Violating command of Quran to stay within house, opposing the rightful caliph, the brother of the Messenger, by going at the head of army of rebels which besieged Basra, imprisoned its governor and officers (executed a number of them), and then waged a battle against the Imam's army (thus initiating first civil war in community), leading to the deaths of thousands (so many that a trench had to be dug to bury the bodies) is hardly what one would call a justifiable reaction...
Yes, it was not justifiable. Those who felt it was justified were clearly in error. I don't think you will find a Sunni alive for the last 1200 years who would say it was a correct action to do.
I was told by this boy that I was talking to that's part shia/part sunni from his parents (told me he's sunni), that he believes that Ali is the spiritual (not necessarily political) successor to Muhammad (SAW). And that the concept of spiritual connection is hereditary in the Prophet's blood line, and therefore, these were Imams of their time, and they passed their Imamhood to their sons, and so forth so that there were 11 of them and then the 12th was taken by Allah as a child, and that 12th may be Mahdi.
Isn't this a distinctly shia belief or can we reconcile with the Sunni belief that there is a concept of "Imaamat", and that this is hereditary in the Prophet's blood line and that we are all to submit to these Imams.
That sound like just his personal effort to reconcile the two different beliefs in his family. While Sunnis acknowledge and recognize the Ahl-ul-Bait to have been extremely pious and very righteous people, we embrace the concept that everyone's value comes from their own deeds alone and that your descent does not spiritually advantage you over others.
aye vroom Bha Ji your comment reminded me of Baba Bulle Shah Tusi vee Ucchay Tuhadi Zaat Vee Ucchi
tussi vich Uch de rahnday, Assi Kasuri assahdi zaat vi Kasuri assi vich Kasur the rahnday!
While this is true in general sense as every man is equal in sight of God there is separate concept of families in Quran that are graced, chosen, and exalted, and doesn’t include everyone normally associated within family.
^ there is a dignity given to some prophetic lines as a blessing. However if a descendent was to have prophetic responsibilities it was made clear. Given that we believe Muhammad SAW was the last prophet , it’s hard to believe that Allah would assign his descendents as prophets. Giving a prophetic line blessing doesn’t mean that we now start channeling Allah through them or that we worship them and I don’t see any evidence of the divine powers attributed to them by the shia sects. Nor is there evidence that there was to be revelation after the Quran yet what are books like the mythical Book of Fatima and Book of Jafri (I think that’s the name), etc? All divine books but never see by a human eye and never even written about by Imam Jaffer Sadiq or his students?
وَإِذِ ابْتَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ ۖ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا ۖ قَالَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي ۖ قَالَ لَا يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ
[2:124] And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.
Prophethood ends with Rasool Allah saww without a doubt. However, Prophethood and Imamat are different things with varying functions. Prophet Ibrahim was already a Prophet when he was made an Imam and was promised this authority for his descendants (selected, “unjust” ones).
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ۖ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
[4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.
We have Allah’s book (the Quran), the Messenger has died though his Sunna is still with us, so then, who are the Ulu 'l-Amr which we are commanded, even us now, to obey? For Shias, Prophets traditions are clear that it is the Imams (as). How can we refer to the Messenger if has died? Through his Sunna. But then, how do we know what is the real Sunna? By referring to the Ahl al-Bayt.
Regarding Allah’s book, how are we to understand it? Throughout the centuries, so many sects have come and gone, with so many different “interpretations” of what the Quran actually means. If one can read Arabic, one can read the Quran. However, understanding the Quran, in its full meaning is something that requires firm knowledge. We read:
هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ ۖ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ ۗ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلَّا اللَّهُ ۗ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا ۗ وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلَّا أُولُو الْأَلْبَابِ
[3:7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.
Now, the Sunnis differ on this, some saying that the expression terminates with none knows its interpretation except Allah, however others say it continues with and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. Our traditions confirm that it includes the rasikhun fii 'l-ilm, and the rasikhun fii 'l-ilm are the Imams (as). So, to know the interpretation of the book, one must refer to them.
Understanding the Quran, following the authentic Sunna, all of this requires a continuous living authority. Since that authority exists, even if everyone else went astray, Islam would still exist on earth, uncorrupted and complete, free of people’s later additions and subtractions, in the person of the Ma`sum.
Disciples of Imam Sadiq are in thousands and there is vast amount of traditions passed down from Imam Sadiq and his father, Imam baqir (as).
Please just name one Shia scholar worth his salt who was a student of Imam Jaffar asSadiq (rahimullah) or his father (rahimullah)!
Just one will do (with documentary evidence)
If you name Jabir bin Hiyan – He was a scientist and mathematician = par excellence
Imam Abu Hanifa (rahimullah) and Imam Malik (rahimullah) were most famous students of Imam Jaffar asSadiq (rahimullah) and his father Imam Al Baqir (rahimullah), each spending around 2 years of time with them.
