_______ 1-• The text of the hadeeth: It was narrated that Jaabir ibn Samurah said: I entered upon the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with my father, and I heard him say: “This matter will not end until there have been among them twelve caliphs.” Then he said something that I could not hear, and I said to my father: What did he say? He said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (no. 7222); Muslim (no. 1821). According to other versions also narrated by Muslim: “Islam will continue to prevail through twelve caliphs.” “This religion will continue to prevail and be strong until there have been twelve caliphs.” According to the version narrated by al- Bukhaari, it says: “There will be twelve rulers.” Then he said something I did not hear, and my father said that he said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.” 2-• An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, quoting from al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad: It may be that what is meant is the one at whose time Islam will prevail and the Muslims will unite around him, as it says in Sunan Abi Dawood : “behind each of whom the ummah will be united.” This happened before the decline of Banu Umayyah (the Umayyads), when their rule became unstable and divisions appeared at the time of Yazeed ibn al-Waleed, when Banu al-‘Abbaas (the Abbassds) rebelled against him. Sharh Muslim,12/202-203. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This is how they were; the caliphs were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan and ‘Ali. Then there came to power whoever the people rallied behind and were able to hold the reins of power: Mu‘aawiyah and his son Yazeed, then ‘Abd al-Malik and his four sons; and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez. After that, the Islamic state was beset by the decline that has continued until the present. The Umayyads ruled all the Muslim lands, and during their era the Islamic state was powerful and the caliphs were called by their own names, ‘Abd al-Malik and Sulaymaan; no such titles as ‘Adad ad-Dawlah, ‘Izz ad-Deen, Baha’ ad-Deen (elaborate honorific titles given to the caliphs) were known. One of them would be the one who led the people in offering the five daily prayers, handed out banners in the mosque (to the armies setting out on expeditions), and appoint commanders, but he would live in his own house; they did not live in palaces or remain aloof from the common people. Minhaaj as-Sunnah , 8/170 Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The view that is most likely to be correct is the third, because it is supported by the Prophet’s words in other versions of the saheeh hadeeth, “the ummah will be united behind all of them.” What happened was that the people united around Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthmaan, then ‘Ali, until the incident of the two arbitrators at Siffeen. At that time, Mu‘aawiyah was called a caliph. Then the people united around Mu‘aawiyah after he made a peace deal with al-Hasan. Then they united around his son Yazeed, and al-Husayn was not able to hold power; rather he was killed before that. Then when Yazeed died, there was some division, until they united around ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwaan after the killing of Ibn az-Zubayr. Then they united around his four sons, al- Waleed, then Sulaymaan, then Yazeed, then Hishaam; and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez came between Sulaymaan and Yazeed. These were seven caliphs after the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and the twelfth was al-Waleed ibn Yazeed ibn ‘Abd al-Malik. The people united around him when his paternal uncle Hishaam died, and he reigned for approximately four years. Then they rebelled against him and killed him, and turmoil spread far and wide, and things changed from that day on. The people did not unite behind any caliph after that, because Yazeed ibn al-Waleed, who rebelled against his cousin al-Waleed ibn Yazeed, did not rule for long; rather the son of his father’s cousin, Marwaan ibn Muhammad ibn Marwaan rebelled against him. When Yazeed died, he was succeeded by his brother Ibraaheem, but Marwaan defeated him. Then Banu’l-‘Abbaas (the Abbasids) rebelled against Marwaan, until he was killed. Then the first of the Abbasid caliphs was Abu’l-‘Abbaas al-Saffaah, whose reign did not last long because of the large numbers who rebelled against him. He was succeeded by his brother al-Mansoor whose reign lasted for a long time, but they lost the far Maghreb (Andalusia), when the Marwaanis took over Andalusia; they remained in control of it and later on began to call themselves caliphs. Then things started to decline in all regions of the Muslim world, to the point that there was nothing left of the caliphate except the name only, in some countries. Prior to that, during the era of Banu ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwaan, the khateebs had delivered their khutbahs in the name of the caliph in all regions, East and West, North and South, in all lands under Muslim control, and no one could hold any position of authority in any land except by appointment of the caliph. Whoever studies history will realise that this is true. Based on that, what is meant by the words “Then there will be harj (killing)” is the killing that results from widespread turmoil, and continues to spread and increase as time goes by, which is what happened. And Allah is the One Whose help we seek. Fath al-Baari , 13/214 3-• With regard to the Shi‘ah quoting this hadeeth as evidence for the belief in the imamate – which means belief that their imams are infallible rulers, and even that they have the power of issuing laws and are in control of the universe – of twelve men from the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), for whom they have a list of specific names, the last of whom is the Mahdi, this is a far-fetched and distorted understanding of the hadeeth, based on fanatical bias, ignorance, and whims and desires. We will explain why this view is weak from several angles: 1. What is mentioned in the hadeeth is “twelve caliphs”, not “twelve imams.” There is a difference between the two. In their view imamate is more than mere caliphate and rule; according to their beliefs, imamate requires obedience, and implies that the imams are infallible in word and deed, that they act on behalf of Allah, may He be exalted, in controlling the universe, that they have absolute knowledge of the unseen, and other exaggerated notions that reached the point of kufr (disbelief that puts them beyond the pale of Islam), Allah forbid. All the hadeeth is actually saying is that there will be twelve caliphs or, according to another report, twelve ameers (rulers). This indicates that twelve men of Quraysh will be in positions of rulership. 2. These twelve men were all described in the hadeeth as belonging to Quraysh. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “… all of them (will be) from Quraysh.” If they were from the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), he would have said “… all of them from Banu Haashim,” because identifying someone as a Haashimi is more specific than identifying him as a Qurashi; the custom is to attribute a person to the closest or most specific lineage. If all of them were to be from Banu Haashim, he would not have said that they would be from Quraysh. [Banu Haashim are a clan of Quraysh] 3. The text of the hadeeth indicates that the era of these twelve would be an era of strength, power and righteousness, in which Islam would be prevailing. This did not happen during the era of the twelve imams in whom the Shi ‘ah believe. All of them lived a life of weakness and persecution, hidden from view, so how could they have been able to contribute to the glory and strength of Islam in that situation? • Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Whoever thinks that these twelve are the ones who the Raafidis believe are their imams is utterly ignorant, for none of them carried a sword except ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib. All the rest of the imams, apart from ‘Ali, never carried a sword, especially the Awaited One (al-Muntazar – the last imam). Rather he, according to those who believe in his imamate, is either scared and helpless or on the run, hiding for more than four hundred years. This hidden one never guided anyone who had gone astray, he never enjoined any good, forbade any evil or supported any oppressed person; he never gave a fatwa concerning any issue, he never gave a ruling and it is not known that he even existed at all! What benefit did he offer, even if he did exist, let alone Islam prevailing because of him? Moreover, the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stated that Islam would remain strong and this ummah would remain in good shape until there had been twelve caliphs. If what is meant thereby is these twelve imams, the last of whom is al-Muntazar, who supposedly exists now, until he appears to them, as they believe, then Islam should still have been strong during the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid periods, and it should have prevailed when the disbelievers emerged in the East and the West (i.e., the Mongols and the Crusaders) and did what they did to the Muslims, which would take too long to describe here. Islam should have been still prevailing until today, and this is something other than what the hadeeth indicates. Moreover, Islam – according to the Imami Shi‘ah – is what they are following, and they are the most humiliated sect of the ummah. There are no followers of whims and desires who are more lowly than the Raafidis; no group is more concealing of their beliefs than them or more assidious in practicing taqiyyah (dissimulation). They claim to be followers of the twelve imams, yet they are the most humiliated. What support of Islam was achieved by these twelve, as they claim?(...) these twelve (in the hadeeth) are the men of Quraysh who took positions of leadership and caliphate in the ummah; at their time Islam was strong, and this is well known. Minhaaj as-Sunnah , 8/173-174 • Al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This hadeeth indicates the inevitability of there being twelve just caliphs, but they are not the twelve imams of the Shi‘ah. Many of the latter had no power at all, whereas these (caliphs mentioned in the hadeeth) will be of Quraysh, and they will have power and will be just. Tafseer al-Qur’an al-‘Azeem , 6/78 • Shaykh ‘Uthmaan al-Khamees (may Allah preserve him) said: One may wonder: is it mere coincidence that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said that twelve would rule or be in charge of the Muslims, and the number of the imams of the Shi‘ah is twelve? Answer: This is not a coincidence. The early Shi‘ah never had this idea of twelve imams. Hence the Shi‘ah divided into many sects. Some Shi‘ah believe that only ‘Ali was an imam; they are the Saba’is, who stopped at that point. Another group said that he was an imam, as were al-Hasan, al- Husayn and Muhammad ibn ‘Ali; they are the Keesaanis, and they stopped at Muhammad. Another group said that the imamate went up to Ja‘far then stopped. And another group said that al-Muntazar (the awaited one) is also an imam; they are the Ithna ‘Asharis (Twelvers). And there are other groups and many other divisions. Anyone who wishes to know more may refer to an-Noobakhti’s book on the Shi‘ah sects. So you can see that the idea of twelve imams came very late, because this idea did not exist among the early Shi‘ah; the hadeeths they quote were fabricated after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and even after the death of most of the imams of the Shi‘ah. Thus it will become clear to you that the Shi‘ah are the ones who made this number match the number in the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Finally, I say that the sound report is the one that says “all of them from Quraysh”. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would not have mentioned this general claim if he had meant something more specific; doing so is contrary to eloquence, and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was the most eloquent of people. For example, I would not say, “I am going to give a hundred dinars to every Arab,” then if an Egyptian comes to me, I tell him that I meant every Syrian. Is he not going to accuse me of being foolish and unable to express myself, and tell me that in that case I should have said “every Syrian”? If the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had meant ‘Ali and his sons, he would have said, “They are ‘Ali and his sons.” Even if he had said “All of them from Banu Haashim,” that would have been eloquent. Banu Haashim were many, and Quraysh were more numerous, but the report speaks of them (Quraysh). If at-Tijaani [who wrote a book in support of Shi‘i ideas] and others quote this hadeeth as evidence because it matches the number they have, then what would they say about the hadeeth narrated by Imam Muslim in his Saheeh (2779), according to which the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Among my ummah there will be twelve hypocrites; they will not enter Paradise or even smell its fragrance, until the camel goes through the eye of the needle”? Kashf al-Jaani Muhammad at-Tijaani (a refutation of at-Tijaani’s book), p. 75

