A lot of 12er Shias when having historical discussions state "that Bibi Ayesha (ra) is not our mother, but our mother is Bibi Fatima (sa)." On the contrary, Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) when he debated with the Khawarij , he convinced them that the Muslims can't be taken as captives of war, and that Bibi Ayesha (ra) was the mother of believers. On top of that he added whoever states that Bibi Ayesha (ra) is not the mother of believer is a kaffir.
When the Khawarij split Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) wanted to guide them. At first Imam Ali (as) didn't want him to go, but then he told him to go ahead.
One occasion when his formidable powers of persuasion was used was during the caliphate of Ali. A large number of supporters of Ali in his stand against Muawiyah had just deserted him. Abdullah ibn Abbas went to Ali and requested permission to speak to them. Ali hesitated fearing that Abdullah would be in danger at their hands but eventually gave way on Abdullahs optimism that nothing untoward would happen. http://www.darolhadith.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=byPage&pid=16
Wow! Even Imam Ali (as) himself at feared that extremist were not worth the time. This applies to extremist today who do takfir against the sahaba and other Muslims.
When Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) defended Bibi Ayesha (ra) here is how he replied.
As for your statement that Ali fought and did not take prisoners of war as the Prophet did, do you really desire to take your mother Aishah as a captive and treat her as fair game in the way that captives are treated? If your answer is Yes, then you have fallen into kufr (disbelief). And if you say that she is not your mother, you would also have fallen into a state of kufr for Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, has said: The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves and his wives are their mothers (entitled to respect and consideration). (The Quran, Surah al-Ahzab, 34:6). http://www.darolhadith.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=byPage&pid=16
Now some 12ers might say but Bibi Ayesha (ra) was wrong. Yes, we know she was wrong in his opposition, but this did not mount to kufr. If it did then she wouldn't be treated as a Muslim.
I'm not surprised with this statement. The reason is Mustafa Kamal brought forth a secular rule which put an end to the Ottoman rule. The Ottomans were the enemies of the Safavids, so Tijania is very sincere with his remarks.
To strengthen my opposition against the 12rs I've been reading an online book written by a shia scholar. The book is called The Role Of Aisha In The History by Allamah Sayyid Murtada Askari.
This book was always suggested by the shiachat member Aliyah. Of course back in the day,I didn't study Seerah to a high degree so, I was not ready for this book. However, under the company of scholars, I have the training needed to handle academic material.
Anyway the shia scholar quotes an incident which actually shows a flaw in the 12r shia sect's understanding of reality.
Ali and the issue of caliphate
Ali had no doubt that after the Prophet, the caliphate would belong to him and there would be no rival.(89) It was owing to this assurance that when his uncle al-’Abbas at the Prophet’s ablution ceremony said to him: “Give me your hand that I may swear allegiance to you so that the people would say that the uncle of the Prophet has sworn allegiance to his cousin. This would benefit you and no one would oppose you any longer,” he answered: “O uncle! Is there anyone beside me who covets the caliphate?” He answered: “You will see soon enough.”
‘Ali said: “I have no wish to see the issue of my caliphate being settled behind closed shutters and I want all people to participate openly in it, and vote for me.” Then he remained silent. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4558135/Allama-Sayyid-Murtaza-Askari-The-Role-of-Aisha-in-the-History-Volume-I
Now wait a minute. Wasn't Imam Ali (as) declared a Calipah in Ghadeer. According to the shias wasn't this an explicit statement ?
Looks like it making decision behind closed doors wasn't not accepted by Imam Ali (as) himself.
On answering ansaar the team has differentiated the Shia Mahdi from the Sunni Mahdi. I will provide evidence that the Sunni Mahdi is closer in character to Imam Ali (as) as opposed to the 12r Shia expectation of the Mahdi.
Shia belief:
Allah (swt) has kept the Imam (as) in occultation for the reasons and time period known to Him (swt) only. When Allah (swt) deems it an appropriate time for His (as) reappearance (the time when he (as) is required the most), He (swt) will make him (as) rise and his (as) loyal supporters waiting for him (as) will swear their allegiance to him (as) and then the campaign will just begin without ifs and buts.
Sunni belief:
The time Imam Mahdi (as) is required the most, he would flee away from a city to another disassociating him from the disagreement and in pursuit of shelter and hence shall hide behind the curtain of the Kaaba. It is the people who shall bring him out against his will from the place wherein he shall be hiding. They will threaten to kill him and forcefully swear their allegiance to him. http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/mahdi/en/chap9.php
Now let us compare this event to when Imam Ali (as) was wanted as calipah and the Muslims wanted to give him bayah.
