Our Beacon Forum Index Back to Homepage
Our Beacon
Salamun alaikum!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

History on the Ummah structure 1st century AH
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Our Beacon Forum Index -> Islamic History
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
adjwi



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Montréal

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salam,

I appreciated reading this article very much. May Allah increase your rewards for your efforts.

The story of Aaron and his efforts towards keeping unity is very worthy of reminder as well as understanding. Wasn't Moses reprimanded from the part of Allah for leaving so quickly to this meeting?

What this brought up in mind for me was the story that I was told about after Mohammad's death. From what I understand, what became at stake was a political decision, a decision regarding power. This looks to me like the calf. My undertanding is that prophecy is not about power, not about politics, but rather about as you say, deen. Both are opposits in my view. We live in a political world not in a world of deen and in my mind you can't have both.

From what I understand had Ali been after power, the ummah would have exploded into division. Ali's action are a worthy succcession of the work of Mohammed, perhaps in the same manner AAron was with Moses. As for the ummah today, as was with bani-Israel at the time Mohammad received the words of the quran there, there will have to be a movement outside of that limited historical boundry to see new progress. I can't see it otherwise. A calf can do so much for people... Any thoughts?

P.S. Thanks for the offer of writing me in, but as you can see I made my way in the dark. Now I'm in.....

adjwi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam Aleikum dear Bab,

thank you for your feedback. May Allah increase all in knowledge. As for your comments on the Sahaba. You believe the History writers to much. These people tried everything to distort the Truth. Please study Dr.Shabbir's Books on Islamic History to see how many contradictions there are on the stories as Karbala and on the Sahaba.

See for example this post:

http://ourbeacon.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=155
Back to top
adjwi



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Montréal

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peace Arnold,

I don't think that reference addresses the issue, in fact it seems to deny it.

'''The System of Government inniated by the exalted Prophet remained intact for one century before the Pristene Islam began getting destorted at the hands of ''Imams'' of History, Hadith and Fiqh (Jurisprudence)'' p36

Whereas in the quran at 98:4 ''Now the People of the scripture had divided among themselves even when the Evidence of theTruth had already come to them.'' (QXP version)

My reading on history is the society of Medina can be seen dividing itself right after the prophet's death which would be in accordance to what had happened in the past. Do you acknowledge such possibility or do you refuse it?

adjwi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam Aleikum,

The reference says 100 years. After a 100 years all the Sahaba were dead. I referenced to you the Sahaba. For example Karbala is only recorded by Tabari with a lot of contradictions. I believe the criminals started distorting Islam after Persia was conquered and Persian Elite travelled to Arabia to distort the Deen from within. So I don't believe there were big disputes right after Rasuls death.

Because of the strength in rule and conviction of the first Khalifs, the Deen was upheld and safe in the first years. Only when Persia was conquered is when the trouble started.

The disputes were not because of the Sahaba, the inner factors. It was because of outside factors as the Persians who found their way into the Islamic government.

Later on they distorted History to clean their path. The Quran confirms that the inner core, the Sahaba, were perfect believers. So this means the disruption was due to outside factors.
Back to top
adjwi



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Montréal

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salam,

At no time am I questionning the belief of whoever and such action would amount to nothing more than a witch hunt in my view. However a believer doesn't become exempt of mistakes as perfection belongs to Allah. My understanding is that Mohammed was the unifying element in the eyes of some of his contemporaries so that his departure affected the unity.

Now if all are united adoring a calf, that unity is never-the-less flawed in direction. Won't you agree?

adjwi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam,

I believe there is a big difference in having the abillity of making mistakes and disputing the Deen in such a way that it gets destroyed. I don't believe this has happened. I understand your point very good, but these people were united on many fronts, which only was destroyed after their death.

The Khalifs who followed after the Prophet's death did everything to remind people the bond was with Allah and not with Muhammed. I believe they succeeded pretty well. Many History records show this, sadly these History records are ignored and are not commonly known. The Persian History writers try to make it show as if the Umma was disputing from the start, which is not true. This concept was created 200AH to support Fatalism, the idea that without the Prophet we are helpless. So these stories about the Sahaba failing and disputing were only created to hypnotize the masses and give power to the kings. People believed that they themselves couldn't uphold the Deen, because of these tales. And so were passive and did not resist the tirant kings.

Do you believe we are helpless without the Prophet? That we ourselves cannot create the Deen? Because this is why those stories were created...
Back to top
adjwi



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Montréal

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam,


I'm not sure that I understood you correctly. Would you care if I ask for some explaining?

[but these people were united on many fronts, which only was destroyed after their death.] on which fronts?

[The Khalifs who followed after the Prophet's death did everything to remind people the bond was with Allah and not with Muhammed. I believe they succeeded pretty well.]What is pretty well?