Sub_han_Allah that was a good read so thank you for sharing and may Allah reward you for your efforts. Now I'm still a lil confused.... Help me understand have the 12 caliphs come and gone? What is their significance and who were they? I know of the usual suspects, Umar, Ali, Abu Bakar, and Uthman ( May Allah be pleased with all of them) are these part of the twelve? Please help me understand a lil on the caliphs... @OP

@OP. Jazakumullah khaeran.

You can break this into paragraphs for better presentation and to make it easy for people to read.

Nubian113:
Sub_han_Allah that was a good read so thank you for sharing and may Allah reward you for your efforts. Now I'm still a lil confused.... Help me understand have the 12 caliphs come and gone? What is their significance and who were they? I know of the usual suspects, Umar, Ali, Abu Bakar, and Uthman ( May Allah be pleased with all of them) are these part of the twelve? Please help me understand a lil on the caliphs... @OP

ameeen bro

Nubian113:
Sub_han_Allah that was a good read so thank you for sharing and may Allah reward you for your efforts. Now I'm still a lil confused.... Help me understand have the 12 caliphs come and gone? What is their significance and who were they? I know of the usual suspects, Umar, Ali, Abu Bakar, and Uthman ( May Allah be pleased with all of them) are these part of the twelve? Please help me understand a lil on the caliphs... @OP

The twelve caliphs have come and gone as explained in the post. But Imam Mahdi is yet to come.

Interesting topic I must say.

# First, both Sunni and Shia believe in the authenticity of Hadith of 12 Khalifahs. But both disagree on who they were.

# Second, unfortunately there is no unanimity among Sunni Ulama as to these 12 Khalifas identities apart from the fact that Sunni Khilafaship is more than 40 personality despite the clarity of the hadith that "THERE WILL BE 12 KHALIFAHS FOR THIS UMMAH TILL THE LAST HOUR. And very unfortunate, only Ali and sometimes al-Hassan b. Ali made Sunni list from Prophet's Ahl al-Bayt.

# Third, Shia presented all its 12 Khalifah/Imams ALL of them from the progeny of the holy Prophet.

# Fourth, how exactly did the Prophet himself resolved this issue after informing that all of them are from Quraysh?


Prophet Clarify The Exact Family of Quraysh That will Produce His Khalifahs
Qurayshi clan is a very big clan with several families the prominent among them were eternal rivals: Banu Hashim and Banu Ummayyad.

THE HADITH OF KHALIFATAIN (THE TWO CALIPHS)

1. Imam al-Fasawi (d. 277 H) records:

‘Ubayd Allah – Sharik – al-Rukayn – Qasim b. Hassan – Zayd b. Thabit:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: “I am leaving behind over you MY KHALIFAH: the Book of Allah the Almighty and my offspring, my Ahl al-Bayt. Verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount.”

Ref: {Abu Yusuf Yaqub b. Sufyan al-Fasawi, al-Ma’rifah wa al-Tarikh (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah) [annotator: Khalil al-Mansur ], vol. 1, p. 294}

2. Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235 H):

Abu Dawud ‘Umar b. Sa’d – Sharik – al-Rukayn – al-Qasim b. Hassan – Zayd b. Thabit – the Prophet:

“I have left behind over you the TWO ALL-COMPREHENSIVE KHALIFAHS: the Book of Allah and my offspring. Verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount.”

The annotators declare: The hadith is Sahih. It has Shawahid (witnesses).

