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

[Optimus Prime]

Narration of `Ali (RA):

[By Allah the creator, if the Prophet (saws) promised me (the Khilafah) I would have done Jihad for it, I would not have allowed ibn abi Quhafa to climb one step from his Mimbar.]

Source: Fada'il al-Siddeeq by al-`Ashari, pg34 #16.

Thanks to Hani for sharing the narration.

[Husayn]

'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).

[Hadrami]

He RA also refused his uncle suggestion to ask Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam about this issue. It is a proof that not him nor his uncle knew anything about Ali RA being appointed. Anyone remember that hadith?

[Optimus Prime]

He RA also refused his uncle suggestion to ask Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam about this issue. It is a proof that not him nor his uncle knew anything about Ali RA being appointed. Anyone remember that hadith?

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)

[Hadrami]

thanks bro, but i was thinking about similar narration in either Bukhari or Muslim. I cant remember which.

[Rationalist]

The 12ers have ahadith where one of the Rafidah supposedly silenced Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as).

حدثني علي بن محمد بن قتيبة القتيبي، قالا حدثنا الفضل بن شاذان، قال حدثني أبي، عن محمد بن جمهور، عن بكار بن أبي بكر الحضرمي قال، : دخل أبو بكر و علقمة على زيد بن علي، و كان علقمة أكبر من أبي، فجلس أحدهما عن يمينه و الآخر عن يساره، و كان بلغهما أنه قال ليس الإمام منا من أرخى عليه ستره، إنما الإمام من شهر سيفه، فقال له أبو بكر و كان أجرأهما يا أبا الحسين أخبرني عن علي بن أبي طالب (عليه السلام) أ كان إماما و هو مرخي عليه ستره أو لم يكن إماما حتى خرج و شهر سيفه قال، و كان زيد يبصر الكلام، قال، فسكت فلم يجبه، فرد عليه الكلام ثلاث مرات، كل ذلك لا يجيبه بشي‏ء، فقال له أبو بكر إن كان علي بن أبي طالب إماما فقد يجوز أن يكون بعده إمام مرخي عليه ستره، و إن كان علي (عليه السلام) لم يكن إماما و هو مرخي عليه ستره فأنت ما جاء بك هاهنا، قال، فطلب إلى علقمة أن يكف عنه فكف. محمد بن مسعود، قال كتب إلي الشاذاني أبو عبد الله، يذكر عن الفضل، عن أبيه، مثله سواء
 
788. Narrated to me Ali bin Muhammad bin Qutayba al-Qutaybi who said: narrated to us al-Fadhl bin Shadhan who said: narrated to me my father from Muhammad bin Jumhur from Bakkar bin Abi Bakr al-Hadhramiy who said: my father - Abu Bakr and Alqamah entered upon Zayd bin Ali, and Alqamah was older than my father (they were brothers), so one of them sat to the right of Zayd and the other to his left, and they had been informed that he (Zayd) had said: the Imam from us is not one who draws the curtains around himself (i.e. a metaphor for performing Taqiyyah – secluding oneself at home), rather the Imam is the one who unsheathes his sword, so Abu Bakr said to him, and he was the more daring (bolder) of the two, O Abu al-Husayn (i.e. Zayd), inform me about Ali bin Abi Talib عليه السلام, was he an Imam while his curtains were drawn around him or was he not an Imam until he came out and unsheathed his sword?, he (Bakkar) said: and Zayd was someone who understood arguments - so he kept quiet and did not answer him, so he (Abu Bakr) repeated the question to him thrice, while he (Zayd) kept on not answering him with anything, so Abu Bakr said to him: if Ali was always an Imam than it is also allowed for an Imam after him to be someone whose curtains are drawn around him, and if Ali was not an Imam while his curtains were drawn around him - then what has made you come out (i.e. to call for his right - and to fight - when he had not), so Zayd asked Alqamah to make him stop (i.e. silence him), so he (Abu Bakr) stopped (kept silent).


However, non-Rafidah don't believe Imam Zayd ibn Ali (as) was silent on this issue. He actually had an answer for this case.

[ahlebaitlover]

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]

[Taha]

^ That is something that always bothered me as a Shiite. I used to chat with my friends and talk about the various ways we would torture and kill the Shaykhayn if we ever met them (rajah).  I always wondered why Ali never went to fight them and the answer was always that he didn't want to cause fitnah. But that answer makes no sense because he fought Muawiyah, Ayesha, and the Khawarij. His son, Husayn, went to war with Yazeed. It seems as if these blessed Imams of Ahl Al-Bayt didn't care about worldly issues and would fight for whatever is haqq even if they knew that they would lose (as Husayn supposedly did). Thus, since Ali didn't fight the Shaykhayn or Uthman, they were legitimate enough leaders in his eyes.

