sunni tashayu'

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

Let's just for a moment say Imam Ali was appointed by Allah.
and sahabah knew that indeed he was appointed by Allah.

That means those who didn't accept Imam Ali as appointed by Allah are apostates.

Now, what is the punishment for apostasy?
Is it not death?

Then why did the Imam appointed by Allah not apply the punishment of death to apostates?


How could the Imam just let the hijacking take place?

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

https://www.greattafsirs.com/Tafsir_...=38&1&SoraN=17

[Muhammad Hasan]

You sir are evidently well-read. Rather than needlessly go through semantics, you are clearly well aware there is more than 1 position in the Ahlulbayt school of thought as to who ends up in hellfire permanently. I subscribe to the position I mentioned before. The alternative position you mentioned above I acknowledge is certainly present in our school. There is also a 3rd position. Therefore there is nothing for me to "prove", as clearly you are aware of the opinions that exist, and I have openly acknowledged this.

I am more looking for a concise conversation as opposed to a lengthy debate of the many points you brought up.

Thank you for the thorough response. It appears you have been asked this question on multiple occasions. Though I must say I sense a hint of unjustified bias, given the following:

Later you comment:

It seems in the former comment there is an underlying reluctance to state Muawiyah committed a grave sin, whereas in the latter comment it is easy for you.

Anyway that aside, to make myself clear as well, I would like to express two things:
1. I love many Sahaba. But there are also Sahaba I hate. The basis for this is not emotion, my preference or whatever. It is ordered as such by Allah and His Prophet pbuhf.
2. If one must love and respect all Sahaba, and trust all their judgements/quotes/etc. to me is very problematic, because as I am sure you can agree, there is a lot of disagreement (to the point thousands killed each other. So if there is disagreement, I need an objective source where I can get the correct way to practice the Sunnah of Allah and His Prophet.

For example, you mention the verse of ridhwan. Clearly, our tafsir differs given that, to my understanding, the verse is clear that it does not include every single person under the tree, and there are exceptions such as this you did not mention:

“O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah’s wrath and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be.”(Surah Anfāl 8:15-16)
There are accounts of certain Sahaba fleeing from battle meaning they are damned to hell, so again, how do you reconcile to seemingly contradictory things? But I suppose you have your own tafsir from the Sahaba and I have my own from the Ahlulbayt (a.s).

Further, although I am not a fan of him (because he somehow has 1000s more narrations in a span of 3-4 years compared to Ali's (a.s) 25 or so years), Abu Hurairah mentions:
The Prophet said, “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd”.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 587

Anas also mentions something to the same effect.

So again, how do we reconcile these contradictions; if Ali (a.s) says go right and Muawiyah says go left (or any sahabis who say opposite things), which Sahabi do we take our religion from? I would appreciate if the matter of war is not downplayed to mere playful fighting; thousands of muslims slaughtered.
Bottom line, Sahabis disagreed on the Sunnah of the Prophet (hence the battles to the death). To acquire this Sunnah in its purity, we need to make distinctions on who is worthy of respect and who is not.

Thank you for reading. If this is not the type of back and forth you were looking for, that's ok, can make that clear to me, no offence taken =).

Ok so we did agree to have a discussion where we try and understand each other, but clearly just looking at this thread we can see it has not gone in that direction. I can't help but wonder if this is what you desired from the beginning. For myself, I just wished to have a discussion where we seek to come to an understanding on why we believe in what we believe. It seems you prefer to have a debate - i noticed that I asked you some questions to move the discussion on as I wanted to have a back and forth on different topics (there was a broader wisdom behind this too), but you did not answer and I guess you prefer debating, arguing and defending your belief of hating the Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum that, no offence, I find repulsive. (And I am putting that as diplomatically as I can to you.)

So I will insha'Allah address some of these points you raised but I hope we can bring the conversation back onto the level of understanding and not entering into tiresome and frankly boring polemics. Also, I am certainly not as capable or knowledgeable as some of the brothers who have responded to you such as so I hope you will excuse me for that.

You said:

Thank you for the thorough response. It appears you have been asked this question on multiple occasions. Though I must say I sense a hint of unjustified bias, given the following:

We recognise that what Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu did was wrong, in fact many would go as far as saying it was sinful for him to do that.

Later you comment:

He ignored his fathers command (a major sin in and of itself)

It seems in the former comment there is an underlying reluctance to state Muawiyah committed a grave sin, whereas in the latter comment it is easy for you.

