A Sunni brother mentioned that:
It is
quite difficult for us to digest the so-called "conspiracy
theory." Despite many years of companionship, how could only few
people
out of all his companions hold on to Muhammad's instructions on
the
issue of Caliphate and the rest disobey him?
I would certainly accept the argument of this
brother if he can convince me
why almost all the companions of Moses became
worshipers of a golden calf
after so many years of training?! According to
Sahih al-Bukhari, the
Messeenger of Allah has told Ali that the story of
Moses and Aaron (Haroon)
is similar to that of the story of him and Ali. The
tradition is as
follows:
"Your position to me is like the position of Aaron to Moses, except
that
there shall be no Prophet after me"
Sunni References:
(1) Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version,
Traditions 5.56 and 5.700
(2) Sahih Muslim, Arabic, section of virtues of
Ali, v4, pp 1870-71
(3) Sunan Ibn Majah, p12
(4) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p174
(5) al-Khas'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 15-16
(6) Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, p309
Now, the position of Aaron (Haroon) to Moses is
given by the verses of
Quran, among which are the following three:
(Moses
said: "O' Allah) assign me a vizier from my family, (that is)
my
brother Aaron (Haroon) ...," (Allah) said: "We granted your
requests, O' Moses." (Quran 20:29-36).
Allah, Exalted, also said:
"Surely We gave the book to Moses and assigned his brother Aaron as
his
vizier." (Quran 25:35).
He, Exalted He is, also said:
"... And Moses said unto his brother Aaron: Take my place in my
comunity." (Quran 7:142). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: . . .
| .| | .| | | | :
_o
q_o _9 _,_9_|_7|
. q |_8
4_,_7|_| _w q_o | |_o q
(_S /
(_S (_S (_) / / :
(_S / (_|
/
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Notice that "Ukhlufni" and
"Khalifa" (Caliph) are exactly from the same
root. Now, to realized what was narrated in Sahih
al-Bukhari, we need to
replace the word "Moses" with
"Muhammad" and "Aaron" with "Ali", and we are
all set!! The sentence becomes "And Muhammad
(PBUH&HF) said to his
'brother' Ali, take my place among my
community." Of course, the tradition
in Sahih al-Bukhari excluded the Prophethood for
Imam Ali, and what remains
for him is the leadership of the community.
Putting the above 3 verses of Quran beside what has
been narrated by al-
Bukhari and Muslim, Ibn Majah and many others, we
solves the mystery! Ali
is the "brother" and his
deputy/successor. By the above authentic
tradition, the Prophet (PBUH&HF) meant that as
Moses had left behind Aaron
to look after his people when he went to Miqaat
(meeting Allah), in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
same way he was leaving Ali behind to look after
the affairs of Islam after
he met Allah (i.e., his death).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Confirming what the above tradition implies, we
find in the many reports
that Imam Ali (AS) received the title of the
"brother" of Prophet when
Prophet established the "brothering"
among his followers (see Sahih al-
Tirmidhi, v5, p363; Sirah Ibn Hisham, p504; Tahdhib
al-Tahdhib, v4, p251).
Interestingly enough, the Prophet in that occasion
made Abu Bakr and Umar
brother of each other (al-Tabaqat, by Ibn Sa'd, v3,
part 1, p123). If Abu
Bakr was really the closest to the Prophet, he
would have chose him for
himself instead of Imam Ali.
In fact, if we look deeper to the situation of
after death of Prophet
Mohammad (PBUH), and the leaving of Moses to MIQAAT
(appointment with
Allah), we will see more analogy to what Prophet
(PBUH) said to Ali (AS).
Quran states that: Moses (AS) with the order of
Allah, assigned Haroon (AS)
as his successor (Caliph) and left his people to
him, and left for MIQAAT
(appointment with Allah) for a total of forty days.
After leaving of Moses,
most of his companions turned against Haroon, and
were deceived by Sameri,
and became worshipers of a golden calf. (See Quran
7:142, 20:90-97, 20:83-
88).
The analogy that Prophet (PBUH) mentioned in the
above tradition, seems to
be a reality after his demise. Most of companions
(except Abu Dhar, Miqdad,
Salman al-Farsi, Ammar, and ...) became disloyal to
Ali (AS) after the
death of Prophet (PBUH), turned against him, and
preferred some other
people to him. The majority of people disobeyed Ali
(AS), as their
forefathers disobeyed Haroon (AS). They did not take lessons from Quran
and the history, and thus the history repeated over
and over again. The
repetition of the history of the Children of Israel
for Muslims is
confirmed by Prophet (PBUH&HF):
Sahih
al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.422
Narrated
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri:
The
Prophet said, "You will follow the ways of those nations who were
before
you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so
much so
that even if they entered a hole of a mastigure (lizard), you
would
follow them." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! (Do you mean) the
Jews and
the Christians?" He said, "Whom else?"
