Like so many others, I was delighted when Mahershala Ali’s nabbed the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor this year. The fact that we had mutual friends, and that he belonged to the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community was just a happy coincidence.
Despite my joy, I waited for the backlash I knew was coming. As I wryly watched the tweets and Facebook posts heralding Ali as the first Muslim actor to win an Oscar roll in, the irony wasn’t lost on me. After all, Ali belongs to a sect of Islam that the majority of Muslim scholars dismiss as non-Muslim. In fact, in 1974, Pakistan’s religious clerics pushed for the passage of Ordinance XX to Pakistan’s Constitution, an edict which not only legally declared Ahmadi Muslims to be non-Muslim, but also mandated the death penalty for any Ahmadi ‘posing’ as a Muslim. This so-called posturing could include anything as innocuous as Ahmadi Muslims greeting each other with “Assalam o Lakum (Peace be upon you),” attending a mosque or saying prayers.
Post 1974, Ahmadi Muslims have suffered apartheid-like conditions in Pakistan. The government has denied members of this shunned community equal access to education, military service, political office and employment. The oppression quickly dilated into violence, with an alarming number of Ahmadi Muslims being injured, arrested and even killed under this decidedly undemocratic amendment to Pakistan’s constitution.
Understanding this issue is important, because it is precisely this kind of dogmatic thinking that has fueled extremism which has mutated into the Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda and any number of terrorist groups that are nothing more than lurid distortions of Islam–a faith whose very name means peaceful submission to God. None of these unholy manifestations represent the religion that more than 1.6 billion Muslims follow, and yet they exist. They exist and they grow in part because division and intolerance within Islam are allowed to grow unchecked.
The same Muslims who, when confronted by Islamophobes, tout that Islam calls for empathy and tolerance, do not hesitate to say that Ali is not a ‘real’ Muslim. Even Pakistan’s top diplomat to United Nations, Maleeha Lodhi, deleted her congratulatory tweet after she realized the Oscar winner is an Ahmadi Muslim.
Some naysayers agree that persecution of Ahmadi Muslims is wrong, but maintain that Ahmadi Muslims cannot be “Muslim” because they do not share believe the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the final prophet. This camp justifies its position by pointing to other religions in which mainstream adherents do not recognize the faith’s fringe sects. So the argument goes that an alternative interpretation of Islam cannot be recognized as part of the religion in order to maintain religious authenticity.
I want to address this group here, since it’s possible that they don’t comprehend the damage their rationale is doing to the Muslim world. When Asma Uddin, in her latest altMuslimah oped, writes, “Sunnis and Shi’as do not need to accept Ahmadis as Muslims, or vice versa, in order for them to work together in combating anti-Muslim discrimination,” it sounds as though she’s trying to placate both sides while accomplishing nothing. She puts forth an esoteric argument–that Ahmadi Muslims deserve the religious freedom to call themselves Muslim without fear of persecution. However, she says, individual Muslims (not the government) also have the right to decide whether or not they recognize Ahmadis as Muslims. That is an individual’s prerogative.
Asma’s argument is an academic one that conceals deep fallacies. She offers Mormons as an example of a Christian off-shoot not recognized by mainstream Christians, yet the two coexist peacefully. It is true that these two groups live and work together but this harmonious relationship exists because denying Mormons as Christians does not translate to an automatic license to kill or persecute Mormons. In the Ahmadi Muslim case, if an influential individual, such as a religious cleric, decides that anyone who isn’t a Muslim but ‘poses’ as such, can be killed with impunity, his community tends to follow his command.
If the Pakistani government had not written in the pages of its Constitution, that Ahmadi Muslims are not Muslims and they will be imprisoned or killed if they insist on calling themselves such, then, yes, one could make the argument that Asma does–that recognizing Ahmadis as Muslims is an individual prerogative. However, when you have government sanctioned persecution in different countries across the Muslim world, denying Ahmadis their identity as Muslims is tacit approval of the very same persecution you claim to defend.
Let’s take an example from the American history books to understand this point. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court attempted to appease both whites and blacks by declaring that the latter were separate but equal to the former. The court ordered the government to consider blacks no different from whites in the eyes of the law, but left it up to individuals to decide how they wanted to treat blacks in their public spaces and day-to-day lives. Sound familiar? Well, blacks suffered through years of separate schools, drinking fountains and bathrooms. Did the segregation make them feel equal or safe from persecution? No, in fact, the opposite occurred. Lynching, mob riots, unequal access to education, jobs, welfare and political office sowed such deep-seeded animosity and injustice that its ramifications are felt to this day.
This issue transcends the Oscars. At the end of the day, we have bigger problems than whether a good actor receives congratulatory tweets on a historic win. What his win has actually done is expose the hypocrisy of the Muslim community. We cannot decry the injustice and inequality we currently face in America, while simultaneously denying one of our own his just due. How can Muslims accuse others of marginalizing us when they continue to ostracize and persecute Ahmadi Muslims and other minority sects at the same time?
Do we really think Islamaphobes are going to distinguish between Shi’as, Sunnis and Ahmadis when they target Islam? We have neither the time nor luxury to fight among ourselves while our government belittles and undermines our presence in this country. Our future depends on our ability to put aside our differences and defend one another.
Farrah Qazi is a human rights attorney specializing in women’s issues, gender equity and global literacy. Farrah writes at “Rizzarr,” “FemiNisa,” “Ayesha Magazine,” “The Muslim Sunrise,” and other publications.
Photo Credit.
Bismihi Ta’ala
‘assalam o alaykum
I am disturbed with the sense of victimization that the Ahmadies ascribe to themselves. If you want to compete in victimization the Shias have suffered through out history, starting with abu Bakr and Umars assault on a pregnant Zahra, daughter of the Prophet.
To this day Shias are being persecuted every where, especially of violent means in Yemen and Bahrain – not to mention the frequent killings in Other parts of the World.
Mirza Tahir gave a speech to the Pakistani Islamic Historical Society – his version was to redact the victimization that was met to the ahl al-bayt
I will comment on three things
First, My father served in Pakistani Civil Service for over 35 years. We had books from the elders of the Ahmadiyya Community, mostly Quran [I used to read Kitab al Tafsir Saghir – in one volume, despite my father being a Sunni and my mother being a Shia. I had met several of my fathers colleagues in the Finance and even Commerce department, where several Ahmadies served: they didn’t make a show of their religious Identity.
Many of them enjoined on me to return and serve in the Civil Service. Many of the Ahmadies that I knew, were also quite active in the Media, again, they never made a public display of their faith.
What the Pakistani Government has done and how they pimped the Shia and the Sunni to declare the Ahmadies as non-Muslims, is actually being used as a pre-text for their faiths righteousness. Victimization doesn’t go a long Way, as I mentioned earlier. If you dont trust me, ask the Jews and their fate in trying to preserve the memory of the Holocaust.
But indeed, what was done and is being done to the Ahmadies is wrong, and I find it deplorable that after reviewing the Press Releases of Hudhur Mansoor Mirza, your Caliph, I see that the sense of victimization is apportioned to the Ahmadies ALONE, and when Shias or Sunnis die in Pakistan, not a peep from your Spiritual head. Shame on you
You don’t hold the mantle of Spiritual leadership, if you cant empathize with another human being, as to their humanity suffering from terrorism.
Secondly, and to that also Shame on Ali, who got the Oscar, he didn’t use that podium, to single out the Injustice being done to the Muslims: Only the Iranians did that. Did you see the Iranians and Shi’ites making this a talk ? They have always engaged amr bil maruf wa nahiy anil munkar (unlike love for all hatred for none – its rubbish and is proved by the sufferage of the Ahmadi]
There are many Nobel Prize Winners, Persian, Arab, that even your Sect doesn’t claim as a matter of Pride for the Muslim Ummah. You are indeed playing the Sectarian Card. Your Spiritual leader looks like a Feudal Lord, he speaks the language of the feudal mindset, he perpetuates it in “Urdu” – how in-original. When I roomed with an Ahmadi for 5 years, I was already turned off that the prior Hudhurs speeches were also shared from the jalsa in Urdu. I knew that the Ahmadiya already had a did-advantage
So to Ali, he gave in and caved in to his professional proclivities and said nothing to the Injustices against Muslims in the US. He failed as a human being and as a muslim.
Please Ahmadies, get your Theology straight. I don’t have an issue as a non Ahmadi say anything about your faith, but your Spiritual Leader (who their followers couldn’t figure out if he was a reformer or a prophet – right after his death – that to me spells of serious mis-guidance. At the last the Shia and the Sunni have no did-agreement over Theology). Ahmadies want to convince the World, that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was “Prophet” and exactly when he died, there was a SPLIT in the followers of MGA.
Hadith Scholarship is practically non-existent in the Ahmadiya, the Quran, the 5 volume English Quran, read it and it reads more like a Mutazali appropriation of a tafsir, with very few traditions from the Prophet Muhammad (S) himself.
One of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s teacher was a Shia, and the theology of the Caliph, what the Shi’ites call Imam is borrowed from there. If one engages in a research study of the Ahmadiya belief, it is quite easy to see borrowings from different sects. The Ahmadiya English Quran tafsir is a relentless pursuit of Mutazali theology if you ask me
Lastly, lets close it with the Quran,
Quran: 4:150-151 Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers and they wish that they differentiate between Allah and His Messengers and they say, “We believe in some and we disbelieve in others.” And they wish that they take between that a way. Those – they (are) the disbelievers truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a punishment humiliating.
The claim of Mirza Ahmad puts the rest of the non-Ahmadi Community on notice, i.e. accept MGA as a Prophet or as the verse says, all non-Ahmadies are dis-believers.
Can Ahmadies live with this as they are crying the same as to how the Shia and the Ahlal Sunna see them – that they are disbelievers ?
I will say that I have had a run in with many Ahmadies who in their in-bridled Zeal invite trouble on themselves. That is not wise and I am sure that it isn’t advocated by your current Caliph Masroor.
Regards, love.
The need for Unity while paramount, it is not necessary to start with
The African American Activist, Imam Siraj Wahaj had penned an article in the “Horizons” Magazine. He didn’t call for unity, but surprisingly he shared a perspective, that muslims in the West, including
1. Salafi
2. Ahmadi
3. Shia
4. Sunni
5. Sufi
should band together for Political purposes, in terms of agreeing on a basic set of principles that would govern who they vote for,
So, yes, you are like 15 Years late on calling for Unity. Why don’t you write to Imam Siraj Wahaj, and request an audience or call him. He is very well respected across the board and will be the person who can bring this dream of yours to fruition
Are you up for it ?
Oh – one more thing. I could very well say that the statements that you made are just conjecture
Do you have references for the ascriptions that you are calling from the Islamic Republic ? I need PDF copies, if you don’t mind
PDF Copies ?? R u serious. Ugh.
Eiqra, i stopped reading your rant after the following glaring hypocrisy was made clear: you rant about ahmadies victimizing themselves, then you say ali should of used his podium to, wait for it, play victim.
prior to that, your accusations were just false and baseless. our community, on all levels of leadership, defends the rights of minorities, including shias. its embedded in us. proof of this is the fact that there has never been an act of terrorism by an individual in our community, despite the persecution we face at hands if sunnis and shias. sunnis and shias certainly cannot say the same.
Can you share with me an analysis of the claim of shia persecution. This is a new trend that I am witnessing and many news reports come to me as well. It only enforces the victimization complex of the MGA tribe.
The MGA can even claim victimization if they are kicked out of a group, if they are ousted because they began discussions that were out of the scope of the discussion board.
I have seen many Ahmadies even deleting their groups when arguments weren’t going in their favor. Its like men, you always want to be on the top.
In the years that I have followed Shia news, Dawn newspaper, there isn’t one evidence of Shia retaliation — it is suicidal. Their leaders have even joined hands with the ahlal sunna, the worst of them the Deobandi Group.
Are you telling me that Shias are going around killing Ahmadies ?
The Ahmadies need to learn the adab of proper dialogue and etiquette. Like I said, most of the MGA groupies are arrogant, cut and paste scholars, driving issues in forums that aren’t relevant, and then they Cry victimhood. There is a serious Credibility problem
EiQRA. You discussed too many different topics, most of them are not even related to the article. And unfortunately doesn’t make any sense
Well I will admit that the Original poster wasn’t the addresse, but there has to be sme Historical context for others who are interested.
Let me say from the outset, I am a Sunni Muslim and I consider (for what it’s worth) Farrah Qazi to be my sister in Islam. I am unable to say to someone else who describes themselves as a Muslim: “You are not a Muslim.” There are many Ahmadis who are observant Muslims, perform all the obligations of Islam better than me. I am really in no position to say they are not what they say they are.
With that said, every religious community has a sense of self and factors that determine who is and is not part of the community. Asma rightly pointed toward the mainstream Christian perspective on Mormons. Similarly, Jews do not regard the Jews for Jesus crowd as Jewish.
Farrah writes that Asma’s analogy regarding the Mormons is fallacious, because the outcomes would be different. While Mormons won’t be killed in present-day America for being deemed as outside the Christian fold, the same cannot be said for Ahmadis in Pakistan. This is true. But here’s why Farrah’s argument is fallacious:
1) Ahmadis are unlikely to be targeted in the United States (though I’m aware of the murder in Scotland);
2) There is presently and will never be any state-sanctioned persecution of the Ahmadis vis-a-vis other Muslims in the US.
3) The outcomes aspect (i.e. official and unofficial criminalizing of Ahmadi identification and practice as Muslims) can be changed in Muslim-majority states.
Farrah also suggests that Asma is arguing for a separate but equal type framework in Pakistan. But I think Asma seems to have distinguished between an individual’s right to have a belief on whether Ahmadis are Muslims and whether the state has the right to do that.
While I believe that ordinary Ahmadis are Muslims, I do have to say that Khatm-e Nubuwwat is a core aspect of Islam. And having studied Ahmadiyya quite a bit — with an open mind — it is just simply impossible for Muslim scholars to accept the non-Lahori Ahmadiyya set of beliefs as Islamic. Ahmadism is pretty much 95% in common with Islam. But that last 5% is at odds with non-negotiable elements of the Islamic aqidah.
In my view, I have no place in determining whether you as an individual are a Muslim. However, I do have a right to say whether elements of Ahmadism are Islamic. And of course authoritative Muslim scholars do as well. In fact, it’s their job to do so.
