Did Imam Ali Give Allegiance to Abu Bakr?

[humble_servant_us]

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.

http://islamicinsights.com/religion/cle ... -bakr.html

[anajmi]

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.

There are definite and decisive narrations from the Prophet of Islam regarding Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Uthman. Shia reject these narrations by casting doubt on the narrator. Since the prophet of Islam cannot be mistaken, then it has to be the narrator's fault. Similarly, we can say over here that the narrator might be mistaken or lying about what the prophet of Islam has said about Imam Ali. Or the interpretation of the modern day shia might be wrong about what was narrated. Maybe they misunderstood the context of the narration. Since none of the companions of the prophet (saw) can be wrong, as they have been honored in the Quran, we can safely conclude that the people who are narrating these stories are mistaken or are outright liars.

[ghulam muhammed]

The narrations makes one wonder whether the shias actually love Mola Ali (a.s.) or hate him as there are various loopholes in the same. The war which was waged by Imam Hussain (a.s.) is glorified (rightly so) but not going to war by the bravest, noblest and profound warrior like Mola Ali (a.s.) is losely defended by giving excuses which could have been very well given during the battle of karbala.

[Al Zulfiqar]

Did Imam Ali Give Allegiance to Abu Bakr?

only 2 ways to find out. either we ask Imam Ali or we ask Abu Bakr. what would you prefer?

[ghulam muhammed]

Did Imam Ali Give Allegiance to Abu Bakr?



only 2 ways to find out. either we ask Imam Ali or we ask Abu Bakr. what would you prefer?

Ask badrijanab/Doctor/Mubarak and let him have a field day !! Give him one more chance to spit venom and show his true colours on the forum.

[lawyer]

Ali was Ali, abu bakar was abu bakar.


enough said : )

[abde53]

Ali was Ali, abu bakar was abu bakar.


enough said : )

One was Son in Law and the other was Father in Law------enough said

[anajmi]

One was with him and the other was in place of him - enough said!!

[genesis]

Rasoolullah (SAW) is supposed to have been not only the message-bearer of Allah to communicate the words of Allah which have been compiled as the Quran but has also taught his contemporary ummat almost every do's and dont's in life down to the last detail eg. how to eat, how to wash, how to pray, how to speak, etc etc which constitute the entire books of hadees ( which WE dont believe in , incidentally). It is beyond reason that a leader who has instructed his ummat so minutely, would have left the glaring issue of succession unsaid and unanswered. Theres considerable history and records on the event of Ghadir-e-khum wherein prophet declared Ali as his chosen successor to lead the people in religion. But the events which ensued his death were entirely to the contrary and most unfortunate for the nascent ummah.
However be that as it may, wisdom demands that such a glaring failure on the part of the companions be best left to the judgement of Allah. The Ummah should move on keeping in focus the essence and the core of the prophets message which is the beief in and the worship of the creator. We are nobodies and do not qualify for such debates 1400 years later.

[anajmi]

Rasoolullah (SAW) is supposed to have been not only the message-bearer of Allah to communicate the words of Allah which have been compiled as the Quran but has also taught his contemporary ummat almost every do's and dont's in life down to the last detail eg. how to eat, how to wash, how to pray, how to speak, etc etc which constitute the entire books of hadees ( which WE dont believe in , incidentally). It is beyond reason that a leader who has instructed his ummat so minutely, would need to leave behind a successor who might mess things up.

[genesis]

Anajmi wrote : "It is beyond reason that a leader who has instructed his ummat so minutely, would need to leave behind a successor who might mess things up."
Its not clear who you are referring to. Muhammad decreed Ali to lead the Ummah after him so are you referring to Ali ? So the question follows that in what way did Hazrat Ali (RA) mess things up ? As a matter of fact the very existence of Islam till today should be attributed and credited to the magnanimity, greatness, maturity, unselfishness , foresight and true Imaan of hazrat Ali.

[zulqarnain]

One of the Majlis from the book Al Majaalis ul Haatemiyah by S Haatim b Ibrahim (ra) clearly cites the incident when Maulaana 'Ali (as) had an argument with Abu Bakr regarding the appointment of the Khaleefah after Rasoolullaah (saws). Where Abu Bakr admitted his mistake but Umr overruled his statement and proclaimed that Whatever Abu Bakr said was not in sound mental state. That particular incident is itself self explanatory about the fact that Maulaana 'Ali (as) never bowed down or gave allegiance to Abu Bakr - the khaleefah of the people.

