Did Imam Ali Give Allegiance to Abu Bakr?

Did Imam Ali Give Allegiance to Abu Bakr?

Just as the Prophet is not permitted to grant the station or position of prophethood to anyone else, so too the Imam is not permitted to grant the station or position of Divinely-appointed leadership to anyone else. In relation to the issue of the oath of allegiance of the Commander of the Faithful that is said was taken from him – whether this be something that is verified or denied, and also, this noble personality remaining quiet and not participating in any type of activity of rebellion and not picking up arms to go against (those who stole his rights), and the pleasure and approval of this personality in relation to what had occurred: these are all things that are not established (according to the recorded events of history).

The reluctance of those pure souls (the Companions) and the other great personalities – who in the beginning did not give the oath of allegiance; however, later on (as some people mention) did give the oath of allegiance – and also the large number of people who, in those specific and particular conditions gave the oath of allegiance in a particular way (as has been mentioned in history) is also neither confirmed nor established.

With his sword drawn out of the sheath and with the help and support of his gang, Umar roamed the streets of Medina threatening the people with death and forced them to give their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr. 

Please note the following points:

1. The belief of the Shia, who are of the People of the Text – through the utilization of the logical and related proofs – is this: the Imamate is a position that one is appointed into by Allah, and after the Prophet, that individual whose persona possesses all of the characteristics embodied in Islam except for Nubuwwah (prophethood) and who shares in the continuation of the same divine blessings of that personality (the Prophet) in all ways and forms is the one whose Wilayah (mastership) over all affairs of the society must be designated and appointed by Allah the Most High. The Commander of the Faithful, according to the countless texts (ahadith) and other proofs was the appointed caliph and the true Imam, and deviation from him to anyone else – even if all of the people are in agreement over that other person – is not permissible and is a case of: “Giving preference to one whom Allah has relegated low and leaving behind the one whom Allah has given preference to.”

Just as the Prophet is not permitted to grant the station or position of prophethood to anyone else, so too the Imam is not permitted to grant the station or position of Divinely-appointed leadership to anyone else. Therefore, supposing that after Imam Ali was refused (the station of caliphate) and then later on, the oath of allegiance was taken from him, or this noble personality – due to events that came up later on (which will be mentioned ensuing) – was rendered helpless to pledge the oath of allegiance, then the true meaning and significance of this sort of oath of allegiance was not achieved by this (forced act), and the correctness of the actions of the other party is not accepted.

2. If the caliphate (of Abu Bakr) was based on the truth, then this would imply that the hesitance of Imam Ali and Sayyidah Zahra (peace be upon them) and a large number of people and revered companions was not proper and that they were not on the path of the truth. 

It is known that there are definite and decisive narrations from the noble Prophet of Islam which state that Ali is on the Truth, and the Truth is with Ali, and these two will never separate from one another. Therefore, if someone says that Imam Ali was not with the truth in this event or did not speak the truth or did not act upon the truth, then he is belying the Prophet.

Thus it is with no uncertainty that we say that Imam Ali, in this event and all other events and circumstances, was always on the truth, and his refusal to give the oath of allegiance was also not the refusal to be on the truth; rather, his refusal was the denial of falsehood.

3. The refusal of Imam Ali and a group of others to give oath of allegiance to the caliphate from the point of view of history is not something that can be denied, and even one of the contemporary poets from Egypt who was known by the title of “Poet of the Nile” in his poems has also admitted this. The refusal (to give the oath of allegiance) was so commonly accepted and indisputable such that in one of the letters that he wrote to Imam Ali, Muawiyah has mentioned this fact and in reply, Ali did not deny that he had not given the oath of allegiance; rather, the rightfulness and legitimacy of his denial and refusal and the oppression that he faced is mentioned in his own words in this writing (to Muawiyah) when he wrote: “You also want to taunt me by saying that when I refused to accept the caliphate of the First Caliph, I was dragged like a camel with a rope round my neck, and every kind of cruelty and humiliation was leveled against me.” (Nahj al-Balagha, letter 28)

To summarize our point, not only is there no room for doubt or skepticism that Imam Ali and the rest of the clan of Bani Hashim and a large number of the companions refused to give their oath of allegiance to the caliph, rather, their refusal was known and evident for all to see.

However, if it is claimed that after those harsh and coarse events that took place, Imam Ali and those who supported him gave their oath of allegiance and that their oath of allegiance was by way of their own inward pleasure and their pure heart and intention, then it is not possible to substantiate this (claim), since the hadith (of this event) is a single narration (khabar-e-wahid), and in the terminology of the science of hadith, it is doubtful (mashkuk). In this hadith, many contrasts and irregularities can also be seen, which this point in time is not the place for discussion. Anyway, we are not able to classify their oath of allegiance as an authentic oath of allegiance that would have any basis in the Islamic legislation.

At this point we mention some reasons that IF indeed this oath of allegiance did occur in history, then why it may have taken place.

1. It was seen (by Imam Ali) that to stand up to what had occurred (the events of Saqifah) would not be possible except by resorting to an armed struggle, which was not conceivable, since it would have resulted in an internal war between the Muslims. The condition and situation (that the Muslim Ummah was in) was such that very recently, through the pains and troubles of the Noble Prophet and through the assistance of Imam Ali and others, the seed of true faith and conviction in the Oneness of Allah had just been sown in the hearts of the believers, and an internal war would not have served the cause of Islam. It would be through this act that the very foundations of Islam would be put at in danger and would force the Muslims to stand up in ranks against one another, whose outcome or conclusion would never be reached.

It was Imam Ali who had helped the Prophet in the establishment of this foundation (of Islam). It was through his truthfulness and sincerity and by putting his life in his own hands and through his self-sacrifices at all places and all times from the very first day (that built the religion). His heart throbbed for this religion, and he saw that if the defense of his own self meant the desolation and annihilation of these foundations, then for sure he would choose to save Islam and try to maintain the unity of the Muslims in face of the opposition of the Kuffar and would give this precedence to the adjudication of the truth. This would allow Islam to progress and advance, even though such a progress would be slower and take much longer.

Allah forbid that the religion come to a complete standstill and the movement that the Prophet had brought forth with the help of the people should stop for even one moment (if a war would take place amongst the Muslims) just so the groundwork could be laid down for the advancement of the religion of Islam and in order for the mandate and establishment of the Wilayah and Caliphate of Ali to take root in the future, just as happened later on.

With the passing of time, the truthfulness of the Ahlul Bayt (peace be upon them) and the blunders and mistakes of deviating from the (true) Imam that had been appointed was made apparent, and on their own, the people developed an attraction for the Noble Qur’an and the Ahlul Bayt and the true belief in the Imamate.

The opportunity also arose for the Ahlul Bayt to guide the people to the pure springs of Islam, the teachings of the religion, the exegesis of the Qur’an, and the true religion of Islam with all of its rules and regulations, political teachings, societal and ethical instructions, and guidelines. More important than all of this, the correct divine theological beliefs were conferred to the people.

However, if an internal war had taken place in Medina, then the corruption, deviation, sedition, and revolts that would have stemmed from this act would have put all things in danger of complete annihilation, and it was because of this reason that Imam Ali rejected the advice from Abu Sufyan for him paying oath of allegiance to Imam Ali, and considered this as an act that would initiate sedition and revolt.

2. The second reason for Imam Ali (hypothetically) giving oath of allegiance is that, just as can be deduced from a study of history, this noble personality had fear or concern for the life of himself and that of his family, and this fear or concern was something that Abbas, his uncle, was able to discern. It was his uncle who advocated him to pay the oath of allegiance, since if he was to be killed, then it would be Islam and the Muslims, who at that time were desperately in need of knowledge and enlightenment, who would have been in disadvantage and loss.

It was in such a circumstance in which it was not possible to have recourse in force and also one in which complete submission was also not in the best interest to deal with the situation that Imam Ali was very careful and critical (in how he dealt with the situation).