And it is them who have carried forward his teachings of Imam Al Baqir (rahimullah) and Imam Jaffar asSadiq (rahimullah)
Some interesting sayings of Imam Al Baqir (rahimullah) and Imam Jaffar asSadiq (rahimullah)
Some people asked Imam Jaffar Saidq (ra), “O Son of the Prophet! What do you say about Abu bakr and Umar?” The imam replied, “They were righteous leaders; and they were just; and they died on truth and justice. May Allah have mercy on them till Qayamah.”Ahqaqul Haq, Shustri, volume 1, page 116
Qumi in his tafsir, “Tafsir Qumi” narrates from Abi Abdullah:“When the prophet (sws) was in the cave, he (sws) said to Abu Bakr (ra), “I see the ship of Jaffar in the river with his companions. And likewise i see the ansar. Abubakr (ra) asked can i also see? The prophet (sws) said , “yes”. Abubakr asked how? The prophet did masah with his hands on Abubakr’s eyes. Thus, abubakr saw what the prophet saw. Then, the prophet turned to Abubakr and said, “You are siddique.”Tafsir Qumi, 1/289
Salim bin Abi Hafsa said: I asked Aba Jafar (Imam Al Baqir ) and his son Jafar about Abubakr and Omar. He said: O Salim, befriend them and dissociate yourself from their enemies as they were the two Imams of guidance. Then Jafar said: O Salim! Does anyone abuses his grandfather? Abu bakr is my grandfather. May I don’t get the intercession of Mohammad (saw) on the day of judgement if I don’t love them and if I don’t dissociate myself from their enemies
Ibrahim is a Prophet and Imam - it’s all the same thing. They bring messages and sometimes they end up being political leaders. Regardless they’re alwaya “imams” because part of the responsibility of a Prophet is to be a spiritual guide, which is what an Imam is.
You guys have minced words. I can call a cow a horse buts still a cow at the end of the day. By giving super human and divine powers to mere human beings who, yes were excellent scholars, and then trying to get away with it by using a different term, all that’s being done is hoodwinking worshippers.
The problem is when we debate early islamic issues ( i.e from time of Abu Bakr RA to Abdul Malik b Marwan i.e the end of the second fitna) we use the sectarian definations of today i.e Shia and sunni
If you read the history this is not how people identified themselves back then, the first classification was TRIBAL , second was tribal third was tribal after that you can loosely group people in the following groups
Early muhajireen of Quraish and their descendents like Abdullah b Umar, abdur rehman b abubakr , saad b abi waqqas mostly NEUTRAL
Ansar a few neutral, some pro-uthman and most Pro-Ali
Khawarij a offshoot of party of Ali but with a distinct ideology of their own have great reverence for first 2 caliphs and not much after
Party of Ali includes a myriad of elements Iraqi nationalists , Yemenis , Ansar, some Quraishis as well , in those time they show no EXPLICIT hostility to umar RA or ABuBakr RA but are very hostile to Uthman.They are shia in the literal sense but not in the sense of Imami twelver shias of today an important distinction.As the memebers of this party are very important hadith narraters for sunnis
Iraqi nobles who mostly of yemen descent back Ali KW as the likely candidate to counter Syrian hegemony they will later also back Abdullah b Zubair against Mukhtar b abi ubayda
Syrian nobles who are of late convert but quraishi linage ( not muhajireen) or other tribes settled in syria they back Muawiyah and are Pro-uthman very hostile to Ali KW
Party of Abdullah b zubair ( from second fitna onwards ) which has a nucleus of people who were from hijaz are neutral or supportive of Ali and pro-uthman BUT anti-mauwiayh and later gains traction in many other areas including Iraq where it attracts many nobles who had previously supported Ali
These are the BIG political /tribal groupings of that time if we use the names of the groups in our discussions rather than “shia” “sunni” labels it will be a lot more accurate remember the sectarian beliefs have EVOLVED over time esp when it comes to issues of succession/caliphate/imamate
majlis is a Persian word and Persian influence in indo-pak muslims sunni and shia is very deep remember it was the court language for moguls who were sunni
in early Pakistan days till 70s the shia influence was very strong esp in the media so seemed like all Pakistan was shia after revolution in iran there was a sunni reawakning and this led to a puritanical tendency in the middle classes and shunning of many rituals perceived as “unislamic” including most shia inspired rituals
who becomes a caliph is not an article of faith for sunnis the caliph is not divinely appointed so its theoretically a more egalitarian process e.g many sahaba and tabaeen supported Ali over uthman and vice versa
but shias who is first imam is article of faith
sunnis TODAY hold respect for ALL sahaba including muawiyah but that does not mean only imami shias had a problem with muawiyah historically remember the Ansar,party of ibn zubair, notable tabeen of Iraq who are PILLARs of Hadith in ahle Sunnah works were anti-ummayyad.But liking or hating any personality IS NOT THE REAL DISPUTE at all , the main dispute is the imami shia concept of Imamate.