The central challenge is that we have to divorce compulsion and violence from doctrinal discussions. That is a legal/constitutional matter and a cultural/social one. Pakistan is full of rabble-rousers who just want to rail against smaller religious communities and perhaps even “cleanse” the country of them.
A sensible discussion would be: How do we ensure that Ahmadi lives and rights to identify and practice their religion as they please are not infringed upon in Pakistan?
In other words, the situation in Pakistan ought to be one in which Ahmadis are allowed to identify and worship as they prefer, in which no one (including the state) has a right to punish them for their beliefs, but also where mainstream Muslim clerics are able to make definitive statements about the correctness of Ahmadi aqidah. But those statements cannot and should not incite any violence or persecution.
Finally, a question for you Farrah: if I claimed that I was a prophet and the messiah (nauzubillah), would you still regard me as a Muslim?
Today 230 muslims were killed in an air strike in Iraq
I know for a fact that while Ahmadi muslims have penned “Op-eds” in Huffington post, many of them stating that they are Marines. What was disturbing was that they cited a hadith that would justify any action from the Americans arising from Just and Legitimate Concerns, “Love of land is a part of Faith”.
What these Ahmadi Marines forget is that Love of the Land while being part of Faith, it is not to accept the actions carte blanche. Infact love of the land, Inspires one to Enjoin what is Good and Forbid what is Evil.
The Ahmadiya are yet to declare the acts of American Forces abroad as Unjust and would likely see the recent killing of Civilians not warranting any Condemnation, especially with the silence from their Spiritual caliph.
So Farrah Qazi, what are you doing as a muslim raising awareness for the atrocities of US Armed Forces ? Justice within has to be met with Justice Without. If you want to be part of the “Global Ummah” your heart should equally bleed for the Ahmadies as well as non-Ahmadies.
EIQRA.
Before making accusations. Please educate your self. And Read Spirtual Leader Mirza Tahir Ahmad.(R.A). Our Fourth Khalipha , Series Khutbas
” Gulf War and New World Order. “
Its anachronistic.
I think Farrah misunderstands my argument. She writes:
“Asma’s argument is an academic one that conceals deep fallacies. She offers Mormons as an example of a Christian off-shoot not recognized by mainstream Christians, yet the two coexist peacefully. It is true that these two groups live and work together but this harmonious relationship exists because denying Mormons as Christians does not translate to an automatic license to kill or persecute Mormons. In the Ahmadi Muslim case, if an influential individual, such as a religious cleric, decides that anyone who isn’t a Muslim but ‘poses’ as such, can be killed with impunity, his community tends to follow his command.
If the Pakistani government had not written in the pages of its Constitution, that Ahmadi Muslims are not Muslims and they will be imprisoned or killed if they insist on calling themselves such, then, yes, one could make the argument that Asma does–that recognizing Ahmadis as Muslims is an individual prerogative. However, when you have government sanctioned persecution in different countries across the Muslim world, denying Ahmadis their identity as Muslims is tacit approval of the very same persecution you claim to defend.”
==
But once again, even by her own admissions, the root of the problem is the **government** and what it chooses to do or not do. Without government sanction of vigilante violence, individual beliefs/biases cannot by themselves inflict the type of harm with which human rights is concerned.
As a side note – my argument is not an ‘academic’ one but one rooted in human rights law and practice.
—– She offers Mormons as an example of a Christian off-shoot not recognized by mainstream Christians, yet the two coexist peacefully. It is true that these two groups live and work together but this harmonious relationship exists because denying Mormons as Christians does not translate to an automatic license to kill or persecute Mormons. In the Ahmadi Muslim case, if an influential individual, such as a religious cleric, decides that anyone who isn’t a Muslim but ‘poses’ as such, can be killed with impunity, his community tends to follow his command. —-
How can you jump from the Pakistani Constitution stating a belief in Finality, to saying that the Cleric now possesses state sanction to kill Others ? Did you forget that Shias aren’t considered muslims by the same outfit and yet they are killed more in numbers and more in incidents than MGA’s following ?
Are there are official Documentations from Amnesty International that will substantiate your Claim that throngs of Communities unite because their Cleric to kill. Due respect, MGA followers would have been wiped out by now, right ?
I think you are engaging in a degree of hyperbole. Killing an Ahmadi because he is a non Muslim, flies in face to the assertion to kill the Shias despite being Muslim ? It has nothing to do with the kufr, and the same kufr that believing MGA does, rejecting 1 Prophet is like rejecting all.
My advice build your institutions and slowly and surely let your Community migrate. That is what the Prophet did too.
Do you believe in Human Rights just for Ahmadies and not for Other minorities in Pakistan ? There are other Minorities that receive more death and destruction, and yet offering them a hand as a way to curtail the non-sensical killing will go a long Way
Infact, I have always added this to my Ahmadiya friends, that based on my interaction with them in the West, they are spiteful, disrespectful of the religious spaces that other Muslims enjoy. If these are the same Immigrants who came from migrant Countries, the Quran lays the onus of Human Right on the individual first, i.e. don’t put your self in perdition (Sura Nisa) and also to hide ones belief if ones Life is in Jeopardy, (the Courtier in Pharoahs Court, the Quran)
You are mixing a religious right with a secular right [Human Rights – minus God] in a society where religious Identities matter. The treatment of Human Rights, was primarily born from the Secular experience, where one religion wouldn’t hold sway.
As far as I am concerned, I am not going to believe in the claims of a man who claimed Prophethood, especially when 1.1 BILLION muslims as per Ahmadiya dogma are “kafirs, did-believers, non-muslims”
That is not a Prophet of Mercy and that indeed doesn’t come or is wished by God.
As a believer you have to come clean with your belief and the consequence it holds for Other muslims, especially when the Quran says, that rejecting One Prophet is like Rejecting all Prophets.
They call you non-muslims and your Prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad deems those who reject his Cause as deniers of God. Have you read his tracts on when he is debating other Muslims ?
You need to come claim with your faith, and if you reach for Human Rights, then don’t busy or worry yourself whether you are muslim or non-muslim, since you are seeking a Secular right.
ASMAUDDIN, have you read the Punjab Riots Report ? If you have can you share with me the “Full Report” ?
There is one thing that those who aren’t familiar with the history of MGA followers
1. when they had to create an enemy of the other, conveniently, the name of Syed Ala Mawdudi came into mind
2. when Mirza Tahir Ahmed, spoke of the general understanding of Jihad, he also took Mawdudis works, since he was the one who engaged with him
3. Mirza Tahir Ahmad was one of the sucessors to MGA: and if it weren’t for his scholarship and contribution, the Ahmadiyya as it stands today wouldnt be where it is
4. Most of the arguments from the MGA side are [1] complaining over the status of their faith as envisioned by the Republic. also positing those scholars from the Other side, who were antagonistic to the MGA followers
5. to that end, most of the corpus of literature from the MGA School is in Urdu, goes back to the time of Mawdudis arguments and
6. it rarely if ever indulges into how other Ulama viewed Mawdudi or his writings. Mawdudi in todays terms would be a Salafi, a la Madhabi, his only contribution is the Quran Commentary
So when the followers of MGA present an argument a lot of it is from the Indo Subcontinent arena: they rarely rely on classical Ulama on writings of Jihad, Irtidad etc. Infact they were a victim of their selection and language, the time and time of Mawdudi and copious output in Urdu.
Even their Current Caliph speaks Urdu, I haven’t had the chance to follow up if there are other English comments available
One advice if it hasn’t been already followed and will garner much support world wide is understanding the lives of those who have been impacted by sectarian violence. I think that the atheistic Camp will root for it
I had worked with a few friends, a decade ago, where we had traced the lives of Single mothers — in the aftermath of a Single sectarian attack on the Shi’ites in Lahore
The video / movie was produced by Amnesty International and putting a face to how their lives were changed, was an eye opener. We followed their lives for a month, their families, children, neighbors, the places of Worship, children and the impact of such violence
Has the Ahmadiya Community done anything like this or even remotely close ? It has to be done by a third Party for it to have credence — certain that Amnesty International can do it and if you need to make contacts, the anachronism of Ahmadiya in just Pakistan can be brought to the fore
Today 22 Shi’ites were Killed in Pakistan
You know what they were doing ? They were celebrating the birth of their 5th Imam, Imam Baqir — the splitter of knowledge.
There are 3 more birthdays these months, the highlighted one is that of Imam Ali, on 13th rajab, who was born “inside the Kabah”.
The Shia Community holds their breath across the world during this month and the month of Ramadhan
https://www.dawn.com/news/1323973/22-killed-in-explosion-outside-imambargah-in-parachinar-market
A Book that all Muslims should read and in particular Ahmadies, because of the cognitive dissonance that is ascribed by them to non Ahmadies
Punishment Of APOSTASY IN ISLAM
S.A. Rahman (Rtd.) Chief Justice of Pakistan
Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi 2, India
No CopyRight
Apostasy and the Quran
http://electroniciqra.blogspot.com/2007/04/quran-punishment-of-apostasy-in-islam.html
Apostasy and the Sunnah
http://electroniciqra.blogspot.com/2007/04/islam-sunnah-and-apostasy.html
You can order it from IslamicBookStore.com – it has the Indian version and the US version
—— Do we really think Islamaphobes are going to distinguish between Shi’as, Sunnis and Ahmadis when they target Islam? We have neither the time nor luxury to fight among ourselves while our government belittles and undermines our presence in this country. Our future depends on our ability to put aside our differences and defend one another. —–
I don’t think that you have done work in Intrafaith dialogue
I have and it is a bitter pill to swallow.
Shias who take their cues from Iran, the Pakistani Shias and for the most part the shia Ulama in Pakistan, were told by Khamanei to suck up to the Pakistani Shia killings, if they want to talk about Unity with the larger ahlal sunna Community, many Shias did-agree with Khamaneis insistence to dissolve differences.
Other Shia, like from Saudi and Yemen and Bahrain and particularly Lebanon, have always maintained Unity but never at the expense of effacing the face of those who have suffered. Lebanese Shia are a pride of the muslim World for obvious reasons.
I feel that we have to accept our differences. We have to stop using the term “tolerance” for I can tolerate a KKK member who spews violence against muslims – being his neighbor.
We have to use the word “respect”. The Imams of the ahl al-Bayt had suggested that Unity will never be attainable with the amma [ahlal sunna] but we can have “co-operation”.
Are you so willing to set aside your differences that had led to the death of the Ahmadies — and just not that, not bring their Suffrage within the larger context of the Ummahs problem with the Ahmadies ?
You suffer from the minority Complex. Have you understood the majority Complex ? Judging from your post, you haven’t reached out to non Ahmadies. I have my two feet supplanated in the two worlds
I suggest that you do that first, Godspeed
One cannot separate government from individuals when a government and its clerics are compelling its citizens to ostracize, arrest and kill other people because they don’t agree with their faith. Pakistan’s “Blasphemy Law,” as section 295-C of the Penal Code is known, makes the death penalty mandatory for blasphemy. Under this law, the Ahmadiyya belief is blasphemous. If your argument is rooted in human rights law, it is even more problematic. International and human rights and democratic laws expressly forbade discrimination of any kind and in this case, against religious minorities. Remember that all of history’s injustices were once legal-Nazi Germany and its aftermath, slavery, segregation, denial of women’s right to vote, mass incarcerations.. even the Muslim Ban was legal until federal courts rightly upheld stays on both attempts. Simply saying this is a government issue does not absolve individuals of behaving righteously. And as Muslims, it is our duty to behave in accordance with our Prophet SAW, which means we recognize a wrong, right that wrong and stand beside anyone who is being persecuted even if we don’t agree with them.
A government cannot stand without individuals endorsing it. If individuals would decide that they don’t believe blasphemy laws are just, the government would wield no power. Saying this is an individual’s prerogative is an easy way to get out of one’s duty and responsibility to help the persecuted.
I never said it was an individual prerogative to persecute. I simply stated that it wasn’t a human rights issue if there was no violence, no government action, etc. I think the problem is that because I make a nuanced argument – fully in support of Ahmadi human rights but simply disagreeing that all “discrimination” or theological differentiation is inherently bad/immoral – readers are imposing all kinds of false, hyperbolic interpretations.
I agree w farrah!! It is up to Allah to judge , not random hateful zealots including those who r leaving long ramblings essays that don’t make sense. To each their own. Great article.
Unfortunately, lot of the comments posted doesn’t make any sense. Stick to a simple topic. And make some sense.
An Ahmadi Muslim got an Oscar and rest of non Ahmadi Muslims, can’t digest the fact the he is called a ” Muslim”.
A lot of individuals here don’t even know the belief system of the ahmadiya and the lahori
The artist, masha Allah won an Oscar — but he didn’t use that opportunity to give his Support of immigrant or oppressed muslims, making their Way in the US — or the state of those currently living in the US
The Iranians were banned from travel to the US and their comments condemned Trumps Immigration policy. I can say the same thing that the Ahmadiya cant digest the Oscar of the Iranians — but that would make it sectarian
It is not about digestion, it is offering food for thought that supports Muslims, especially those in the after math of Trumps policies. our Ahmadi muslim just walked up and walked down, as if he was oblivious to the persecution of muslims
When I was a graduate student at GW under Seyyed Hosssein Nasr, he had asked me to focus my thesis on the Ahmadiya and the Lahori split, the preponderance and the differing interpretations. He thought that I was the right person, since I knew their language and in effect how the 2 Communities were in the DC Tri State area.
No, I focused on the Quran, especially those Quranic verses that led a transition from Meccan to Medinan life.
After I graduate, I continued my research and hopefully by the end of 2018 my book will be out.
So yes – I am a lunatic and I am ranting – at l east I will write a book that will get published that even both sects of the Mirza Ghulam Ahmad split don’t have this perspective to offer, for they are locked in their sectarian and identity politics
I know the sense of loss and cognitive dissonance Ahmadies have in particular, it’s about in-digestion, the actor blew in our and blew out, and for that I am expected to laud him ? What stops you from praising the Iranians ? Cognitive dissonance
I saw a video of him, with a white Woman in his lap, in a camera both, kissing her and playing with her hair
I an just saying, that are we to let go of such forms of modesty ? You will say no, if it was your daughter acting with him ?
You desperate for worldly recognition.