This noble personality, by choosing the path that he did, fulfilled a very heavy responsibility that was upon him; he exposed the truth, and at the same time, observed what was best for Islam in its entirety. His precious soul, which was ready to sacrifice its self in the path of Islam, was also protected, so that his blood would not have been shed uselessly simply to affirm the power of truth, and so that the fire of revolt, through which all things are scorched, would not be lit, and so that the opportunity (of Imamate and leadership of the community) whose acquisition was expected in the future would not go away.

In summary, Imam Ali acted according to the testament that was left by the Prophet and did not even cringe in carrying out the will by the amount of the head of a needle. The arena or environment that would cause the feelings or emotions of any brave, courageous, powerful person to be stirred or stimulated were all witnessed; however, he did not perform any act that he should not have performed, nor did he utter any words that should not have been issued. He acted with complete knowledge and by observing and weighing all angles of the situation.

However, all of these conditions and situations prove the truthfulness of Imam Ali and his desire for Islam and his acting not for his own sake. It is clear that this noble personality was completely annihilated and drowned in the Truth, and that which was important to him and had any value to him was Islam, the endurance of the code of Islam, and the interests of the Muslims. 

In the conditions that he was put in, neither his staying quiet nor giving oath of allegiance by force and through coercion would give any credence to the rightfulness of the state of affairs at that time. Such an oath of allegiance would not absolve anyone of their religious responsibility, nor would it pardon anyone of their code of conduct.


Ayatollah Saafi Gulpaygani is a Marja Taqleed of the Shia world. He lives and teaches in the holy city of Qom.


Editor’s Note: This article is the first of many questions on a variety of religious topics that were answered by Ayatollah Gulpaygani and translated into English by Shaikh Saleem Bhimji. The entire series is available online at al-mubin.org
.


The following two tabs change content below.

Arsalan Rizvi

Latest posts by Arsalan Rizvi (see all)

About author

You might also like

Clergy Corner 2 Comments

How Does Ashura Affect Me?

Imam Hussain carried out these duties of an Imam for the pleasure of Allah, and as a result today, Muslims throughout the world – in Nigeria, Iran, the United Kingdom,

Clergy Corner 6 Comments

Ask the Experts

The “difference of opinion” comes about due to the fact that each scholar understands the Qur’anic injunctions and traditions in his/her own way; however, we should also note that the

Clergy Corner 1Comments

Just Do It!

While it is normal for people to procrastinate to some degree, it becomes a problem when it impedes normal functioning, and thus, specialists state that there are two main causes