When Umar b abdulaziz RA became caliph he fostered a policy of forgive and forget this laid the basis of the sunni respect for ALL sahaba as a way to recouncile the warring parties of Syria ( pro-ummayyad) and Iraaq/hijaz( pro-Alid, ibn zubayr) it was a way to move on and btw umar II was very generous to banu hashim and genuinely tried to build bridges.But once the concept of divine imamate took hold amongst imami shias then the condemnation of the earlier caliph became a doctrinal necessity as they per imamis violated a divine command of Ali’s appointment.This is in stark contrast to most disputes in the times of Ali between his supporters and those of mauwiayah which revolved mostly around corruption, nepotism of uthman and his relatives.
yazid was great to the Syrian arab tribes but a disaster in hijaz and Iraq where he tried to continue the policy of his father “divide and rule” but it did not work, ummayyads don’t recover these areas until abdulmalik b Marwan.
Did they ? just the first 3 after that in times of zayn al abideen there seems to be a entente between ummayyads and banu hashim and subsequent banu hashim uprisings against ummayyads were not supported by 12 imams of shias
do 12ers remember zayd b Ali ? his son ? or nafs zazakkiya ? or Abdullah b muawuyah ?
No after karbala the door is shut to armed uprising as far as 12ers are concerned
.
That’s the excuse but what legal basis is there to go to war to demand qisas ? plus Talha alliance with Aisha clearly shows the real motive was to re-capture the caliphate from the provincials ( kufan basran Egyptian) and ansar who had control of medina after killing of uthman.Talha like ammar, amr b a’as , abu dharr one of the biggest critic of uthman
[QUOTE]
Yes
its impossible to say with any certainty who killed uthman but most agitators against him did join ALi but what both sunni and shia fail to mention is that uthman death was a direct result of one of his servents killing Nayyar b Iyaad a companion who had surrounded uthmans house.To look into uthmans death to have to start way back to look at his policies
Plus Ali was not blamefree either in the fitna , he made poor decisions that divided his followers , fired his best governer that led to loss of Egypt and relied too much on his relatives as well.Today both sunni and shia blame his failures on his supporters but his supporters were not very different from those of earlier caliphs the people who had conquered iran/Iraq and maintained administration over those vast areas.
Sunnis just try to absolve ALL the major sahaba of any wrong doing while SHia try to blame EVRYthing back to Saqifa so they can implicate umar/abubakr in everything that went wrong since then.
In the end there is NO FINAL RESOLUTION to these issues as the sources that have come to us are biased all of them the degree of bias is based on the authenticity of narraters and both shia and sunni have DIFFERENT criteria of authentication of narraters so each side picks and choose the historical reports that fit their sectarian agenda but no one is willing to look at the bigger picture and come to some kind of consensus as this will mean compromise on beliefs which are too well entrenched
I agree that what we consider shia vs. sunni today → the people living during the time of the first 4-5 Caliphs did not use the same criterion necessarily.
So, per Sunni history, at what point did the concept of Shia Immamate become an actual theory that was accepted by a large group of people PUBLICLY?
During the lifetime of the 12 Imams, didn’t the Imams themselves know that this group of muslims was beginning to ascribe to them superpowers and viewing them like Popes? Wouldn’t the Imams have come out and said "Look, stop it, we’re merely human beings, there is no such thing as an “THE Imam”, just “regular old imams”. Wouldn’t Imam Jaffer Sadiq for instance have corrected people and tried to admonish those who were spreading these views as UnIslamic, and declared a Fatwa regarding this matter?
What I’ve read is that the Imams either didn’t know this was going on (sunni view), or they knew and they accepted the Imamate, but after Karbala had a policy to not talk about it, and were secretive about their roles as Imams, getting communications from God, and having secret revelations at hand that no one else knew about (shia view).
I don’t know I think it’s important that we realize that historical sources are not an archive of newspapers there are big gaps and sometimes there are multiple contradicting reports on certain important events.
I cannot give you the traditional sunni perspective but it’s safe to say that 5th imam onwards the imami shia beliefs were formulated and started to look very different from earlier shias.that being said there was a plethora of views amongst early shias about nature of leadership in islam and who us entitled to it but safe to say as an official policy first 3 imams who led politics and war didn’t introute themselves as a divinely appointed imam whose imamate was an article of faith.
