Waliyah Faqih and Saqifa

[Rationalist]

According to Iceman ISIS are the successors of Saqifa.

Well you've got to thank Saqifa and the Islamic Caliphate for that. They wanted to take matters into their own hands by not bothering with what the Prophet s.a.w had to write and offer. And it's the same people (ISIS) who were following their stance and ideology.

http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/shias-to-release-$10-12-million-budget-sectarian-themed-movie/msg27397/#msg27397


Please specify how ISIS are successor of Saqifa? Also, it is not only you who is saying  this. When you listen to the clips of the 12er Shia on the history of how Fatima departed this world many of the 12er Shia zakirs says this. However, they say this on the basis of Fatima (sa) passing. Then there is the  Zakat wars, but even this can be compared to any separatist movement. If group in Iran today wanted to separate from Iran Waliyah Faqih would do the same. As for the pen and paper incident, there is no confirmation that it supposed to appoint Ali as a Calipah. One can even say if Umar wasn't so quick to jump in maybe a Caliphate of Abi Bakr and Umar would be more protected.

Also, what is ironic is how Khomeini and Khamenei got in power is not much different. Khomeini overthrew the Shah just like how Abi Bakr over Sa'd ibn Ubadah. Khomeini was not the most knowledgeable person in Iran, but still he was chosen to lead. Abi Bakr in his deathbed appointed Umar despite Madina have many other senior sahaba who were more knowledgeable than him. Likewise, Khomeini too appointed Khamenei despite there being 80 other candidates who were qualified to lead the nation.

[Rationalist]

[iceman]

The book Saheeh Bukhari, compiled by Abu Abdillah Muhammad Ibn Ismail, later known as Imam Bukhari, is regarded as an important segment of the six so called authentic books (Sehaah-e-Sittah) of the Ahle Sunnah. After the Holy Quran, these six books are of utmost importance to the Sunnis when compared to other books. All the contents of these books are considered to be authentic and reliable and hence the term Saheeh.

Bukhari has quoted the second caliph Umar Ibn Khattab extensively on what transpired at the Saqifah of Bani Saa’edah:

Says Umar: Following the demise of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), news reached us that the Ansaar (Immigrants) had assembled at the Saqifah-i-Bani Saa’edah. I told Abu Bakr, ‘Let us go there so that we join our Ansaar brethren.’

Abu Bakr obliged and we reached Saqifah together. Ali, Zubair and their companions were not with us. At Saqifah, we observed that a group of Ansaar had brought someone with them who was completely covered. It was Sa’d ibn Ubaadah running a very high temperature. We sat besides them. A man from the Ansaar stood up and as had been decided, after praising Allah began to speak, ‘We are the friends and lovers of Allah. We are the soldiers and the strength of Islam. But you, O Muhaajireen, are few in number and …’

I (Umar) thought of replying but Abu Bakr pulled my sleeves and quietened me. He then himself stood up, and God is witness, said what I wanted to and he said it better than me.

Abu Bakr said, ‘O company of Ansaar! You are surely the recipient of the attributes which you have described and you have achieved them. But, Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish because they are renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position. It is only for your betterment that I do this, I present before you two people so that you may choose whomsoever you wish for the Caliphate. Saying this, Abu Bakr caught hold of my hand and that of Abu Ubaidah and presented us before the crowd. I disliked the last suggestion. While another Ansaar stood up and commented:

اَنَا جَذِيْلُهَا الْمَحْكُ وَ عَذِيْقُهَا الْمُوْجَبُ-

I am among you (O Ansaar) like a stick with which camels are driven or that tree which provides shade. If it is so, O Muhajireen! Then appoint a ruler amongst you and we will appoint one from amongst us. A great commotion erupted at this statement. We witnessed great opposition and rivalry. I took advantage of this commotion and said to Abu Bakr, ‘Extend your hand so that I may pay allegiance to you.’ Abu Bakr complied and I paid allegiance to him. Having done this, we gathered near Sa’d Bin Ubadah…. After this entire episode, if somebody pays allegiance to the Caliphate of any other caliph without the consultation of the Muslims, adhere neither to the follower nor the allegiance taker, for both are liable for capital punishment.

Saheeh Bukhari, Kitabul Hudud, Baabul Rajmul Hablaa, 4/ 119-120

Seerae Ibne Hisham, 4/ 336-338 Kanz al-Ummaal, 3/ 139- Hadith 2326

Now how true is the above and how authentic and reliable are the sources is one thing. If this is authentic and reliable then I'd like to mention a few points.

"But, Caliphate and government is only the right of the Quraish"

Where's the consultation here? And how exactly is Caliphate and government the right of the Quraish only?

The reason Abu Bakr gave for this is,

"because they are renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position"

This is and is based on tribalism. Then Abu Bakr goes,

"It is only for your betterment that I do this, I present before you two people so that you may choose whomsoever you wish for the Caliphate"

How on earth is that better? On what basis and reasoning.