[The Persian History writers try to make it show as if the Umma was disputing from the start, which is not true.]I need clearance. Is it a historical fact that a group of believers left the community after Abou Bakr became khalif?
Is it a historical fact that Othman was assasinated? From within? Is it a historical fact that Ali was assasinated from within? Surely, if such is true, wouldn't they be signs of division?

As for the Persian historians, I can't establish uniquely a right and a wrong side. Wouldn't the ''islam'' that came to the Persians not have been diluted compared to what was experienced around the presence of Mohammed? Isn't a fact that after a full moon, there is a process of light diminuishing in time? Isn't it true that after the sun sets darkness increases?

Now I believe this is a very important question : [Do you believe we are helpless without the Prophet? That we ourselves cannot create the Deen? Because this is why those stories were created.../quote] Of course not.Furthermore we need not craete the Deen as it exists. The model was successfully fashionned. This was most difficult. We now have the historical challenge of putting the model to production with an understanding of errors past, since.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam,

Dear adjwi, when I replied to you, I made a mistake as I was replying inside your post. I tried to restore the best I can excuse me for that. I did answer all of your questions:

Quote:

I'm not sure that I understood you correctly. Would you care if I ask for some explaining?

Of course, I'll do my best.

[but these people were united on many fronts, which only was destroyed after their death.]

They had the same goal and the knowledge to uphold the Deen. They all possessed the direct access to the Quran as they all spoke the pure Quranic dialect. Because of this they could not be divided only on small matters as by-laws. After their death, many people in the Ummah did not speak Quranic Arabic and thus were depended on a very small group to help them uphold the Deen according to the Quran.

[The Khalifs who followed after the Prophet's death did everything to remind people the bond was with Allah and not with Muhammed. I believe they succeeded pretty well.]

This is a large subject as this is 60 years of History. But after the death of the Prophet, only small groups tribes to back out of their oaths. These were confronted with it. For the rest, is that all conflicts were fought against outside sources, not within the Ummah itself. So the inner strucutre of the Ummah was strong.

I need clearance. Is it a historical fact that a group of believers left the community after Abou Bakr became khalif?
Yes, a small group of deniers tried to back out of their oaths. This is normal. These were not believers. Momin means 'the convinced'. Muslim means 'one who submits to Allah's Laws'. When you disrupt the Ummah by splitting from it, the Quran calls you Mushrikeen.

Is it a historical fact that Othman was assasinated? From within? Is it a historical fact that Ali was assasinated from within? Surely, if such is true, wouldn't they be signs of division?

They were murdered by assasinaters who were hired by the Persians. So it were outside factors that tried to destroy the inner core. When a president is murdered, does this immediately disrupt the Ummah? No. When JFK was killed, did America split apart? No. Did Democracy fall? No. When Pim Fortyun was killed, did Holland's Democracy system fall apart? No. There is a BIG difference in disputes and disruptions in a Democratic system. Also murdering a leader does not destroy the system or show signs of division in the Ummah.

As for the Persian historians, I can't establish uniquely a right and a wrong side. Wouldn't the ''islam'' that came to the Persians not have been diluted compared to what was experienced around the presence of Mohammed? Isn't a fact that after a full moon, there is a process of light diminuishing in time? Isn't it true that after the sun sets darkness increases?

The sun always shines, depends on where you stand. You try to compare your sayings with the History, but you act like this should be a fact. That after a good time, bad times MUST come. I don't think like that. The Abbasids took control by force. This is not directly a sign of a disrupted Ummah, but an attempt to disrupt it. The Ummayads fled to Spain and created a Heaven on Earth there.

Now I believe this is a very important question : [Do you believe we are helpless without the Prophet? That we ourselves cannot create the Deen? Because this is why those stories were created.../quote] Of course not.Furthermore we need not craete the Deen as it exists. The model was successfully fashionned. This was most difficult. We now have the historical challenge of putting the model to production with an understanding of errors past, since.

I totaly agree on this! We must indeed learn from past errors. We only differ on small details I believe, minor things. Also, there is still so much to learn. It would be nice if we lay down every History part one by one and go through them.
Back to top
adjwi



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Montréal

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salam Arnold,

Quote:
It would be nice if we lay down every History part one by one and go through them.

Sounds good. In fact you moved us before I had a chance to reply. I'll give you my thoughts on this later. However let me address this first:

The sun always shines, depends on where you stand. You try to compare your sayings with the History, but you act like this should be a fact. That after a good time, bad times MUST come. I don't think like that.

So our thought patterns affect the way we percieve reality. The way I percieve reality is: wherever I stand on this planet, it will be day, it will be night. The sun will not always shine where I am. Of course if I go to Los Vegas it may seem as 24 hour daylight, but that is only illusion. However history progresses, in the addition of days and nights and of nights and days.