Where as the lives of Shirin Abidi and Malala Yusufzai are as they are in public and private, and the other Sister from Kuwait — they are all Noble Prize Winners for uplifting their Societies.
Yes the TV Series is “The 4400”
I have been reading the material from MGF, and this is what striked me that there is a reason not to cite Islamic Literature, because the MGF depend on a very selection portion of Muhammads Life. You can read it here
http://www.reviewofreligions.org/5002/what-is-the-punishment-for-blasphemy-in-islam/
There are so many resources and references that advocate violence, when Muhammads life was either threatened, or if he was Insulted. The egomaniacal Caliph, Umar — was always at the fore front to cutting heads off. He even threatened to kill any one who said that Muhammad had died — truly psychotic, anger issues
abu Bakr and Umar whose combined Caliphate has formed the basis of much of the Sunnah [If abu Bakr and Umar did something — they did it because the Prophet did it]. I can assure you that these megalomaniacs were violent and to deal with the Conflicts, they exercised
When Sura Tahrim [66] was revealed shunning Aisha and Hafsa and that if they didn’t repent, divorce was to follow, the parents, abu Bakr and Umar, “beat them violently”.
I know that MGF cant dis-qualify the Caliphs, your Caliphs have wasted ink and paper citing their rule and governance. These two individuals have serious mental health issues. On the day Muhammad died, they went on to threaten Fatima, and threw a torch on fire.
You think that Fatima resorted to Human Rights and belng a Muslim ? Or that Ali came out and stopped them or Salman or Bilal ? Were these not muslims with several Quranic verses to their name, like 33:56, every day in the prayer.
You know why they did it ? To recognize abu Bakr — the state Yazid of the time
I hope that you recognize the state’s role in maintaining power. When the Abbasids used the Prophets Family name to state their case against the Umayyads, once they were in power, they were side lined and their leaders were put in house arrest,
Any new moment has to be put in their place and this is the Sunnah of you know who
I am sorry to say this but you are dealing with an ahlal sunna frame of reference and arem married to it, because your school, your Prophet, your Caliphs are no way near being experts in hadith classification.. You borrow the fiqh of the ahlal sunna wal jamah, where a major portions comes from abu Hanifa, not from the Prophet
When the Blasphemy was enacted, did the MGF provide their feedback ? Was it rebutted ?
The ahlal sunna Community came with this document called “Tahqiqi Dastawaiz” — and they were certain that the Court would qualify the Shias as Kafirs. The Shias responded to it by submitting their Tahqiqi Dastawaiz — and that put the matter at rest
So don’t think that only the Ahmadies are being put in the spot for being non-Muslims.
The problem with the MGF arguments is that there are four sources you have to contended with [Quran], [Sunnah / ahl al-bayt], [Sahaba] and [Tabiun].
The Other reason that perhaps the MGF don’t cite Quranic prescriptions of Human Rights is that it is limited, how ? Protection of Human Life is through the prohibition against murder [Quran says where just cause exists] and not through the recognition of a right to Life.
The Blasphemy whether it recognized Human Rights {CDHR} — really has no basis, since the religious evidence has yet to see a rebuttal.
Mr Autisticmuslim. U r entire research is based upon bogus history about Prophet Muhammad SAW and Caliphs.
It’s seems like u belong to those Shia group, who considers Hazrat Ali R.A a reincarnation of Allah. ( Nauzubillah)
I am not a shia, I love the ahl al bayt, and as a consequence I love those who love them dis-like those who hurt them, it is called tawalla and tabarra, I diss-associate with them. Your Salat is batil null void nada zip if you don’t send blessings in your Salah to the ahl al bayt
You do that yourself and call me a Ali Worship as a God ? What hurt or insult have I done to your faith your family or you ?
I also belong to the tariqa of the Jerrahi Halveti, http://www.halveti.org
Once piece of advice, you always assume the worst in Others, you have no husn e dhan, that makes you a constipated state — you must be desi, since your food is constipation guaranteed, no pun intended
I think the source of the Ahmadiya pain is that they haven’t seen how much of the Sunnah from abu Bakr and Umar has been compromised. I wasn’t pushing any agenda, I was pushing a hermeneutics that is important whether you talk of the blasphemy Law or Irtidad
You don’t believe me, read http://www.kitabosunnat.com and there are books that ascribe to the Sunnah of the Prophet (S) through the 4 caliphs. You do read right ?
I end this with this hadith – showing a little kindness whom you think to be jahil is a sign of hilm (don’t be like jidhar di khoti uthew han khuluti)
Narrated Aisha:
One day the Prophet (S) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn ‘Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husayn came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then ‘Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: “Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O’ People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33).”
Sunni reference:
• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (S), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.
Word of advice
(3) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, pp 323,292,298; v1, pp 330-331; v3, p252; v4, p107 from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri
(4) Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p578, Tradition #978
(5) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p416 (two traditions) from Ibn Abi Salama, v3, pp 146-148 (five traditions), pp 158,172
(6) al-Khasa’is, by an-Nisa’i, pp 4,8
(7) al-Sunan, by al-Bayhaqi, narrated from Aisha and Umm Salama
(8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 2, p69
(9) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v2, p700 (Istanbul), from Aisha
(10) Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, pp 198,605 from Aisha and Umm Salama
(11) Tafsir Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, v22, pp 5-8 (from Aisha and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri), pp 6,8 (from Ibn Abi Salama) (10 traditions)
(12) Tafsir al-Qurtubi, under the commentary of verse 33:33 from Umm Salama
(13) Tafsir Ibn Kathir, v3, p485 (Complete version) from Aisha and Umar Ibn Abi Salama
(14) Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12; v4, p79 narrated from Ibn Abi Salama
(15) Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, sec. 1, p221 from Umm Salama
(16) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb Baghdadi, v10, narrated from Ibn Abi Salama
(17) Tafsir al-Kashshaf, by al-Zamakhshari, v1, p193 narrated from Aisha
(18) Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v1, pp 332-336 (seven traditions)
(19) Dhakha’ir al-Uqba, by Muhibb al-Tabari, pp21-26, from Abu Sa’id Khudri
(20) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p166 (by several transmitters)
Stick to the holy Quran. That’s the only source of true quidance. It will free u from these ” fake stories ” about the companions of Prophet Muhammad SAW.
So now Ahmadies are “Quran Only” people ? That confirms why a major portion of the Quran Commentaries (including the 5 volume in english) has little ahadith from the Prophet (S) and more mutazali maendaring.
Here are a Quranic verses, agreed to by the ahlal sunna, as referring to abu Bakr and Umar
O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not put yourselves forward [1] in the presence of [what] God and His Apostle [may have ordained], but remain conscious of God: for, verily, God is all-hearing, all-knowing!
O you who have attained to faith! Do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, [2] and neither speak loudly to him, as you would speak loudly to one another, [3] lest all your [good] deeds come to nought without your perceiving it.
Behold, they who lower their voices in the presence of God’s Apostle – it is they whose hearts God has tested [and opened] to consciousness of Himself; [and] theirs shall be forgiveness and a reward supreme.
I will leave it to you to figure out what Sura this is, it is the first Sura to be revealed in Medina, post Meccan migration
Here are two hadiths, that reveal how dis-respectful Umar was while the Prophet was on his death bed in a very vulnerable state
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
When Allah’s Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, “Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.” ‘Umar said, “The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur’an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us.” The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said “Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray,” while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah’s Apostle said, “Go away!” Narrated ‘Ubaidullah: Ibn ‘Abbas used to say, “It was very unfortunate that Allah’s Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise.”
— Muhammad al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari — Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:70:573
Sunnis tend to view this as Sahih and have included it in Sahih al-Bukhari.[3]
Sa’id b. Jubair reported from Ibn Abbas that he said: Thursday, and what about Thursday? Then tears began to flow until I saw them on his cheeks as it they were the strings of pearls. He (the narrator) said that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Bring me a shoulder blade and ink-pot (or tablet and inkpot), so that I write for you a document (by following which) you would never go astray. They said: Allah’s Messenger (may peace upon him) is in the state of unconsciousness [yahjur, literal translation: “talking nonsense”; obviously, the Prophet was not unconscious since he was speaking].[4]
— Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Muslim, 013:4015
According to Umar, the Prophet is yahjur — : “talking nonsense”
No comment.
Ali (ra) said that Abu Bakr and Umar were the best amongst the ummah of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wasallam).
The Caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar was great success. During their Caliphate, the Quran was compiled into one mushaf. Also they made progress in the social, economic and welfare aspects of the people. Umar liberated Jerusalem from the occupation of the byzantines.
Umar was a great hero of our faith and was highly respected by ahlul bayt including Zain al Abidin and Ja’far As-Sadiq.
Thank you for sharing.
If abu Bakr was Siddiq, Ali was Siddiq al Akbar
If Umar was Faruq, Ali was Faruq al Akbar
Muhadddithin have a principle that self Praise leads to the negation of the narrator or the sayer. abu Bakr and Umar might have outward Justice, their inner beings, their treatment of Fatima al Zahra, by attempting to burn her house down on the day her father was buried, was such, that these two went crawling to Fatima seeking forgiveness for their mis-deeds.
She was the daughter of the Rahmat il Alamin, she forgave them — but barred the two of them from attending the Janaza. This is a point that is agreed by all schools of thought
These are common traditions that are known to all schools of Thought
Also the verses praising Ali are far more than those who praise abu Bakr and Umar, infact. abu Bakr and Umars faith was almost negated according to Sura al Hujurat. Ali’s Imamate was confirmed in the Quran through 5:3 and 5:67, where-as Umar called abu Bakrs Caliphate a “big faltah”, also from Sahih Bukhari
There is not one verse that puts down Ali or Fatima or Hasan or Husayn – there are many verses and suras that speak to their Character
Umar almost chopped the head of a contender during the Saqifa Coup de’tat — this was and how Umar viewed the ansar. After this incident none of the ansar were even proposed for the Caliphate, did you know that ?
Ali had the Collection of the Quran within 6 months of abu Bakrs Caliphate which was rejected. The other reason we know that Imam Ali had the Quran the Prophet said, that I am leaving behind with you two thaqls, [from hadith al thaqalayn], the Quran and the ahl al bayt, the ahl al bayt, the ahl al bayt
The Quran had to be already collected by Ali, if the Prophet said so. There are many problems with the ahlal sunna narrative of Quran Collection — which I am not going to get intio
Umar was infact corrected a 100 times on his Governance and he always resorted to Alis Military Capability. Umar ran away in one of the battles, he turned his back, when the news was that the Prophet had died. Did you remember that. Infact, the so called claim that Umars bravery came to muslims Help after his conversion is patently false. He is absent from the historical placement of the Shab abi Talib, for three Years. Neither abu Bakr or Umar or Uthman used their tribal affiliations to ease that 3 year Siege, which resulted in the death of Khadija ?
The Caliphate of abu Bakr and Umar were a success because they ruled over men like Ali, and when Ali was ruling, there were Companions that gave a disgrace to Islam, the same Companions in the time of abu Bakr and Umar.
The ahl al Bayt have been careful how the make mention of abu Bakr and Umar, but they told us to do as the Quran said and Ali said, to speak of their deeds.
The ahl al Bayt are the House of Revelation, and that I will take to the Grave.
The alleged incident of Fatima al Zahra’s house been burnt is a fabrication by the shias.
Umar did not physically harm any of ahlul bayt. No wonder Ali (RA) allowed Umar to marry his daughter umm kulthum as Umar was respected by ahlul bayt.
Regarding the Quran compilation, the Quran is clear that Allah will protect it so Muslims acknowledge it’s preservation. Its a Historical fact that the Quran was compiled during Abu Bakr’s caliphate lead by zaid ibn thabit.
The Caliphate of hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar was great success as the Muslims were united. Even Ali (RA) and others of ahlul bayt accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Yes they ruled over men like Ali who made it a blessful period of the ummah. Men like Ali who were loyal to the Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.
However problems occured when the khawarij caused fitna who were disloyal to the Caliph. They even betrayed Ali during his rule. Since then the Muslims were never united.
Ali came to Abu Bakr and said: “I don’t refuse to admit that your virtues entitle you to the Caliphate. My sole complaint is that we are the close relatives of the Prophet, (so) why did you then take Baya’ah at Saqifah Banu Sa’idah without consulting us? Had you called us there, we would have taken Baya’ah at your hand ahead of everyone.”
Abu Bakr said in reply: “To treat the relatives of the Prophet well is dearer and more desirable to me than to do so for my own relatives. I went to Saqifah Banu Sa’idah not for the taking of Baya’ah but for putting an end to the dispute…I did not seek their support (for Caliphate). Rather, they took their oath of allegiance to me on their own…Had I delayed the matter, it would have posed a greater danger to the unity, integrity, and solidarity of Islam. How could I send for you when there was no time?”
Ali listened with rapt attention to what Abu Bakr Siddiq said and withdrew his complaint gracefully. The next day, he (Ali) pronounced his allegiance to Abu Bakr before a large congregation in the Prophet’s Mosque.
Source: Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.275-276
To conclude:
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, so he went to the house to get them to give pledge to hazrat Abu Bakr.
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 because they were upset 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.
Tarikh al Islam ?
abul Fida ?
Ibn Kathir ?
Ibn al-Athir ?
al-Tabari ?
Mubarakpuri ?
al Yaqubi ?
al Masudi ?
and please give me the Years ? and I need an image for it — olaprx@gmail.com
Did you know that the standard and criteria used for hadith and history are different. History written today is considered more authentic and hadith written and collected near the time of the Prophet is more authentic
The reason that History the farthest from the point of Origin is because dogma and aqaid are all crystallized and when todays historian reads it, they have to crystallize it based on the dogma and aqaid today.
I am not surprised that you are sharing such snippets after the dogma and aqaid are solidified. It is a good tool to read for how far they actually deviated from the truth of the historical affair.
This verse encapsulates, the Imamate of Ali ibn abi Talib [read Classical Quranic Commentators]
O APOSTLE! Announce all that has been bestowed from on high upon thee by thy Sustainer: for unless thou doest it fully, thou wilt not have delivered His message [at all]. And God will protect thee from [unbelieving] men: behold, God does not guide people who refuse to acknowledge the truth. – 5:67
Once the appointment was made, “Religion was Perfected”.
Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion. [10] As for him, however, who is driven [to what is forbidden] by dire necessity [11] and not by an inclination to sinning -behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. – 5:3
That message was delivered by the Prophet at al-Ghadir. Tahir ul Qadri has a entire book on al-Ghadir, where he is too concerned in Compartmentalizing the role of the Wilayat
Abu Bakr and Umar, their demeanor at Saqifa was shameless, utterly shameless — you should read it in its entirety.
Ali’s Imamate was sanctioned from the Heaven above, as far as abu Bakrs Caliphate was concerned
” . . . let me clarify this to you that the allegiance with Abu Bakr was a faltah but Allah saved us from its evil. Therefore, whoever (intends to) acts like this you must kill him. . .”[1]
Why is Umar so infatuated with those who oppose him, asking them to be killed ? Now, you see how the went to al Zahras house and threatened to kill her and all the Companions in the house ? There was Miqdad, Ammar, Salman, Ali himself.
[1] ^ as-Sahih, al-Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 211; as-Sirah an-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, vol. 4, pp. 308309; at-Tarikh, at-Tabari, vol. l, p. l822; al-Kamil, Ibn al-Athir, vol. 2, p. 327; at-Tarikh, Ibn Kathir, vol. 5, pp. 245246; al-Musnad, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, vol. l, p. 55; as-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, vol. 3, pp. 388, 392; al-Ansab, al-Baladhuri, vol. 5, p. l5; at-Tamhid, al-Baqilani, p. l96; ash-Sharh, Ibn Abi’l-Hadid, vol. 2, p. 23 quoting from Nahjul Balagah sermon number 136 about the sincerity of his own intention and support of the oppressed & Sahih al Bukhari, Arabic-English Volume 8 hadith number 817, page 540
The verse regarding “Religion was Perfected” was revealed during the great day of Hajj (the Day of `Arafah.
The verse has nothing to do with Ali’s Imamate. His imamate is nowhere mentioned in the Quran thats why the Muslims held a meeting to discuss who should be the khilafat of the messenger. The muslims eventually agreed that Abu Bakr should be the Caliph.
So if Ali (RA) was the divinely appointed 1st Imam, how does that explain his reaction to the Khilafah of Abu Bakr? Abu Bakr, by becoming Khalifah, is not just taking political power according to the Shia, he is stealing a divinely appointed position that should be Ali’s. But what did Ali do? He was willing to lay down his life for the cause of Allah before, against impossible odds.
Hazrat Ali was an advisor and close minister of the first three Khalifas. If the position was his divine appointment, would we expect such complicity and silence?
Why is it that Ali is supportive for the first three Khalifahs, even though they supposedly “challenged” his authority by taking what was his divine appointment?
It’s quite simple. The position was NOT his to assert during the first three Khulafa.
Ali (RA) would not hesitate to punish those who disobeyed Allah. If the other Sahaba took his right, is that not a disobeying of Allah? So why does he support them as a minister? Why does he marry his daughters to them? Why does he name his children Abu Bakr and Umar and Uthman when they were “usurpers?” Why is there complicity for decades with them?
It’s quite simple; the Shia narrative makes no logical or historical sense.
The FINAL VERDICT of ALI BIN ABI TALIB on OMAR BIN AL-KHATTAB (may Allah be pleased with of them both):
While I was standing amongst the people who were invoking Allah for `Omar bin Al-Khattab who was lying (dead) on his bed, a man behind me rested his elbows on my shoulder and said, “(O `Omar!) May Allah bestow His Mercy on you. I always hoped that Allah will keep you with your two companions, for I often heard Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) saying, “I, Abu Bakr and `Omar were (somewhere). I, Abu Bakr and `Umar did (something). I, Abu Bakr and `Omar set out.’ So I hoped that Allah will keep you with both of them.” I turned back to see that the speaker was `Ali bin Abi Talib.
[Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3677]
Lastly on Ali’s Caliphate, read this in light of the Quran [every time we speak of Ali, and we admit him to be the Quran commentator par excellence, of the outward and the inner and the naskh al mansukh, muslims still consider those whose knowledge of the Quran as suspect, to be fore-most, may God save us]
(49:9) If two parties of the believers happen to fight, make peace between them. But then, if one of them transgresses against the other, fight the one that transgresses until it reverts to Allah’s command. And if it does revert, make peace between them with justice, and be equitable for Allah loves the equitable.
Mawdudi writes,
As this fighting has been enjoined by Allah, it is obligatory and comes under Jihad,’ it is not the fitnah (mischief) about which the Holy Prophet has said: “It is a situation in which the one standing is bettor than the one moving, and the one sitting is better than the one standing” For that fitnah implies the mutual fighting of the Muslims in which the parties might be fighting out of bigotry, or for a false sense of honour and worldly possessions and neither may be having the truth on its side. As for the fight that is undertaken in support of the group who is in the right against the aggressor, it is not taking part in the fitnah but carrying out Allah’s Command. All the jurists arc agreed on its bring an obligation, and there was no difference of opinion among the Holy Prophet’s Companions about its being obligatory. (AI-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an). Some jurists even regard it as superior to Jihad itself and their reasoning is that Hadrat ‘AIi spent the entire period of his caliphate in fighting against the rebels instead of performing Jihad against the disbelievers. (Ruh al-Ma ani). If a person argues that it was not obligatory because Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar and some other Companions had not participated in the wars fought by Hadrat `Ali, he would be in the wrong. Ibn ‘Umar himself says: “I have never been so much grieved at heart on anything as on account of this verse as to why I did not fight the rebels as enjoined by Allah. ” (Hakim, al-Mustadrik).
Let me repeat this, since one speaks of the jihad of abu Bakr and Umar,
“Some jurists even regard it as superior to Jihad itself and their reasoning is that Hadrat ‘AIi spent the entire period of his caliphate in fighting against the rebels instead of performing Jihad against the disbelievers.”
I hope now you can understand and appreciate the “Merit of Ali’s” Jihad as opposed to that of abu Bakr and Umar.
And the Quran is with Ali, and Ali is with the Qu4ran – Beloved Prophet (S)
Do you know that Ali radi Allahu anhu gave his daughter Umm Kalthoum –the daughter of Fatima- to Umar ibn Al-Khattab in marriage?
Any upright sane person would always look for a righteous husband for his daughter, someone of her calibre and this is one of her rights over him.
I wonder then if Ali [May Allah be pleased with him] was negligent in this matter when he gave his daughter Umm Kulthum, the daughter of Fatima, to Umar ibn Al-Khattab [May Allah be pleased with them all].
Clearly Ali (RA) regarded Umar (RA) as a righteous believer and that is why he allowed Umar to marry his daughter.
Do you know who proudly used to say: “I am the son of the two Caliphates”?
It was Zayd son of Umar b. Al-Khatab.
His father was Umar radi Allahu anhu and his grandfather, from the way of his mother Umm Kalthoum, was Ali.
There are well known Companions who worked for Umar (RA) and accepted his caliphate.
SALMAN AL-FARISI took part in Sayyiduna ‘Umar’s Persian campaign and played a crucial role in the conquest of Mada’in (“al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah)
HUDHAYFAH IBN AL-YAMAN had played a leading role in the conquest of’Iraq. Like Salman, he too had acted as governor for Sayyiduna ‘Umar.
AMMAR IBN YASIR took part in the campaign against Musaylamah in the time of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr. He fought valiantly, spurred on the Muslim forces. Later, during the reign of Sayyiduna ‘Umar, he accepted an appointment as the governor of Kufah under him. (Tarikh al-Islam)
Sayyiduna Ali Radi Allahu Allahu Ta’ala Anhu ,stated:
‘After the Noble Messenger, the best of people is Abu Bakr, then the best of people is Umar’ [Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 111]
Bismihi Ta’ala
assalam o alaykum
I congratulate you and every believer on the eve of the birth, of Imam Ali, on rajab the 13th “inside the Ka’abah”.
As to the marriage between Umar and Umm Kulthum. it was Umar who had beseeched Ali to give her hands in marriage, because his own lineage was in-consequential: he realized that joining lineage with the ahl al bayt would confer on him a desire that he had for a while, especially when Fatima had rejected him and rightly so. The same marriage was on the same lines as when the Prophet married into different tribes, not for love, but for political gain.
Can you understand that ?
You think that liking Umar b. al Khattab warranted the participation of those Companions of Ali ? Are you serious. They would work for any one who furthered the cause of Islam, yet I find it odd that from abu Bakr and Umar to Uthman, Ali never participated in any of their battles. Why is that.
The ahl al bayt are the house of revelation, and that to me carries the final and ultimate fate. The ahl al bayt are the only entity, whose status is made equal to the Quran.
With due respect, the Qurans ultimate Commentator has always been Ali. Why are you so concerned of trivial matters when the future of the Islamic State with respect to the Quran, rests in the hands of the ahl al-bayt
I don’t have to reject the 3 Caliphs, I have to realize that I have something much much better. Can you live with that ?
It is narrated in Sahih Muslim as well as many other sources that:
Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (S) stood to give us a speech beside a pond which is known as Khum (Ghadir Khum) which is located between Mecca and Medina. Then he praised Allah and reminded Him, and then said: “O’ people! Behold! It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. Behold! I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance…The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times).”
• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of the companions, section of the virtues of ‘Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v 4, p1873, Tradition #36.
• And many others such as Sahih al-Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad (see below).
For the English version of Sahih Muslim, see Chapter CMXCVI, v4, p1286, Tradition #5920
The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to BOTH of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The Merciful has informed me that These two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise).”
1. Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with reference to several chains of transmitters.
2. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of “Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim).
3. Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
4. Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5, pp 182,189,350,366,419
5. Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
6. al-Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 21,30
7. al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
8. al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
9. Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti’sam bi Habl Allah, v1, p44.
10. Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of verse 42:23 of Qur’an (four traditions)
11. al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa’d, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder, Lebanon.
12. al-Jami’ al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
13. Majma’ al-Zawa’id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
14. al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
15. Usdul Ghabah fi Ma’rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
16. Jami’ al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
17. History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
18. al-Taj al-Jami’ Lil Usul, v3, p308
19. al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
20. Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
21. Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16
This texts shreds to pieces the evidence that Umar sought marriage of Umm Kulthum
https://www.al-islam.org/critical-assessment-umm-kulthums-marriage-umar-sayyid-ali-al-husayni-al-milani/section-1-narrators
It is a whole book, I hope you do read it in its entirety
Alleged Superiority of abu Bakr over Ali, as positioned by Ibn Taymiyyah (la)
https://www.al-islam.org/ali-best-sahabah-toyib-olawuyi
Imam Ali RA gave pledge to hazrat Abu Bakr RA.
on the authority of Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri who said:
“When the Messenger of Allah had died (his companions convened at the house of Saad Ibn Ubadah, AFTER THE SAQIFAH INCIDENT) the speakers of the Ansar stood up and one of them was appointed (as a spokesman) and said: O men of the Ansar, verily when the Messenger of Allah appointed a man from among you, he joined him with a man from among us. We see that this matter [Caliphate] should be given to two men, to one of you and one of us. The speakers of the Ansar followed them in that, hence Zayd Ibn Thabit [from the Muhajir Sahabah] stood up and said: Verily, the Messenger of Allah was from the Muhajireen, and the Imam must be from the Muhajireen, and we are going to be his supporters, just like we were the supporters of the Messenger of Allah. Abu Bakr thereupon stood up and said: May Allah reward you with goodness and keep you steadfast in your word, O’ men of the Ansar.
Omar Ibn Khattab grabbed the hand of Abu Bakr and said: “This is your master, give him your pledge of obedience”. The Ansar and Muhajir Sahabah pledged the allegiance to Abu Bakr and set off. Abu Bakr mounted the platform (Minbar) and looked at the faces of the attendants and couldn’t see Ali amongst the people. He asked about him, then some of of the Ansar went and came back with him (Ali). Abu Bakr asked him: “O cousin of Allah’s Messenger and his son in law. Do you want to split the cause of the Muslims? Ali said: “Don’t rebuke, o Caliph of the Messenger of Allah*!” Thereupon he gave his pledge to Abu Bakr”. Abu Bakr also couldn’t see Al-Zubayr Al-Awwam. So he asked for him until they came back with him. When Al-Zubayr arrived, Abu Bakr asked him: O cousin of Allah’s Messenger and his Hawari (close disciple, a title givin to him by Rasulullah). Do you want to split the cause of the Muslims? Al-Zubayr said: “Don’t rebuke, o Caliph of the Messenger of Allah!” Thereupon he gave his pledge to Abu Bakr.”
*Caliph of the Messenger of Allah (Khalifatul-Rasulillah) is a title only given to Abu bakr, all other Khulafa’, even Ali were called “Chief of the Believers” (Amir Al-Mu’minin). This is the utmost form of respect and admission Ali could have shown to Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with them both.
Source:
by Al-Bayhaqi.
The Hadith was also narrated by Al-Hakim in his Al-Mustadrak ‘alaa Al-Sahihayn.
Also in “Tarikh Al-Islam” by Al-Dhahabi.
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 Basrah, he said: ” He praised Allah and thanked him and he mentioned the Prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala Aalihi 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.”
So far we can conclude:
1. Ali and Al-Zubayr were slightly upset for not being consulted in the Shura at Saqifah
2. Ali (and Al-Zubayr) never claimed that something was “usurped” from them, let alone the shia concept of “Wilayah/Imamah”. They did not do Taqiyyah, hence they openly (at first) expressed their sorrow, but in the end of the day (after Abu Bakr explained WHY he had to rush to Saqifah) Ali and Al-Zubayr were pleased and acknowledges in public Abu Bakr’s superiority and his right of being the Khalifah of Rasulullah.
3. Ali never made any Taqiyyah whatsoever, even years after Saqifah he publically praised Abu Bakr and Omar (in undisputed, irrefutable Sahih+Mutawatir (mass narrated!) narrations.
Here is a Work on the Tragedy of Fatima al Zahra [door Incident from Umar b Khattab]. It is 400 patges in length, so bear with me
https://www.al-islam.org/tragedy-al-zahra-doubts-and-responses-jafar-murtadha-al-amili
I will end this with a quote from the historian, Syed Sulayman Nadwi, who wrote a 6 volume work on the Life of the Prophet and a 2 volume work on Umar b. al Khattab, and this is what he says about the door incident
“From Umar’s irritable and peevish temperament such an action on his part was not improbable.”