So we are comparing a Sahabi Radiyallahu Anhu fighting against the ruler so that he get's justice for his relatives death as believes the ruler is not appropriately investigating/implementing the Sharia to...

A man who was ordered by his father (the same Sahabi above by the way), to be mindful of and show respect to the grandson of the Prophet Alayhis Salam, and instead he goes and murders him.

And I am supposed to find the two comparable? And this is only one crime of Yazid. I mentioned a list that included that he was alcoholic and that it is an uncontested historical fact that he besieged Madinah, his soldiers pillaging and even - to be explicit - raping the women (of the Salaf)! This is comparable is it??

I understand it is difficult for you to see this but the two are not in anyway equal - one is even defendable to some extent that what he was doing was noble (in as much as he cared for Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu) even if it was mistaken and wrong. To this I said that yes many would go as far as saying this is a sin even. But to compare that Yazid's act of killing Imam Hussein Alayhis Salam (and also many others too)?? I mean how are these even comparable?

One has a somewhat noble, but yes very mistaken, reason to fight the Imam and not with the intention of assassinating him but as protest to get him to act, the other just murdered the Prophet Alayhis Salam's grandson (a heinous crime in and of itself) whilst in the same act commiting the major sin of disobeying one's own father's lawful command (and unlike Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu fighting the Imam, he nothing near a legitimate reason!) And this same person, who it almost seems as if you defending, is an alcoholic whose Islam many question to begin - and you are comparing him to a Sahabi Radiyallahu Anhu who RasulAllah Alayhis Salam even prayed for!

If you still can't see the difference in what I've raised then I think we will have to agree to disagree here, clearly we fundamental differences in how we judge things.

Next, you said:

For example, you mention the verse of ridhwan. Clearly, our tafsir differs given that, to my understanding, the verse is clear that it does not include every single person under the tree, and there are exceptions such as this you did not mention:

“O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah’s wrath and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be.”(Surah Anfāl 8:15-16)
There are accounts of certain Sahaba fleeing from battle meaning they are damned to hell, so again, how do you reconcile to seemingly contradictory things? But I suppose you have your own tafsir from the Sahaba and I have my own from the Ahlulbayt (a.s).

So you would have to bring accounts proving those exact Sahabah gave the pledge and that they then fled the battlefield, from our collections that are authentic according to our Ulama. I will even help you and waive the Usuli requirement for those reports to be Mutawatir (as this is an issue of Aqeedah and you are trying to make Takhsis of Allah's statement from a Qat'i Ayah), I will allow those Ahadith to be Sahih Khabar Ahad.

Here, I will help you even.

One of those Sahabi was Imam al-Muslimeen Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu. (RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam took the pledge on his behalf saying his Alayhim Salam's noble hand was the hand of Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu.) And he Radiyallahu Anhu fled on the day of Uhud.

However he and others who fled that day, were forgiven.

Lo! those of you who turned back on the day when the two hosts met, Satan alone it was who caused them to backslide, because of some of that which they have earned. Now Allah hath forgiven them. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Clement.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah Ali' Imran, Ayah 155)

As for us following only the Tafsir of the Sahabah, very few Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum had Tafaseer. Those that did though I would certainly not hope you are saying you disagree with - the likes of Ibn Abbas Radiyallahu Anhu - who was from the Ahlul Bayt Alayhim Salam.

And we do also give weight to later Ulama and of course the authentic sayings of the Ahlul Bayt Alayhim Salam too.

Next, you said:

Further, although I am not a fan of him (because he somehow has 1000s more narrations in a span of 3-4 years compared to Ali's (a.s) 25 or so years), Abu Hurairah mentions:
The Prophet said, “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd”.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 587

Anas also mentions something to the same effect.

So here I will educate you regarding the view of the Sunnis on what happened in Early Islamic History, as I am not sure if you also hold the same views or not.

According to the Sunni view, after the Prophet Alayhis Salam's death many tribes of the Arabs apostasised and refused to pay the Zakat. Khalifat ar-RasulAllah Abu Bakr as-Siddique Radiyallahu Anhu was the one who waged war on them and his doing so is even prophesised in the Qur'an.

This is what this Hadith is referring to.

