Shi'a and Sunni Islam

[Anonymous No.17432253]

I am currently reading the book "Shi'a Islam" by Allameh Tabataba'i, and I encountered this Hadith in early pages:

>While suffering from the illness that led to his death, Muhammad organized an army under the command of Usamah ibn Zayd and insisted that everyone should participate in this war and go out of Medina. A number of people disobeyed the Prophet including Abu Bakr and Umar and this disturbed the Prophet greatly. (Sharh, Ibn Abi’l-Hadid, Cairo, 1329, vol.l, p.53.) At the moment of his death the Holy Prophet said: "Prepare ink and paper so that I will have a letter written for you which will be a cause of guidance for you and prevent you from being misled." Umar, who prevented this action, said: "His illness has run out of hand and he is delirious." (Tarikh-i Tabari; vol.ll, p.436: Sahih of Bukhari, vol.lll and Sahih, of Muslim, Cairo, 1349, vol. V; al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, vol. V, p.227; Ibn Abi’l- Hadid, vol. I, p.133.)
I am finding this astounding that the event, as cited above, is recited by canonical Sunni Hadith books like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The event is not even disputed.

[Anonymous No.17432254]

If we further look into Shi'a Hadith, there is this account from Ali (as):

>Ali (AS) said [to Talhah ibn Ubaydullah]: “[...] the Holy Prophet (SAW) during his illness privately gave me key to one thousand doors of knowledge with which one thousand doors open, and if the Ummah had, from the day the Holy Prophet (SAW) passed away, followed me and obeyed me, then it would have got subsistence from up and from beneath its feet till the Day of Judgment with satisfaction. O Talhah, were you present when the Holy Prophet (SAW) asked for a paper so that he could write that with which the Ummah does not deviate and oppose? At that time your companion said what he said - (ie Allah’s Messenger is delirious.) At that time the Holy Prophet (SAW) became very angry and left it.”
>Talhah said: “Yes I was present at that time.”
>Ali (AS) said: “When you people left, the Holy Prophet (SAW) told me all these and also told me what he wanted to write and he wanted people to be wirness to it. At that time Archangel Jibre’eel informed him that Allah Azz Wa Jall knew what opposition and separation the Ummah will have. Then he asked for a paper and asked me to write what he wanted written and made three people witness it - Salman, Abu Dhar and Miqdad, and he told the names of the Imams who are guides, whose obedience Allah has commanded till the Day of Judgment. In these first is my name, and the second is this my son (pointing towards Hasan). After him Husayn and then nine from my this son Husayn (from The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays).
After that, Ali (as) informs Talhah that the Quran compiled by Umar and Uthman is incomplete because they refused take in consideration his compilation of the Book.

How do the Sunni make sense of this? There is this well-documented disrespect and disobedience by Abu Bakr and Umar towards the Prophet, and those people chose precisely these two as the Prophet's successors, apparently with lasting impact on the Holy Book. How is this justified?

[Anonymous No.17432264]

>>17432253
>am finding this astounding that the event, as cited above, is recited by canonical Sunni Hadith books like Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. The

Press x to doubt

The Sunni account is in fact Abu Bakr, رضي الله عنه, carried this out even though everyone urged him not to because after Muhammad ﷺ died a civil war broke out. But Abu Bakr said by Allah he would carry it out


Please don't fall for Shia lying, they lie easier than they breathe and consider it a religious obligation

[Anonymous No.17432266]

Sunni Islam is a brainlet cope. Of course their own hadiths prove Shi'ism, but they just deny because "muh democratically elected caliph muthafucka!" even though that's supported nowhere in the Quran.

[Anonymous No.17432275]

>>17432266
I don't think that's really the Sunni position anon, and a shura isn't the same as a voter base.

