TwelverShia.net Forum

Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fgss

Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« on: November 16, 2017, 01:21:51 PM »
I have a simple question for shias here and want a simple answer rather than a whole thesis.

Question.

Did Imam Ali declare  himself as divenly appointed Imam/caliph after prophet to the public during caliphate of abu bakr?

Any hadith?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 01:23:03 PM by fgss »
إِنَّ أَصْدَقَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَأَحْسَنَ الْهَدْىِ هَدْىُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَشَرَّ الأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا وَكُلَّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلاَلَةٌ وَكُلَّ ضَلاَلَةٍ فِي النَّارِ

May Allah guide us to the true teachings of Quran and Sunnah of His beloved Prophet (s.a.w.w). Ameen

Optimus Prime

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2017, 03:18:29 PM »
I have a simple question for shias here and want a simple answer rather than a whole thesis.

Question.

Did Imam Ali declare  himself as divenly appointed Imam/caliph after prophet to the public during caliphate of abu bakr?

Any hadith?

Welcome back dude.

iceman

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2017, 05:11:57 AM »
I have a simple question for shias here and want a simple answer rather than a whole thesis.

Question.

Did Imam Ali declare  himself as divenly appointed Imam/caliph after prophet to the public during caliphate of abu bakr?

Any hadith?

Forget about Ali, the Prophet (s) declared him. Plenty of info but the mind setters will always play around. They only accept what suits them. 

fgss

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2017, 01:53:31 PM »
I have a simple question for shias here and want a simple answer rather than a whole thesis.

Question.

Did Imam Ali declare  himself as divenly appointed Imam/caliph after prophet to the public during caliphate of abu bakr?

Any hadith?

Forget about Ali, the Prophet (s) declared him. Plenty of info but the mind setters will always play around. They only accept what suits them.

So he himself didnt?

Prophet declared him at ghadir is shia narrative out of an ambiguous statement but history shows people present at that time did not consider it as divine appointment, not even chiefs of ansaar at saqifa.

Isnt it funnier that Imam Ali gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr but did not declare himself as divine imam so that atleast those who were not  present at ghadir know this and could support him.
 
إِنَّ أَصْدَقَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَأَحْسَنَ الْهَدْىِ هَدْىُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَشَرَّ الأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا وَكُلَّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلاَلَةٌ وَكُلَّ ضَلاَلَةٍ فِي النَّارِ

May Allah guide us to the true teachings of Quran and Sunnah of His beloved Prophet (s.a.w.w). Ameen

iceman

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2017, 04:10:39 AM »
I have a simple question for shias here and want a simple answer rather than a whole thesis.

Question.

Did Imam Ali declare  himself as divenly appointed Imam/caliph after prophet to the public during caliphate of abu bakr?

Any hadith?

Forget about Ali, the Prophet (s) declared him. Plenty of info but the mind setters will always play around. They only accept what suits them.

So he himself didnt?

Prophet declared him at ghadir is shia narrative out of an ambiguous statement but history shows people present at that time did not consider it as divine appointment, not even chiefs of ansaar at saqifa.

Isnt it funnier that Imam Ali gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr but did not declare himself as divine imam so that atleast those who were not  present at ghadir know this and could support him.

We do not believe he gave allegiance to Abu Bakr and we also believe Ali declared and maintained his position throughout. Those who got into authority and gained power used it to their means and at their disposal. History has been distorted and propaganda against Ali and his followers have been at high and still is.

The companions disregarded the Prophet's (s) decision and decided to take the matter into their own hands. And the disaster Caliphate brought is there to witness. It went awol after a very short period.

Suni Islam came to surface during Abu Hanifa's time and was no where to be seen after Muhammad (s) and wasn't even around during the caliphate period. It came many many years after.

Nothing to show in Suni Islam and nothing to be proud about. So I don't know why they're jumping up and down and what for. They're raising suspicion and casting doubt about Shiaism since 1400 years but haven't got anywhere.

KEEP TRYING and GOOD LUCK!

Abu Rumaysah

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2017, 03:08:22 PM »
We do not believe he gave allegiance to Abu Bakr and we also believe Ali declared and maintained his position throughout.

Sahih hadith by Abu Sa’eed al Khudri (RA) that Ali (RA) gave baya’ah immediatly to Abu Bakr al Siddiq (RA):

Abu Sa’eed al Khudri may Allah be pleased with him said: When the Prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) soul passed away, people gathered at the place of Sa’ad bin Ubadah and amongst them were Abu Bakr and Umar. A Khatib from the Ansar (supporters) spoke: “You know that the Prophet of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) was from the Mouhajirun (immigrants) and his caliph must also be from the Mouhajirun, we were the ansar of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and we will be the ansar of his caliph just as we were his Ansar”. Then Umar bin al Khattab stood up and said “This man from amongst the ansar speaks truth and if it were anything other than this then we would not give you a baya’ah (Pledge of allegiance)”,  then he grabbed the hand of Abu Bakr and said: “This is your close companion so give him baya’ah”. Then Umar and the Mouhajirun and the ansar all gave him baya’ah. Abu Bakr stood on the pulpit and he looked at the faces of all the people there but he didn’t seen al Zubair, so he called for him and and he came.  Abu Bakr told him: “O son of the Prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) aunt and his disciple would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?”  Zubair said: “Not at all O caliph of the prophet of Allah” then he stood and gave him baya’ah. Then he looked at the faces of the people but did not spot Ali so he called for Ali bin abi Talib and he came. Abu Bakr said: “O cousin of the prophet of Allah and the husband of his daughter would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?” So Ali replied: “Not at all O caliph of the prophet of Allah”, then he stood and gave him baya’ah.

Sources:
-Mujama’a al Zawa’ed (5/183), rijal are people of saheeh.
-Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (5/281), chain thabit and saheeh.
-Al Mustadrak (3/76) and al Sunan al Kubrah (8/143) with two SAHIH chains

Imam Muslim bin al Hajjaj (Author of Sahih muslim) and Imam al hafiz Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Khuzaymah (Author of Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah) and Imam Ibn Katheer all talked about the importance of this sahih narration.

Here weak narration which agrees with saheeh from above:

In the hadith of Habib bin Abu Thabit: Ali bin Abu talib was in his house then a man came to him and told him “Abu Bakr has gotten ready for the Baya’ah” So Ali went out to the mosque wearing only his Qamis without a Izar or a Ridaa and he was hasty because he hated to be late for the baya’ah, then he gave the Baya’ah to Abu Bakr and sat down and later asked for his Ridaa so it was brought for him and he wore it on top of his Qamis.

Source: Tareekh al tabari 3/207, the chain is broken, it contains Seif bin Umar and he is weak and it contains Abdul Aziz bin Siyah who is trustworthy but is a Shia.