After this you said:

So again, how do we reconcile these contradictions; if Ali (a.s) says go right and Muawiyah says go left (or any sahabis who say opposite things), which Sahabi do we take our religion from? I would appreciate if the matter of war is not downplayed to mere playful fighting; thousands of muslims slaughtered.
Bottom line, Sahabis disagreed on the Sunnah of the Prophet (hence the battles to the death). To acquire this Sunnah in its purity, we need to make distinctions on who is worthy of respect and who is not.

Well in the Hanafi Madhhab we prefer the Fiqhi statements of certain Sahabah over others so we would go with what Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhahu said anyway...

But being serious, if the Sahabah had valid differences of opinion we would recognise that and they certainly did and we certainly do recognise those - in fact it is part of the reason for the prevalance of multiple Madhhib. And in other areas some of them did on occasion make mistakes and errors, and in that case we would refer it back to Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala and the Prophet Alayhis Salatu Was-Salam - I already quoted to you an incident pertaining to Amir Mu'awiyah Radiyallahu Anhu demonstrating that.

Finally you said:

Thank you for reading. If this is not the type of back and forth you were looking for, that's ok, can make that clear to me, no offence taken =).

No I will admit I don't like this back and forth because it is not the type of 'discussion' I had in mind. This is not a dicussion at all, you are trying to have a polemical debate. You asked me a question and I answered from our tradition then I posed some questions to you. Why did you then start this whole charade instead of responding to them? You still have the chance to go back to that post here and answer those questions (which were moving the discussion on to more fruitful territory insha'Allah where we could actually get some mutual understanding).

I will not respond to the other polemics you started with the brothers below as I am sure they have adequately responded to those, except to inform you that unlike the Jamhoor of the Sunnis I do not actually believe that the Prophet Alayhis Salam did not appoint a successor to lead the Muslims, that he just left it up to the Ummah. I agree with the minority of the Sunnis who hold the alternate position, that he did indeed appoint a successor.

And that successor was Imam Abu Bakr as-Siddique Radiyallahu Anhu.

[Abu Sulayman]

Here is your answer directly from Ali (a.s) himself, enjoy the read:
...

As Muslims we care very much about authenicity of the religious texts and when it comes to greater issues of belief, then we need to be CERTAIN and SURE that the text in question is established from the revelation.

The above quote is simply what you Imamis claim to be authentic, but does this claim stand after a proper investigation? Not really.

This is why I seriously admire the Ash'ari scholars of the past, because they cared more than any other group on establishing their creed in the greater issues of the religion upon the texts, where we are sure regarding its authenticity AND meaning.

Thanks for your replies. I also read your previous point. It seems we have reached an impasse given your emotionally charged emotions unfortunately.
I will re-iterate, you and your colleagues said the likes of Muawiyah is respected simply because he is a companion.
I referenced a quote from Sahih books (by your standard) that the Prophet (pbuhf) said some of his companions will be put in the hellfire.
Therefore, regardless whether Muawiyah is one of those or not, it remains proven that some of his companions are bound for hellfire, and that merely being a companion is NOT an acceptable argument for respecting a personality.

Still, nobody addressed that Muawiyah went the distance to issue state-wide Laa'na on Ali (a.s). As I mentioned before, I did not even bring up the 2 khalifas, you did lol. I was interested in how Muawiyah can be respected.

Well, and what is the meaning or interpretation of these narrations? I mean I'm sure you know that your interpretation is not accepted by us and that there are better ways to understand these narrations (a hint: it can refer to those whom the Muslims faught against in the Ridda wars and it can also refer to the hypocrites, but it surely does NOT refer to 99,99 % of the Muhajirun and Ansar!) in our view, especially when the Ayat of the Qur`an al-karim establish the IMAN of those, whom you and your scholars accuse of apostasy / disbelief / deviation / etc.

And due to the Ayat establishing this and due to the Qur`an al-karim in general NOT being in favour of your whole understanding, some (or many?) of your leading authorities of the past chose to regard the Qur`an al-karim as DISTORTED.
It's somehow ironic that these people were trying to find reasons to declare 99,99 % of the Mujajirun and Ansar as apostates or at least "disbelievers in the hereafter", but ended up falling into OPEN apostasy. Your scholars today still refer to these heretics and apostates as leading authorities, which by the way puts their very own faith into question!
I guess this is a just punishment for saying so many untrue things and trying to cause hatred and enmity among the Muslims.

As for you coming up again with issues that have already been addressed and claiming that it was not addressed, then I won't repeat myself.

