It was narrated from 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Abdullah, from his father, that: The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: "Defaming a Muslim is evildoing and fighting him is Kufr. Sunan an-Nasai: 4113
The Prophet (PBUH) said:
“Every sin may be forgiven by Allah except a man who kills a believer deliberately, or a man who dies as a disbeliever.” (An-Nisai 3989).
I want to know on what basis did Imam Ali (a.s) fight against Muawiya & Syrians according to Ahlul Sunnah's point of view?
Prophet (s.a.w.w) openly has forbidden Muslims from fighting one another by stating that fighting Muslim is Kufr.
Sahabi Usama b. Zayd (r.a) avoided Battle of Jamal and Siffin by saying that he had made a promise not to strike a person who pronounces the testimony of "There is no god except Allah".
Ahlul Sunnah believes Muawiya and Syrians were Muslims and according to authentic hadiths Muslim's blood, wealth and honor is sacred.
Don't forget the report which says Hassan(RA) will make peace two group of Muslims, the other was Syrians.
Ali(RA) fought because he viewed Muawiya(RA) in rebellion against him. I guess Ali(RA) made istidlal on this verse.
Yes, I know about that report. The question is why did Imam Ali (a.s) choose bloodshed over peace with the other group of Muslims (i.e. Syrians)?Ahl as-Sunnah are in agreement that Ali(ra) was correct in all his battles during his Caliphate.
So you're saying Imam Ali (a.s) fighting with Muawiya was because Imam Ali (a.s) considered Muawiya as a rebel and thus his (Muawiya's) blood, wealth & honor were no longer sacred. This is in align with Shi'a view.
Over here I like to ask one question. We as Shias believe Imam Ali (a.s) to be infallible and thus on haqq i.e. Imam Ali (a.s) viewing Muawiya as a rebel & fighting him & his army to be correct. However, Ahlul Sunnah believes Imam Ali (a.s) to fallible, so I want to know whether Ahlul Sunnah considers Imam Ali (a.s) ijtihaad or istidlal of viewing Muawiya and his army as rebels to be correct?
Over here I like to ask one question. We as Shias believe Imam Ali (a.s) to be infallible and thus on haqq i.e. Imam Ali (a.s) viewing Muawiya as a rebel & fighting him & his army to be correct. However, Ahlul Sunnah believes Imam Ali (a.s) to fallible, so I want to know whether Ahlul Sunnah considers Imam Ali (a.s) ijtihaad or istidlal of viewing Muawiya and his army as rebels to be correct?
Ahl as-Sunnah are in agreement that Ali(ra) was correct in all his battles during his Caliphate.
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6898:
Ahnaf b. Qais reported: I set out with the intention of helping this person (Hadrat 'Ali) that Abu Bakra met me. He said: Ahnaf, where do you intend to go? I said: I intend to help the cousin of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), viz. 'Ali. Thereupon he said to me: Ahnaf, go back, for I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When two Muslims confront one another with swords (in hands) both the slayer and the slain would be in Fire. He (Ahnaf) said: I said, or it was said: Allah's Messenger, it may be the case of one who kills. but what about the slain (why he would be put in Hell-Fire)? Thereupon he said: He also intended to kill his companion.
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6899:
Ahnaf b. Qais reported on the authority of Abu Bakra that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When two Muslims confront each other with their swords, both the slayer and the slain are doomed to Hell-Fire.
Did Imam Ali (as) accept bayah from those who considered him fallible? Did he tell people they can only give him bayah if they accept him as the first Calipah and that they later have to give bayah to the remaining 11 Imams?
Thanks for the answer.These ahadeeth are not applicable in this case. Because Sahaba wouldn’t have fought each other in the first place if this they thought that these ahadeeth were applicable to their case. These ahadeeth should be applicable in the scenario where there is no reason/excuse for the Muslim to fight/kill his fellow Muslim. But in other scenarios it won’t be applicable. For example,
While I was looking at Sunni point of view on Battles of Jamal and Siffin, I came to know that according to Ahlul Sunnah three groups of Muslims were created during this time period of Fitnas and they were all saved (i.e. all three groups were believers and going to Paradise) but only one group (i.e. Imam Ali a.s) was more closer to the truth than other two groups (i.e. Muawiya & Abu Musa). But I found an authentic hadith which contradicts this view. According to this hadith two groups (i.e. Imam Ali a.s and Muawiya) would go in hell and only one group would be saved (i.e. Abu Musa)
These ahadeeth are not applicable in this case. Because Sahaba wouldn’t have fought each other in the first place if this they thought that these ahadeeth were applicable to their case. These ahadeeth should be applicable in the scenario where there is no reason/excuse for the Muslim to fight/kill his fellow Muslim. But in other scenarios it won’t be applicable...
But majority of the Sahabah did refrain from participating in the conflict between Imam Ali (a.s) and Mu’awiyah because they saw internal fighting as Fitna and cause of weakening of Muslim Ummah.
http://www.twelvershia.net/2018/09/10/did-the-sahabah-all-fight-each-other/
If Sahabas had thought that participating in Battle of Siffin would make them martyr and their opponent to be hell-bound then almost all Sahabas would had willingly participated in Battle of Siffin. The reason which stopped majority of Sahabas from participating in Battle of Siffin was their fear of being in hell (as Abu Bakrah had feared of going in hell by particpating in such internal battles)
Those who participated and those who refrained, all were right in their ijtehad because it was based on Prophetic narrations. As there is a reward for honest ijtehad and Allah knows best.
Moreover the reason for not participating was'nt the same for all sahabah, like Usamah bin Zayd's reason, which was also due to a saying of Prophet (s.a.w.w).
I have a question.
Why did companions of Imam al-Baqir and Imam al-Sadiq not joined and supported Imam Zayd bin Ali despite of his many virtues, like his resemblance to Imam Ali and verses of Quran which relate to him etc. And despite of the order of support issued by Imam al-Sadiq?
From uyun akhbar Reza...
I swear by God that Zayd was one who was addressed by the following verse, ‘And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He has chosen you…
‘O my uncle! Do this if you are pleased with being killed and your corpse being hung up from the gallows in the al-Konasa neighborhood.’ After Zayd left, As-Sadiq (a.s.) said, “Woe be to those who hear his call but do not help him!’”
Then I heard the Imam (a.s.) say, ‘O God! Please give me a share of the reward for this battle. I swear by God that my uncle and his companions were martyrs just like Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and his companions.’”
But majority of the Sahabah did refrain from participating in the conflict between Imam Ali (a.s) and Mu’awiyah because they saw internal fighting as Fitna and cause of weakening of Muslim Ummah.My response was specific to the hadeeth of both killer and killed going to hell. Here you have changed the subject to it being Fitnah, where in I don’t disagree that it was Fitnah.
If Sahabas had thought that participating in Battle of Siffin would make them martyr and their opponent to be hell-bound then almost all Sahabas would had willingly participated in Battle of Siffin. The reason which stopped majority of Sahabas from participating in Battle of Siffin was their fear of being in hell (as Abu Bakrah had feared of going in hell by particpating in such internal battles)I don’t think so, they refrained from it because they remembered the direct advice of Prophet(saws) to remain aloof from Fitnah.