Now a good time can be maintained time provided the right activity for the day and the right activity for the night, which are not the same right activities... right?

Getting back to the story of Moses; he was indeed successful in withdrawing his people out of Egypt, Aaron was successful in maintaining a unity and where did they go from there? Isn't the desert a close next? How much of a success is the desert? Their limit of success had been attained.

What happened to Solomon's temple, palace or construction after his death. Wasn't it destroyed? When did the split happen? After his death? I see history, through prophecy, as the accumaltion of successes and limits to that success, of days and nights, whose previous limits are in time taken on with success. Abraham had success that Noah didn't. Moses had success that Abraham didn't. Jesus had success that Moses didn't. Mohammed had success that Jesus didn't. Today humanity has the challenge of having success with the quran that Mohammed didn't.

No need to be frustrated with life...

At this point, I don't think that after the prophet's death that the activities of the ummah were necessarly all the right ones for the time. Now, the idea of having a look at history part one by one is in my view a great idea. It would be a mistake im my opinion to impose frontiers to that history by limiting ourselves to looking at the first one hundred years after Mohammed. We should take a look at history beginning with the Creator and his expression about his establishing a khalifa on earth. Haven't you done some work on this already? What do you think?

adjwi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
adjwi



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Montréal

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salam Arnold,

Putting aside all of history and going along your suggested lines I would need clearance on what happened right after the prophet's death.

Is it a historical fact that there was a gathering of people originally from Yathrib (Madina) who met after the prophet's death to determine a khalif? If I remember correctly, 4 of the sahabas originally from Mecca entered that meeting (including Abu-Bakr and Omar) upon which what seems like a hasty decision was made in difficult circumstances making Abu-Bakr the first khalif. Ali would not have participated in the decision process.

Would would be at stake would be Mohammad's succession and the form it was to take and the form it took. Do you or any other person have the knowledge of this?

adjwi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will make a historical chart of all happenings, and we will go through them one by one. I see if I can find a nice lay out of happenings.
Back to top
adjwi



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Montréal

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salam Arnold,

That will be very good

adjwi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
abshoeb



Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salam


Until we understand the true positions of the Quran and of history and use them accordingly, Islam will not be established in its true form. So let us investigate this matter!

The Prophet brought into shape a society based upon the principles of the Quran, a government whose purpose in this world was to “invite to the good, and prohibit the evil.” This society was to continue even after the Prophet’s demise since Islam is to be the system of life for all time. The entire nation had to be established with the same goals and purposes. And regarding that nation, the Quran declares, “You are the best nation on earth. Your duty is to order the good and prohibit the evil. (3:109)”
This is the same nation that was chosen to inherit the book of Allah. It says in the Quran “Then we made those people inheritors of the book, from whom we had chosen people for this ultimate goal. (35:32)” This nation, in those days, consisted of the muhaajireen (migrants from Mecca) and the ansar (natives of Medina). Allah himself describes their loyalty and faith in the Quran. “And those who had iman and migrated and did jihad in the way of Allah (muhaajireen), and those who had sheltered and helped them (ansar), these are true and steadfast believers. And for them is every kind of protection and provision. (8:74)”

In another place, Allah claims that he gave them mutual love for each other, which Allah himself describes as something even the entire wealth of the world could not purchase (8:63). The description of these true believers provided in Surah Fat-h is a living testament to their high regard. Read carefully, how these people joyfully exclaimed:

48:29 Muhammad is Allah’s Messenger. And those who are with him are stern towards the rejecters, but full of compassion towards one another. You see them bowing, adoring, as they seek Allah’s Bounty and Acceptance. Their signs (of belief) are on their faces, the effects of adoration. Such is their likeness in the Torah and their likeness in the Gospel. Like a seed that brings forth its shoot, and then strengthens it, so that it grows thick, and then stands firm on its own stem, delighting those who have sown it. Consequently, it fills the rejecters with rage at them. But unto those who may yet attain belief and do works that help others, Allah promises forgiveness and Immense Reward.

The Prophet and his companions, what a fascinating group! Against the disbelievers they are as firm and solid as the mountains, but with each other they are very warm hearted and understanding. Always ready to carry the weight of their responsibilities, how willfully they accept the laws of Allah. But they are not like a group of Rabbinic monks either. According to Allah’s laws, they are also busy in searching for the necessities of life and knowledge in every field of life. They remain balanced and develop within themselves the characteristics that Allah asks of them. Their faces clearly show the peace and tranquility achieved by their iman and righteous deeds. These characteristics were described in the Torah as well as the Injeel.

The metaphor of the way they established that divine system is that of a precious seed, which when planted gives rise to a blossom whose first shoot is very tender. In time, its strength increases until it stands firm and stable on its own trunk or stem, and its branches finally yield fruits. This is the way Allah promises any group who takes action and implements Allah’s divine program of life with deep conviction in the truth of its unseen results, that the tiny and tender seed of their actions will remain safe from all dangers and their fields will be filled with the best fruits.

