REAL PROPHET'S (SAW) SUCCESSORS

 
 
    Shia Link Dialogue Group
  General
 
 DEMOCRACY, MERITOCRACY OR HIPOCRACY???
Author Topic:   DEMOCRACY, MERITOCRACY OR HIPOCRACY???
Shaan
Member
 posted November 26, 2000 10:33 PM             

Asalaam Alaikum, O Reader!

Do you know why I have chosen this topic?

Well let me explain, it really is to do with the political system of Islam, don't you recall how Hasrat Abu Bakr (r.a) the first Caliph, became a Ruler of the Muslims after the departure of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W)?

No! No! you got it wrong, it had nothing to do with being the best friend, or being related to the Holy Prophet nor did the Holy Prophet(S.A.W) select him for that position before his demise, had the Holy Prophet done so in front of many prominent companions, then why was there a need for those who attended "Saqifa Bani" to choose him again and pay baya to him?

Could their choice have been more worthy and held with great importance with regards to the choice of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W)? Not forgetting the fact that when the Holy Prophet gives we are to take and when he is to forbid we are to leave?

Their choosing the Caliph amongst themselves distinguishes the fact the Holy Prophet did not select Hasrat Abu Bakr (r.a) for the position of "Amir Al Mu'mineen".

The Ansars/Helpers claimed that the leadership should be given to them due to their service for the sake of islam.

Similarly, the Migrants claimed that they were the most deserving of the leadership.

Different groups were advancing arguments on their own behalf at the Saqifah.

But at last Abu Bakr was chosen but election of Abu Bakr was so unexpected, hasty and careless that 'Umar remarked later:

"It was an accident that Abu Bakr became leader. No consultation or exchange of views took place. If anyone in future invites you to do the same again, kill him."

Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah, Vol. IV, p.308.
See also Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.817

The established facts shed light to the following points:

(1)That the appointment of Abu bakr was not based upon Quran and Sunnah but mere choice of those in the majority.

Does not Allah says: "Those who do not judge according to what Allah reveals are dhalim/fasiq/disbelievers"

(2)We know that the appointment of Abu bakr was prompt and sudden and not given the thought to it, is this the method of electing/nominating a Caliph of Islam?

Well that too goes against the teachings of Allah, because: "The Muslims are to organize their affairs on the basis of mutual consultation" (42:38)


(3)The choice of Abu Bakr (r.a) was not pleasing to all, Hasrat Umar said that Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, and Ansar disagreed with them:

"..And no doubt after the death of the Prophet 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…" ( Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.817 )

Yes the seed of disunity was sown and was ready to grow into the wild tree whose fruit caused nothing but pain and destruction to the ummah of the Holy Prophet (S.A.W) as the Holy Quran predicts:

"Obey God and the Messenger, and never be drawn into dispute and disagreement, lest you be defeated and your power be scattered to the winds." (8:49)

Hasrat Abu Bakr was right when he correctly observed the following: "The swearing of allegiance to me was a mistake; may God protect us from its evil consequences. I myself am fearful of the harm it may cause." -> Ibn Abi 'l-Hadid, Sharh, Vol. I, p.132.

The adoption of the Caliphal system in the fashion we have seen has nothing to do with Islam, in fact it contradicts Islam.

So the question remains to be asked exactly as to who chooses the Amir Al Mu'mineen in Islam and what are his qualifications?

The Shia's claim that the right to designate the Imam belongs exclusively to Allah, and that the humans have no authority at-all to play role of electing/selecting a caliph to rule in the place of the Holy Prophet . It is the Creator alone Who selects the Imam and identifies him to the people by means of the Prophet.

The Holy Quran declares : "Allah creates and CHOOSES whatever He wishes, and men have no right to choose in opposition to His choice." (28:67)?

Allah alone knows the mental level, capabilities, religious position, piety of a human being, and with this information He knows, too, to whom the safe-keeping of religious knowledge should be entrusted: who it is that can carry this task and not fail for a minute the responsibilities of summoning men to Allah and implementing divine justice.

If we say that the people have no right to indulge in the matter of electing or nominating that is only and only because we are not in a position to understand or comprehend the inner purity and the piety of a certain individual or individuals, of the degree to which they adhere to the values of Islam and the Qur'an; above all, they cannot perceive the presence or absence of the divine principle of inerrancy.

Therefore it is better and most deserving for the Holy Prophet s.a.w to designate his successor, and of the Imam in each age to select and appoint Leaders.