Ijtihad can only be exercised by Hakam (i.e. Ruler) If you have come across any hadith stating otherwise (i.e. ijtihad can be done by any Sahaba) then please provide that hadith. During battles of Jamal & Siffin, Muslim Ummah became into three groups. There exists authentic ahadith supporting the views of two groups but not for the third group.
1st Group
Hadith (and Quranic verse) exists which says Imam should be supported against rebels.
2nd Group
Hadith exists which forbids Muslims to fight against one another as both killer and killed will be in hell.
3rd Group
No Hadith exists which states to rebel against the Caliph/Imam of Muslim Ummah. On the contrary, there are authentic hadiths forbidding Muslims to rebel against Caliph/Imam of Muslim Ummah (even if Caliph be unjust) until the Caliph is offering prayers.
*Even if rebels had not given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) then also they could not fight Imam Ali (a.s) because at that time there was no other Caliph/Imam/Ruler in Muslim Ummah besides him (a.s) i.e. Muawiya, Talha & Zubair did not proclaim to be Caliphs/Imams of Muslims. If any one of them had done so, then there would had been benefit of doubt for him to fight Imam Ali (a.s) on the pretext that he would say that he is true Caliph/Imam as he was chosen/made as Caliph first and Imam Ali (a.s) is the contending Caliph and there does exist authentic hadith in case of two Caliphs existing in Muslim Ummah which allowed Muslims to fight the latter (i.e. second) Caliph by joining the forces of first Caliph.
The reason of Usamah bin Zayd not participating is due to an incident which occurred in the lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w.w) after which Usamah bin Zayd promised not to fight those who proclaim Tawhid. Usamah had killed a person who proclaimed Kalima when he was about to be killed by Usamah. According to Prophet (s.a.w.w) a person who proclaims Tawhid and becomes Muslim then his blood, wealth and honor is sacred. Nonetheless Usamah falls in second group.
Imam al-Baqir (a.s) and Imam al-Sadiq (a.s) did not join Zayd bin Ali (a.s) because both Imams (a.s) have stated to have specific number of Muttaqi Shias for them (a.s) to do Kharooj (خروج) On the other hand Zayd bin Ali (a.s) revolted against Ummawi Caliph due to reasons known to him (a.s). It may be that Zayd bin Ali (a.s) did not consider Hisham as legitimate caliph due to cursing of Prophet (s.a.w.w) on Hakam bin Al-Aas. I haven't studied on this topic but will in near future study about it, In sha ALLAH.
My response was specific to the hadeeth of both killer and killed going to hell. Here you have changed the subject to it being Fitnah, where in I don’t disagree that it was Fitnah.
I would also like to add a point to my previous response that, in the case of hadeeth it could be interpreted to mean that when two Muslims confront each other with the intention to kill each other. While in the case Ali(as) and Muawiya(as), their intentions were different Ali demanded that Muawiya gives him pledge , while Muawiya was demanding qisas for uthman. So both fought for these intentions. Their intention wasn’t to murder each other.
I don’t think so, they refrained from it because they remembered the direct advice of Prophet(saws) to remain aloof from Fitnah.
Secondly, I dislike the selective usage of some general reports by people and trying to make judgement using them, like what you did. These matters should be look in a holistic manner, instead of cherry picking certain general reports and jumping to conclusions.
Because there are many possibilities, like forgiveness from Allah, etc. otherwise one could just use this general report and declare every person who prayed two units prayer to be jannati, as if there aren’t any probabilities for this to not occur.
'Uqba b. 'Amir reported: We were entrusted with the task of tending the camels. On my turn when I came back in the evening after grazing them in the pastures, I found Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) stand and address the people. I heard these words of his: If any Muslim performs ablution well, then stands and prays two rak'ahs setting about them with his heart as well as his face, Paradise would be guaranteed to him. I said: What a fine thing is this![Sahih Muslim 234].
So it’s not appropriate to say about people that they did this hence they will enter hell, basing your view on some general reports, Especially in the case of those Sahaba who have khaas(specific) glad-tiding about them entering paradise. Such as Ali(as) and Muawiya(as).
So, Zayd bin Ali was not their mutaqqi shia? And he did revolt on his own without Imam's approval?
BTW, my question was about their companions that why did they not join zayd's revolt.
Despite Imam's words...
That woe be to those who hear his call but do not help him.
Later on hearing the news of his death, Imam Sadiq called Zayd bin Ali and his companions martyrs and compared them to Imam Ali and his compaions. And also prayed to Allah for the share of reward from this battle for himself.
Imam Abu Hanifa and others also supported Zayd's revolt, so it wasn't any hidden thing at that time.
Imam Ali (a.s) and Muawiya's intention was not to murder each another. For the sake of argument, lets agree with this statement. Now the most important question is: who is responsible for the murders of Muslims on both side of the armies? It is a fact that both parties lost their men. The combatant from Imam Ali's (a.s) army who killed Muawiya's combatant (and vice versa), is he saved from hell? If no, then is it just that combatant who on the orders of his leader fought and killed opponent's combatant would go to hell but his leader (who ordered him to fight and kill) would go to heaven?
Muslim lives were lost in this battle. 1 Muslim life means 1 Muslim family. Each Muslim who was killed in this battle had a father, mother, brother, sister, wife, son, daughter. Battle of Siffin was not a sport. It was a war which caused huge loss as many Muslim lives were lost and Muslim Ummah was weakened.
If Imam Ali (a.s) ordered his troops to kill Muawiya's men and Muawiya ordered his troops to kill Imam Ali's (a.s) men, then intention of both Imam Ali (a.s) and Muawiya was to kill Muslims and the hadith (narrated by Abu Bakra) applies on both of them.
*However, Imam Ali (a.s) had advantage over Muawiya of fighting & killing him and his men due to verse of al-Quran (which you quoted) ordering to do Qital on Rebelling Party.
and they also remembered the reason given by Prophet (s.a.w.w) to remain aloof from Fitnah (i.e. Both killer and killed going to Hell)
I also agree in holistic approach rather than cherry-picking. I have not yet come across any hadith stating that both killer and killed will enter heaven. In Jamal and Siffin both parties were Muslims i.e. killer and killed were both Muslims. Ahlul Sunnah believes that both killer and killed will be in Jannah but all hadiths state otherwise.
01. There exists hadith stating to support Caliph and not to fight or rebel against him.
02. There exists hadith stating a Muslim may protect his property from other Muslim and in protecting his property if he is killed then he is martyr. (Killer in hell, Killed in heaven)
03. There exists hadith stating Muslims not to fight each other. (Both Killer and Killed in Hell)
Following holistic approach, I am only asking to provide authentic hadith which supports Ahlul Sunnah claim that both Muslim killer and Muslim killed will enter Heaven. If such hadith is provided then I will wholeheartedly accept such hadith.
Firstly I have responded to the your usage of the hadeeth both the slain and slayer will go to hell. That it’s inapplicable in this scenario.
You try to argue back using “ifs”, but that’s not a strong way to argue. Moreover, Ahlusunnah believe to remain silent over these matters, in case if you didn’t know. We don’t pass judgements over Sahaba in these disputes of theirs.
