TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Sahabah-AhlulBayt => Topic started by: Rationalist on January 21, 2015, 03:02:51 AM
-
There are two opinions on the status of Abi Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan from the 12er Shia point of view.
1) They were monafiqeen since day one
2) They became monafiqeen since the Prophet (pbuh) passed away.
The first opinion without a doubt contradicts the Quran. However, for the second opinion there is no proof in the 12er Shia ahadith books.
-
According to some of my cousins, they are kafir (naozobillah). One shia (don't remember name) wrote in one of his books that Imam Abu Bakr (a.s) went to a sorcerer before converting and she told him of Islam's bright future and how he'll become khalifa.
-
2 shiites I know said that some sahaba never became muslim and hid their belief. Then I said: Then they must be impure, so rasullulah (saw) his wudu would become invalid each time those sahabas entered the mosque and shaked hands with each other.
No reply xD
-
2 shiites I know said that some sahaba never became muslim and hid their belief. Then I said: Then they must be impure, so rasullulah (saw) his wudu would become invalid each time those sahabas entered the mosque and shaked hands with each other.
No reply xD
How would the Prophet (SAW) wudhu break just because he shook hands with non-Muslims and entered his mosque?
-
Shiites have this najis rule including touching humans of different sects or religion, right?
-
^Kinda, what I was taught was if someone wasn't Ahlul Kitab, and they were wet, then you become najis by touching them. When I'd go to my Sikh friend's house I wouldn't be able to eat the fruit they washed for me (as a guest) since they touched it.
-
According to some of my cousins, they are kafir (naozobillah). One shia (don't remember name) wrote in one of his books that Imam Abu Bakr (a.s) went to a sorcerer before converting and she told him of Islam's bright future and how he'll become khalifa.
This is in Anita Rai's biography of the Prophet (pbuh). One of the worst books I've read. She notes that Abi Bakr and Umar went to a sorcerer/fortune teller who told them that a man would spread a religion in Arabia and that they would be his successors. From that point on they kept an eye out for prophets and realised Muhammad (pbuh) was the one and joined him early on.
It paints a picture that they were power hungry and became Muslim only for the Caliphate. Only an idiot however would say that Abu Bakr and Umar lived in luxury or were wealthy rulers.
-
According to some of my cousins, they are kafir (naozobillah). One shia (don't remember name) wrote in one of his books that Imam Abu Bakr (a.s) went to a sorcerer before converting and she told him of Islam's bright future and how he'll become khalifa.
This is in Anita Rai's biography of the Prophet (pbuh). One of the worst books I've read. She notes that Abi Bakr and Umar went to a sorcerer/fortune teller who told them that a man would spread a religion in Arabia and that they would be his successors. From that point on they kept an eye out for prophets and realised Muhammad (pbuh) was the one and joined him early on.
It paints a picture that they were power hungry and became Muslim only for the Caliphate. Only an idiot however would say that Abu Bakr and Umar lived in luxury or were wealthy rulers.
Except that `Umar never joined early.
: p
-
They spaced it out so not to arouse suspicion...
-
^Kinda, what I was taught was if someone wasn't Ahlul Kitab, and they were wet, then you become najis by touching them. When I'd go to my Sikh friend's house I wouldn't be able to eat the fruit they washed for me (as a guest) since they touched it.
Yes, I really wonder why the early shiites came up with this "fiqh" ruling (actually it's just extremism).
-
Lol Vigi. I'm glad you're here. =)
Btw, Madelung got away with theories like that.
-
So the rule about touching a wet kafir making you najis doesn't apply for Ahlul Sunnah?
-
Well they see us as najis since they consider us as nasibis, but they labelled us as muslims (only in this life) to keep their wudu valid since they mixed with sunnis and and used taqiyah.
There is no najis rule like this in ahlu sunnah. But I think if I have wudhu and touch a dead body, my wudhu becomes invalid. Haven't ressearched this actually and it might differ in each 4 madhabs.
-
Lol Vigi. I'm glad you're here. =)
It's been a while but hope to be online a bit more.
Btw, Madelung got away with theories like that.