Sunni reference: al-Faruq, by Shibli Numani, p44
Now let us see what Umar did on those days. Sunni historians reported that: 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
Also:
Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of ‘Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out: “By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire.”al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him.”
Sunni Reference: History of Tabari, English version, v9, pp 186-187
In the footnotes of the same page (p187) in the English version of the History of al-Tabari the translator has commented:
Although the timing is not clear, it seems that ‘Ali and his group came to know about Saqifa after what had happened there. At this point, his supporters gathered in Fatimah’s house. Abu Bakr and Umar, fully aware of ‘Ali’s claims and fearing a serious threat from his supporters, summoned him to the mosque to swear the oath of allegiance. ‘Ali refused, and so the house was surrounded by an armed band led by Abu Bakr and Umar, who threatened to set it on fire if ‘Ali and his supporters refused to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene grew violent and Fatimah was furious. (See Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri in his , v1, pp 582-586; Tarikh Ya’qubi, v2, p116; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20).
Abu Bakr said on the authority of an authentic report that, after the demise of the holy Prophet when the people had paid fealty to him, ‘Ali and Zubair used to go to Fatimah al-Zahra (sa), daughter of the Prophet, for consultation. When this fact was known to Umar, he went to Fatimah and said:
“O’ daughter of the Prophet! I didn’t love anyone as much as I loved your father, nor anyone after him is more loving to me as you are. But I swear by Allah that if these people assemble here with you, then this love of mine would not prevent me from setting your house on fire.”
Sunni references:
– History of Tabari, in the events of the year 11 AH
– al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, beginning of the book, and pp 19-20
– Izalatul Khilafa, by Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi, v2, p362
– Iqd al-Farid, by Ibn Abd Rabbah al-Malik, v2, chapter of Saqifah
Also it is reported that:
Umar said to Fatimah (who was behind the door of her house): “I know that the Prophet of God did not love any one more than you, but this will not stop me to carry out my decision. If these people stay in your house, I will burn the door in front of you.”
Sunni reference: Kanz al-Ummal, v3, p140
If you aren’t convinced of the attack on Zahra, read the aaccount of Saqifa, where he had almost decapitated the head of an ansar ? The last days of the Prophets love, saw the love between the ansar and muhajirun vanish. They were squabbling over war booty and property.
How painful that was for the Prophet to see, how painful and a matter of great concern
When Umar (R.A) arrived at Fatima (R.A.)’s house Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) were not present, therefore neither did Umar (R.A) meet them nor did a fight or quarrel break out.
Umar (R.A) associated with Fatima (R.A.) in a very respectful manner and also mentioned to her that she was more beloved to him than his own children.
Umar (R.A) did not threaten Fatima (R.A.) in any way.
When Umar (R.A) left Fatima (R.A.)’s house, both Fatima (R.A.) and her home were sound and intact. No harm was afflicted on either of them. Later when Ali (R.A.) arrived Fatima (R.A.) did not complain of Umar (R.A) behaving in a disrespectful manner, rather she advised him not to oppose Umar (R.A) and not to conspire against the Khilaafat of Abubakar (R.A.) in her house in future.
Ali (R.A.) and Zubair (R.A.) took Bay’at on the hands of Abubakar (R.A.) without any coercion.
The accusations that have been levelled against Umar (R.A) that he broke down the door of Ali (R.A.)’s house and approached Ali (R.A.) and Fatima (R.A.) in a disrespectful manner and due to this Fatima (R.A.) suffered a miscarriage is totally false and a mere fabrication. In reality those who levelled this accusation are disgracing and Ali (R.A.) and Fatima (R.A.) and also making a mockery of Islam. Was Ali (R.A.) so cowardly that he could not defend his house nor avenge his wife?! When Ali (R.A.) became Khalifah why did he not take revenge nor claim the blood money from the family of Umar (R.A) for the child that he had lost?! The ones who narrate these types of narrations are in actual fact the enemies of Islam. They portray the Sahabah (R.A.) in front of the Kuffar in such a fallacious manner that they were thirsty for governance, they had no legal system, the strong used to suppress the weak, to speak the truth was a crime, the oppressors were not punished, lies were spoken in order to please rulers, just as the hypocrites they too had hatred in their hearts for their rulers. Can your heart accept such accusations and nonsense? Could the senior Sahabah behaved in such a manner? Were such Sahabah not capable of demolishing great empires such as that of Qaisar and Kisra with scanty ammunitions and means? Will Allah Ta’ala assist such oppressors?
The claim that Fatima (R.A.) had a miscarriage is a mere fabrication. It has been mentioned in an authentic book of history, i.e. Albidayah wan Nihaayah, that during the lifetime of Rasoolullah (S.A.W.), Fatima (R.A.) gave birth to a third son by the name of Muhassin and that this child passed away in his childhood. This is why the majority of the historians mentioned only two sons of Fatima (R.A.).
Like I said earlier, the smoking gun is in the hadith collection of Sahih Muslim
When Abdul Hamid Siddiqui translated the work, in the Fadhail on al-Zahra (sa), he had to contend with the tradition from the Prophet, that Prophet loves those whom al Zahra loves, and the Prophet is angered by those who anger al-Zahra.
In the foot-note to this hadith, there is the acceptance of what they did to al Zahra and also their crawling to al Zahra seeking her forgiveness
Tabari isn’t even an argument to contend with. Have you read Tabari ? Did you read the entire selection of traditions on this Subject ? If you read Ismail K Poonawalas translation of al Tabari, by SUNY Press, under this incident he cites Other references from other Historians
I encourage you read Tabari and its takhrij done by Ulama.
I have read other ahlal sunna Historians say that the Shi’ites manipulated the translation from the Arabic to the Persian — but they fail to offer the right translation, how convenient
Just because you think that the tradition is ba’atil do some research before leaping into it. Infact, Indian and Pakistani Historians like that of Shibli Numani, in his work on al Faruq (which is published by Sh Muhammad Ashraf and Oxford University) accepts that Umar did it
Shibli wrote a 6 volume work on the Sirah of the Prophet and his Introduction to historical sources was bay far at the time the most unique that any one had done to classify historians
Obviously you are cutting and pasting such material without due deference to do research, given that this is the third time I have mentioned this particular “smoking gun”. Why don’t you heed ?
I encourage you to read this work from Murtadha al Amili, it is a 400 page work dedicated this subject
https://www.al-islam.org/tragedy-al-zahra-doubts-and-responses-jafar-murtadha-al-amili
Here is a brief tradition in Sahih al Bukhari,
al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Aisha that: … Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband ‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.
Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapter of “The battle of Khaibar”, Arabic-English, v5, tradition #546, pp 381-383, also v4, Tradition #325
How would you believe ?
As for killing the child of Fatima (ra), that is also inaccurate, we know from the Sahih Hadith that he was born before the prophet SAWS even died, this is because the Prophet SAWS himself named him.
Ali bin Abi talib RA said: When al Hassan was born the Prophet PBUh came and said: Show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: I called him Harb, he said: Nay He is Hassan,
When al Hussein was born the Prophet PBUH said: show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb, he said: Nay he is Hussein, and when the third was born the Prophet PBUH came then said: Show me my boy, what have you named him? I
said: Harb, He said: Nay he is
Muhassan.”
source:
Musnad Ahmad 1/98
Your time line for this is twisted and so this is the first time that you admitted to the 3rd Child. You are making progress
When al Hussein was born the Prophet PBUH said: show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb, he said: Nay he is Hussein, and when the third was born the Prophet PBUH came then said: Show me my boy, what have you named him? I said: Harb, He said: Nay he is Muhassan.”
I have Musnad Ahmad with me, what is 1/98, vol ? page ? hadith ? chapter ?
Infact this whole Harb business was with respect to al-Hasan and not Muhsin — its striking how facts are distorted and twisted
The Prophet had passed away before the Child was conceived or al Zahra had a mis-carriage of Umars and abu Bakrs bravado.
Read that book from Murtadha Amili
During al Zahras last days, when Abu Bakr and Umar sought the mediation of Imam ‘Ali (as) to visit the ailing Hadhrat Fatimah (sa), as quoted by Ibn Qutaybah, she tured her face to the wall when they greeted her and in response to their plea for appeasement reminded them of the prophetic declaration that one who displeases Fatimah (sa) has displeased the Prophet and finally said:
“I take Allah and the angels to be my witness that you have not pleased me; on the other hand, you have angered me. When I shall meet the Prophet (S) I will complain about you two.”(al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p14).
For the same reason, she willed that those who have hurt her should not participate in her funeral rites and that she be buried at night. al- Bukhari in his Sahih attests to this fact that Imam ‘Ali (as) complied with the will of Lady Fatimah (sa). al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Aisha that:
… Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband ‘‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.
Sunni references:
– Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapter of “The battle of Khaibar”, Arabic-English, v5, tradition #546, pp 381-383, also v4, Tradition #325
I have spoken to Shaykh Gibril Haddad and he noted that according to the ahl al Sunna belief, al Zahra forgave them. There is no white washing over the facts. If you read the books of ahadith, especially the Fadhail of Fatima [in Sahih Muslim], both abu Bakr and Umar hasten to seek forgiveness from Fatima, who had lost a child in that incident.
There is no fabrication, even the ahlal sunna contend that that it happened but they white wash it with the assertion that forgiveness was given. This is a far Cry from the assertion that it is a fabrication, it isn’t.
I personally feel and this is just my opinion that if Umar was married to Zahra and the Prophet had appointed some one else as his successor, if Zahra had failed in pursuing her father to appoint Umar, she would have been at the very least brutalized and bruised and at the worst, what Umar contended all along, “to burn her down”.
Many Shias quote that It is in Tareekh e Tabari by Muhammad Ibn Jareer Tabari that Hazrat Fatima (r.a) was killed by Hazrat Umer Farooq(r.a) [Naozubillah].
However scholars of hadith have stated the Chain of narration from Tabari regarding the alleged attack is extremely weak.
ibn Kulaib (one of the narrators of the alleged attack) very born after the caliphate of abu bakr so clearly he was not an eye witness of that alleged forced bayah to Abu Bakr (r.a).
Thus making the narrations about the alleged attack found in tarikh of tabari as baatil
A Shia Question: Why didn’t Ali Fight in Any of the Battles During the First Three Caliphates?
Answer:
While Sayyiduna ‘Ali (Radhiallaahu Anhu) might not physically have joined the campaigns, he was at the side of the khalifah in Madinah as a valued and trusted advisor – a position that is by no means less important than being at the battlefront. This is a fact documented in both Sunni and Shi`i sources. “Nahj al-Balaghah”, for example, records the advice given by Sayyiduna ‘Ali to Sayyiduna ‘Umar on two occasions. The first one appears as Sermon no. 133 and carries the heading “In reply to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab who consulted him about taking part in the battle against Byzantine”. The second is numbered Sermond 145 and appears under the caption “Spoken when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-Mu’minin about taking part in the battle of Persia”. In both instances the advice given can clearly” be seen to be aimed at the success of the campaigns.
If Sayyiduna ‘Ali’s not joining the campaigns of the three khulafa means that he was averse to their rule, how is one to interpret the fact that Sayyiduna Hasan and Sayyiduna Husayn both took part in the conquest of Tabaristan during the rule of Sayyiduna ‘Uthman under Sa’id ibn al-‘As in 30 AH? (See “Tarikh at-Tabari” vol. 5 p. 103, “al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah” vol. 5 p. 237)
Furthermore, what is one to make of the fact that those of the Sahabah upon whom the Shi’ah took favourably as devotees of Sayyiduna ‘Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt unreservedly took part in the campaigns of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman?
SALMAN AL-FARISI took part in Sayyiduna ‘Umar’s Persian campaign and played a crucial role in the conquest of Mada’in
AMMAR IBN YASIR took part in the campaign against Musaylamah in the time of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr.
This is an important post.
You are constantly implying that Ali had vendetta with abu Bakr and Umar and Uthman. Ali always put the safety of Islam first and he always maintained Unity as his first priority despite his Claim to the Caliphate.
It was abu Bakr and Umar and UIthman who had a personal grudge against Ali and his family. Can you see this ? Are you so blinded ? Come one, threatening the lady of the House, al Zahra is a sign of Love and affection.
Despite the little minds that abu Bakr and Umar had, Ali always advocated to work with them. This is a standard shia belief, Alis sense of Unity despite the exoteric nature is evident
In the time of Umar alone, he had advised him over a 100 times, and in many instances on matters of Warfare. Umar himself said about Ali, “If it weren’t for Ali, Umar would have perished”.
I can do better with Hasan and Husayn: they had both guarded, the nepotist Caliph Uthman, when there was opposition against him from the Egyptians. Infact one night the house of raided and they both were injured.
They did it to preserve the Polity of Islam — the External shell, while the internal core rotted and this was quite apparent in Uthmans time. That is why we saw Karbala — Yazid had a great army — but the core, the inner aspect was rotten, starting from abu Bakr and leading to Hasan.
There were no battles during Uthmans time, so please get your historical facts straight. Ali was battling the Egyptians while convincing Uthman not to give into to Marwan, Uthman fell to his nepotism, and people “begged” Ali to take the reign ? Because the fitna was its nigh.
http://islamicblessings.com/upload/Kitab%20al-Irshad,%20Part%201.pdf
Read starting from page @ 118
I have not shyed in sharing my sources and you continue to cut and paste, at least be just to the person you are having an exchange with
Quran praised the sahaba:
Reflect on Allah’s saying: “Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the Messenger of Allâh. And those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and falling down prostrate (in prayer), seeking Bounty from Allâh and (His) Good Pleasure. The mark of them (i.e. of their Faith) is on their faces (foreheads) from the traces of prostration (during prayers). This is their description in theTaurât (Torah). But their description in the Injeel (Gospel) is like a (sown) seed which sends forth its shoot, then makes it strong, and becomes thick and it stands straight on its stem, delighting the sowers, that He may enrage the disbelievers with them. Allâh has promised those among them who believe (i.e. all those who follow Islâmic Monotheism, the religion of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him till the Day of Resurrection) and do righteous good deeds, forgiveness and a mighty reward (i.e. Paradise).” [Surat Al Fath: 29].
“Allâh has forgiven the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Muhâjirûn (Muslim emigrants who left their homes and came to Al Madinah) and the Ansâr (Muslims of Al Madinah) who followed him (Muhammad peace be upon him) in the time of distress (Tabûk expedition), after the hearts of a party of them had nearly deviated (from the Right Path), but He accepted their repentance. Certainly, He is to them full of Kindness, Most Merciful.” [Al Tawbah: 117].