[Anonymous No.17432277]

>>17432254
>If we further look into Shi'a Hadith,
Over half of *canonical* Shia Hadiths are considered weak or fabricated by their own standards

>>17432266
You don't know what you're talking about and probably are a wiki scholarino

[Anonymous No.17432286]

>>17432264
I found this in Abu Bakr's page on Wikipedia:
>In 632, during the final weeks of his life, Muhammad ordered an expedition into Syria to avenge the defeat of the Muslims in the Battle of Mu'tah some years previously. Leading the campaign was Usama ibn Zayd, whose father, Muhammad's erstwhile adopted son Zayd ibn Harithah, had been killed in the earlier conflict.[51] No more than twenty years old, inexperienced and untested, Usama's appointment was controversial, becoming especially problematic when veterans such as Abu Bakr, Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah and Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas were placed under his command.[52][53] Nevertheless, the expedition was dispatched, though soon after setting off, news was received of Muhammad's death, forcing the army to return to Medina.[52] The campaign was not reengaged until after Abu Bakr's ascension to the caliphate, at which point he chose to reaffirm Usama's command, which ultimately led to its success.
It seems that he did after the Prophet's death carry out a campaign of his own, but he disobeyed the prophet by refusing to join the expedition under Usamah. At any rate, if you dispute the event, we might as well look up the citation in al-Bukhari to see if it is really recited.

[Anonymous No.17432289]

>>17432277
>Over half of *canonical* Shia Hadiths are considered weak or fabricated by their own standards
Source?

[Anonymous No.17432291]

>>17432277
>You don't know what you're talking about and probably are a wiki scholarino

Whatever helps you cope. Find me a surah that backs up the sunni concept of caliph.

[Anonymous No.17432298]

>>17432289
Khomeini. He said all the Hadiths slandering the Sahaba are bogus

[Anonymous No.17432300]

>>17432298
That isn't really over half of their corpus of Hadiths anon

[Anonymous No.17432304]

Why were the companions of Muhammad so damn petty?

[Anonymous No.17432308]

>>17432286
It would seem you prefer Wikipedia (heavily influenced by Shia editiors) and Shia sources to reading a Sunni source. I suggest you change this habit if you care about honesty

[Anonymous No.17432311]

>>17432300
It is since it discredits the narrators as liars

[Anonymous No.17432316]

>>17432308
>heavily influenced by Shia editiors

[Anonymous No.17432322]

>>17432316
Yes absolutely, are you seriously ignorant enough to not know that leftists and Shia are overly represented in Wikipedia editors and both have an agenda? It used to read that "Sunni accounts agree Umar brutalized Fatima"

[Anonymous No.17432324]

>>17432308
I do not prefer Wikipedia, which I only used out of the convenience of copying it in the thread. I do, in fact, prefer the canonical books which are cited. I am proposing that if you dispute it, it stands to reason that we look up the source.

[Anonymous No.17432333]

>>17432304
It is not so much pettiness as it is hunger for power. Whoever was to succeed the Prophet was to become the next ruler of the Islamic world. That is why there was so much controversy after his death.

[Anonymous No.17432340]

>>17432304
Because Shia propanda protrays them as such. This was of course a controversial matter because Usama was a black son of a slave and adolescent and being put over old men who had been fighting with Muhammad ﷺ for many, many years. Sunnis understand it as Muhammad ﷺ testing loyalty and obedience with Abu Bakr not only following but doing so after Muhammad ﷺ died and it seemed like an incredible strategic error but because he had faith he did so regardless

[Anonymous No.17432345]

>>17432333
There was no controversy. Anyone who asks to be made leader or runs is immediately disqualified according to Muhammad ﷺ, and no one did except for the murtaddin who were fought

[Anonymous No.17432347]

>>17432340
Kek, if he had so much loyalty and faith why didn't he do it under Usama as the Prophet ordered?

[Anonymous No.17432353]

>>17432347
He did

>but my Shia zen master says

The tire on his head doesn't make him an authority

[Anonymous No.17432354]

>>17432345
But didn't the Prophet explicitly assign Ali as his successor during his oration on Ghadir Khumm?