Ref: Abu Bakr ‘Abd Allah b. Abi Shaybah, Musnad Ibn Abi Shaybah (Riyadh: Dar al-Waṭan; 1st edition, 1418 H) [annotators: ‘Adil b. Yusuf al-‘Azazi and Aḥmad b. Farid al-Mazidi], vol. 1, p. 108

3. Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H):

Abd Allah (b. Aḥmad) – my father (Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal) – al-Aswad b. ‘Amir – Sharik – al-Rukayn – al-Qasim b. Hassan – Zayd b. Thabit:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “I am leaving behind over you TWO KHALIFAHS: the Book of Allah – a rope stretching between the heaven and the earth or from the heaven to the earth – and my offspring, my Ahl al-Bayt. Verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount."

Ref: Abu ‘Abd Allah Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 5, p. 181, # 21618

4. Allamah Nasir Deen al-Albani also documents:

"I am leaving behind over you TWO KHALIFAHS; the Book of Allah - a rope stretching between the heaven and the earth - and my offspring, my Ahl alBayt. Verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount."

Sheik al-Albani simply comments: * Sahih

Ref: {Sahih al-Jami al-Saghir wa Ziyadatuhu (Al-Maktab al-islami), vol. 1 p. 482, hadith no. 2457}

5. Imam Ibn Abi Asim (d. 287 H):

Abu Bakr – ‘Amr b. Sa’d Abu Dawud al-Hafari – Sharik – al-Rukayn – al-Qasim b. Hassan – Zayd b. Thabit:

The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said, “I am leaving behind over you the TWO KHALIFAHS after me: the Book of Allah and my offspring, my Ahl al-Bayt. Verily, both shall never separate from each other until they meet me at the Lake-Fount.”

Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) declares:

It is a Sahih hadith. But, its chain is da'if due to the poor memory of Sharik, and he was Ibn ‘Abd Allah the Judge. Also, al-Qasim b. Hassan is majhul al-hal (i.e. his status is unknown). The hadith is recorded by Aḥmad (5/181-182, 189, and 190) through two other chains from Sharik with it. I have only declared it Sahih because it has witnesses (shawahid) that strengthen it.

Ref: Abu Bakr b. Abi ‘Asim, Aḥmad b. ‘Amr b. al-Dhahak b. Mukhlid al-Shaybani, Kitab al-Sunnah (al-Maktab al-Islami; 1st edition, 1400 H) [annotator: Muḥammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 2, pp. 350-351, # 754}

The implication of these ahadith is that ALL NON-PROPHET'S PROGENY KHALIFAHS ARE (WERE) ILLEGITIMATE KHALIFAHS

AL-ALBANI'S ERRORS IN THE LAST HADITH ^

NB: Al-Albani submissions about Sharik and al-Qasim b. Hassan is nothing but a rushed up submissions without proper scrutiny.

About Sharik

# Imam al-Mizzi (d. 742H):

Al-Bukhari uses him as a witness in al-Jami (i.e. Sahih al-Bukhari), and narrates from him under the Chapter “Raising both Hands in Salat” and others. Muslim too narrates from him in mutaba'at (supporting narrations), and others rely upon him as a ḥujjah.

Ref: {Jamal al-Din Abu al-Hajjaj Yusuf al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal fi Asma al-Rijal (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 2nd edition, 1413 H), vol. 12, p. 475, # 2736

# Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) makes a similar statement about him:

I (al-Dhahabi) say: Al-Bukhari uses him as a witness, and Muslim narrates from him in mutaba'at. Al-Nasai and others rely upon him as a ḥujjah.

Ref:{Shams al-Din Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam wa Wafiyat al-Mashahir wa al-A'lam (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1st edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Salam Tadmuri], vol. 11, p. 169

# Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H):

It has a shahid (witness), which is upon the standard of Muslim, for he (Muslim) has relied upon Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nakha'i as a ḥujjah

Ref: { Abu ‘Abd Allah Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata], vol. 1, p. 65, # 45}

# Imam al-Ijli (d. 261H):

Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nakha'i, the judge, Kufi: Thiqah (trustworthy), and he was ḥasan al-hadith (i.e. his ahadith are ḥasan). The one who narrated most from him was Isḥāq b. Yusuf al-Azraq al-Wasiti. He heard 9000 (nine thousand) aḥādīth from him.

Ref: {Abu al-Ḥasan Aḥmad b. ‘Abd Allah b. Salih al-‘Ijli al-Kufi, Ma’rifat al-Thiqat (Madinah: Maktabah al-Dar; 1st edition, 1405 H), vol. 1, p. 453, # 727

# Imam al-Dhahabi:

I (al-Dhahabi) say: Sharik was ḥasan al-hadith (i.e. his aḥādīth are ḥasan). He was an Imam, a jurist, a prolific hadith narrator. He was not as precise as Hammad b. Zayd. Al-Bukhari has used him as a witness, Muslim has narrated mutaba'at reports from him, and Yahya b. Ma'in declared him thiqah (trustworthy) ... His ahadith are in the ḥasan categories

Ref: {Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Tadhkirat al-Huffaz (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1419 H) [annotator: Zakariyyah ‘Umayrat], vol. 1, p. 170}


About al-Qasim b. Hassan

# Imam Ibn Shahin:

Al-Qasim b. Hassan who narrated from Zayd b. Thabit is thiqah (trustworthy). Aḥmad b. Salih said so.

Ref: {Abu Hafs ‘Umar b. Shahin, Tarikh Asma al-Thiqat (Dar al-Salafiyyah; 1st edition, 1404 H), p. 189, # 1148}

* He is equally mentioned by Imām Ibn Ḥibbān among the thiqah (trustworthy) narrators.

Ref: {Abu Hatim Muḥammad b. Hibban b. Aḥmad al-Tamimi al-Busti, Kitab al-Thiqat (Hyderabad: Majlis Dairat al-Ma'arif al-‘Uthmaniyyah; 1st edition, 1398 H), vol. 7, p. 335}

# Besides, Imam al-‘Ijli further submits:

Al-Qasim b. Hassan, a Kufi Tabi'i: Thiqah (trustworthy).

Ref: {Abu al-Ḥasan Aḥmad b. ‘Abd Allah b. Salih al-‘Ijli al-Kufi, Ma’rifat al-Thiqat (Madinah: Maktabah al-Dar; 1st edition, 1405 H), vol. 2, p. 210, # 1495}

# Imam al-Dhahabi also says:

Al-Qasim b. Hassan al-‘Amiri: He narrated from Zayd b. Thabit and some others, and al-Rukayn b. al-Rabi and al-Walid b. Qays narrated from him. He was declared thiqah (trustworthy).

Ref: {Shams al-Din Abu ‘Abd Allah Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. al-Dhahabi al-Dimashqi, al-Kashif fi Ma’rifat Man Lahu Riwayat fi al-Kutub al-Sittah (Jeddah: Dar al-Qiblah li al-Thaqafat al-Islamiyyah; 1st edition, 1413 H), vol. 2, p. 127, # 4506}

Truthpallbearer:
The twelve caliphs have come and gone as explained in the post. But Imam Mahdi is yet to come.