The first group of believers was personally trained by the Prophet; however, after his death, it was the duty of the entire nation to perpetuate the Quranic system. For this end, the Quran describes true believers as always carrying out their affairs after mutual consultation. “And they conduct their affairs with mutual consultation. (42:38)”

Now Brother the above clarifications make it clear that:

1) The criteria for respect and recognition is beauty of character and righteous actions.

2) The sahaba were true and steadfast believers. Their lives were very righteous and their characters very pure. They had undying love for each other in their hearts.

3) To establish and continue the Quranic system is the collective duty of the nation. For this end, they should implement mutual consultation, for example in selecting from amongst their best citizens (best by the criteria described above) who should be the leader after the Prophet, in other words, the khalifa.

The first opportunity for the nation to act upon these principles came at the time of the Prophet’s death.

Well, these are the teachings of the Quran and the characteristics of the sahaba (muhaajireen and ansar). Now let’s see what history has to tell us about this chapter in Islam.

[Ali and Abbas’s (RA) ideas about the Khilafat ]

In Bukhari (chapter 57, book of al-Maghazi), the following account is narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas:

“When the Prophet was afflicted with the sickness that led to his death, Ali was coming out of the Prophet’s quarters that morning. The people asked Ali, “Oh Ali, how is the Prophet’s health this morning?” Ali replied “The Prophet has recovered by the Grace of Allah.” Then Abbas ibn Abdul Mutallib took Ali’s hand and pulled him aside and said to him “By Allah, after 3 days you will be ruled by someone else, and by Allah, I feel that Allah’s messenger will die from this ailment, for I know how the faces of the offspring of Abdul Mutallib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah’s messenger and ask him who will take over the caliphate. If it is given to us, we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us.” Ali said, “By Allah, if we asked Allah’s messenger for it, and he refused to give it to us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah’s messenger for it.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, the Book of al-Maghazi, 57:1707)

Can you believe it Brother? This account claims the Prophet had not even died, yet his uncle and nephew/son-in-law began having thoughts of how to take control of the khilafat. Ali was confident that the khilafat would surely be his, but Abbas felt otherwise. That is why he wanted to take Ali to the Prophet and confirm that indeed the khilafat would be given to Ali. The response that Ali gave to Abbas’ request is worthy of reflection: if he went to the Prophet and requested the khilafat and the Prophet refused, then he would not have any chance of getting it.

Did you know, Brother, that Shias believe that Allah, through His divine process, bestows Prophethood and khilafat to whom He wills, without room for election or consultation. There is no question of “choosing” a khalifa. He is considered to be divinely chosen and commissioned by Allah himself (called imam by Shias). They believe this imamat was given to Ali and his descendents.

But Sunnis, however, do not believe this. They believe that the khalifa is chosen by mutual consultation. The khilafat is not property to be distributed to one’s relatives after one’s death. A leadership passed down from father to son would be a monarchy, one of the things Islam was meant to abolish.

If We Consider This Account To Be True, Then…

Surprisingly, the above narration is not from Shias, rather it is from the most respected Sunni book of hadith. Now think, if we consider this account to be true, then what kind of impression do we get regarding two of the Prophet’s closest companions (Ali and Abbas)? The impression is that (God forbid) they did not even understand some of Islam’s most basic and fundamental principles, that the khilafat is not received on the basis of inheritance or as a claim or right. This matter is decided based on mutual consultation of the entire nation. There is no need to explain what kind of damage is done to Ali’s character by the story that is being ascribed to him.

Now let’s move forward. The blessed Prophet passed away. Because the khilafat was to be decided by the mutual consultation of the whole nation, the Prophet did not leave any will or wishes regarding the matter; this way, the free will of the nation would not be bound or constrained by anything. This matter was of utmost importance; one cannot even conceptualize the Islamic system without a central government. That is why even before the funeral rites were done, they thought it necessary to deal with that matter first.

History tells us that within the courtyard of Saqifa bani Saida was a group of ansar of whom Saad ibn Ubaadah was vying for the khiaifat. One account reports that some believed that one leader should be chosen from the ansar, and another should be chosen from the muhaajireen. At that time, the muhaajireen (including Abu Bakr, Umar, and various other sahaba) arrived. The details of that meeting according to “history,” are worthy of reflection. It is said that Habbab ibn Munzir gave the following speech:

“Oh ansar! Keep the leadership in your own hands so that people remain obedient to you. No one will even have the guts to speak against you or to do something against your wishes. You are worthy of both respect and riches. You are superior to others in both experience and number. You are courageous and brave. People look up to you. At this time, don’t spoil your opportunity by arguing amongst yourselves. These people (muhajireen) will be forced to accept your demands. The most we can compromise with them is that one wealthy among us will rule with one wealthy among them.” (Muhammad Hussein Haykal’s book Abu Bakr Siddiq Akbar, page 107)

Are you getting the picture, Saleem? This “historical account” is regarding those very ansar whom Allah himself declares as being totally selfless and considerate towards the muhajireen. Yet according to “history,” these selfish emotions and words came from them at a time when the Prophet’s blessed corpse was still in front of their eyes.