This Ayah was revealed after the Battle of Tabuk at the end of his life (peace be upon him).
Allah (may He be Exalted) says: “Indeed, Allâh was pleased with the believers when they gave the Bai‘ah (pledge) to you (O Muhammad peace be upon him) under the tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down As-Sakînah (calmness and tranquillity) upon them, and He rewarded them with a near victory, And abundant spoils that they will capture. And Allâh is Ever All-Mighty, All-Wise.” [Al Fath: 18 – 19].
This is a great favor for the people of Al Ridwan Pledge.
Allah (may He be Exalted) says: “And the foremost to embrace Islâm of the Muhâjirûn (those who migrated from Makkah to Al Madinah) and the Ansâr (the citizens of Al Madinah who helped and gave aid to the Muhâjirûn) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allâh is well-pleased with them as they are well-pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.” [At-Tawbah: 100].
This is a clear text in praising the majority of the immigrants, the Supporters and those who followed them righteously.
Allah (may He be Exalted) says: “(And there is also a share in this booty) for the poor emigrants, who were expelled from their homes and their property, seeking Bounties from Allâh and to please Him, and helping Allâh (i.e. helping His religion) and His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him). Such are indeed the truthful (to what they say).” [Surat Al Hashr: 8 – 9].
Think about the following Ayah: “And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful.” [Al Hashr: 10].
It is Ahlus Sunnah who have love for all the muhajirin and ansaar. Quran directs Muslims to do dua for the muhajirin and ansaar.
Ironically the twelver shias have hatred for most of the muhajirin and ansaar, thereby contradicting the verse!
But the Prophet equated in hadith al Thaqalayn, the Quran and ahl al-Bayt. Was any companion given this merit ?
Based on a parallel (Mutawatir) tradition upon whose authenticity all Muslims agree, the Messenger of Allah (S) informed his followers in several occasions that he would leave them two precious/weighty things and that if Muslims adhere to both of them, they will never go astray after him. They are the Book of Allah (Qur’an) and the Members of the House of the Prophet (Ahlul-Bayt), peace be upon them all.
It is narrated in Sahih Muslim as well as many other sources that:
Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (S) stood to give us a speech beside a pond which is known as Khum (Ghadir Khum) which is located between Mecca and Medina. Then he praised Allah and reminded Him, and then said: “O’ people! Behold! It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. Behold! I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance…The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times).”
Sunni Reference:
• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of the companions, section of the virtues of ‘Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v 4, p1873, Tradition #36.
• And many others such as Sahih al-Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad (see below).
For the English version of Sahih Muslim, see Chapter CMXCVI, v4, p1286, Tradition #5920
Here is the Arabic text of the above tradition in Sahih Muslim:
قام رسول الله يوما فينا خطيبا بماء يدعى خما بين مكة والمدينة ، فحمد الله وأثنى عليه ، ووعظ وذكر ، ثم قال: أما بعد ، ألا أيها الناس ، فإنما أنا بشر ، يوشك أن يأتي رسول ربي فأجيب ، وأنا تارك فيكم ثقلين ، أولهما: كتاب الله ، فيه الهدى والنور ، فخذوا بكتاب الله ، واستمسكوا به ، فحث على كتاب الله ورغب فيه ، ثم قال: وأهل بيتي ، أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي، أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي ، أذكركم الله في أهل بيتي
As we can see in the above tradition in Sahih Muslim, not only Ahlul-Bayt has been put beside the Qur’an, but also it has been mentioned three times by the Prophet (S).
Despite the fact that the author of Sahih Muslim and many other Sunni traditionists have recorded the above tradition in their authentic books, it is regrettable that the majority of Sunnis are unaware of its existence at the best, or deny it at the worst. Their counter argument is that the most reliable tradition in this regard is the one recorded by al-Hakim in his al-Mustadrak, on the authority of Abu Huraira, attributing to the Messenger of Allah saying: “I leave amongst you two things that if you follow or act upon, you will not go astray after me: The Book of God and my Sunnah (traditions).”
There is no doubt that ALL Muslims are required to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (S). However, the question remains that which Sunnah is genuine and which one is invented later and was falsely attributed to the Prophet.
On tracing the source of this report of Abu Huraira which states “Qur’an and Sunnah,”we found out that it has NOT been recorded in any of the six authentic Sunni collections of the traditions (Sihah Sittah). Not only that, but also al-Bukhari, al-Nisa’i, and al-Dhahabi and many others rated this report (Qur’an and Sunnah) as weak because of its weak Isnad. It should be noted that although the book of al-Hakim is an important Sunni collection of traditions, yet it is ranked inferior to the six major Sunni books. This is while Sahih Muslim is in the second rank among the six Sunni collections of traditions.
al-Tirmidhi reported that the “Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt”version of the tradition is traced to 30+ companions. Ibn Hajar al-Haythami reported that he knows of 20+ companions witnessed that also. This is while the “Qur’an and Sunnah”version reported by al-Hakim has only one source! Thus we must conclude that the “Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt”version is much more reliable. Moreover al-Hakim has also mentioned the “Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt”version in his book (al-Mustadrak) through several chain of authorities and confirmed that the “Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt”version of the tradition is authentic based on the criteria of al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Moreover, the word “Sunnah”by itself does not serve the purpose of knowledge. All Muslims irrespective to their persuasions claim that they follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (S). The differences among Muslims come from the transmitted Prophetic traditions through different avenues. Such traditions serve as explanatory means of the Holy Qur’an upon whose authenticity all Muslims agree.
Thus divergence in the transmitted traditions, which in turn has led to differing interpretation of Qur’an and the prophetic Sunnah, has created numerous versions of Sunnah. All Muslims, as a result, splintered into different schools, groups, offshoots, which is believed to add up to seventy three groups.
All of them are obeying their own version of Sunnah which they claim to be the true one. Which of these groups follow the true Sunnah of the Prophet? Which one (out of 73 groups) will be the prosperous one, and will survive? Other than the tradition of Sahih Muslim mentioned above, the following authentic traditions provide a unique detailed answer for this question:
The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to BOTH of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The Merciful has informed me that These two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise).”
Sunni references:
1. Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with reference to several chains of transmitters.
2. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of “Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim).
3. Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
4. Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5, pp 182,189,350,366,419
5. Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
6. al-Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 21,30
7. al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
8. al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
9. Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti’sam bi Habl Allah, v1, p44.
10. Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of verse 42:23 of Qur’an (four traditions)
11. al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa’d, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder, Lebanon.
12. al-Jami’ al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
13. Majma’ al-Zawa’id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
14. al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
15. Usdul Ghabah fi Ma’rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
16. Jami’ al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
17. History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
18. al-Taj al-Jami’ Lil Usul, v3, p308
19. al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
20. Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
21. Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16
… and many more …
إني تارك فيكم ما إن تمسكتم بهما لن تضلو بعدي أبدا:كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي وهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض
Of course, any Muslim should follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (S), and as such, we, the Followers of Ahlul-Bayt, submit to the genuine (practice) Sunnah of the Holy Prophet of Islam (S) and consider it to be the only path of salvation. But the above tradition gives evidence to the fact that any so-called Sunnah (practice) which contradicts Ahlul-Bayt is NOT a genuine Sunnah and has been innovated later on by some pay-rolled individuals in support the tyrants.
That’s why the Prophet had emphasized so much on Ahlul-Bayt in loving them and following them since they carry his genuine Sunnah. And this is the basis of the Shi’a School of Thought (the School of Ahlul-Bayt). The Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet who are raised in his house know more than anybody else about the Sunnah of the Prophet and what it entails, for as the proverb goes: “The people of Mecca know its paths better than anyone else.”
For the sake of argument, if we accept that the two versions of the tradition (“Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt”vs. “Qur’an and Sunnah”) are both authentic, then one must submit to the interpretation that the word “my Sunnah”given by al-Hakim means the Sunnah which is derived through Ahlul- Bayt and not any other source, as it is evident from the Ahlul-Bayt version given by both Mustadrak al-Hakim and Sahih Muslim. Now let us take a look at the following tradition:
Narrated Umm Salama:
The Messenger of Allah said: “‘Ali is with Qur’an, and Qur’an is with ‘Ali. They shall not separate from each other till they both return to me by the Pool (of Paradise).”
Sunni references:
• al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p124 on the authority of Umm Salama
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 9, section 2, pp 191,194
• al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani; also in al-Saghir
• Tarikh al-Khulafaa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173
The above tradition gives evidence to the fact that Imam ‘Ali and Qur’an are non-separable. If we accept the “Qur’an and Sunnah”version to be authentic, then one can conclude that the one who carries the Sunnah of Prophet is Imam ‘Ali since he is the one who has been put beside Qur’an.
Interesting to see, al-Hakim has many other traditions about necessity of following Ahlul-Bayt, among which is the following tradition. This tradition is also narrated by many other Sunni scholars and is known as the “Tradition of the Ship”in which the Prophet (S) stated:
“Behold! My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah. Whoever embarked in it was SAVED, and whoever turned away from it was PERISHED.”
إنَّما مثلُ أهلُ بيتي كَمَثل سَفينَةُ نوح
مَنْ رَكَبها نَجى و مَنْ تَخَلَّفَ عنها هَلكْ.
Sunni references:
1. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p343, v3, pp 150-151 on the authority of Abu Dharr. al-Hakim said this tradition is authentic (Sahih).
2. Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p786
3. Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, under the commentary of verse 42:23, Part 27, p167
4. al-Bazzar, on the authority of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Zubair with the wording “drowned”instead of “perished”.
5. al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p234 under Verse 8:33. Also in section 2, p282. He said this Hadith has been transmitted via numerous authorities.
6. Tarikh al-Khulafaa and Jami’ al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti
7. al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 37,38
8. al-Saghir, by al-Tabarani, v2, p22
9. Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu’aym, v4, p306
10. al-Kuna wal Asmaa, by al-Dulabi, v1, p76
11. Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 30,370
12. Is’af al-Raghibeen, by al-Saban
The above tradition gives evidence to the fact that those who adopt the school of Ahlul-Bayt and follow them, shall be saved from the punishment of Hell, while those who run away from them shall meet with the fate of the one who tried to save his life by climbing up the mountain, with the only difference that whereas he (Noah’s renegade son) was drowned in water, but these people will be drowned the fire of Hell. The following tradition also confirms it:
The Prophet (S) said about Ahlul-Bayt:
“Do not be ahead of them for you will perish, do not turn away from them for you will perish, and do not try to teach them since they know more than you do!”
لا تتقدموهم فتهلكوا ولا تتخلفوا عنهم فتهلكوا ولا تعلموهم فإنهم أعلم منكم.
Sunni references:
1. al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v2, p60
2. al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230, quoted from al-Tabarani, also in section 2, p342
3. Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v3, p137
4. Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, p41, and P335
5. Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v1, p168
6. Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p163
7. Aqabat al-Anwar, v1, p184
8. A’alam al-Wara, pp 132-133
9. Tadhkirat al-Khawas al-Ummah, Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanafi, pp 28-33
10. al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, by Noor al-Din al-Halabi, v3, p273
Here is another one:
The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Gate of Repentance of the Children of Israel; whoever entered therein was forgiven.”
إنما مثل أهل بيتي فيكم مثل باب حطة في بنى إسرائيل من دخله غفر
Sunni References:
• Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p168
• al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani, Tradition #18
• Arba’in, by al-Nabahani, p216
• al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, pp 230,234
Another fairly similar tradition was recorded by al-Darqunti as well as Ibn Hajar in his al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, Ch. 9, section 2, p193 where the Prophet (S) said: “‘Ali is the Gate of Repentance, whoever entered therein was a believer and whoever went out was an unbeliever.”
The above tradition was in connection with verses 2:58 and 7:161 of Qur’an which describe the Gate of Repentance of Bani Israel. Those of companions of Moses who did not enter the Gate of the Repentance were lost in the desert for forty years, while those who did not enter the ark of Noah were drowned. Ibn Hajar concludes that:
“The analogy of the Ark of Noah signifies that those who love and honor the Ahlul-Bayt and derive from their guidance will be rescued from the darkness of opposition, and those who will turn against them will be drowned in the sea of ingratitude and will perish in the desert of insubordination and rebellion.”
Sunni reference: al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, p. 91
Have we ever asked ourselves why the Prophet put so much emphasis on Ahlul- Bayt? Was is just because they were members of his family, or was it because they carried his true teachings (Sunnah) and they were the most knowledgeable individuals among his community after him?
Different versions of the Tradition of Two Weighty Things (al-Thaqalain) which prove conclusively that it is compulsory to follow the Qur’an and the Ahlul-Bayt, are not ordinary traditions. They are repeated many times and are related on the authority of more than thirty of the companions of the Holy Prophet (S) through various sources.
The Holy Prophet (S) repeated these words over and over again (and not merely in one isolated instance but on several occasions) publicly to show that it is compulsory to follow and obey the Ahlul-Bayt. He made the announcement during the Farewell Pilgrimage, on the day of Arafat, on the day of Ghadir Khum, on the return from Ta’if, also in Medina from the pulpit, and in his deathbed when the room was packed with his disciples, he said:
“O folk! I am soon going to depart from here, and although I have already told you, I repeat once more that I am leaving with you two things, namely, the Book of Allah and my descendants, that is, my Ahlul-Bayt.”Then he lifted ‘Ali by the hand and said: “Behold! this ‘Ali is with the Qur’an and the Qur’an is with him. These two shall never separate from each other until they come to me at the Pool of Kawthar.”
Sunni reference: al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar, Ch. 9, section 2
Ibn Hajar al-Haythami wrote:
“The Traditions of Adherence has been handed down through a large number of sources and more than twenty of the disciples have related it.”
He further wrote:
“Here a doubt arises, and it is that while the Tradition has come down through various sources, some say that the words were spoken during the last pilgrimage, others that they were spoken at Medina when he lay on his deathbed and the room was packed with his disciples, yet another saying that he spoke these words at Ghadir Khum, or in another Hadith, on the return from Ta’if.
But there is NO inconsistency in these, since having regards to the importance and greatness of the Qur’an and the pure Ahlul-Bayt, and with a view of emphasizing the point before the people, the Holy Prophet might have repeated these words on all these occasions so that any one who had not heard them before might hear them now.”