This tradition is also narrated by Muslim in his
Sahih , v8, p57. It is
also narrated in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp
84, 94.
Think for a while... Why would the Prophet
(PBUH&HF) compare his companions
to the Jews and the Christians, knowing full well
that the Jews and the
Christians have mutilated and perverted the
religion of Allah (SWT)?
Because Allah (SWT) had told him (PBUH&HF) that
your companions will turn
back, except the select few.
Imam Ali (AS) was still a divinely-appointed Imam
during the time of the
first three rulers, and what these rulers could
take from him was the
rulership (which is one of the rights of Imam) and
not the position of
Imamat. As for Imam Ali pledging Abu Bakr, Umar and
Uthman, he was
compelled to that since he had no choice and he was
compled to do so. We,
however, never accuse the Imams of being cowards.
What Imam Ali did was his
duty which is similar to what Haroon did as his
duty.
Quran states that when Moses (PBUH) came back from
MIQAAT he was very angry
since Allah had informed him that his community
went astray during his
absence. Moses came and started questioning his
brother Haroon, that why he
did not take action to prevent this corruption.
Quran states that Haroon
(Aaron) replied:
"(O' Moses) people did oppress me and they were about to kill
me."
(Quran
7:150).
The above verse gives another striking similarity
between Ali and Haroon.
Since Muslims all believe that Haroon was a true
prophet of God, they do
not allow themselves to call him coward. In fact
Taqiyya (dissimulation) is
mentioned in Quran in several verses. This requires
another article by its
own, to explain the importance of Taqiyya according
to Quran and the
numerous traditions of Prophet (PBUH&HF)
reported in the authentic Sunni
collections.
Nevertheless Ali did his duty after the death of
the Messenger of Allah, as
Haroon (Aaron) did:
"Before this, Aaron had already said to them: 'O my people! you are
being tested in this, for verily your Lord
is (Allah) Most Gracious;
so
follow me and obey my order.'" (Quran 20:90).
Sahih al-Bukhari confirms that Imam Ali refused to
give his allegiance to
Abu Bakr for six months. He gave his allegiance to Abu Bakr only after
the
martyrdom of his wife Fatimah al-Zahra, Daughter of
the Holy Prophet, six
month after the departure of Prophet. (see Sahih
al-Bukhari, Arabic-English
version, Tradition 5.546).
After the death of Prophet (PBUH&HF), for forty
days, Ali (AS) was
contacting the well-known people at night,
reminding them the instructions
of prophet about his right to Caliphate, asking
them to join him to get the
power. But non responded except Abu Dhar, Miqdad,
and Salman al-Farsi and
some more. The Prophet had already instructed Ali
that if the number of his
followers at that upheaval exceeds 40 men, he
should take the action
otherwise he should keep silent since the only
remaining pious people would
be killed without being able to help Islam. Ali
(AS) was not afraid of
being killed, and he kept silent only to keep the
faded lawn of Islam
alive. After he was sure that there would no
success in his revolting, he
kept silent. During his silence, he indeed started
cooperating with the
first 2 Caliphs as consultant and did his best to
decrease the damage as
much as possible. If he had not done so, Islam
would have been destroyed
completely. Imam Ali said: "I tolerated those
periods as if there was a
thorn in my eye and a sharp bone stuck in my
throat." (Nahjul Balagha,
the sayings of Imam Ali).
Islam was very young at that time (only 23 years
old!) and division among
Muslims could have totally removed Islam from the
surface of the earth. So
he kept silent, as Haroon (Aaron) kept silent to prevent
division:
(Moses)
said: "O' Aaron! what kept you back when you saw them going
wrong?"... (Aaron said:) "...Truly I feared you would say 'You
caused
a
division among the Children of Israel and you did not respect my
word!'" (Quran 20:92-94).
Abu Sufyan was one of those who wanted to destroy
the young Islam by
encouraging Ali to revolt when he was sure that Ali
will have no success
due to small number of his followers. But the
revolt of Ali would at least
cause the civil war and the destruction of Islam.
al-Tabari reported:
When
people gathered to give their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Abu
Sufyan
came while saying, "By God, I see a cloud of smoke which
nothing
but blood will clear. O family of Abd Manaf! Who is Abu Bakr
that he
should be the master of your affairs? Where are Ali and al-
Abbas,
the two oppressed ones?" He then said (to Ali): "O Abul Hasan!
stretch
your hand so that I give you the oath of allegiance."... Ali
rebuked
him, saying: "By God, you do not intend anything but (to stir
up)
Fitnah (dissension). For long you have desired evil for Islam. We
do not
need your advice."
Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English
version, v9, p199
As we quoted the tradition of al-Bukhari earlier,
the Prophet confirmed
that
the history of the Children of Israel will be
repeated for Muslims. In
fact Quran has mentioned the stories of the
Children of Israel to give us a
way to understand the true history of Islam itself.
There are many other
striking similarities in this regard written in
Quran. Please see the
artcle of "The Twelve Imams (Part II)"
for the Quranic verses in this
regard.
=============
Side Comments
=============
A Sunni brother mentioned that Aaron (Haroon) died
during the liftime of
Moses, and as such, this is not a correct analogy
to confirm the caliphate
of Ali using the tradition of Sahih al-Bukhari in
which the Prophet said:
"Your position to me is like the position of
Aaron (Haroon) to Moses but
there is no prophet AFTER me."
The claim that Aaron died during the life-time of
Prophet Moses (if true)
does not hurt this argument at all, if you very
carefully read the
following paragraphs:
As Moses (AS) had left behind Aaron to look after
his people when he went
to Miqaat (meeting Allah), in the same way the
Prophet (PBUH&HF) was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
leaving Ali behind as his deputy to look after the
affairs of Islam after
he met Allah (i.e., his death).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This assertion becomes more evdient when we look at
the last phrase of the
tradition of al-Bukhari where the Messenger of
Allah mentioned: "but there
is no prophet AFTER me". Think about the word
"AFTER" in the statement of
the Prophet. Don't you think that the Prophet
Muhammad is talking about
AFTER his death? That position (leadership) which
the Prophet entrusted to
Ali was with Ali till his death. No body except the
Prophet Muhammad can
take this position back from him.
Prophet Moses (AS) was away from his people for 40
days and he came back
and met them along with Haroon (AS). Likewise,
Prophet Muhammad is away
from us (living in the heaven), but he will soon
meet us and his companions
as well as Imam Ali on the Day of Judgment. He will
then question them the
same way as Moses questioned his people, specially
those who left his
religion and worshipped the golden calf. Look at
the following tradition
from Sahih al-Bukhari to have some idea about the
would-be conversation
between Prophet Muhammad and some of his
companions:
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.585
Narrated Abu Hazim from Sahl bin Sa'd:
The
Prophet said, "I am your predecessor (forerunner) at the Lake-
Fount,
and whoever will pass by there, he will drink from it and
whoever
will drink from it, he will never be thirsty. There will come
to me
some people whom I will recognize, and they will recognize me,
but a
barrier will be placed between me and them." Abu Hazim added:
Nu'man
bin Abi 'Aiyash, on hearing me, said. "Did you hear this from
Sahl?" I said, "Yes." He said, " I bear witness that
I heard Abu Said
Al-Khudri saying the same, adding that the Prophet said: 'I will say:
They are my companions. Then it will be
said to me, 'You do not know
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
what
they innovated (new things) in the religion after you left'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I will
say, 'Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
after
me." Abu Huraira narrated that the Prophet said, "On the Day of
Resurrection a group of companions will come to me, but will be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
driven
away from the Lake-Fount, and I will say, 'O Lord
(those
are) my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
as to
what they innovated after you left; they turned apostate as
renegades (reverted from the true Islam)."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=========
Another person claimed: Not all of the people of
Moses worshipped the calf
and those who did not killed the ones who did by
the order of God.
Perhaps, this brother has been told another story.
But Quran tells us that
all the followers of Moses (except a few) were
deceived by Sameri. The
companions of Moses did not kill Sameri either. The
were rather about to
kill Aaron (AS) who tried to advise them on that
affliction. If the number
of those who preserved their faith was a lot, Aaron
wouldn't have been in
trouble. Here are some verses of Quran concerning
the event:
7:148 And the community of Moses, after (he had
left them), chose a calf
(for
worship), (made) out of their ornaments, of saffron hue, which
gave a
lowing sound. Saw they not that it spake not unto them nor
guided
them to any way? They chose it, and became wrong doers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
7:150 And when Moses returned unto his people,
angry and grieved, he said:
Evil is
that (course) which ye took after I had left you. Would ye
hasten
on the judgment of your Lord? And he cast down the tablets,
and he
seized his brother by the head, dragging him toward him.
(Aaron)
said: "Son of my mother! Lo! People did oppress me and they
were
about to kill me. Make not the enemies rejoice over my
misfortune nor count thou me amongst the sinful people."
