced in relating hadiths... Trying to fit things into your narrative by selecting hadiths is a very common practise amongst the shia unfortunately.... I wish you guys will take into consideration the science of hadiths.... I hope after this is clarified for you you will come back to the path of the prophet (SAW) and abandon the you hatred for his Companions The history of tabari is not an unauthenticated source of information, it is like i said; No authentic piece of information form the shia but we will come to that... I will start with the one with a chain of narration, The one about fatima.... Here is your "mother" Aisha contradicting you Mr.tbaba: The Shia say that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was angry at Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) in the incident of Fadak, but what about their own narrations that say that she was also angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at the same time? We read the following, as narrated by Al-Majlisi’s Haqq-ul-Yaqeen as well as in Al-Tusi’s Amali: “When Fatima asked for Fadak from Abu Bakr and he refused to give it to her, she returned full of anger that could not be described and she was sick; and she was angry with Ali because he refused to help her.” (Al-Majlisi’s Haqq-ul-Yaqeen, pp.203-204; also recorded in Al-Tusi’s Amali, p.295) It was only initially that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was angry at Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). The Shia endeavour to capitalize on her feelings to convey the idea that because she was wronged, she had directed that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should not attend her Janaazah and that she remained angry with him until her demise. We do not agree with this narrative, and we believe that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) eventually became pleased with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was not motivated by ill-feeling or malice for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) in the dispute regarding inheritance. In fact, placating her, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) frequently said: “By Allah! Oh daughter of Rasool-Allah! Kindness to the relatives of Rasool-Allah is more beloved to me than my kindness with my own relatives.” According to both Sunni and Shia narrations, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was greatly saddened by Fatima’s displeasure (رضّى الله عنها). He went to great lengths to please her while remaining firm on the Shariah. He went to her home, stood at her door in the midday sun and asked Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his intercessor in his sincere attempt to placate and please Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). Ultimately, she became pleased with him and accepted his decision. These narrations appear in Madaarijun Nubuwwah, Kitaabul Wafaa, Baihaqi and in the commentaries of Mishkaat. Kitaabul Muwaafiqah narrates that Anaani said: “Abu Bakr came to the door of Fatima in the midday sun and said: ‘I shall not leave from here as long as the daughter of Rasool-Allah remains displeased with me. Ali came to Fatima and giving her an oath urged her to become pleased. Then she became pleased (with Abu Bakr).” Shia records also confirm that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) became pleased with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). The Shia author of Hujjaajus Saalikeen states: “Verily, when Abu Bakr saw that Fatima was annoyed with him, shunned him and did not speak to him after this on the issue of Fadak, he was much aggrieved on account of this. He resolved to please her. He went to her and said: ‘Oh daughter of Rasool-Allah! You have spoken the truth in what you have claimed, but I saw Rasool-Allah distributing it (i.e. the income of Fadak). He would give it to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers after he gave your expenses and expenses of the workers.’ She then said: ‘Do with it as my father, Rasool-Allah had done.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘I take an oath by Allah for you! It is incumbent on me to do with it what your father used do with it.’ Fatima said: ‘ By Allah! You should most certainly do so.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘ By Allah! I shall most certainly do so.’ Fatima said: ‘O Allah! Be witness.’ Thus, she became pleased with this and she took a pledge from Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr would give them (Fatima and others of the Ahlel Bayt) expenses therefrom and distribute the balance to the Fuqaraa, Masaakeen and wayfarers.” In the very reliable narration of Sunan Al-Bayhaqi, we read: “When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, ‘O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.’ She answerd, ‘Do you want me to give him permission?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: ‘By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you, O Ahlel Bayt.’ So he talked to her until she was pleased with him.” (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi) This Hadith is narrated by Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (6:300-301) and Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (7:273-281) who said: “It is narrated with a good (hasan) chain.” Muhibb al Din al-Tabari cited it in al Riyad Al Nadira (2:96-97 #534) and Dhahabi in the Siyar (Ibid). Ibn Kathir states it as Sahih in his Al Bidayah and Ibn Hajar in his Fath Al Bari. How do we reconcile this Hadith with the Hadith narrated in Sahih Bukhari? This is a commonly used Hadith by the Shia propagandist: Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 325: Narrated by Aisha: After the death of Allah’s Apostle, Fatima–the daughter of Allah’s Apostle–asked Abu Bakr As-Siddiq to give to her what was her share of inheritance from what Allah’s Apostle had left of the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) which Allah had given him. Abu Bakr said to her, “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Our property will not be inherited; whatever we (i.e. prophets) leave is Sadaqah (to be used for charity).” Fatima, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude until she died. Fatima remained alive for six months after the death of Allah’s Apostle.” Both this Hadith and the Hadith stated earlier in Bayhaqi have been deemed to be authentic narrations by the Hadith scholars. Therefore, how do we reconcile the two? The explanation is simple: Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) may not have known that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) had reconciled with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was not present at that moment, so she was unaware of it. This does not mean that the event did not take place. Furthermore–and this point cannot be stressed enough–the Hadith narrated by Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) really means that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) did not speak to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) again about the issue of Fadak, not necessarily that she did not speak to him again at all. Even though Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was in the right, he nonetheless had the nobility and chivalry to continue trying to please Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), despite the fact that she was in the wrong. The Shia propagandist will oftentimes show narrations that show that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) regretted his causing Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) to be angry. We find nothing wrong in this, and we give the Shia the example of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who sought the good pleasure of Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) after the Battle of the Camel. In both situations, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were in the right, but they went to seek the good pleasure of the women, both of whom were close to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). Regarding the claim that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was averse to Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) attending her burial, this is also baseless. She was buried secretly during the night by Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in accordance with her wish. She was a lady of extreme modesty and shame. She dreaded any ghair-mahram viewing her body even after death. According to authentic narrations she said during her last illness that she felt ashamed that her body be washed after death among ghair-mahrams without Purdah. In response, Asma Bint Amees (رضّى الله عنها) explained that she had seen one woman’s body in Abyssinia whose corpse was concealed with date-branches. Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) requested her to prepare such a purdah in her presence. This she did. When Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) saw the purdah, she became delighted and smiled. This was the first occasion she had smiled since the demise of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). She instructed Asma (رضّى الله عنها) to give her body ghusl after death and besides Ali (رضّى الله عنه) no one else should be present. This was the reason for the secrecy surrounding her burial. It should also be noted that Asma (رضّى الله عنها) was the wife of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), which serves as another evidence that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) resolved her issue with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) before her death. (In any case, it is a blessing of Allah that we do not know the site of Fatima’s grave [رضّ الله عنها]. Had we known, the polythiestic Shia would definitely go to her grave and do Shirk like they always do! Allah saved her from this horrible fate, of being worshipped, especially by ghair-mahram men.) Furthermore, although Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not attend the burial of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), Ali (رضّى الله عنه) asked Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)–on the basis that he was Caliph–to conduct the Janaazah prayer. Consequently, Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) performed the Janaazah prayer. It is stated in the book Fasl ul-Hitab: “Upon Hadhrat Ali’s request, Hadhrat Abu Bakr became the imam and conducted the namaz (of Janaazah) for her with four takbirs.” Thus, it cannot be said that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) had said that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) should