Below is the condition which was presented to Imam Ali (as) during the time of calipate.
When people decided to Swear allegiance[1] at Amir al-mu'minin's hand after the murder of `Uthman, he said: Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever one may say or abuse. If you leave me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief.
(Najh al Balagha, Sermon 92)
Likewise, the Sunni Mahdi will also be presented in a similar situation, which will cause him to initially refuse the position of external Waliyah.
As for the threat it is just the love the Muslims have for the Mahdi. When Imam Hussain (as) was going to Kufa, Abdullah ibn Abbas (ra) said it would be better if I killed you now, instead of letting you go.
[Shakir 9:25] Certainly Allah helped you in many battlefields and on the day of Hunain, when your great numbers made you vain, but they availed you nothing and the earth became strait to you notwithstanding its spaciousness, then you turned back retreating. (Online Quran)
From the above verse I will post the 12r exegesis. The 12rs claim "Ali ibn abi Talib, Abbas ibn Abd al Muttalib, Abu Sufyan ibn Harith and Abdullah ibn Masud were the only four persons who stayed with the Holy Prophet. Some say there were ten persons who did not run away. Ali stood in front of the Holy Prophet and stopped every attack made by the enemy to slay him."
http://quran.al-islam.org/
So in their view only 4-10 people assisted RasoolAllah (sawas) According to the 12rs the Shia among the sahaba were than 4-10. In the tradition below an evolved definition of the Shia among the sahaba is developed.
Imaam al-Ridhaa said: And the friendship with the Commander of the Faithful (s) and with those who followed the way of their Prophet (s), and who did not change their way such as Salman al-Farsi, Abu Tharr al-Ghifari, al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, Ammar bin Yasir, Hothayfa al-Yamani, Abil Haytham ibn al-Tayyihan, Sahl ibn Honayf, Ubada ibn As-Samit, Abi Ayyoub Al-Ansari, Khozayma ibn Thabit Thull-Shahadatayn, Abi Sa’eed al-Khodri and the like - may God be pleased with and have Mercy upon them - is obligatory. And the friendship with their followers who have been guided along their path - may God be pleased with them - is obligatory
From the above tradition the number of people exceeds 4-10. Does this mean the shia among the sahba ran way ? If we stick with first tradition which says 4 people assisted the Prophet (sawas), does this mean Salman Farsi (ra), Abu Dharr (ra), Miqdad (ra) and Ammar Yassir (ra) ran away ? If we stick other numbers does this mean the other shia among the sahaba ran away ?
Since, Aql is the major component in 12r sect, I will use show you how it can use it expose the contradictions in the 12r aqeeda.
Why are 12rs so obsessed by accusing the Sahaba of running away ? The answer is simple. They believe Imam Ali (as) pointed this out in Najh Al Balagha in a letter exchange between himself and Muawaiyah.
While it was the practice of the Holy Prophet (s) that whenever a battle was raged and his companions behaved cowardly or ran away from the battlefield (as in Badr, Uhud and Hunayn) which was usually the case or started making the Muslims nervous (as in Khandaq), he sent members of his family (Bani Hashim) to fight out the battle to protect his companions. (Nahjul Balaagha - Letter 9)
Yet in the Sunni version of this letter which is presented in in the Ansab of al-Baladhuri and the Wa'qat Siffin by al-Minqari, Imam Ali (as) doesn't mention the sahaba running away.
With this in mind if the wars against the Ummavis and Kuffar, only needed a few people for its victory, why did Imam Ali (as) have to do taqiyyah against people who he supposedly claim were cowards in Saqifa ? Why did Imam Ali (as) have to back down in the arbitration after Siffin ? Why did Imam Hassan (as) have to make peace with Muawiyah, if only 4-10 are required to win a war. What happened in Karbala when 72 people were present which exceed the number 8-10, yet in the end Imam Hussain (as) was martyred. In your sect Imam Ali (as) couldn't even protect his wife from those people who you claim always ran away. Its as if Imam Ali (as) shows Muawiyah that his supporters are not loyal, and then Muawiyah uses it against him and becomes the King.
The Sunni view does not accept that Umar (ra) ran away.
