Ansar @ Saqifa + New Video from Rafida Channel

[al-Irshād]

al-Salaamu Alaykum,

I am unsure how to properly insert a video link, so if the above does not work, hopefully someone can edit it in for me, insha'Allah.

Has anyone here been following the content of this new Channel?

Comments and thoughts on the video's content are welcomed.

I don't need to remind people to observe basic akhlaq when commenting and addressing the substance of his speech and arguments. This is for educational and intellectual purposes only, and I have no patience or tolerance for poisonous and offensive words which often accompany polemics.


Can anyone shed light on the narrations he refers to which suggest a section of the Ansar refused to give Bay'a to anyone except Imam Ali?

If we work with the assumption that Imam Ali was declared the Master and successor of Rasoolillah (s), and this was known amongst the people of Madinah, I find it strange to think that the Ansar would then run off to discuss leadership following the death of the Prophet (s) presuming they have some right to it, only then to contend that, following the suggestion it ought to remain with the Quraysh, they will only give Bay'a to Imam Ali.

I do recall reading reports in which the Ansar make mention of Imam Ali's absence, but I cannot recall the finer details of them. Perhaps those with more knowledge could provide them here for some context.

The issue with his central thesis, I believe, is that it implies that Imam Ali was made the Prophet's (sawa) successor prior to his death (by Will, as indicated by the rumours addressed by Ayesha) whereas the Imami Shi'a contend there was numerous implicit and explicit declarations throughout his (sawa) life. There is no doubt that's Imam Ali felt he was entitled to the office, the issue here is whether this assumption rests on his being directly nominated or based on fadail, kinship, and precedence in Islam.


Thoughts and comments appreciated.

[Hani]

Salam,

Again we go back to the same issue, which is that their research was not conducted to find truth but to boost their sectarian claims, (I don't need to watch the clip but I read your summary).

Instead of diving into historical sources to find out what really took place, they opened the books, ignored the vast bulk of their contents and made efforts to find anything they can use to suggest that `Ali was appointed.

The answer to their little cherry-picking clip is in my book on Saqifah:
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/02/17/book-saqifah-shura/

Read it and understand the flaws in their understanding and methodology.

(PS. clip was removed as we do not allow the posting of long lectures or articles by new members)

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I believe, is that it implies that Imam Ali was made the Prophet's (sawa) successor prior to his death (by Will, as indicated by the rumours addressed by Ayesha).

These rumours were spread by Sabaees.

[Farid]

Can anyone shed light on the narrations he refers to which suggest a section of the Ansar refused to give Bay'a to anyone except Imam Ali?

Wa alaykum alsalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh,

It is narrated in Tareekh Al-Tabari through Ibn Humaid Al-Razi, who is an infamous liar, so that is one defect in the chain. It is a disconnected report as well. So those are two obvious issues I noticed without even looking up the narrators. The guy in the video quotes Ibn Al-Atheer as well as an alternative source. However, Ibn Al-Atheer quotes Al-Tabari extensively. I am sure it is the same narration.

According to the authentic Sunni version of events, Ali is not mentioned. The Ansar wanted the Khilafa and Abu Bakr reminded them that the Prophet - peace be upon him - limited the Khilafa to Quraish. This itself is proof against the appointment of Ali.

Imagine this was a modern day situation. King Salman of Saudi appointed Mohammad bin Nayif bin Abdulaziz as his successor. Then imagine King Salman passing away, all the princes gather, and discuss who should be the next prince. Then, someone from the Bin Laden family appears and tries to get a piece of the action. They respond to him by saying, "Salman said that the ruler would be from Aal Saud!!!" Surely, the man from the Bin Laden family would accuse them of hypocrisy, since everyone knows that Mohammad bin Nayef is the successor.

However, there are no accusations of hypocrisy. The Ansar completely relinquish their desires and support Abu Bakr. What do they have to gain from doing this? No Shia has been able to answer this question.