20:90 Before this, Aaron had already said to them:
"O my people! you are
being
tested in this, for verily your Lord is (Allah) Most Gracious;
so
follow me and obey my order."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
20:91 They had said: "We will not abandon this
cult but we will devote
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ourselves
to it until Moses returns to us."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So the last verse disproves the claim that the true
followers killed the
wrong doers before Moses (AS) come back. Yes, after
Prophet Moses came
back, he punished the influential individuals among
those who led people
astray. But he did not kill them:
20:97 (Moses) said (to Sameri): "Go! Your
(punishment) in this life will be
that
you will say 'Touch me not'; and moreover (for a future
penalty) thou hast a promise that will not fail: now look at thy god
of whom
thou hast become a devoted worshipper: we will certainly
(melt)
it in a blazing fire and scatter it broadcast in the sea!"
=========
Another brother mentioned that if Ali wished could
very well incite forcful
rebelion since he is from a very strong tribe Bani
Hashm, and both Abu Bakr
and Umar from a week tribe Adiyy, and Taym. Then
why did he keep silent and
did not use force to restore his right after the
election held in Saqifah?
If Bani Hashim were strong with respect to other
tribes, as the above
brother claims, then Muslims wouldn't have had to
migrate from Mecca to
Medina. Also they wouldn't have been subject to
economical sanctions in
She'b Abi Talib.
The exceptional brevity of Imam Ali (AS) in various
wars and his killing of
the most important warriors of Arabs, is well-known
for even Sunnis. Imam
Ali mentioned that he himself has killed 40,000
infidels by his sword (this
figure includes those who were killed by him in the
civil wars). Killing
the lions of Arabs developed a very intensive and
long-lasting hatred in
the heart of the Arabs from different tribes. For
this very reason, most
Arabs due to their tribal ties, even after
embracing Islam, were not
friendly toward Imam Ali and other members of
Ahlul-Bayt. This hatred gave
its fruit on the issue of Caliphate, and later in
the civil wars at the
time of Imam Ali (AS) as well as the prosecution of
Ahlul-Bayt and their
partisans after his martyrdom which continued with
utmost brutality for a
number of centuries.
The hatred of the house of Umayyah against Bani
Hashim (the clan of Prophet
and Ali) is well-known. The wars of Abu Sufyan and
his son Muawiyah against
Prophet and Ali respectively, also the horrible
massacre of the grandson of
prophet at Karbala by the grandson of Abu Sufyan,
are only some of top
items among the long list of such crimes. You might
also want to refresh
the memory that when Muawiyah took over the power,
he instituted the Sunnah
of cursing Imam Ali. Sunni history books and Sunni
collections of
traditions clearly state that Muawiyah commanded
all the Imams of the
mosques throughout the Muslim world to CURSE Imam
Ali in every Friday
prayer. (Sunni references are available upon
request).
Now, we turn to the events of Saqifah and the
"election" of Abu Bakr:
During the lifetime of the Prophet (PBUH&HF),
the Mosque of Prophet was the
center of all Islamic activities. It was there that
the decision of war and
peace were made, delegations were received, sermons
were delivered and
cases were decided. It is not surprising that when
the news of the demise
of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) spread, the Muslims
assembled in that very Mosque.
On the other hand, Saqifah of Bani Sa'idah was
located three miles OUTSIDE
Medina and was a secret location for the evil
activities of some Arab
tribes. (see Ghiyath al-Lughah, p228).
Why then Sa'd Ibn Ubadah and his fans as well as
Abu Bakr and Umar, left
the Mosque secretly and without informing other
prominent companions and
went three miles outside Medina to discuss the
issue of Caliphate? Why
didn't they discuss the issue as important as this
among the Muslims inside
the mosque? Wasn't that they wanted to usurp the
Caliphate without the
knowledge of people? Why did Abu Bakr and Umar with
Abu Ubaydah slip out
the mosque secretly? Was it because Ali and Bani
Hashim were present in the
mosque and in the house of Prophet, and they did
not want them to know the
plot?
Also, we should keep in mind that it was the custom
of the Arabs that once
a person was declared, even by a small group, to be
the chief of the tribe,
others hesitated to oppose him, and willy nilly
followed suit. Due to their
dislike of Imam Ali (AS) (which I discussed
earlier), they did not respect
his right, nor did they even informed him of this
meeting. They SIMPLY
neglected the last sermon of Prophet in Ghadir Khum
where the Messenger of
God declared him as his successor just two and a
half months months before
the incedent of Saqifah.
=========
A Sunni brother mentioned that: If Imam Ali
disaproved Uthman, then why did
he risk the lives of his beloved sons, al-Hassan
and al-Hussain, trying to
protect the life of his adversary from the blood-thirsty
rioters in Medina?