You claim that, Ai(as) had some strong reasons to fight Muawiya(as) , that was his ijtihad, which was correct. While even Muawiya(as) too believed that he had reasons to defend back and demand the right for Uthman(as), this was his ijtihad, even if correct.
واعلم أن على القول الأول والثاني ظهر أن المقتول وولي دمه يكونان منصورين من عند الله تعالى وعن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما أنه قال : قلت لعلي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام وأيم الله ليظهرن عليكم ابن أبي سفيان ، لأن الله تعالى يقول : { وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيّهِ سلطانا } وقال الحسن : والله ما نصر معاوية على علي عليه السلام إلا بقول الله تعالى : { وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيّهِ سلطانا } ، والله أعلم
For the tafseer of this verse Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir, quran(17:33) Imam fakruddin razi writes , It is reported from hz ibn abbas(ra): I said to hz ali(ra) , by Allah (Muawiya)ibn abu sufyan(ra) will surely overcome you because Allah said Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir. And hasan basri(ra) said that because of this verse Hz muawiya(ra) was successful compared to hz ali(ra). Wallahu alam.[ Tafseer al kabeer vol 4, page 397)]
In ijtihadi matters one can’t pass down the blame or judgement on someone.
For example:
It is narrated on the authority of Usama b. Zaid: The Messenger of Allah may peace be upon him) sent us to Huraqat, a tribe of Juhaina. We attacked that tribe early in the morning and defeated them and I and a man from the Ansar caught hold of a person (of the defeated tribe). When we overcame him, he said: There is no god but Allah. At that moment the Ansari spared him, but I attacked him with my spear and killed him. The news had already reached the Apostle (peace be upon him), so when we came back he (the Apostle) said to me: Usama, did you kill him after he had made the profession: There is no god but Allah? I said. Messenger of Allah, he did it only as a shelter. The Prophet observed: Did you kill him after he had made the profession that there is no god but Allah? He (the Holy Prophet) went on repeating this to me till I wished I had not embraced Islam before that day. [Sahih Muslim 177]
You see a non-Muslim recited Shahadah, yet the Muslim killed him based on his ijtihad. Now was this person doomed to hell-fire by Prophet(saws)? Even though prophet(saws) strongly rebuked such an action, yet did he apply hadd nor declare the killer to be in hell.
“It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake; and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e. Diya) be given to the deceased’s family unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (is prescribed); and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation (blood money — Diya) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allaah. And Allaah is Ever All‑Knowing, All‑Wise”
[al-Nisa’ 4:92]
Moreover, you have misunderstood my view to look the matter in a holistic manner, I meant to say that look at the complete life events of a person, instead of look at just one event. There were others achievements of that person, which could over weight his mistake in one.
Secondly aren’t you aware of Allah pardoning the sins and mistakes of people , so there remains scope for this possibility that’s why I say it’s not proper to make judgements over general reports , while there exist Khaas(specific) reports for such person to enter Jannah. I.e Muawiya(as).
Had Uthman bin Affan no children that Muawiya became his heir? If Uthman bin Affan did have children who were his true heirs then it was duty of Uthman's children to go to the Muslim Caliph of their time to avenge their father's blood as only Muslim Caliph has authority to avenge their father's blood.There is no evidence which negates that, the ones who deserved to demand the Qisas of Uthman(as), didn't demand that from Ali(as). But as we know that Ali(as) was delaying that matter due to which people the problem started.
There can be NO Ijtihad where there exists clear commandments in Quran and Hadiths. A person cannot go against clear injunctions laid down in Quran and Hadiths by using his own Ijtihad. For e.g. I cannot pray 5 rakats of Fajr Salat based on my ijtihad or consider four sips of Wine to be halal based on my ijtihad.True as for the example you gave for Salat, but there are other cases where there is scope of ijtihad, and the matter of dispute between Ali(as) and Muawiya(as) was one of them. The learned scholars that's why counted it to be ijtihadi issue, so if a commoner who doesn't have basic Islamic knowledge can't grasp it, then his objection holds no weight. I can give you examples where Ali(as) directly heard the command of Prophet(SAWS) yet made his ijtihad, because he knew there was scope for it in that matter.
Usamah bin Zaid (r.a) killed a man in ignorance (he thought that a person wasn't Muslim in true sense as he professed Tawhid by his tongue but never believed in Tawhid by his heart). When Usamah (r.a) was rebuked by Prophet (s.a.w.w) he (r.a) felt regret for his (r.a) action and promised never to strike anyone who professed Tawhid.He misjudged that person and made an incorrect ijtihad.
But in Battle of Jamal & Siffin, believers were not killed in ignorance, unintentionally or by mistake.These battles were itself due to mistake in understanding.
So I guess there is possibility of Shaitaan being saved as there is clear hadith that any person who does not worship Ghair-ALLAH will be in Paradise.You are repeating the same mistake again, trying to take general text and applying on individuals, your case is same to a person who declares a person Jannati just because he offered two units of Nafil prayer.
For the sake of argument, if it is to be believed that there exists khaas reports of Muawiya entering in Jannah... then what about his troops who killed the believers? Does there exist khaas reports of them also entering in Jannah after killing the believers in Battle of Siffeen?As I told you, we should refrain from making judgements over people based on general reports, and when there is no Khaas(specific) evidence. Even though there are weak reports which state that both will be in paradise, that makes me stick to the Ijmai Sunni view of maintaining silence and not commenting over these matters.
There is no evidence which negates that, the ones who deserved to demand the Qisas of Uthman(as), didn't demand that from Ali(as). But as we know that Ali(as) was delaying that matter due to which people the problem started.
What proves the fact that, Muawiya(as) had the right to demand for Qisas of Uthman's(as) Murder is that a large number of Sahaba demanded it from Ali(as), and Ibn Abbas said this:
واعلم أن على القول الأول والثاني ظهر أن المقتول وولي دمه يكونان منصورين من عند الله تعالى وعن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما أنه قال : قلت لعلي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام وأيم الله ليظهرن عليكم ابن أبي سفيان ، لأن الله تعالى يقول : { وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيّهِ سلطانا } وقال الحسن : والله ما نصر معاوية على علي عليه السلام إلا بقول الله تعالى : { وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيّهِ سلطانا } ، والله أعلم
For the tafseer of this verse Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir, quran(17:33) Imam fakruddin razi writes , It is reported from hz ibn abbas(ra): I said to hz ali(ra) , by Allah (Muawiya)ibn abu sufyan(ra) will surely overcome you because Allah said Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir. And hasan basri(ra) said that because of this verse Hz muawiya(ra) was successful compared to hz ali(ra). Wallahu alam.[ Tafseer al kabeer vol 4, page 397)]
True as for the example you gave for Salat, but there are other cases where there is scope of ijtihad, and the matter of dispute between Ali(as) and Muawiya(as) was one of them. The learned scholars that's why counted it to be ijtihadi issue, so if a commoner who doesn't have basic Islamic knowledge can't grasp it, then his objection holds no weight. I can give you examples where Ali(as) directly heard the command of Prophet(SAWS) yet made his ijtihad, because he knew there was scope for it in that matter.