Thank you. Who were the twelve then please?

Easy Read Like This.

Truthpallbearer

1-• The text of the hadeeth:

It was narrated that Jaabir ibn Samurah said: I entered upon the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with my father, and I heard him say: “This matter will not end until there have been among them twelve caliphs. ” Then he said something that I could not hear, and I said to my father: What did he say? He said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (no. 7222); Muslim (no. 1821).

According to other versions also narrated by Muslim: “Islam will continue to prevail through twelve caliphs.” “This religion will continue to prevail and be strong until there have been twelve caliphs. ”According to the version narrated by al-Bukhaari, it says: “There will be twelve rulers. ”Then he said something I did not hear, and my father said that he said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.”



2-• An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, quoting from al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad: It may be that what is meant is the one at whose time Islam will prevail and the Muslims will unite around him, as it says in Sunan Abi Dawood : “behind each of whom the ummah will be united. ”This happened before the decline of Banu Umayyah (the Umayyads), when their rule became unstable and divisions appeared at the time of Yazeed ibn al-Waleed, when Banu al-‘Abbaas (the Abbassds) rebelled against him.

Sharh Muslim,12/202-203. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

This is how they were; the caliphs were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan and ‘Ali. Then there came to power whoever the people rallied behind and were able to hold the reins of power:

Mu‘aawiyah and his son Yazeed, then ‘Abd al-Malik and his four sons; and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez. After that, the Islamic state was beset by the decline that has continued until the present. The Umayyads ruled all the Muslim lands, and during their era the Islamic state was powerful and the caliphs were called by their own names, ‘Abd al-Malik and Sulaymaan; no such titles as ‘Adad ad-Dawlah, ‘Izz ad-Deen, Baha’ ad-Deen (elaborate honorific titles given to the caliphs) were known.


One of them would be the one who led the people in offering the five daily prayers, handed out banners in the mosque (to the armies setting out on expeditions), and appoint commanders, but he would live in his own house; they did not live in palaces or remain aloof from the common people. Minhaaj as-Sunnah , 8/170 Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

The view that is most likely to be correct is the third, because it is supported by the Prophet’s words in other versions of the saheeh hadeeth,

“the ummah will be united behind all of them.” What happened was that the people united around Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthmaan, then ‘Ali, until the incident of the two
arbitrators at Siffeen. At that time, Mu‘aawiyah was called a caliph. Then the people united
around Mu‘aawiyah after he made a peace deal with al-Hasan. Then they united around his son Yazeed, and al-Husayn was not able to hold power; rather he was killed before that.

Then when Yazeed died, there was some division, until they united around ‘Abd al-Malik ibn
Marwaan after the killing of Ibn az-Zubayr. Then they united around his four sons, al-Waleed, then Sulaymaan, then Yazeed, then Hishaam; and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez came
between Sulaymaan and Yazeed. These were seven caliphs after the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and the twelfth was al-Waleed ibn Yazeed ibn ‘Abd al-Malik. The people united around him when his paternal uncle Hishaam died, and he reigned for approximately four years. Then they rebelled against him and killed him, and turmoil spread far and wide, and things changed from that day on. The people did not unite behind any caliph after that, because Yazeed ibn al-Waleed, who rebelled against his cousin al-Waleed ibn Yazeed, did not rule for long; rather the son of his father’s cousin, Marwaan ibn Muhammad ibn Marwaan rebelled against him. When Yazeed died, he was succeeded by his brother Ibraaheem, but Marwaan defeated him. Then Banu’l-‘Abbaas (the Abbasids) rebelled against Marwaan, until he was killed. Then the first of the Abbasid caliphs was Abu’l-‘Abbaas al-Saffaah, whose reign did not last long because of the large numbers who rebelled against him.


He was succeeded by his brother al-Mansoor whose reign lasted for a long time, but they lost the far Maghreb (Andalusia), when the Marwaanis took over Andalusia; they remained in control of it and later on began to call themselves caliphs. Then things started to decline in all regions of the Muslim world, to the point that there was nothing left of the caliphate except the name only, in some countries. Prior to that, during the era of Banu ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwaan, the khateebs had delivered their khutbahs in the name of the caliph in all regions, East and West, North and South, in all lands under Muslim control, and no one could hold any position of authority in any land except by appointment of the caliph.


Whoever studies history will realise that this is true. Based on that, what is meant by the words “Then there will be harj (killing)” is the killing that results from widespread turmoil, and continues to spread and increase as time goes by, which is what happened. And Allah is the One Whose help we seek. Fath al-Baari , 13/214



3-• With regard to the Shi‘ah quoting this hadeeth as evidence for the belief in the
imamate – which means belief that their imams are infallible rulers, and even that they
have the power of issuing laws and are in control of the universe – of twelve men from
the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), for whom they have a
list of specific names, the last of whom is the Mahdi, this is a far-fetched and distorted understanding of the hadeeth, based on fanatical bias, ignorance, and whims and desires.

We will explain why this view is weak from several angles:

1. What is mentioned in the hadeeth is “twelve caliphs”, not “twelve imams.” There is a
difference between the two. In their view imamate is more than mere caliphate and rule;
according to their beliefs, imamate requires obedience, and implies that the imams are infallible in word and deed, that they act on behalf of Allah, may He be exalted, in
controlling the universe, that they have absolute knowledge of the unseen, and other exaggerated notions that reached the point of kufr (disbelief that puts them beyond the pale of Islam), Allah forbid. All the hadeeth is actually saying is that there will be twelve caliphs or, according to another report, twelve ameers (rulers). This indicates that twelve men of Quraysh will be in positions of rulership.


2. These twelve men were all described in the hadeeth as belonging to Quraysh. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “… all of them (will be) from Quraysh.” If they were from the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), he would have said “… all of them from Banu Haashim,” because identifying someone as a Haashimi is more specific than identifying him as a Qurashi; the custom is to attribute a person to the closest or most specific lineage. If all of them were to be from Banu Haashim, he would not have said that they would be from Quraysh. [Banu Haashim are a clan of Quraysh]


3. The text of the hadeeth indicates that the era of these twelve would be an era of strength, power and righteousness, in which Islam would be prevailing. This did not happen during the era of the twelve imams in whom the Shi ‘ah believe. All of them lived a life of weakness and persecution, hidden from view, so how could they have been able to contribute to the glory and strength of Islam in that situation?


• Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Whoever thinks that these twelve are the ones who the Raafidis believe are their imams is
utterly ignorant, for none of them carried a sword except ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib. All the rest of
the imams, apart from ‘Ali, never carried a sword, especially the Awaited One (al-Muntazar
– the last imam). Rather he, according to those who believe in his imamate, is either scared and helpless or on the run, hiding for more than four hundred years.