Islamic Insights

30 Comments

  1. Ali K
    December 08, 15:51
    Its unthinkable that a man like Imam Ali (as) would simply hand over the caliphate to a man like Abu Bakr.
    • superman
      September 13, 20:21
      if Abu Bakr ra, was a bad person and stole the rights of Ali ra, then why didn't Ali ra, practise amar nil maruf wa nahyin bin munkar? promote good and reject evil? so by saying Ali ra, allowed people to take the khilafat, it means he committed a sin? so sort out your beliefs, we all know the Sahaba loved each other, and were great friends! so don't make up lies
      • RE: superman
        September 14, 02:51
        Imam Ali [as] has been documented in history to have reminded these people of his rights many times: http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/narrations.htm<br /><br />We also respect and love the companions of the Prophet [saww], but it doesn't mean they were all good people. If you say they all loved each other, what about Khalid bin Walid killing Malik ibn Nuwaira? What about Muawiya being responsible for the deaths of Ammar al-Yasir and Hujr ibn Adi? What about the death of Abu Dhar, which occurred when he was exiled by Uthman? How do you reconcile these?
      • ali haq the imam
        September 30, 19:39
        if Abu Bakr ra, was a bad person and stole the rights of Ali ra, then why didn't Ali ra, practise amar nil maruf wa nahyin bin munkar? promote good and reject evil? <br /><br />when ever ali as promoted abubakr?<br /><br />and imam ali a.s have recjected the bayat-e-shakhain <br />but imam known,s the best..he dont want to fight like you..imam ali a.s was the khalifatu bila fasl he dont need anyone to take bayat....if anyone want to be with then he can give bayat to him on his hand....<br /><br />rasool s..aw said about ali a.s that ali as is just like the house of allah in human house,,,,,so when ever anyone want to go for hajj then the kaaba will not come to ,,,you have to go for it,,,exactly.....at the ghadeer allah have completed islam...and made ali as is protecting friend (maula) of everyone...see tafseer dur mansoor imam jalal uddin sayuti writes that it was ali as who was a khalifatu bila fasl...<br /><br />then after that the umma made his own khalifa but dint accept ali as as right khalifa....THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHOSEN ABUBAKR AFTER AFTER RASOOL S.A.W ARE THE MUNKIRS OF ALI A.S BCZ RASOOL S.AW HAVE ALREADY SELECTED ALI A.S AS A WALI THEN WHO ARE THEY CHOSE THEIR OWN KHALIFA...I THINK POLITICS HAD STARTED FROM THEIR<br /><br />ALI A.S KHALIFA FATU BILA FASL...IF ANYONE WANT TO GO RIGHT THEN HE HAVE TO GO FOR IT,,,<br />THE RIGHT WAY WILL NOT FOLLOW ..YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RIGHT
      • if reviling companions was forbidden by Holy Prophet then why did Muwaiya ask Hazrat Saad Bin Abi Waqas to revile Imam Ali(a.s) { Sahin Muslim Fazail Sahaba Manaqib Ali Ibn-e-Abi Talib and in Khilafat o Malookiyat by Imam AbuLaLA Modoodi}<br /><br />Why did even companions fight with each other and kill each other? <br /><br />Why was Malik ibn Nuwera killed by Khalid bin walid? <br /><br />and Read SAHIH BUKHARI : IMAM ALI(A.S) and BANI HASHIM CLAN did not pledge allegiance to Abu bakr untill the 6 months after the demise of Holy Prophet (S.A.W.W) !
  2. S. R.
    December 26, 10:33
    There are NO references, NO support from Quranic text or Hadith to prove what the 'scholar' has written is right. Such a unfactual article may only entice those who do not possess enough knowledge to deduce what is right through their own thinking and reason. <br /><br />Anas Ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) related, once the Prophetic Companions said,<br />"The curse of Allah the angels and the whole people is upon whoever reviles my companions.” Reported by Ibn Hajar AI-Haithami in Majma' Al-Zawa'id.<br /> <br />The writer shamelessly disregards the teachings of the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) by writing;<br /><br />"With his sword drawn out of the sheath and with the help and support of his gang, Umar roamed the streets of Medina threatening the people with death and forced them to give their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr." This in itself is enough to prove the lack of credibility of the writer and the article itself. (I didn't even refer to countless of other resources I have that prove insulting the companions of the Prophet P.B.U.H. is a Major Sin - a 'scholar' if not the average muslim should be aware of atleast that much).<br /><br />[b]Contrasting statements made by Shiahs:[/b]<br /><br />"Abu Bakr and Umar were agents of Iblees." (Hulyat-ul-mateen, mulla baqar majlisi). <br /><br />[b]Proven Sahih Hadith:[/b]<br />"Allah has selected me and picked out my companions. From among my Companions, I have ministers, helpers, and relatives by marriage. Thereby, whoever disparages them entails the curse of Allah, His angels and all the people. Allah will not accept their deeds on the Day of Judgment.” Reported by Ibn Hajar AI-Haithami in Majma' Al-Zawa'id.<br /><br />"Allah! Allah! (Keep the thought of Allah) concerning my companions. "Do not take them as a target" (for your obscenity or charges) after me, He who loves them, loves me but he who hate them, hates Me, and he who offends them, offends me and in turn offends Allah and he who offends Allah, Allah almost takes him” Reported by At- Tirmidhi.<br /><br />[b]I am also pretty sure you will claim the Hadith are fabricated as usual. However I do not believe that Allah (S.W.T.) would allow the Prophet (P.B.U.H.) to have so-called 'agents of Iblees' as his companions. Ali (R.A.) respected Abu Bakr and Umar (R.A.) was not against them and honoured them during his life. If you truly respect him you would consider this. Ali (R.A.) was delayed in giving his allegiance because he was busy with the funeral arrangements of Fatima (R.A.). If he truly thought Abu Bakr (R.A.) didn't deserve the Caliphate he would have voiced out or fought for his Islam - but he didn't because he had Hikmah and knew who Abu Bakr (R.A.) would be a good caliph[/b]
    • syedehsan
      June 24, 10:28
      if reviling companions was forbidden by Holy Prophet then why did Muwaiya ask Hazrat Saad Bin Abi Waqas to revile Imam Ali(a.s) { Sahin Muslim Fazail Sahaba Manaqib Ali Ibn-e-Abi Talib and in Khilafat o Malookiyat by Imam AbuLaLA Modoodi}<br /><br />Why did even companions fight with each other and kill each other? <br /><br />Why was Malik ibn Nuwera killed by Khalid bin walid? <br /><br />and Read SAHIH BUKHARI : IMAM ALI(A.S) and BANI HASHIM CLAN did not pledge allegiance to Abu bakr untill the 6 months after the demise of Holy Prophet (S.A.W.W) !
  3. .
    December 26, 11:26
    There is plenty of evidence that Imam Ali was mistreated by Abu Bakr and Umar after the Prophet's death. Furthermore, the 'companions' you claim are so great just were lucky to be living around the Prophet. According to Sunnis, simply seeing the Prophet is enough to be a companion. We have higher standards than this silly view. Furthermore, you have nothing from Quran to prove all the companions are good. At best you probably say Allah was pleased with those who swore allegiance under the tree, but even this only covers one moment in time. It says nothing about what they did afterwards.<br /><br />Even if Abu Bakr and Umar did good things, that is cancelled out by their later sins, just as Iblees worshiped for 10,000 years but that didn't matter because he disobeyed Allah. This is the Qur'an my friend. Such a situation is not surprising. It was not only the case for people who claimed to be companions of the last Messenger, Muhammed (peace be upon him and his family), but those who claimed to be friends of previous prophets as well. This is what happened with Jesus (peace be upon him) and Moses (peace be upon him). Many of the prophets even had wives and family members who earned Allah's curse. So is such a thing surprising if it happened with the last Prophet as well?<br /><br />Here is one thing that Umar did, which by itself was enough to earn punishment:<br /><br />Sahih al-Bukhari Hadiths: 9.468 and 7.573<br /> Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:<br /><br /> When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were<br /> some men in the house, and among them was 'Umar Ibn al-Khatttab, the<br /> Prophet said: "Come near let me write for you a writing after which<br /> you will never go astray." 'Umar said: "The Prophet is seriously ill,<br /> and you have the Quran, so Allah's Book is sufficient for us." The<br /> people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, "Come<br /> near so that Allah's Apostle may write for you a writing after which<br /> you will not go astray," while the others said what 'Umar said. When<br /> they made much noise and quarreled greatly in front of the Prophet, he<br /> said to them, "Go away and leave me." Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was<br /> a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah's<br /> Apostle from writing a statement for them.