He misjudged that person and made an incorrect ijtihad.
These battles were itself due to mistake in understanding.
You are repeating the same mistake again, trying to take general text and applying on individuals, your case is same to a person who declares a person Jannati just because he offered two units of Nafil prayer.
What mistake you repeated did in this case is that, you tried to apply a general text over Shaitaan, while there is Khas evidence present that he will be sent to hell.
Allah says in Quran:
That I will fill Hell with you (Iblees (Satan)) and those of them (mankind) that follow you, together."(Quran 38:85).
As I told you, we should refrain from making judgements over people based on general reports, and when there is no Khaas(specific) evidence. Even though there are weak reports which state that both will be in paradise, that makes me stick to the Ijmai Sunni view of maintaining silence and not commenting over these matters.
وعن يزيد بن الأصم قال : لما وقع الصلح بين علي ومعاوية ، خرج علي فمشى في قتلاه فقال : هؤلاء في الجنة ثم خرج إلى قتلى معاوية فقال : هؤلاء في الجنة ، وليصير الأمر إلي وإلى معاوية
Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah narrates in his Musanaf, that after the treaty between Ali and Mu’awiya [May Allah be pleased with them], Ali walked between those who died from his party and saying: “Those are in Jannah”, then he walked to those side of those who died from the side of Mu’awiya and said: “And those are in Jannah [Musanaf ibn abi shaybah
Also I would like to bring it to your attention some reports, since you even brought upon the matter of Jamal too, and you even asked what about the soldiers in the army, and I can't comment on each individual, but for those about whom there is Khaas reports then see these.
بشر قاتل ابن صفية بالنار سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول : لكل نبي حواري و إن حواري الزبير
هذه الأحاديث صحيحة عن أمير المؤمنين علي و إن لم يخرجاه بهذه الأسانيد
تعليق الذهبي قي التلخيص : هذه أحاديث صحاح
Ali bin Abi talib (RA) said ‘Give the news of hellfire to the one who killed Ibn Safiya ( al-Zubair bin al-Awwam RA) because I heard the Prophet(saw) saying :’ Every prophet used to have a Hawari (i.e. disciple who supports him), and my Hawari(i.e disciple who supports me) is Az-Zubair bin Al-’Awwam.
It was narrated by Imam Ahmad in his “Fadailu sahaba” (#1057) narrated that Ali said: “I hope that I, Uthman, Talha and Zubair from people regarding whom Allah said: “(15:47) And We shall remove from their breasts all spite that they had (in the world against one another due to misunderstanding). They shall be brothers seated on couches face to face (in Paradise).” Then be said: “Who are they if not us? Who are they if not us?” And he kept repeating it until the narrator wished that he would fall silent.
Large number of Sahabas demanded Qisas of Uthman's murder from Imam Ali (a.s) but large of number sahabas did not participate in the battle of siffeen.Which proves that the belief of Sahaba who took religion directly from Muhammad(SAWS) was that Ali(as) wasn't infallible.
Lets assume,I'm not interested in answering assumptions. I prefer to stay silent over those disputes, as is the belief of Ahlus-sunnah.
For me as a Shia, I don't believe Imam Ali (a.s) did ijtihad because for me he (a.s) is infallible like Prophet Mohammed (s.a.w.w). For e.g. Nabi Musa (a.s) and Nabi Haroon (a.s) during Bani Israel's worship of calf. Nabi Haroon (a.s) did not do ijtihad by disobeying Nabi Musa (a.s) orders and letting Bani Israel to follow Samiri.And I dont believe in this because this belief goes against Quran(4:59).
Usamah bin Zaid did ijtihad and killed the person who had professed Tawhid. Now my question is, after this incident could Usamah bin Zaid kill another person who has professesed Tawhid (i.e. Muslim) by exercising ijtihad?Again ifs and coulds, but the reason I used that hadeeth was to refute your misapplication of the hadeeth about killer will be in hell. And the purpose was met. Im not bothered in answering arguments related to ifs and coulds.
No matter what the situation, is there any leeway available to Muslims to rebel against Muslim Caliph?Rebellion that is prohibited is that where in the rebels intend to remove the leader in power or directly destabilize his rule, while Muawiya(as) wasn't doing this, he was just holding back from Bayah and not leaving his seat of Amir, until his demands which were his right were met.
In same way there is Khas evidence present that anyone who kills a believer will be sent to hell.This is similar to the report about praying two units prayer will be guaranteed paradise. Act is Khaas, but its application on individuals isn't. And application on individuals or a specific group, needs to be Khaas.
ALLAH (SWT) says in Quran:
"But whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment." (Quran 4:93)
Which proves that the belief of Sahaba who took religion directly from Muhammad(SAWS) was that Ali(as) wasn't infallible.
I'm not interested in answering assumptions. I prefer to stay silent over those disputes, as is the belief of Ahlus-sunnah.
And I dont believe in this because this belief goes against Quran(4:59).
Again ifs and coulds, but the reason I used that hadeeth was to refute your misapplication of the hadeeth about killer will be in hell. And the purpose was met. Im not bothered in answering arguments related to ifs and coulds.
Rebellion that is prohibited is that where in the rebels intend to remove the leader in power or directly destabilize his rule, while Muawiya(as) wasn't doing this, he was just holding back from Bayah and not leaving his seat of Amir, until his demands which were his right were met.
This is similar to the report about praying two units prayer will be guaranteed paradise. Act is Khaas, but its application on individuals isn't. And application on individuals or a specific group, needs to be Khaas.
It proves Sahabas followed authentic hadith by not particpating in Battle of Siffeen nor rebelling against the Caliph.Which implies that, they didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible, rather a fallible who was asking them to join his army, even though that was against the command of Prophet(S), as per them.
The fact is Imam Ali (a.s) was not interested in fulfilling the demand of Muawiya of punishing all those people whom Muawiya thought was involved in murder of Uthman. In fact some of them joined Imam Ali's (a.s) army.I prefer to ignore arguments based on assumptions, even though i can refute these with reports, yet its futile so i'm just ignoring these.
Not at all. This verse proves to obey those in authority. If someone disputes then he should refer to Quran and hadith. Quran and Hadith both commands to obey the Caliph and not to rebel against him. All in all Caliph should be obeyed in all circumstances until he gives up Salah or commits open Kufr.the verse shows that only Allan and Prophet(S) are infallible. If Ulil Amr was infallible, then there wouldn't have been a scope to dispute with them. And on top of that, referring to Allah and Prophet(S), and as per reliable traditions Ulil Amr could make mistakes as well. And even Sahaba believed this, that's why when Ali(as) burned people as punishment, Ibn Abbas(as) viewed that action wrong, he didn't consider it to be right. Which implies that he didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible, and when there was dispute between him and Ulil Amr, he judged the matter between them by referring to hadeeth of Prophet(s).
Clear Quranic verse and Hadith exists stating Killer of Muslim will be in hell. Clear Quranic verse exists for Usamah in which a Muslim person who killed another Muslim mistakenly would be forgiven.And thus we derive from it that, those who Sahaba who fought each other, did so due to misunderstanding, they didn't have personal enmity. Moreover, there even exist clear report that the one who prays two units of prayer will be guaranteed Paradise, compare this with the Killer of Muslim in hell argument now, because it nullifies your biased conclusions.