Ali and al Zubair were asked about the baya’ah and they said:

“We were only angry because we were late for the consultation, we see Abu Bakr as the most deserving of the people to this position after the Apostle of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam), he is the companion in the cave and the second of the two and we know of his honour and rank, The prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) had ordered him to lead the people in prayer while he was alive”.

Sources: Al Bidayah wal nihayah (6/341), Khilafat Abu Bakr p67, chain is good.

Imam Abdullah ibn Ahmad narrated in his “Sunnan” (2/563) via trustworthy narrators:

Narrated Qays bin al Abdi: I Witnesses the sermon of Ali on the day of Basarah, he said: ” He praised Allah and thanked him and he mentioned the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and his sacrifice to the people, then Allah swt took his soul. (After he said that) then the Muslims saw that they should give the Caliphate to Abu Bakr (RA) so they pledged their allegiance and made their promise of loyalty, and I gave my pledge and I promised him my loyalty, They were pleased and so was I. He (Abu Bakr) did good deeds and made Jihad until Allah took his soul may Allah have mercy on him.”

Imam Beyhaki said in Itiqad wal Hadiy ila sabili Rashad (p 494):

The thing that was narrated regarding Ali didn’t pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr 6 months, is not from words of Aisha. That is words of az-Zuhri, which some narrators inserted to hadith of Fatima from Aisha (may Allah be pleased with them). Muamar ibn Rashid memorized it, and narrated it in clear form, and he marked words of az-Zuhri separate from hadith itself.

Quote
History has been distorted and propaganda against Ali and his followers have been at high and still is.

I am fine with fact that there was propaganda against Ahlalbayt in some periods of caliphate, but now? Where you see it now?

Quote
The companions disregarded the Prophet's (s) decision and decided to take the matter into their own hands. And the disaster Caliphate brought is there to witness. It went awol after a very short period.

Even if this would be true as you said, then they would be perfectly justified.
Because even hz Ali himself believed he is more fit for counsellor position rather than a chief one.

“Nahjul Balagha” 70. O people of Iraq:

When people decided to Swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the murder of `Uthman, he said:

“Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever one may say or abuse. If you leave me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.”


Quote
Suni Islam came to surface during Abu Hanifa's time

It is not a kinder garden my friend, try to be serious.

We have full chain of all rulings till the beloved prophet (salallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). But you?

Quote
Nothing to show in Suni Islam and nothing to be proud about. So I don't know why they're jumping up and down and what for. They're raising suspicion and casting doubt about Shiaism since 1400 years but haven't got anywhere.

Well praise to Allah you guys still are 15% of Muslim population. And this is good result.

fgss

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2017, 08:20:52 AM »
I have a simple question for shias here and want a simple answer rather than a whole thesis.

Question.

Did Imam Ali declare  himself as divenly appointed Imam/caliph after prophet to the public during caliphate of abu bakr?

Any hadith?

Forget about Ali, the Prophet (s) declared him. Plenty of info but the mind setters will always play around. They only accept what suits them.

So he himself didnt?

Prophet declared him at ghadir is shia narrative out of an ambiguous statement but history shows people present at that time did not consider it as divine appointment, not even chiefs of ansaar at saqifa.

Isnt it funnier that Imam Ali gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr but did not declare himself as divine imam so that atleast those who were not  present at ghadir know this and could support him.

We do not believe he gave allegiance to Abu Bakr and we also believe Ali declared and maintained his position throughout. Those who got into authority and gained power used it to their means and at their disposal. History has been distorted and propaganda against Ali and his followers have been at high and still is.

The companions disregarded the Prophet's (s) decision and decided to take the matter into their own hands. And the disaster Caliphate brought is there to witness. It went awol after a very short period.

Suni Islam came to surface during Abu Hanifa's time and was no where to be seen after Muhammad (s) and wasn't even around during the caliphate period. It came many many years after.

Nothing to show in Suni Islam and nothing to be proud about. So I don't know why they're jumping up and down and what for. They're raising suspicion and casting doubt about Shiaism since 1400 years but haven't got anywhere.

KEEP TRYING and GOOD LUCK!

Proof of his allegiance from your own highly knowledgable scholar.

"It has been recounted in many traditions that after receiving allegiance from the community, Abu Bakr sent someone to Ali and asked for his allegiance. Ali said, "I have promised not to leave my house except for the daily prayers until I compile the Quran." And it has been mentioned that Ali gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr after six months. This itself is proof that Ali had finished compiling the Quran. Likewise, it has been recounted that after compiling the Quran he placed the pages of the Holy Book on a camel and showed it to the people. It is also recounted that the battle of Yamamah after which the Quran was compiled, occurred during the second year of the caliphate of Abu Bakr. These facts have been mentioned in most works on history and hadith which deal with the account of the compilation of the Holy Quran."

Shiʻite Islam By Muḥammad Ḥusain al- Ṭabāṭabā'ī
https://books.google.com.pk/books?redir_esc=y&id=erQQAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=allegiance

Now provide evidence for your claim that "we also believe Ali declared and maintained his position throughout". In contrast we have clear proofs on his validation and acceptance of the shura process, i.e letter 6.

Your other points are off-topic and false as well. Read bukhari and muslim alone, everything mentioned there dates back to prophet saww time and to time of first four caliphs.
إِنَّ أَصْدَقَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَأَحْسَنَ الْهَدْىِ هَدْىُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَشَرَّ الأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا وَكُلَّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلاَلَةٌ وَكُلَّ ضَلاَلَةٍ فِي النَّارِ

May Allah guide us to the true teachings of Quran and Sunnah of His beloved Prophet (s.a.w.w). Ameen

whoaretheshia

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2017, 01:50:16 PM »

Sahih hadith by Abu Sa’eed al Khudri (RA) that Ali (RA) gave baya’ah immediatly to Abu Bakr al Siddiq (RA):

Abu Sa’eed al Khudri may Allah be pleased with him said: When the Prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) soul passed away, people gathered at the place of Sa’ad bin Ubadah and amongst them were Abu Bakr and Umar. A Khatib from the Ansar (supporters) spoke: “You know that the Prophet of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) was from the Mouhajirun (immigrants) and his caliph must also be from the Mouhajirun, we were the ansar of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and we will be the ansar of his caliph just as we were his Ansar”. Then Umar bin al Khattab stood up and said “This man from amongst the ansar speaks truth and if it were anything other than this then we would not give you a baya’ah (Pledge of allegiance)”,  then he grabbed the hand of Abu Bakr and said: “This is your close companion so give him baya’ah”. Then Umar and the Mouhajirun and the ansar all gave him baya’ah. Abu Bakr stood on the pulpit and he looked at the faces of all the people there but he didn’t seen al Zubair, so he called for him and and he came.  Abu Bakr told him: “O son of the Prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) aunt and his disciple would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?”  Zubair said: “Not at all O caliph of the prophet of Allah” then he stood and gave him baya’ah. Then he looked at the faces of the people but did not spot Ali so he called for Ali bin abi Talib and he came. Abu Bakr said: “O cousin of the prophet of Allah and the husband of his daughter would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?” So Ali replied: “Not at all O caliph of the prophet of Allah”, then he stood and gave him baya’ah.

