Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?

[whoaretheshia]

When Umar ibn al Khattab claims he would burn down the house even with Fatima in it , but intending to get to Ali and the others, that the threat is suddenly acceptable. If you tell someone that you do not want to hurt them, but if she remains with her husband, her family members and their loyal companions in her own house, you will burn down the house anyway, is nothing short of abusive language and verbal violence.

And let us put wool over our ears and interpret it colourfully. Would it make any better to want to burn a house down with Ali ibn abi Talib in it? Is it acceptable to tell the man because of whom you are a in your position today and Islam had prevailed in so many of the major battles, that if he does not get out of his own house, you will burn it down with everyone that is with him inside it ? [Including his own children]?

I don't want to get side-tracked here and would like to really press the brothers on how they can reconcile what is in the 'Saheeh' traditions claiming he gave Bayah right away, with the clear traditions in Bukhari, the one in the Musnad of ibn Shaybah, and that which was agreed on by major scholars such as Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, and even Ibn Taymiyyah and an influential Salafi website - islamqa.

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

You will think it's worthy of condemnation because of your hatred for 'Umar, and your love for Ahlul Bhayt is sickeningly weird. Ahlus Sunnah, have not interpreted the Hadith with villainy mind-set.

Fatima knows 'Umar's credentials, Fatima knows the bond he shared with her father (SAW), and Fatima knows all 'Umar is just trying to restore order in the community, hence she encourages 'Ali to get on with it. A community that her Prophet (SAW) worked so hard to unite for 23 struggling years.

The fact 'Umar is saying she is the most beloved to her from the start, she knows 'Umar is not being serious, but he is thinking in the best interest of the Deen, and doesn't approve of Banu-Hashim going into their shells, and as a result causing widespread rumours.

- Was she frightened for a moment. or while? Sure.
- Was Al-Hasan & Al-Hussain scared? Probably, even the narration doesn't mention they were at home.
- Does it prove 'Umar was forced 'Ali to give the oath of allegiance? Bollocks! No, it doesn't due to other supporting, and supplementing narrations. Narrations, that you conveniently ignore. 

I am not claiming it proved this narration proves he was forced to give the Bayah. However, all i am trying to say is in the part that is agreed upon by other narrations [the first part] a threat was made to burn down the house. Some say Zubayr ran out and was taken, others say the threat was made and he left, others say another thing entirely.

Objection one: Umar ibn Al Khattab shows that he loves Fatima and is evidenced by his words that none was more beloved to him after he Prophet [saw] than her; this is surely a sign of respect.

Reply:  This is a very weak point, and one that really any rational individual who appreciates the significance and nature of words, who is not clouded by bias , would make. Even if – for sake of argument -Umar ibn Al Khattab told Fatima he loved her the most, he still followed this by saying that even this love would not stop him from burning her house down whether she was in it, or not in it. Is this really a sign of reverence and respect? To claim you will burn someones house down whether they are inside it or not, containing your children [Hasan and Hussain], your daughter [Fatima], your dear and beloved husband [Ali ibn Abi Talib] , and other members of your clan and general companions?  We will not elaborate further because we truly believe any seek of truth will not genuinely believe the words used were anything but humiliating and disrespectful.

Objection two: If you accept the tradition then you also have to accept the words of Fatima in trying to get Ali ibn Abi Talib to give Bayah and also the notion they then gave their allegiance.

Reply: This is fallacious reasoning. We cite the tradition as not proof of every word it contains in its entirerity, but rather, an authentic report in the eyes of Sunni muslims, which corroborates the most important point in the tradition which has also been mentioned in numerous other chains of transmission in other works – that Umar ibn Al Khattab threatened to burn down the house of Fatima, and that there was fierce opposition to giving the Bayah to Abu Bakr, and that the policy adopted by Umar ibn Al Khattab was to subdue and force others to give their allegiance and fall in line.  What is nor corroborated in numerous other traditions is of no interest to us. We want to bring forth what is agreed upon by all of them, and thus adding to its historical significance and reliability.

Objection three: Umar ibn Al Khattab did not go and actually carry out on his oath of Allah [swt] in burning down the house.

Reply: We don’t deny , the aftermath is a hotly disputed topic even among Shias. We take the view that Allah [swt] knows best what happens, although there are strong indicators which we will not discuss here as we are not intent on proving Umar ibn Al Khattab tried to break down the house. What we believe is that there is strong evidence that a humiliating threat was made, and this is enough to condemn what was done in the strongest of terms. Anything done further to this is just insult to injury.