[Anonymous No.17432362]

>>17432253
what the fuck is this fucking thread, am i going fucking mad? is islam unironically discussed on /lit/ or are you faggots taking the piss and larping?

[Anonymous No.17432363]

>>17432353
Is Sahih al-Bukhari an authority?

[Anonymous No.17432378]

>>17432362
I am genuine, anon. I am a Muslim by birth. What is it that you find astonishing?

[Anonymous No.17432381]

>>17432354
No, that's a Shia fairy tale. How could 20,000 people or whatever they say hear it? A crowd that size could not possibly hear that without microphones

Abu Bakr was put in charge of leading prayer by Muhammad ﷺ when he became too weak to and was dying. Abu Bakr had considerable seniority and was like Muhammad's ﷺ brother, he was his constant companion and closest advisor since before the prophethood. He was the first man to follow him. He was a natural choice for Khalifah. So was Ali but only after he had some years on him

[Anonymous No.17432387]

>>17432363
Yes,but not some Shia saying it says such and such in Bukhari. Bukhari himself considered Shia the worst liars

[Anonymous No.17432414]

>>17432378
that you ironically shill a primitive sandnigger cult on the most intelligent 4chan board

[Anonymous No.17432489]

>>17432387
I looked up Bukhari, and this is how the event is narrated:
>Narrated Ubaidullah bin `Abdullah: Ibn `Abbas said, "WhenAllah's Apostle was on his deathbed and there were some men inthe house, he said, 'Come near, I will write for you somethingafter which you will not go astray.' Some of them ( i.e. hiscompanions) said, 'Allah's Apostle is seriously ill and youhave the (Holy) Qur'an. Allah's Book is sufficient for us.' Sothe people in the house differed and started disputing. Someof them said, 'Give him writing material so that he may writefor you something after which you will not go astray.' whilethe others said the other way round. So when their talk anddifferences increased, Allah's Apostle said, "Get up." Ibn`Abbas used to say, "No doubt, it was very unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah's Apostle was prevented fromwriting for them that writing because of their differences andnoise."
The names are prudently not mentioned, as they are probably mentioned in other cited sources. It does however give credence to Ali's account that some of the companions did not want the Prophet to write the letter. Most likely he was going to make it explicit and formal that he wanted Ali as the successor, and companions like Abu Bakr and Umar, sensing the danger, prevented him from doing so.

[Anonymous No.17432490]

>>17432414
t. euphoric redditor

[Anonymous No.17432507]

>>17432490
t. edgy goatfucker

[Anonymous No.17432508]

>>17432414
This is a genuine question that I wanted to discuss. I am by no means shilling anything, not in this thread at least. I understand that you likely made your comment half in jest, but I would advise you to at least read the books before dismissing them out of hand.

[Anonymous No.17432517]

>>17432489
>most likely he was going to make it explicit and formal that he wanted Ali as his successor
if he wanted Ali to be the first caliph he would've used his mouth

[Anonymous No.17432520]

>>17432489
>It does however give credence to Ali's account

That Shia account is not Ali's lol

>Most likely he was going to make it explicit and formal that he wanted Ali as the successor, and companions like Abu Bakr and Umar, sensing the danger, prevented him from doing so.

That's dishonest slander and completely inconsistent with their lives before and after, you weasel

[Anonymous No.17432532]

>>17432517
He did on Ghadir Khumm.
>>17432520
Pray tell, why would some companions be afraid of the Prophet leaving a written will on his death bed? Saying that "he is delirious" (what a disgrace) or that "the Quran is sufficient for us"?

[Anonymous No.17432547]

>>17432532
The controversy was him leaving a black adolescent slaveson in charge of a foreign expedition and over much more experienced men when the entire state was getting ready to go into open rebellion except Makkah and Medina

[Anonymous No.17432554]

>>17432547
Do you mean to imply the Prophet of God made that decision because he was 'delirious'?