As for the rest of your comment (which I haven't quoted), then I won't answer your points (as if the only version of history that exists is that of you Imamis and this while you're FAMOUS for not caring whether something is really established to be authentic or not and then want to use it as an argument in greater creedal issues!), because you're ignoring my points one after the other:

- Fallible leadership for more than 1000 years is necessitated by the understanding of both sides, so how do you suggest Muslims to elect their leaders in these more than 1000 years?!
- If this issue of "infallible political leadership" has no practical effect on our lives, why should it be used to cause hatred and disunity?
- The lie of the broken rip - which nowadays unfortunately many of your Mashayikh teach as a fact - is a BIG INSULT against Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu)!
- The reason why the majority of the Muslims throughout all of Islamic history do NOT agree with your view on Imama, is because Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) did not fight for it. So your understanding necessitates Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) to be a cause for the majority of Muslims to be "disbelievers in the hereafter", with the knowledge that he is far away from not drawing the swords WHEN the issue is about defending and preserving Islam.
- Your understanding even leads to attacking our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), because the absolute majority of Muslims have not understood that which your scholars regard important to such a degree that it turns them into "disbelievers in the hereafter"!
- It also leads to attacking the Qur`an al-karim - which is revealed by Allah jalla jalaluhu! - and its authenicity, because it does not establish that which you claim in a clear manner and for this reason we find some of your leading authorities claiming it to be DISTORTED and thereby falling into real apostasy! We ask Allah ta'ala for well-being and protection.



I seriously don't understand why you can't take a more moderate view like the Zaydiyya for example. They believe that Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) was the most suitable for ruling, but at the same time they don't deny that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and 'Umar al-Faruq (radhiallahu 'anhuma) were good and legitimate rulers and they don't go around cursing people left and right and only have a negative view about few companions.
Their view at least does not lead to clear contradictions within the revelation and also does not lead to causing hatred and enmity and so on.


At the end of the day it was always the people of the Sunna (who are "disbelievers in the hereafter"), who brought the greatest victories for Islam and Muslims (think about Qadisiyya, Hittin, Manizkert, 'Ayn Jalut, etc.) throughout Islamic history, while the Rafidha and their Wahhabi brothers [in hatred] have first and foremost brought hatred, enmity and civil war. My country is the greatest proof for this.

I personally have much more respect for Zaydis and Ibadhis than for you Imamis and the so called "Salafis", because both of you are hellbent on creating problems between Muslims!

[ilikepie]

As I said previously, I did not start the nonsense about the two khalifas. I know Sunnis love them more than anything.
I merely responded to what your colleague spoke. And I made that clear before responding too. Therefore I don't appreciate your accusation that I started those discussions.

Anyway thanks for taking my lead and continuing on the original topic: respect of companions such as Muawiyah.
It is interesting that you do not see the double standards you have mentioned, such as the atrocity of Yazid attacking Husain (a.s) on the basis that Husain (a.s) refused to pledge allegiance, yet no issue with Yazid's father attacking Husain's father (a.s) the ("rightly guided caliph"), and instead you make the excuse that Muawiyah formed an army of 10s of 1000s to encourage Ali to simply find the killers of uthman.
Strange Ali reprimanded him and Muawiyah ignored.
Strange Muawiyah instituted state-wide laa'na which nobody has addressed yet.
Strange when Uthman was begging Muawiyah for help during the siege, Muawiyah didn't send his army of 1000s.

However he and others who fled that day, were forgiven.

Lo! those of you who turned back on the day when the two hosts met, Satan alone it was who caused them to backslide, because of some of that which they have earned. Now Allah hath forgiven them. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Clement.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah Ali' Imran, Ayah 155)
As for us following only the Tafsir of the Sahabah, very few Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum had Tafaseer. Those that did though I would certainly not hope you are saying you disagree with - the likes of Ibn Abbas Radiyallahu Anhu - who was from the Ahlul Bayt Alayhim Salam.

And we do also give weight to later Ulama and of course the authentic sayings of the Ahlul Bayt Alayhim Salam too.