Sources:
-Mujama’a al Zawa’ed (5/183), rijal are people of saheeh.
-Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (5/281), chain thabit and saheeh.
-Al Mustadrak (3/76) and al Sunan al Kubrah (8/143) with two SAHIH chains

Asalamualaykum my dear brother,

With respect, i think using this tradition is a massive mistake. What you have demonstrated here is that you believe Ali ibn abi Talib gave his allegiance straight away to Abu Bakr, and claim there are four Saheeh chains in multiple books to demonstrate this. However, i am surprised you have not looked into what Sahih-al-Bukhari and Muslim have to say about this.

Umar ibn Al Khattab narrates in Saheeh Al Bukhari the following:
“And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr.”

Reference: Sahih Bukhari :Book 86 [Kitab Al Hudud] Chapter 31.

“So Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from it to Fatima who got angry with Abu Bakr for this reason. She forsook him and did not talk to him until the end of her life. She lived for six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). When she died, her husband. ‘Ali b. Abu Talib, buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about her death and offered the funeral prayer over her himself. During the lifetime of Fatima, ‘All received (special) regard from the people. After she had died, he felt estrangement in the faces of the people towards him. .. He had not yet owed allegiance to him as Caliph during these months. He sent a person to Abu Bakr requesting him to visit him unaccompanied by anyone (disapproving the presence of Umar). ‘Umar said to Abu Bakr: By Allah, you will not visit them alone. Abu Bakr said: What will they do to me? By Allah, I will visit them. And he did pay them a visit alone. “

References:  [1] Sahih-Muslim: Book 019, Number 4352 [2] Sahih Bukhari :Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546.  [3] Sahih-Muslim: Book 019, Number 4352


In fact, even the website which promotes the Salafi Aqeedah concedes the Bayah was only given several months after, when Fatima passed away. So he withheld giving Bayah so long as Fatima was alive.

"The swearing of allegiance (bay‘ah) by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) [to Abu Bakr] is proven in as-Saheehayn (al-Bukhaari and Muslim), even though it happened a few months late. "

Reference: https://islamqa.info/en/147540

So now we have to really question how the ilm-al-Rijal you have used has led you to authenticate with such certainty two completely divergent accounts as to what has happened.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 01:51:41 PM by whoaretheshia »
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

Optimus Prime

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2017, 02:06:20 PM »

Sahih hadith by Abu Sa’eed al Khudri (RA) that Ali (RA) gave baya’ah immediatly to Abu Bakr al Siddiq (RA):

Abu Sa’eed al Khudri may Allah be pleased with him said: When the Prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) soul passed away, people gathered at the place of Sa’ad bin Ubadah and amongst them were Abu Bakr and Umar. A Khatib from the Ansar (supporters) spoke: “You know that the Prophet of Allah (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) was from the Mouhajirun (immigrants) and his caliph must also be from the Mouhajirun, we were the ansar of the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) and we will be the ansar of his caliph just as we were his Ansar”. Then Umar bin al Khattab stood up and said “This man from amongst the ansar speaks truth and if it were anything other than this then we would not give you a baya’ah (Pledge of allegiance)”,  then he grabbed the hand of Abu Bakr and said: “This is your close companion so give him baya’ah”. Then Umar and the Mouhajirun and the ansar all gave him baya’ah. Abu Bakr stood on the pulpit and he looked at the faces of all the people there but he didn’t seen al Zubair, so he called for him and and he came.  Abu Bakr told him: “O son of the Prophet’s (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) aunt and his disciple would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?”  Zubair said: “Not at all O caliph of the prophet of Allah” then he stood and gave him baya’ah. Then he looked at the faces of the people but did not spot Ali so he called for Ali bin abi Talib and he came. Abu Bakr said: “O cousin of the prophet of Allah and the husband of his daughter would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?” So Ali replied: “Not at all O caliph of the prophet of Allah”, then he stood and gave him baya’ah.

Sources:
-Mujama’a al Zawa’ed (5/183), rijal are people of saheeh.
-Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (5/281), chain thabit and saheeh.
-Al Mustadrak (3/76) and al Sunan al Kubrah (8/143) with two SAHIH chains

Asalamualaykum my dear brother,

With respect, i think using this tradition is a massive mistake. What you have demonstrated here is that you believe Ali ibn abi Talib gave his allegiance straight away to Abu Bakr, and claim there are four Saheeh chains in multiple books to demonstrate this. However, i am surprised you have not looked into what Sahih-al-Bukhari and Muslim have to say about this.

Umar ibn Al Khattab narrates in Saheeh Al Bukhari the following:
“And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa`da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr.”

Reference: Sahih Bukhari :Book 86 [Kitab Al Hudud] Chapter 31.

“So Abu Bakr refused to hand over anything from it to Fatima who got angry with Abu Bakr for this reason. She forsook him and did not talk to him until the end of her life. She lived for six months after the death of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). When she died, her husband. ‘Ali b. Abu Talib, buried her at night. He did not inform Abu Bakr about her death and offered the funeral prayer over her himself. During the lifetime of Fatima, ‘All received (special) regard from the people. After she had died, he felt estrangement in the faces of the people towards him. .. He had not yet owed allegiance to him as Caliph during these months. He sent a person to Abu Bakr requesting him to visit him unaccompanied by anyone (disapproving the presence of Umar). ‘Umar said to Abu Bakr: By Allah, you will not visit them alone. Abu Bakr said: What will they do to me? By Allah, I will visit them. And he did pay them a visit alone. “

References:  [1] Sahih-Muslim: Book 019, Number 4352 [2] Sahih Bukhari :Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546.  [3] Sahih-Muslim: Book 019, Number 4352


In fact, even the website which promotes the Salafi Aqeedah concedes the Bayah was only given several months after, when Fatima passed away. So he withheld giving Bayah so long as Fatima was alive.

"The swearing of allegiance (bay‘ah) by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) [to Abu Bakr] is proven in as-Saheehayn (al-Bukhaari and Muslim), even though it happened a few months late. "

Reference: https://islamqa.info/en/147540

So now we have to really question how the ilm-al-Rijal you have used has led you to authenticate with such certainty two completely divergent accounts as to what has happened.

Many scholars have reconciled between the two version, that the oath of allegiance was indeed given twice, more on the part of 'Ali. The same article you have highlighted shares the views of many scholars who accepted the narrations, and do not mention the extra chains that brother Abu Rumaysah has brought to the fore which, corroborates the strength of their reliability.

There are many events in the Seerah, where one companion is narrating his understanding, or experience of events, where as the other companions might mention something conflicting. A fine example of this is the telling of the Isra and Mi'raj.

