did some sahaba preferred ali(r.a) over Abubakr(r.a)?

[Hani]

I don't even understand how `Ali can be better than Abu Bakr, the man embraced Islam without question while being in his thirties or late twenties, he had a wife and family, he had an important status in society and a lot to lose. `Ali embraced Islam as a boy around seven or eight per my research and per the popular opinion as well (he died at 58 at the year 40, do the math) he was living off of the Prophet (saw) and residing in his house. Abu Bakr spent his wealth on Islam and freed slaves and helped convert many of the major Islamic personalities to Islam. `Ali had nothing to offer at the time and he hid his Islam while Abu Bakr was the first to announce his Islam publicly. Abu Bakr defended the Prophet (saw) when the pagans assaulted him and got beaten up more than once for doing so, he had no weapons nor an army behind him. Abu Bakr risked his own family's life by ordering them to help the Prophet (saw) escape Makkah. `Ali was under the protection of his strong tribe. While Abu Bakr served as the companion and right hand man of the Prophet (saw), `Ali was maturing and became a strong warrior whose main contribution was on the battle fields, Allah even instructed the Prophet (saw) to consult Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr with a known weakness in his body still participated in battle and fought valiantly. The Prophet (saw) appointed Abu Bakr to lead armies, he appointed him as the first man to lead the Muslims to Hajj and teach them the rites and he appointed him to lead the prayer of the Muslims in his final days. When the Prophet (saw) died it was Abu Bakr who addressed the Muslims and handled the situation, it was he who calmed them down, it was he who instructed them on how to pray Janazah and how to bury the Prophet (saw), it was Abu Bakr who stopped the Fitnah that could have happened between the Muhajiroun and the Ansar, while `Ali did nothing except stay with his relatives in Fatimah's house. When he as a Caliph, Abu Bakr was the first man to collect the Qur'an, not `Ali as they falsely claim. Abu Bakr established the religious state officially and defended it from its enemies at a sensitive time when it was weak and the situation was chaotic. Abu Bakr only had three women and died not leaving much wealth, while `Ali had many wives (Fatimah, Khawla, Umamah, Umm al Banin, Layla, Asma', Umm Habib, Mukhbi'ah, Umm Sa`id) and a long list of mothers of children (nineteen female servants who bore him many kids) as well as vast lands (check his Will in Sunni and Shia books).

[MuslimK]

I don't even understand how `Ali can be better than Abu Bakr, the man embraced Islam without question while being in his thirties or late twenties, he had a wife and family, he had an important status in society and a lot to lose. `Ali embraced Islam as a boy around seven or eight per my research and per the popular opinion as well (he died at 58 at the year 40, do the math) he was living off of the Prophet (saw) and residing in his house. Abu Bakr spent his wealth on Islam and freed slaves and helped convert many of the major Islamic personalities to Islam. `Ali had nothing to offer at the time and he hid his Islam while Abu Bakr was the first to announce his Islam publicly. Abu Bakr defended the Prophet (saw) when the pagans assaulted him and got beaten up more than once for doing so, he had no weapons nor an army behind him. Abu Bakr risked his own family's life by ordering them to help the Prophet (saw) escape Makkah. `Ali was under the protection of his strong tribe. While Abu Bakr served as the companion and right hand man of the Prophet (saw), `Ali was maturing and became a strong warrior whose main contribution was on the battle fields, Allah even instructed the Prophet (saw) to consult Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr with a known weakness in his body still participated in battle and fought valiantly. The Prophet (saw) appointed Abu Bakr to lead armies, he appointed him as the first man to lead the Muslims to Hajj and teach them the rites and he appointed him to lead the prayer of the Muslims in his final days. When the Prophet (saw) died it was Abu Bakr who addressed the Muslims and handled the situation, it was he who calmed them down, it was he who instructed them on how to pray Janazah and how to bury the Prophet (saw), it was Abu Bakr who stopped the Fitnah that could have happened between the Muhajiroun and the Ansar, while `Ali did nothing except stay with his relatives in Fatimah's house. When he as a Caliph, Abu Bakr was the first man to collect the Qur'an, not `Ali as they falsely claim. Abu Bakr established the religious state officially and defended it from its enemies at a sensitive time when it was weak and the situation was chaotic. Abu Bakr only had three women and died not leaving much wealth, while `Ali had many wives (Fatimah, Khawla, Umamah, Umm al Banin, Layla, Asma', Umm Habib, Mukhbi'ah, Umm Sa`id) and a long list of mothers of children (nineteen female servants who bore him many kids) as well as vast lands (check his Will in Sunni and Shia books).

+1

Well said! There is no doubt about the superiority of Abubakr over the rest of the Sahaba including Ali. No one's contribution to Islam can be compared to Abubakr's from the early Makkan period to his last days in Madina.
 