This hidden one never guided anyone who had gone astray, he never enjoined any good,
forbade any evil or supported any oppressed person; he never gave a fatwa concerning any
issue, he never gave a ruling and it is not known that he even existed at all! What benefit did he offer, even if he did exist, let alone Islam prevailing because of him? Moreover, the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stated that Islam would remain strong and this ummah would remain in good shape until there had been twelve caliphs. If what is meant thereby is these twelve imams, the last of whom is al-Muntazar, who supposedly exists now, until he appears to them, as they believe, then Islam should still have been strong during the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid periods, and it should have prevailed when the disbelievers emerged in the East and the West (i.e., the Mongols and the Crusaders) and did what they did to the Muslims, which would take too long to describe here. Islam
should have been still prevailing until today, and this is something other than what the hadeeth indicates. Moreover, Islam – according to the Imami Shi‘ah – is what they are following, and they are the most humiliated sect of the ummah. There are no followers of whims and desires who are more lowly than the Raafidis; no group is more concealing of their beliefs than them or more assidious in practicing taqiyyah (dissimulation).

They claim to be followers of the twelve imams, yet they are the most humiliated. What support of Islam was achieved by these twelve, as they claim?(...) these twelve (in the hadeeth) are the men of Quraysh who took positions of leadership and caliphate in the ummah; at their time Islam was strong, and this is well known.

Minhaaj as-Sunnah , 8/173-174



• Al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:


This hadeeth indicates the inevitability of there being twelve just caliphs, but they are not the twelve imams of the Shi‘ah. Many of the latter had no power at all, whereas these (caliphs mentioned in the hadeeth) will be of Quraysh, and they will have power and will be just. Tafseer al-Qur’an al-‘Azeem , 6/78



• Shaykh ‘Uthmaan al-Khamees (may Allah preserve him) said:


One may wonder: is it mere coincidence that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said that twelve would rule or be in charge of the Muslims, and the number of the imams of the Shi‘ah is twelve?

Answer:

This is not a coincidence. The early Shi‘ah never had this idea of twelve imams. Hence the Shi‘ah divided into many sects. Some Shi‘ah believe that only ‘Ali was an imam; they are the Saba’is, who stopped at that point. Another group said that he was an imam, as were al-Hasan, al-Husayn and Muhammad ibn ‘Ali; they are the Keesaanis, and they stopped at Muhammad. Another group said that the imamate went up to Ja‘far then stopped. And another group said that al-Muntazar (the awaited one) is also an imam; they are the Ithna ‘Asharis (Twelvers). And there are other groups and many other divisions. Anyone who wishes to know more may refer to an-Noobakhti’s book on the Shi‘ah sects. So you can see that the idea of twelve imams came very late, because this idea did not exist among the early Shi‘ah; the hadeeths they quote were fabricated after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and even after the death of most of the imams of the Shi‘ah.

Thus it will become clear to you that the Shi‘ah are the ones who made this number match the number in the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Finally, I say that the sound report is the one that says “all of them from Quraysh”. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would not have mentioned this general claim if he had meant something more specific; doing so is contrary to eloquence, and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was the most eloquent of people.

For example, I would not say, “I am going to give a hundred dinars to every Arab,” then if an Egyptian comes to me, I tell him that I meant every Syrian. Is he not going to accuse me of being foolish and unable to express myself, and tell me that in that case I should have said “every Syrian”? If the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had meant ‘Ali and his sons, he would have said, “They are ‘Ali and his sons.” Even if he had said “All of them from Banu Haashim,” that would have been eloquent. Banu Haashim were many, and Quraysh were more numerous, but the report speaks of them (Quraysh). If at-Tijaani [who wrote a book i support of Shi‘i ideas] and others quote this hadeeth as evidence because it matches the number they have, then what would they say about the hadeeth narrated by Imam Muslim in his Saheeh (2779), according to which the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Among my ummah there will be twelve hypocrites; they will not enter Paradise or even smell its fragrance, until the camel goes through the eye of the needle”?


Kashf al-Jaani Muhammad at-Tijaani (a refutation of at-Tijaani’s book), p. 75



Now I Can Read And Understand......

MY PERSONAL REFUTATIONS TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED ARGUMENTS THAT THE 12 SUCCESSORS CANNOT BE THE 12 IMAMS OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S AHLUL-BAYT/PROGENY THAT (WE) THE SHIA-MUSLIMS BELIEVE IN AS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS TO THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (s).

Sunni caliphs are more than 30 in number, and the Prophet (s) categorically stated there would be 12 successors.

it is very ironic that the Sunni scholars, as quoted above, would prepare a list of 12 from amongst their tens of caliphs to match to this hadith with no basis why they decide to choose those 12 names. some of them even include Yazeed, while others disregard him.

then these same people would accuse the Shia of being the ones bringing up the names of their Twelve Imams to match up with the hadiths. yet, the Twelve Imams of the Shia are all from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and were one after the other until the Twelfth. It was not a case that the Shia have countless, many or over 30 Imams from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and amongst them, like Sunnis do with their over 30 caliphs, they pick a list of 12. it is not the fault of the Shia that the line of Imamate stopped with the Twelfth Imam. it was not by choice that that happened, but by divine decree as the hadith of the Prophet (s) had predicted. these 12 Imams from the Prophet's progeny were one after another. it was a succession of father to son, by Allah's decree as this verse explains better:

"Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations. Offspring one of the other; and Allah is Hearing, Knowing." (Holy Quran 3:33-34)

regarding those Shia groups that are now extinct that stopped or believed in 3,4, or 7 Imams, that was borne out of their doubt, confusion or misinformation, largely due to geography and persecution. if they chose not to believe further, it does not make the line of succession of the Imamate up to the 12th stop, and nor does it make the hadith of the twelve successors, which both Sunnis and Shia believe in, null or void. whether you believe, or they believe, or not, the promise of Allah will manifest. after all, those extinct groups did believe that Imam Ali (as) was the first successor of the Prophet (s), and not Abu Bakr; will Sunnis also follow the footsteps of those extinct groups and believe in 3,4 or 7 Imams as they have done?

moreover, the Quran states that the "light/guidance of Allah cannot be extinguished". common sense dictates that if those groups were the guided, they wont go into extinction. The Twelver Shias (Ithna Ashariyyah) who make up the largest body of Shias, and the word "Shia" refers to them by default, is the only group that believe in Twelve Imams, again not by their choice but by divine decree as the Imamate stood on the number 12. the other two Shia sub groups, namely the Zaidis and Ismailis believe in many Imams, like Sunnis numbering tens. the Zaidis diverted after Imam Ali Ibn al-Hussain (as), and believed a different line, and the Ismailis stopped at Imam Ja'far al Sadeq (as), and believed in a different line. note the word "believe". in the case of the Zaidis and Ismailis, they "believed" in different lines, and not followed, because those they attributed the imamate to from among the children of the Imams among the Twelve Imams were not alive or present to lead them. they attributed the imamate to them after their death, while in reality those figures did not claim the imamate. on the other hand, the sucessionship of the Twelve Imams was both verbal and written. the Twelve Imams issued religious decrees (fatwas) to their Shia on the successor to come and his name amongst their offspring.