Furthermore, only earlier you put forward the notion Ali gave the allegiance right away willingly. So why do we find Umar ibn al Khattab furious at Ali and the others ? Does their behaviour of gathering in the house, and the anger of Umar not tell you there was something serious going on? For him to be angry enough to threaten to burn down the house if they do not get out, in my view , is no way to settle disagreement with Ali ibn Abi Talib and members of his family. This is the house of Fatima , there is respect to be observed. You can not dispute an individual and even verbally threaten to burn their house down - whether you intend to do it or not. Those are not the manners expected of anyone, let a lone when it is the house of the Ahlulbayt of the Messenger of Allah [saw]. If he were alive, ask yourself, would you be comfortable in making that kind of threat to his family? Are there not better ways to express disagreement? Why did he not just knock and go inside and discuss the matter - after all they loved each other. What was so severe he felt he needed to shout and send threats their way?

[Optimus Prime]

Please don't butter me up. I'm not taken back by your moderate approach.

You can sit twiddling your thumbs, and linger in doubt. You're 14 centuries too late. Your doubt, or questionable prejudice is derived from your decease hatred for Abu Bakr & 'Umar. If the final narration means nothing to you, then your entire presence here is objectionable. You formulate your opinion, or support your view based on narrations from Bukhari & Muslim, that 'Ali was pressured to say the very least.

How can someone be pressured despite what happened, when he openly praised Abu Bakr in his rein, when no one was a threat to him? How can someone be pressured, or forced, when he gave his daughter to 'Umar, the very one who is being accused of threatening his family, and intended it? How can someone be pressured, and yet be his right-hand man for an entire decade?

Your prejudice view is like a jigsaw puzzle with the missing pieces intentionally thrown out the window. Assemble your mind, and apply some rational that is devoid of Shaitani influence, and there maybe hope for you yet otherwise you're a lost poltergeist, and your mission here is going to fall-flat.

[Optimus Prime]

When Umar ibn al Khattab claims he would burn down the house even with Fatima in it , but intending to get to Ali and the others, that the threat is suddenly acceptable. If you tell someone that you do not want to hurt them, but if she remains with her husband, her family members and their loyal companions in her own house, you will burn down the house anyway, is nothing short of abusive language and verbal violence.

And let us put wool over our ears and interpret it colourfully. Would it make any better to want to burn a house down with Ali ibn abi Talib in it? Is it acceptable to tell the man because of whom you are a in your position today and Islam had prevailed in so many of the major battles, that if he does not get out of his own house, you will burn it down with everyone that is with him inside it ? [Including his own children]?

I don't want to get side-tracked here and would like to really press the brothers on how they can reconcile what is in the 'Saheeh' traditions claiming he gave Bayah right away, with the clear traditions in Bukhari, the one in the Musnad of ibn Shaybah, and that which was agreed on by major scholars such as Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, and even Ibn Taymiyyah and an influential Salafi website - islamqa.

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.

You will think it's worthy of condemnation because of your hatred for 'Umar, and your love for Ahlul Bhayt is sickeningly weird. Ahlus Sunnah, have not interpreted the Hadith with villainy mind-set.

Fatima knows 'Umar's credentials, Fatima knows the bond he shared with her father (SAW), and Fatima knows all 'Umar is just trying to restore order in the community, hence she encourages 'Ali to get on with it. A community that her Prophet (SAW) worked so hard to unite for 23 struggling years.

The fact 'Umar is saying she is the most beloved to her from the start, she knows 'Umar is not being serious, but he is thinking in the best interest of the Deen, and doesn't approve of Banu-Hashim going into their shells, and as a result causing widespread rumours.

- Was she frightened for a moment. or while? Sure.
- Was Al-Hasan & Al-Hussain scared? Probably, even the narration doesn't mention they were at home.
- Does it prove 'Umar was forced 'Ali to give the oath of allegiance? Bollocks! No, it doesn't due to other supporting, and supplementing narrations. Narrations, that you conveniently ignore. 

I am not claiming it proved this narration proves he was forced to give the Bayah. However, all i am trying to say is in the part that is agreed upon by other narrations [the first part] a threat was made to burn down the house. Some say Zubayr ran out and was taken, others say the threat was made and he left, others say another thing entirely.

Objection one: Umar ibn Al Khattab shows that he loves Fatima and is evidenced by his words that none was more beloved to him after he Prophet [saw] than her; this is surely a sign of respect.