By doing so, Muawiya was directly causing division in Muslim Ummah and going against Command of ALLAH (SWT) which gave Imam Ali (a.s) solid reason to fight the rebel.This was implicit, and he was holding some demands which were his right as per him. That's why it was ijtihadi mistake. Even wasn't someone whose intention was to remove Ali(as) from Caliphate. He even said that he would give bayah to Ali(as) if his right was granted to him.
Intentionally killing a Muslim is forbidden in all circumstances. No need for khaas report for individuals or specific group. Provide Quranic verse or authentic hadith stating that a Person who killed Muslim intentionally will not go to hell as there exists no khaas report for that individual. Following your logic, today a Muslim can kill another muslim intentionally saying that his killing is based on ijtihad and there exists no khaas report stating that he would burn in hell.As said before, it wasn't intentional murdering which hadeeth forbids. He was holding his some demands which he considered to be his right, and if the caliph would try to take away his right by force he believed that he could defend back by fighting back. Just like a person whose property is being snatched could fight back. Hence you are comparing apples with oranges, due to your lacking of understanding.
Which implies that, they didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible, rather a fallible who was asking them to join his army, even though that was against the command of Prophet(S), as per them.
I prefer to ignore arguments based on assumptions, even though i can refute these with reports, yet its futile so i'm just ignoring these.
the verse shows that only Allah and Prophet(S) are infallible. If Ulil Amr was infallible, then there wouldn't have been a scope to dispute with them. And on top of that, referring to Allah and Prophet(S), and as per reliable traditions Ulil Amr could make mistakes as well. And even Sahaba believed this, that's why when Ali(as) burned people as punishment, Ibn Abbas(as) viewed that action wrong, he didn't consider it to be right. Which implies that he didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible, and when there was dispute between him and Ulil Amr, he judged the matter between them by referring to hadeeth of Prophet(s).
And thus we derive from it that, those who Sahaba who fought each other, did so due to misunderstanding, they didn't have personal enmity. Moreover, there even exist clear report that the one who prays two units of prayer will be guaranteed Paradise, compare this with the Killer of Muslim in hell argument now, because it nullifies your biased conclusions.
This was implicit, and he was holding some demands which were his right as per him. That's why it was ijtihadi mistake. Even wasn't someone whose intention was to remove Ali(as) from Caliphate. He even said that he would give bayah to Ali(as) if his right was granted to him.
As said before, it wasn't intentional murdering which hadeeth forbids. He was holding his some demands which he considered to be his right, and if the caliph would try to take away his right by force he believed that he could defend back by fighting back. Just like a person whose property is being snatched could fight back. Hence you are comparing apples with oranges, due to your lacking of understanding.
No, he (a.s) accepted bayah from Muhajirun and Ansar when they gave him (a.s) bayah willingly without there being any coercion.
Yes the same people who gave bayah for 3 Calipahs before him. So if Imam Ali (as) accepted bayah without the 12er Shia conditions for accepting an Imam then why did Imam Jafar as Sadiq(as) in the 12er Shia view tell the Mutazilla they must reject the 3 Calipahs for Caliphate? Why did this version of Imam Jafar contradict Imam Ali?
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6898:
Ahnaf b. Qais reported: I set out with the intention of helping this person (Hadrat 'Ali) that Abu Bakra met me. He said: Ahnaf, where do you intend to go? I said: I intend to help the cousin of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), viz. 'Ali. Thereupon he said to me: Ahnaf, go back, for I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: When two Muslims confront one another with swords (in hands) both the slayer and the slain would be in Fire. He (Ahnaf) said: I said, or it was said: Allah's Messenger, it may be the case of one who kills. but what about the slain (why he would be put in Hell-Fire)? Thereupon he said: He also intended to kill his companion.
Ijtihad can only be exercised by Hakam (i.e. Ruler) If you have come across any hadith stating otherwise (i.e. ijtihad can be done by any Sahaba) then please provide that hadith.
1st Group
Hadith (and Quranic verse) exists which says Imam should be supported against rebels.
This narration falls under the following heading, "The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah)".
Would be nice if we contextualize our "evidence" and I would urge Ijtaba to read the preceding and proceeding reports in the same chapter.
Didn't understand what you're trying to say?
Are you saying that Muslim wrote this report under the heading, "The Book Pertaining to the Turmoil and Portents of the Last Hour (Kitab Al-Fitan wa Ashrat As-Sa`ah)" so this Fitna (of Battle of Jamal) will occur at the Last Hour?
My simple research yielded a narration from Sunan Abu Dawud according to which Mu'adh ibn Jabal (ra) was appointed by the Holy Prophet (saw) to go to Yemen. Before leaving, Mu'adh (ra) was asked how he would judge when the occasion of deciding a case arose. Mu’adh (ra) replied, "according to the Quran". The Holy Prophet (saw) thereupon asked what he would do if he did not find the solution to the problem in the Quran, to which Mu’adh (ra) said he would govern according to the Sunnah. But when the Holy Prophet (saw) asked if he could not find it in the Sunnah also, Mu’adh (ra) said, "ana ajtahidu" (I will exert myself to find the solution). The Holy Prophet (saw) thereupon patted his back and told him he was right.
By the way, the requirements for being a mujtahid are to have extensive knowledge of Arabic, the Qur'an, Sunnah and legal theory (Usul al-fiqh), not rulership.
In that case, you should not complain about Muslims not helping Imam Ali (ra) against Abu Bakr (ra). He was the leader and so Muslims had to support him against Imam Ali's (ra) "rebellion" (to not give bayah to Abu Bakr).
Why are you still crying over it, more than 14 centuries later?
No, Imam Muslim (rah) has compiled this report under the chapter to clarify this type of fitnah (Muslim shedding the blood of another Muslim) will be a later phenomenon. It does not apply to the Battle of Jamal which happened in the early years of Islam.
There exists no authentic hadith which forbids Caliph to ask Muslims to join his army to fight against rebels. If Sahabas believed that Imam Ali (a.s) was going against the command of Prophet (s.a.w.w), then these Sahabas were misguided. If you believe otherwise, then provide authentic hadith forbidding Caliph to ask Muslims to join his army to fight against rebels.Calm down. I used that case just to prove that Sahaba didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible.
Provide those authentic reports.I dont want to waste time after speculation based theories. It's waste of time. But yes, if it was something you based on reliable traditions then, that would have been a different case.
What do you understand by Imam Ali (a.s) not punishing those people who were involved in Uthman's murder (according to Muawiya) and letting them join his (a.s) army to fight Muawiya?A chaotic situation, Fitnah. People being threatened that if they don't accept the position of Caliphate they would be killed, etc, can't be situation in control. For details watch Farid's lecture on Jamal to see how chaotic the situation was.