[Muslim First]

Anajmi wrote : "It is beyond reason that a leader who has instructed his ummat so minutely, would need to leave behind a successor who might mess things up."
Its not clear who you are referring to. Muhammad decreed Ali to lead the Ummah after him so are you referring to Ali ? So the question follows that in what way did Hazrat Ali (RA) mess things up ?

Can you quote prophet Muhammad SAW's in clear sentence saying something like "Hz Ali will be your leader after me"

No gol gol (circular) interpretations, please.

As a matter of fact the very existence of Islam till today should be attributed and credited to the magnanimity, greatness, maturity, unselfishness , foresight and true Imaan of hazrat Ali.

That is what Shia of Ali say.
Majority of Muslim attribute and credit Allah SWT to guard, spread and protect his religion.

It says in Quran.

Brother we non Shia of Ali have a handicap. We also love Hz Ali and Ahle e Bait so we hold them in high esteem and will not speak ill of them.

Shias have given themselves license to curse and demean companions do Rasul SAW.

[anajmi]

Muhammad decreed Ali to lead the Ummah after him

That is an interpretation of a minority of the Muslim Ummah. As you said earlier - The Ummah should move on keeping in focus the essence and the core of the prophets message which is the beief in and the worship of the creator. We are nobodies and do not qualify for such debates 1400 years later. The core of the prophet's message does not include naming a successor.

As a matter of fact the very existence of Islam till today should be attributed and credited to the magnanimity, greatness, maturity, unselfishness , foresight and true Imaan of hazrat Ali.

If one were to read the non-fictional history of Islam, one would see that the Muslim Ummah faced the most chaotic time during the leadership of Hazrat Ali as against the first 3 khalifas. None of it was his fault. As a matter of fact, if you were to remove Hazrat Ali's succession from the equation, we are all one Ummah!! Shia and Sunni differences, violence, killing of innocents can all be attributed to the issue of his succession. And the worst part is that succession is not even a core Islamic issue. It was created by people like the Dai, who want to rule others!!!

[wise_guy]

Whatever be the dispute between Shias and Sunnis... the fact is the way Sunnis behave (Arab wahabis to the hate mongering, extremely anti social and fundamentalist sunnis all over the world), they cannot be the true representative of Islam... the divine religion that Muhammada(SAW) founded through Allah's will...

[Muslim First]

Whatever be the dispute between Shias and Sunnis... the fact is the way Sunnis behave (Arab wahabis to the hate mongering, extremely anti social and fundamentalist sunnis all over the world), they cannot be the true representative of Islam... the divine religion that Muhammada(SAW) founded through Allah's will...

Br wise_guy
AS

Why don't you start with your Aamil, Bhai Saheb, Shehzadas, Mansoos and your Dharm Guru Maulana Burhnuddin Saheb to stop cursing and sawing hatred even in young Bohris. Beside Wahabis Internet is full of Shia preachers spewing out curses.

This 1300 year dispute will never end.

[Bohra spring]

Whatever be the dispute between Shias and Sunnis... the fact is the way Sunnis behave (Arab wahabis to the hate mongering, extremely anti social and fundamentalist sunnis all over the world), they cannot be the true representative of Islam... the divine religion that Muhammada(SAW) founded through Allah's will...

Sunni and Wahabi are different...

Extremist elements are mostly salafis.

Bohras have to denounce abusing the 3 Khalifa and Aisha. If we try doing that we will lower the temperature. After that if we are targets then sure we have a reason to blame extremists for attacking us without provocation.

Insulting companions does not enhance the Shia faith! So why provoke hatred ?

[Bohra spring]

Whatever be the dispute between Shias and Sunnis... the fact is the way Sunnis behave (Arab wahabis to the hate mongering, extremely anti social and fundamentalist sunnis all over the world), they cannot be the true representative of Islam... the divine religion that Muhammada(SAW) founded through Allah's will...

Sunni and Wahabi are different...

Extremist elements are mostly salafis.

Bohras have to denounce abusing the 3 Khalifa and Aisha. If we try doing that we will lower the temperature. After that if we are targets then sure we have a reason to blame extremists for attacking us without provocation.

We should mind our own business , it is strange that we are a sect that systematically thinks it is important to curse our opponents . I have tried to see if any other religion does it as much as we do, I have not found any..eg Budhism, Hinduism, Christianity , Judaism , native pagan beliefs in Africa. Even among the Sunni shafi, or hanafi...no name calling. I think for Shias to give this cursing importance is terrible and disrespectful practise

Insulting companions does not enhance the Shia faith! So why provoke hatred ?