Reply:  This is a very weak point, and one that really any rational individual who appreciates the significance and nature of words, who is not clouded by bias , would make. Even if – for sake of argument -Umar ibn Al Khattab told Fatima he loved her the most, he still followed this by saying that even this love would not stop him from burning her house down whether she was in it, or not in it. Is this really a sign of reverence and respect? To claim you will burn someones house down whether they are inside it or not, containing your children [Hasan and Hussain], your daughter [Fatima], your dear and beloved husband [Ali ibn Abi Talib] , and other members of your clan and general companions?  We will not elaborate further because we truly believe any seek of truth will not genuinely believe the words used were anything but humiliating and disrespectful.

Objection two: If you accept the tradition then you also have to accept the words of Fatima in trying to get Ali ibn Abi Talib to give Bayah and also the notion they then gave their allegiance.

Reply: This is fallacious reasoning. We cite the tradition as not proof of every word it contains in its entirerity, but rather, an authentic report in the eyes of Sunni muslims, which corroborates the most important point in the tradition which has also been mentioned in numerous other chains of transmission in other works – that Umar ibn Al Khattab threatened to burn down the house of Fatima, and that there was fierce opposition to giving the Bayah to Abu Bakr, and that the policy adopted by Umar ibn Al Khattab was to subdue and force others to give their allegiance and fall in line.  What is nor corroborated in numerous other traditions is of no interest to us. We want to bring forth what is agreed upon by all of them, and thus adding to its historical significance and reliability.

Objection three: Umar ibn Al Khattab did not go and actually carry out on his oath of Allah [swt] in burning down the house.

Reply: We don’t deny , the aftermath is a hotly disputed topic even among Shias. We take the view that Allah [swt] knows best what happens, although there are strong indicators which we will not discuss here as we are not intent on proving Umar ibn Al Khattab tried to break down the house. What we believe is that there is strong evidence that a humiliating threat was made, and this is enough to condemn what was done in the strongest of terms. Anything done further to this is just insult to injury.

https://Forbidden_Link/2017/10/31/aftermath-ix/




Furthermore, only earlier you put forward the notion Ali gave the allegiance right away willingly. So why do we find Umar ibn al Khattab furious at Ali and the others ? Does their behaviour of gathering in the house, and the anger of Umar not tell you there was something serious going on? For him to be angry enough to threaten to burn down the house if they do not get out, in my view , is no way to settle disagreement with Ali ibn Abi Talib and members of his family. This is the house of Fatima , there is respect to be observed. You can not dispute an individual and even verbally threaten to burn their house down - whether you intend to do it or not. Those are not the manners expected of anyone, let a lone when it is the house of the Ahlulbayt of the Messenger of Allah [saw]. If he were alive, ask yourself, would you be comfortable in making that kind of threat to his family? Are there not better ways to express disagreement? Why did he not just knock and go inside and discuss the matter - after all they loved each other. What was so severe he felt he needed to shout and send threats their way?

Your entire reasoning is fallacious. You're arguing trivial points for the sake of it.

Any Shias who disagrees with our view (Ahlus Sunnah) whilst trumpeting about the hallucinated lack of 'academic' quality in our answers on Twelvershia.net which are required for practical application, not for idle and futile twaddle, proffered a criticism bereft of any academic value on the aforementioned question.

Alhamdulillah, by the fadhl of Allah (SWT) and the duas of our Akabir, we possess adequate  academic expertise to take head-on any Shia cleric of whatever lofty status. No Shia should attempt to impose deception on us for we have an aversion for blind submission to liberality, which diverts from the rigidity of Siraatul Mustaqeem. Playing devils advocates do not mellow our stance grounded in the antiquity of the Fuqaha/Muhadithun of our school of thought.

Over N' Out!

[fgss]

Brother whoaretheshia, what's the official shia position on allegiance of Imam Ali to Abu Bakr? Did he gave bayah? If yes then willingly or he was forced to?

[fgss]

@whoaretheshia

How did Ali ibn Abi Talib interpret this event as per authentic Sunni traditions?
https://Forbidden_Link/2017/10/31/aftermath-vii/

Can you quote shia sources for the same which is also the main question of this thread?

    “Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abu Laylah said: I witnessed ‘Ali administering an oath to the people in the plain of Rahbah. ‘Ali said: “I adjure those of you in the name of Allah who heard the Messenger of Allah on the day of Ghadir saying `’Ali is the Mawla of whom I am Mawla’ to stand up and to testify. He who was not an eyewitness doesn’t need to stand up.”Thereupon twelve (12) such companions who had participated in the Battle of Badr stood up. The occasion is still fresh in my memory.

Reference: [Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p119, see also v5, p366]

This supposedly occured when Imam Ali was already a caliph as per shura process and not because he was considered as divinely appointed. This clearly shows majority of madina/makkah and the surroundings did not consider ghadir in meaning of declaration of successor/caliph, neither at time of prophet's death nor after Uthman's death. It also shows Imam Ali himslef did not interpret it in sense of caliphate/successorship as at that time he was already a caliph. And this happened in a spacious plain of Rahbah not in heart of Islam makkah or madina. This shows it was about something else.