The second oath of allegiance was to solidify his stance, that he openly accepts/accepted Abu Bakr as the sheriff.

However, other scholars have rejected the narrations, and deem the version events foretold in the as-Saheehayn. I believe this is the position of Farid too.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 02:11:40 PM by Optimus Prime »

whoaretheshia

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2017, 02:10:17 PM »
x

Have a look at what a Thiqah , Scholar, freed-slave of Umar ibn al Khattab who is regarded as one of the most important sources of his biography, as well as a man who was with Umar only a few months after the passing away of Muhammed [saw]. This would render him as among the most senior of the Tabeein.

“Narrated Muhammad bin Bashir from Ubaidllah bin Umar from Zaid bin Aslam that his father Aslam said: ‘When the homage (baya) went to Abu Bakr after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and Zubair were entering into the house of Fatima to consult her and revise their issue, so when Umar came to know about that, he went to Fatima and said : ‘Oh daughter of Messenger of Allah, no one is dearest to us more than your father and no one dearest to us after your father than you, I swear by Allah, if these people gathered in your house then nothing will prevent me from giving order to burn the house and those who are inside.’

References:
[1] Musnaf of Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah, Volume 7 page 432 Tradition 37045. [Saheeh Chain]

All of the narrators are above are Thiqah, considered to be trustworthy and reliable, and we will go through each and every narrator:

Muhammad bin Bashir: Imam Al-Dhahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Al-Kaashif, v2 p159), Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p58).

Ubaidllah bin Umar: Al-Dhahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Al-Kaashif, v1 p685), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p637).

Zaid bin Aslam: Al-Dhahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p316), Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p326).

Aslam al-Qurashi (the slave of Umar): Al-Dhahabi said: ‘Faqih, Imam’ (Siar alam alnubala, v4 p98), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p88).



Possible objections:


Objection: Aslam did not witness the event itself as he was with Umar ibn al Khattab a few month after.

Response:
Many major sunni scholars accept the Mursal traditions of senior successors [Tabi'] when they narrate about the Prophet [saw]. Many accept reports by young companions who could not have heard many of the things they narrated, such as Ibn Abbas, by assuming he obtained his reports from other companions and that it is thus considered connected. This concept is called: mursal al sahabi’ and their traditions regarded  ‘al-mawsul al- musnad’.  In this case, a senior follower is not narrating from the Prophet [saw] but rather, from a companion he himself met, knew well, and narrated much about.

He had met Umar ibn al Khattab only three months after this event. He was exposed to many eye witnesses and many other companions who would have been direct eye witnesses. He had lived with Umar ibn al Khattab, and would not like carelessly narrate spurious tales about him, unless that which he likely had heard from reliable companions or even Umar ibn Al Khattab himself.

Therefore this is a powerful report of significant nature. We find it narrated in many other sources with different chains, and i will concede these may be weak - but it only adds credence and strength to the view that Umar ibn al Khattab tried to forcefully demand allegiance and was in such a state of anger, he even threatened to burn down the house [and i do not claim he went ahead and did it, but rather that there is enough evidence he made the threat].


"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

Optimus Prime

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2017, 02:14:11 PM »
x

Have a look at what a Thiqah , Scholar, freed-slave of Umar ibn al Khattab who is regarded as one of the most important sources of his biography, as well as a man who was with Umar only a few months after the passing away of Muhammed [saw]. This would render him as among the most senior of the Tabeein.

“Narrated Muhammad bin Bashir from Ubaidllah bin Umar from Zaid bin Aslam that his father Aslam said: ‘When the homage (baya) went to Abu Bakr after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and Zubair were entering into the house of Fatima to consult her and revise their issue, so when Umar came to know about that, he went to Fatima and said : ‘Oh daughter of Messenger of Allah, no one is dearest to us more than your father and no one dearest to us after your father than you, I swear by Allah, if these people gathered in your house then nothing will prevent me from giving order to burn the house and those who are inside.’

References:
[1] Musnaf of Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah, Volume 7 page 432 Tradition 37045. [Saheeh Chain]

All of the narrators are above are Thiqah, considered to be trustworthy and reliable, and we will go through each and every narrator:

Muhammad bin Bashir: Imam Al-Dhahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Al-Kaashif, v2 p159), Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p58).

Ubaidllah bin Umar: Al-Dhahabi said: ‘Thabt’ (Al-Kaashif, v1 p685), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p637).

Zaid bin Aslam: Al-Dhahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Siar alam alnubala, v5 p316), Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p326).

Aslam al-Qurashi (the slave of Umar): Al-Dhahabi said: ‘Faqih, Imam’ (Siar alam alnubala, v4 p98), Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: ‘Thiqa’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p88).



Possible objections:


Objection: Aslam did not witness the event itself as he was with Umar ibn al Khattab a few month after.

Response:
Many major sunni scholars accept the Mursal traditions of senior successors [Tabi'] when they narrate about the Prophet [saw]. Many accept reports by young companions who could not have heard many of the things they narrated, such as Ibn Abbas, by assuming he obtained his reports from other companions and that it is thus considered connected. This concept is called: mursal al sahabi’ and their traditions regarded  ‘al-mawsul al- musnad’.  In this case, a senior follower is not narrating from the Prophet [saw] but rather, from a companion he himself met, knew well, and narrated much about.

He had met Umar ibn al Khattab only three months after this event. He was exposed to many eye witnesses and many other companions who would have been direct eye witnesses. He had lived with Umar ibn al Khattab, and would not like carelessly narrate spurious tales about him, unless that which he likely had heard from reliable companions or even Umar ibn Al Khattab himself.

Therefore this is a powerful report of significant nature. We find it narrated in many other sources with different chains, and i will concede these may be weak - but it only adds credence and strength to the view that Umar ibn al Khattab tried to forcefully demand allegiance and was in such a state of anger, he even threatened to burn down the house [and i do not claim he went ahead and did it, but rather that there is enough evidence he made the threat].




Why don't you quote the entire narration?

whoaretheshia

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2017, 02:28:05 PM »
Many scholars have reconciled between the two version, that the oath of allegiance was indeed given twice, more on the part of 'Ali. The same article you have highlighted shares the views of many scholars who accepted the narrations, and do not mention the extra chains that brother Abu Rumaysah has brought to the fore which, corroborates the strength of their reliability.

There are many events in the Seerah, where one companion is narrating his understanding, or experience of events, where as the other companions might mention something conflicting. Fine examples of these is the telling of the Isra and Mi'raj.

However, other scholars have rejected the narrations, and deem the version events foretold in the as-Saheehayn. I believe this is the position of Farid too.

The second oath of allegiance was to solidify his stance, that he openly accepts Abu Bakr as the sheriff.

This really the only way one could possibly try to reconcile the two versions. On one hand, we are told he did not give his allegiance until after six months, and an elaborate story is given as to why he did not do so in the Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim, and other versions claiming he had given it right away. Obviously, to claim that only one view would be correct despite the apparent and clear contradiction would be to cast enormous doubts over the Ilm-al-Rijal used and how reliable it truly is.