by no means can either of these argument stand to justify the claim that the Shia match their Twelve Imams (as) the hadith many years later. from the hadith itself, it is clear that the 12 wont rule altogether at once. its a case of successionship over the years. and that happened with the Shia not by choice as the imamate successionship halted at the number 12. it did not stop at 7 or 4 or 5 or continue to 15. it stopped at twelve. not by disobedience or rejection, but because at the number 12, there was no successor, and the 12th Imam was miraculously preserved while his forefathers were all martyred by the tyranical rulers.

this hadith is just a defeat for any Sunni who tries to prop up a list of 12 names from amongst the over 30 Sunni caliphs. it is unsubstantiated and a case of baselessness on the part on part of Sunni scholars who would stop at nothing to reject the obvious.

we believe that from the Shia belief "imamate" has a superior stations in Shia Islam (as it is both spiritual and material leadership), in contrast to the caliphate in the Sunni context, which is only material leadership. however, when the term "caliph" is used to refer to the successor of the Prophet (s), not in a defined Sunni context, but a general context, we do subscribe to this hadith of 12 caliphs. it is on the basis that the caliph of the Prophet (s) must be both a spiritual and worldly/material/political leader that we believe that the imamate in the Shia context carries more weight to the Shia than the caliphate to the Sunnis. the word "caliphs/successors" used in this hadith should therefore not be used in the definite sense of the Sunni caliphate or in that context. therefore playing with words that the Shias believe in imams and not caliphs is silly. whether they successors of the Prophet (s) are called "amir" (princes), khulafa (successors), imams (leaders), or hukkam (rulers), as far as they are 12 in number and one after the other and from the Prophet's progeny/Ahlul-Bayt (as) that is all that matter to us.

furthermore, in versions of this hadiths, not accepted by mainstream Sunni Islam, the names of the Twelve Imams are said to have been stated by the Prophet (s). this part of the hadith:

"”Then he said something I did not hear, and my father said that he said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.”

carries a lot of suspicion. note the emphasis "and my father said that he said"!!! and why did he not hear that "something" and his father told him-not the Prophet- that "all of them will be from Quraysh". could the Prophet (s) have added that all of them would be from Banu Hashim or from his Ahlul-Bayt (as) which the narrator concealed or claimed or even actually "did not hear"? in any case, all the caliphs being from quraysh again does disservice to the Sunnis. there were many Sunni caliphs not from Quraysh. and the hadith also discredits the Sunni rulers of today who are not from Quraysh!!! yet still, the Sunni caliphs from Quraysh were still more than 12!!! this hadith is really a thorn to Sunnis. however they twist it, it backfires on them!!!

the hadith states that Islam will prevail for as long as there are Twelve and this life will not end until those Twelve. it doesnt mean if the Twelve, or eleven of the Twelve, were all persecuted and martyred that means they failed. indeed Allah's promise to the prophets will be fulfilled with Imam Mahdi, the Twelfth, when he returns along with Prophet Jesus (as). so the argument that the hadith cant refer to the Twelve Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) is very dishonest. the Twelve Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) the Shia believe in were the fountain of Islamic Learning and Knowledge. the four imams of the four Sunni schools of thought benefitted immensely from the knowledge of Imam Ja'far Ibn Muhammad, al-Sadeq (as), the Sixth Imam. look at the dishonesty of Ibn Taymiyyah's word in saying that only Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) carried a sword. he disregarded Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain, both of whom fought with their father in the Battle of Siffin against Ibn Taymiyyah's role model Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan. further, Imam Hussain (as) gallantly stood in Karbala against Yazeed (Ibn Taymiyyah and the Wahhabis/Salafists' role model) with his sword and sacrificed everything for the defense of Islam and ended up having his blood triumph over the sword of falsehood of Banu Umayyah.

the clutching at straws and beating around the bush when it comes to this particular hadith that Sunnis generally do is ridiculous and show how unconvincing they can be when they are expose to the truth.

Demmzy15:

Salam Alaikum sister, there's difference of opinion as to who this 12 were. Here are some of the opinions of scholars regarding the 12:

1

They could be this:

[color=#000099][i]1-Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (The successor of the Prophet peace be upon him)

2-`Umar ibn al-Khattab

3-`Uthman ibn `Affan

4-`Ali ibn abi Talib

5-Hasan ibn `Ali (Last Rashidi Caliph, excluding him because of the short period he ruled isn’t valid)


This is a personal opinion of course and it isn’t binding upon anyone. There is no sure way to know exactly who the twelve are since it’s a matter of Ghayb and since Rasul-Allah (saw) never mentioned the names.

Allaahu A'lam

. This is the information I'm familiar with as far as caliphs. Thank you for taking the time out to share that with me. Wow it is amazing. May Allah reward you for your efforts once again thanks

*Allah Knows best*

Kunlexic:
ameeen bro

The pink f suggests I'm a sis...

I hate the arguments/debate when it comes to Islam.


My mother taught me that if I always said Allah knows best that Allah would bless me with knowledge. In this case how important is this argument about caliphs? In the larger scale of things how is this information our business to argue over? I mean really our business? Islam needs the Muslims to unite that's what I understood from the original post.So who else got the message? These men have their life's/judgment and we have ours. So I beg face front and lets listen out for the call to prayer and success. Alhamdulilaah I am privileged to be a Muslim. Full stop guys. We know better. Divide and conquer that's 101 in the devils handbook I think but of course. Allah knows best.

Demmzy15:
And you too, I'm very glad you understand! May Allaah continue to make everything easy for you! Ameen!