Here on An Ansar stands up and says this,

"Then appoint a ruler amongst you and we will appoint one from amongst us. A great commotion erupted at this statement"

What? "A great commotion erupted at this statement" Why? Who was behind the eruption of a great commotion? There was only three Muhajir. So who and what was the reason for this eruption? This is exactly like a handful of people, not even a handful but just only three Muhajir threatening by erupting that if we don't get our way there probably will be violence. Just like ISIS and other terror groups pushing their ideology of Caliphate exactly the same way. They played the threatening card. ISIS etc carry them out.

"We witnessed great opposition and rivalry"

From whom? The Ansar put an offer forward and due to that "A great commotion erupted at this statement" then "We witnessed great opposition and rivalry". Gosh, the three Muhajir are really playing it well here.

"I took advantage of this commotion and said to Abu Bakr, ‘Extend your hand so that I may pay allegiance to you"

So Umar took advantage of this commotion rather than doing the right thing. Well talking about the right thing, that would have been allowing the Prophet s.a.w access to pen and paper. Umar was the cause of great commotion there as well.

[muslim720]

The reason Abu Bakr gave for this is,

"because they are renowned for their nobility and lineage, manners and conduct throughout the Arabian Peninsula and enjoy an undisputed position"

This is and is based on tribalism.

Isn't Wilayah or Imamah based on lineage and familial ties?  I see no problem with Abu Bakr's (ra) opinion being swayed by tribalism especially when we know that the Holy Prophet (saw) mentioned that Islam will be upon glory until 12 leaders from Quraish have ruled.

What? "A great commotion erupted at this statement" Why? Who was behind the eruption of a great commotion? There was only three Muhajir. So who and what was the reason for this eruption? This is exactly like a handful of people, not even a handful but just only three Muhajir threatening by erupting that if we don't get our way there probably will be violence. Just like ISIS and other terror groups pushing their ideology of Caliphate exactly the same way. They played the threatening card. ISIS etc carry them out.

No, a better analogy would have been Soleimani, Al-Muhandis and the Iraqi PM, the first two of whom are enjoying a sauna experience with minions of Iblees.  These three worked together to quell any and all protests in Iraq, killing several hundred people within hours.

So Umar took advantage of this commotion rather than doing the right thing.

Umar (ra) took "advantage of this commotion" and your infallible Imam (ra), who controls the atoms and universe, was sidelined.  And the one who should have been here to guide us is also not doing the right thing, let alone take advantage of the power vacuum.  So much for the world requiring a guide at all times; the world already has many failed leaderships.  No need for the hidden one to come out and add on to that list.

[Rationalist]

This is exactly like a handful of people, not even a handful but just only three Muhajir threatening by erupting that if we don't get our way there probably will be violence. Just like ISIS and other terror groups pushing their ideology of Caliphate exactly the same way. They played the threatening card. ISIS etc carry them out.

You need to specify how ISIS is related. When Khomeini came rising in Iran he didn't allow anyone to oppose him decisions. This is how he replied  to those who opposed his rule. 
“I repeat for the last time: abstain from holding meetings, from blathering, from publishing protests. Otherwise I will break your teeth,” he said.

So Umar took advantage of this commotion rather than doing the right thing. Well talking about the right thing, that would have been allowing the Prophet s.a.w access to pen and paper. Umar was the cause of great commotion there as well.

With so much support in Iran with Khomeini I wonder why the 12th Imam did not even appear and take over. Even with Waliyah Faqih many 12er Shia are still crying for the 12th Imam to come.

After watching this video it seems that Waliyah Faqih did not do much for the 12er Shia but cause a great commotion. At first the 12er Shia blamed Sunni Islam. However, even with a 12er Shia government they are still showing signs of great frustration.

[iceman]

You need to specify how ISIS is related. When Khomeini came rising in Iran he didn't allow anyone to oppose him decisions. This is how he replied  to those who opposed his rule. 
“I repeat for the last time: abstain from holding meetings, from blathering, from publishing protests. Otherwise I will break your teeth,” he said.
With so much support in Iran with Khomeini I wonder why the 12th Imam did not even appear and take over. Even with Waliyah Faqih many 12er Shia are still crying for the 12th Imam to come.

After watching this video it seems that Waliyah Faqih did not do much for the 12er Shia but cause a great commotion. At first the 12er Shia blamed Sunni Islam. However, even with a 12er Shia government they are still showing signs of great frustration.

"You need to specify how ISIS is related"

I've already mentioned this. Through the ideology of violence and threatening behaviour.