However, the traditions are so explicit, that i do not think it would be intellectually honest to reconcile them in the manner you have. For instance:

"So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of `Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered"
Reference: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/278

From Islamqa: "Conclusion: the oath of allegiance of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) which is proven is that which is mentioned in the Saheehs of al-Bukhaari and Muslim. As for the earlier oath of allegiance which is mentioned in the hadith of Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri, there is some doubt as to whether it is proven. "

Reference: https://islamqa.info/en/147540


Imam al-Nawawi, a famous scholar who produced a Sharh of Saheeh Muslim, writes: "An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

"With regard to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) delaying swearing of allegiance (to Abu Bakr), ‘Ali mentioned it in this hadith and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) apologised to him. Moreover, this delay on ‘Ali’s part did not undermine the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and it did not undermine ‘Ali himself. " Sharh Muslim (12/77-78)


Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani states: It was as if they excused him for not coming to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr whilst Faatimah was still alive, because he was preoccupied with caring for her during her illness, and consoling her for the grief she felt at the loss of her father (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Moreover, when she got upset with Abu Bakr’s response when she asked him about inheritance, ‘Ali decided to go along with her in keeping away from him.
End quite. Fath al-Baari (7/494)




Closing points:



1. Many major Sunni scholars have accepted what is contained in Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim, that Ali ibn Abi Talib did not offer his allegiance until the death of Fatima, which was several months.

2. Trying to reconcile this with the idea he gave his allegiance right away does not make rational sense. All of what is contained in Bukhari and Muslim consist of him apologising for the delay to Abu Bakr - did the companions narrating this also mistake that he had apologised? They contain words of Abu Bakr accepting his apology. It is very explicit that this is not just another confirmatory oath of allegiance, but the very first oath of allegiance.

3. Ali ibn Abi Talib would not need to give his oath of allegiance twice. Had he given it once, this would have been sufficient and clear.

4. The freed-slave of Umar, named Aslam who is regarded as 'Thiqah' and a 'Scholar' and is a narrator the six-books himself narrates a story whereby Umar ibn al Khattab threatens to burn the house of Fatima down if those inside [Ali and others] do not come out and give their allegiance. All the men in the chain are Thiqah as demonstrated in an earlier post of mine on this thread.  The statement to burn the house down is corroborated in many other independent sources. I do not myself believe there is evidence he did go ahead and do it, mind.
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

whoaretheshia

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2017, 02:32:44 PM »
.


There is a simple reason why i have not done so. I only want to prove a point that there is enough evidence for an objective Sunni brother or sister to accept that Umar ibn Al Khattab made a threat to burn down the house of Fatima, whether she was in it or not. It proves he was furious that Ali and the others had opposed Abu Bakr, and he attempted to try to procure their allegiance by force.

However, the entire content of the tradition is not Hujjah upon me. If we debated non-muslims, and wanted to prove something from a chapter of their books, it does not mean you have to take everything in it - only enough to prove that statement alone contradicts their beliefs.

Thus, what i have quoted demonstrates [in addition to the traditions in Bukhari] that the idea Ali ibn abi Talib straight away went to give his allegiance is patently force, and the threat made by Umar ibn al Khattab demonstrates it was far from such a straightforward matter. I do not need to rely on what it says occurred after, but enough to prove my point.

The threat he made on Fatima and Ali, and her two children who were in the house as well as members of the Banu Hashim and other companions is what is corroborated independently in other sources. What occurred after [according to the tradition which i did not quote] may or may not have happened, but historically speaking, the beginning of the tradition is what is of pertinence here.

If a threat was made, and they opposed Abu Bakr and gathered in the house of Fatima, that is enough to disprove the hadith posted on here claiming as soon as they heard , they went and gave their allegiance. What Aslam claims happened after is not Hujjah on me, nor corroborated by other sources.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 02:35:16 PM by whoaretheshia »
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

Optimus Prime

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2017, 02:43:50 PM »
.


There is a simple reason why i have not done so. I only want to prove a point that there is enough evidence for an objective Sunni brother or sister to accept that Umar ibn Al Khattab made a threat to burn down the house of Fatima, whether she was in it or not. It proves he was furious that Ali and the others had opposed Abu Bakr, and he attempted to try to procure their allegiance by force.

However, the entire content of the tradition is not Hujjah upon me. If we debated non-muslims, and wanted to prove something from a chapter of their books, it does not mean you have to take everything in it - only enough to prove that statement alone contradicts their beliefs.

Thus, what i have quoted demonstrates [in addition to the traditions in Bukhari] that the idea Ali ibn abi Talib straight away went to give his allegiance is patently force, and the threat made by Umar ibn al Khattab demonstrates it was far from such a straightforward matter. I do not need to rely on what it says occurred after, but enough to prove my point.

The threat he made on Fatima and Ali, and her two children who were in the house as well as members of the Banu Hashim and other companions is what is corroborated independently in other sources. What occurred after [according to the tradition which i did not quote] may or may not have happened, but historically speaking, the beginning of the tradition is what is of pertinence here.

If a threat was made, and they opposed Abu Bakr and gathered in the house of Fatima, that is enough to disprove the hadith posted on here claiming as soon as they heard , they went and gave their allegiance. What Aslam claims happened after is not Hujjah on me, nor corroborated by other sources.


Nice cop out smarta$$. So it's exclusively hujah on you to accept part of the narration, but the remainder, and the other corroborating narrations which, portray that despite the shaky events prior to 'Ali's bayah, he was openly (not secretively) on Abu Bakr's side through thick, and thin - are befitting for the trash? You want Sunnis to believe 'Umar did threaten 'Ali to give bayah, but what about the remainder part of the narration? The Sunnis will still be stuck to accept your argument, that 'Umar was dictating tyrant, when they evaluate the narration in it's entirety. So you haven't achieved nothing, but broadcasting your Sahaba-bias!

As, I told your comrades here. If you're going to use narrations of ours to prove your narrative, then by the same token you have to refute the narrations that confirm the right perspective. Hadith pickin' methodology is based on nifsaani inclinations. You seem to lack the machine like-clarity to comprehend that fact.

For those who're genuinely open-minded. Don't allow this dude to pull the wool over your eyes. A common trait of the Shias.

Observe:

Muhammad ibn Bishr from Ubaydallah Ibn Omar from Zayd ibn Aslam from his father Aslam the Mawla of Omar.
When Abu Bakr received the pledges of allegiance after the Messenger of Allah, Ali and Al-Zubayr used to enter the presence of Fatima the daughter of the Messenger of Allah and consult with her and hesitate in their allegiance. When news of this reached Omar ibn Al-Khattab, he came out until he entered Fatima’s presence and said: “Daughter of the Messenger of Allah, none in all creation was more dearly beloved to me than your father, and none is more beloved to us after him than you. However, by Allah, this shall not prevent me, if that group gathers in your house, to order that their door be set afire!”  When Omar went out, they came and she said: “Do you know that Omar came to me and swore by Allah that if you were to come back, he shall surely burn the door with you inside! By Allah, he shall certainly fulfill what he swore, so go away in peace (literally: Go away as RASHIDEEN!), flee from your opinion, and do not come back to see me.” They left her and did not return to see her until they pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr.”