If according to you Prophet (s.a.w.w) is infallible then why did he (s.a.w.w) make mistake when, in seeking the pleasure of his (s.a.w.w) wives, he made unlawful that which God has made lawful. (Quran 66:1)That was his ijthadi mistake. And the difference between a Prophet's mistake and Non-Prophet's mistake is that if Prophet makes a mistake, he is instantly corrected by Allah(swt) through Wahi(revelation), while this isn't the case with Non-Prophets, that's why obedience to them in conditional unlike Allah and his Prophet(s). Thus your objection the verse refute Shia belief is nullified.
Prophet (s.a.w.w) has clearly stated that whoever obeys my commander, obeys me (s.a.w.w.) and whoever disobeys my commander, disobeys me (s.a.w.w). When an Ansari was appointed as commander by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) and he got angry with his troops. He set a fire and commanded his troops to jump into the fire by saying whoever obeys me, obeys the Prophet (s.a.w.w) - due to command of Prophet (s.a.w.w) of obeying his (s.a.w.w) commander. But the troops disobeyed Prophet's (s.a.w.w) commander, thus disobeying the Prophet's (s.a.w.w) command. When Prophet (s.a.w.w) came to know about the incident then he (s.a.w.w) retracted from his words (s.a.w.w) by saying that Obedience (to the commander) is obligatory only in what is good (i.e. Maroof).If the ahadeeth about obeying the Caliph are seen in a holistic manner, the outcome would be that, obedience to Ulil Amr is condition, unlike obedience to Allah which is unconditional. Which again proves my point that, Ulil Amr are fallibles, if they were infallible they obedience to them wouldn't have been conditional.
If the troops had obeyed the command of the Prophet (by obeying his s.a.w.w commander) then they would had always remained in the Fire.
About Imam Ali (a.s) burning the people in Fire, is there any authentic report that he (a.s) repented or regretted his action of burning the people?Narrated ‘Ikrimah: That ‘Ali burnt some people who apostasized from Islam. This news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, so he said: “If it were me I would have killed them according to the statement of Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Whoever changes his religion then kill him.’ And I would not have burned them because the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.’ So this reached ‘Ali, and he said: “Ibn ‘Abbas has told the truth.”[Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1458 ; Sahih].
What is fatwa of Ahlul Sunnah on retaliatory punishment (qisaas) when a person is killed by burning? Should the criminal also be punished by burning based on following Quranic verses:I don't know, The reason I presented this example is to display, that how a noble Sahaba implemented the Quranic verse 4:59, again it was because he didn't consider Ali(as) as infallible. My intention was to present his view and understanding.
“Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is with Al-Muttaqoon (the pious)”
[al-Baqarah 2:194]
“And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers in the Oneness of Allah), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you endure patiently, verily, it is better for As-Sabirin (the patient ones, etc.)”
[an-Nahl 16:126].
If yes, then isn't killing by burning punishing with the punishment of ALLAH (SWT)?
So are you saying that there is a contradiction?I don't say its a contradiction but rather your poor understanding which fails to reconcile the two. My argument was simple that based on general reports don't jump to conclusions about individuals. Only Allah knows their destiny. Except for the cases wherein he informed about certain individuals or a group in specific. For example: Hatib ibn Abi Baltah committed a major mistake by sending a secret letter to Quraysh, yet Prophet(saws) said he won't enter hell BECAUSE HE PARTICIPATED IN BADR.
What will be the end of a person who prays two units of prayer and kills another Muslim intentionally, will he be in Paradise or Hell?
Whatever the demands of Muawiya he had no leeway of fighting Caliph of Muslims.Neither Muawiya(as) gave bayah that time, nor did he broke it. He had some demands which he believed to be his right, and when force was against him, he fought BACK. That's why it was an ijtihadi mistake.
Sahih Muslim: Book 20, Number 4555:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:
One who defected from obedience (to the Amir) and separated from the main body of the Muslims-if he died in that state-would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya (i.e. would not die as a Muslim). One who fights under the banner of a people who ate blind (to the cause for which they are fighting. i.e. do not know whether their cause is just or otherwise), who gets flared up with family pride, calls, (people) to fight for their family honour, and supports his kith and kin (i.e. fignts not for the cause of Allah but for the sake of this family or tribe) -if he is killed (in this fight), he dies as one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya. Whoso attacks my Umma (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his promise made with those who have been given a pledge of security-he has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him.
Clear and authentic hadith forbidding to fight Muslim ruler for the sake of family pride, family honor and support of one's kith and kin. For which reason was Muwaiya fighting against Muslim Ruler?
Provide one single authentic hadith allowing Muslim to fight back Muslim Caliph when his right or property is snatched by force.Some of the Scholars explained this hadeeth, that it is during the situation when the Muslims are weak. Others disagreed, but again it shows that there is difference of opinion even in the interpretation of reports, due to ijtihad. And you may look at the example of Abdullah bin Zubayr(as). Or take example of Imam Husayn(as) when he threatened to call hilful fudul, when his property was take over by the Amir of Madinah, Waleed bin Utbah.
Sahih Muslim: Book 33, Hadith 82
It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said:
Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.
Muslims are ordered to listen and obey the Muslim ruler even if their backs are flogged and their wealth are snatched by force.
Taking into account number of people involved in Battle of Jamal (50,000) and Battle of Siffin (200,000) there exists khaas reports for only six people (i.e. Imam Ali a.s, Uthman, Talha, Zubayr, Ayesha & Muawiya.)When you admit that your general reports doesn't apply in cases where there is Khaas evidence about the fate of certain individuals, then on what basis are you jumping to conclusion over a specific group using general reports? Because absence of Khaas reports doesn't mean that there is no possibility of them being pardoned by Allah. Because when some can be pardoned, some of whom were the leaders of the other group, then as Muslims, we should as forgiveness for the rest too, about whom there is no Khaas reports, instead of jumping to conclusions. Note, We are not asking you to claim Jannah for those about whom there are no Khaas reports, but just asking to hold back from passing judgements.
Mu'adh bin Jabal was made Hakam (i.e. Governor) of Yemen. Mu'adh as hakam could exercise Ijtihad.
Muawiya was hakam of Syria during the time of Umar and Uthman but was removed by Imam Ali (a.s) as hakam of Syria when Imam Ali (a.s) became Caliph of Muslims.
Even if, for the sake of argument, if I believe Muawiya was mujtahid... looking at the hadith narrated by Muadh:
01. Mujtahid should judge in accordance with Allah's Book. (Clear verses forbidding to kill Muslims intentionally nor cause division in Muslim Ummah by acting against commands of ALLAH SWT i.e becoming a rebel)
02. Mujtahid should act in accordance with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) if he does not find any guidance in Allah's Book. (Clear hadiths stating to obey Ruler of Muslims, not to fight the Ruler, not to kill Muslims because killing Muslims will lead to hell-fire, not to cause division in Muslim Ummah by fighting for family pride & honor instead of fighting for the cause of ALLAH SWT)
Imam Ali (a.s) went with his (a.s) family to Muhajirun and Ansar to remind them of his (a.s) status and rights so that they could help him (a.s).
Imam Ali (a.s) never rebelled against first 3 Caliphs which shows that he (a.s) was not power-hungry like Muawiya.