Now that was in regards to the ansar. Now listen to what the muhajireen had to say. History tells us that in response, Umar made the following comments:

Umar’s (R) Speech

“Two swords cannot fit into one sheath. By Allah, our tribes will never agree to make you the leader when the Prophet had not come from you. But if the leadership is given to someone who is of the people from whom the Prophet came, then we will have no objections.

And if any Arab denies our leadership and khilafat, then we can present clear proofs and evidences to refute him. Who can dare quarrel with us regarding it when we were the most devoted and closest in family to him? In this matter, anyone disputing us must be one who follows evil, polluted with sins and ready to fall into a pit of destruction.” (Abu Bakr Siddiq by Haykal, page 108)

In response to this, Habbab says:

“Oh ansar! Be strong and don’t be persuaded by Umar and his crew. If you show weakness now then your portion of the kingdom will be snatched away from you. If they oppose you, then exile them and take the kingdom for yourselves. Because, by Allah, you are the most worthy of it! It was by your swords that Islam was blessed with power and success. You are the ones who brought it dignity and respect. It is you who gave Islam shelter and demonstrated your allegiance to it. And if you wish, you can also take back the power and honor you gave it.” (Abu Bakr Siddiq, Haykal, 108-109)

Manner of Speaking?

Umar after hearing this, then exclaims:

“If you attempt something like this, then Allah will destroy you.” (page 109)
In response to this, Habbab claims:

“Not us, Allah will destroy you!” (page 109)

Brother, what kind of impression are you given regarding the mutual affairs of our sahaba? Those regarding whom Allah describes as, “Ashaddu ‘ala kuffar, ro‘hama bainahum.” With the disbelievers, they are very stern and strong, while with each other they are extremely sympathetic. They, about whom Allah’s words claim “Wa allafa baina quloobihim. (8:64).” Allah has put mutual love and affection in their hearts; the kind of love and affection that even the entire world’s wealth cannot purchase. But our “history” presents an altogether different picture of the character and state of mutual relations between the sahaba.

In the above excerpts from history, Umar gave the proof of the muhajireen’s authority on the khilafat by claiming, “Who can dare quarrel with us regarding it when we were the most devoted and closest in family to him?”

These words are worthy of scrutiny. You have already seen what history ascribes to Abbas and Ali, claiming that they believed that the khilafat should go by inheritance to those closest in family to the Prophet. As for Umar, we are told that he too used that to prove his claim. But think Brother, by telling us all this, where is this “history” leading us?
But this “history” does not rest here. It goes one step further and claims that when the debate became even more heated, Abu Bakr stood up and said that the ansar’s claims were completely baseless. The Prophet has already decided the matter by claiming “Al-aimmatu min Quraish, (the leaders will be from be from the Quraish).” After hearing this, the ansar became silent and Abu Bakr was given the khilafat.

This hadith is unanimously considered to be authentic, but has anyone bothered to deeply consider whether these could truly be the words of our Prophet? The Quran continuously discourages man-made distinctions based on blood and family, and continuously espouses the equality of humanity and the respect of mankind. The Prophet’s entire life was also a practical reflection of these basic ideals and understanding. Can you even imagine that the proponent of such ideals could say that the khilafat will remain only in my tribe? This single example is enough to support those who claim the Quran’s teachings and the Prophet’s example are not righteous. But we still ascribe this saying to our Prophet and that Abu Bakr openly used this quote as proof to his claim, in front of the collection of ansar and muhajireen, and everyone accepted it! In other words, by just one account, our “history” was able to ascribe the very same ancestor-worship that the Quran had come to eradicate to the Prophet and his companions!

See how our “history” has painted a rather disgraceful picture of our blessed sahaba (ansar and muhajireen) even in their first meeting after the Prophet’s death? Can you believe the shameful condition of mutual relations, manner of speaking, and style of reasoning? Now let’s move forward. In his history, Imam Tabri writes:

Abdullah ibn Abd-ur-Rahman narrates that everyone came to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, to the point that Saad was about to be trampled by the crowd. One of Saad’s men began shouting for help, but Umar yelled, “May Allah destroy him!” wishing him to be killed, and eventually went and stood over Saad, exclaiming that he wished to trample and kill him. Saad grabbed hold of Umar’s beard. Umar shouted for him to let go, and that if even one hair was out of place, not one tooth would remain in Saad’s mouth. Abu Bakr then intervened, silencing Umar and claiming that at this time, tenderness would be more prudent and beneficial. Umar then let go of Saad. Saad then claimed that as long as the strength to stand remains in him, he would fill the streets and alleys of Madina with his own supporters such that Umar and his followers would be left bewildered. And by Allah, at that time I would hand you over to such a nation that wouldn’t listen to me, rather I would follow them. He then asked his men to pick him up and take him home. His men came and took him home. For a few days he was not bothered at all. Then he was summoned and told that since everyone including his own supporters had now pledged their allegience, he should as well. He adamantly refused, claiming that he would not join them until his family and remaining followers and even his last arrow was spent in opposing them, and his swords and spears were colored with their blood. He declared by Allah, that if along with the humans even the Jinn pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr, even then he would not. (Tareekh Tabri, volume 1)

Now if we continue to the next page, we read that:

Dahhak ibn Khalifa narrates that at the occasion of the selection of the khalifa, Habbab ibn al-Mundhir stood up and unsheathed his sword and exclaimed, “I will immediately settle this problem. I am a lion, I am on a lion’s mountain, and I am a lion’s son.” Umar then attacked him. Habbab’s hand was wounded and his sword fell. Umar picked up the sword, and then jumped on Saad. Others joined him and jumped on Saad as well. Abu Bakr remained aloof from this. When people started jumping on Saad, someone shouted that you people have killed Saad. Umar then cursed him, asking Allah to destroy him, declaring him a hypocrite. As Umar was about to strike him, a stone came in the way of his sword and his attack was thwarted. After this, everyone came one by one to pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr, including Saad. At this time, bickering and quarreling began, portraying a sight reminiscent of the days of ignorance (jahiliyyah).

Brother, read that line again, where it actually says, “bickering and quarreling began, portraying a sight reminiscent of the days of ignorance (jahiliyyah).” (God forbid).

Anyway, Abu Bakr was selected as the khalifa. But whatever happened to Saad, the other hopeful? Listen to this!

After this, Saad neither prayed with Abu Bakr whether he was leading prayer or not. Even during Hajj, he would not offer the rites if Abu Bakr was there. And until the death of Abu Bakr, he continued with these practices. (Tabri, page 8)

We have seen above that Saad pulled on Umar’s beard. The “history” of Tabri tells us that the pulling of beards had actually (God forbid) become commonplace for these men. For example, in the same volume from which the above quotes were taken, is an account of the disagreement between Umar and Abu Bakr, regarding Usama ibn Zaid:

Abu Bakr, who was sitting, became enraged, and sprang upon Umar and grabbed his beard. “Oh Ibn al-Khattab! May Allah do badly with your mother that you may die! You tell me to remove that person whom the Prophet himself appointed as the army’s leader?” (Tabri page 12)
Well, that was just an aside. Now let’s return to the colorful story of the selection of the first khalifa. In this entire episode, no mention of Ali has yet been made. You must be restless to find out what his reaction was. After all, it was he who first had the ambition for the khilafat. History has much to tell us about this. Listen to what Muhammad Hussein Haykal (Misri) writes in his book:

A few muhajireen and ansar did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr. Their support was for Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Well-known amongst them were Abbas ibn Abdul-Mutallib, Fazal ibn Abbas, Zubair ibn Awaam, Ibn-al-Aas, Khalid ibn-Saeed, Miqdar ibn Umar, Salman Farsi, Abu Dhar Ghaffari, Ammar ibn Yasir, Bara’ ibn Azib, Ibn Kaab. Abu Bakr had counsel with Abu Ubaida ibn Jarah and Mugheera ibn Sho’ba, regarding what to do about Ali. They told him to meet with Abbas ibn Abdul-Mutallib, and give them a portion of the khilafat that will carry on in his family. In this way, we can cause an argument and fight between Ali and Abbas, which will be a great benefit to you against Ali.

According to this advice, Abu Bakr met with Abbas and had a long talk with him. Abu Bakr said, you are the uncle of the Prophet, and I want that you also have a part in the khilafat, which after you, will pass down in your family. However, Abbas rejected the offer and claimed that if the khilafat is our right, then we will not settle for only a part of it.” (Abu Bakr page 119)
After this, Haykal writes:

In another relation that Ya’qoobi and some other historians have mentioned, we are told that in hopes of pledging allegience to Ali, a group of ansar and muhajireen went to the house of Fatima Az-Zahra bint Rasool. Khalif ibn-Saeed was amongst them. Khalid said to Ali that “I swear by Allah, there is no better man to succeed the Prophet than you. So please accept our pledges of allegience.”