أَبَا قَتَادَةَ، قَالَ: لَمَّا كَانَيَوْمَ حُنَيْنٍ نَظَرْتُ إِلَى رَجُلٍ مِنَ المُسْلِمِينَ يُقَاتِلُ رَجُلًا مِنَالمُشْرِكِينَ، وَآخَرُ مِنَ المُشْرِكِينَ يَخْتِلُهُ مِنْ وَرَائِهِ لِيَقْتُلَهُ،فَأَسْرَعْتُ إِلَى الَّذِي يَخْتِلُهُ، فَرَفَعَ يَدَهُ لِيَضْرِبَنِي وَأَضْرِبُيَدَهُ فَقَطَعْتُهَا، ثُمَّ أَخَذَنِي فَضَمَّنِي ضَمًّا شَدِيدًا، حَتَّى تَخَوَّفْتُ،ثُمَّ تَرَكَ، فَتَحَلَّلَ، وَدَفَعْتُهُ ثُمَّ قَتَلْتُهُ، وَانْهَزَمَ المُسْلِمُونَوَانْهَزَمْتُ مَعَهُمْ، فَإِذَا بِعُمَرَ بْنِ الخَطَّابِ فِي النَّاسِ، فَقُلْتُلَهُ: مَا شَأْنُ النَّاسِ؟ قَالَ: أَمْرُ اللَّهِ Narrated Abu Qatada: We set out in the company of Allah's Apostle on the day (of the battle) of Hunain. When we faced the enemy, the Muslims retreated and I saw a pagan throwing himself over a Muslim. I turned around and came upon him from behind and hit him on the shoulder with the sword He (i.e. the pagan) came towards me and seized me so violently that I felt as if it were death itself, but death overtook him and he released me. I followed 'Umar bin Al Khattab and asked (him), "What is wrong with the people(fleeing)?" He replied, "This is the Will of Allah," After the people returned, the Prophet sat and said, "Anyone who has killed an enemy and has a proof of that, will posses his spoils." [Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 53, Hadith 370]
The narration does not mention that 'Umar (ra) ran away. The reality of the matter is that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Bakr (ra) and others from amongst the Mouhajirun and the Ansar have stood their ground and defended the prophet SAWS unlike what the lying Shi'ites claim!
We read the SAHIH Hadith in "Musnad Ahmad" volume 23 page 274 Hadith #14731:
حديث مرفوع حَدَّثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ , حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي , عَنِابْنِ إِسْحَاقَ , عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ عُمَرَ بْنِ قَتَادَةَ , عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِبْنِ جَابِرٍ , عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ فَانْطَلَقَ النَّاسُ إِلَّا أَنَّ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّىاللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَهْطًا مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ، وَأَهْلِ بَيْتِهِغَيْرَ كَثِيرٍ، ثَبَتَ مَعَهُ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرُ،وَمِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ، عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، وَالْعَبَّاسُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ،وَابْنُهُ الْفَضْلُ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ، وَأَبُو سُفْيَانَ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ، وَرَبِيعَةُبْنُ الْحَارِثِ، وَأَيْمَنُ بْنُ عُبَيْدٍ وَهُوَ ابْنُ أُمِّ أَيْمَنَ، وَأُسَامَةُبْنُ زَيْدٍ، قَالَ: وَرَجُلٌ مِنْ هَوَازِنَ عَلَى جَمَلٍ لَهُ أَحْمَرَ فِي يَدِهِرَايَةٌ لَهُ سَوْدَاءُ فِي رَأْسِ رُمْحٍ طَوِيلٍ لَهُ أَمَامَ النَّاسِ، وَهَوَازِنُخَلْفَهُ Ya'qoub narrated from his Father from Ibn Ishaq from 'Assim ibn 'Umar bin Qatada from 'Abdul-Rahman ibn Jabir from Jabir ibn 'Abdullah: The people retreated but the Prophet SAWS was accompanied by a group from the Mouhajirun and the Ansar and his Ahlul-Bayt, Those who held their ground and stayed with him were Abu Bakr an 'Umar and from his Ahlul-Bayt 'Ali ibn abi Talib and al-'Abbas bin 'Abdul-Mutallib and his son al-Fadl and Abu Suffiyan bin al-Harith and Raba'iyah bin al-Harith and Ayman bin 'Ubeid and he is ibn Umm-Ayman and Usamah ibn Zaid, he said: and a Man from Hawzan (until the end of the narration).