[ghulam muhammed]

Insulting companions does not enhance the Shia faith! So why provoke hatred ?

Warna in dharm ke thekedaro ki dukaan kaise chalegi............ "Divide and Rule" !!!!

[genesis]

Anajmi wrote : "It is beyond reason that a leader who has instructed his ummat so minutely, would need to leave behind a successor who might mess things up."
Its not clear who you are referring to. Muhammad decreed Ali to lead the Ummah after him so are you referring to Ali ? So the question follows that in what way did Hazrat Ali (RA) mess things up ?

Can you quote prophet Muhammad SAW's in clear sentence saying something like "Hz Ali will be your leader after me"

No gol gol (circular) interpretations, please.

As a matter of fact the very existence of Islam till today should be attributed and credited to the magnanimity, greatness, maturity, unselfishness , foresight and true Imaan of hazrat Ali.

That is what Shia of Ali say.
Majority of Muslim attribute and credit Allah SWT to guard, spread and protect his religion.

It says in Quran.

Brother we non Shia of Ali have a handicap. We also love Hz Ali and Ahle e Bait so we hold them in high esteem and will not speak ill of them.

Shias have given themselves license to curse and demean companions do Rasul SAW.

Mr. Muslimfirst, I am of the same belief as yours and always believe that I am a Muslim first and never lose focus of the ultimate aim of this life which is to believe in and worship the Creator . But that doesnt make me shut my mind to the events and happenings in the history of Islam however confined they may be, because they do have a bearing on our Imaan - its quantum of significance however is for Allah to decide. Allah says in the holy quran in sura Al-ahzab verse 56:- "Verily Allah and His angels send blessings on the prophet, o ye who believe, send blessings on him and salute him in abundance"which establishes the exalted position and status of Mohammad. It is ridiculous and unthinkable for a believer who accepts this command of Allah to tell Mohammad: O mohammad I salute you and believe in YOU but not your daughter, your son-in-law, your grand-childeren and the rest of your family. Please keep them aside. My love is restricted to you only. Period. Take it or leave it.
Why is it so hard to believe that Prophet Mohammad did appoint somebody from his family to manage the affairs of the religion after him ? After all , every prophet right from Adam (AS) took the help of some family member to assist in their mission. Ibrahim's cause was furthered by his own SONS Ismail and Isaac from whom, in fact, descended the other prophets including Mohammad. Allah Himself says in the Quran in Aal-e-Imran( chapter 3- verses 33 and 34): " Allah did choose Adam and Noah, the family of Abraham and the family of Imran above all people - offspring one of the other: and Allah heareth and knoweth all things". Please take note of the word:"offspring", "family". Then, moving on - Prophet Moses expressly requested Allah to appoint his BROTHER Haroon to assist him in his mission. Then, Alas, why is it that so many eyebrows are raised when prophet mohammad has to appoint his son-in-law to succeed him ??? Why do people like Muslimfirst have to ask for " clear words ' when the archives is full of them. Brother,it will take your entire lifetime to exhaust the available literature on it. But to start with, I suppose, this one link should suffice : http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/incident.htm .
But if you ask for more explicit proof like a video recording or an audio recording of the prophets
Ghadir khum sermon then I am sorry I have to ask you to show your proof first of all of the existence of God itself, of all the prophets, existence of Mohammad, proof of Jibraeel's first meeting with Mohammad at mount Hira, and all the subsequent meetings when Quran was revealed, etc, etc. Brother- you cant give. Neither will someone with Imaan, reason, understanding and logic ask for it. To avoid such a childish demand, I had opened my comment with a sound and logical conclusion that someone who has taught everything will not leave the burning question of succession unanswered.
Lets take it for the sake of argument that Mohammad didnt appoint Ali. Then tell me what did he say on the issue of succession? Did he say you hold an election after me( while my corpse lay unburied) ? Did he say Abubacker should be his successor ? Or are you saying like the majority that Mohammad taught everything but kept mum on this subject because he wanted to watch the fun from up above ? Pray, enlighten us sir.

[anajmi]

The family argument is indeed a weak one. We know the story of the family of Adam involving Kane and Abel. One turned out to be a murderer. From Ibrahim (as) we are well aware that his father was an idol worshipper. In Noah's family his wife and son were punished. Same is the case with Lut (as). So let us not hide behind families just for the sake of it. Prophet Mohammad (saw)'s family alhumdulillah was the best family.