1) There is a difference of opinion in regards to the authenticity of this narration, some graded it Sahih, some deem it Mursal (disconnected), in any case it is not in the favour of the Rafidha, little they know. Actually accepting this narration should be the option of every Muslim.

2) This narration is a virtue for Omar (RA) Because Omar placed the love of Fatima (RA) right after the love of her father (peace be upon him.

3) Also because Omar would not tolerate or go easy on any man who may cause a division and threaten the unity. This is the Sunnah of the Prophet (the Prophet even threatened to burn down the houses of those who intentionally do not attend the Masjid for no valid reason. Ali also threatened the one who causes the slightest form of disunity in Nahj Al-Balagha. The Prophet said: “Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.” (Bukhari and Muslim)He also threatened to cut the hand of Fatima if she stole:( أما بعد ، فإنما أهلك الناس قبلكم : أنهم كانوا إذا سرق فيهم الشريف تركوه ، وإذا سرق فيهم الضعيف أقاموا عليه الحد ، والذي نفس محمد بيده ، لو أن فاطمة بنت محمد سرقت لقطعت يدها ) Authenticated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim. We hope Rawafidh want suggest that this makes him unjust, ill-mannered, and psychotic.Even the Prophet would be punished by Allah if he were to fabricate against Allah (swt): 69:44 – 47And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand And then severed his life-artery, And not one of you could have held Us off from him.This is supported by the view of Al-Tabtaba’ee as well:والمعنى: { ولو تقوَّل علينا } هذا الرسول الكريم الذي حمَّلناه رسالتنا وأرسلناه إليكم بقرآن نزَّلناه فيؤخذ بيده أو المراد قطعنا منه يده اليمنى أو المراد لانتقمنا منه بالقوة كما في رواية القمي { ثم لقطعنا منه الوتين } وقتلناه لتقوُّله علينا { فما منكم من أحد عنه حاجزين } تحجبونه عنا وتنجونه من عقوبتنا وإهلاكنا.وهذا تهديد للنبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم على تقدير أن يفتري على الله كذباً وينسب إليه شيئاً لم يقله وهو رسول من عنده أكرمه بنبوّته واختاره لرسالته.and there are other Sahih narrations:Rasulullah صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم  says: “The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others” (Muslim) . In fact, “When oath of allegiance has been taken for two KhalIfas, kill the one for whom the oath was taken later” (Muslim)

4) The house was never burned (a Shia fairy-tale)

5) Fatima (RA) was never beat, let alone her ribs being broken (a Shia fairy-tale)

6) Mohsin, the unborn son of Fatimah was not killed, Rafidha claim (lots of contradicting fabricated narrations, even in their books) that a number of Sahaba broke her ribs and caused her miscarriage. Nothing but a lie, according to this SAHIH narration.

7) Omar did not even threat Fatimah, it was Fatimah herself, according to her own words who understood that she has been excluded from Omar’s threat, this is because she was an Arab (not like the Rafidha Majoos) who understood Arabic and hence she understood that Omar’s concern was Ali and Al-Zubayr only. In fact every Arab speaker will realise it, but since the Rafidha clergy is made up mainly by non-Arabs who are extremely weak in Arabic, then one can’t expect much from their followers who either due to ignorance or blatant mistranslations don’t realise/mention that Omar said the following to Fatimah: إن أمرتهم أن يحرق عليهم البيت (Yet I swear by God that it won’t stop me from gathering these people and commanding them to burn this house down on them.). As you can see, it is ‘alayhim’ i.e. ON THEM. Omar due to his love for Fatimah عليها السلام right from the very beginning EXCLUDED her from this Fitna and threat as much as he could, and the rest of the narration (which the Rafidha in many cases distort, by cutting out what is against their cult and desires) will prove that Fatimah not just understood Omar well (i.e. she not being threatened AT ALL) rather she AGREED WITH HIM. The narration goes on saying: […] So when ‘Omar left they – Ali and Zubair – came so she told them: “Do you know that ‘Omar came to me and swore by Allah that if you returned he would burn the house on you? […] As you can see my Muslim brother and sister, may Allah have mercy upon you, Fatimah understood Omar very well, she understood that ‘Omar never threatened her, she understood that she’s not the concern AT all, also she understood that it is her hustband and Al-Zubayr who with their DELAY of their pledge were causing problems, hence she said that Omar threatened to burn the house on them.

8 ) The last part is actually the part that pulverises Rafidism completely, hence you find Rafidha scholars simply OMITTING the last part (like whoaretheshia did), the most CRUCIAL part of the narration, for it refutes their ENTIRE sect:
[…] By Allah he would fulfill what he promised so be men of wisdom and FLEE FROM YOUR OPINION and never come back (until you have given Bay’ah).” So they never returned until they gave Abu Bakr the Baya’ah. Source: Musannaf ibn abi Shaybah 7/432. This proves that Fatimah shared Omars view, in fact she WARNED Ali and Zubayr (who according to other Sahih sources did delay the Bay’ah and finally gave the Bay’ah, as proven before) to FLEE from their OPINION. This is indeed the most beautiful part of the narration, proving that Fatimah was a Bakriyyah (Abu Bakr follower) even before her husband. She being upset LATER because of Fadak is a whole other issue, for she never renounced the authority of Abu Bakr (hence she went to him in the first place!). Ali gave Bay’ah, so another Shia lie is exposed (that he never gave Bay’ah).

CONCLUSION:

Abu Bakr (ra) and the Sahaba were done in Saqifa, then they went to give the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra) in public, everyone gave it but when Abu Bakr (ra) looked he never found al-Zubair (ra) and `Ali (ra), he called on them, Omar (ra) went to call on them, he learned that they were meeting in Fatima’ (ra) house and did not attend the Bay`ah, he was angry and went to the house (Then this narration happened), after this Fatima (ra) told al-Zubair (ra) and `Ali (ra) to go give the pledge when they returned, they went and gave it and admitted the superiority and worthiness of Abu Bakr (ra) and said they were only late and upest because they were angry that they weren’t consulted in Saqifa, Abu Bakr (ra) explained to them how things went, and this is what made them happy, otherwise Ali (and even Al-Zubayr) would have never given the Bay’ah, they were not Taqiyyah-mongering cowards as the Rafidha potray them (rather him i.e. Ali, since Al-Zubayr just as 99% of the Sahaba is a Kafir to the Mushrik Rawafidh anyway).
And as you can see, every Muslim should accept the narration (those who weaken it have no strong arguments in our opinion) with open arms, to Rawafidh one could say:

Congratulations for finding a narration that blows up the Rafidhi house burning/rip breaking/cheek slapping/unborn child killing myth and confirms the direct Bay’ah of Ali and the support of Fatimah for Abu Bakr’s Khilafah. Hang it up over your bed, this really should be framed in gold:

Source: https://gift2shias.com/2012/12/26/7940/
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 02:52:25 PM by Optimus Prime »

whoaretheshia

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2017, 02:53:23 PM »

Brother, there is no need to be using language like this and copying and pasting en-masse. I have already stated, i do not believe there is sufficient evidence that he went ahead on his oath and actually burnt the house down. All i have said is, if you put forward this idea that all was well and Ali and the others gave their allegiance right away, you need to reconcile it with a tradition showing they gathered in the house of Fatima, showed opposition, so much so it made Umar ibn al Khattab furious enough to make a threat on Fatima, Ali, Hasan, Hussain, members of the Banu Hashim and other companions who had gathered in the house. You can't hold two contradictory positions.

In my view, the threat to burn down a house with Hasan and Hussain , with Fatima in it, is enough to condemn it in the most clear terms. Whether he went ahead and did it is up for debate, and Allah knows best as i do not have enough evidence to truly conclude one way or another.

Once more it is not a 'cop out', but a common manner of debating. I want to prove that a threat was made to burn down the house of Fatima, whether she was in it, or not, because Ali and the others chose to oppose Abu Bakr. This part of the tradition is verified in many other sources. This is the only part i am concerned with, and it is Hujjah on you. Whatever you have copied and pasted had been read by myself many times over and is irrelevant.

I would love to hear your response to my post on the reality that he did not give the allegiance right away.
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

whoaretheshia

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2017, 03:00:13 PM »
Nice cop out smarta$$.

"Invite all to the way of your lord through wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue in ways that are best".
There was no need for language like this brother. I am not here to discuss topics in this manner. I am also not here to slander any revered symbols, but talk about this topic in a mature, balanced, and moderate manner.

1. I do not believe that Umar attacked Fatima because there is not enough evidence.

2. It is not part of the fundamentals of Shia Islam but an opinion and assessment of the evidence - and i feel there is weak evidence to support it.

3. However, to threaten to burn down a house with Fatima, al-Hassan, al-Hussain in it, in my views, deserves condemnation. Would you even dare to tell Fatima that you don't care whether she is in her house or not, nor whether her kids are in it or not, but you will burn it down if Ali and the others refuse to give their allegiance?

4. A very common and simple way of debating means that you only quote enough to prove  point. All sources and reports agree on Umar making the threat. They differ as to what happened after. I do not need to rely on this tradition to be able to have some confidence he did make a threat - but i quoted it because it is Hujjah upon you. If i quoted the other traditions that differed with what happened after but agreed the threat was made, you would not agree with the reliability of those chains. The only way to demonstrate to you that a threat was made by your own standards of judging reliability is to use this tradition.

"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

whoaretheshia

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2017, 03:12:02 PM »
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 leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

Optimus Prime

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2017, 03:18:23 PM »
Nice cop out smarta$$.

"Invite all to the way of your lord through wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue in ways that are best".
There was no need for language like this brother. I am not here to discuss topics in this manner. I am also not here to slander any revered symbols, but talk about this topic in a mature, balanced, and moderate manner.

1. I do not believe that Umar attacked Fatima because there is not enough evidence.

2. It is not part of the fundamentals of Shia Islam but an opinion and assessment of the evidence - and i feel there is weak evidence to support it.

3. However, to threaten to burn down a house with Fatima, al-Hassan, al-Hussain in it, in my views, deserves condemnation. Would you even dare to tell Fatima that you don't care whether she is in her house or not, nor whether her kids are in it or not, but you will burn it down if Ali and the others refuse to give their allegiance?

4. A very common and simple way of debating means that you only quote enough to prove  point. All sources and reports agree on Umar making the threat. They differ as to what happened after. I do not need to rely on this tradition to be able to have some confidence he did make a threat - but i quoted it because it is Hujjah upon you. If i quoted the other traditions that differed with what happened after but agreed the threat was made, you would not agree with the reliability of those chains. The only way to demonstrate to you that a threat was made by your own standards of judging reliability is to use this tradition.



Kindly do not refer me to as "brother". I do not regard Shias to be Muslims. I find it very offensive otherwise. Ensure you duly note this point before addressing Yours Truly.

Your approach, and thinking is rigidly narrow. If your "view" is curbed by a only a select yet hand picked narrations, then it's fruitless debating, or engaging in any form of polemics with you. We do not condemn 'Umar for what he did for the reasons mentioned, and listed in that article. Alhamdulillah, as billions have not generation after generation. To truly make an assessment of someone especially one of the most astute Islamic leaders in history, one must study their lifestyle from A-Z. When one has the presence of mind to do so, he will come to the crystal like conclusion, that 'Umar & 'Ali had a very special relationship to such an extent that the unfortunate incidents that took place after the Prophet's (SAW) death are memories to be forgotten. This is exactly what they did, and what Ahlus Sunnah have done for centuries.

However, Shia are hell bent like a Hyena goes scavenging for prey, to bring up those moments again which, to their downfall doesn't prove jack in the grand of scheme of things.

You raised a few valid points, that suggest logically it doesn't seem 'Ali would, or would've given the bayah twice. I have already alluded to the fact, that some scholars of Hadith/Seerah are divided on this. Personally, I've not really thought about it too much because what does matter, and what is set-in-stone fact is that 'Ali did give him bayah wholeheartedly, and was happy with it.

Abu Bakr (ra) took the Bay`ah at Saqifa and then it was followed by the general Bay`ah from the nation at the Prophet’s (SAWS) mosque, later `Ali (ra) and al-Zubayr (ra) came to offer their Bay`ah to him as we read, and this is what happened after it.

حدثنا أبو حفص عمر بن أيوب السقطي ، قال : حدثنا محمد بن معاوية بن مالج ، قال : حدثنا علي بن هاشم ، عن أبيه ، عن أبي الجحاف ، قال : قام أبو بكر رضي الله عنه بعدما بويع له وبايع له علي رضي الله عنه وأصحابه قام ثلاثا ، يقول : ” أيها الناس ، قد أقلتكم بيعتكم هل من كاره ؟ قال : فيقوم علي رضي الله عنه أوائل الناس يقول : ” لا والله لا نقيلك ، ولا نستقيلك قدمك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فمن ذا الذي يؤخرك ” .