According to the Shia sources such news are
dubious. We do not have any
strong evidence that Imam Ali sent his sons to
support Uthman's House. In
fact, al-Tabari who is one of the important Sunni
Historians said that Imam
Ali deserted Uthman since Uthman did insisted in
keeping Marwan in his
administration. Here is the related part from the
History of al-Tabari,
when the siege over Uthman was very severe:
People
informed Ali of the news. Then Ali came
to Uthman and
said:
"Surely you have satisfied Marwan (again), but he is satisfied
with you
only if you deviate from your religion and reason, like a
camel
carrying a litter that is led around at will. By God, Marwan is
devoid
of sense in regard to his religion and his soul. I swear by
God, I
think he will bring you in and then not send you out again.
After
this visit, I will not come again to chide you. You have
destroyed your own honor and you have been robbed of your
authority."
When Ali
departed, Uthman's wife told him: "I have heard that Ali said
to you
that he will never return to you, and that you have obeyed
Marwan
(again), who leads you wherever he wishes." Uthman said: "What
shall I
do?" She responded: "You should fear God alone, who has no
partner,
and you should adhere to the practice of your two
predecessors (Abu Bakr and Umar). For if you obey Marwan, he will kill
you.
Marwan enjoys no prestige among the people, and inspires neither
awe nor
love. People have only abandoned you due to Marwan's position
(in your
councils). Send to Ali, then, and trust in his honesty and
uprightness. He is related to you and he is not a man whom people
disobey." So Uthman sent to
Ali, but he refused to come, saying: "I
told him
I would not return."
Sunni reference: History of al-Tabari, English
version, v15, pp 176-179
Even we suppose that Imam Ali protected Uthman in
his last days, the
protection was not because he loved Uthman to be on
power. He did so (if
true) since he knew that this is a conspiracy, and
he knew that those
companions who plotted to kill Uthman, would become
the avenger of his
blood tomorrow, as it happened (e.g., the
companions like Talha, Zubair,
Muawiyah, and ...) and it became a custom of
assassination of Caliphs with
self-judgments including the assassination of Ali
(AS) himself.
=========
Another reader mentioned that, if some companions
conspired against Imam
Ali and usureped his right of Caliphate, is it not
a possibility that they
conspired to alter the Quranic text? The compilers
and transmitters of the
Quran were fallible and sinners.
As for protection of Quran, it is the will of
Allah! Even if all the
people of the world gather to change it they will
fail. Muslims could
recall the history that Allah willed to raise and
preserve Moses in the
house of His Enemy, Pharaoh.
Also there was no reason for Umar or Abu Bakr to
delete something from
Quran, because the name of Imam Ali did not appear
in Quran. (eventhough
his name was in the divine commentary which was
revealed with Quran but was
not a part of text of Quran. It is no surprise that
this divine commentary
was suppressed). Nonetheless, Sunni documents agree
that at least 300
verses of Quran directly revealed on the honor of
Imam Ali. (reported by
Ibn Asakir, al-Suyuti, Ibn Hajar, etc.) Beside that
that, Ibn Abbas said:
"There is no verse in Quran in which the term 'Believers', unless
Ali
is at
the top of them and the chief of them and the more virtuous one
among
them. Surely Allah has admonished the companions of Muhammad
(PBUH)
in Quran, but He did not refer to Ali except with honor."
Sunni references:
- Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2,
p654, tradition #1114
- al-Riyadh al-Nadhirah, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari,
v3, p229
- Tarikh al-Khulafaa, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin
al-Suyuti, p171
- Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, by Muhibbuddin al-Tabari, p89
- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami,
Ch. 9, section 3, p196
- Others such as Tabarani and Ibn Abi Hatam
Also, not all were sinners. The Sunni traditionists
and historians Imam Ali
(AS) was the FIRST who compiled Quran. It took Imam
Ali one week after the
death of Prophet to Finnish his compilation. Imam
Ali presented this Quran
to the rulers of that time and they had a chance to
review it and learn
about the missing verses of their own collections
and they did correct what
they missed. (Please see the article of "The
Quran Compiled by Imam Ali"
for the references in this regard) As you see the
one who corrected them
was an infallible one, and thus we have all reasons
to believe that the
Quran that we have today is the very same as what
was revealed to Prophet
except that it is not in the correct sequence. But
nothing is missing from
it.
=========
A brother mentioned that according to the verse:
If two
parties among the Believers fall into fighting make peace
between
them. If then one of them transgresses against the other,
fight
that which transgresses until it complies with the command of
Allah;
but if it complies then make peace between them with justice
and be
fair, for Allah loves those who are just. (Quran 49:9)
Quran did not remove the characeristic of belief
from either of the two
warring factions. That two Muslims fight is not an
indication that one of
them is unbeliever.