On what basis do you claim that this was forgiveness for specifically running from battle. But hey, if that's your tafsir, that's yours. I don't believe you have good proof to back that claim.
As far as I know, with my very limited knowledge, Satan's deception and the crime committed here was that the companions hastened towards war booty during the middle of the battle; that's what was forgiven, not the companions who ran.
But who knows, perhaps your tafsir is that Allah forgave those who are sincerely repentant. I am willing to entertain this possibility. This therefore does not excuse repeat instances where a companion ran from battle, like certain companions in Hunain.
Lastly, this is a specific principle, not a general principle like Suraf Anfal 15-16. A specific principle in the Quran cannot override the general principle. Like wudu, you must use water, if you don't have access to water then tayammum is permissible. This does not make tayammum acceptable when one has access to water because the general principle overrides the specific principle, not the other way around.


Even if in some hypothetical world what you are saying is true. Fact is Ali ibn Abi Talib never ran, was at the forefront of every battle and always achieved victory, he was the nearest kin, he was with the Prophet (pbuhf) like the baby camel with the mother. How do you compare "companions" who run from battle to him who is the nafs of Rasoollallah? Or do you deny the event of Mubahilah? It is irrational. It's like comparing a medical student to a Professor of Medicine; there is no comparison between the two (and in fact, the difference between Ali (a.s) and the companions is far greater than that based off the Sunnah of the Prophet, or, I ask again, is there another who is nafs of the Prophet?).

[Abu Sulayman]

As I said previously, I did not start the nonsense about the two khalifas. I know Sunnis love them more than anything.

As if we're idiots and don't know that you come up with the other issue in order to use as an "introduction" to your next step, which is putting the Iman of 99 % of the Muhajirun and Ansar - with the Shaykhayn (may Allah ta'ala be pleased with them) included - into question.

[ilikepie]

As if we're idiots and don't know that you come up with the other issue in order to use as an "introduction" to your next step, which is putting the Iman of 99 % of the Muhajirun and Ansar - with the Shaykhayn (may Allah ta'ala be pleased with them) included - into question.

Forgive me if I caused you such distress, I don't believe you nor your colleagues to be feeble-minded good sir. Though I do believe you in particular strong in emotion thus clouding your judgement.
How about we share something more blissful? Won't you share some duas from your greatest leaders and I will share some of mine? Let me know if you are interested

[Abu Sulayman]

Forgive me if I caused you such distress, I don't believe you nor your colleagues to be feeble-minded good sir. Though I do believe you in particular strong in emotion thus clouding your judgement.
How about we share something more blissful? Won't you share some duas from your greatest leaders and I will share some of mine? Let me know if you are interested

It's not about emotions here. It just gets tiring to see the same tactics being used over and over again. I mean it's no secret that your group has a major problem with being sincere when speaking to other Muslims.

Then:
Our greatest leader is our noble Prophet Muhammad al-Mustafa (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)!

For this reason you will see the people of the Sunna mentioning the Chosen One (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) more than anyone else from among the creation and you'll see them having whole books regarding his rights upon us as Muslims and hundreds of poetry in praise of him and so on, because he is the Master of the First and the Last and the Best among the creation, may endless peace and blessings be upon him. And we love his Ahl al-Bayt and his Ansar and Muhajirun due to him and their connection to him and NOT the other way around.


With you Imamis however it's the other way around: You mention the Ahl al-Bayt more than him (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) and give more importance to them than to him, but then end up ascribing to them that which they're free and innocent of.

Likewise your "Salafi" brothers [in hatred and disunity]:
They mention the Salaf al-salih more than our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa wa sallam) and give more importance to them than to him, but end up ascribing to them that which they're free and innocent of.



And: We love both the Ahl al-Bayt and the Sahaba, because they were supporters of Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and we do not act as if only one group is respected without the other!
The revelation and the historical data establishes beyond any doubt that both of them gave their wealth and their lives in order to support the religion of Allah ta'ala and it's beyond me how you expect us to believe that in all these battles and in all these Futuhat the companions were just sitting by and letting Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) fight alone and this with the knowledge that hundreds - no thousands! - of them got martyred during these battles!


Allah ta'ala states:

{ وَٱلَّذِينَ جَآءُو مِنۢ بَعْدِهِمْ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا ٱغْفِرْ لَنَا وَلِإِخْوَٰنِنَا ٱلَّذِينَ سَبَقُونَا بِٱلْإِيمَـٰنِ وَلَا تَجْعَلْ فِى قُلُوبِنَا غِلًّا لِّلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ رَبَّنَآ إِنَّكَ رَءُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ }

{ And [there is a share for] those who come after them, saying, "Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed You are Kind and Merciful." }

[Al-Qur`an al-karim 59:10 with English interpretation]

[Abu Sulayman]

And: We love both the Ahl al-Bayt and the Sahaba, because they were supporters of Rasulullah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) and we do not act as if only one group is respected without the other!
The revelation and the historical data establishes beyond any doubt that both of them gave their wealth and their lives in order to support the religion of Allah ta'ala and it's beyond me how you expect us to believe that in all these battles and in all these Futuhat the companions were just sitting by and letting Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) fight alone and this with the knowledge that hundreds - no thousands! - of them got martyred during these battles!

