A question for fellow guppies on Quran and sunnah

[Ibn_Sadique]

Re: A question for fellow guppies on Quran and sunnah

Texan Dude

You seem have (written) copy pasted a lot but failed to show where Hz. Ali (ra) was reminding the people of his **‘Divine Appointment’ ** as the successor to the Prophet (saw) at Khum Ghadeer from the Sermon 91 from .

You seem to be pitching more for him for what he never did for himself.

I want to hear the words to the effect **“I am the Successor of the Prophet (saw), O people! Do recall the Khum Ghadeer…………” ** Something to that effect.

As far as Hazrat Ali A.S. not reminding people about this divine right the following sermon answers the question.

If had I attempted to pluck the unripe fruit of Caliphate then by this the orchard would have been desolated and I too would have achieved nothing, like these people who cultivate on other’s land but can neither guard it, nor water it at proper time, nor reap any crop from it. The position of these people is that if I ask them to vacate it so that the owner should cultivate it himself and protect it, they say how greedy I am, while if I keep quiet they think I am afraid of death. They should tell me on what occasion did I ever feel afraid, or flew from battle-field for life, whereas every small or big encounter is proof of my bravery and a witness to my daring and courage. He who plays with swords and strikes against hillocks is not afraid of death. I am so familiar with death that even an infant is not so familiar with the breast of its mother. Hark! The reason for my silence is the knowledge that the Prophet has put in my bosom. If I divulge it you would get perplexed and bewildered. Let some days pass and you would know the reason of my inaction, and perceive with your own eyes what sorts of people would appear on this scene under the name of Islam, and what destruction they would bring about. My silence is because this would happen, otherwise it is not silence without reason."

The above doesn’t stand up to the facts as Hz. Ali (ra) was very close and valued advisor and aide of his pious predecessors.

In the above quotation from Shia sources you have Hz. Ali (ra) protesting at being ‘robbed’ of his right by the first two Khaleefs (ra) and then there are narrations from your infallible Imams [great grandsons of Hz. Ali (ra)] in full of praise and loyal to the first two Khaleefs (ra)!

*Once, the wife of Imam Jaffar as Sadiq asked him about Abu Bakr and Umar.

Imam Jaffar as Sadiq (ra) expressed his support to Abu Bakr and Umar.

He replied, "I support them”.

Then he said to his wife,” you should support them also."

His wife replied, “So should I say to my creator when I meet Him, that it is your order to support Abu Bakr and Umar.”

The truthful Imam Jaffar replied, ” Yes." - Source: Rawzatul Kafi, vol.8, p.101

Once, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (ra) while sitting with his companions, praised Abu Bakr by calling him the truthful (“as-Siddiq”). One of his companions got astonished by this remark and inquired if he (the Imam) really meant what he said. Upon this Imam al-Baqir replied, “yes Abu Bakr is the truthful and whoever does not give this attribution to him, then may God make that person(who did not give the attribute) helpless on the day of resurrection” * Source: Kashful Ghumamah, vol.2, p.174]

**Now can tell me why this discrepancy? **

**In one instance you have in your books Hz. Ali (ra) complaining of being ‘usurped’ of his divine granted right and then later his very grandsons are stating praise and loyalty to the very usurpers. **

Amazing! Isn’t it?

In fact even your books state that Hz. Ali (ra) got his daughter from Hz. Fatimah (ra) namely Hz. Hz. Umm Kulthum (ra) married to Hz. Umar bin Al Khattab!

Just a signal was enough to ignite the flames of war. But Amir al-mu’minin’s foresight and right judgement saved the Muslims from civil war as his piercing eyes perceived that this man wanted to start civil war by rousing the passions of tribal partisanship and distinction of birth, so that Islam should be struck with a convulsion that would shake it to its roots. Amir al-mu’minin therefore rejected his counsel and admonished him severely and spoke forth the words, whereby he has stopped people from mischief mongering, and undue conceit, and declared his stand to be that for him there were only two courses - either to take up arms or to sit quietly at home. If he rose for war there was no supporter so that he could suppress these rising insurgencies. The only course left was quietly to wait for the opportunity till circumstances were favourable.

If you believe the above narrations, don’t you see contradictions in Hz. Ali’s (ra) action?