The Holy Prophets decision will be based upon the divine will of Allah, and most surely his choice will certainly fall on those who are the most deserving for that post of successorship.

It is illogical to think that bestows upon a person an exalted position of superiority, without him having to earn it: "And for all (are ranks) (assigned) according to what they did; that Allah may (fully) recompense their deeds, and they shall not be done any injustice" -46:19

The one who wishes to assume religious leadership and undertake the guidance of the masses as the successor of the Prophet, must bear affinity to him with respect to knowledge, deeds, and manner of thought. He must also have special moral qualities and spiritual attributes, be divinely protected from sin, and be fully cognizant of the truths of religion; only then will he be able to solve whatever problem arises on the basis of truth, justice, and the shari'ah. Islam cannot accept that rule over society and the protection of human dignity should be entrusted to the first person who chances along.

The Noble Qur'an cites the superior strength and capacity of Talut (Saul) as a reason for his being chosen as a fit leader of his people: "And their Prophet said unto them: "Verily, Allah has raised up for you Talut (to be) the King (Ruler) they said: "How can the kingdom be his, over us, whereas we are rightful for it than he while he is no gifted with abundance of wealth;?" he said: "Verily, Allah has CHOSEN him over you and has increased him abundantly in Knowledge and Physique; and verily, Allah grants His Kingdom unto whomever he pleaseth; Allah is Omniscient and All-Knowing." - ( 2:247)

According to the verse above, the reply given by the Prophet against the people's argument needs a serious attention by those who are sincere to know the qualities essentially needed in a Amir/Ruler, be he a mere temporal one:-

(1)'Innallah astafaha alaikum' i.e. "Verily Allah has chosen him in preference to you" This part of the verse clearly and very eloquently gives out the fact or the divine law that a Amir/Ruler of the people, is not chosen by the people themselves but by Allah Himself.

(2)' Wazadahu Bastutanfil ilmi wal jism' i.e. "He (Allah) has increased him abundantly in Knowledge and Physique. These words plainly expose that the one chosen by Allah to rule His people, is given Knowledge and Physical strength by Allah Himself. That the true Amir/Ruler of Allah's loved people must possess divinely inspired Knowledge and godly strength of the body.

(3)'Wallahu Youti Mulkuhumaiyasha' i.e "Verily Allah (alone) grants His Kingdom to whoever He likes" - which means that the Kingdom is of Allah alone, and it is granted only by Him and it is granted to whoever He likes, let people like it or not, and the Kingdom of Allah extends to the Universe as a whole, and the authority to rule His Kingdom on His behalf will always be only with the one whom Allah Himself grants it.

(4)'Wallahu Waseon Aleem' i.e "Verily Allah (alone) is the Ample-giver and the All-Knowing" - These words speak out the act that bounties to mankind through the government of their state can only come from the All- Bountiful Who alone is the ample-giver, and no amount of human devices of their diplomacies besides Allah's Will, can ever be of any avail to humanity. And what is good and what is bad for people is best known only to Allah, which knowledge can be conveyed to men through His chosen ones to rule over them, and not at all through any other means of the diplomatic election or choice, or by the appointment of a ruler effected by the people themselves.

Basically it all comes down to the KNOWLEDGE, the more learned a person is, the more suitable he will be as a rightful candidate for the seat of Successorship..

To enlighten this further, Allah says in the Holy Quran;

"THOSE WHO KNOW AND THOSE WHO KNOW NOT ARE THEY ALIKE? "
"IS HE THEN WHO GUIDES TO THE TRUTH WORTHY OF BEING FOLLOWED OR THE ONE WHO DEPENDS ON OTHERS FOR GUIDANCE, WHAT THEN HAS BEFALLEN YOU, HOW DO YE JUDGE ?" - 10:35

If the above verses give a direct answer as to who deserves the leadership Then why have the Majority of Muslims, accepted those men, as best and pious guides, who were ignorant of many facts and Islamic teachings, especially in the matters of rulings, when existed amongst them a person, who would say openly:

"Ask me before you lose me. By Allah, if you ask me about anything that could happen up to the Day of Judgement, I will tell you about it. Ask me, for, by Allah, you will not be able to ask me a question about anything without my informing you. Ask me about the Book of Allah, for by Allah, there is no verse about which I do not know whether it was sent down at night or during the day, or whether it was revealed on a plain or in a mountain."