Amen

Demmzy15:
ZhulFiqar ^^^Whatever the Sunni Ulama named was based on opinions because the Prophet never mentioned anyone.
So just because the Twelver Shias are in complete agreement as to who the twelve caliphs are. Ironically, their agreement does not suggest any strength, but rather, implies a stubbornness that goes against logic.
Concerning the Twelver Shias being the righteous as you tried to portray above is not acceptable. Your allegations is just based on conjectures, it's a known and established fact the Twelver Shias were never the most populous until the time of Shah Isma'il. The was the man responsible for enforcing Twelver Shiism by killing, maiming and persecuting the Ahl Sunnah of Iran, so just because the Twelver Shias are the most famous of all Shias doesn't automatically translate other factions are lies(in light of Shiism).
The hadith in question goes as clearly stated by the op, I wish you read the op fully with no biased mind. I guess you just merely glanced through:
1- Al-Bukhari (#6682) narrated through the path of Shu’ba from Abdulmalik from Jabir bin Samura that the Prophet – peace be upon him – said that there will be twelve amirs. Shu’ba narrates it in this short form, which others, like Sufyan in Saheeh Muslim (#3394) and Abu Abd Al-Samad Al-Ami in Musnad Ahmad (#20019) narrated a lengthier form from Abdulmalik. The former said: The matters of the people will continue to progress as long as they are led by twelve men. The latter said: This religion will stay at a state of glory or the people will be in a good state until the passing of twelve caliphs.
2- Muslim (#3393) narrated from the path of Husain bin Abdulrahman from Jabir bin Samura the narration but said: This matter will not end until the passing of twelve caliphs.
3- Muslim (#3394) narrated from the path of Abu Awana from Simak the same narration in short form as well. However, he also narrated (#3395) from Hammad bin Salama from Simak that he said: Islam will stay in a state of glory until the passing of twelve caliphs. This is supported by Zakariya bin Abi Za’ida’s report in Mustakhraj Abi Awana (#5631) that includes this addition.
Meaning of the Hadith:
The meaning of the Hadith is apparent. Islam will go through phases, which include times of glory and times of disgrace. The years of glory that were known during the time of the Prophet – peace be upon him – will continue to last until the passing of twelve caliphs, which suggests a long period of glory.
The narration does not suggest that glory will only be known during the reign of twelve caliphs, but rather, it suggests an uninterrupted era of glory, which was a significant prophecy and good news for the Sahabah, who were used to the oppression from their enemies.
There is also nothing in this narration about the nature of these twelve caliphs. They are not described in any of the narrations in a positive or negative light, but only that Islam will see glory until they pass.
Moreover, there's no relation as to how Shias interpret this hadith!!! As clearly explained by the Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Kathir, et al. The interpretation of the Shia is baseless because only Ali and to some extent Hasan had power over the Ummah, this an established fact. There's no need for any conspiracy of this that those, it's very clear no ambiguity whatsoever!
Salam Alaikum!

You obviously did not read my post or if you did certainly not completely.

You view the "glory of Islam" as in phases. Your second and third caliphs were both killed by their enemies. The fourth to you was faced with two civil wars and a third battle against the Khawarij. The fifth murdered and plundered. The sixth massacred the family of Prophet Muhammad (s) and committed the Tragedy of Karbala. And ugly list goes on and on and on. Is this your definition of glory? All the conquests were through bloodshed and killings. Your definition of glory is material. To us, glory refers to "the righteous shall inherit the earth" as stated in the Holy Quran. That glory refers to the ultimate victory of Imam Mahdi (ajtfs) and the return of Prophet Jesus (as). "The earth shall be filled with justice and equality as it was filled with injustice and tyranny". Islam will be glorious or STANDING as far as there are Twelve Caliphs. Those Twelve are a condition for Allah's continuation of Islam. In another version of this same Hadith, it is stated that the Prophet (s) said: "the number of my successors is the number of the tribes of Banu Israeel".

It is funny you accuse me of conjectures when I presented facts and sound reasoning. I can do the same with yours. The problem is your arguments are not even conjecture but escapism to avoid the plain and obvious truth of the matter which your stance and arguments lack.

You speak of Shah Ismaeel and Persia. Are you really serious and responsible? Was it not through bloodshed and conquest Sunni Islam reached Persia? Did umar conquer Persia with roses and honey? Or by killing and destruction? As for Shah Ismaeel he was Sunni and became Shia. The presence of Shia Islam in Persia was way before shah Ismaeel. The main drive behind shah ismaeel's battles was warding off the Sunni Ottoman Empire. Ethnicism/ethnic rivalry was a fuel: Shah Ismael's Safavid Empire was Persian and the Sunni Ottoman Empire was Turkish. Turkish Shias were also treated in Anatolia with suspicion and cruelty and no better than the Safavids treated Sunnis in Persia. It took a violent turn in the form of a civil war. And the Shia too, whether in Persia or elsewhere, since the passing away of the Prophet (s) were oppressed and continue to be to this day. There is a divine secret behind that.

It is not right for a Sunni to accuse others of bloodshed. Shah Ismaeel acted in his national interest and as the head of an existing empire within that empire. Your caliphs did far worse in "spreading Sunni Islam" far and wide through the sword. And it can be easily said that if not for violence and bloodshed, Sunnis will not be the majority of Muslims today. That is certain. On the other hand, I don't know based on which census did you conclude that Twelvers were a minority. The Persian Shias were already twelvers before shah Ismaeel.so also those Shias in Lebanon,Iraq, Bahrain, and Arabia.

The Prophet (s) said his successors will be 12. Stick to 12. Who were the 12? Did you Actually have 12 or more? Don't go cherry picking from the list of over 30 and tell us these are the names of the 12. Those are not 12 and that is not 12. Certainly, you have way more. The Prophet said 12 only. We did not make them 12. We found them to be so. We did not make them match the Hadith in terms of number because there was no one to follow beyond the 12th Imam. And we did not stop but the line of Imamate halted at the 12th. The fact that extinct Shia groups stopped at 4 or 7 imams, shows that was their own handwork. While the line of Imamate continued and stopped by itself at the 12th. The two other Shia sub groups that survived to this day, like Sunnis, have many and tens of successors. Again their choice and handwork. But the stop at the 12th that mainstream Shia Islam, otherwise called Twelvers, abide by was miraculous. Not our doing.

Nubian113:

The pink f suggests I'm a sis...

Eeyah, sorry ma. I cldnt notice it @ first.

"SuShi" { Sunni & Shia }.

Isn't clear now that we are deceiving ourselves by castigating Shia for their "Twelver"?.

Whether they got it twisted or not, it's clear that Sunni also believe in the idea of "Twelve Imams". I for once never heard of this concept in Sunni literature except in Shi'ism which Sunnis are critical of. Thanks to op for bringing this out.

At the end of the day, "Twelver" is also in the Sunni literature. So what's all criticism of Shia on Twelver is all about? .

I have said it time and again that what Sunnis critisize Shia of they themselves practice or written in their books. I'm sure majority of Sunni muslims have no idea of this "Twelve Caliphs" in Sunni theology.

As Nubian113 rightly said, that's my position. We have gotta stop wasting our time on divisions and focus on something we all have in common. Period

Nubian113:
I hate the arguments/debate when it comes to Islam.


My mother taught me that if I always said Allah knows best that Allah would bless me with knowledge. In this case how important is this argument about caliphs? In the larger scale of things how is this information our business to argue over? I mean really our business? Islam needs the Muslims to unite that's what I understood from the original post.So who else got the message? These men have their life's/judgment and we have ours. So I beg face front and lets listen out for the call to prayer and success. Alhamdulilaah I am privileged to be a Muslim. Full stop guys. We know better. Divide and conquer that's 101 in the devils handbook I think but of course. Allah knows best.

May Allah bless u my sister. I don't understand what the divisions, sects is all about. Although the Prophet had already the Ummah will be divided into 73 sects, out of wc only one wld make Jannah. What I cld infer from the hadith was tht all u need is to try ur best to follow the Commands of Allah, Sunnah of the Prophet and the ways of his beloved companions and u're gud to go, all these deviations aren't for Islam, u are either a Muslim or not, so what's wt the I'm a Sunni, or Shia or Salafiyyah, or Ahmaddiyah or whatever?
I'm a Muslim, I believe in Allah and His Prophet, try my best to live my life according to the dictate of Allah and tht is all tht matters. We need unity in Islam, the division is killing us.