The above comment is correct. But the verse does
not imply that any warring
faction is necessarily Muslim even though they say
so by their tong. There
is no doubt that a believer can be killer of an
innocent and also there is
no doubt that such killer will go to Hell for ever
as the foolowing verse
testifies:
"And Whoever kills a believer deliberately, his reward is Hell
forever,
and the Wrath of Allah is upon him, He cursed him and
prepared
a great punishment for him." (Quran 4:93)
The above verse (4:93) does not exclude believers
from that punishment.
Whoever does so, is entitled to the same punishment
be it believer or
unbeliever.
I also think you forgot to think about the latter
portion of the verse you
quoted which was: "If then one of them
transgresses against the other,
fight that which transgresses until it complies
with the command of Allah."
Talha and Zubair are entitled to this last portion.
Because Imam Ali
frequently asked them for reconciliation, but they
killed his messenger
when he was carrying Quran to them for a sign of
asking for reconciliation.
The story is written in the History of Tabari, v4,
P312. So those
companions are "Baaggee" -- transgressor
according to the verse you quoted,
and should have been fought as Imam Ali did, and
they will be the
companions of Hell forever.
=========
A brother mentioned that according to Quran, Moses
who was a Prophet of god
was confused with the strange actions of al-Khidhr.
But when at the end ,
Moses (AS) was told about the reasons behind those
actions, he completely
admired them. Moses (AS) was a Prophet, but still
He could not see the
complete picture related to these events; none of
us are in the position of
Moses (AS). None of us has a clear picture of what
we are criticizing from
the actions of the companions.
I would like to remind that brother that he is
discrediting you the most
important investment which Allah gifted to everyone
that is logic (Aql). If
I came to know God, it was due the using this
investment. If I found that
Islam is the best religion, it is because I used my
brain and concluded
that the instructions given in Quran are sound
instructions and the
regulations of Islam are the best among all other
alternatives.
If one discredit this precious thing, he will lose
every thing including
his religion, and he will accept any irrational
'fatwa' as a religious
command, he will accept some killers of innocents
go to paradise without
giving it a thought.
Moses (AS) did not discredit this precious thing,
and he asked Prophet
Khidr for clarification, and he finally got the
answers and was convinced
shortly after the incidents. Now, can provide any
rational justification
for what some companions did after the demise of
prophet? It it about 14
centuries passed and we could not come up any
justification for their
deads. So why should we still blindly follow their
narrations and their
sayings which are in clear contradiction with tha
sayings of Ahlul-Bayt?
Asking question is not sin. Remaining ignorant is a
big loss though. Also
comparing a sinless prophet with a sinfull
companion is like comparing
heavens with the earth.
=========
A Wahhabi contributor claimed that the Shia do not
follow the Sunnah of the
prophet since it was transmitted by his companions.
This Wahhabi fellow did not even give it a second
thought that the Shia
follow Imam Ali (AS) who was the BEST of the
companions of the Prophet and
their most knowledgeable one, the Strong Rope of
Allah (3:103), and His
Right Path (1:6). Neither his proximity of
relationship with Prophet was
preceded (42:23), nor his preceding in accepting
the religion (56:10-11).
We stick to the instructions of Ahlul-Bayt who are
pure and infallible
according to Quran and Hadith. Hence, we do not
need to follow those of
companions who opposed/fought Ahlul-Bayt.
Thus the Shia, indeed, follow the Sunnah
transmitted by a Prophet's
companion, the best of them. However, Wahhabis
follow the worst of them,
that is Muawiyah, and take his Sunnah which has no
similarity with the
Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH&HF).
=========
A Wahhabi mentioned: It is part of our Sunni dogma
to respect and love the
all the companions of the Prophet. Our scholars
remind us that vilification
of the companions is Kufr.
Interestingly enough that those companions who
remained loyal to Ali
received severe punishment from the government of
the time, and were not
respected at all. One example is Abu Dhar who was
exiled to the worst
climate location in the reign of Uthman because
they could not stop him
from telling the truth. They kept him there till he
died (martyred). Abu
Dhar was the one that prophet said in his virtue
that "The Earth does not
carry nor the Heavens cover a man more frank and
truthful than Abu Dhar".
Wasn't Abu Dhar a great companion of prophet? So
why shouldn't they have
respected him according to your judgment? It seems
that even Uthman did not
accept your type of judgment! nor Talha and Zubair
when they were fighting
against their legitimate Caliph Ali (AS). Are all
of them Kafir by your
judgment?