When Abu Bakr and Umar heard of this gathering, they took a few men and went to Fatima’s house and attacked it. Ali, with sword in hand, came out of his house. His first encounter was with Umar. Umar broke Ali’s sword, and then taking some men, entered Ali’s house. At this, Fatima came out of the house and said, “Get out of my house, or else by Allah, I will pull out my hair! And I will ask for help against you from Allah.” Hearing these words from Fatima, everyone left her house.
For some days, the sahaba mentioned above continued to resist pledging allegience to Abu Bakr. But eventually, one by one, each one accepted Abu Bakr’s pledge except for Ali, who did not do so for 6 or 7 months. It was only after the death of Fatima that he did so.

Until now, we have not discussed what Ali’s reasons were for his position regarding this issue. Haykal writes:

The most famous narration regarding the refusal of Ali and a few of Bani Hashim’s people to pledge is found in Ibn Qutaiba’s book “Al-Imaamah was-Siyaasah.” The narration states that after pledging allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and a few men went to meet with Bani Hashim, who at the time were gathered at Ali’s house. He wanted to ask them to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, but everyone rejected his request. Zubair ibn Awaam even took out his sword and stepped forward to confront Umar. Seeing this, Umar told his comrades to seize Zubair. Umar’s men caught him and took his sword and forced him to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr. Ali was also asked to pledge. However, he too refused and claimed “I am not going to pledge allegiance because I am more worthy of the khilafat than Abu Bakr. Instead, you all should pledge allegiance to me. You refused to pledge allegiance to any ansar claiming that you were closer to the Prophet, and only those close to the Prophet should hold the khilafat. According to this principle, you should have handed over the khilafat over to me, but instead you stole the khilafat from the Ahl-ul-Bait (Prophet’s family) and usurped it for yourselves. Didn’t you present this proof to the ansar? That because the Prophet was from amongst you, you were more worthy of the khilafat and that they should follow you? That same argument you confronted the ansar with, I now confront you with. I am more close to the Prophet than any of you were; therefore, the khilafat is my right. If you have the least bit of Iman in you, then do justice and follow me. But if you want to be tyrants, then do whatever you wish.” (Abu Bakr Siddiq – page 122)

Just reflect on that Brother. How the same proof accredited to Abu Bakr and Umar (that the khilafat should stay in the Quraish tribe because they were closer in relation to him), is now ascribed to Ali as well! None can fault the reasoning of Ali, who uses the same evidence used by Abu Bakr and Umar in order to claim his right to the khilafat. This is the whole basis of the never-ending Shia-Sunni debate. Truth be told, given narrations like the one above, the Sunnis position becomes so weak that they cannot provide any satisfying answer to the Shia’s objection. History has attached that reasoning to the very first and greatest khalifas, Abu Bakr and Umar.

Anyway, in response to Ali’s argument, Umar merely claimed “I am not going to let you go until you pledge your allegiance.” (Abu Bakr Siddiq – page 122)

Ali then pointedly remarked “Umar, you eagerly milk the cow when part of that milk is going to be yours. You now aid Abu Bakr’s khilafat today so that you can take it for yourself tomorrow. But I will never pledge my allegiance to him.”

Abu Bakr at this point began worrying that this tense matter would escalate and progress to a battle of harsh words. He then said “Ali, if you do not want to pledge allegiance, then I will also not force you into it.”
At this, Abu Ubaida ibn Jarah turned his attention towards Ali and with the kindest words possible said “Nephew! You are still young and these people are older. Neither are you experienced as they are, nor are you yet as broad-minded. If there is one person in our nation successfully able to handle the duty of succeeding the Prophet, then that person can only be Abu Bakr. So, accept his khilafat. If you live a long life, then your knowledge, level of religion, intelligence and understanding, and your being the nephew and son-in-law of the Prophet will all give you the right to the khilafat.”

Hearing this, there was no end to Ali’s rage. He angrily claimed, “Allah, Allah! Oh muhajireen! Do not take the office of the Prophet from his house and put it into your own homes. You must honor your ahl-ul-bait (family of the Prophet) and give them the rights befitting their status. Oh muhajireen! By Allah! We are the rightful owners of the khilafat because we are the ahl-ul-bait. We will be the rightful owners as long as there are amongst us reciters and scholars of the Quran, scholars of the Prophet’s sunnah, and just and upright leaders. By Allah, all these characteristics are within me, so do not become a follower of your own desires and follow a misled path rather than Allah’s path. Do not go astray.” According to narrators, Bashir ibn Saad was also present at this occasion. When he heard these words of Ali, he said “Oh Ali! If the ansar had heard these before they pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, they would not have pledged allegiance to anyone except you.”

After this discussion, Ali went home in a fit of rage. At night, he sat Fatima on a mule and took her to the ansar. As they went from house to house, Fatima would beseech help from the ansar. But everywhere they went, they were met with the same reply, “Oh daughter of the holy Prophet! We have already pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. If your husband had come to us before, we surely would have pledged allegiance to him instead.” Hearing this, Ali would angrily reply “What, should I have left the body of the holy Prophet without performing any funeral rites or ceremony, to fight and argue for succeeding him?”