[Rationalist]

I don't even understand how `Ali can be better than Abu Bakr, the man embraced Islam without question while being in his thirties or late twenties, he had a wife and family, he had an important status in society and a lot to lose. `Ali embraced Islam as a boy around seven or eight per my research and per the popular opinion as well (he died at 58 at the year 40, do the math) he was living off of the Prophet (saw) and residing in his house. Abu Bakr spent his wealth on Islam and freed slaves and helped convert many of the major Islamic personalities to Islam.

Indeed Abi Bakr's contributions were great, but to compare the two is like comparing apples to oranges. Just because Ali didn't have wealth and maturity at the time, doesn't mean we should conclude therefore, he had nothing to give.
Who is the one who prepared dinner for the Qurash when the Prophet was inviting the people to Islam in the beginning? Who is the one who stood up when the Prophet (pbuh) asked his family about the support?

`Ali had nothing to offer at the time and he hid his Islam while Abu Bakr was the first to announce his Islam publicly.

Not sure where you got this. Please provide details where Ali hid his Islam.

Abu Bakr defended the Prophet (saw) when the pagans assaulted him and got beaten up more than once for doing so, he had no weapons nor an army behind him. Abu Bakr risked his own family's life by ordering them to help the Prophet (saw) escape Makkah.

Who risked his life to sleep in the Prophet (pbuh) bed at that time/ When the boycott occurred against the Hashim tribe, and Khatijah spend her saving to save the Muslims, it was Ali who used to travel and get food etc. At this time Abi Bakr was gone to safety.
 

While Abu Bakr served as the companion and right hand man of the Prophet (saw), `Ali was maturing and became a strong warrior whose main contribution was on the battle fields, Allah even instructed the Prophet (saw) to consult Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr with a known weakness in his body still participated in battle and fought valiantly. The Prophet (saw) appointed Abu Bakr to lead armies, he appointed him as the first man to lead the Muslims to Hajj and teach them the rites and he appointed him to lead the prayer of the Muslims in his final days.

Who spread Islam in Yemen. Today there is a mosque named after Ali due to his presence.

When the Prophet (saw) died it was Abu Bakr who addressed the Muslims and handled the situation, it was he who calmed them down, it was he who instructed them on how to pray Janazah and how to bury the Prophet (saw), it was Abu Bakr who stopped the Fitnah that could have happened between the Muhajiroun and the Ansar, while `Ali did nothing except stay with his relatives in Fatimah's house.

Its not the whole story. Ali himself wanted the lead role for Caliphate but he was to busy with the burial while Saqifa occurred.

Abu Bakr only had three women and died not leaving much wealth, while `Ali had many wives (Fatimah, Khawla, Umamah, Umm al Banin, Layla, Asma', Umm Habib, Mukhbi'ah, Umm Sa`id) and a long list of mothers of children (nineteen female servants who bore him many kids) as well as vast lands (check his Will in Sunni and Shia books).

I don't understand how this counts as superiority.

[Hani]

((Who is the one who prepared dinner for the Qurash when the Prophet was inviting the people to Islam in the beginning? Who is the one who stood up when the Prophet (pbuh) asked his family about the support?))

Oh he cooked dinner? That's not even remotely important, our mothers and wives cook dinner all the time, doesn't grant them superiority over pious believers. The story itself is false and inaccurate in my opinion, I don't believe in it nor does it make sense altogether, add on top that there's no reason for `Ali to even respond since the question was addressed at the pagan relatives of Muhammad (saw) not at `Ali who was a Muslim at the time.

((Who risked his life to sleep in the Prophet (pbuh) bed at that time/ When the boycott occurred against the Hashim tribe, and Khatijah spend her saving to save the Muslims, it was Ali who used to travel and get food etc. At this time Abi Bakr was gone to safety.))

I don't believe that he slept in his bed, I didn't find authentic evidence I trust about this incident. As for Khadijah we're not discussing her.

((Who spread Islam in Yemen. Today there is a mosque named after Ali due to his presence. ))

It wasn't `Ali who first spread it there, Islam was already spread before him and the Ash`ari and Dawsi tribes had already embraced it.

((Its not the whole story. Ali himself wanted the lead role for Caliphate but he was to busy with the burial while Saqifa occurred. ))

So what if he was busy with burial preparations? It's the family's duty to prepare for the burial of their dead. If your father or brother passed you'd be preparing for their burial as that's your duty, you don't send strangers to prepare them. Secondly, this event itself needs verification because I recall the correct opinion is that the preparations for the Prophet (saw) began on Tuesday AFTER the Bay`ah, `Ali was not preparing the Prophet (saw) on Monday when Saqifah took place, he and his relatives were gathered at Fatimah's house on Monday.

((I don't understand how this counts as superiority.))

To me this is one of the most important factors related to a man's superiority. A man who was poor then became rich and wealthy after receiving authority is a VERY IMPORTANT FACTOR.

[Rationalist]

I don't believe that he slept in his bed, I didn't find authentic evidence I trust about this incident. As for Khadijah we're not discussing her.

During that boycott against the Prophet (pbuh) and Khatijah's involvement it was Ali who was there to provide tribal support in addition instead of Abi Bakr.