He did not appoint any successor nor was he commanded by Allah to appoint a successor. If a successor was so paramount, his son would've lived or he would've had more sons from his 11 wives. The current Dai is a case in point with dozens of children.

Why is it so hard to believe that Prophet Mohammad did appoint somebody from his family to manage the affairs of the religion after him ?

What affairs? Didn't you say that he has taught us everything there was to teach about religion? The requirement was not to manage the religion, the requirement was to manage the state. And that is where the problem is.

Then, moving on - Prophet Moses expressly requested Allah to appoint his BROTHER Haroon to assist him in his mission.

And this is clearly stated in the Quran!! The succession of Hazrat Ali is not. We have to arrive at it after navigating a maze of half truths and falsehoods. Haroon assisted Prophet Moses in his missions and in his absence failed to keep the jews on the right path. Similarly, Hazrat Ali assisted the prophet on all his missions as long as he was alive and no one worth his salt will deny it and he even took his place on the bed when the prophet's life was in danger.

None of this adds up to succession after the prophet. And why is it so important? When the story of prophet Moses is told in the Quran, where is the emphasis? on Moses or on Haroon? And where is the emphasis of our shia brethren? On the work of the prophet (saw) or on the issue of his succession?

[anajmi]

Lets take it for the sake of argument that Mohammad didnt appoint Ali. Then tell me what did he say on the issue of succession?

As I said earlier, why the emphasis on succession? What does it matter how Hazrat Abu Bakr got appointed? His job was to deliver the message which he did and then passed away. Succession issue is normally raised only by people who want to stay in command as authorized successors or by people who have been brainwashed by those who want to stay in command as authorized successors. The Dai is the perfect case in point. You are not supposed to question the Dai because he is supposed to be an authorized successor of Hazrat Ali! His minions will make this point every now and then and I am sure all of us have heard it. Not sure why we are still being fooled by these people.

[Humsafar]

I agree with anajmi, the reference to "family" is a weak argument. Besides, there is one important theological aspect we must take into consideration: the Quran claims to have perfected the religion and the Prophet is the final prophet. If we accept that then we much also accept, explicitly and implicitly, that Islam did not need "future" leaders. So where is the question of succession here?
Another point, The thrust of the Quran is egalitarianism: all humans are equal. Giving paramountcy to the Prophet's family, no matter how noble, violates that basic principle of the Quran.
That said, it is also true that the rush to appoint a new leader even before the Prophet could be buried was in bad taste and against the tenet of the Quran. If we agree that no succession was necessary then the legitimacy of all Caliphs must be questioned and rejected.

[anajmi]

That said, it is also true that the rush to appoint a new leader even before the Prophet could be buried was in bad taste and against the tenet of the Quran.

What you are quoting is history as related by those who wanted someone else as the leader. There are different views of what happened at that time and that should be of no consequence. Considering the position of the prophet (saw) at that time, I cannot imagine how much chaos there must have been, at the time of his passing, for people to think straight. Taking that into consideration, any evil that might have been afoot, as suggested by historians, to grab power can be ignored. These people were the best people after the prophet (saw) as stated by the prophet himself.

There is no need to question and rejected Caliphate. Just because the prophet (saw) didn't appoint one, doesn't mean that it should be rejected. The prophet didn't appoint the Dai either. Are we ready to reject him? Caliphs were appointed to manage the state after the passing of the prophet (saw) as per the Islamic laws established by the prophet (saw). It didn't matter who the Caliph was so long as he was following the Quran and the Sunnah of the prophet (saw). He didn't have to be his son or son-in-law or the result of some fake nuss-jali!!

[Bohra spring]

That said, it is also true that the rush to appoint a new leader even before the Prophet could be buried was in bad taste and against the tenet of the Quran. If we agree that no succession was necessary then the legitimacy of all Caliphs must be questioned and rejected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_Muhammad

one will notice these factions were formed many years after Ali was killed. these are emotional propaganda the Ali was against Abu-Bakr or vice versa.

You have to imagine without technology or historical records how we can conclude Ali and Abu-Bakr were enemies.

They may have had disagreements but is that not ok ? This issue is not about who is right or wrong.

Another point Ali did not object to Abu-Bakr’s selection by the public. So if he did not raise a dispute then and even if he silently objected is that not enough he agreed to the compromise and Shias should do as Ali did. Accept Abu-Bakr was an elected leader and respect the choice Ali made. With this acknowledgement Islam can unite.