Sunni References: al-Isabah, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v4, p568
Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v7, pp 337-338
Fat'hul Bari, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v8, p485
Tarikh al-Khulafaa, by al-Suyuti, p124
al-Itqan, by al-Suyuti, v2, p319
al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, v2, p198
at-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, Part 2, p101
al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p1107

Yes it was IMAM ALI IBN ABI TALIB, who used to claim this, no wonder the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) informed his followers of the very existence of a man who was the treasurer of Knowledge of the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF), and
he had declared to them that if they want to reach the Knowledge of the Holy Prophet, they should take thatKnowledge from the treasurer:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "I am the City of Knowledge, and Ali is its Gate. So whoever intends to enter the City, he should enter from its Gate."

Sunni references:
1.Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 201,637
2.al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, pp 126-127,226, Chapter of the Virtues of Ali, narrated on the authority of two
reliable reporters: one, Ibn Abbas, whose report has been transmitted through two different but chain of authorities, and the other, Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari. He said this tradition is Authentic (Sahih).
3.Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p635, Tradition #1081

If IMAM ALI IBN ABI TALIB, was the most knowledgeable amongst the companions, why did those who elected Abu bakr as a Caliph at Saqifa Bani, prefer Abu Bakr over Ali, especially when it is known and agreed by all , that many times Hasrat Abu bakr and Hasrat Omar, used to seek for a solution, from Imam Ali, when they could'nt solve a problem themselves?

Imam Ali many times expressed: "By Allah, I am the Brother of the Messenger of Allah and his friend and his cousin and the inheritor of his knowledge. Who has a better title for succeeding him than me?

Sunni references:
al-Khasa'is al-Alawiyyah, al-Nisa'i
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim v3, p112
al-Dhahabi in his Talkhis of al-Mustadrak has admitted the above words to be genuine.

I now ask you a question: "WHAT SYSTEM WOULD YOU CALL THAT TOOK PLACE AT "SAQIFA BANI SAIDA"?

HERE ARE THE FOLLOWING ANSWERS, CHOOSE ONE!

(A)DEMOCRACY
(B)MERITOCRACY
(C)HIPOCRACY


IP: Logged

alhasan786
Member
 posted November 27, 2000 01:49 AM             

Salam alai kum Shaan,

Neither!!!

It was a ..... C O N S P I R A C Y !!!

[Good work however, Shaan. Excellent argument and precise references. Lets hear out the Khalifa clan on this ]

Hasan.

IP: Logged

MohammedY
Member
 posted November 27, 2000 02:26 PM          

Assalamun alaikum

Thank you brother Shaan for your excellent article and yes brother alhasan786 it was purely conspiracy to snatch away the rightfully Caliphate from the Holy soul. Just let us find how was this plotted.

1) When the second caliph came to be informed about the meeting in Saqifa why he came in secret in the mosque and informed only two people Abu Baker and Abu Ubaida?

2) Among all the Muslims in the mosque he only selected Abu Baker and Abu Ubaida. Other important Companions of the Holy Prophets (s.a.w) did not have the right to attend that meeting?

3) How can he left out Ali at the time the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said "Ali mal Haq wal Haq
ma Ali?"

4) How can he left out Salman at the time the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said "Salman minal Ahle Bait?"

5) How can he left out Khuzaima Ibne Thabit (Dhush-Shahadatain) at the time the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said that his witness is equal to two people? Was he not important and necessary at the serious moment?

6) How can he left out Ammar Yasir at the time the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said that he would be killed by rebellious, meaning Firqa Baghiya?

7) How can he left out Abu Dhar at the time the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said "Heaven has not shaded, nor has the earth carried a person more straight forward than Abu Dhar. He walks on earth with the immaterialistic attitude of Jesus, the son of Mary."

8) How soon Omar and his friends forgot the saying of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) "Paradise longs for three men, Ali, Ammar and Salman."

9) Other Muslims particular those who were at the Mosque, did not have the Feeling of Safety and Love for Islam, only those few people felt the danger?

10) The event of Ghadir Khum just passed only few days before Saqifa took place which they Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Ubaida were present and heard what the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said. They not only heard what the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said, but they were the first people to congratulate Ali (a.s). Was it possible that they quickly forgot this Important event and Hadith of Holy Prophet (s.a.w) of Ghadir Khum and rushed to Saqifa?