When the Shia reflect on the mistakes of the
companions, they do so in
retrospect of history. It would be very interesting
to look at some of the
comments of both the Wahabi and the Sunni scholars
in this retrospect. Ibn
Taymiyyah, the Shaykhul Islam of the Wahabis,
writes
And
merely abusing some one other than the Prophets does
not
necessarily make the abuser Kafir; because some of
those
who were in the time of the Prophet (i.e companions)
used
to abuse one another and none of them was declared
kafir
because of this (practice); and (also) because it is
not
Wajib to have faith particularly in any of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
companions; therefore abusing any of them does not detract
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
from
the faith in Allah and His books and His messengers
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and
the Last day.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wahabi reference: As Sarimu l masul, Ibn Taymiyyah,
page 579
Published in 1402/1982 by Alam al-Kutub
The name of Mulla Ali Qari requires no introduction
to the Sunnis, and
he writes in his work of Sharah Fiqh al Akbar that
To
abuse Abu Bakr and Umar is NOT Kufr, as Abush Shakur
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
as
Salimi has correctly proved in his book, at Tamhid. And
it is
becuase the basis of this claim (claim that reviling
the
Shaykhan is kufr) is not proven, nor its meaning is
confirmed.
It is
so because certainly abusing a Muslim is fisq (sin) as
is
proved by a confirmed hadith, and therefore the Shaykhan
(Abu
Bakr and Umar) will be equal to the other (Muslims) in
this
rule; and also if we suppose that some one murdered the
Shaykhan, and even the two sons in law (Ali and Usman), all
of
them together, even then according to Ahlussunnah wa al-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Jamah, he will not go out of Islam (i.e will not become
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
kafir) ...
Sunni ref: Mulla Ali Qari, Sharah al Fiqh al Akbar
Matba Uthmaniyah, Istanbul, 1303 page 130
Matba Mujtabai, Delhi, 1348, page 86
Matba Aftab e Hind, India, No date, page 86
Interesting note:
The above quote was taken from three (3) editions,
printed in India and
Turkey. Now a new edition has been printed by Darul
Lutubil Ilmiyah,
Beirut in 1404/1984, which claims to be the first
edition, and from
which four pages (including the above text) have
been OMMITED. The deleted
portion contains the declaration that
...
those who believe that Allah has a body are definitely
kafir
according to the Ijma without any difference of
opinions.
Do I need to comment on Wahabi scholarship?
=========
Another prson mentioned: Why is it that you want
Sunnis accept a selected
number of traditions from the Sunni sources which
refutes the integrity of
people like Abu Bakr, Umar Ibn al-Khattab? This
point really irks me.
I am sorry it irks you! It is not completely
correct, however. We have
nothing against the persons of Abu-Bakr, Umar and
Ashia. We are looking at
history in retrospect and evaluating their actions
- which should not be
considered a sin. Afterall, they were human beings
who were capable of
making mistakes. Why not learn from their mistakes
- particularly if done
in a sensetive way.
We just mentioned some traditions from Sunni books,
actions and sayings of
the companions. If it sounds insulting it is not
because the Shia put them
in there. I tried to give supportive evidence to my
argument, objectively,
with no disrespect for the companions (khulafaa
particularly).
We feel that they made ijtihad in certain cases,
that we don't agree with -
we choose to follow the ijtihad and teachings of
others such as Imam Ali
and th Imams of his decendent - what is wrong with
that? We also feel that
there has been a lot that has been attributed to
them in the form of
Hadiths, that they have not necessarily said or
agree with. This is due, in
part, to the Umayads who hated Ahlul Bayt and
wanted to make them look as
less than who they were, either by elevating the
status of the people you
named and others, or by fabricating hadeeths in
conflict.
***************************************************************************
About Saqifah
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the following tradition in Sahih al-Bukhari:
A)- Umar said that:
One should
not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance
given to
Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful.
B)- Umar said that Ali and Zubair and whoever was
with them, and Ansar
disagreed
with them :
And no
doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the
Ansar
disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali
and Zubair
and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants
gathered
with Abu Bakr. ^^^^^^^^^^^
C)- Umar gave his hand to Abu bakr without
counselling with muslims.
He gave
his hand FIRST, and then others gave their hands too.
Then there
was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose
so that I
was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O
Abu Bakr!
Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged
allegiance
to him, and THEN all the emigrants gave the Pledge of
allegiance
and so did the Ansar afterwards.
D)- There was news that Umar and his followers had
killed Sa'd bin
Ubada. (I
am not saying that he did. What I am saying that this was
a common
news on those days. That is all.)
One of the
Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' I replied,
'Allah has
killed Sa'd bin Ubada.
E)- While Umar gave his hand to Abu bakr without
consulting others, he
ordered
that such person should be killed:
So if any
person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become
a
Caliph) WITHOUT consulting the other
Muslims, then the one he has
selected
should NOT be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be
killed."
