Hadith where Ali (RA) confirms he was never promise the Caliphate

[Furkan]

Ok, so those Sahaba who did accompany Hussain (as) to Karbalaa are called and known as Kafir by Shias??? Can you provide me a reference for this.

I said " those sahaba that didn't go are called kafir by kafir shias".

Those Sahaba didn't go because they didn't want to cause fitna??? Subhanallah! I am surprised at you knowledge and thinking. So Hazrath Hussain (as) was responsible for causing fitna???

I would never take a stance against Al Husayn. I meant that many sahaba didn't engage in politics this time because of previous wars actually, they just gave their bayah hoping that everything would become better.

Husayn didn't planned to engage in war on his way to kufa but once he met enemies on his way, he didn't have a choice anymore. As for the sahaba, they didn't have cellphones back in time to get informed about everything instantly.

Double standards??? Where are the double standards??? Oh, let me tell you, Jamal and Safeen. This is where the double standards are. Using the banner of Sahabiath, just to protect and defend a handful who are accused and ripping Sahabiath off certain companions because they opposed and challenged others, this is double standards.

this again -_-

Invoked??? Well that's all he can do. What else is he capable of???

Invoking you twice

[Ameen]

Provide me with a reference where Shias call those Sahaba Kafir, who didn't acompany Hussain (as) And you directly accused Hussain (as) of engaging in fitna or those who sided and acompanied Hussain (as) of fitna. Now you're just trying to wirl your way out of it. It seems to me you severely lack in knowledge and information about Karbala and what led to it.

[Furkan]

Refer to the video of yasir al habib where he slanders umar ibn ali. I asked a shiite for the reason of this slandering by this shiite scholar and he told me it's bcuz umar ibn ali didn't go with Husayn.

Don't accuse me of things, which I didn't say and you have many baseless assumptions there, don't you think Mr. Question?

[Hani]

Nor did Muhammad bin `Ali go.

[Hadrami]

Nor did Muhammad bin `Ali go.

speaking of muhammad bin ali, dont shia believe that mukhtar asked permission to rebel from him instead of asking permission from the infallible imam?

[Furkan]

Yes true.

[Hani]

Mukhtar was the man who evolved Ibn Saba's' idea of Wasiyyah into the Imamah we know today, he said the Imam of his time was Muhammad ibn `Ali. Simply because the emphasis back in those days was mainly on `Ali's person, not his children.

I think it's recorded in Imami books that Mukhtar is a liar, although he is loved by Shia yet when Imami narrations were being fabricated, the Kaysani sect was still very strong and they had many numbers, to the extent where Kaysanis played a key role in overthrowing banu Umayyah and installing the `Abbasi rule. Kaysanis are directly linked to al-Mukhtar, so this is why non-Kaysani Imamis attacked al-Mukhtar's person (which never worked very well because he DID kill Husayn's killers so he's VERY loved in the Shia street until today).

It's not something Shias believe, it's actually truth, al-Mukhtar did claim that ibn al-Hanafiyyah was the one who gave him permission, people bought it.

[Furkan]

A shiite said the following to me:

"He (mukthar) has bad things and good things on his record"

He said the same about zayd bin ali.

Why can't the shiites atleast say the same thing about sahaba ?!

[Khaled]

Mukhtar was the man who evolved Ibn Saba's' idea of Wasiyyah into the Imamah we know today, he said the Imam of his time was Muhammad ibn `Ali. Simply because the emphasis back in those days was mainly on `Ali's person, not his children.

I think it's recorded in Imami books that Mukhtar is a liar, although he is loved by Shia yet when Imami narrations were being fabricated, the Kaysani sect was still very strong and they had many numbers, to the extent where Kaysanis played a key role in overthrowing banu Umayyah and installing the `Abbasi rule. Kaysanis are directly linked to al-Mukhtar, so this is why non-Kaysani Imamis attacked al-Mukhtar's person (which never worked very well because he DID kill Husayn's killers so he's VERY loved in the Shia street until today).

It's not something Shias believe, it's actually truth, al-Mukhtar did claim that ibn al-Hanafiyyah was the one who gave him permission, people bought it.

Akhi, we really should try to get together and start a project detailing this history; a lot of what you are saying is news to me.  I think it would work best if you created a basic outline and I do the "grunt work."

[Hani]

Insha-Allah I'll let you know when I researched it sufficiently, it may take years.

[Furkan]

it may take years.

Lol i almost died when i read this

[Hadrami]

Mukhtar was the man who evolved Ibn Saba's' idea of Wasiyyah into the Imamah we know today, he said the Imam of his time was Muhammad ibn `Ali. Simply because the emphasis back in those days was mainly on `Ali's person, not his children.

I think it's recorded in Imami books that Mukhtar is a liar, although he is loved by Shia yet when Imami narrations were being fabricated, the Kaysani sect was still very strong and they had many numbers, to the extent where Kaysanis played a key role in overthrowing banu Umayyah and installing the `Abbasi rule. Kaysanis are directly linked to al-Mukhtar, so this is why non-Kaysani Imamis attacked al-Mukhtar's person (which never worked very well because he DID kill Husayn's killers so he's VERY loved in the Shia street until today).

It's not something Shias believe, it's actually truth, al-Mukhtar did claim that ibn al-Hanafiyyah was the one who gave him permission, people bought it.

Shia tried to minimise the possible damage it may cause by portraying the reason mukhtar asked permission from al hanafiyah instead of infallible was because he was told to do so by the imam.