Sunni reference: al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
Concluding the above traditions, the Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt are the only two precious things that the Prophet left for Muslims, and stated that if Muslims follow BOTH of them, they will not go astray after him, and they will be led to Paradise, and that those who forsake Ahlul-Bayt will not survive. The above traditions have been designed by Prophet (S) to answer which “Sunnah”is genuine and which group caries the true “Sunnah”of the Prophet. It is aimed at not leaving Muslims at loss as to which way to go after the departure of the Prophet (S).
On the other hand, if we use the word “Sunnah”alone, it does not give us any specific answer for this question since all the groups among the Muslim nation follow their own version of Sunnah as well as their own interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Thus the prophetic instructions were clear in urging Muslims to follow the interpretation of Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet transmitted through the channel of Ahlul-Bayt whose sinlessness, purity, and righteousness is confirmed by the Holy Qur’an (the last sentence of verse 33:33).
It is ahlus sunnah who follow both the Quran and ahlul bayt.
Some of ahlul bayt taught well known ulama such as abu hanif and malik
“If you do not aid the Prophet – Allah has already aided him when those who disbelieved had driven him out [of Makkah] as one of two, when they were in the cave and he said to his companion, “Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.” And Allah sent down his tranquillity upon him and supported him with angels you did not see and made the word of those who disbelieved the lowest, while the word of Allah – that is the highest. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.” [Quran 9:40]
The historical context of the above verse proves that Hazrat Abu Bakr As- Siddiq (RA) was indeed the companion of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as agreed by Muslims in the above verse.
The verse itself explicitly states that Allah (SWT) is with Prophet Muhammad سَلَّلَّاهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ سَلَّم (SAW) and his companion (who was Abu Bakr); “Do not grieve; indeed Allah is with us.” This means that Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) was indeed a mu’min, righteuous since Allah only mentions Him being with the doers of good.
“…Allah is with the believers.” [Quran 8:19]
“…..Allah is with the righteous.” [Quran 9:36]
“Indeed, Allah is with those who fear Him and those who are doers of good.” [Quran 16:128]
“….Allah is with the doers of good.” [Quran 29:69]
Hafidh ibn Katheer in “Bidaya wal Nihaya” vol 7 wrote: Ali (RA) said on the pulpit in Kufa: “O people! The best one in this Ummah after the Prophet is Abu Bakr, then Omar, and if I wanted to say you the third name, I would do that.”
Lets say I accept
1. that abu Bakr is Siddiq, but Ali is Siddiq al Akbar [in a hadith]
2. that Umar is Faruq, but Ali is Faruq al Akbar [in a hadith]
In this “ummah” they are lets say according to Ali, also superior
But I would say that in this ummah and the here-after it is Ali, because Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn at the Pond of Kawthar, Umar and abu Bakr aren’t. What is their role in that Great Scheme when people will seek their Shifa ?
Alis status isn’t diminished because he praises abu Bakr and Umar, those who did nothing when the Prophet and his entire Family was in a Concentration Camp. What good did these two do ? Where was Umars bravery or Uthmans diplomacy or abu Bakrs understanding of politics.
Only the ahl al-bayt were in that Concentration Camp.
The Spiritual Legacy of the ahl al-bayt outstrips Umar and abu Bakr. abu Bakr was so weak in distuingishing hadith and Quran that he burnt all his traditions, abu Bakrs only has less than 150 traditions to his name.
To me in my reading of the ahlal sunna wal jama’ah literature they talk more of Umar and less of abu Bakr and practically none of Uthman.
That really rang so true, that when Umar died, and Uthman and Ali were asked if they would accept the Sunnah of abu Bakr and Umar as a condition for the Caliphate, Uthman said Yes
What did Ali say ? He said “No. I would rule with the Sunnah of the Prophet and my own preference”.
Ali rejected the premises of abu Bakr and Umar in one stroke.
Did you conveniently forget that ?
Imam Ali accepted Umar as his son-in-law, allowing him to marry his daughter, Umm Kulthum. He named his children after the caliphs before him and called them “Abu Bakr ibn Ali,” “Umar ibn Ali,” and “Uthman ibn Ali.” If they had violated his God-given rights and rules, Ali would not have behaved that way. He said, “Abu Bakr assumed leadership with goodwill and reigned with justice,” and, “Umar undertook the charge of leadership, was well-behaved and auspicious and pious.” He considered the rules of Abu Bakr and Umar as “good and just” and said, “Their deeds were laudable and they ruled over the Ummah justly.” [Ibn Kathir – Al Bidaya Wa Nahaya]
Ali (RA) believed that election of Abu Bakr (Radi Allahu anhu) and Umar (Radi Allahu anhu) were “worthy choices” (History of Al-Tabari, volume 3, p. 550):
After the Prophet manifested whatever he was commanded to and conveyed the messages of His Lord, Allah the Glorified, took his soul, may Allah’s greetings and blessings be upon him. Then, Muslims elected two eminent successors to him and the two ruled in compliance with the Quran and Sunnah, adopted his model and did not deviate from it. Allah, then, took their souls, May Allah be satisfied with them.
Do you know who proudly used to say: “I am the son of the two Caliphates”?
It was Zayd son of Umar b. Al-Khatab.
His father was Umar radi Allahu anhu and his grandfather, from the way of his mother Umm Kalthoum, was Ali. [Tareekh Baghdad]
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
Other Sunni traditionists narrated that on the day of Saqifah:
Umar said: “‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Zubair Ibn Awwam and those who were with them separated from us (and gathered) in the house of Fatimah, daughter of the messenger of Allah.”
Sunni References:
– Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p55
– Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, by Ibn Hisham, v4, p309
– History of Tabari (Arabic), v1, p1822
– History of Tabari, English version, v9, p192
Also: demanded confirmation of the oath, but ‘Ali and al-Zubair stayed away. Al-Zubair drew his sword (from the scabbard), saying, “I will not put it back until the oath of allegiance is rendered to ‘Ali.”When this news reached Abu Bakr and Umar, the latter said, “Hit him with a stone and seize the sword.”It is stated that Umar rushed (to the door of the House of Fatimah) and brought them forcibly while telling them that they must give their oath of allegiance willingly or unwillingly.
Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English version, v9, pp 188-189
Dear brother, let’s just think a little! What kind of election was that?! Election implies choice and freedom, and that every Muslim has the right to elect the nominee. Whoever refuses to elect him does not oppose God or His Messenger because neither God nor His Messenger appointed the nominated person by people.
Election, by its nature, does not compel any Muslim to elect a specific nominee. Otherwise, the election would be coercion. This means that the election would lose its own nature and it would be a dictatorial operation. It is well known that the Prophet said: “There is no validity for any allegiance given by force.”
Now let us see what Umar did on those days. Sunni historians reported that: 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
Also:
Umar Ibn al-Khattab came to the house of ‘Ali. Talha and Zubair and some of the immigrants were also in the house. Umar cried out:
“By God, either you come out to render the oath of allegiance, or I will set the house on fire.”al-Zubair came out with his sword drawn. As he stumbled (upon something), the sword fell from his hand so they jumped over him and seized him.”
Sunni Reference: History of Tabari, English version, v9, pp 186-187
In the footnotes of the same page (p187) in the English version of the History of al-Tabari the translator has commented:
Although the timing is not clear, it seems that ‘Ali and his group came to know about Saqifa after what had happened there. At this point, his supporters gathered in Fatimah’s house. Abu Bakr and
Umar, fully aware of ‘Ali’s claims and fearing a serious threat from his supporters, summoned him to the mosque to swear the oath of allegiance. ‘Ali refused, and so the house was surrounded by an armed band led by Abu Bakr and Umar, who threatened to set it on fire if ‘Ali and his supporters refused to come out and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. The scene grew violent and Fatimah was furious. (See Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri in his , v1, pp 582-586; Tarikh Ya’qubi, v2, p116; al-Imamah wal-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 19-20).
Abu Bakr said on the authority of an authentic report that, after the demise of the holy Prophet when the people had paid fealty to him, ‘Ali and Zubair used to go to Fatimah al-Zahra (sa), daughter of the Prophet, for consultation. When this fact was known to Umar, he went to Fatimah and said:
“O’ daughter of the Prophet! I didn’t love anyone as much as I loved your father, nor anyone after him is more loving to me as you are. But I swear by Allah that if these people assemble here with you, then this love of mine would not prevent me from setting your house on fire.”
Sunni references:
– History of Tabari, in the events of the year 11 AH
– al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, beginning of the book, and pp 19-20
– Izalatul Khilafa, by Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlavi, v2, p362
– Iqd al-Farid, by Ibn Abd Rabbah al-Malik, v2, chapter of Saqifah
Also it is reported that:
Umar said to Fatimah (who was behind the door of her house): “I know that the Prophet of God did not love any one more than you, but this will not stop me to carry out my decision. If these people stay in your house, I will burn the door in front of you.”
Sunni reference: Kanz al-Ummal, v3, p140
In fact Shibli Numani himself testifies the above event in the following words:
“From Umar’s irritable and peevish temperament such an action on his part was not improbable.”
Sunni reference: al-Faruq, by Shibli Numani, p44
It is also reported that:
Abu Bakr said (on his death bed): “I wish I had not searched for Fatimah’s house, and had not sent men to harass her, though it would have caused a war if her house would have continued to be used as a shelter.”
Sunni references:
– History of Ya’qubi, v2, pp 115-116
– Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586
The historian named the following people among those who attacked the houseof Fatimah to disperse people who sheltered there:
– Umar Ibn al-Khattab
– Khalid Ibn Walid
– Abdurrahman Ibn Ouf
– Thabit Ibn Shammas
– Ziad Ibn Labid
– Muhammad Ibn Maslamah
– Salamah Ibn Salem Ibn Waqash
– Salamah Ibn Aslam
– Usaid Ibn Hozair
– Zaid Ibn Thabit
The revered Sunni scholar, Abu Muhammad Abdullah Ibn Muslim Ibn Qutaybah Daynuri in his history of Caliphs known as “al-Imamah wa al- Siyasah”reported:
Umar asked for wood, and told those people inside the house: “I swear by Allah who has my soul in his hand, that if you do not come out, I will burn the house.”Someone told Umar that Fatimah was inside the house. Umar said: “So what! It doesn’t matter to me who is in the house.”
Sunni reference: al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, pp 3,19-20
Another Sunni historian, al-Baladhuri, reported that:
Abu Bakr asked ‘Ali to support him, but ‘Ali refused, then Umar went toward the ‘Ali’s house with a burning torch. At the door he met Fatimah who said to him: “Do you intend to burn the door of my house?”Umar said: “Yes, because this act will strengthen the faith brought to us by your father.”
Sunni reference: al-Ansab Ashraf, by al-Baladhuri, v1, pp 582,586
Also Jouhari in his book said: “Umar and a few Muslims went to the house of Fatimah to burn it down and to burn those who were in opposition.”Ibn Shahna said the same statement adding “to burn the house and inhabitants”.
Furthermore, it is reported that:
‘Ali and Abbas were sitting inside the house of Fatimah, Abu Bakr told Umar: “Go and bring them; if they refuse, kill them.”Umar brought fire to burn the house. Fatimah came near the door and said: “O son of Khattab, have you come to burn our house on me and my children?”Umar replied: “Yes I will, by Allah, until they come out and pay allegiance to the Prophet’s Caliph.”
Sunni reference:
– Iqd al-Fareed, by Ibn Abd Rabb, Part 3, Pg. 63
– al-Ghurar, by Ibn Khazaben, related from Zayd Ibn Aslam
Everybody came out of the house except Imam ‘Ali (as), who said: “I have sworn to remain home until I collect the Qur’an.”Umar refused but Lady Fatimah’s remonstration caused him to return. He instigated Abu Bakr to pursue the matter, and he send Qunfuz (his slave) several times but received a negative reply each time.
Ultimately, Umar went with a group of people to the Fatimah’s house. When she heard their voice, she criedloudly; “O father, O Messenger of Allah, how are Umar Ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Quhafah treating us after you and how do they meet us.”
The Sunni scholars, Ahmad Ibn Abdul Aziz al-Jawhari in his book ‘Saqifah’, Abu Waleed Muhibbuddin Muhammad al-Shahnah al-Hanafi in his book ‘Rawdhat al-Manadhir Fi Akhbaar al-Awayil wal-Aawaakhir’, Ibn Abil Hadid in his book ‘Sharh al-Nahj’, and others have reported the events to the same effect.
Also refer to the esteemed Sunni historian Abul Hasan, ‘Ali Ibn al-Husayn al-Mas’udi who in his book ‘Isbaat al-Wasiyyah’ describes the events in detail and reports that: “They surrounded ‘Ali (as) and burned the door of his house and pulled him out against his will and pressed the leader of all women (Hadhrat Fatimah (sa)) between the door and the wall killing Mohsin (the male-child she was carrying in her womb for six months).”
Salahuddin Khalil al-Safadi another Sunni scholar in his book ‘Waafi al- Wafiyyaat’ under the letter ‘A’ while recording the view of Ibrahim Ibn Sayyar Ibn Hani al-Basri, well-known as Nidhaam quotes him to have said: “On the day of ‘Bay’aat’ (paying allegiance), Umar hit Fatimah (sa) on the stomach such that child in her womb died.”
Why do you think an 18 year old young lady was forced to walk with the help of a walking-stick? Unbelieveable acts of cruelty and oppression had led Hadhrat Fatimah al-Zahra (sa) to lament: “Such calamities have visited me that had they descended on the day it would have darkened it.”She fell into bed till she was martyred as a results of these calamities and injuries while she was just eighteen years old!
During her last days, when Abu Bakr and Umar sought the mediation of Imam ‘Ali (as) to visit the ailing Hadhrat Fatimah (sa), as quoted by Ibn Qutaybah, she tured her face to the wall when they greeted her and in response to their plea for appeasement reminded them of the prophetic declaration that one who displeases Fatimah (sa) has displeased the Prophet and finally said: “I take Allah and the angels to be my witness that you have not pleased me; on the other hand, you have angered me. When I shall meet the Prophet (S) I will complain about you two.”(al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, by Ibn Qutaybah, v1, p14).
