I would like to make this a short and brief essay about one of the main reasons why I left Shi'ism. I am sure my fellow reverts from Shi'ism have talked about the misinterpretation of Hadith al-Ghadeer and the contradictions within the Rafidi view of Hadith ath-Thaqalayn and the many things about Shi'ism that simply do not add up. But I would like to address a big issue that actually right from the beginning hindered my adherence to Shi'i Rafidism which is
What exactly was so awful about Abu Bakr?Shi'ism has always asserted the view that Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman were awful, murderous, oppressive, impious etc etc. Now it was very easy for me to embrace hatred for Umar and Uthman due to all the Rafidi criticism (using largely weak hadiths might I add), but I could never in my heart I don't think accept that Abu Bakr was evil. I mean every time the Shi'ah cite a source against him it didn't seem to paint him as evil. In fact some of them even paint Abu Bakr in a good light. Here I will quote a post from shiachat that does just that.
Abu Bakr said (on his death bed): "I wish I had not searched for
Fatimah's house, and had not sent men to harass her, though it would
have caused a war if her house would have continued to be used as a
shelter."
Sunni books references:
- History of Ya'qubi, v2, pp 115-116
- Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234982731-attack-to-house-of-fatimah-by-umar-and-abubakr/Now let's analyse this. If we read this, it doesn't paint Abu Bakr as an evil oppressive tyrant. It paints him (provided that these reports are trustworthy) as a sincere individual who regretted what happened, he clearly did it with the best of intention. It shows him as "
as-Siddiq". Also let's look at this critically:
- They are using historical sources that accept the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and Umar
- They are using historical sources that affirm a lot of the Sunni view
- So why don't they accept Sunni sources?
I'd also like to address another point about the issue of hypocrisy and nitpicking with Sunni sources. The Shi'i Rafidi scholar names Sayyid Kazim Tabataba'i made a book examining all the narrations that could be seen as affirming the Shi'ah Rafidah perspective in Musnad al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (RH) called "Glimpses of Shi'ism in the Musnad of Ibn Hanbal" (here it is
http://islamicmobility.com/pdf/Glimpses%20of%20Shiism%20Musnad%20Ibn%20Hanbal.pdf). Now I'm sure if we went through the Sanad of all these narrations we'd find many of them to be weak. And I'm sure there are many arguments in there that have been refuted as favouring Shi'ism on this forum and elsewhere. But let's point out a few things.
- He is accepting the authenticity and reliability of Ahmad ibn Hanbal
- He is using the narrations of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and therefore must accept the truthfulness and reliability of the narrators that he has used
So then why won't he accept narrations like these?
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abbas: Ali bin Abi Talib came out of the house of Allah's Messenger during his fatal illness. The people asked, "O Abul Hasan (i.e. Ali)! How is the health of Allah's Messenger this morning?" 'Ali replied, "He has recovered with the Grace of Allah." Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib held him by the hand and said to him, "In three days, you, by Allah, will be ruled (by somebody else ), And by Allah, I feel that Allah's Messenger will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of 'Abdul Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah's Messenger and ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us." Ali said, "By Allah, if we asked Allah's Messenger for it (i.e. the Caliphate) and he denied it us, the people will never give us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah's Messenger for it."
- Musnad al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal; Volume 4, Hadith 2374 & Volume 5, Hadith 229
"It was said: O Messenger of Allah, Who should be installed as a leader after you? He said: If you install Abu Bakr, you will find him honest, ascetic in this life and desirious of the Hereafter. If you install Omar, you will find him strong, honest, fearing in Allah no one is to blame. If you install Ali, and I don't think you will, you will find him guided, guiding you to the straight path."
- Musnad al-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal; Volime 2, Hadith 859
And countless other hadiths on the virtues of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (RA), Umar al-Faruq (RA) and Uthman al-Ghani (RA).
I'd like to finish on this point. The great historian and scholar Jalaladdin as-Suyuti (RH) narrated this Hadith in his book Tarikh al-Khulafah:
Az-Zubayr ibn Bakkar and Ibn Asakir narrated that Ma'ruf ibn
Kharrabudh said: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with
him, was one of ten men of Quraysh who united pre-eminence in Jahiliyyah and Islam. He had responsibility for the settlement of blood-money and debts. That was because Quraysh had no king to whom all affairs could be referred. Rather in each tribe there was a general area of responsibility which resided in its chief; so that Banu Hashim had responsibility for giving (the pilgrims) to drink, and feeding them (by collecting from the tribes of Quraysh), meaning that no-one ate or drank except from their food and drink. Banu 'Abd ad-Dar had responsibility for being the doorkeepers and guardians (of the Ka'bah) and for the banner and council, i.e. no-one could enter the House without their permission, and whenever Quraysh fastened on the banner of war, the Banu 'Abd nd-Dar bound it for them, and whenever they assembled together for a matter, either to confirm or annul it, their assembly could not be anywhere but in the House of Council, nor decided upon except there, and it belonged to Bani 'Abd ad-Dar.’
- Tarikh al-Khulafah, Volume 1
So according to the history books, Abu Bakr (RA) had an extremely high position in the Quraysh and was held in very high regard. But he gave this all up to join the Prophet (SAW) and become one of the first Muslims. But we're to belief this man was a Munafiq?