I remember your review of his 'Succession to Muhammad' book and to be fair I didn't think it was bad. At least he tried to produce some form of justification for his views, whereas others simply pluck narrations from here, there and everywhere just to form an interesting narrative (e.g Lesley Halzeton's book which was just terrible) .
-
In order words Yassir Al Habib's takfiri views have more weight and proof from the 12er Shia books, as compared to those who call for unity and do taqiyyah.
-
There are two opinions on the status of Abi Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan from the 12er Shia point of view.
1) They were monafiqeen since day one
2) They became monafiqeen since the Prophet (pbuh) passed away.
The first opinion without a doubt contradicts the Quran. However, for the second opinion there is no proof in the 12er Shia ahadith books.
So how do you know about these opinions??? And what's the concern about these companions??? Companions are fallible (Gahir e Masoom), everyone is a subject to controversy and one has a right to their opinion just like you gentlemen.
-
There are two opinions on the status of Abi Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan from the 12er Shia point of view.
1) They were monafiqeen since day one
2) They became monafiqeen since the Prophet (pbuh) passed away.
The first opinion without a doubt contradicts the Quran. However, for the second opinion there is no proof in the 12er Shia ahadith books.
So how do you know about these opinions??? And what's the concern about these companions??? Companions are fallible (Gahir e Masoom), everyone is a subject to controversy and one has a right to their opinion just like you gentlemen.
Maybe, just maybe, the people on this forum are very interested and passionate about researching Tashayyu`, and so they come into contact with a lot of Shia (like yourself) and they discuss with them and learn their various points of views.
...Or maybe they read it in your books who knows.
-
This is in Anita Rai's biography of the Prophet (pbuh). One of the worst books I've read. She notes that Abi Bakr and Umar went to a sorcerer/fortune teller who told them that a man would spread a religion in Arabia and that they would be his successors. From that point on they kept an eye out for prophets and realised Muhammad (pbuh) was the one and joined him early on.
It paints a picture that they were power hungry and became Muslim only for the Caliphate. Only an idiot however would say that Abu Bakr and Umar lived in luxury or were wealthy rulers.
The truth is, according to one narration he went to Khatijah's uncle Waraka'-b-Naufal and then decided to accept Islam.
Abu Bakr narrates, " and I, had not
heard before that of a prophet expected who was to be sent." He
adds. " Then I went out to Waraka'-b-Naufal* and he was one who con.
stantly watched the heavens and muttered frequently to himself and I
stopped him and related to him the circumstance. He said " Tea—O
!sou of my brother, I am skilled in the scriptures and in knowledge ; know,
that this prophet, he whom men await, shall be by descent of the most
noble of the Arabs. I am likewise skilled in genealogy, and thy tribe is
by descent, the most noble among the Arabs." I said. " O uncle, and
what will the prophet say ?" He replied, " he shall speak that which
hath been said to him, and know, that he shall not oppress nor be oppress- •
ed nor desire you to oppress each other." Therefore when the Apostle of
God was sent, I believed in him and testified to him."
As for wealth he has 40,000 dirhams before Islam, and it decline after that.
Ibn A'sakir from Ayesha with- different authorities,
and from U'rwah-b-uz-Zubayr,,that on the day when Abu Bakr was
converted, he had forty thousand dinars—and according to another reading,
forty thousand dirhams, and he spent them upon the Apostle of God.
Abu Sa'id al Aa'rdbi records on the authority of Ibn O'mar, that on
the day when Abu Bakr was converted, he had in his house forty thousand
dirhams, and when he set out for Medina at the time of the Tlight, he had
no more than five thousand, all of which he spent upon the manumission
of slaves, and in aid of Islam. And Ibn A'sikiv on that of Ayesha, that
Abu Bakr gave freedom to seven slaves all of whom had suffered persecution
for the sake of God.
As for fortune, yes Abi Bakr bet his whole wealth against the pagans of Mecca by supporting the Romans against the Persians. When he told the Prophet (pbuh), the Prophet (pbuh) told him to double his bet.
-
So how do you know about these opinions??? And what's the concern about these companions???
I read a couple ahadith from al Kafi.