For the same reason, she willed that those who have hurt her should not participate in her funeral rites and that she be buried at night. al- Bukhari in his Sahih attests to this fact that Imam ‘Ali (as) complied with the will of Lady Fatimah (sa). al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Aisha that:
… Fatimah became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband ‘‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.
Sunni references:
– Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapter of “The battle of Khaibar”, Arabic-English, v5, tradition #546, pp 381-383, also v4, Tradition #325
Howsoever they tried, people failed to locate her grave. It was known only to a handful of Imam ‘Ali (as)’s family members. And to this date, the grave of the daughter of prophet is unknown which is another sign of her unhappiness from some of the companions.
The Opinion of the Prophet About Who Hurts Fatimah
The Messenger of Allah (S) had frequently said:
“Fatimah is a part of me. Whoever makes her angry, makes me angry.”
Sunni references:
– Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v5, Traditions #61 and #111
– Sahih Muslim, section of virtues of Fatimah, v4, pp 1904-5
According to al-Bukhari and Muslim, the Messenger of Allah has testified that Fatimah is the best of the ladies of the worlds:
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 4.819
Narrated ‘Aisha:
The Messenger of Allah said to Fatimah (who was crying at her father’s deathbed): “Are you not satisfied that you are the chief of all the ladies of Paradise or the chief of all the believing women?”
أما ترضين أن تكوني سيدة نساء أهل الجنة أو نساء المؤمنين؟
Furthermore, Ibn Abbas (ra) narrated:
The Messenger of Allah (S) said: Four women are the mistress of the worlds: Mary, Asiya (the wife of Pharaoh), Khadija, and Fatimah. And the most excellent one among them in the world is Fatimah.”
Sunni references: Ibn Asakir, as quoted in Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor
Allah, Exalted He is, said in Qur’an:
“(O Prophet) tell (people) I don’t ask you any wage except to love my family.”(Qur’an 42:23).
He also said:
“(O Prophet) tell (people) whatever I asked as wage (in return or my prophethood) is in the benefit of you (people).”(Qur’an 34:47).
The above two verses of Holy Qur’an explicitly indicate that the Prophet, with the order of Allah, has asked people to love his family as a command. Moreover loving them is in our benefit since “true love”requires to follow and obey the purified members of his family who carry his true Sunnah. It is unfortunate that those who claimed to be his sicere companions inflicted such horrible pains to his family while a week had not been passed since the death of the Prophet (S). Is this the love, Allah ordered for the family of prophet?!
But also they cut all the financial resources of Ahlul-Bayt in order to crush the opposition. In Sahih al-Bukhari the following has also been narrated by Aisha:
Fatimah the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah’s Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. …but Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatimah. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband ‘‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.
Sunni References:
– Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapter of “The battle of Khaibar”, Arabic-English, v5, tradition #546, pp 381-383, also v4, Tradition #325
(Please see the appendix for the whole tradition.)
Now either Fatimah was liar or Abu Bakr treated her unjustly. If she was liar, then she did not deserve such a saying from the Prophet that Fatimah is a part of me and whoever angers her, angers me. This itself is a clear indication of her infallibility. The purification sentence of the Holy Qur’an (the last sentence of verse 33:33) is another indication of her infallibility, as Aisha herself testified (See Sahih Muslim, 1980 Edition, Arabic, v4, p1883, Tradition #61). Hence there is nothing left for the sensible people but to accept the fact that she was unjustly treated, and that she was easy to be branded as a liar by Umar who was willing to let her burn unless the remaining people in her house come out to vote for Abu Bakr.
So logical conclusion from the above traditions in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim is that Fatimah was treated unjustly, and that she was angry at Abu Bakr and Umar, which follows Allah and his prophet are angry at them according the above tradition in Sahih al-Bukhari. The excuse that Abu Bakr used to refuse to pay the right of Fatimah (see Appendix) was against the text of Qur’an. How can he be the executor of prophet while he does not obey the clear text of Qur’an? Abu Bakr claimed that prophet has said: “We prophets do not leave any inheritance, and whatever we leave should go to charity.”This is false allegation that he has made up, because prophet can not contradict Qur’an which in two verses testifies that prophets had heir, and their children inherited from them.
Allah says in Qur’an:
“And Solomon (Sulaymaan) inherited from David.”(Qur’an 27:16)
While both Sulaymaan and David were prophets and very wealthy. They were kings of their times. Allah , Exalted, also says:
“(Zakariya prayed to Allah by saying)… Grant me a son from yourself, who inherits from me and inherit from the children of Jacob, and make him, O’ my Lord, the one with whom you are well-pleased.”(Qur’an 19:5-6).
These are examples that prophets left inheritance. In fact, Fatimah (sa) mentioned these verses as her proof for her right, but Abu Bakr refused due to the suggestion of Umar, and they intentionally went against the clear text of Qur’an.
Historical facts testifies that prophet even had already transferred Fadak (Which was a big and rich piece of land in Hijaz) to Fatimah and it was the property of Fatimah long before the demise of the Prophet. As such, even it was not even the matter of inheritance as claimed by Abu Bakr. The reason that the Prophet has transferred Fadak to Fatimah was to provide financial resources for the followers of Ahlul-Bayt.
But after the Prophet passed away, Abu Bakr and Umar dismissed the managers of that land (who were assigned by Fatimah in the life time of his father), and confiscated that land and other properties of Ahlul-Bayt. The reason is very simple: They knew that if this rich property remains in the hand of Imam ‘Ali and Fatimah, peace be upon them, they will spend its revenues to their followers and this would give strength to the rival party and endangers their position. Abu Bakr and Umar realized the fact that in order to control the oppositions, it is necessary to remove all the funding abilities first.
Thus the problem was not a simple financial problem. It was absolutely political in nature. The quarrel Fatimah (sa) was not for the pleasure of this world. History testifies that Imam ‘Ali and Fatimah have had a very simple life during the life time of prophet as well as thereafter. It is well known that verses (76:8-9) of the holy Qur’an was revealed for them when for 3 consecutive days, they gave their meal to needy people at the time of IFTAR, when they were going to break their fast, and there was noting left for them and their children to eat for three consecutive days.
So such pious people do not struggle or GET ANGRY because of such worldly things. THAT IS WHY, ANGER OF FATIMAH IS ANGER OF PROPHET. They were, in fact, struggling for the sake of Allah and for spending their legitimate properties for His Right Path and its followers.
At the time of Harun al-Rashid (one of the Abbasid Tyrants) the Islamic country was in its biggest extent. It was extended from Afghanistan and central Asia to the North Africa. So it was not important for government to give up a piece of land. Moreover, by returning it they could make propaganda for their interest. According to some reports, Harun told to Imam Musa al-Kadhim (the 7th Imam of the Ahlul-Bayt): “Let us know the location of the land of Fadak so that I could return it to you.”The Imam (as) replied: “I would accept it only in its entirety.”Harun said: “Specify its boundaries then.”
The Imam (as) said: “If I specify its borders, you will not return it.”Harun said: “I swear in the name of your grandfather that I shall return it.”At this time, the Imam (as) said: “It extends from one side to Aden (Southern part of Arabian peninsula), and from one side to Samarqand (Afghanistan), and from one side to Armenia (south of Russia) and from one side to Egypt in Africa.”The face of Harun turned red and said: “This does not leave anything for us.”The Imam (as) replied: “I told you that you will not return it if I specify its limits!”(al-Bihar, v48, p144, Hadith #20).
Appendix
Here is the whole tradition which was referred above:
Sahih Bukhari Hadith: 5.546
Narrated ‘Aisha:
Fatimah the daughter of the Prophet sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah’s Apostle had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty. On that, Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Apostle said, “Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.’ By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah’s Apostle and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, and will dispose of it as Allah’s Apostle used to do.”
So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatimah. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not talk to him till she died. She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband ‘‘Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself.
When Fatimah was alive, the people used to respect ‘‘Ali much, but after her death, ‘‘Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him. So ‘Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. ‘Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet’s death and Fatimah’s death). ‘‘Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, “Come to us, but let nobody come with you,”as he disliked that ‘Umar should come, ‘Umar said (to Abu Bakr), “No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone “Abu Bakr said, “What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them’ So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then ‘‘Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), “We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah’s Apostle .”
Thereupon Abu Bakr’s eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah’s Apostle is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah’s Apostle following, in disposing of it, but I will follow.”On that ‘‘Ali said to Abu Bakr, “I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon.”
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; Then ‘‘Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) forgiveness, he uttered Tashah-hud, praised Abu Bakr’s right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with. ‘‘Ali added, “But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry.”On that all the Muslims became happy and said, “You have done the right thing.”The Muslims then became friendly with ‘‘Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr).
It was related that the Prophet (peace be upon him) asked a woman to come back to him for some issue. The woman asked: “What if I do not find you?”
The Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed her: “Go to Abû Bakr.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî]
There are also hadîth regarding Abû Bakr being appointed to lead the prayers. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Order Abû Bakr to lead the prayer for the people.”
None of the scholars have referred for evidence to any verse of the Qur’ân.
The above-mentioned hadîth and events, as well as many others like them, do not give explicit evidence for the appointment of Abû Bakr or anyone else as Caliph. They do however show the virtues of Abû Bakr and his high status in Islam.
If these narrations were evidence of the appointment of Abû Bakr as Caliph, the Companions would not have a tensed discussion, which is indeed what took place at al-Saqîfah after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
These narrations do, however, indicate support for their choice of Abû Bakr as Caliph. The Companions took these incidents into account evaluating his appointment, also taking into consideration his good character and his noble attributes.
In this way, hazrat Abu Bakr became the first of the Rightly Guided Caliph.
Ahlul bayt according to the Quran;
And abide in your houses and do not display yourselves as [was] the display of the former times of ignorance. And establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah intends only to remove from you the impurity [of sin], O people of the [Prophet’s] household, and to purify you with [extensive] purification. [Quran 33:33]
The context in which this verse occurs makes it manifest that the word ahl al-bait (people of the house) here implies the wives of the Holy Prophet (upon whom be Allah’s peace), because the address begins with: “O wives of the Prophet,” and they are the addressees in the whole discourse preceding it as well as following it. Moreover, the word ahl al-bait in Arabic is used precisely in the sense in which the word “household” is used in English, which includes both a man’s wife and children. No one would exclude the wife from the “household.” The Qur’an itself has used this word at two other places besides this, and at both the wife is included in its sense, rather as the most important member of the family. In Surah Hud, when the angels give the Prophet Abraham the good news of the birth of a son, his wife exclaims: “Shall I bear a child now when I have grown too old, and this husband of mine has also become old?” The angels say: What! Are you surprised at Allah’s decree, O people of Abraham’s household? Allah’s mercy and blessings are upon you.” In Surah Al-Qasas, when the Prophet Moses reaches the Pharaoh’s house as a suckling, and the Pharaoh’s wife is in search of a suitable nurse for the child, the Prophet Moses’ sister says, “Shall I tell you of a household whose people will bring him up for you and look after him well?” Thus, the Arabic idiom and the usage of the Qur’an and the context of this verse, ‘all point clearly to the fact that the Holy Prophet’s wives are Ahle Bayt.
It is Ahlus Sunnah who respect all of ahlul bayt unlike the majority of shias.
the extreme shias – rafida; are the pathetic ones who are enemies to some of ahlul bayt including the wives of the Prophet (sallalallahu alaihi wasallam). The rafida contradict the teachings of the Quran.
We are to respect ahlul bayt which includes the wives of the Prophet peace be upon him.
The Prophet is closer to the believers than their selves, and his wives are (as) their mothers. [Quran 33:6]
“the Qur’an and Ahlul-Bayt are the two precious things that the Prophet left for Muslims, and stated that if Muslims follow BOTH of them, they will not go astray after him, and they will be led to Paradise..”
And according to the Quran, it is the wives of the Prophet who are ahlul bayt. Hence we should follow the Quran and the wives of the Prophet which includes aisha and hafsa.
Both of them are respected by Majority of Muslims unlike the extreme shias. Which again shows the fallacy of rafida dogma
Ahlul Bayt respected and loved Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA). Ali (RA) gave pledge to Abu Bakr and then Umar. Ali’s progeny respected Abu Bakr and Umar. Ahlul Bayt considered Abu Bakr and Umar as the first two legitimate Caliphs.
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 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.”
Abdullah ibn Jafar (عنه الله رضي) said:
“Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) became our ruler, and he was the best caliph of Allah, and he was the most merciful and kind upon us.”
— [Mustadrak Hakim Vol. 3, p. 79]
The FINAL VERDICT of ALI BIN ABI TALIB on OMAR BIN AL-KHATTAB (may Allah be pleased with of them both):
While I was standing amongst the people who were invoking Allah for `Omar bin Al-Khattab who was lying (dead) on his bed, a man behind me rested his elbows on my shoulder and said, “(O `Omar!) May Allah bestow His Mercy on you. I always hoped that Allah will keep you with your two companions, for I often heard Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) saying, “I, Abu Bakr and `Omar were (somewhere). I, Abu Bakr and `Umar did (something). I, Abu Bakr and `Omar set out.’ So I hoped that Allah will keep you with both of them.” I turned back to see that the speaker was `Ali bin Abi Talib.
[Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3677]
Ali (RA) believed that election of Abu Bakr (Radi Allahu anhu) and Umar (Radi Allahu anhu) were “worthy choices” (History of Al-Tabari, volume 3, p. 550):
After the Prophet manifested whatever he was commanded to and conveyed the messages of His Lord, Allah the Glorified, took his soul, may Allah’s greetings and blessings be upon him. Then, Muslims elected two eminent successors to him and the two ruled in compliance with the Quran and Sunnah, adopted his model and did not deviate from it. Allah, then, took their souls, May Allah be satisfied with them.
Ahlul Bayt loved Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar
Sayyiduna Ali Radi Allahu Allahu Ta’ala Anhu stated,
‘After the Noble Messenger, the best of people is Abu Bakr, then the best of people is Umar’ [Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 111]
From Abdullah bin Salmah who said I heard Ali saying:
‘The best of the people after the Messenger of Allaah is Abu Bakr, and the best of the people after Abu Bakr is Umar . . . . .’
[Collected by Ibn Majah in his Sunan]
Also The first to give allegiance to Othman was Abdul-Rahman Ibn Awf then after him was Ali ibn Abi Talib.
[Tabqat ibn saad vol3. pg 42.]
All the above narrations prove that Imam Ali (RA) loved the first three caliphs and accepted their leadership.