This is also mentioned in the book "Majma'a al-Zawaed" under "Kitab al-Maghazi wal Siyar" in the chapter "Ghazwat Hunein" Hadith # 10265:
وعن جابر بن عبد الله قال : لما استقبلنا وادي حنين قال : انحدرنا في واد من أودية تهامة أجوف حطوط إنما ننحدر فيه انحدارا ، قال : وفي عماية الصبح ، وقد كان القوم قد كمنوا لنا في شعابه ، وفي أجنابه ، ومضائقه ، قد أجمعوا وتهيئوا وأعدوا قال : فوالله ما راعنا ونحن منحطون إلا الكتائب قد شدت علينا شدة رجل واحد ، وانهزم الناس راجعين فانشمروا لا يلوي أحد على أحد وانحاز رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - ذات اليمين ، ثم قال : " إلي أيها الناس ، إلا أن مع رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - رهطا من المهاجرين والأنصار ، وأهل بيته غير كثير وفي من ثبت معه أبو بكر وعمر ، عليهما السلام ، ومن أهل بيته علي بن أبي طالب ، والعباس بن عبد المطلب ، وابنه الفضل بن عباس ، وأبو سفيان بن الحارث ، وربيعة بن الحارث ، وأيمن بن عبيد وهو ابن أم أيمن ، وأسامة بن زيد ، عليهما السلام قال : ورجل من هوازن على جمل له أحمر ، في يده راية له سوداء في رأس رمح له طويل أمام الناس وهوازن خلفه ، فإذا أدرك طعن برمحه ، فإذا فاته الناس رفع لمن وراءه فاتبعوه
So as we can clearly see from the authentic texts a group from the Mouhajirun and the Ansar remained with the prophet SAWS when the people retreated and amongst them were Abu Bakr and 'Umar may Allah be pleased with them, and not only did 'Umar (ra) fight but he also received two female captives as recorded in Bukhari:
Narrated Nafi: 'Umar binAl-Khattab said, "O Allah's Apostle! I vowed to observe Itikaf for one dayduring the Pre-lslamic period." The Prophet ordered him to fulfill his vow. 'Umar gained two lady captives from the war prisoners of hunain and he left them in some of the houses at Mecca. When Allah's Apostle freed the captives of hunain without ransom, they came out-walking in the streets. 'Umar said (to his son), "O Abdullah! See what is the matter." 'Abdullah replied, "Allah's Apostle has freed the captives without ransom." He said (to him), "Go and set free those two slave girls." [Sahih al-Bukhari Book 53 Hadith 372]
Also what is ironic is the Sahabi Abu Qatada (ra) who narrated the ahadith about Hunain and actually ran way, later fought under Imam Ali (as) in Siffin. On top of that Abu Saeed Khudri (ra) who the 12r later accepted as a shia did not even participate in the battles of Siffin or Jamal. On top of that Umar (ra) wanted to fight against the Romans and Persians and it was Imam Ali (as) who stopped him.
This is one of the questions which is asked by the 12r Shias umpteen times. They seem to think just because they ask something umpteen times or make a statement umpteen times, it become a valid argument against their opponents. Also, we must recall that their statement a level of truth to it. However, this historical fact about Imam Ali's (as) lack of participation of wars, is not indication that Imam Ali (as) believed that the calipate of the 3 calipahs was illegitimate. What the 12rs fail to initially realize is their definition of imamate is not the same as the Sunni definition of Calipate. In fact, their definition of imamate in reality is suspended till the reappearance of the 12th imam. Anyway, in this topic I will explain why Imam Ali (as) didn't partake in any battles during the calipate of the 3 calipahs, and also provide a rational to why the 12r Shia arguement is flawed.
Jihad is compulsory duty in Islam, so why did Imam Ali (as) decide to stay back after he eventually gave bayah to Abi Bakr (ra) after 6 months, gave bayah to Umar (ra) and Uthmaan (ra) ? To answer this question we must refer to the Quran, where an exception for exalted sahabi such as Imam Ali (as) is made.
In the Quran, Allah (swt) tells us
It is not for the believers to go forward in battle all at once. Rather, there should be a separate group from every division that [remains behind] to obtain understanding (fiqh) in the religion and warn their people towards cautiousness when they return} (Q. 9:122).
Now since, Imam Ali (as) believed he was the most knowledgeable in Islam, the imam extracted this ayah and decided to stay back and council the 3 Calipahs instead. If this is the case, how can we dismiss the 12rs statement ? In history, Ammar bin Yassir (ra) who the 12rs consider to be a Shia among the Sahabis did partake in the wars of calipahs. He fought in the wars of apostasy under the rule of Abi Bakr (ra).
In the meantime Musaylima and his followers who were lying in ambush attacked the Muslims. The Muslims were faced with great trouble and began running away like a scared flock of sheep.
Historians like Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd and others who have recorded the biography of Ammar have written that Abdullah bin Umar said: "I saw Ammar Yasir on a hillock while his detached ear, wounded by a sword, was bleeding, and he was going on fighting in the same condition, and was calling out the fleeing Muslims and saying “O' Muslims! Are you running away from Paradise! "Then again he raised his voice and said: "I am Ammar! I am Ammar! Come to me, and run towards me!"