"When Khomeini came rising in Iran he didn't allow anyone to oppose him decisions"

That's not true. Important members of the government were being killed by MEK. Who killed Muhammad Ali Rajai, Bahishti, Mutahri etc. The whole Iranian parliament was blown up killing 72 members. Khomeini and inner members of his circle along with the Iranian government were victims of terrorism and violence. Why do you deliberately turn a blind eye to absolute facts. Now if Khomeini got sick and tired of violence and threatening behaviour towards his circle and the government then decide to act, can you blame him. Those who had differences with Khomeini did they want to discuss by means of dialogue? No. They turned towards terror activites.

"“I repeat for the last time: abstain from holding meetings, from blathering, from publishing protests. Otherwise I will break your teeth,” he said"

If he said that then we can't blame him for all the killings and propaganda that took place against him and the government.

"With so much support in Iran with Khomeini I wonder why the 12th Imam did not even appear and take over"

That's something you need to ask God. He's in charge of all the affairs and what goes on. Not the Messengers, Prophets or Imams. Everything is at the will of Allah and how he wants it. I can say the same to you, where is the Sunni Mahdi, the saviour that suppose to come. What's taking him so long.

"Even with Waliyah Faqih many 12er Shia are still crying for the 12th Imam to come"

Why are you losing sleep over it. You need to have an open mind and think rationally to understand these things. All you're interested in is toying and mocking. So anything based on logic and reason won't have any effect on you what so ever.

"However, even with a 12er Shia government they are still showing signs of great frustration"

And so is the rest of the Muslim Ummah. Don't they believe in a saviour which will come by the name of Al Mahdi? Why will he come. What's his purpose when you've got Saqifa and Caliphate? What went wrong and will get worse and terrible.

[iceman]

Isn't Wilayah or Imamah based on lineage and familial ties?  I see no problem with Abu Bakr's (ra) opinion being swayed by tribalism especially when we know that the Holy Prophet (saw) mentioned that Islam will be upon glory until 12 leaders from Quraish have ruled.


No, a better analogy would have been Soleimani, Al-Muhandis and the Iraqi PM, the first two of whom are enjoying a sauna experience with minions of Iblees.  These three worked together to quell any and all protests in Iraq, killing several hundred people within hours.


Umar (ra) took "advantage of this commotion" and your infallible Imam (ra), who controls the atoms and universe, was sidelined.  And the one who should have been here to guide us is also not doing the right thing, let alone take advantage of the power vacuum.  So much for the world requiring a guide at all times; the world already has many failed leaderships.  No need for the hidden one to come out and add on to that list.

"Isn't Wilayah or Imamah based on lineage and familial ties?"

No it isn't. You don't have a clue about the Shia belief and faith. It's based on the orders of Allah.

"I see no problem with Abu Bakr's (ra) opinion being swayed by tribalism especially when we know that the Holy Prophet (saw) mentioned that Islam will be upon glory until 12 leaders from Quraish have ruled"

Abu Bakr said that the leader should be from the Quraish because of superiority. He put down a condition. Muhammad s.a.w didn't put down a condition. He just made a prediction. That's the difference.

"No, a better analogy would have been Soleimani, Al-Muhandis and the Iraqi PM, the first two of whom are enjoying a sauna experience with minions of Iblees.  These three worked together to quell any and all protests in Iraq, killing several hundred people within hours"

You need to stop daydreaming. They were there for a very important meeting with the Saudis. America felt threatened that if Iran and Saudi Arabia merge together then the west would collapse. Iraq and Pakistan were working to bring the two together. That's what Soleimani was in Iraq for.

"Umar (ra) took "advantage of this commotion" and your infallible Imam (ra), who controls the atoms and universe, was sidelined"

If we go by your ideology and understanding then astaghfirullah Satan has been taking advantage while God has been taking the back seat. God has been sidelined by Iblees. Use your aql. Don't become so blind.

"So much for the world requiring a guide at all times; the world already has many failed leaderships"

Failed leaderships? Where's Saqifa? Where's Caliphate? What happened to it? That's what happens when you ignore the Prophet's s.a.w advice and take matters into your own hands.

[muslim720]

No it isn't. You don't have a clue about the Shia belief and faith. It's based on the orders of Allah.

Really?  If we accept that Imam Ali (ra) was appointed at Ghadeer, on what basis do you confer Imamah on the remaining 11, most importantly the last 9 (not included in Hadith Al-Kisa) if not based on familial line?  There is not a single authentic Shi'i hadith that names the 12 Imams (ra) in order of succession but the Shias blessed each succeeding Imam with the honor solely based on his bloodline.

About time you stop lying for us to take you seriously.

Abu Bakr said that the leader should be from the Quraish because of superiority. He put down a condition. Muhammad s.a.w didn't put down a condition. He just made a prediction. That's the difference.

Abu Bakr's (ra) condition was fulfillment of the Holy Prophet's (saw) prediction.  All the Shias in the world could not have done what Abu Bakr (ra) did with relative ease.