[AbbaBelloKanwa]

May Allah guide Us.

[Optimus Prime]

Ali (RA) even announced, and reminded everyone during his rein that Abu Bakr (RA), and Umar (RA) are superior to him. This is without a question being posed to him like is the case with his son. This adds weight to the fact that Abu Bakr's (RA) resume of fadhail is unmatched. I believe these narrations are authentic (mutawatir level)?

This is fact is further substantiated by the narration where Ali (RA) even threatens his own retarded people that he'll lash any of them who utters such blasphemy.

[Rationalist]

This is fact is further substantiated by the narration where Ali (RA) even threatens his own retarded people that he'll lash any of them who utters such blasphemy.

Can't be authentic. The Rafidah did not exist in era. They are started emerging a few decades after of Karbala. Even Al Mutkhar was not a Rafidi.

[Optimus Prime]

This is fact is further substantiated by the narration where Ali (RA) even threatens his own retarded people that he'll lash any of them who utters such blasphemy.

Can't be authentic. The Rafidah did not exist in era. They are started emerging a few decades after of Karbala. Even Al Mutkhar was not a Rafidi.

Yes, it is authentic. according to our Hadith scholars. You can't dismiss something as not authentic just because it doesn't compliment your semi-Rawafidh tendencies. I know the truth hurts, but grow some balls, and accept it on the chin.

The followers of Ali (RA) at the time were Shia politically, and not theologically. They were the Rafidah ancestors, and laid the foundation of Tashayu to go sky-born decades later.

[Rationalist]

Yes, it is authentic. according to our Hadith scholars. You can't dismiss something as not authentic just because it doesn't compliment your semi-Rawafidh tendencies. I know the truth hurts, but grow some balls, and accept it on the chin.

So Ali didn't want to lash Abu Sufyan for making Rafidi claims? Also, who authenticated it?

The followers of Ali (RA) at the time were Shia politically, and not theologically. They were the Rafidah ancestors, and laid the foundation of Tashayu to go sky-born decades later.

No if we read the Quran it says 'No soul shall bear the burden of another's sins.'

[Optimus Prime]

ibn Hajr (RA) to my knowledge.

Abu Sufyan didn't make Rafidhi claims like you, and your fellow side-kicks do. He was still thinking tribalism at the time of the Prophet's (SAW) death, and thus offered him support. He didn't openly declare and announce that Ali (RA) was superior to Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA), but had a grudge against the tribe of Abu Bakr (RA) that was Banu Taim.

The Rafidhi murmurings weren't born, and didn't start to circulate until Ali's (RA) rein, so he had a massive community of retards to deal with who kept barking how Abu Bakr (RA), and Umar (RA) were usurped his right to rule. A completely different dilemma than dealing with single individual. This eventually turned to into a theological deviation after Karbala.

That Qur'anic verse doesn't disapprove the Ahlus Sunnah's stand point how the Shias at the time of Ali's (RA) life never made it a point of theology that he, and the Ahlul Bhayt were the rightful (divine) rulers of Ummah. It was strictly politcal, emotional, and a matter of collective ijtehed by a bunch power hungry lunkheads.

[Rationalist]

ibn Hajr (RA) to my knowledge.

He said it based on what claim?

The Rafidhi murmurings weren't born, and didn't start to circulate until Ali's (RA) rein, so he had a massive community of retards to deal with who kept barking how Abu Bakr (RA), and Umar (RA) were usurped his right to rule. A completely different dilemma than dealing with single individual. This eventually turned to into a theological deviation after Karbala.

No I don't believe it existed during Ali's Caliphate.

That Qur'anic verse doesn't disapprove the Ahlus Sunnah's stand point how the Shias at the time of Ali's (RA) life never made it a point of theology that he, and the Ahlul Bhayt were the rightful (divine) rulers of Ummah. It was strictly politcal, emotional, and a matter of collective ijtehed by a bunch power hungry lunkheads.

Non-Sense. The Shias at the time did not believe in divine appointed. This bidah came in later.

[Optimus Prime]

Based on no claim, but based on Rijal methodology, criteria, and understanding - another daft question.

No one cares what you believe mate, but history, and authentic Hadith literature is saturated with this very undeniable fact. If that doesn't tickle your fancy then feel free to reject just like a typical Rafidhi. Man the irony!

I never said that the retards (Shia of Ali) believed he was divinely appointed. You mis-understood my point. My IS and WAS that the narration that you refuse to accept supports Abu Bakr's (RA) fadhail because of Ali (RA) threatened anyone who was placing him above his master (RA). You see Ali (RA) wasn't dim like his "Shia" because he was there in person when he heard the Ahadiths from the lips of his father in law (SAW) praising Abu Bakr (RA) which, confirms his status is beyond any doubt that he his the BEST person in this Ummah, period.

His "Shia" were too retarded to accept this fact, but to their credit they never cursed him. Those were their successors that came at least a couple of decades later.