I think digging this dirt from the past and making it bigger than it really was to fix events as we want , especially which Ali could not or chose not to fix, but try to do in the 21st century is destroying the Islamic unity. People are bloody killing each other because of this so called hypothesis.

What is it that we disagree with Abu-Bakr or Sunni in terms of our faith....are there real issues about the fundamentals or is it just power and who is right. How does this really help modern Islamic issues who the leader was 1400 years ago...

Do you disagree that Abu-Bakr fought wars to expand Islam .

Abu Bakr became the Caliph on 8 June 632 and he died on 23 August 634. Though the period of his caliphate covers only two years, two months and fifteen days, it included successful invasions of the two most powerful empires of the time: the Sassanid Empire and Byzantine Empire.

Abu Bakr had the distinction of being the first Caliph in the history of Islam and also the first Caliph to nominate a successor. He was the only Caliph in the history of Islam who refunded to the state treasury at the time of his death the entire amount of the allowance that he had drawn during the period of his caliphate[citation needed][dubious – discuss].

He is revered for being the first Muslim ruler to establish: Bayt al-mal & The Crown Pasture

He has the distinction of purchasing the land for Al-Masjid al-Nabawi.

Abu Bakr had given up drinking wine even in the time before Islam. He was the foremost genealogist of the Quraysh and was well accomplished at interpreting dreams according to Ibn Sirin.

If any of the above means he is not capable to be a leader can someone please post what are the issues he caused

If it is succession issue ...I am convinced this is manmade issue created many years after Ali to divide Muslims because one group was unhappy and wanted to gain power or influence by creating reasons for Muslims to separate.

The differences between the Sunni and Shia amplified after the Safavid invasion of Persia and the subsequent Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam due to the politics between the Safavids and the Ottoman Empire.[77] The Zaydis were also forced to convert. To consolidate their position, the Safavid's also exploited the deep rooted differences between areas formally under the Persian Sassanid Empire and areas formally under the Byzantine Roman Empire. Differences that existing from the Roman–Persian Wars and the Byzantine–Sassanid Wars. For the first time in the history of Islam, the Safavids also established a hierarchical organization of the Shiite clergy and institutionalised the haltered of Jafar al-Sadiq's great grandfather.

[Muslim First]

Geneses
Please read various article on this link
http://www.schiiten.com/backup/AhlelBay ... icles.html

Also
Gadheer Khum
http://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2010/ ... dir-khumm/

I have posted following before on this website before

Quote

Here is a paragraph from “Sirat Ibn Isham” abridge pdf version of it is on net. You can down load here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3141151/Sirat-Ibn-Hisham
It is on page 282 page 292 on the top Index

“Abdulla Ibn Abbas said that on the same day Ali Ibn Talib went out to the people after being with the Prophet (Pbuh) so they asked him how the Prophet (Pbuh) was doing, “Thanks to Allah he has recovered,” he replied. Al-Abbas took him by the hand saying “O Ali, I swear by Allah that I can see death in the Prophet’s face, as I used to see in the faces of sons of Abdul- Muttalib. So let us go to the Prophet (Pbuh), in case that authority to be within us, we will know it, we will know it, and in case it is to be others we will ask him to enjoin the people to treat us well.” Ali said, “By Allah I will not do so. If it is refrained from us, none after him will give it to us”. The Prophet died when the noon heat of the day increased
---------
The same account is in the book “MUHHAMMAD his life based on the earliest sources” by Martin Lings which is based on Sirah of Ibn-Isham , chapter “the choice”, page 341and refers to Hadith of IBN Ishak.

My question to you is why Hz Ali RA and Hz Ibn Abbas RA were even discussing about succession if it was given to Hz Ali during Gadhir event.

Why did he say “none after him will give it to us”
Does it also mean that if Prophet said NOTHING then it shut door on Ali’s Khilafat, No, he did achieve Khilafat od whole Ummah after some 20 plus years!!!!!

[Muslim First]

al-islam.org: nahjul Balagha, letter-6

Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah.

If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism.

O Mu’awiya! I am sure that if you give up self-aggrandizement and self-interest, if you forsake the idea of being alive only to personal profits and pleasures, if you cease to be actuated solely by selfishness and if you ponder over the incident leading to the murder of Uthman, you will realize that I cannot at all be held responsible for the affair and I am the least concerned with the episode.

But it is a different thing that you create all these false rumours and carry on this heinous propaganda to gain your ulterior motives. Well you may do whatever you like.