not lead the Janaazah, since Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is the one who asked Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to do it in the first place! There is more: Firstly: If Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) remained angry until her death, this does not look bad for Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), but rather it looks bad for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). She was clearly in the wrong, and we have cited evidence for this from the Shia’s own Al-Kafi, which clearly stated that Prophets do not leave inheritance. Thus, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) made an error, and if she never forgave Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), then she is angry at a man wrongfully. And not just any man–but the Caliph of the Ummah. This makes Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) look whimsical. The Sahabah–including Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه)–used to give half of their wealth, and even more than that, in charity. An unbiased observor could say that if Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) remained adamant in her anger over Fadak being given as charity, then this only makes her look greedy. She should be willing to give this property as charity for the benefit of the emerging Muslim state. It is for this reason that the Ahlus Sunnah makes excuses for Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) and gives her the benefit of the doubt, citing narrations that show that she indeed did become happy with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) near the end of her life. Perhaps it was that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) did not know that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) became happy with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) because he did not inform Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) about each and everything (such as when he placated Fatima). We take this opinion since it makes Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) look better, and not to make her look whimsical and greedy like the Shia narrative does. Furthermore, there are many narrations that indicate that this is indeed the case that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) made good with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), so why should we ignore these? Secondly: The Shia keep saying that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) carried a grudge “her whole life,” as if that was a very long time and thus somehow indicative of Abu Bakr’s grave mistake (رضّى الله عنه). Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) only lived six months after the Prophet’s death! So even if Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) made Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angry, her anger couldn’t have lasted more than a few months. This is not such a big deal, nor is it a long time. Perhaps she died so suddenly, within the span of a few months, that she did not get a chance to cool down; had she lived longer, then she would no doubt have let her anger subside. Who does not get into arguments with their siblings or other family members? Surely, a brother getting in an argument with a sister for a few months is not unheard of. But obviously the Shia are super human beings and they do not ever get into arguments with family members. Thirdly: It should be kept in mind that after the Prophet’s death, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was a highly emotional and distraught individual, since she loved the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) so much and missed him. Even the Shia say that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was never happy for the rest of her life after the death of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم); the Shia have exaggerated stories about how even Angel Jibraeel (عليه السلام) would comfort Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). So obviously, Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was in a bad mood, and we cannot lay the entire blame on the shoulders of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه); indeed, if the Shia want to lay the blame on someone, then lay it on Allah for taking away Fatima’s father. Her melancholy can be attributed to that, and we are not surprised then that she was extra sensitive towards others including the Caliph, who in her eyes, was replacing her father’s position as leader of the Muslims. The most reliable position is that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) reconciled with Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه). Q.E.D... Fatima’s anger (رضّى الله عنها) in context It should be noted that Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) is not God. Her anger does not decide who will go to Paradise and who will not. Not even the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) is God; nor will his anger decide who will go to Paradise and who will not. If the Shia ask us proof of this claim, then we give them the example of Washu who killed the Prophet’s uncle, Hamza (رضّى الله عنه). Washu would later convert to Islam and repent for his crimes; even still, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) could not help but feel anger when he saw the face of the man who killed his uncle. However, this was only the personal feeling of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). It does not mean that Washu would be condemned to Hell-Fire for crimes that he committed prior to his conversion to Islam. In any case, Fatima’s anger (رضّى الله عنها) is not the factor which decides who goes to Paradise and who burns in Hell-Fire. If Fatima’s anger (رضّى الله عنها) is based on something which is wrong from a Shariah standpoint [i.e. Fadak], then how can this be the reason for Abu Bakr’s condemnation (رضّى الله عنه)? Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) was angry at Ali (رضّى الله عنه) on at least one occassion: Ali (رضّى الله عنه) greatly upset Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) on many occassions, and even there were incidents in which she was so angry that she left Ali’s house (رضّى الله عنه) and went to stay with her father. Do we condemn Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as a Kaffir now? The Hadith about angering Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) must be taken into the appropriate context and cannot be taken in such simplistic and stark terms. It was actually Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who had angered Fatima (رضّى الله عنها), and consequently, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) chastised him by saying that whoever angers Fatima (رضّى الله عنها) angers him. I think this settles this issue... For more details see: http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65015 |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by tbaba1234: 6:45am On Sep 29, 2012 |
The other things you present are from unauthenticated sources.... I do not think; they deserve a look-in.... |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by ghazzal: 8:23am On Sep 29, 2012 |
@lagosshia,tbaba-thanks for the education and. ur time. may Allah reward us nd guide us aright. as i will read the link from tbaba, i just read some other sources too. my opinion.concerning Abubakr also is. he has responsibility on Fatima to protect her interest mainly in the hereafter for this life is secondary. The prophet will most likely do the same(saaw). going by the life of Alli as a caliphate, i read the shai disposition on it and it is clear that he did not say catigorically that his predessors have been unjust or insincere. Allah knows best. I also read in another post that some leaders are infallable-but it came to mind the hadith of the Propher (saaw) that no one will make paradise but by Allahs mercy, nd he was asked "including you rasulullah" and he answered yes, even me. this says the prophet is man nd can fall but Allah guides whom he wills aright. 1 Like |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by F00028: 9:58am On Sep 29, 2012 |
don't the shia only accept 3, though some books add Abu Musa al Ashari? what kind of God will aid his last Prophet against all his external enemies and him with the more dangerous internal? did he not know? |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by ghazzal: 10:38am On Sep 29, 2012 |
F00028: don't the shia only accept 3, though some books add Abu Musa al Ashari?[29:2] Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and they will not be teated.- the message was sent wholly and the great enemy of man will definately begin to find a way to cause mischief/hatred/division. there were hypocrites even before the prophet died. so the mischief maker has always been around. this is one of the tests after 23 years of education...success in it is definately the ultimate success. may most high God in his mercy guide us to success. amin |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by F00028: 11:56am On Sep 29, 2012 |
ghazzal: according to sunni traditions the hypocrites were already identified plus he (SAW) left clues by which to I.d later ones. my question was in relation to Prophet's (SAW) core group. keep in mind this was the last Prophet whose message is last till the end. |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by ghazzal: 12:21pm On Sep 29, 2012 |
F00028:i undetstand that but according to islamic teachings, eveyone will be tried even the prophets core group. the prophet (saaw) is the only example for mankind with special guidiance. If he can tolerate this pple, what should we do......... beteween the shades of black nd white are some matters not clear, they should be avoided. cos only Allah knows it all. again just my sincere opinion. 2 Likes |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by F00028: 2:05pm On Sep 29, 2012 |
ghazzal: |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 3:44pm On Sep 29, 2012 |