11) If Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Ubaida did not have ANY DESIRE for Caliphate, what made them to leave the Dead Body of the Last Holy Prophet (s.a.w) and Beloved of Allah aside without attending his Funeral?

12) We know that after the death of Omar, there was three days gaps and then a Caliph was selected. Why could they not delay the selection of Caliphate to take place after the burial of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w)?

13) The same Abu Ubaida bin Jarrah was a grave digger for the Muslim of Makkah. How he managed to leave such a golden opportunity to dig the grave of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) and ran for the selection of Caliphate?

14) Which one was it important for Abu Ubaida the golden opportunity to dig the grave of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) or the worldly power of Caliphate?

15) Since when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) in his life ever attended Saqifa and sent any delegation there?

16) Were not the same Saqifa which was infamous and the secret meeting place of the criminals to discuss their bad movement?

17) Was the Mosque not preferable and the right place for the selection of the Khilafa than Saqifa?

18) The Mosque did not have enough space for the Muslim gathering so they should go to Saqifa?

19) The decision of war, peace, people coming to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w), lecture and the solving of Muslim problems during the time of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) was taking place in Saqifa or in the Mosque?

20) Why during debate in Saqifa, there were not mentioned any Quranic verses or the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) traditions?

21) The Holy Prophet (s.a.w) tried his best to remove the problem of tribe and treated all Muslims equal, if this was the selection of the Muslim Khalifa why the subject of tribelism was brought forward in this meeting?

22) Was it not conspiracy that Omar prepared a speech instead Abu Baker read exactly what Omar wanted?

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

When the speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a speech which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of Abu Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I disliked to make him angry. So Abu Bakr himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than I. BY ALLAH, HE NEVER MISSED A SENTENCE THAT I LIKED IN MY OWN PREPARED SPEECH, BUT HE SAID THE LIKE OF IT OR BETTER THAN IT SPONTANEOUSLY.

What was the end of this man made Caliphate? It was sunk in Black Sea by human being!!!!

Wassalam

IP: Logged

Yasir
Junior Member
 posted November 27, 2000 04:47 PM          

Salam alakm brothers

After reading these posts it look like shia have a valid point but i like to see what sunni have to say about that.
They may also have a point of their own otherwise it is hard to remain sunni.

IP: Logged

alhasan786
Member
 posted November 27, 2000 06:26 PM             

Yasir,

Then perhaps the Jews, Christians , Hindus, Jains, Buddhists etc. also have 'valid' points?

H.

IP: Logged

abrahim
Junior Member
 posted November 27, 2000 08:30 PM             

salaamu alikum to brothers,

Since my brothers are of opinion the way
Abu Baker got the khalafat was conspiracy or hipocracy, while at least you can say a few people among themselves agreed to it, then what would be the proper word to use when Omar received the khalafat from Abu Bakr with no ones consultation or agreement?
That is my dilemma.
the only word that I can think right now is extortion.
But I would be open minded to the brothers suggestions.

wasslam

IP: Logged

yosef
Member
 posted November 28, 2000 02:47 PM             

The situation that arose over the conflict of who was to be the successor to the Prophet demonstrates the corrupting principle of power. Only the rarest of men are able to assume the reins of power without compromising their convictions and betraying their family and friends. When political power is within one's grasp, one's lusts and greed and egotism surfaces. This can happen to anyone, even if up until the time they assume power they had been as righteous as the prophets and the angels, the prospect of power can quickly turn a righteous man into a merciless tyrant. Imam Ali was the only one of the four so called Rashidoon that was not corrupted by power. The ahadeeth, Sunni and Shi'i, bear this out.

IP: Logged

alhasan786
Member
 posted November 28, 2000 04:02 PM             

<<Imam Ali was the only one of the four so called Rashidoon that was not corrupted by power. The ahadeeth, Sunni and Shi'i, bear this out. >> Yosef

Alhamdolillah. Well said and true. I often wondered why the community of muslims could not see the distinction that cast Ali in a totally different league.

Even without the benefit of all the ahadith in favour of Ali ibne Abu Talib, attributed to the Prophet(sawa), Ali stands out clear from the others in his virtues and attainments. An unbiased reading of Islamic history will make it abundantly clear, that without the valour of Ali during the lifetime of the Prophet(sawa) and without his patience after the Prophet(sawa), Islam
would have been badly compromised.

May Allah(swt) enable us to be worthy followers of this infallible and selfless Imam.

Hasan.