<br /><br />Here's another one:<br /><br />Reference: Sahih Muslim, Chapter of "Kitabul-Wasiyyah" in section "Babut-<br />Tarkil-Wasiyyah", 1980 Edition, Arabic version (Saudi Arabia), v3,<br />P1259, Tradition (#1637/21)<br /><br />Ibn Abbas said: "Thursday! And how tragic that Thursday was!" Then Ibn<br /> Abbas cried severely so that his tears flowed to his cheeks. Then he<br /> added Prophet said: "Bring me a flat bone or a sheet and an ink so<br /> that I could write (order to write) a statement that will prevent you<br /> people to go astray after me." They said: "Verily the messenger of<br /> Allah is talking no sense."<br /><br />My friend, some so-called Muslims are so extreme in praising the companions that they even believe that the Prophet made mistakes like speaking out of his desire or speaking 'nonsense' (see above) when surah 53:3-4 says that "he does not speak of his own desire but it is a revelation sent to him". So Umar and others there engaged in a clear and complete act of kufr. He actively tried to prevent the Prophet from giving his guidance because he said, "the Quran is enough for us". Do you think that the Prophet didn't even think of setting up a system of appointing the caliph but his companions were clever enough to devise such a thing?<br /><br />By the way, you seem to think that we are hiding our views on Abu Bakr. However, we are actually very open about how these two betrayed the Prophet's teachings. Agents of Iblees? Please, that is not a serious enough accusation. These two were far worse. Imam Ali in fact did speak out against him but they had him dragged out of his house on the end of a rope. If you read Sermon 3 of Nahj al Balagah, this is clear. Furthermore, this event is well known in the histories and also in Tareekh at-Tabari, a Sunni history.<br /><br />It is enough that the so-called companions Talha and Zubair fought against Imam Ali. If they are really all promised paradise as you claim, they would not be fighting wars against each other. Such an idea seems a bit fanatical rather than what the Quran and hadiths say.
  4. Re:S.R
    January 14, 22:07
    You are quick to attack the evidence pointed out by the scholar. However, yes just as you have questioned the sources mentioned as evidence, you should look into the credibility of the companions you so wholeheartedly defend. YES, your Hadeeths AND THE sources quoted are all fabricated and at best questionable.To question what Imam Ali (A.S.) was "busy with" at the time of the Prophet (S.A.W)'s burial is blatant ignorance. Imam Ali (A.S.) was entrusted with the Divine responsibility of looking after the funeral arrangements of the Nabi (S.A.W). Instead of pledging allegiance with the Prophet's cause, and following his instructions, Umar and his band of thugs were too pre-occupied with their own causes. They were so power hungry that they failed to attend the funeral of the Prophet (S.A.W), the same Prophet to whom they made false promises to. If you know your history, you will remember that the Prophet made his followers pledge Allegiance to Imam Ali (A.S.), go read the events about what occurred on "Ghadeer-e-Khum", A VERY FAMOUS EVENT that occurred around the time of the KHUTBATUL-WIDAH (as you may infamously recall). Now please don't pull the famous excuse of "Ghadeer-e-Khum doesn't exist", because all Muslims believe in it. Moreover, Imam Ali (A.S.) doesn't need the Caliphate (as you mistakenly assume), it was HIS DIVINE RIGHT. Abu-Bakr and Umar both knew that, yet they still went ahead and stole it. Abu-Bakr and Umar were able to get their ways with the Caliphate throught the use of brutal force. Imam Ali (A.S) was renowned for his SKILLed abilities, courage, exemplary personality, and luminescent presence. He didn't need to voice his protest at the injustices that Abu-BAkr and Umar decided to embark on. Imam Ali (A.S.) did not need "to voice his protest", he could've taken his rightful property from Umar and Abu-Bakr within far less than the blink of an eye. Don't forget this. Furthermore, he did not "voice his protest" because he was following what the Prophet (S.A.W)'s instructions were to him prior to his passing from this world. Imam Ali (A.S.) stood for the rights of the oppressed, the poort and those suffering from injustices, at a time when Umar and AbuBakr were out plundering the wealth of the people and harrasing the innocent. Look carefully at their characters before quoting or questioning the grace of Imam Ali (A.S.). Try as you may, your efforts to find a flaw (God Forgive me for using this word) in the character of Imam Ali (A.S.) will always FAIL. This is my absolute gurantee to you. Anything you read in this books to contradict this is to question the Quran, and the teachings of Allah and THE Prophet (S.A.W), something which makes one a Mushriq.
  5. zulfiqar
    February 08, 20:05
    Hi ! <br /><br /> This is a very complicated issue . As far as qadeer khum is concerned it depends on the interpretation of the word " mawla" and one must also consider the occasion at which the prophet said that " when the people were stealing "booty" and he simply asked people to listen to him . <br /><br />The interpretation may " vary" due to individual understanding . This does not <br />clearly state that the prophet had chosen " ali" to be his succesor . When the <br />prophet was ill according to various sources in the sunni text he had asked <br />abu bakr to lead the " prayers" . This does not establish that he had given him <br />the " khilafat" but we feel that this was a great honour bestowed to him for <br />leading the prayers of the whole unified muslim " ummah" <br /><br />We further dont believe in the concept of "infallibility" of imams . In muslims<br />the generation comes from the " father" and not the "mother" . If we were <br />followers of " judaism" this might have had some weight .<br /><br />We do not believe that the companions of the prophet were " infallible" as well<br />they were all human beings and could have made mistakes . What we do<br />is give them the benefit of " doubt" because they were close companions of<br />the prophet and were instrumental in the earlier " struggles" of islam <br /><br />If the prophet would have said something " bad" about them then only <br />could there be a reason to belive otherwise <br /><br />As per your argument regarding " qadeer khum" if it was that clear then why would <br />there be division amongst the muslim "ummah" and dont try to convince me<br />that the smartest " 10 odd percent intellectuals" understood this perfectly and the<br />other " naive" 90% could not understand what the prophet had said<br /><br />this in itself creates enough " doubt" that prophet had not chosen ali to be the <br />next caliph . Not to mention that those odd "10% intellects" betrayed hazrat ali on<br />numerous occasions and then they betrayed imam hussain again leading to the<br />tragic kerbala incident . Hazrat ali knew that he could not trsut the people on his<br />side because they were traitors and favouring him merely for personal gains<br /><br />On one hand those people were so smart that they deciphered what the <br />other 90% couldnt and then if they had the divine knowledge why did<br />they betray hazrat ali and imam hussein<br /><br />it is clear that these people wanted fitna <br /><br />as far as history goes beyond that it was a power struggle to say the least<br />every one wanted power . even the abbasid dynasty which was started<br />by the blood uncle abbas of the prophet were not very good with the later <br />imams . clearly states that they dint acknowledge any divine power or<br />authority .<br /><br />look at it from this perspective .. the imam wanted to be leaders and so did<br />their counter parts .. it was only power struggle . look at the agha khani belief <br />they believe in divineness and agha khan has changed all ritual of prayers <br />you can pay money and be a saint .. all your sins are washed after paying money <br />so the rich people can get away with anything is this " justice"<br /><br />I simply dont buy the argument of "infallibilty" If the father is a priest it doesnt <br />mean that his " son" will be a presit as well <br /><br />I am not referring this to the imams naoozubillah .. just a way of thinking<br />I respect the imams a lot but do not belive in the concept of infallibility through generations <br /><br /><br /><br />
    • h. makke
      January 11, 16:24
      In the same hadith where Abu Bakr goes and leads the prayers of the ummah, aisha also goes onto narrate that the prophet (s) asked to be carried there, and once there stood alongside Abu Bakr and prayed next to him. How can this be, if 2 people are at the front the salat of everyone becomes batil. The prophet does not commit such mistakes to ruin a jamaa prayer of a whole muslim ummah.<br /><br />As for the word Mawla... The prophet (s) said 'Allah is my mawla, and I am the Mawla of the people...'... what do you think this is supposed to mean?!Why deny such a clear meaning? As the prophet (s) goes onto say 'and whosoever I am his mawla, Ali is his mawla.' There is no denying Imam Ali's (as) divine right. I pray you people open your eyes to the truth one day... it is this stubborness of yours that is preventing you from it.