tbaba1234: The other things you present are from unauthenticated sources.... I do not think; they deserve a look-in.... Really who's fault is it you have contradictory hadiths in sunni sources both of which are "authentic"? One hadith in bukhari says Sayyida Fatima (as) was buried without the knowledge of abu bakr at night.and you brought out one hadith saying abu bakr led the janaza prayer.are you for real?since when is the hadith of bayhaqi more reliable than that of bukhari reported by Aisha? Oh wait! The excuse is Aisha could not have known that her father "reconciled" with Sayyida Fatima (as)! As in do you really believe all the crap in the article you posted? I really wouldn't waste my time refuting because it is crap made up of contradictory reports to even "neutralize" the authentic sunni reports in bukhari and the reports in al tabari graded well by sunni scholars of hadiths.as I predicted you'd resort to denying your own hadiths and playing the game of hadith language.but you're still wrong and in denial. Besides,your article cite the presence of Asma Bint Umais (ra) in washing the corpse of Sayyida Zahra (as) as evidence of abu bakr's knowledge.honestly how lame can sunnis get? Wasn't Asma Bint Umais previously the wife of Imam Ali's (as) brother before abu bakr married her,when Ja'far Ibn Abi Talib (ra) was martyred? In fact do you know the Shia hold in high esteem Abu Bakr's son,Muhammad Ibn Abu Bakr (ra) because he was opposed to his own father in support of Imam Ali (as).really nonsense claims.afterall Allah (swt) will surely guide to the truth whom He wills. At the end of the day what does all this prove? It proves sunnis are only after patching the past.tbaba had denied there was no disagreement.now he's rushing to copy a silly article by silly people aiming to play with their own minds to salvage their funny stance on certain issues. As for fadak,it was until the reign of Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz (decades after abu bakr's death) that the offspring of Sayyida Zahra (as) started to get return from the land of fadak according to sunni reports.now we have a sunni report cited in the article that abu bakr was still giving Sayyida Zahra (as) benefit from the land.oh yes,it like I steal your car and then give you lift with it.how silly? Whether shia or sunni report,abu bakr claiming prophets do not leave inheritance is a false testimony he attributed to Prophet Muhammad (sa).that testimony contradicts the Quran which cites propheys leaving MATERIAL inheritance.so the Quran takes precedence over any hadith whether in sunni or shia sources and over the lie of abu bakr.the Shia in their greatest scholars and ayatollahs never their likes found among sunnis know the science of hadith very well. I wonder why the daughter of the Prophet (sa) would not know that her father is a prophet who does not leave inheritance for her and she still went on to claim inheritance.it is either she,who was described by Prophet Muhammad (sa) as one of the four best women in creation,was a thief (astaghfirullah) or abu bakr was the thief! What's this sunni trick to "reconcile" the past? Does it really make sense or amount to the truth by trying to patch the past to support your confused sunni ideas? Can you imagine the nonsense in the article quoted by tbaba claiming that Sayyida Zahra (as) may not have liked abu bakr seeing her body during washing the body and burial because he wasn't related to her (ghair mahram)? In Islam,is it allowed at all for men to see the body of a woman even if those strange men are in good terms with the dead? The author of the article should ask himself: will unrelated males in good terms with his mother,see her naked body if she's dead and being washed? So what's this insult to the daughter of the Prophet (sa)? Even if abu bakr was beloved to Sayyida Fatima az-Zahra (as),he couldn't have being present where her corpse is being washed.so the excuse that abu bakr was snubbed isn't because of "seeing her body".this is filthy excuse.astaghfirullah! Then we come to the issue of Imam Ali (as) angering Fatima (as) in comparison to abu bakr angering Fatima (as) by usurping her right.first husband and wife can have misunderstandings and it is different from when an outsider anger you by forcefully stealing what belong to you.secondly,Sayyida Fatima (as) was angry at Imam Ali (as) because of a false allegation the hatemongers made.they alleged that Imam Ali (as) was planning to marry the daughter of abu jahl which got Sayyida Fatima (as) upset.and that allegation was false.sunnis should get real or please leave the religion of Islam alone.honestly such nonsense claims and ideas by sunnis are not only stirring anger in me but making this religion look silly.silly people calling themselves muslims is making islam to look silly.sunnis should get real asap! Another ridiculous point in the article is that it is a blessing we allegedly don't know the burial place of Sayyida Fatima (as) because the Shia "polytheists" (according to the author of the article Shia Muslims are polytheists) would be worshipping her grave.I don't really need to reply such nonsense but the author really need to read Surat al-Kahf were the burial place of "ashabul kahf" is taken as a masjid by the permission of Allah! Is Allah also promoting "polytheism" in the Quran? We neither worship graves nor anyone alongside or besides Allah (swt).also the wahhabis have already destroyed jannatul baqi in medina.so no need to talk nonsense about grave site.jannatul baqi is gone anyways thanks to sunni wahhabism. To conclude I really wonder why mr. Tbaba is now forced to resort to copying articles and give explanations on issues he intially even denied took place.how suddenly did these issues thousands of years old became real forcing him to explain them! Magic! Finally,all these arguments and counter-arguments to salvage the image of abu bakr and umar by sunnis,are made excluding the many evidence of the Prophet (sa) appointing Imam Ali (as) as his successor.from hadith al-manzila to hadith ath-thaqalain to hadith al-wilayah,to hadith of the pond of khumm etc.the same two men (abu bakr and umar) need so much arguments fabricated to shield them on numerous occassions.the question is if they were all that good as sunnis want us to believe then why the so many issues at them? These two men tried to change the legacy of the Prophet (sa) and the command of Allah (swt) and as a result presently majority of muslims do not believe in divine imamate of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and are astray! Imamate is the completion and perfection of religion found in Quran 5:3. |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 4:42pm On Sep 29, 2012 |