You need to stop daydreaming. They were there for a very important meeting with the Saudis. America felt threatened that if Iran and Saudi Arabia merge together then the west would collapse. Iraq and Pakistan were working to bring the two together. That's what Soleimani was in Iraq for.

I like to curse you because you think we are stupid.  Soleimani had just returned from Lebanon after quelling protests and uprisings there.  Saudi Arabia, as bad as they are, will not spit on Iran's face.  They are well on their way to "Vision 2030" whereas Iran is still stuck in its sinister ways, hoping for the next uprising in Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia so that they can infiltrate the uprising with their own proxies or on-sale Shias that they purchase for the price of onions from Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

If we go by your ideology and understanding then astaghfirullah Satan has been taking advantage while God has been taking the back seat. God has been sidelined by Iblees. Use your aql. Don't become so blind.

Only a dimwit like you would equate my reasoning to what you just said!  Allah (swt) is not sidelined but is in full command.  He (swt) has not forsaken us.  Compare that with the words of Imam Ali (ra) who, in Nahjul Balagha, asked people to go find someone else for the position of Caliph.

Failed leaderships? Where's Saqifa? Where's Caliphate? What happened to it? That's what happens when you ignore the Prophet's s.a.w advice and take matters into your own hands.

Caliphate, at least by name, existed until 1924.  It has not even been 100 years since its demise.  Your scared Imam is yet to show face in the last 1000+ years!  You got one thing right.....that's what happens when you ignore the Holy Prophet's (saw) teachings and side with your own desires.

[Khaled]

He put down a condition. Muhammad s.a.w didn't put down a condition. He just made a prediction. That's the difference.

Several things:

1) Muslims call what the Prophets عليهم الصلاة والسلام predict "prophecies."
2) If it is not a condition, then we don't have to follow it, we just wait for it to happen.
3) If it is a prophecy, then your interpretation of who the 12 are are just as valid as Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn Hajar's (of course not really).
4) If it was a prophecy; then the Shi'a interpretation of who it was didn't come true because the 12 Shi'a Imams did not rule over the Muslims are per the prophecy.
5) If it was a prophecy, then no hukm shar'ee can be extracted from it, therefore, no aqeedah or fiqh can be derived from it.  If no hukm shar'ee can be derived from it, then it cannot be used for evidence for the appointment of an Imams, infallible or not.

Good job refuting yourself

[Rationalist]

I've already mentioned this. Through the ideology of violence and threatening behaviour.

No you didn't. You said at Saqifa there were threats made, and ISIS they actually did it. This is not a comparison.

That's not true. Important members of the government were being killed by MEK. Who killed Muhammad Ali Rajai, Bahishti, Mutahri etc. The whole Iranian parliament was blown up killing 72 members. Khomeini and inner members of his circle along with the Iranian government were victims of terrorism and violence. Why do you deliberately turn a blind eye to absolute facts. Now if Khomeini got sick and tired of violence and threatening behaviour towards his circle and the government then decide to act, can you blame him. Those who had differences with Khomeini did they want to discuss by means of dialogue? No. They turned towards terror activites.

Yes MEK without a doubt is a terrorist group. This is known internationally. However, the response method that Waliyah Faqih used to get revenge is also unislamic and very brutal. They tortured prisoners with the worst methods. They even got revenge on their women and children.

If he said that then we can't blame him for all the killings and propaganda that took place against him and the government.

Is he faultless for killing women and children of such family?

That's something you need to ask God. He's in charge of all the affairs and what goes on. Not the Messengers, Prophets or Imams. Everything is at the will of Allah and how he wants it.

At the same the 12er SHia believe that only 12 Calipahs can legitimately rule over the Ummah. Isn't Waliyah Faqih a bidah?

I can say the same to you, where is the Sunni Mahdi, the saviour that suppose to come. What's taking him so long.

He is not the imam of the time for us. His imamate will not occur until people give him the bayah in Makkah. So, until then our aqeeda doesn't revolve around him.
Why are you losing sleep over it. You need to have an open mind and think rationally to understand these things. All you're interested in is toying and mocking. So anything based on logic and reason won't have any effect on you what so ever.

And so is the rest of the Muslim Ummah. Don't they believe in a saviour which will come by the name of Al Mahdi? Why will he come. What's his purpose when you've got Saqifa and Caliphate? What went wrong and will get worse and terrible.

Al Mahdi rule for Sunnis will not be much different than Imam Ali (as). Muawiyah and Ali were close in age. However, Muawiyah lifespan and rule surpassed, Imam Ali. Likewise, for Sunni he will rule for 7-9 years only and than the Dajjal will overpower his rule.  Also al Mahdi is not among the Mutawatir belief. Some great scholars also denied the concept, and I think they are still momins.