  6. also known as .
    February 08, 20:26
    Zulfiqar, your idea that the majority cannot go astray is against the Quran. The quran says over and over "aksarahum la yalamoon" (the majority do not know). The majority is usually wrong. When Musa (as) went up on the mountain, how many people from Bani Israel followed him? Musa (as) had split the Red Sea, thrown his stick turning it into a snake, put his hand in his shirt so that it glowed white, and brought food from heaven when the people would starve, yet the people still turned away. The Quran has these stories for a reason, so that Muslims should learn. Allah's proof is on us for a reason.<br /><br />Regarding the issue of infallibility, the Quran says it: "Allah wants to keep from you Ahlul-Bait every sort of impurity, and purify you a thorough purification" (33:33). If this is not infallibility, then what is. We do not believe in the infallibility due to hereditary reasons but because the Quran says the Ahlul-Bait are infallible.<br /><br />Regarding the issue of mawla, it is clear that this word means "authority" and not "friend". The Prophet said "am I not the highest in authority amongst you" (a lustoo awlaa bil mumineena anfusahum?") to his companions. It was clear he was referring to the verse in the Quran "The prophet is the highest in authority from amongst you" (an nabi awla bil mumineen min anfusihim). Everyone said "yes" that he was awla, the highest in authority. Then the prophet said, for whoever I am his mawla, Ali is his mawla. Remember this is on the way back from hajj. The Prophet was addressing a huge crowd and he said it for a good reason, not just to establish the goodness of Ali. Ali's goodness was known, it did not need further reinforcement.<br /><br />The Imams did not engage in "power struggle". They were given their haqq by Allah. Others came and stole their rights and oppressed them. Take care that you do not be sympathetic to those who fought against Allah's representative and became destroyed as a result!
  7. Ali Ch
    February 09, 00:07
    Dear brothers and sisters in Islam, this subject is very difficult to understand and comprehend in many ways. Firstly, we as Muslims should understand that both sides have interesting opinions and beliefs on this subject. <br /><br />We Shia intellectuals and learned men should not be accusing our Sunni brothers leaders (Abu Bark ra. & Umar ra. of being allies of Iblees) If they were in fact allies of Iblees, Imam Ali as. would never have pledged allegiance to them for any reason. I do accept the fact the Imam Ali as. delayed in pledging allegiance to Abu Bark ra. and also believe there was wisdom behind doing so. Regardless of that, Abu Bakr did have leadership qualities that Imam Ali as. recognized to be beneficial for the ummah. And he was one of the select few that Imam Ali as. would have even contemplated giving up Khalifa for. If Imam Ali as. accepted them as khalifa's then me to being Shia of Ali have no choice but to accept them as my khalifa's. (may Allah swt be pleased with them)<br /><br />Saying that brothers, our Sunni brothers should understand that the Prophet sws. family (Ahlul bayt) are the most loved and dear to the prophet above everyone else who surrounded him. Not to say the companion were not close; they were extremely close to the Prophet sws. We as Shia's believe that Imam Ali as. was in fact family and not a companion, thus elevating him above the companions in terms of love from the Prophet sws. and wisdom in the religion. Nevertheless, i do accept the appointing of Imam Ali as. from the Prophet Muhammed sws. and recognize the speech of Ghadeer to be authentic in that 'mawla' meant leader/successor. <br /><br />In regards to the issue of infallibility, the Quran says it: "Allah wants to keep from you Ahlul-Bait every sort of impurity, and purify you a thorough purification" (33:33). this pertains to the fact that due to Allah swt. act of purification, the Prophet sws. household had all abilities of 'sinning' removed.<br /><br />Shia brothers ! with regard to the Mother of the Believers Aisha ra. we as muslims should hold her in the highest regard and speak of her the same way Imam Ali as. spoke to her at all times of his life. You say that Allah swt. gave us examples in the Quran how other Prophets wives have gone astray and simulate it to Aisha ra. But in the case of Prophet Muhammad sws. His wives were given the honorable rank from Allah swt. of being 'Mother's of the Believers' unlike any other women in history. True Shia ulama are stressing this fact and understand that we as Muslims must hold her in this high rank that Allah swt. gave to her, and speak nothing but great attributes to her like Imam ali as. if we claim to be followers of him. <br /><br />may Allah swt forgive me if anything i said is wrong of if i offended anyone. We live in a time where we are being humiliated for believing in Allah and His Messenger (doesnt matter if you are Sunni or Shia) We must learn to respect one another and sometimes 'agree to disagree' on certain topics in order to maintain the dignity of our fellow brother. <br /><br />May the best Dahwa win. Salamu Alakum wa Rahmatalahi wa barakatu ....
    • Elfie
      January 16, 15:12
      Assalamualaykum brother.<br /><br />You have bring up a very interesting point. Alhamdulillah.<br /><br />May I have your contact (facebook/e-mail) please so I could speak with you directly. Just to avoid such unnecessary debate here. <br /><br />Salam.
  8. also known as .
    February 09, 02:14
    The above is nothing but hypocrisy. Imam Ali never accepted that anyone should be khalifa ahead of him and to say so is to sweep the most problematic issue that afflicts the Muslims under the carpet. <br /><br />Furthermore, if you read Surah Tahrim, the Prophet was so angry with Ayesha and Hafsa that he wanted to divorce them! He did not do so only because divorce is looked down on in Islam and to be patient is better. Being mother of the believers only means that the believers are not allowed to marry these women, as though they were their mothers. Ayesha in particular waged war against Imam Ali and did not allow Imam Hasan to be buried near the Prophet out of jealousy. She used to look for excuses to fight with Ahlul-Bait! How bad is this? The wives of the Prophet are told specifically in the Quran that they are not to leave their houses. Yet what did Ayesha do? She not only left her house, she let her status become a pawn in the hands of others due to her negligence of the Quran!<br /><br />It is clear what we should think of such persons. Such persons should never be role models for us. Only the Prophet and his Ahlul-Bait (as) should be our guides, not a group of sinners.
  9. zulfiqar
    February 09, 16:56
    also known as .: RE: zulfiqar <br />Zulfiqar, your idea that the majority cannot go astray is against the Quran. The quran says over and over "aksarahum la yalamoon" (the majority do not know). The majority is usually wrong. When Musa (as) went up on the mountain, how many people from Bani Israel followed him? Musa (as) had split the Red Sea, thrown his stick turning it into a snake, put his hand in his shirt so that it glowed white, and brought food from heaven when the people would starve, yet the people still turned away. The Quran has these stories for a reason, so that Muslims should learn. Allah's proof is on us for a reason. <br /><br />" ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT THE QURAN WARNS THE MUSLIMS <br />NOT TO FOLLOW THE " MAJORITY" BUT TO BE A " MINORITY" . JUST CONSIDER IF YOU STARTED CIRCULATING THIS ARTICLE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE STARTED BELIEVING YOU AND CONVERTED THE " MINORITY" TO " MAJORITY" ACCORDING TO THE QURAN THE NEW " MAJORITY: WOULD BE WRONG ? <br /><br />YOU ARE ACTING AS IF GOD IS PLAYING A CONSPIRACY THEORY AND ONLY THE SELECTED FEW INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE THAT ESTEEMED ABILITY TO COMPREHEND THINGS WILL " GAIN: AND THE REST WILL BE DESTROYED" BECAUSE GOD DID NOT MAKE THEM AS SMART AS THEIR COUNTERPARTS ? <br /><br />WILL ALL THE JEWS , HINDUS, CHRISTIANS BURN IN HELL FOR EVER AND ALL THE SUNNIS , ZAIDIS , AGHA KHANIS ETC ,,BUT THE SUPREME RACE OF MANKIND THE " SHIA" WILL GO TO HEAVEN <br /><br />WELL RELIGION IS ONLY FAITH .. WE DONT EVEN KNOW FOR A FACT IF THERE IS " HELL" OR " HEAVEN" NO ONE CAME BACK FROM HIS GRAVE AND EVER TESTIFY TO TH<br />AT .