Companions are fallible (Gahir e Masoom), everyone is a subject to controversy and one has a right to their opinion just like you gentlemen.
Open another topic about it. I would love to discuss it.
-
There are two opinions on the status of Abi Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan from the 12er Shia point of view.
1) They were monafiqeen since day one
2) They became monafiqeen since the Prophet (pbuh) passed away.
The first opinion without a doubt contradicts the Quran. However, for the second opinion there is no proof in the 12er Shia ahadith books.
So how do you know about these opinions??? And what's the concern about these companions??? Companions are fallible (Gahir e Masoom), everyone is a subject to controversy and one has a right to their opinion just like you gentlemen.
Maybe, just maybe, the people on this forum are very interested and passionate about researching Tashayyu`, and so they come into contact with a lot of Shia (like yourself) and they discuss with them and learn their various points of views.
...Or maybe they read it in your books who knows.
Brother you said it, "Who knows". Well as long as you don't know I'm afraid it's just gossip and rumours, until you do know. Get to know then you have a strong base. But at the moment it's all just air and wind.
-
Brother you said it, "Who knows". Well as long as you don't know I'm afraid it's just gossip and rumours, until you do know. Get to know then you have a strong base. But at the moment it's all just air and wind.
Since you love to ask a lot and never contribute anything useful, let's ask you.
The brother posed two scenarios based on the Imami point of view:
A- They were hypocrites since the beginning.
B- They were pious then they became corrupt over time.
Now,
Do you know a third scenario based on the teachings of Twelverism? If so what is it?
I add, are the two scenarios posed above invalid and not acceptable according to Twelverism? If so, explain why.
-
So how do you know about these opinions??? And what's the concern about these companions??? Companions are fallible (Gahir e Masoom), everyone is a subject to controversy and one has a right to their opinion just like you gentlemen.
You have been involved in Shia and Sunni discussions for several years and you still don't know these core beliefs of twelver Shia?
-
You have been involved in Shia and Sunni discussions for several years and you still don't know these core beliefs of twelver Shia?
Before he goes on to answer your question, please let him answer my question first, because drawing/extracting something useful and beneficial for readers from Ameen is a genuinely hard task.
-
My opinion does not represent the opinion of all Shias.
Abu Bakr was sincere, seeing as he was one of the earliest converts. I don't believe that story about the fortune teller. Utter nonsense. I think he became corrupted by power later, maybe.
Not sure about `Umar and `Uthman.
Shiites have this najis rule including touching humans of different sects or religion, right?
Not quite, but close. It's only wetness that can transfer najasat. A Hindu's sweat, for example, is najis. But his dry hand would not be.
-
My opinion does not represent the opinion of all Shias.
But your opinion needs to backed by 12er Shia ahadith. I can actually post a third option using 2 ahadith from al Kafi, but then this would contradict the Waliyah concept.
Not sure about `Umar and `Uthman.
There is a reason why the Prophet (pbuh) married his two daughters to Uthman. Imam Ali (as) also reminds him of his honor. As for Umar he is the most hated among the 12ers. He is hated even more than Muawiyah, Yazid and Abi Sufyan.
-
As for Umar he is the most hated among the 12ers. He is hated even more than Muawiyah, Yazid and Abi Sufyan.
Not to me. I get physically sick whenever I hear someone praising Yazeed (l.a) or his father or grandfather (may Allah deal with them justly).
I don't care if people say good things about `Umar. I disagree, sure. But I don't really care since I don't accept the traditional Shia view of `Umar killing Lady of Light Sayida Fatimah Zahra (a.s.w.s)
Allah ta'ala knows best.
-
As for Umar he is the most hated among the 12ers. He is hated even more than Muawiyah, Yazid and Abi Sufyan.
Not to me. I get physically sick whenever I hear someone praising Yazeed (l.a) or his father or grandfather (may Allah deal with them justly).
I don't care if people say good things about `Umar. I disagree, sure. But I don't really care since I don't accept the traditional Shia view of `Umar killing Lady of Light Sayida Fatimah Zahra (a.s.w.s)
Allah ta'ala knows best.
You have heard someone praising Yazeed?