IP: Logged

Zain3
Junior Member
 posted November 30, 2000 06:34 AM             

aslaam alaykum,

Why dont the misguided shee'ahs ever consider the following points;

(1) if abu bakr ra. was wrong in taking the right of Ali ra. then why did he give the baya to him?

(2) Ali ra. was one of the greatest fighters, he was the lion of Allah, how did he become a weak human being all of a sudden? he took on the great battles in islam couldnt he fight some companions who took his right?

(3) dont the shee'ahs see that if it was the right of Ali, then his staying quite has caused so much fitna amongst the muslims, his fighting against the companions would have made the other muslims aware that the right belonged to him, but he remained silent why? because he knew that the right belongs to the ummah to choose.

1F ALI RA. HAD THE POWER TO TAKE BACK HIS RIGHT, THEN WHY DIDNT HE DO SO AND IF THAT WASNT HIS RIGHT, THEN THE SHEEAH'S SHOULD KEEP THEIR MOUTH SHUT!!


IP: Logged

wonder
Junior Member
 posted November 30, 2000 08:45 AM          

<Why dont the misguided shee'ahs ever consider the following points; >

(1) if abu bakr ra. was wrong in taking the right of Ali ra. then why did he give the baya to him?

Giving a baya to Abu Baker does not mean Imam Ali accept him. Did Imam Ali give his baya to Abu Baker immediately after he was chosen? The answer is no. It took him 6 months to recognize Abu Baker as the first Khalifa. Have you consider why 6 months?


(2) Ali ra. was one of the greatest fighters, he was the lion of Allah, how did he become a weak human being all of a sudden? he took on the great battles in islam couldnt he fight some companions who took his right?

No doubt about it he was the greatest fighter and the lion of Allah. Imam Ali never became weak human being. His silent was for the best of Ummah. There was no need to raise his sword because Prophet (s.a.w.) declared him as his successor after him in front of 120,000 Sahabas at a place called Ghadeer Khum. His silent made us realized who the real companions are.

(3) dont the shee'ahs see that if it was the right of Ali, then his staying quite has caused so much fitna amongst the muslims, his fighting against the companions would have made the other muslims aware that the right belonged to him, but he remained silent why? because he knew that the right belongs to the ummah to choose.
1F ALI RA. HAD THE POWER TO TAKE BACK HIS RIGHT, THEN WHY DIDNT HE DO SO AND IF THAT WASNT HIS RIGHT, THEN THE SHEEAH'S SHOULD KEEP THEIR MOUTH SHUT!!

Before the death of Abu Baker, he called Othman Bin Affan. He told him to write the name of Omer Bin Khattab as his successor after him. So where is the Ummah here? If what you said the Ummah should choose the Khalifa and this is what the Prophet (s.a.w.) ordered, then how come this practice Abu Baker did not follow?

Brother, I just want to assure you that the Shias did not have any problem with Abu Baker, Omer and Othman during the life of Prophet (s.a.w.). The problem started after the demise of our beloved Prophet (s.a.w.).

Wonder

IP: Logged

yosef
Member
 posted November 30, 2000 09:13 AM             

The Quran states that there is no compulsion in religion and that the right way has been made distinct from the wrong way. Imam Ali was merely implementing the principles laid out in the Quran by not going to war to force Abu Bakr and Umar and the Muslim ummah to follow him, the rightful successor to the Prophet. It was up to each individual Muslim to choose which way they wanted to go. Most of them chose the falsehood. And falsehood is what they inherited.

IP: Logged

Yasir
Junior Member
 posted November 30, 2000 01:35 PM          


Salam alakm

hmmm now things are getting clear to me. brother Zain is getting nasty here and others are well behaving. I see shias still have valid point and it look like not that many sunnis are responding. do they visit this site or there are only shias here?

Allah bless

IP: Logged

Zain3
Junior Member
 posted December 01, 2000 01:48 AM             

Asalaam alaykum,

Why dont you shee'ahs get the message that if it was the right of Imam Ali then he should have taken it back as it is fard in islam o get back your right...

The following is the hadith from the Holy Prophet which contributes the fact that Ali ra. should have taken back his right, but he didnt do so even he the had the power to do so!

S. Muslim:Book 001, Number 0079:It is narrated on the authority of Tariq b. Shihab: I heard the Messenger of Allah as saying: He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith.

Why are muslims still fighting for thier rights??? because its the command of Allah to fight for your rights, and if it had been the right of Ali ra. then surely he too would have fought for it.