Fatima would also say “Ali did exactly what was appropriate. As for what the others did, Allah will surely bring them to account for their actions.” (same – 122-25)

Haykal has related these events from various references. On this topic, Bukhari provides the following narration:

Fatima stayed alive for 6 months after the Prophet’s death. When she died, Ali buried her alone and even prayed the funeral prayer alone, without informing Abu Bakr. While Fatima was alive, Ali held a certain dignity in the eyes of the people. But after her death, Ali felt their attitudes had changed and therefore, he finally decided to reconcile with Abu Bakr and to pledge his allegiance to him. So he sent a message to Abu Bakr requesting him to meet him at his house (Ali was not unaware of the fact that Abu Bakr may bring Umar along, and therefore asked Abu Bakr to come alone). At this, Umar said “No! By Allah, you cannot go to meet him alone.” Abu Bakr replied “What do you think? What can he do to me? By Allah I will definitely go to him.” So Abu Bakr went to his house and Ali spoke with him and said “I now recognize your excellence and what favors Allah has graced you with, and I am not jealous of any of them. But, in the matter of khilafat, you have dealt unjustly with me. I felt that because of my closeness to the Prophet, I should have a part in the khilafat.”
After Zuhr, Abu Bakr got up on the podium and gave a speech describing the circumstances and reasoning behind Ali’s change of heart. Then he prayed for forgiveness (and after that) Ali read his speech and praised Abu Bakr’s virtues. He said, “Whatever I have done until now, was not because of any jealousy towards Abu Bakr, nor did I reject his God given excellence and virtues, but rather I felt that I had a part in the khilafat, and that Abu Bakr had dealt with me unjustly, and because of that, we were bitter in our hearts.” (Bukhari – Book of Skirmishes)

From this narration of Bukhari’s, we note a few points worthy of great scrutiny

) Ali was so upset with Abu Bakr that he did not even give him notice of Fatima’s death and secretly buried her during the night.

2) While Fatima was alive, Ali refused to pledge to Abu Bakr. But right after her death, he felt that in the eyes of the people, he did not have the same prestige as before, and therefore felt it prudent to simply pledge to Abu Bakr

3) To prove his right to the khilafat, Ali claimed that he was the closest by relation to the Prophet.

Just think Brother! If we consider these reports from history to be true, then what picture is painted of the great sahaba, Ali?

According to history, Ali accused those people who kept him from the khilafat of snatching it away from him unjustly. This is the very “crime” upon which Shia Muslims base their belief that after the death of the Prophet, except for the few sahaba who did not pledge to Abu Bakr, the rest all became apostates! In response to this, Sunnis say that this belief is prejudiced. But what reply can they give when the following narration is contained within their own most reliable book of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari:
Ibn Abbas relates that the Prophet said “Naked, without circumcision, you will be gathered.” The Prophet then read the ayah “Kama bada’na awwala khalqin nu’eeduhu wa’dan alaina inna kunna faaileen. (21:104)” And on the day of judgment, the first who will be clothed will be Ibrahim. And on that day some of my companions will be taken to the left side (towards Hell). I will say, these are my companions! Then Allah will say that these people reverted to their old religion ever since you left their midst [the actual word Bukhari uses is murtad (apostate)]. Then I will say as the pious servant of Allah (Jesus) said, “And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when you took me up, you were the watcher over them and you are a witness to all things. If you punish them, they are your slaves and if you forgive them, verily only you are the all mighty the all wise 5:117.” (Bukhari – Book of the Prophets 1406)

Just think Brother! How this hadith of Bukhari takes the discussion to a new low. These are those companions regarding which the Quran declares that these are the true believers (8:74)! If the iman of even those believers was such that as soon as the Prophet turned his head, their iman wavered and broke, then what can we expect of others? And if any critic should say (and they certainly do) that “a tree is known by its fruits,” then think what kind of picture is painted of our beloved Prophet!

Ali Bin Ali Alharbi (Al Madina)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
adjwi



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Montréal

PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

salaam aleikum,

Thank-you abshoeb for your efforts. What is clear to me is the sum total of what you presented doesn't make sense. That is not saying that parts could be accurate, but which parts? So how did the story really go? What's the true picture? Coudn't we learn from the mistakes?

adjwi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Arnold Yasin Mol
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Salaam Aleikum adjwi,

Have you read the work by Dr.Mansoor Alam?

http://www.tolueislam.com/Parwez/BA_Parwez.htm

It is on the bottom left, you see it immediately when you open it. He has made a series of articles called 'Islamic History'. There are some interresting facts he portrays.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Our Beacon Forum Index -> Islamic History All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group