Provide the report of Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s)
If you mean Companions of Imam Baqir (a.s) and Imam Sadiq (a.s) then yes they should had joined Zayd bin Ali (a.s).
Zayd bin Ali (a.s) is one muttaqi shia. Imam Baqir (a.s) and Imam Sadiq (a.s) needed more than one muttaqi shia i.e. they needed 313 muttaqi shias like Zayd bin Ali (a.s) to revolt against unjust government.
If Zayd bin Ali (a.s) considered Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s) as his Imam, and Imam Jafar Sadiq (a.s) considered Zayd bin Ali (a.s) as martyr then I think your question has been answered.
If you mean Companions of Imam Baqir (a.s) and Imam Sadiq (a.s) then yes they should had joined Zayd bin Ali (a.s).
Imam Zayd in al-Sham
Meanwhile the news that Zayd was on his way to Damascus arrived before Zayd did. Pros and cons were anticipating his arrival. Once he did arrive he was put under “house arrest” at a place called al-Rusafah. He then became the focal point of scholars and students who went to see and learn from him. Overnight al-Rusafah became a hub of scholarly, fiqhi, and literary activity.
Zayd bin Ali and Hisham face to face
Hisham said: “You are Zayd who holds hopes for the khilafah. How can you aspire to such a thing when you are a slave-woman’s son?!
Zayd replied: “How do you impugn a man whose grandfather is Allah’s Prophet (P) and whose father is ‘Ali ibn Abi Taleb?”
Hisham was flabbergasted. He could not find the right words to speak. Imam Zayd realized this and said to him: “Ittaqi Illah ya Hisham” (Fear Allah, O Hisham).
Imam Zayd left while stating his well-known expression: “People who dislike the ardor of swords are candidates for humiliation.” It is also reported that he said: “Whoever is cozy with holding on to worldly life shall experience humiliation unendingly.”
Hisham was later told of these words by Zayd. And he realized something that he had been ignoring, he said to his hirelings and assistants: “And you claim that this [Prophetic] household are a thing of the past? Not so when a person like this [Zayd] is their successor.”
[Tarikh Ibn Asaker, Vol VI]
Is qiyas not in the Qur'an? Your first point debunked.
In short, Zayd bin Ali (as) was not familiar with divine concept of Imamah, as he had never heard such thing from his father. Some other members of ahlul bayt like Muhammad Nafs Zakkiyah, his brother, his father and others from Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) progeny were also unaware about such divine concept (also rejected taqiyyah). So they all revolted on their own, declaring themselves in public as an Imam.
[ISLAMIC OPPOSITION OF AL-NAFS AZ-ZAKIYA ® by Imam Muhammad al-Asi]
The majority of the Muslims of Al-Medinah, through a Shura process, as was supposed to be the case through the past 100 odd years, agreed that An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah qualifies to lead the Muslims in finishing the struggle of the past years and launching the Muslims into a new era of Adl, justice, equality and political participation that was lost in the previous years at that level.
Excuses me...
"declaring themselves in public as an Imam"
Well if they hadn't heard of it so weren't aware of it and that is 'divine concept of Imamah' then why revolt and by declaring themselves in public as an Imam? 😑
If there was no concept as divine Imamah and they never heard of it then they should revolt against the concept and not the others by declaring themselves as the Imam which is associating yourself to the concept.
It doesn't sound like the revolt with others was against the concept of Imamah but it sounds like the revolt with others was for and about the concept of Imamah.
Imam Ali, his sons did not become Calipahs on the conditional beleifs of the 12er Shia. They became Calipahs through people and their bayah. As for fighting injustice thats on the basis of Quran and Sunnah.
You're missing the point here. We're talking about Imams and not Caliphs.Imamate and Caliphate are interchangable terms. They dont get Wahi, they are not divinely appointed to lead. People give them bayah to lead.
In short, Zayd bin Ali (as) was not familiar with divine concept of Imamah, as he had never heard such thing from his father"
Ok.......
"Some other members of ahlul bayt like Muhammad Nafs Zakkiyah, his brother, his father and others from Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) progeny were also unaware about such divine concept"
Ok........Then you say,
"So they all revolted on their own, declaring themselves in public as an Imam"Yes people saw injustice, these Imams said we have to do something. They accepted bayah and declared Imamate.
Well if they hadn't heard of it so weren't aware of it and that is 'divine concept of Imamah' then why revolt and by declaring themselves in public as an Imam? 😑
If there was no concept as divine Imamah and they never heard of it then they should revolt against the concept and not the others by declaring themselves as the Imam which is associating yourself to the concept.
It doesn't sound like the revolt with others was against the concept of Imamah but it sounds like the revolt with others was for and about the concept of Imamah.
Imamate and Caliphate are interchangable terms. They dont get Wahi, they are not divinely appointed to lead. People give them bayah to lead.
Yes people saw injustice, these Imams said we have to do something. They accepted bayah and declared Imamate.
.
12er Shia imamate is all a theory which never came into reality. The little hope for 12er Shia is to expect a man to come out of gaiyba and abolish taqiyyah, and then believe he will bring this theory to life. After that the 12er belief is rajah to further implement the plan of Imamate of 12.
We are talking about Shia Imamah which is considered to be divinely appointed. We are talking about Zayd. And I've pointed out flaws within the post.
That's not what was mentioned in the post is referred to. 'Zayd knew nothing about the concept of Imamah. He wasn't aware of it' which Imamah is spoken about here. You're mixing it all up.Yes Zayd declared Imamate on the basis of bayah not divine appointment.
Their concept of Imamah (leadership) was different than asna ashri shia concept which is divine and limited only to 12 persons and where Imam have special powers and miracles, yet he have to perform taqiyyah (even in very minor issues) to save his and other's life. :o ::)
Tafsir Furat Kufi
[From Abi Hashem al-Rummani who has it on the authority of Imam Zayd (AS) who said in a long discourse: ―I avow that none of us – the descendants of both al-Hasan and al-Husayn – never claimed to be imposed leaders on all the Muslims (by this he may be referring to the issue of divine appointment and the Prophetic text). I affirm that my father ‗Ali ibn al-Husayn did not say so as I lived with him until he passed on. Muhammad ibn ‗Ali did not do so either as I also lived with him until he passed away. My nephew did not utter such a claim either, after him. Then he said: An Imam from among us who commands the leadership of the Muslims is he who bears arms and upholds the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His triumphant Prophet (P). How can Muslims have a leader (Imam) who is imposed on all the Muslims, who lives in bedroom comfort, withholding the argument for his legitimacy, with a closed door policy, and with rampant injustice? We know nothing of this behavior!]
First of all what is Imamah or Shia Imamah? Lets take a look at this first. Shia Imamah is continuous divine guidance after Nabuwwah which is also divine guidance.How is it divine guidance when Imams do not get wahi?
The Qur'an and Sunnah wasn't left unattended and the Muslim Ummah wasn't left without a divine guide.When the 12th Imam went into hiding what divine guide did he leave the Ummah with?
It was clear that the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper and they weren't interested.Pen and paper had nothing to do with Caliphate.