An example:

This tribe apostated in great numbers during the time of the Sahabat al-kiram and it was the first greater tribulation that happened after the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - had passed away!
Musaylima and his followers from Banu Hanifa were defeated in the Battle of Yamama (which took place in Najd!) and the call of the Muslims on that day was "Ya Muhammadah!"!
A great number of these disbelievers - including the Dajjal Musaylima - were killed in this battle, but more than thousand from among the Muslims got martyred in it and from among them were the likes of Zayd bin al-Khattab, al-Tufayl bin 'Amr, Abu Dujana, Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfa, Abu Hudhafya himself, 'Abdullah bin Suhayl and other than them. The mentioned companions were all from among those who had accepted Islam early on and most of them had participated in all major battles, may Allah ta'ala be pleased with all of them.

And this is just ONE example out of many!

Imagine all these people being ready to give up their lives for the religion of Allah ta'ala and then some mindless people appear and want you to doubt their faith in Allah ta'ala and His Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)!

[Abu Sulayman]

As I said previously, I did not start the nonsense about the two khalifas. I know Sunnis love them more than anything.
I merely responded to what your colleague spoke. And I made that clear before responding too. Therefore I don't appreciate your accusation that I started those discussions.

O really?

Well here is my first reply in this thread:

I also believe this, but there is of course an exception and that is regarding those who deny what is necessarily known to be from the religion or curse the religion or what is similar to that.
So anyone who believes in Tahrif al-Qur`an for example is disbeliever and this no matter whether he calls himself a "follower of the Ahl al-Bayt" or "follower of the Sahaba" or what is similar to that.

But your above position (which as already stated I also agree with, but with the stated exception) doesn't really seem to be a classical Imami position, because Kamal al-Haydari (who is an Imami scholar, right?) has mentioned that there exist only two positions among the Imami scholars of the past:
1) That non-Imami Muslims (which includes even the Zaydiyya) are to be regarded as Muslims only in this world, while in the hereafter they are disbelievers deserving everlasting punishment.
2)That they are disbelievers in this and the next world and therefore deserving everlasting punishment.

Now Kamal al-Haydari did not ascribe to any of these two views, so it seems that your above view is more a modern view among some Imamis and not something your scholars of the past were upon.

You can obviously correct me if I'm wrong and if the information given by Kamal al-Haydari is not accurate.

Now instead of properpy answering my above post (I was specifically asking about the position of your scholars of the past!) you changed the subject and ended your comment with the following statement:

Allah tells us in the Quran on countless occasions, do you not reflect on those who came before you? The story of Lot (a.s) and his wife, Noah (a.s) and his wife, Aad, Thamud, Abu Lahab, sahaba of the Prophet (pbuhf), etc. etc. So do not tell me that we cannot and should not examine the lives of those who supposedly upheld the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuhf).

(Highlight added be me.)

So here you were obviously trying to attack the Sahabat al-kiram and compare them to disbelievers! So who came up with this nonsense as you yourself say?!
I wasn't even asking about any of this, yet you felt the need to make such a venomous statement out of nowhere and then it's you who is complaining!?

[ilikepie]

O really?

Well here is my first reply in this thread:



Now instead of properpy answering my above post (I was specifically asking about the position of your scholars of the past!) you changed the subject and ended your comment with the following statement:



(Highlight added be me.)

So here you were obviously trying to attack the Sahabat al-kiram and compare them to disbelievers! So who came up with this nonsense as you yourself say?!
I wasn't even asking about any of this, yet you felt the need to make such a venomous statement out of nowhere and then it's you who is complaining!?