[abu Hafs `Umar bin Ayyub al-Siqati told us, Muhammad bin Mu`awiyah bin Malaj said, `Ali bin Hisham told us, from his father, from abu al-Jahhaf that he said:

Abu Bakr (ra) stood up three times after he received Bay`ah from `Ali (ra) and his companions, saying: “O people, I shall return your Bay`ah to you, does anyone dislike this?” he said: So `Ali (ra) would stand among the first of them and say: “No by Allah we shall not let you retire, if the messenger of Allah (SAWS) placed you ahead (means leading Salat), then who can put you behind?”]

Source: al-Shari`ah lil-Aajurri (b.280 – d.360 AH).

Comment:

This narration does not originate from “Nawasib”, it has three narrators who are Shia:
1- `Ali bin Hashim is a Kufan who is a Shia and is from a Shia family but is “Saduq”.
2- His father, Hashim bin Burayd is a stubborn Shia, but is a Thiqah.
3- Dawoud bin Suwayd is an extremist Shia from Kufa, but his narrations are authenticated by Ahmad, al-Thawri, al-Nasa’i, al-`Asqalani & al-Razi.

« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 03:22:14 PM by Optimus Prime »

Optimus Prime

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2017, 03:31:27 PM »
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. :P

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.  8)
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 03:35:04 PM by Optimus Prime »

whoaretheshia

Re: Question for shias, Did Imam Ali declare his imamah?
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2017, 03:35:20 PM »
Kindly do not refer me to as "brother". I do not regard Shias to be Muslims. I find it very offensive otherwise. Ensure you duly note this point before addressing Yours Truly.

I regard you to be a muslim. I pray that Allah forgives you, shows you mercy, and guides you away from this position. We, the followers of the Ahlulbayt, seek to extend our hand of compassion, and willingness to give people a chance to rethink their position. There is no doubt you are passionate about your view and your Aqeedah. You also seem intelligent. Perhaps it may be through you i get to understand Sunni/Salafi Islam better.

Quote
Your approach, and thinking is rigidly narrow. If your "view" is curbed by a only a select yet hand picked narrations, then it's fruitless debating, or engaging in any form of polemics with you. We do not condemn 'Umar for what he did for the reasons mentioned, and listed in that article. Alhamdulillah, as billions have not generation after generation. To truly make an assessment of someone especially one of the most astute Islamic leaders in history, one must study their lifestyle from A-Z. When one has the presence of mind to do so, he will come to the crystal like conclusion, that 'Umar & 'Ali had a very special relationship to such an extent that the unfortunate incidents that took place after the Prophet's (SAW) death are memories to be forgotten. This is exactly what they did, and what Ahlus Sunnah have done for centuries. 

My intent on this thread was not to present or argue about the relationship they had with each other. However, my aim was to argue that anyone spreading the Idea that he gave Bayah right away not only contradicts clear traditions from al-Bukhari and Muslim , but the views of major scholars like Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajar and others, as well as islamqa , a well known Salafi website.

Quote
However, Shia are hell bent like a Hyena goes scavenging for prey, to bring up those moments again which, to their downfall doesn't prove jack in the grand of scheme of things.

I am not interested in debating this issue. I quoted the tradition to prove that Ali did not give his Bayah right away, and it was evidence to already concrete evidence that - according to what is proof on you- that he delayed giving his allegiance for several months until the death of Fatima, who he buried at night, in secret.

Quote
You raised a few valid points, that suggest logically it doesn't seem 'Ali would, or would've given the bayah twice. I have already alluded to the fact, that some scholars of Hadith/Seerah are divided on this. Personally, I've not really thought about it too much because what does matter, and what is set-in-stone fact is that 'Ali did give him bayah wholeheartedly, and was happy with it.

It does matter. There is a big difference between spreading the idea he gave the allegiance willingly right away, and then the reality that he withheld his allegiance for many months, only rendering it after the death of Fatima. I hardly consider withholding allegiance many, many months after - some say even six- to be a sign of wholeheartedly rendering it. Especially when in that period, someone had threatened to burn your house down unless you came out and rendered it. The two paint entirely different positions about what Ali ibn abi Talib, members of his family, and also his companions felt.

What is more is the doubt it creates in your method of verifying hadith, given you have totally divergent accounts and all are apparently from 'thiqah'.

Quote
Abu Bakr (ra) took the Bay`ah at Saqifa and then it was followed by the general Bay`ah from the nation at the Prophet’s (SAWS) mosque, later `Ali (ra) and al-Zubayr (ra) came to offer their Bay`ah to him as we read, and this is what happened after it.

حدثنا أبو حفص عمر بن أيوب السقطي ، قال : حدثنا محمد بن معاوية بن مالج ، قال : حدثنا علي بن هاشم ، عن أبيه ، عن أبي الجحاف ، قال : قام أبو بكر رضي الله عنه بعدما بويع له وبايع له علي رضي الله عنه وأصحابه قام ثلاثا ، يقول : ” أيها الناس ، قد أقلتكم بيعتكم هل من كاره ؟ قال : فيقوم علي رضي الله عنه أوائل الناس يقول : ” لا والله لا نقيلك ، ولا نستقيلك قدمك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فمن ذا الذي يؤخرك ” .

[abu Hafs `Umar bin Ayyub al-Siqati told us, Muhammad bin Mu`awiyah bin Malaj said, `Ali bin Hisham told us, from his father, from abu al-Jahhaf that he said:

Abu Bakr (ra) stood up three times after he received Bay`ah from `Ali (ra) and his companions, saying: “O people, I shall return your Bay`ah to you, does anyone dislike this?” he said: So `Ali (ra) would stand among the first of them and say: “No by Allah we shall not let you retire, if the messenger of Allah (SAWS) placed you ahead (means leading Salat), then who can put you behind?”]

Source: al-Shari`ah lil-Aajurri (b.280 – d.360 AH).

Comment:

This narration does not originate from “Nawasib”, it has three narrators who are Shia:
1- `Ali bin Hashim is a Kufan who is a Shia and is from a Shia family but is “Saduq”.
2- His father, Hashim bin Burayd is a stubborn Shia, but is a Thiqah.
3- Dawoud bin Suwayd is an extremist Shia from Kufa, but his narrations are authenticated by Ahmad, al-Thawri, al-Nasa’i, al-`Asqalani & al-Razi.

This tradition means nothing to me - with respect my brother. There is a difference between a 'Shia' and what we would term a Shia as a follower of the Imams. Some 'Shia' were called that merely for preferring Ali over Uthman.  One more, how will you reconcile this, with the clear traditions of Bukhari, Muslim, the threat to burn down the house and the view of some pretty major scholars?

You may have come across some rude shias before, believe me, everyone is different and i hope not to confirm the prejudices you may have.
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
4872 Views
Last post July 24, 2015, 01:11:15 AM
by muslim720
17 Replies
2637 Views
Last post July 30, 2016, 02:41:05 AM
by Noor-us-Sunnah
2 Replies
996 Views
Last post July 19, 2016, 04:41:59 PM
by fgss
12 Replies
1072 Views
Last post October 16, 2017, 07:54:56 PM
by Khaled