[Nahjul Balagha, letter 6]

Note: (The Shia websites like al-islam.org, certain words have been inserted in the translation -like the word “suppose” – without putting them in the brackets in an attempt to change the meaning of the text.)

Now lets see what arabic real text quotes:

إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى

Translation: Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him.

& unfortunately i didnot found any word suppose or equivalent to it..!!

Now it’s up to the Shia brothers and sisters whether they want to attribute Taqyah or lie or politics or what ever to their Imam and whether they like to justify his comment in the same way that they justify verses of Quran.

(also please bear in your mind that we have an explicit verse in Quran that says “va amrohom shoora baynahom”, (and their affairs are done by consultancy between them). Surely the question of leadership is one of the affairs of Muslims. However I won’t use this verse to prove anything about Khilaafath in Islam. Unlike the Shia brothers and sisters, I am quite cautious about playing Lego with the verses of Quran)

From
http://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/letter6/

[genesis]

Muslim First wrote:-


“Abdulla Ibn Abbas said that on the same day Ali Ibn Talib went out to the people after being with the Prophet (Pbuh) so they asked him how the Prophet (Pbuh) was doing, “Thanks to Allah he has recovered,” he replied. Al-Abbas took him by the hand saying “O Ali, I swear by Allah that I can see death in the Prophet’s face, as I used to see in the faces of sons of Abdul- Muttalib. So let us go to the Prophet (Pbuh), in case that authority to be within us, we will know it, we will know it, and in case it is to be others we will ask him to enjoin the people to treat us well.” Ali said, “By Allah I will not do so. If it is refrained from us, none after him will give it to us”. The Prophet died when the noon heat of the day increased
---------
--------- Instead of running from pillar to post digging out half-truths from hear-say hadiths and portraying the great noble soul of Hazrat Ali in such poor light as someone running after "authority" , it would have been better if you had applied your logic and answered from the 3 choices offered my simple question as to what did the prophet decree on the issue of succession

[anajmi]

genesis,

I think it would be better for you if you were to read properly before posting. Consider what Muslim First posted that you chose to quote

“Abdulla Ibn Abbas said that on the same day Ali Ibn Talib went out to the people after being with the Prophet (Pbuh) so they asked him how the Prophet (Pbuh) was doing, “Thanks to Allah he has recovered,” he replied. Al-Abbas took him by the hand saying “O Ali, I swear by Allah that I can see death in the Prophet’s face, as I used to see in the faces of sons of Abdul- Muttalib. So let us go to the Prophet (Pbuh), in case that authority to be within us, we will know it, we will know it, and in case it is to be others we will ask him to enjoin the people to treat us well.” Ali said, “By Allah I will not do so. If it is refrained from us, none after him will give it to us”. The Prophet died when the noon heat of the day increased

Now, according to your deduction, this is portraying the great noble soul of Hazrat Ali in such poor light as someone running after "authority" when infact, it is doing the exact opposite. Hazrat Ali says - “By Allah I will not do so. If it is refrained from us, none after him will give it to us”.

[Muslim First]

genesis,

I think it would be better for you if you were to read properly before posting. Consider what Muslim First posted that you chose to quote

“Abdulla Ibn Abbas said that on the same day Ali Ibn Talib went out to the people after being with the Prophet (Pbuh) so they asked him how the Prophet (Pbuh) was doing, “Thanks to Allah he has recovered,” he replied. Al-Abbas took him by the hand saying “O Ali, I swear by Allah that I can see death in the Prophet’s face, as I used to see in the faces of sons of Abdul- Muttalib. So let us go to the Prophet (Pbuh), in case that authority to be within us, we will know it, we will know it, and in case it is to be others we will ask him to enjoin the people to treat us well.” Ali said, “By Allah I will not do so. If it is refrained from us, none after him will give it to us”. The Prophet died when the noon heat of the day increased

Now, according to your deduction, this is portraying the great noble soul of Hazrat Ali in such poor light as someone running after "authority" when infact, it is doing the exact opposite. Hazrat Ali says - “By Allah I will not do so. If it is refrained from us, none after him will give it to us”.

If it is refrained from us, none after him will give it to us”.
Actually Br anajmi
Muslim ummah proved Hz Ali wrong by choosing him their leader by making him 4th Khalif and considering him 4th and last rightly guided Khalif (Rashidoon Khalif)

All Sunni Muslim still call him Imam Ali not bacuse he was hariditory Imam but a great teacher and leader.