"I (Abdullah) saw that the ear of Ammar was hanging and I also saw that in that very condition he was killing the enemies, reciting epic verses, shouting and encouraging others so that eventually the Muslims gathered round him. When the Muslims had gathered near him he attacked the enemies and came out victorious from the battlefield". We receive al-Hasan at the time of Uthman, while he was in the vigor and prime of youth. He was over twenty years old. This age allows one to plunge into the battle of life and give an opinion of the social side. During this age, Imam al-Hasan entered, as it was said, the field of jihad, which is one of the doors to the Garden. He joined the Mujahideen whose standards headed for Africa to conquer it in the year 26 A. H.[1] Through al-Hasan, the grandson of Allah’s Apostle (a.s), the Mujahideen remembered the personality of his grandfather. So they showed extreme courage and Allah made Africa be conquered at their hands. When the battle ended, al-Hasan (a.s) headed for the capital of his grandfather (a.s). He was victorious and happy at the expansion of Islam and spread of the religion of his grandfather. In the year 30 A. H. the Muslim armies carried the standards of victory and headed for Tabaristan. Al-Hasan joined them.
http://www.al-islam.org/ammaryasir/12.htm
On the contrary, for the 12rs the sahaba who rejected waliyah are bigger apostates since status of imamate is higher than Prophethood.
Next when Imam Hassan (as) reached at level of maturity, the imam fought under the rule of Hz Uthmaan (ra).
At the Time of Uthman
We receive al-Hasan at the time of Uthman, while he was in the vigor and prime of youth. He was over twenty years old. This age allows one to plunge into the battle of life and give an opinion of the social side. During this age, Imam al-Hasan entered, as it was said, the field of jihad, which is one of the doors to the Garden. He joined the Mujahideen whose standards headed for Africa to conquer it in the year 26 A. H.[1] Through al-Hasan, the grandson of Allah’s Apostle (a.s), the Mujahideen remembered the personality of his grandfather. So they showed extreme courage and Allah made Africa be conquered at their hands. When the battle ended, al-Hasan (a.s) headed for the capital of his grandfather (a.s). He was victorious and happy at the expansion of Islam and spread of the religion of his grandfather. In the year 30 A. H. the Muslim armies carried the standards of victory and headed for Tabaristan. Al-Hasan joined them. http://www.maaref-foundation.com/english/library/pro_ahl/imam02_hasan/the_life_of_imam_hasan/10_1.htm
Also, what is interesting to note that Hz Umar (ra) himself wanted to partake in battles during his own calipate. Yet it was Imam Ali (as) who stopped him from going further. In fact, even the 12r Shia till this day cannot deny this. Also, let go a step further and see the 12rs themselves citing the words of Imam Ali (as).
Imam Ali (as) wanted Umar's (ra) to live.
Instead of following Imam Ali's (as) sunnah the 12rs praise the pioneer of Rafidism who is none other than Abu Lulu.
Also, another interesting fact to note down is Umar (ra) leaving Madina to go to Palestine.
In 636 CE, at the battle of Yarmuk, the Byzantines were defeated by the Muslim Army. Christian Patriarch Sophoronius offered to surrender the city if Caliph Umar (RA) himself would come in person to ratify the terms of surrender. Umar (RA) agreed to the suggestion. The encounter between these two men was very dramatic.
Umar (RA) took to the road immediately, accompanied by a guard, and leaving Ali ibn Talib (RA) as his deputy in Madinah. Traveling by camel is a slow process. Umar (RA) and his guard would alternate mounting on the camel. So, it took few weeks before Umar (RA) arrived in Jerusalem. The crowd had gathered, and the eyes were wide open with curiosity. The Patriarch had prepared himself to meet with the most powerful ruler of his time, Caliph Umar, who had just defeated the Byzantines. From where he was standing, he saw a tall man walking, dressed in ordinary clothes, while holding the rope of a camel, and surrounded by Muslim generals; another person was riding on the camel. For a moment, the high priest, used to the pompous way Heraclius had carried his affairs, was confused as to who the Caliph was. Was the Caliph the man riding on the camel or the one pulling the camel? Eventually, recognizing the Caliph, he surrendered the key of the city. In the words of a Christian historian, Anthony Nutting, “Umar taught the caparisoned throng of Christian commanders and bishops a lesson in humility by accepting their surrender in a patched and ragged robe and seated on a donkey.” [The Arabs, New American Library, N.Y. (1964)]
When he left Madina he left Imam Ali (as) in charge of Madina. In a non-war zone Imam Ali (as) doesn't stop Umar (ra). However, in a war zone he prevents Umar (ra) from dying.
