thank u for ur knowledge and the points you have given,
The problem is not with the Prophet delegating his authority to Ahl al Bayt, I dont really see a problem with that either, the problem is claiming that he did, especially if it results in the condemnation of virtually everybody and the conclusion that the Prophet had no true followers besides his family.
No matter what anybody says, the sahaba(r) will always have great and amazing people in their midst. To curse all of the sahaba is equivalent to a non-muslim that curses all of Islam and it's followers; baseless and borderline ignorant. What the topic of discussion does seem to angle towards in this topic is
specific sahaba's whom the shi'ite of Ali(r) may or may not find very plausible ( which is not impossible, the 5th imam of shi'ite islam, Muhammed al Baqir, had a brother who betrayed him. It goes to show that as holy as 1 may be, it may not render the entire family perfect, which is the same for Ahlebayt).
You have to consider that the most authentic wording is the one found in sahih Muslim which says " I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family.
Sorry is it possible for you to clarify this part a little? I had a little trouble understanding.
Good points with the clarification of the Ahlebayt(r), but would it not be entirely possible that Husain's whole point was to clarify it to the people, primarily zaid? The part '
Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. ' could show his own clarification and reiteration of the information given, kind of like how in some sahih sitta narrations the prophet repeats this part three times : '
I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. ' . My own opinion, can be considered baseless.
And last but not least, if people want to prevent from being led astray, they should follow in the footsteps of the Ahl al Bayt who pledged allegiance to the three khulafa before Ali which people have no way of explaining except to resort to the concept of taqiyya.
Fair and understandable, although a few points.
1. We know from history that Hazrat Hassan and Hussain (r) did not pledge allegiance to the Caliphate, or want-to-be caliphate of that time and even when Hassan (r) signed a peace treaty with specific rules and conditions ( was not an allegiance but a stalemate, and also very possibly due to the amount of military power Muawiya had ) , Muawiya broke the treaty anyways, may or may not had a hand in the assasination of Hassan, and thereby, his son, waged war on Hussain (r). It was because there was no more room or space for consideration and reasoning; Muawiya did what he wanted to do and It was only left for the princes of paradise to defend themselves the best they could.
2. On the topic of Taqiyyah, Shi'ites believe that this is only allowed and permissible
only, only, only when one has his life in a hazardous position, and under risk of prosecution and harm. If one believes the Imam's did Taqqiyah, then they must therefore believe their lives were under risk. If believing the latter, of them not being under risk, then one must then think about other questions : Why was Ali (r) being cursed in the mosques before khutbah's and prayers? What was Muawiyah's ultimate reason of the Martyrdom of Hussain (r), and many of other questions.
3. To reiterate and conform point 2. , The Shi'ite belief of the allegiance to the Caliphate from Ali (r) has specific reasons. Ali (r) was told numerous times in narrations by the Prophet himself (saw) that he shall and must stay patient in all circumstances. Shi'ites belief this was tested and Ali (r) passed during the situation when Umar wanted Ali to pay his allegiance ( I have seen a sahih sitta narration that may or may not confirm this, but is not on my mind at the moment ) and brought his men to question Ali at his home. In this process, Umar was said to have threatened Ali with the burning of his house, and pushed the door of his home, knowingly or unknowingly harming the Daughter of the Prophet Fatima (r) as she stood behind the door because she was missing her veil.
( NOTE I AM ACADEMICALLY EXPLAINING THE VIEW OF A SHI'ITE WITH THIS REGARD.) there are shi'ite narrations that pertain to this topic but locating them in sahih sitta may or may not be swift or possible). In this case whether you belief this situation, then you must see how Ali was forced , by the prophets word, to maintain his patience.
If this hadith and part of history
were to be true, it shows the length of respect Ali(r) had to the prophet (saw) and the level of taqwa he had to Allah (swt). If Ali were to attack Umar in this situation, maybe me and you would not be having this discussion at the moment. Maybe the patience of Ali (r) actually saved our Ummah so that Islam would actually still be on this Earth. Especially during the time where the prophet was trying to spread Islam in the most efficient way as possible.
Note: these are my opinions and for the most part the general consensus of a Shi'ite belief. I personally am extremely weak in references of narrations but I can definitely give it a shot if one would like. (It could be a place I need learning and training on ) All in all, I think even the mention of the Ahlebayt during that time is a beauty in itself. I don't see it being wrong in following the Ahlebayt of the prophet ( who turn out to be the next 12 imams in Shi'ite Islam).
Please correct and place criticism where needed.
28 Replies
7872 Views
January 12, 2015, 01:52:06 AM