[MuslimK]

^ That is something that always bothered me as a Shiite. I used to chat with my friends and talk about the various ways we would torture and kill the Shaykhayn if we ever met them (rajah).  I always wondered why Ali never went to fight them and the answer was always that he didn't want to cause fitnah. But that answer makes no sense because he fought Muawiyah, Ayesha, and the Khawarij. His son, Husayn, went to war with Yazeed. It seems as if these blessed Imams of Ahl Al-Bayt didn't care about worldly issues and would fight for whatever is haqq even if they knew that they would lose (as Husayn supposedly did). Thus, since Ali didn't fight the Shaykhayn or Uthman, they were legitimate enough leaders in his eyes.

Masha'Allah! Well said.

[Furkan]

Everytime I hear a shiite saying "Ali did taqiyah" or "Rasululah ordered him to have sabr", I just want to punch 'em in the face.

[Hani]

^ He did it for the omelette of Islam. CUz they liked omelettes back in those days.

[Furkan]

The sahaba who didn't go with Husayn(as) to karbala are called kafir (auzubillah) by kafir shias.

But the thing is, those sahaba actually didn't want ro create fitna. Why can't shiites accept this argument for sahaba and say " oh ok, that's a good excuse", but if it comes to Ali (as), they will use all kinds of arguments, including this one.

Ameen (if you are still alive), here you go ^, a DOUBLE STANDARD.

[Ameen]

Narration of `Ali (RA):

[By Allah the creator, if the Prophet (saws) promised me (the Khilafah) I would have done Jihad for it, I would not have allowed ibn abi Quhafa to climb one step from his Mimbar.]

Source: Fada'il al-Siddeeq by al-`Ashari, pg34 #16.

Thanks to Hani for sharing the narration.

And I suppose you believe this narration to be automatically Sehih???

[Taha]

Furkan invoked him and he appeared!! What is this sihr?!

[Ameen]

The sahaba who didn't go with Husayn(as) to karbala are called kafir (auzubillah) by kafir shias.

But the thing is, those sahaba actually didn't want ro create fitna. Why can't shiites accept this argument for sahaba and say " oh ok, that's a good excuse", but if it comes to Ali (as), they will use all kinds of arguments, including this one.

Ameen (if you are still alive), here you go ^, a DOUBLE STANDARD.

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.

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???

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.

[Ameen]

Furkan invoked him and he appeared!! What is this sihr?!

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

[Hadrami]

It seems as if these blessed Imams of Ahl Al-Bayt didn't care about worldly issues and would fight for whatever is haqq even if they knew that they would lose (as Husayn supposedly did). Thus, since Ali didn't fight the Shaykhayn or Uthman, they were legitimate enough leaders in his eyes.

Interesting comment since according to shia own sources ALL of them pledged their allegiance to the leaders of their time except Mahdi. If you are fair, then you should accept they are also legit leaders, not just the first three.

In short, lets just say shia narratives are crooked & unbelievable.

[Rationalist]

^ That is something that always bothered me as a Shiite. I used to chat with my friends and talk about the various ways we would torture and kill the Shaykhayn if we ever met them (rajah).  I always wondered why Ali never went to fight them and the answer was always that he didn't want to cause fitnah. But that answer makes no sense because he fought Muawiyah, Ayesha, and the Khawarij. His son, Husayn, went to war with Yazeed. It seems as if these blessed Imams of Ahl Al-Bayt didn't care about worldly issues and would fight for whatever is haqq even if they knew that they would lose (as Husayn supposedly did). Thus, since Ali didn't fight the Shaykhayn or Uthman, they were legitimate enough leaders in his eyes.

It depends how you define legitimate Calipah. For the Shia sects Calipah and Imams are interchangeable terms. Therefore, a person is expected to be a muqalid of the Calipah. Whereas Sunnis this is not always the case.
As the missing element how can one be  a Calipah without bayah. The Prophet (pbuh) never declared himself as a ruler in Mecca, but when he got the bayah in Madina, he became the ruler of that city.

[Rationalist]

^ He did it for the omelette of Islam. CUz they liked omelettes back in those days.

They actually use Solomon's story and attribute it to Imam Ali (as).

[Optimus Prime]

The sahaba who didn't go with Husayn(as) to karbala are called kafir (auzubillah) by kafir shias.

But the thing is, those sahaba actually didn't want ro create fitna. Why can't shiites accept this argument for sahaba and say " oh ok, that's a good excuse", but if it comes to Ali (as), they will use all kinds of arguments, including this one.

Ameen (if you are still alive), here you go ^, a DOUBLE STANDARD.

They also knew it was futile and suicide.