Moreover, the incident of Rahbah wasnt any declaration by Imam Ali to masses that he is a divenely appointed caliph/imam whose obedience is compulsory but he was merely asking from those who were physically present at ghadir. Thats why he said: He who was not an eyewitness doesn’t need to stand up.


Why was Ali ibn Abi Talib not duly given his right after the death of the Prophet [saw]
https://Forbidden_Link/2017/10/31/aftermath-viii/

And in this part you are using examples/analogies (like of bani israel) to justify what happened after prophet saww was correct and is not shocking. This shows you dont have any proofs to support your claims except some examples.

Bani Israel example/analogy is inavlid. Because in bani israel case about half of the people turned back to kufr/shirk which was not the case after our prophet. No one turned back to kufr/shirk from propht's close companions i.e muhajirun and ansaar. In fact about 99.99% of the companions rejected the alleged interpretation that ghadir was about declaration of caliph. They were completey two different events.

Moreover, in case of bani israel Prophet Harun tried alot to stop them unlike Imam Ali (whose position to prophet was like Harun to Musa). This again shows no one including Imam Ali consider ghadir in sense of divine appointment. So he raised no voices like prophet Harun did but later raised swords for sake of defending his caliphate which he got by shura process. Speak volumes about his interpretation. 

[Allah] said, “But indeed, We have tried your people after you [departed], and the Samiri has led them astray.”
So Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved. He said, “O my people, did your Lord not make you a good promise? Then, was the time [of its fulfillment] too long for you, or did you wish that wrath from your Lord descend upon you, so you broke your promise [of obedience] to me?”
And Aaron had already told them before [the return of Moses], “O my people, you are only being tested by it, and indeed, your Lord is the Most Merciful, so follow me and obey my order.” They said, “We will never cease being devoted to the calf until Moses returns to us.” Surah Taha

Furthermore, do you know what happened next. Prophet Musa became angry on all this and grabbed Harun by his beard/head and dragged him. So as per your analogy prophet saww would've out of anger grabbed Imam Ali by beard and dragged him. If Musa became angry at Harun then Prophet would've been angry at Imam Ali. Do you accept this?

[Moses] said, “O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?” [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, ‘You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.’ “

If you want to use examples then use it fully. Otherwise it makes no sense. Dont take a piece out to support your claim. This also applys to rest of your examples there.

Also, let me clarify that Prophet Musa assigned Prophet Harun while he was away for a short period. Likewise Prophet saww assigned Imam Ali while he was away for a short period. This has nothing to do with succession. Again invalid analogy.

My question is:

Did Imam Ali ever declare/announce his position as a divinely appointed caliph/imam to the masses (madina/makkah) after prophet's death during caliphate of abu bakr? If yes then that will make more sense. And if no then how can one living in that time support a divine Imam when the divine Imam doesnt declare himself to the masses (madina/makkah) and then how can the masses be held responsible for not knowing and supporting divine Imam when he himself doesnt declare his divine position. Even if 99.99% companions had forgotten or misunderstood the message of ghadir then wanst it the duty of Imam Ali to guide/correct them at that time?

[MuslimK]

   “Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abu Laylah said: I witnessed ‘Ali administering an oath to the people in the plain of Rahbah. ‘Ali said: “I adjure those of you in the name of Allah who heard the Messenger of Allah on the day of Ghadir saying `’Ali is the Mawla of whom I am Mawla’ to stand up and to testify. He who was not an eyewitness doesn’t need to stand up.”Thereupon twelve (12) such companions who had participated in the Battle of Badr stood up. The occasion is still fresh in my memory.

Reference: [Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p119, see also v5, p366]

^ You are right. This was said when Ali was already a Caliph and in the midst of fitna (civil war). Because he had many enemies and opposition and people who had doubts about him he had to mention this virtues of his to win their hearts.

[fgss]

I had asked whoaretheshia many times this question but everytime he just ignored it. May be because there isnt any answer.

So in absence of evidence it is proved that Imam Ali himself never declared to the masses/public that he is the divinely appointed imam/caliph for leading the ummah and to follow him is compulsory for people of his time. Same rule applies to rest all imams whom they consider divine.

In other words the masses/public never heard Imam Ali nor his progeny making such claim, hence any such claim by twelver shias  on their behalf makes no sense. There is no logic, no common sense in it.

Case closed.

Irony: There are clear proofs on Imam Ali's bayah to Abu bakr and that also without any force.