[Anonymous No.17432561]

>>17432532
Him saying that along with the book of Allah he leaves his household does not mean he made Ali khalifa. Ibn Abbas RA is also ahlul bayt. This just means that he wants his household to be taken care of and respected, second to the care and respect the book of Allah should receive of course.

[Anonymous No.17432570]

>>17432554
No, I mean that's what Arabs were saying. Neither Abu Bakr nor Umar believed that.

[Anonymous No.17432608]

>>17432561
>This just means that he wants his household to be taken care of and respected
>Attacks his daughter, assassinated his son-in-law, kills his grandsons
What did they mean by this?

[Anonymous No.17432612]

>>17432608
>source: dude trust me even though Khomeini himself says it's bs

[Anonymous No.17432635]

>>17432612
Where did Khomeini (ra) say Shi'a Hadith is not credible? Which Hadith specifically?

[Anonymous No.17432650]

>>17432635
Those slandering the Sahaba, he said rather Shia must not speak ill of the Sahaba.

As for the assassination of Ali and Hussein that's obviously another matter. As you know Sunnis regard them as martyrs and their deaths happened long after Umar and Abu Bakr were dead but don't let little things like facts get in the way of pathological Shia lying

[Anonymous No.17432669]

>>17432650
Yes but where did he say it? I hope I am not supposed to take it to be
>dude just trust me lmao
Also,
>shia4.png
It is rather telling that you have saved and organized such pictures. 'Pathological', we could even say.

[Anonymous No.17432683]

>>17432669
Surely you're familiar with this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa_of_Ali_Khamenei_against_insulting_revered_Sunni_figures

Khomeini said trannies are halal, you're not denying it, are you? These armies of twitter Shia trannies constantly cite his fatwa

[Anonymous No.17432725]

>>17432683
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa_of_Ali_Khamenei_against_insulting_revered_Sunni_figures
I don't see anything here from Khomeini. This is Khamenei trying to help establish unity among Muslims. It seems that the Shi'a wish to be friendly to Ahl al-Sunna, your saved pictures notwithstanding.
>>17432683
>Khomeini said trannies are halal
I understand that he said those born with biological defects in such a way that their sex is ambiguous must at once undergo a surgery and be assigned a sex. This biological deformity is very different from the western conception of tranny feeling to be trapped in the wrong body. Surely you understand the difference?

[Anonymous No.17432745]

>thread about Ali (ra) being the legitimate caliph
>"but muh trainnes"
Every time

>>17432266
This, its just an invention of the Ummyads to justify thier usurpation

[Anonymous No.17432761]

>>17432725
>all these weasel words

[Anonymous No.17432768]

>>17432745
>thread about fairy tales coined in Iraq that Imam Ja'far even said what they say about me isn't true
>both Ali and Ja'far laud Abu Bakr
>i-it was taqiyyah

Your tranny cult stays in its own lines about as well as a toddler with a crayon

[Anonymous No.17432771]

>>17432761
I understand the thread has caused a lot of seething, so much so that you abandoned rational discourse and resorted to your Shia folder. Nonetheless, I suggest you consider what was discussed once you cooled down.

[Anonymous No.17433004]

>>17432608
>attacks his daughter
literally didnt happen. the shia hadiths that affirm this are primarily narrated by shia who werent witnesses.
>assassinated his son-in-law
that was the khawarij
>kills his grandsons
was the corrupt tribesmen of kuffa who betrayed hussein a.s. and no one knows not even the shia who poisoned hassan ibn ali a.s.
none of these actions were done by ahlus sunnah. If you want to prove something happened, then use authentic sources instead of conspiracy theories supported by weak evidence

[Anonymous No.17433506]

>>17432650
>Those slandering the Sahaba, he said rather Shia must not speak ill of the Sahaba.
Iranian politics. Shia everywhere continue to curse them

[Anonymous No.17434265]

I don't know shit about Islam but the few (lebanese) shi'ites I've met were all total bros, while the (moroccans) sunnites are such dicks

[Anonymous No.17434590]

>shiites
Dilate.