Imam was afraid to do anything. Not as bad as the one who has been afraid for his life for 1000+ yrs tho

[Shia not Rafidi]

I've a question gentlemen,,
the brand new shia argument is :
Khilafat/imamat may be of two types..
shar'i khilafat and Zameeni khilafat, Ali ra was asked to stay away fr worldly things so he didn't unleash his sword against the usurpers but He was just a Shar'i khalofa and he did it with all his strength i.e issuing fatwas, shar'i rulings, he answered every single question about deen Islam amd shriat and that is the mission of an imam..

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I've a question gentlemen,,
the brand new shia argument is :
Khilafat/imamat may be of two types..
shar'i khilafat and Zameeni khilafat, Ali ra was asked to stay away fr worldly things so he didn't unleash his sword against the usurpers but He was just a Shar'i khalofa and he did it with all his strength i.e issuing fatwas, shar'i rulings, he answered every single question about deen Islam amd shriat and that is the mission of an imam..

Which was the Caliphate which Abbas(RA) wanted to ask Prophet(saws) during his final illness, and Ali(RA) said that, if Prophet(S) denies, people would never appoint them as Caliph?

Secondly If Sharai Caliphate is something which means issuing Fatwas, Sharai rulings, answering religious questions, then many of major and knowledgeable Sahaba were involved in this task.

[Shia not Rafidi]

Which was the Caliphate which Abbas(RA) wanted to ask Prophet(saws) during his final illness, and Ali(RA) said that, if Prophet(S) denies, people would never appoint them as Caliph?

obviously they gonna reject this naration saying that aint hujjah on us..

Secondly If Sharai Caliphate is something which means issuing Fatwas, Sharai rulings, answering religious questions, then many of major and knowledgeable Sahaba were involved in this task.

but we are discussing about shitie beliefs,the answer to this is gonna be "Yes but No one was more knowledgeable than Ali RA and the supposed Imams"

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

obviously they gonna reject this naration saying that aint hujjah on us..

If they to set their own rules suitable for them, then its futile to discuss with them.

Because spiritual duties of a Caliph were also being performed by the worldly caliphs, like commanding jihad, leading prayer, judging the affairs of people, etc.

Secondly, how is their current Imam performing this duty? And who is performing this duty now?

[iceman]

'Ali (ra) was not the type of person who believed in political pragmatism.

This was evidenced when he assumed the Khilafa, and many of his followers, including his cousin Ibn 'Abbas (ra), advised him against changing any of 'Uthman (ra)'s governers.

He refused this advice and did what he thought was right - even if it was political suicide.

Also - even earlier in life, he refused to change "Muhammad Rasul Allah" during the signing of the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.

'Ali (ra) was a single minded man - he believed what he believed, and noone could change or temper his mind.

This was Sunni 'Ali (ra).

Ali had his principles. He was a man of principles. Caliphate and getting into authority wasn't more important to him than his principles. He wouldn't sell himself short or go out of his way just to get into authority like the others.

[iceman]

Al-Abbas held him by his hand and said: "Don't you see that in three days you will be an 'abd al-'asa [i.e. a lowly despicable person]? It seems to me that the Messenger of Allah will die from this sickness of his, for I know how the faces of Abdul Muttalib's sons look at the time of death. So return to the Messenger of Allah, and ask him who will get this authority (i.e. the Caliphate). If it is to be with us, we shall come to know that (from him); if it is to be with others, he will command accordingly and entrust (that person) with us."

Ali replied: "By Allah, if we asked the Messenger of Allah and he denied it to us, the people will never give it to us. By Allah, I will never ask the Messenger of Allah."

(Tareekh al-Tabari, Vol.9, pp.175-176)

So the matter of Caliphate and who should succeed Muhammad s.a.w by getting into authority was a hot issue and on people's mind after all.

[iceman]

Logic says that Ali RA didn't believe he had a right to khilafaat before Abu Bakr ra Umar ra and Usman ra.
WHY???
When Ali ra believed he was in the correct against Aisha RA and Muaviyaa RA, he was ready to go into battle with them and he did.

Shias will say, thats because he had many supports at that time and at Abu Bakrs time he didnt have supports!

Well then we will say that, Husayn ra at the OLD age of 58 with 70 plus family members was ready to fight for his right, but Ali ra at the YOUNG and PEEK age of 33 was not ready to take the Khilafat from Abu Bakr or Umar Or Usman RA?

Shias will say that Ali ra was doing taqiyaa.
Well, this is abusing Ali ra because you are calling him a coward who has not ready to stand up for his rights.
 
[edit]

Let me answer such a simple matter for you. Rather than you asking and answering based on assumption that "Shias will say...".

"When Ali ra believed he was in the correct against Aisha RA and Muaviyaa RA, he was ready to go into battle with them and he did"

Ali didn't go into battle with them they raised arms against him.

"Well then we will say that, Husayn ra at the OLD age of 58 with 70 plus family members was ready to fight for his right, but Ali ra at the YOUNG and PEEK age of 33 was not ready to take the Khilafat from Abu Bakr or Umar Or Usman RA?"

There was a difference between the time of Ali and the time of Husayn. And both were facing different situations and dealing with different people altogether. Read history and you will get to know this.

[iceman]

Imam Ali never took up arms against Abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman. Some Ahlul Sunnah scholars try and argue that this shows he was not opposed to them. This is an incorrect analysis and a misunderstanding of Imam Ali’s thinking and motivations.

The reason Ali did not fight after the death of the Prophet (S) is because he did not want to divide the nascent, infant Muslim community. He did not want innocent Muslims to die in battle, killing each other, in order to take power. The historians, Sunni and Shia, record how Abu Sufyan offered him troops but Imam Ali turned him down and criticised his divisive offer.