Thanks for proving my point. You demonstrated for us that I spoke generally about companions, and that you made it specifically about certain individuals.
As I have said countless times now, SOME sahaba are not worthy of respect, and the only name I had mentioned until you escalated things was Muawiyah and only him.
Other sahaba are very worthy of love and respect like Ammar, Abu-Tharr (who was exiled with his family into the middle of the desert by a certain someone), Miqdad, Salman, Habib al asadi, and more.
So stop trying to rally yourself and others that I am hating on ALL companions. That's just sad bro.
It's strange how Sunnis often say "we have no clue what is going on in the companions hearts so better to give them benefit of the doubt no matter what", yet when it comes to Shia "evil heart, ill intentions, awful human" etc.
Gotta love the continuous double standards.

[ilikepie]

And we love his Ahl al-Bayt and his Ansar and Muhajirun due to him and their connection to him and NOT the other way around.

Abu Sulayman Excellent quote

I love it because you just demonstrated for the world one of the main reasons that some Sunnis can be extraordinarily biased and subjective.

Here, you have openly admitted that you love people because of association, not by the order of Allah and His Prophet.
You do not value the merits of individuals, you value the relationship to people who you happen to care about and love.
Let me illustrate further what you embarrassingly failed to recognize:
- I quoted above a verse in the Quran which orders us to love the Prophet's near-kin, whereas you claimed you love ahlulbayt due to association with the Prophet AND put them on the same level of Ansar/muhajiroon.
- If there is an evil person associated to the Prophet, you automatically love them despite that they're enemies of Allah. In other words, if Prophets Lut or Nuh happened to be the last Prophet, you would probably love their wives simply because of their associations with the Final Prophet.
- If you were running a company, you would not hire individuals based on their credentials, accolades, accomplishments. No, you would hire based on who his friends is, or who his dad happens to be.
- If you were a President, you would surround yourselves with friends who may or may not be competent, rather than qualified individuals.
- Saving the best for last, you remain adamant to ignore the fact that Ali (a.s) is the NAFS of the Prophet, something you have not yet addressed despite me repeatedly drawing attention to this fact accepted by Shia and Sunnis alike.

Touché

[ilikepie]

Further info why we love Ahlulbayt based on the orders of Allah and His Prophet, and NOT BASED ON OUR OWN WHIMS or whatever other nonsense:

Day of Ghadir Khumm
"O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people ...”(Qur’an 5:67).
The Messenger of Allah declared: "It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. I am leaving for you two precious things and if you adhere both of them, you will never go astray after me. They are the Book of Allah and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The two shall never separate from each other until they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise)."

Then the Messenger of Allah continued: "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?”People cried and answered: "Yes, O’ Messenger of God.”Then Prophet (S) held up the hand of ‘Ali and said: "Whoever I am his leader (Mawla), ‘Ali is his leader (Mawla). O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him."
I wonder who was hostile to him? Siffin? Jamal?
Some of the Sunni references:
(1) Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63
(2) Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43
(3) Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 4,21
(4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371
(5) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,118,119,152,330, v4, pp 281,368,370, 372,378, v5, pp 35,347,358,361,366,419 (from 40 chains of narrators)
(6) Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, pp 563,572
(7) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p103 (from several transmitters)
(8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50
(9) Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthur, by al-Hafiz Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v3, p19
(10) Tarikh al-Khulafa, by al-Suyuti, pp 169,173


Immediately after the Prophet (S) finished his speech, the following verse of Holy Qur’an was revealed:
"Today I have perfected your religion and completed my bounty upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion.”(Qur’an 5:3)


This is why we love Ahlulbayt and hate their enemies, the same way we love the Prophet and hate his enemies, the same way we love Allah and hate His enemies.
While there were several GREAT companions who were faithful, loyal, brave, they do NOT compare to Ahlulbayt (a.s) based on the evidence provided above (NOT BASED ON ASSOCIATION)

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

Let's consider the alternative scenarios -

1 Imam Ali both deserved and desired leadership..

2 Imam Ali deserved but didn't desire leadership..

3 Imam Ali didn't deserve but desired leadership..

4 Imam Ali neither deserved nor desired leadership.


Shia would not vouch for 3&4 because they believe Imam Ali deserved it.

So we are left with 1&2 :

In case 2 ie Imam Ali didn't desire leadership then why are Shia so adamant at that which the Imam didn't desire?

And if the first option is the Shia position that is That Imam Ali did desire leadership...
then the question is why did that desire not materialize into action?
Why did Imam Ali not act on it?

*Note desire here means interest not whims.


I don't get the Shia view..
Are they ok with imam Ali not fighting Abu Bakr ?
Or do they feel imam Ali should have fought Abu Bakr?