It does not make sense that Ali ra. did not fight due to peace reasons, because him not fighting for his right has caused more disturbance amongst the muslim, his fighting would have distinguished the fact that it was his right which Ali fought for but he didnt fight the pious companions of the Holy Prophet p.b.u.h.

An example: Ali ra. did fight against ummal mo'mineen,today we can say that Ali ra. was in the right, if he had stayed silent then there would be more disturbance and the matter would have been more confusing.

In the same sense if ali ra. had fought against those who took his right (as it is attributed wrongly to the pious companions) then today we muslims would be united in saying that the right belonged to Ali ra. but we cant say that now because the battle against is right did not take place.

wishing to see a sensible answer.

IP: Logged

alhasan786
Member
 posted December 01, 2000 03:05 AM             

Zain,

Ali did get his right. He did accept the Caliphate when he finally did get it. If the Bani Hashim had forced their right on the caliphate by voilence, Islam would have been history.

Ali more than anyone else did not want a poewr struggle to cause a civil war and destroy Islam.

His fortitude was as good as his valour.
Besides Ali has quoted several reasons for his patience, one of which is a hadith from the Prophet(sawa) addressed to him:

"Ali, your position is like the House of God. People will come to you. You should not go to them"

IP: Logged

yosef
Member
 posted December 01, 2000 08:18 AM             

Zain:

Ali was the Imam of his time. Going to war or not going to war would not have changed that. It is not man's will that appoints the Imam, as the Sunni's believe, but it is the will of Allah, subhanahu wa ta'ala. He was the Imam and those who were in the know, took him as their leader. For Ali to have gone to war against the sahabis would not have enhanced Islam nor the Imamate. It would have been too damaging to the newly founded Islamic government. Besides, the shiah of Ali were in the minority. It would have been disastrous to have started a civil war knowing that the opposition was more numerous and powerful. Prophet Muhammad, when he was in Mekka, did not declare war on the Mekkans until after he had positioned himself and his followers in Medinah and had taken the necessary precautions. Husayn was not attacking the Muslim empire when he was traveling to Kufa and was surrounded by the Muslim army. The Shiah were not interested in war but in maintaining their own beliefs, one of which was that the Ahl al-Bayt was designated by the Prophet to carry on his leadership and his teaching. For Ali to have gone to war against the sahabis during the greatest crisis the ummah had experienced since the battle of Uhud would have been stupid. It would have meant the end of the Imamate as well as the Caliphate.

IP: Logged

Mujtaba Hasan
Moderator
 posted December 01, 2000 10:29 AM             

Assalam al man ittaba al-huda:


quote:


if abu bakr ra. was wrong in taking the right of Ali ra. then why did he give the baya to him?



Did he? Would you be so kind as to quote a reference mutually agreed upon by Sunnis and Shi'as?

Ali (a.s)'s viewpoint on this subject seems to be quite the opposite, as can be seen in sermon of Shiqshiqiyyah in the Nahjul Balagha. English translation of this sermon can be seen on the Internet at www.al-islam.org/nahjul/3.htm

quote:


Ali ra. was one of the greatest fighters, he was the lion of Allah, how did he become a weak human being all of a sudden? he took on the great battles in islam couldnt he fight some companions who took his right?



It was like Solomon's judgement where the real mother let the baby be taken by the other woman as long as it could remain alive by virtue of this. Had Ali(a.s) taken to the sword against other Muslims at this nascent stage of Islam, the survival of the deen itself would have been placed in jeopardy. He thus agreed to let the lesser evil continue in order to avoid the greater one.

quote:


dont the shee'ahs see that if it was the right of Ali, then his staying quite has caused so much fitna amongst the muslims, his fighting against the companions would have made the other muslims aware that the right belonged to him, but he remained silent why? because he knew that the right belongs to the ummah to choose.



The fitna was caused by those who usurped his right. As explained above, he remained silent so as to avoid the greater evil.


quote:


1F ALI RA. HAD THE POWER TO TAKE BACK HIS RIGHT, THEN WHY DIDNT HE DO SO AND IF
THAT WASNT HIS RIGHT, THEN THE SHEEAH'S SHOULD KEEP THEIR MOUTH SHUT!!


Is this the language you have ben taught to use when engaged in an Islamic discussion?