Initially he gives ups up his divine right to khilafaat/imamate so to spare the Muslim blood being spilled in the civil war and then much later he picks up the sword to claim his right which led to devastating civil war and spilled a lot of Muslim blood.

What happened to his earlier forbearance and self-restrain?

Bear in mind that I am not criticizing Hz. Ali (ra), far from it. I take him to be the fourth rightly-guided khaleef. One of the foremost among the blessed companions of the Prophet (saw). And one of the blessed ten who were given the good news of Paradise by none other that the Prophet (saw) himself.

Nice try Mr… but the names you quoted above still don’t add to 12… Outta curosity why did you skipped Yazeed L.A.

I used the names of the Khaleefs whom I considered to good for the Ummah at large and to show you that all that I named were from the tribe of the Quraish as the hadith stipulates.

Just to lay your itching curiosity at rest I skipped naming Yazid bin Muawiyah as he doesn’t measure up to being a good khaleef.

You can try as much as you want… Even your own interpretation of word Mawla suites hazrat Ali A.S. the best fit for the hadith incase you missed it last time let me quote it for you again.

“The affairs of people will continue to be conducted (well) as long as they are governed by the twelve men, all of them from Quraysh.”

I am interpreting nothing myself but just plainly stating what Prophet (saw) and Hz. Ali (ra) stated. The Prophet (saw) used the word Mawlah for Hz. Ali (ra). And the word Mawlah in NO stretch of imagination means Ameer or a Khaleef.

And Hz. Ali (ra) said the following: “I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief"

I rather stick to what they say than believe in your interpretations.

“The affairs of people will continue to be conducted (well) as long as they are governed by the twelve men, all of them from Quraysh.”

I am providing you a link to a very interesting debate going on among the 12’ers/Imamis/ithna Asharis to the succession of imamate. I am pasting the opening post for your reference.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41761

QUOTE(tahasyed @ Jan 9 2005, 01:26 PM)

1. What is the theological justification of the imams practicing taqiyyah? The rational argumentation presented by the imamiyyah FOR imamate is that they are guides for the ummah, and Allah out of his eternal justice HAS to appoint imams for the ummah, or the ummah cannot be held responsible for being misguided (Al-Kafi). But if the guides practised taqiyyah in their teachings, then can the deceived sunni masses really be called ‘misguided’? We have many short-chained narrations in sunni books in which the imams deny being divinely-appointed imams, denying al-raj’a, and professing love for the first 3 caliphs. So can we really blame the innocent sunnis who sincerely thought that the imams were being serious when they said that?

2. Did the imams openly declare themselves to be the 12 khalifas of the Prophet? If not, can we really blame the sunnis, zaydis and other muslims for going astray? Surely, it would be the duty of an imam to declare his imamate to the ummah, and not a small circle of followers. They were, after all, imams for the entire ummah right? We see that many shias went ‘astray’ because of the quiescent attitude of imams Sajjad and Ridha. How, then, can we blame those who did not follow those imams?

3. The list of the members of Ahlul-Bayt naturally differs for the different shia sects. Each believes they are right. Some had the following of some prominent shia scholars of the time. Which one is right? Abil-Jarud (Ziyad bin Mundhir) was a companion of Imam Sajjad, but he became a Zaydi. Ibrahim Bin Salih Al-Kufi was a companion of Imam Baqir, and stopped at him. Also, Ali bin Al-Hasan and Muhammad bin Suma’a are other examples that come to mind. My point: different scholars/companions of the imams differed after the death of an imam. Who should the laity follow? The fomation of the kaysaniyyah and the numerous other shia sects was the direct result of this confusion. Each sect had the backing of scholars and companions of the imams, and they all thought they were right. Who, then, is right?

4. Did the imams and very very close companions only know who the 12 imams would be? This seems to be the argument of some 12ers. But this seems to go against many ahadith in which insignificant lay-people narrate ahadith about the Prophet naming the 12 explicitly. How then, did the laity know about them, and the close companions of the imams didn’t? We see them in many narrations coming to the imams and begging them to tell them who the next imam would be (which the imam would and the companion would ecstatically kiss the head, hands and feet of the imam). What was the need for this, if the Prophet had indeed named all twelve?

To date there are nearly 438 post and over 10,000 views! And you can see that there are many views among the 12’ers about lineage imamate.