Of course, from Sunni perspective the fight is inconceivable.


If Allah did appoint a leader (imam / khalifa) for the Muslim community , and it was clear to everyone (sahabah) that we have been assigned an Imam that we have to listen and obey (this is where infallibility comes in for Shia understandably) , then in that case what is the excuse of those who don't agree wholeheartedly to the decision if Allah?
Except that they have denied the decision of Allah and took the matter in their own hands.
Are they considered Muslims anymore?
Or are they renegades ?
What should be the outcome of such an act of open betrayal?
Death?

Why not?

I have listened to Shia preachers saying karbala goes back to thaqifa..

Then why did Imam Ali not make an example out of those at thaqifa to warn detractors?

what was he afraid of when he had the authority from Allah?

Allah tells the prophet proclaim imamah of Ali and do not fear anyone!

Then why didn't prophet say fight for your imamah Ali and don't fear anyone?


Why did not Imam Ali fight?
You brought a section from nahj ul balagha.
A book with out asaanid.


If I imagine Ali taking out the sword marching forth to confront the hypocrites and apostates I see hundreds joining him and a victory for Islam..
What stopped Ali from doing that except he considered the people at thaqifa as brother Muslim ?
Except that he didn't wish further harm upon the ridda wars?

You say imam Ali is so great look at his fadail
That sahabah at times faltered
..
but what about those instances where sahabaà triumphed ?
What about Ali not fighting for 25 years?

Note Sunni don't consider sahabaà infallible so it makes sense ,
But Shia consider imam Ali infallible so how could he let the whole political conspiracy to take place?

How do you expect fallible people to accept an infallible leader ?

The Shia view look like the whole test of mankind is to find their imam.. while the Imaam himself is not ready to fight for his right

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

Let's consider the alternative scenarios -

1 Imam Ali both deserved and desired leadership..

2 Imam Ali deserved but didn't desire leadership..

3 Imam Ali didn't deserve but desired leadership..

4 Imam Ali neither deserved nor desired leadership.


Shia would not vouch for 3&4 because they believe Imam Ali deserved it.

So we are left with 1&2 :

In case 2 ie Imam Ali didn't desire leadership then why are Shia so adamant at that which the Imam didn't desire?

And if the first option is the Shia position that is That Imam Ali did desire leadership...
then the question is why did that desire not materialize into action?
Why did Imam Ali not act on it?

*Note desire here means interest not whims.


I don't get the Shia view..
Are they ok with imam Ali not fighting Abu Bakr ?
Or do they feel imam Ali should have fought Abu Bakr?


Of course, from Sunni perspective the fight is inconceivable.


If Allah did appoint a leader (imam / khalifa) for the Muslim community , and it was clear to everyone (sahabah) that we have been assigned an Imam that we have to listen and obey (this is where infallibility comes in for Shia understandably) , then in that case what is the excuse of those who don't agree wholeheartedly to the decision if Allah?
Except that they have denied the decision of Allah and took the matter in their own hands.
Are they considered Muslims anymore?
Or are they renegades ?
What should be the outcome of such an act of open betrayal?
Death?

Why not?

I have listened to Shia preachers saying karbala goes back to thaqifa..

Then why did Imam Ali not make an example out of those at thaqifa to warn detractors?

what was he afraid of when he had the authority from Allah?

Allah tells the prophet proclaim imamah of Ali and do not fear anyone!

Then why didn't prophet say fight for your imamah Ali and don't fear anyone?


Why did not Imam Ali fight?
You brought a section from nahj ul balagha.
A book with out asaanid.


If I imagine Ali taking out the sword marching forth to confront the hypocrites and apostates I see hundreds joining him and a victory for Islam..
What stopped Ali from doing that except he considered the people at thaqifa as brother Muslim ?
Except that he didn't wish further harm upon the ridda wars?

You say imam Ali is so great look at his fadail
That sahabah at times faltered
..
but what about those instances where sahabaà triumphed ?
What about Ali not fighting for 25 years?

Note Sunni don't consider sahabaà infallible so it makes sense ,
But Shia consider imam Ali infallible so how could he let the whole political conspiracy to take place?

How do you expect fallible people to accept an infallible leader ?

The Shia view look like the whole test of mankind is to find their imam.. while the Imaam himself is not ready to fight for his right

*Should not it be that the infallible leader should take the fallible people to task?