<br /><br />COMING BACK TO THE POINT .. WHY DID THE SO CALLED " MINORITY OF BORN SUPREMACISTS WITH DIVINE KNOWLEDGE" DESERT HAZRAT ALI AND IMAM HUSSAINM<br />HISTORY STATES THAT .. <br /><br />WHY DINT THE ZAIDIS HATE OMER AND ABU BAKR ? THEY WERE ALSO THE FOLLOWERS OF HAZRAT ALI ? WHY DID THEY REFRAIN FROM ABUSUING THE FIRST 2 CALIPHS? DTHEY WERE WITH IMAM ZAINUL ABIDEEN ETC .. WELL I WAS NOT THERE TO WITNESS THESE ACCOUNTS SO CANT CREDIT OR DIS CREIT ANY ONE <br /><br />THE BIGGST PROBLEM IS THE " HADITH" MANY OF THEM CONTRADIT EACH OTHER ..THEY CANT ALL BE TRUE <br /><br /><br />Regarding the issue of infallibility, the Quran says it: "Allah wants to keep from you Ahlul-Bait every sort of impurity, and purify you a thorough purification" (33:33). If this is not infallibility, then what is. We do not believe in the infallibility due to hereditary reasons but because the Quran says the Ahlul-Bait are infallible . I do respect the status of ahle bait but dont think they were infallible . i am sure most of the people dont belive in their infallibility becuse if that was the case we would never had any fitnas ... every one would have known from the word go to follow them . i am not trying to defend yazid .. i hate him for what he did to imam hussain <br /><br />" I DONT BELIVE IN INFALLIBILITY ! IF THE ERLIER PEOPLE OF YOUR GENERAION WOULD HAVE HAD A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WITH THEIR COUNTERPARTS ..YOU WOULD HAVE BEE FOLLOWING THE AGHA KHAN TODAY AND WOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE 21ST CENTURY RELIGION " <br /><br /><br />Regarding the issue of mawla, it is clear that this word means "authority" and not "friend". The Prophet said "am I not the highest in authority amongst you" (a lustoo awlaa bil mumineena anfusahum?") to his companions. It was clear he was referring to the verse in the Quran "The prophet is the highest in authority from amongst you" (an nabi awla bil mumineen min anfusihim). Everyone said "yes" that he was awla, the highest in authority. Then the prophet said, for whoever I am his mawla, Ali is his mawla. Remember this is on the way back from hajj. The Prophet was addressing a huge crowd and he said it for a good reason, not just to establish the goodness of Ali. Ali's goodness was known, it did not need further reinforcement<br /><br />" I CAN ALSO SAY THAT PROPHET GAVE HAZRAT ABU BAKR THE HIGH STATUS OF BEING THE IMAM OF THE WHOLE MUSLIM UMMAH AND CLAIM THAT SUCH A HIGH AUTHORITY COULD ONLY BE GIVEN AS A SIGN THAT HE WAS GG TO BE HIS SUCCESSOR .<br /><br />THIS WOULD PROVE NOTHING AND THE SAME APPLIES TO PROPHET SAYING MAWLA AS MOST OF THE PEOPLE WERE NOT SURE ABOUT IT AND THAT IS ENOUGH " DOUBT: AND THE PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO CLAIM THAT ..DESERTED HIM ALL THE WAY ..DOESN T MAKE SENSE
  10. zulfiqar
    February 09, 17:35
    Al-Imam Sayyid Muhammad bin Ali al-Bâqir <br />by M. Jamaal al-Din Abdul-Wahid al-Hanafi<br /> A king requested the presence of a Sayyid in his court, but with the intent of destroying him. When the Sayyid appeared, the king sought his forgiveness, begged his pardon, bestowed many gifts upon him, and then dismissed this Hashimite in a very courteous manner. In response to the inquiry as to why he acted in such a manner, the king said “When he came in, I saw two lions, one on his right and one on his left who threatened to destroy me if I should attempt to do harm to him.” The Wali whom Allah Ta’ala protected in this story is Al-Imam Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Ali al-Baqir, Radhi Allahu ‘Anhu. This tremendous conveyer of ‘Ilm is a great asset of Al-Islam, though very few know about him. <br /><br /> His full name and lineage is Muhammad bin Ali bin al-Husayn bin Ali bin Abu Talib al-Qurashi al-Hashimi, born in the Holy City of Madinah in the year 57 A.H. His father and teacher was Hazrat Imam Ali Zaynul-Abideen, survivor of the tragedy of Karbala, son of the Sayyid of Shuhadaa, Sayyidina Husayn bin Ali, Radhi Allahu Ta’ala Anhu. His mother was Sayyidah Fatimah bint al-Hasan bin Ali (Radhi Allahu Anha). From this marriage was born the first generation of the Ahlul-Bayt that was both al-Hasani and al-Husayni, therefore both the paternal and maternal sides were connected to Sayyidina Ali bin Abu Talib and Sayyidah Fatimah az-Zahra, may millions of Salaams be upon them. <br /><br /> The kunya for Hazrat Muhammad bin Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh) was Abu Ja’far, though his was given many titles, such as Abu Abdullah, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, and Maulana al-Baqir ul-‘Uloom. The most commonly used title is “Al-Imam Muhammad al-Baqir.” Baqir literally means to rip open or cut open, and in the case of Imam al-Baqir, he split open knowledge, that is scrutinized it and examined the depths of it so that it can be spread to all people, therefore, his title also meant “The Expounder of Knowledge.” Those who were fortunate to be in his presence would unanimously report that he would rip knowledge down to its very root, reaching its origin, and then convey that knowledge to the people. Hazrat Ahmad ibn Hajar al-Makki, Rahmatullahi alayh, wrote in his book, As-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa: <br /><br />“Al-Imam Muhammad al-Baqir has disclosed secrets of Ilm and Hikmah and unfolded the principles of spiritual and religious guidance. Nobody can deny his character, his God-given knowledge, his divinely-gifted Hikmah, and his obligation and gratitude towards the spreading of knowledge. He was a sacred and highly talented spiritual leader and for this reason, he was popularly titled al-Baqir, which means the expounder of knowledge. Kind in heart, spotless in character, saved by soul, and noble by nature, the Imam devoted all his time to Allah’s Ibadah. It is beyond the power of a man to count the deep impression of knowledge and guidance left by the Imam on the hearts of the faithful. His saying in devotion and abstinence, in knowledge and wisdom and in religious exercise and submission to Allah are so great in number that the volume of this book is quite insufficient to cover them all.”<br /> Hazrat Imam al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu Anhu) was the half-brother of Al-Imam Zaid bin Ali Shahid (Radhi Allahu Anhu). The lives of both were dedicated to upholding al-Islam in spite of the degeneration of Deen which issued forth from Yazid The Damned and other corrupt rulers (see Endnote) of those times. The approach to the upholding of Deen-ul-Islam differed between the two Imams (Radhi Allahu Anhuma), both of whom being being ‘Alim-ud-Deen and rightly guided Imams. Al Imam al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu Anhu) knew that due to the fitnah that was present at the time, Shari'ah must be instilled, Madrasahs established. Imam Zaid's (Radhi Allahu Anhu) dedication to Deen-ul-Islam was to remove the Khulafat from the Banu Umayya, who were bringing a very bad name to Islam (much like the al-Sa'ud family is doing in present times) through their bad deeds, and take the office of Khalifah. Imam Zaid (Radhi Allahu Anhu), however, fell prey to Shi’ah conspiracy and desertion as did his holy grandfather (Radhi Allahu Anhu) in Karbala. (see Endnote
  11. zulfiqar
    February 09, 17:39
    Hazrat Shibli Nu’mani, Rahmatullahi ‘alayh, writes in his book, Sirat-e-Nu’mani that “the Ahli-Bayt were the fountainhead of Hadith, Fiqh, and in fact, all religious learning,” and because of this truth, many seekers of Islamic knowledge sought after Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, Radhi Allahu 'Anh, as he possessed great knowledge of the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of Sayyidina Rasul-e-Akram Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim. Many of the Tabi’een, Taba at-Tabi’een, fuqaha, and mujtahideen, related and reported numerous Islamic sciences on the authority of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, Radhi Allahu 'Anh, as he was distinguished for his extensive knowledge of Islamic science and for his subtle indication as to the meanings of the Ayats of the Holy Qur’an. Because of the great knowledge of Hadith Allah blessed him with, his name is found in the isnad of many Sahih Ahadith collections. He was also known for his conveying the history and life of Nabi Akram, Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim, and his family. He became recognized as one of the Fuqaha of Madinah who many learned men would come to for answers to questions of jurisprudence. A famous quote from him that describes this station held by the Ahli-Bayt came from the question he was asked regarding Allah’s Ayat in Surah an-Nahl: “Ask the Ahl al-Dhikr if you do not know,” he answered: “We are the Ahl al-Dhikr.” <br /><br /> The Saliheen from amongst the Ahlul-Bayt of Sayyidina Rasul-e-Akram, Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim, never chase after Dunya, nor do they have any regards for this worldly life. They devote their time and efforts to the service of the Ummah, seeking the pleasure of only Allah Ta’ala. This was the case with Sayyidina Muhammad al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) as he was not only well-known for his vast knowledge, but also for the immense Ibadah he would put time into. Imam Abul-Hasan Ali bin ‘Uthman al-Hujweri (Rahmatullah alayh) and Qadi Abu Fazl Iyad bin Musa al-Yahsubi (Rahmatullah alayh) relate in their works, Al-Kashf al-Mahjub and Al-Shifa, respectively, that Abu Ja’far Muhammad al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) was a very devout Muslim and spent very much time performing ‘Ibadah. He would spend much of his nights glorifying Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala. As a result of his devotion to Allah Ta’ala, he was endowed with ‘Ilm of many sciences of the Nafs, thus endowed with knowledge of both the exoteric