IP: Logged

Shaan
Member
 posted December 05, 2000 10:10 PM             

Asalaam Alaikum,

Why did Imam Ali pay the baya to the Caliphs before him and fought not for his right?

This question is raised much of the time during discussions or when the opponents are cornered after seeing the evidences for the Imamah of Imam Ali a.s

It's a shame really to think that after viewing the proofs for Imam Ali's leadership after the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) the opponents still question us that why did he not fight for his right? RATHER THAN QUESTIONING THE ACTIONS OF THOSE WHO TOOK THE RIGHT OF IMAM ALI *FIRST*

Imam Ali said: "Blame worthy is not he advances for his right, blame worthy is he who takes the right of others" (Nahjul Balagha)

There are mutawatir evidences showing that the Holy Prophet chose Imam Ali for the leadership, to guide his ummah after him, at Ghadeer Al-Khum, so why question Imam Ali for not fighting for his right first when the problem exists with those who usurped his right?


Why not the questions:

(5) Who gave the right to Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Omar, Hadrat Uthmaan (ra.) to rule in place of Imam Ali, especially when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) himself through the will of Allah designated Imam Ali for that position in islam ?

Does Allah not say: "When Allah and His Messenger determine a matter, no choice remains therein for any believing woman or man. Whoever turns away from the command of God and His Messenger has openly chosen misguidance." (33:36)

(5) Was the meeting at Saqifa Bani, and the choice of Abu Bakr according to the Quran and Sunnah?

How can it be when Hadhrat Omar himself testified: "It was an accident that Abu Bakr became leader. No consultation or exchange of views took place. If anyone in future invites you to do the same again, kill him." Ibn Hisham, al-Sirah, Vol. IV, p.308. /// See also Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.817

(5) Should not all the principal Muslims have been invited to express their views on what was to be done?

Well that too goes against the teachings of Allah, because: "The Muslims are to organise their affairs on the basis of mutual consultation" (42:38)

(5) Was a brief and disorderly meeting, attended by only three of the Migrants, enough to decide on a question on which the future destinies of Islam depended?

It surely didn't work out because there were many companions who were not at Saqifa Bani and secondly they disagreed with what took place at Saqifa Bani, we can see the light from the following quote: "..And no doubt after the death of the Prophet 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…" ( Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.817 )

(5) Can, a group of Muslims come together, select a certain individual according to their own criteria, and then trust to him rule over the Muslims?

No! Allah says: "Allah creates and chooses whatever He wishes, and MEN HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHOOSE in opposition to His choice." (28:67)

But for the argument sake the answer for the above question is given as follows:

The Holy Prophet said to Ali (a.s): "The nation will turn treacherous to you; you shall live adhering to my faith and will be murdered for safeguarding it…" (This is quoted by al-Hakim on page 122, Vol. 3, of his Al-Mustadrak where the author admits its authenticity. And Al-Thahbi quotes it in his own Talkhis, admitting its authenticity.

Ibn Abbas has quoted the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, telling `Ali, "YOU WILL CERTAINLY ENCOUNTER A GREAT DEAL OF HARDSHIP AFTER ME" (al-Hakim on page 140, Vol. 3, of his Mustadrak, and al-Thahbi quotes him in his Talkhis al-Mustadrak. Both authors admit the authenticity of this hadith due to its endorsement by both Shaykhs. )

As we can see from the above narration's that the Holy Prophet was aware of what was to take place after his demise, then it becomes incumbent upon the Holy prophet to have had explained to Imam Ali what to do at those crucial times, and how to overcome the forbearing problems of that time.

There are many indications found within the Sunni sources that time to time the Holy prophet informed his companions about the unjust Rulers and how to act towards them.

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 5.688 and 7.458 Narrated Abu Bakra: The Prophet said: "... Surely, you will meet your Lord, and He will ask you about your deeds. Beware! Do not become infidels after me by cutting the throats of one another. It is incumbent on those who are present to convey this message (of mine) to those who are absent…"

"There will be [unjust] rulers over you, and you will either acknowledge [their being unjust] or deny it. Those who acknowledge shall be considered innocent, while those who deny it will be saved from chastisement." They asked him (pbuh): "Are we not supposed to fight them?" Heanswered: "No, as long as they uphold their prayers. Sahih Muslim Arabic version: on page 122, Vol. 2, of his Sahih.