F)- While he did not wish to accept others'
decision, he, himself,
applied
his own decision to others:
there was
no greater problem [compared to death of the prophet] than
the
allegiance pledged to Abu Bakr because we were afraid that if we
left the
people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to
one of
their men, in which case we would have given them our consent
for
something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
caused
great trouble.
Here is the tradition:
Sahih
al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.817
Narrated
Ibn 'Abbas:
I used
to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln
(emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was
in his
house at Mina, and he was with 'Umar bin al-Khattab during
'Umar's
last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you
had seen
the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar),
saying,
'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so
who
says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance
to such-and-such
person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu
Bakr was
nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established
afterwards.' 'Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will
stand
before the people tonight and warn them against those people who
want to
deprive the others of their rights (the question of
rulership)."
... In
the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers
for the
prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having
glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said,...
... (O
people!) I have been informed that a speaker amongst you says,
'By
Allah, if 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance
to
such-and-such person.' One should not deceive oneself by saying
that the
pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and
it was
successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the
people)
from its evil, and there is none among you who has the
qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of
allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims,
neither
that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance
was given,
are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.
And no
doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ansar
disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and
Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr,
'Let's go to these Ansari
brothers
of ours.' So we set out seeking them, and when we approached
them,
two pious men of theirs met us and informed us of the final
decision
of the Ansar, and said, 'O group of Muhajirin (emigrants) !
Where
are you going?' We replied, 'We are going to these Ansari
brothers
of ours.' They said to us, 'You shouldn't go near them. Carry
out
whatever we have already decided.' I said, 'By Allah, we will go
to
them.' And so we proceeded until we reached them at the shed of
Bani
Sa'da. Behold! There was a man sitting amongst them and wrapped
in
something. I asked, 'Who is that man?' They said, 'He is Sa'd bin
'Ubada.'
I asked, 'What is wrong with him?' They said, 'He is sick.'
After we
sat for a while, the Ansar's speaker said, 'None has the
right to
be worshipped but Allah,' and praising Allah as He deserved,
he
added, 'To proceed, we are Allah's Ansar (helpers) and the majority
of the
Muslim army, while you, the emigrants, are a small group and
some
people among you came with the intention of preventing us from
practicing this matter (of caliphate) and depriving us of it.'
When the
speaker had finished, I intended to speak as I had prepared a
speech
which I liked and which I wanted to deliver in the presence of
Abu
Bakr, and I used to avoid provoking him. So, when I wanted to
speak, Abu Bakr said, 'Wait a while.' I
disliked to make him angry. So
Abu Bakr
himself gave a speech, and he was wiser and more patient than
I. By
Allah, he never missed a sentence that I liked in my own
prepared
speech, but he said the like of it or better than it
spontaneously. After a pause he said, 'O Ansar! You deserve all (the
qualities that you have attributed to yourselves, but this question
(of
Caliphate) is only for the Quraish as they are the best of the
Arabs as
regards descent and home, and I am pleased to suggest that
you
choose either of these two men, so take the oath of allegiance to
either
of them as you wish. And then Abu Bakr held my hand and Abu
Ubada
bin Abdullah's hand who was sitting amongst us. I hated nothing
of what
he had said except that proposal, for by Allah, I would rather
have my
neck chopped off as expiator for a sin than become the ruler
of a
nation, one of whose members is Abu Bakr, unless at the time of
my death my own-self suggests something I
don't feel at present.'
And then
one of the Ansar said, 'I am the pillar on which the camel
with a
skin disease (eczema) rubs itself to satisfy the itching (i.e.,
I am a
noble), and I am as a high class palm tree! O Quraish. There
should
be one ruler from us and one from you.'
Then
there was a hue and cry among the gathering and their voices rose
so that
I was afraid there might be great disagreement, so I said, 'O
Abu
Bakr! Hold your hand out.' He held his hand out and I pledged
allegiance to him, and then all the emigrants gave the Pledge of
allegiance and so did the Ansar afterwards. And so we became
victorious over Sa'd bin Ubada (whom al-Ansar wanted to make a ruler).
One of
the Ansar said, 'You have killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' I replied,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
'Allah
has killed Sa'd bin Ubada.' Umar added, "By Allah, apart from
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the
great tragedy that had happened to us
(i.e. the death of the
Prophet), there was no greater problem than the allegiance pledged to
Abu Bakr
because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might
give the
Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which
case we
would have given them our consent for something against our
real
wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble. So if
any
person gives the Pledge of allegiance to somebody (to become a
Caliph) without consulting the
other Muslims, then the one he has
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
selected
should not be granted allegiance, lest both of them should be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
killed."
^^^^^^
Source: www.al-islam.org