and esoteric sciences of the Deen. <br /><br /> Sayyidina Rasulullah, Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim, related that his Ahli-Bayt will be faced with adversities. Such was true for Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu 'Anh), because he lived in a time of much internal strife amongst Muslims, where the period of bloodshed of Muslims at the hands of Muslims took place. In addition, there was much friction between Bani Hashim and Bani Umayya. Abu Ja’far al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) lived in the period of the Umayyad Dynasty of Sulayman, Hazrat ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul-‘Aziz, Yazid II, and Hisham bin Abdul-Malik. The period of the Khalifat of Hazrat ‘Umar bin ‘Abdul-‘Aziz was a positive one for the Ahli-Bayt because not only did he bring and end to the bad-mouthing of Sayyidina Ali bin Abu Talib (Karam Allah Wajhu) and his descendants, but he also gave the orchard of Fadek to Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) out of his tremendous respect for and devotion to the descendants of Sayyidina wa Mawlana Muhammad, Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim, which was well-accepted by Imam Abu Ja’far (Radhi Allahu 'Anh). <br /><br /> Imam Abu Ja’far (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) married the great grand-daughter of Khalif Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (Radhi Allahu 'Anh), Hazrat Umm Farwa bint al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr. From this marriage to Hazrat Umm Farwa, he was the father of another great Sayyid Imam of Ahlus-Sunnah, Hazrat Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (Radhi Allahu 'Anh), who much ‘Ilm was passed on to, becoming another great Faqih (and Wali) of Madinah. <br /><br />
  12. zulfiqar
    February 09, 17:46
    The contributions to Al-Islam by Imam Muhammad al-Baqir and his progeny are very great, and one such example of that is found with the Hanafi Madhhab. It is safe to say that The Madhhab of Ahlul-Bayt (or most directly linked to Ahlul-Bayt) is the Hanafi Madhhab. Al-Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifah Nu’man bin Thabit (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) gained much knowledge from Al-Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, as well as his son, Al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq. In Sirat-e-Nu’man, it is written that “Abu Hanifah sat for a long time at Imam Muhammad al-Baqir’s feet and acquired from him much valuable knowledge of fiqah and Hadith not available anywhere else.” Even Shi’ah books fully attest to this fact and much more. Ibn Mutahhir al-Hilli, a famous Shi’i scholar, wrote in his books Nahjul-Haqq and Al-Minhaj al-Karamah Fi Tariqat al-Imamat that Imam Abu Hanifah learned from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) as well as from his son, Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (Radhi Allahu 'Anh), attaining high grades in his company. Al-Hilli also brings forth the fact that Al-Imam al-A’zam Abu Hanifah (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) was given ijaza to give fatwa and perform ijtihad by at least three members of the Ahli-Bayt: 1.) Al-Imam Muhammad al-Baqir, 2.) his half-brother, Al-Imam Zayd bin Ali Shaheed and 3.) his son, Al-Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq. In light of this fact, Abdullah Suwaydi writes in his book, An-nahiyatu an-ta’ni Amir al-mu’minin Mu’awiya that <br /><br />“Imam Abu Hanifah’s requirements of ijazat is testified by the faultless A’immah. To speak ill of Al-Imam al-A’zam would mean to deny the testimony of the twelve Imams, who were sinless people. And this in its turn would be disbelief, according to the Shi’ah credo. Since there is not a Ma’soom Imam today, is it not especially fardh now for all Shi’ah to join the Madhhab of Imam al-A’zam?”<br />And the Madhhab he speaks of is known as the Hanafi Madhhab. <br /> In Sirat-e-Nu’man, it is written that “both the Ahlus-Sunnah and the Shiites are in agreement that Imam Abu Hanifah derived much of his learning from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir.” It is related in Al-Majmua az-Zuhdiyya that Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) looked at Abu Hanifah (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) and said: <br /><br />“When those who defile my ancestor’s Shari’ah are on the increase, you will enliven it. You will be the savior of those with taqwa and the refuge of those with taqwa and the refuge of those who are confused! You will bring heretics round to the right path! Allah Ta’ala will help you!”<br />The purpose of the information of Imam Abu Hanifah’s interaction and studying under the Ahli-Bayt is not to brag about the virtues of the Hanafi Madhhab. Rather, we are bringing to light important aspects of the Hanafi Madhhab in relation to its connection to the Ahli-Bayt: 1.) Ijaza was given to Al-Imam al-A’zam by Imam al-Baqir and other members of Ahli-Bayt. 2.) Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) made it clear to Imam Abu Hanifah (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) that he would be one who would bring heretics and those lost souls back to the straight path. 3.) In light of the fact that neither Imam al-Baqir nor Imam as-Sadiq founded a Madhhab, their teachings are preserved in the Hanafi Madhhab. Therefore, those who claim that they “only follow Ahlul-Bayt” have no excuse for not being a Hanafi in light of their absence of Saliheen from Ahli-Bayt who are capable of giving ijtihad, instead of attributing falsehood and heresy in the name of the Sayyid A’immah. <br /> It is a shame how the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt have taken the statements of Abu Ja’far Muhammad al-Baqir out of context, but have even went to the extent of fabricating statements attributed to him. Such blasphemous statements proclaiming heresy on behalf of the Sahabi Ikram (Radhi Allahu 'Anhum) have been fabricated and with the name of Imam al-Baqir (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) attached to them. In reality, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir never promoted schisms, nor advocated any factions, thus separating from the Ummat-e-Muhammadi, Sall Allahu alaihi wa Aalihi wa Sallim, known as Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jama'at. Proof of this can be found in the Ahadith found with ancestral succesion to Hazrat Ali (Karam Allah Wajhu), where the advice was given to not have relation with schismatic groups as they will spoil your religion.
  13. zulfiqar
    February 09, 17:49
    Hazrat Abu Ja’far (Radhi Allahu 'Anh) returned to Allah on the 7th of Dhul-Hijjah in the year 114 A.H. in the Holy City of Madinah. He is buried in Al-Baqi cemetery where many other members of the Ahlul-Bayt, Shuhadaa, and Sahabi (May plenty of Salaam be upon them all) rest. The world benefitted from this Imam of exalted memory as he was an educator for many of the Ulama of Al-Islam as well as a preserver of the Sunnah of Nabi Muhammad, Sallallahu 'alayhi wa aalihi wa Sallam. It is unfortunate that not many know about him. The well-respected scholars of Al-Islam have had nothing but good to say about Hazrat Abu Ja’far al-Baqir and to sum it up, Muhammad bin Khavendesh bin Mahmud wrote in Rauza-tus-Safaa that “neither pen nor tongue can describe the merits and the traditions of Imam Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Ali al-Baqir.” May millions of most perfect Salaams be upon Sayyidina Rasulullah, his progeny, and his descendants. Aameen.
  14. also known as .
    February 10, 05:56
    It doesn't take any talent to copy and paste things as you are doing. But what is amazing is that what you are copying and pasting actually supports my point of view.<br /><br />As for your rambling rant before your copy and paste jobs, you didn't answer what I said:<br /><br />1. The Quran says that the majority of the people are astray. We saw this with Bani Israel and also with other nations. As soon as their prophet is gone, then they turn to their vain desires. You yourself are doing this by relying on "what makes sense" rather than the Quran and sunnah of the Prophet.<br /><br />2. Ahlul-Bait are infallible according to the Quran. Read 33:33. Furthermore, according to the Quran, Allah does not put on a nafs more than it can bear. The fact that Allah trusted the Prophet and Ahlul-Bait with the message of Islam shows that they have special nafs. If you want to bring the Prophet and his Ahlul-Bait down to your level and that of so-called companions who introduced innovations against the instructions of Allah, that is your problem, not mine. To me my religion and to you yours.<br /><br />The proof is complete against you. Unless you come up with something fresh, I don't see the point of discussing this further with you. You have lost the debate. 8)
  15. zulfiqar
    February 10, 07:55