Plus I've already mentioned that those who got into authority and gained power used what ever means necessary to restrain members of the Ahle Baith, their family, friends and supporters via persecution.Sahaba were mostly the generation of the first 3 Imams. What did the Shia do as a majority to support Imamate? The Sahaba made it clear that they did not want to get into the Hashimi and Ummawi conflict, so they sidelined the Ahlul bayt. They were wrong, but at least they weren't people of lip service. Whereas the Rafidah made statement and the Imams did not respond or trust them. Till today the 12th Imam is ready to come out.
First of all what is Imamah or Shia Imamah? Lets take a look at this first. Shia Imamah is continuous divine guidance after Nabuwwah which is also divine guidance. The Qur'an and Sunnah wasn't left unattended and the Muslim Ummah wasn't left without a divine guide. Nabuwwah had to do with mankind where as Imamah after it doesn't have to do with mankind but has to do with the Muslim Ummah. There is a clear difference.
Now this is an internal matter that certain individuals weren't happy with the divine concept of Imamah and they did all they could to follow their own desire and plans.
It was clear that the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper and they weren't interested. They had the book of Allah with them and they believed it was sufficient for them. So this wasn't a matter for Muhammad s.a.w to impose by force. Nor was it a matter for Ali ibn Abi Talib or other Imams to fight for. It was something the Prophet s.a.w wanted for the the benefit of the Ummah. And if certain people aren't interested, they don't think it's necessary and have their own idea and plans then 'La ikraha fideen" their is no compulsion within religion.
At the end of the day this isn't an external matter regarding shirk or kufr. But infact it's an internal matter of the Muslim Ummah which is sensitive and delicate. That's why it was dealt with patience and tolerance rather than the sword and by heavy handed tactics.
Plus I've already mentioned that those who got into authority and gained power used what ever means necessary to restrain members of the Ahle Baith, their family, friends and supporters via persecution.
12er Shia imamate is all a theory which never came into reality. The little hope for 12er Shia is to expect a man to come out of gaiyba and abolish taqiyyah, and then believe he will bring this theory to life. After that the 12er belief is rajah to further implement the plan of Imamate of 12.Yes Zayd declared Imamate on the basis of bayah not divine appointment.
Not just Shias but Sunnis also believe that a saviour will come. There is a need for a saviour and both Sunnis as well as Shias believe in this. Why? How did things go wrong. When did they start going wrong and why, when Islam was completed and favours were full filled by Allah to the Ummah. The job was done, what ever the job was at the end. So what happened. Why are things getting from bad to worse. And still they will get even worse. Shias only hope isn't Mahdi, the Ummah's hope is Mahdi. So don't play the card by just gluing and sticking it with the Shias.
He probably didn't even declare anything. He just wanted revenge for his ancestors killed in karbalaa. His grandfather Hussein Ibne Ali. That's why he took up arms against the Ummayads. And if there is evidence that he declared by bayah, then by bayah you declare Caliphate and Imamah. You become a Caliph and not an Imam. No Caliph declared or called themselves as the Imam of the people.
A couple point you need to note.
Mahdi concept is not part of our aqeeda. Its not mutawatir. Some great scholars even rejected the idea.
Mahdi for us is not the Imam of the time.
The Mahdi concept even if its fully accepted he will come in an unknown future. So many generations will not be guided by him.
With the hadith we have Mahdi will rule for 7-9 years. So after that there is a generation after him who wont be directly guided by him.
There is no hadith telling Sunni he the last Imam.
Lastly he is not divinely appointed. Hadith which say so are weak.
For the 12er Shia only the 12 Imams can became Calipahs. So arent you contradictng yourself?
Also in al Kafi Imam Zayd has a disagreement with his brother Imam Baqer about the duties of an Imam. Imam Zayd says revolting is part of Imamate when there are people to give bayah.
Secondly its Imam Jafar who didn't declare his Imamate to the Ummah. This is found in al Kafi.
Next there are sources where Imam Zayd took bayah, and with this bayah he didnt say Imam Jafar is the ar Rida.
"Mahdi concept is not part of our aqeeda. Its not mutawatir. Some great scholars even rejected the idea. Mahdi for us is not the Imam of the time"Sunnis don’t believe that Imam Mahdi would be divinely appointed. Him being sent by Allah means it’s the Qadr of Allah. And believing in him isn’t fundamental part of our Aqeedah, rather scholars prohibited to reject the coming of Mahdi because, it’s proven from authentic reports, so that would fall under rejection of authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws), in this sense we even believe in coming of Dajjal too, and scholars prohibited people to reject his coming, since it would mean to reject saying of Prophet(s).
Then I don't know which Sunni are you if that's your belief about Mahdi.
However the more common opinion among Sunni Muslims is, that the Mahdi is an expected ruler sent by God before the endtime to reestablish righteousness, coincides with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (Isa), but, unlike most Shia traditions, Sunni Islam often do not believe the Mahdi has already been born.
The only difference is that the Sunnis don't believe he's been born and in occultation. That's the only difference. But even some Sunnis do.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Hamid-Saadat-1
"Mahdi concept is not part of our aqeeda. Its not mutawatir. Some great scholars even rejected the idea. Mahdi for us is not the Imam of the time"Again I said its not a mutawatir belief.
Then I don't know which Sunni are you if that's your belief about Mahdi.
However the more common opinion among Sunni Muslims is, that the Mahdi is an expected ruler sent by God before the endtime to reestablish righteousness, coincides with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (Isa), but, unlike most Shia traditions, Sunni Islam often do not believe the Mahdi has already been born.A common belief does not make it mutawatir.
The only difference is that the Sunnis don't believe he's been born and in occultation. That's the only difference. But even some Sunnis do.Even in the 12er Shia beliefs we are not even sure who the mother of the Mahdi is. Is she a Roman or an African. Some sources even that the 12th Imam's mother did not even show signs of pregnancy.
https://www.quora.com/profile/Hamid-Saadat-1
Sunnis don’t believe that Imam Mahdi would be divinely appointed. Him being sent by Allah means it’s the Qadr of Allah. And believing in him isn’t fundamental part of our Aqeedah, rather scholars prohibited to reject the coming of Mahdi because, it’s proven from authentic reports, so that would fall under rejection of authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws), in this sense we even believe in coming of Dajjal too, and scholars prohibited people to reject his coming, since it would mean to reject saying of Prophet(s).
Sunnis don’t believe that Imam Mahdi would be divinely appointed. Him being sent by Allah means it’s the Qadr of Allah. And believing in him isn’t fundamental part of our Aqeedah, rather scholars prohibited to reject the coming of Mahdi because, it’s proven from authentic reports, so that would fall under rejection of authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws), in this sense we even believe in coming of Dajjal too, and scholars prohibited people to reject his coming, since it would mean to reject saying of Prophet(s).
"in this sense we even believe in coming of Dajjal too, and scholars prohibited people to reject his coming, since it would mean to reject saying of Prophet(s)"Its part of Aqeedah but not the fundamental part. Fundamental parts are proven from Quran. And the rest of Aqaid are sub-categories which actually related to one of the Fundamentals and can be found in ahadeeth, and they are many, just see Aqeedah al-Tahawiyyah.
Then I don't understand how and why it shouldn't become a very important part of your belief.