ghazzal: @lagosshia,tbaba-thanks for the education and. ur time. may Allah reward us nd guide us aright. That is from the context of life being a continuos trial till death and continuing to strive to success,which is pleasing Allah (swt).from the perspective of the Quran,God has promised the Prophet (sa) and the believers great reward and paradise. It is amazing how even the Prophet (sa) is alleged in sunni fabrications to have committed mistakes and even sins because he was "human" but ironically abu bakr and umar are shielded from sin or the possibility of anyone citing their ill-actions.immediately you do,you'd be accused in a generalized and exaggerated way of "insulting the companions of the Prophet" as if the companions were only two men and not thousands of men in arabia who lived with the Prophet (sa). As for Imam Ali (as) and his views on abu bakr,umar and usthman or his views on the caliphate which was usurped from him,I would advice you further google on the "occassions Imam Ali protested for the caliphate". May Allah (swt) guide us all to the truth of Muhammad (sa) and his pure Ahlul-Bayt (as). |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by takedat(m): 4:53pm On Sep 29, 2012 |
All muslims honor and respect the Ahlu'l Bayt but its appalling when Shia Muslims try to denigrate the other companions in their bid to prove the Khilafat of Ali(ra).Allah is the Possessor of Kingdom and He gives the Kingdom to whom He wills and He takes from whom He wills.Nothing takes place outside of His knowledge,so whatever might have transpired among the companions Allah has Full knowledge of it and He is the Best to judge among them. |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 4:55pm On Sep 29, 2012 |
F00028: [Holy Quran 9:101] "Among the Arabs around you, there are hypocrites. Also, among the city dwellers, there are those who are accustomed to hypocrisy. You do not know them, but we know them. We will double the retribution for them, then they end up committed to a terrible retribution". The Prophet (sa) said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount". 'Abdullah added: The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will be brought in front of me till I will see them and then they will be taken away from me and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'you do not know what they did after you had left.' Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 578 |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by LagosShia: 5:02pm On Sep 29, 2012 |
take dat: All muslims honor and respect the Ahlu'l Bayt but its appalling when Shia Muslims try to denigrate the other companions in their bid to prove the Khilafat of Ali(ra).Allah is the Possessor of Kingdom and He gives the Kingdom to whom He wills and He takes from whom He wills.Nothing takes place outside of His knowledge,so whatever might have transpired among the companions Allah has Full knowledge of it and He is the Best to judge among them. Did anyone claim here Allah (swt) does not have full knowledge? How does citing what is in sunni hadiths amount to denigrating anyone? Shouldn't the truth be told anymore? Don't muslims deserve to know that one of the pillars of faith is imamate? Should their eyes continue to be veiled? How does promoting the will of the Prophet (sa) and following the command of Allah (swt) amount to denigrating others? Is stealing what belong to another person the "will of Allah"? Should that be tolerated and not opposed? Should we follow shaitan and worship him because shaitan wants authority over creation and for man to worship him? Is usurping authority part of "He gives the Kingdom to whom He wills and He takes from whom He wills"? Sunnis should wake up,I repeat! |
| Re: The Actual Shia Position On The Sahaba by tbaba1234: 8:10pm On Sep 29, 2012 |
^ The hadiths have been reconciled; even with a shia source that shows that Fatima had reconciled with abu bakr.......of course you conveniently ignored that... What incident did i deny took place exactly?? Many of your references are unverifiable, built on quick sand... Your assumption that Fatima's (RA) must have known about the inheritance holds no weight... Your attempt at a rebuttal is poor to say the least, I think the evidence does not support the shia position at all... This can be done for all of the shia claims. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)
I Dont Think Ahmadiyya Are Muslims / Kano Grand Mosque Attack, Muslims And Terrorism / Why is it important for Muslim Woman to Use Hijab?
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 330 |