The reason is from a mainstream historical point of view he is correct. What he needs to do is address the hadith of which allows hatred against the Sahaba to a takfiri level or where one believe those hadith and becomes certain that they will go to hellfire. I remember listening to Nakshawani who said it is Imam Baqer (as) who opened up a about the a lot topics, and started telling people the real views of the Imams. To me this sounds like the Imams before him due to large public not being Rafidi, could not express their views. So can't the 12er SHia say what Imam Ali did was all because he didn't 100% Shia support?Allama Jawada Naqvi is correct from a historical point of view. Khomeini view here is backed by hadith from in the 12er Shia books. So, its such hadith which the 12er Shia scholars need to address. However, the problem is they won't survive too long if they went in that direction. Likewise, the same case applies for Sunni scholars who would criticize Saqifa, or would openly condemn Muawiyah and his camp. Its a difficult route which they would not survive too long.
"The reason is from a mainstream historical point of view he is correct. What he needs to do is address the hadith of which allows hatred against the Sahaba to a takfiri level or where one believe those hadith and becomes certain that they will go to hellfire"
We believe in Ijtihad while the 12th Imam is in occultation. Ijtihad means that we follow a living Mujtahid in our matters and affairs. That is to go by their ruling in the form of Fatwas.
Ayatollah Khamenei issued a decree wherein he prohibited insult towards Aisha, the wife of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and any of the figures and symbols celebrated by Sunni brethren.
The Leader of the Islamic Revolution said, in response to a question on religious matters, “Insulting figures and symbols celebrated by Sunni brethren, including the wife of the Prophet of Islam [Aisha] is prohibited. This includes the wives of all prophets, particularly the master of all prophets Muhammad (May God’s greetings be upon him and his household).
Fatwa (Islamic ruling) declares that insulting the Mother of the Faithful Aisha is forbidden
In response to a question, where he was asked to comment on insult and use of offensive words against the wife of the Prophet (pbuh) Aisha, Ayatollah Khamenei issued the decree (fatwa) against insulting Aisha. The question was posed by a group of Shia scholars and intellectuals of Al-Ahsa region in Saudi Arabia.
The question was brought up after a supposed Shia clergyman, who fled to Britain as a refugee, launched a Television channel with the help of the British government; he used his channel to insult Aisha, the Prophet’s wife: the clergyman falsely described his act as Shia belief.
This is not the only case wherein Ayatollah Khamenei has called insulting Aisha and other Sunni sanctities as haram (religiously forbidden). Western arrogant powers pay their mercenaries to insult the Mother of the Faithful, Aisha
In a meeting with Shia and Sunni clergy in Kermanshah on October 12, 2011, His Eminence Ayatollah Khamenei said:
"Preparation in the outer world is another aspect: The devils that attack us will not always attack with the same strategies. The modern day fiends who attack you through internet, satellite channels and highly advanced tools of communication have modern things to articulate with; their hardware and software have been modernized. They create fallacies. They create ideological problems. They give rise to intellectual confusion. They promote despair. They foment discord. I have received reports that petro-dollars are being spent, currently, on certain projects to fuel discord.
Often these reports are not made available to the public. On the one hand, they are spending huge amounts of money in order to establish anti-Shia groups among Sunni Muslims in certain Islamic countries. On the other hand, they pay certain so-called Shia preachers to insult and level allegations against the Mother of the Faithful, Aisha, in the name of Shia Islam: these are their methods. As Shia or Sunni Muslims, what do you do when you are faced with these methods? Ultimately, we must not be deceived by what they do: discord among us is the greatest blessing for them.”
Insulting the Prophet's wives equals to insulting the Prophet (pbuh)
In a meeting with agents of Sadaf Kowsar Conference, held this year as a tribute to Hazrat Khadija, Ayatollah Khamenei said:
"Disrespecting the pure wives of the Prophet (pbuh) should be avoided. The Prophet’s (pbuh) wives are all respectable; anyone who insults any of them has insulted the Prophet. I resolutely declare this offensive. The commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali (pbuh) treated her eminence Aisha in such a respectful manner. He treated a woman, who had come to fight against him, with the utmost respect because she was the Prophet’s wife; otherwise the Commander of the Faithful (as) would not stand on a ceremony with anyone: hence, no such disrespect should ever occur"
"I remember listening to Nakshawani who said it is Imam Baqer (as) who opened up a about the a lot topics, and started telling people the real views of the Imams. To me this sounds like the Imams before him due to large public not being Rafidi, could not express their views. So can't the 12er SHia say what Imam Ali did was all because he didn't 100% Shia support?"
You have a lot in history where how the Ahle Baith, their members and supporters were treated by those who got into authority and gained power. And by what method they got into authority and the how they gained power. In other words what method and strategy they used to control people and have and get their way. Saqifa is where such politics started and generated from. I'm not criticising or condemning Saqifa. Nor do I hold any grudge or hate against any Sahabi or members who were at Saqifa. I just believe that it wasn't according to Qur'an and Sunnah.
But if you look at it from a worldly view nor was the selection of a successor to Muhammad s.a.w conducted properly and fairly. If this did happen that there was a period of mourning then there was a public gathering in Saqifa based on an event announced on selecting a successor to Muhammad s.a.w or the important personalities and known figures gathered together in masjid e Nabawi where a successor to Muhammad s.a.w was chosen through and by means of consulting (shura) then that would be understandable and acceptable.
But if this did happen due you think the Shaykhain would have got their way? And if they did or lets say Abu Bakr was selected unanimously as the successor to Muhammad s.a.w then no one could lift a finger or even say a word to challenge this. The intentions of Umar objecting to Muhammad s.a.w being given pen and paper for writing an important document to which the Sahaba wouldn't go astray after that is clear. And I completely understand why certain people are hell-bent in protecting him by trying to justify his action by twisting and turning the matter around.
The matter is clear by the words of the Prophet s.a.w himself that "fetch me a pen and paper so that I may write something for you so you don't go astray after me". It's simple and so easy to understand that the document wasn't written so the Sahaba went astray. Why wasn't the document written? Because Umar thought it wasn't that necessary and important. Why did Umar think so? By saying and reminding the others that "you have the book of Allah with you, the book of Allah is sufficient for us".
Some believed that the Prophet s.a.w should be given pen and paper and others sided with Umar that he shouldn't. The matter is clear just as most matters are clear as black and white. But it is understandable that we have Shaykhain loyalists who will create confusion by asking questions just to cast doubt.
37 Replies
18869 Views
January 25, 2017, 03:16:36 AM