The Holy Prophet gives similar advice to others:

It has been narrated on the authority of Usaid b. Hudair that a man from the Ansar took the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) aside and said to him: Will you not appoint me governor as you have appointed so and so? He (the Messenger of Allah) said: You will surely come across preferential treatment after me, so you should be patient until you meet me at the Cistern (Haud-i-Kauthar). (Sahih Muslim: Book 020, Number 4549)

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he diedwould die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya. (Sahih Muslim: Book 020, Number 4559)

For many of the reasons like above Imam Ali practised patience and acting upon these sacred commandments and upon others whereby they were bound. Imam Ali and saw that safeguarding the unity of the nation, and keeping it intact was better than the opposite, Imam Ali and the rest of the Ahl Al Bayt abided by the command of these texts while dealing with those who were controlling the affairs of the Muslims. While being aware of the fact that they themselves were more worthy of being in their shoes, they stayed silent over their right, hoping they might be able one day to lead them to the Right Path. The ascension of those individuals to power was more painful to them than the blows of sharp swords, yet they tolerated it only to fulfil the covenant, discharge the commitment, and carry out their duties as far as the Shari`a is concerned, favouring - while opposing such rulers - to prefer what is most important over what is more important. For this reason, the Commander of the Faithful (as) tried his best to provide counsel to all three caliphs, exerting himself in providing them with advice.

Secondly Imam Ali had more threats to deal with, the Muslims were being surrounded by the Hypocrites, the Romans, the Kaisers and others were waiting in anticipation, to take revenge from the Muslims and to destroy the faith which was growing rapidly fast, how could they stay away when their elders and young ones were killed under the banner of ISLAM in self defence? They were also thirsty for rule and revenge for that it wouldn't take courage for they knew the Muslims would risk their lives to save the Deen of Allah, hence they needed to plan and to conspire for there was no other way to bring down the mighty force of the Muslims. Imam Ali while being aware of that kept silence for the sake of unity and to prevent the Muslims from destruction, for he knew what the consequences would be, for causing disunity amongst the Muslims in the near future. Staying quite for the sake of others lives and unity is not something new Hadhart Haroon a.s did the same to prevent division amongst the children of Israel. The Following ayah says it all: (Moses) said: "O' Aaron! what kept you back when you saw them going wrong?"... (Aaron said  "...Truly I feared you would say 'You caused a division among the Children of Israel and you did not respect my word!'" (Quran 20:92-94).

Yes for the sake of unity Imam Ali refrained from demanding the caliphate for himself and overlooking certain matters, knowing that demanding the caliphate under such circumstances would endanger the nation and jeopardize the safety of the faith; so, he opted to refrain just in preference of the interest of Islam and that of the common welfare, of the good of the future to that of the present.

He, therefore, remained at home, refusing to give his allegiance till he was forced to leave, just to silently enforce his own right, silently defying those who forsook him. Had he rushed to give his allegiance, he would have had neither argument nor pretext, but he, by doing so, safeguarded both religion and his own right to rule the believers, thus proving the originality of his mind, his overwhelming clemency, his patience and preference of the public interest to that of his own.

According to ( Sahih Al Bukhari 5.546), Imam Ali paid baya after 6 Months that is when the attitude of the people changed towards him, but we know that Imam Ali opposed Abu Bakr as Hadhrad Umar confessed : Al-Bukhari narrated:

Umar said: "And no doubt after the death of the Prophet 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."

Sunni Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v8, Tradition #817

But according to others :".. When Umar came to the door of the house of Fatimah, he said: "By Allah, I shall burn down (the house) over you unless you come out and give the oath of allegiance (to Abu Bakr)."

Sunni References:
- History of Tabari (Arabic), v1, pp 1118-1120
- History of Ibn Athir, v2, p325
- al-Isti'ab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, v3, p975
- Tarikh al-Kulafa, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p20
al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20

The Holy Prophet said: "Baya by force is no Baya"

Conclusion:

Can someone blame Imam Ali for delaying his right?

Imam Ali said: "A man is not blamed if he takes his time in obtaining what is his; the blame is on that who takes what does not belong to him." (Nahjul Balagha)

Fe Aman Allah.

IP: Logged

 


 

 


 

وَنَجَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ {41:18}

But We delivered those who believed and practised righteousness

 

Election of Khalifa
 Who is the successor of Prophet
 Thursday to be remembered
 Original Islam Vs Caliphate
  
 
 

Copyright ©2011
All rights reserved


وَنَجَّيْنَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ     اللهم صلى على محد و ال محد.... و عجل فرجهم