Also why do you disagree with saying good things about Umar رضي الله عنه or anyone who aided the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم? I personally believe that Abu Taalib died as a non-Muslim, and yet I don't get "physically sick" if someone were to praise him nor do I disagree with praising him as there are ahadeeth praising him as well as statements from our scholars from the various schools of thought. Surely at the very least Omar and Uthman رضي الله عنهما did more for Islam and were much close to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم than Abu Taalib.
Don't you find it very strange بارك الله فيك that part of your religious faith is to hate specific individuals who were involved in political disagreements that are now 1400 years old?
-
Who praises YAzeed?!!! :o
I have seen just a few people saying "Yazeed may be forgiven by Allah" .
-
Mufti of saud and zakir naik did if I remember good.
-
I also got some Hatred-fabrication from Kitab of Shia-religion:
1. in Tarqeeb al Ma'arif, pg 244 - "Abu Bakr,Umar will not be forgiven by Allah. Those who love Abu bakr,Umar are Kafr"
2. in Mirat al Uqul, pg477(pt 12), said that- " in Sura Ankabut:45 Fahsha is Abu Bakr and MUnkar is Umar"
3.Ruhullah Khomeini compared Uthman(r.a) with YAzeed
... I have heard about Tabrisi is the one who spread the sorcerer myth about abu Bakr(r.a)
-
Mufti of saud and zakir naik did if I remember good.
ohho, yah. Dr.Zakir Naik. He and some people apply the hadith of Cyprus for the forgiveness of YAzeed
-
Well they are wrong because before yazeed, another army already had attacked constantinople, I think at 48 AH, while yazeed attacked it at 50 AH or something like that.
On top of that, yazeed isn't even a sahaba, so why put RA behind his name?
-
Who praises YAzeed?!!! :o
I have seen just a few people saying "Yazeed may be forgiven by Allah" .
asking Allah to forgive another Muslim for their sins no matter how big it is are what we do, even if we don't like him or hate the sinful acts that he did. The main question is, do you believe he was a kafir? If not, then you too have asked Allah to forgive Yazid bro, if yes then it raise a question why a sahaba decided to pledge allegiance to a kafir leader & let him lead the ummah. We are not Shia, so we can't say it's because of taqiya.
-
He is muslim, he sinned, he opressed.
Imam ghazali doesn't allow cursing him. Many scholars say that we don't know if yazid did tauba or not, that's why we refrain from cursing etc.
-
Who praises YAzeed?!!! :o
I have seen just a few people saying "Yazeed may be forgiven by Allah" .
asking Allah to forgive another Muslim for their sins no matter how big it is are what we do, even if we don't like him or hate the sinful acts that he did. The main question is, do you believe he was a kafir? If not, then you too have asked Allah to forgive Yazid bro, if yes then it raise a question why a sahaba decided to pledge allegiance to a kafir leader & let him lead the ummah. We are not Shia, so we can't say it's because of taqiya.
No!!! I didn't mean that he is Kafir! I hate him as a Zalim. I think that is the view of Ahlus Sunnah. But we don't curse. Allah might forgive him.
On top of that, yazeed isn't even a sahaba, so why put RA behind his name?
Yes! Saying Rahamtullah Alaihi or Raziallahu Anhu - these much praising him is Insane !
-
Is there an analysis on yazeed sinning openly like drinking wine etc? I once read that those narrations that put him in a bad spot are weak?
-
Guys, this is all off topic, I will delete any more posts on Yazeed. If you wish, open a thread about Yazeed, collect narrations and see what you get.
-
Guys, this is all off topic, I will delete any more posts on Yazeed. If you wish, open a thread about Yazeed, collect narrations and see what you get.
It is true that the topic have been moved!
But that came, as I responded to Taha! :(
-
There are two opinions on the status of Abi Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan from the 12er Shia point of view.
1) They were monafiqeen since day one
2) They became monafiqeen since the Prophet (pbuh) passed away.
The first opinion without a doubt contradicts the Quran. However, for the second opinion there is no proof in the 12er Shia ahadith books.
Sayyed Ayad Jamal Aldin confirms that the monafiqeen did not exist in the Meccan period.