    1. The Quran says that the majority of the people are astray. We saw this with Bani Israel and also with other nations. As soon as their prophet is gone, then they turn to their vain desires. You yourself are doing this by relying on "what makes sense" rather than the Quran and sunnah of the Prophet<br /><br />BUDDY TAKE IT EASY RELAX TAKE A CHILL PILL "MAN" HAHAHAH <br /><br />SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT GOD ON PURPOSE IS MISLEADING THE MAJORITY<br />TO THE WRONG PATH AND HE WANTED A SELECT FEW INDIVIDUALS TO BE ON THE RIGHT PATH ? VERY GOOD WELL THATS YOUR POINT OF VIEW . I CANT CHANGE IT <br /><br />ACCORDING TO THIS WE SHOULD ENQUIRE ABOUT THE BRANCHES OF ISLAM.. THE QADIYANIS , ZAIDIS ETC ARE THE FEWEST .. SO ACCORDING TO THIS QURANIC REVELEATION WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION ..THEY ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE<br /><br />NOT THE 12ERS OR THE SUNNIS CONSTITING A MAKORITY ..HENCE YOUR REFERENCE FROM THE QURAN SELF CONTRADICTS YOUR BELIEF <br /><br />YOU HAVE STILL NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION REGARDING THE SHAIS OF ALI WHO <br />ALI WHO DESERTED THE FAMILY OF THE PROPHET BY CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE THEIR ALLIES AND THEN DESRTING THEM AT THE LAST MOMENT ..WRINTING THEM LETTERS CALLING THEM AND THEN SIMPLY REFUSING TO WRITE THOSE LETTERS .<br /><br />ITS BETTER TO BE MISGUIDED DUE TO THE INTERPRETATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF ONES MIND THEN TO BE DECEIPTFUL AND WICKED ON PURPOSE AFTER BEING CONVINCED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS CORRECT <br /><br />HAZRAT ALI AND THE IMAMS HAVE SAID ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS TO PROVE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLOSEST TO THEM CAN NOT BE TRUSTED AND HISTORY TESSTIFIES THAT <br /><br />. Ahlul-Bait are infallible according to the Quran. Read 33:33. Furthermore, according to the Quran, Allah does not put on a nafs more than it can bear. The fact that Allah trusted the Prophet and Ahlul-Bait with the message of Islam shows that they have special nafs. If you want to bring the Prophet and his Ahlul-Bait down to your level and that of so-called companions who introduced innovations against the instructions of Allah, that is your problem, not mine. To me my religion and to you yours. <br /><br />I DO NOT SUPPORT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE AGAINST THE FAMILY OF THE PROPHET <br />AND CANT IMAGINE ANY MUSLIM DOING THAT . THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT I DONT ACCUSE THE FIRST 2 CALIPHS OF SOMETHING I AM NOT SURE ABOUT AS THERE ARE MANY HADITHS THAT ARE AGAINST IT AND THERE ARE MANY FOR IT .. BUT AS HAZRAT ALI DID NOT WAGE A WAR AGAINST "THEM" IS SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WAS NOT BAD BETWEEN HAZRAT ABU BAKR AND UMAR <br /><br />THE HISTORY ALSO SUGGESTS THAT HAZRAT ABU BAKR WAS A RIGHTEOUS MAN AND DINT ENGAGE INTO ANYTHING BAD WHEN HE WAS THE CALIPH AND WAS HONEST AND TRUTHFUL ..CANT SEE ANYTHING HE DID FOR PERSONAL GAINS <br /><br />ALSO THE FACT THAT HE WAS ALSO VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPHET AND HIS EARLY STRUGGLES IN ISLAM WOULD REFRAIN ME FROM SAYING ANYTHING DEROGATORY ULLESS I WAS THERE TO WITNESS THOSE ACCOUNTS
  16. enforcer
    February 12, 13:40
    your posts are incoherent and lack clarity. In fact they are also not very credible. YOu seem to be contradicting yourself. It's best to give up now, save some face and exit with humility beforthis discussion turns out to be a disgrace for you. <br /><br />Stop vomiting information and lies about the Prophet's Ahlul-Bayt (A.S.).
  17. zulfiqar
    February 12, 19:59
    hahah yea rite ... You have not answered any of my questions .. you have lost the debate period ... i have already proved you wrong on your philosophy that the majority are always wrong !! as that would include you .. have a nice day :-)
  18. @Zulfiqar
    February 13, 23:44
    Yea Zulfiqar is that all you've got? If yes, that's pretty sad, coz that's not a lot of deoth in wht tou say.You never proved me wrong at all. In fact I destroyed you contradicted urself you even got started.You continue to vomit incoherent filth that fails to make any sense. I will not waste any time on your rants which you seem to be going on about. Your "debate" is based on fabrications! The "majority" of us have better things to do, than sit idly like u do ;-)
  19. SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT GOD ON PURPOSE IS MISLEADING THE MAJORITY<br />TO THE WRONG PATH AND HE WANTED A SELECT FEW INDIVIDUALS TO <br />REPLY TO ---- <br /><br />BE ON THE RIGHT PATH ? VERY GOOD WELL THATS YOUR POINT OF VIEW . I CANT CHANGE IT<br /><br />ACCORDING TO THIS WE SHOULD ENQUIRE ABOUT THE BRANCHES OF ISLAM.. THE QADIYANIS , ZAIDIS ETC ARE THE FEWEST .. SO ACCORDING TO THIS QURANIC REVELEATION WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION ..THEY ARE ON THE RIGHT SIDE <br /><br />-------<br />When the Quran states the "majority" , its ment to imply that its not the quantity, its the quality and pure sense of the message. That numbers or figures dont matter. God does not purposfully lead others astray, its people who are unjust to their own souls. <br /><br /><br />-----------<br /><br />I DO NOT SUPPORT THE PEOPLE WHO WERE AGAINST THE FAMILY OF THE PROPHET<br />AND CANT IMAGINE ANY MUSLIM DOING THAT . THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT I DONT ACCUSE THE FIRST 2 CALIPHS OF SOMETHING I AM NOT SURE ABOUT AS THERE ARE MANY HADITHS THAT ARE AGAINST IT AND THERE ARE MANY FOR IT .. BUT AS HAZRAT ALI DID NOT WAGE A WAR AGAINST "THEM" IS SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WAS NOT BAD BETWEEN HAZRAT ABU BAKR AND UMAR<br /><br />Its been documented in the history of Islam the bad crimes that Abu Bakr and Omar done to the Ahlul bayt. For example Omar they burned down fatimas Zahras house and she was badly injured. Prophet Muhhammad said, " Those who please fatima please me those who please me please allah, those who displease her, displease me, those who displease me displease God " <br />But the thing is, if Abu Bakr was truly a righteous man, why didnt he attend the burial of the messenger of God ? Why was he off in some other discourse ? A true companion would not leave his side in that particular time but would be deeply saddened. Also, claims to have been elected by all the people, how come Imam ali was not present with him when the vote was taken place? Why was Abu Bakr so keen to make sure ali wasnt there while commiting open disobedience ? <br />But I dont know if you have even read the article, its been proven and fact that had Imam ali revolted it would have caused blood shed within the community. Where is your common sense ?
  20. Ghulam Ghaus
    October 01, 22:42
    im afraid im really disapointed that this person who people say is a scholar has not proved anything but its all based on "hypothesis" or "hypothetically" speaking.<br /><br />When we talk of such things we should use evidence, it was the Ansar who first raised the issue of sucession then it was the muhajir in madina.<br /><br />Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) and Hazrat Umar (RA) were sitting in Prophets house they was called outside.<br /><br />The following extract from "Musna of Abul ya'la, Fath-Ul-Bari, Vol 7, Page 23 should be enough: <br /><br />"It is related by Omar that as they were seated in the Prophet's house a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: 'O son of Kahattab, Omar! step out for a moment'. Omar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occured, i.e. the Ansar were gathering in force in the Thaqifah Bani Sa'idah and, as the situation was grave, it was necessary that he ('Omar) should go and took into the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a war. On this 'Omar said to Abu Bakr, "Let us go." <br /><br />ANALYSIS:<br /><br />i. From this it is clear that the allegation made on Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA) and Hazrat Umar (RA) that they left Prophet's funeral is false, as the funeral had not been taking place when they left.<br /><br />ii. The person told them "an incident had occured" at Bani Saqifa, therefore to say both companions left to usurp the Calphiate would be false again as they had no knowledge of the dispute taking place.<br /><br />iii. As they had no knowledge of the happenings they could not have planned or premeditated the events in their favour.<br /><br />iv. Hazrat Umar (RA) desire was to remain seated at the Prophet's (PBUH) house as he told the person to leave them alone where they are but he insisted and thats why Hazrat Umar (RA) left with Hazrat Abu Bakar (RA).
  21. ahsan
    June 24, 10:26
    if reviling companions was forbidden by Holy Prophet then why did Muwaiya ask Hazrat Saad Bin Abi Waqas to revile Imam Ali(a.s) { Sahin Muslim Fazail Sahaba Manaqib Ali Ibn-e-Abi Talib and in Khilafat o Malookiyat by Imam AbuLaLA Modoodi}<br /><br />Why did even companions fight with each other and kill each other? <br /><br />Why was Malik ibn Nuwera killed by Khalid bin walid? <br /><br />and Read SAHIH BUKHARI : IMAM ALI(A.S) and BANI HASHIM CLAN did not pledge allegiance to Abu bakr untill the 6 months after the demise of Holy Prophet (S.A.W.W) !

Leave a Reply

Only registered users can comment.