HaneefahRN:

May Allah bless u my sister. I don't understand what the divisions, sects is all about. Although the Prophet had already the Ummah will be divided into 73 sects, out of wc only one wld make Jannah. What I cld infer from the hadith was tht all u need is to try ur best to follow the Commands of Allah, Sunnah of the Prophet and the ways of his beloved companions and u're gud to go, all these deviations aren't for Islam, u are either a Muslim or not, so what's wt the I'm a Sunni, or Shia or Salafiyyah, or Ahmaddiyah or whatever?
I'm a Muslim, I believe in Allah and His Prophet, try my best to live my life according to the dictate of Allah and tht is all tht matters. We need unity in Islam, the division is killing us.

Amen sis. The truth is always easy I say. I love how you put it so eloquently. 73... guys up there you hear that Let that statement humble you. Islam IS with or without US Muslims. Check yourself before you wreck yourselves that's the message Islam gives me. I didn't read half those books, I haven't met, heard or read about those men mentioned. We argue about the size of our breads, trousers, skirt lol while still disobeying our MAKER!!!! It's off putting if anything but I don't think it's helping us as Muslims.

I am a sinner and the shahada is my rope. I am a Muslim full stop....

Demmzy15:
[font=serif]ZhulFiqar ^^^Whatever the Sunni Ulama named was based on opinions because the Prophet never mentioned anyone.

So just because the Twelver Shias are in complete agreement as to who the twelve caliphs are. Ironically, their agreement does not suggest any strength, but rather, implies a stubbornness that goes against logic.

# And you are very comfortable lying against the holy Prophet that he never mentioned anyone (i.e 12 Khalifahs)?!

# Hadith Khalifatain (narration of Two Khalifahs): In this hadith Prophet emphatically mentioned Quran and his Offspring as his Khalifah over the Ummah. Some of these ahadith alongside their grading by notable Salafi Ulama have been posted above on this thread.

# Sunni/Salafi have no choice but to boycott these ahadith (Khalifatain) because 99% of their Khalifahs were not from Prophet's offspring.

THE FIRST KHALIFAH INTRODUCED

# Imam Ibn Asim (d. 287) documents:

Ibn Abbas (ra) reports: "The Messenger of Allah (s) said to 'Ali: "You are to me of the STATUS of Harun to Musa, with the EXCEPTION that you are not a prophet. And you are MY KHALIFAH over every believer AFTER ME."

Dr. Al-Jawabirah says: Its chain is Hasan

Ref: {'Kitab al-Sunnah (Dar al-Sami'i li al-Nahr wa al-Tawhi) [annotator: Dr. Al-Jawabirah], vol. 1, p. 799 - 800, #1222}

# 'Allamah al-Albani also comments: Its chain is hasan (sound).

Ref: {Kitab Sunnah (al-Maktab al-Islami; 1st Edition, 1400H) [annotator: Nasir deen al-Albani], vol. 2, p. 565, #1188

# Imam al-Hakim (d. 403H) declares: This hadith has a SAHIH chain.
Ref: {Al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn, vol. 3, p. 143, #4652}

* Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748H) concurs with Imam al-Hakim: SAHIH (authentic).

# Allamah Ahmad Shakir: Its Chain is sahih
Ref: {Musnad Imam Ahmad (Dar alHadith, 1416H) [annotator: Ahmad Shakir] vol. 1, p. 331, #3062}

# Imam al-Busiri (d. 840H): A sahih chain
Ref: {Itihaf al-khiyarah al-Maharah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-'Ashara, vol. 7, p. 184, #6630

NB: Apart from this hadith Khalifah, there exist Hadith al-Wilayah. You and I were once on dialogue on these ahadith till you disappeared.

SUNNI OBJECTION TO THIS SAHIH HADITH

While many Sunni scholars kept mute on this hadith, Sheik Ibn Taymiyyah declared it to be a fabricated hadith. Funnily, he gave NO reason.

Sheik al-Albani weirdly writes:

'As for what the Shi'ah mention about this hadith and others that the Prophet (s) said about 'Ali (r) that "he is my Khalifah after me", it is NOT authentic for many reasons. Rather, it is one of their (i.e Shi'is') several fabrications, which are exposed as lies by history. If truly the Prophet (s) had said it, it would have occurred as predicted, because it is revelation revealed, and Allah never betrays His promise."

Ref: {Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah wa Shayhun min Fiqhihah wa Fawaidihah, vol. 4, p. 344, #1750}

REBUTTALS:
1. Wasn't the Sheik al-Albani himself that authenticate the hadith? Why did he allowed himself to be baited by Ibn Taymiyyah's feeble card?

2. The caliber of al-Albani is too high to interpret that the hadith is Shi'a's "fabrication" DUE TO HISTORY because history says Abu Bakr was the Khalifah after the Prophet and not 'Ali!

* Does the Sheik not read the Qur'an about Nabi Musa and Nabi Harun?

(A). Allah reveal in Surah Nisa: 64 that Messengers are to be Obeyed. While the same Qur'an reveal that Musa and Harun were Messengers (sura Taha: 47).

So can we conclude in line with the Sheik argument that all the Messengers (esp. Harun) that were rejected by their people were fake Prophets because their rejection tantamount to 'Allah's promise not been fulfilled?

(B). Interestingly, Nabi Harun was not only a Messenger but also a KHALIFAH of Nabi Musa. Qur'an says:
"Musa said to his brother, Harun: 'Be my KHALIFAH over my people." (Q. 7:142)

In Qur'an 20: 85, Allah reveal to Musa while he was away: "...We have tried your people in your absence, and al-Samiri has led them astray." and Qur'an 7: 150 revealed that when Musa came back angrily, he questioned his brother Harun the state of affair and his Khilafa-ship over them. Harun told him they nearly killed him while they usurped the position.

Going with al-Albani's interpretations, were the messengership and khalifa-ship of Harun false and invalid because history did not fulfill his appointment which no doubt was revelation?

No doubt! Seikh al-Albani knew this but its too hard for him to accept. Should he ever agree, his Aqeedah will definitely sink; hence, there is a need to attack and call Shi'a all sort of names. How many of his adherents also took this bait by following his interpretation!

THE LAST IMAM INTRODUCED

Imam al-Hakim (d. 403H) documents:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri "The Messenger of Allah (s) said, "The Mahdi will come out at the END of my Ummah."

Al-Hakim and Imam al-Dhahabi: Sahih

Ref: {Al-Mustadrak 'ala al-Sahihayn, vol. 4, p. 601, #8673}

* The grand Salafi scholar, Shaykh Ibn Uthaymin (d. 1421H) writes in his commentary of al-'Aqidah al-Safariniyyah:

"His statement (the Last, Eloquent Imam): that is, from the signs of the Hour is the Imam. 'The Imam (here) refers to the one who leads mankind, not (just) in salat but in government. This Imam will be their supreme Imam, as the Khalifah.

He says that he (al-Mahdi) is the last, the last of whom? The last of the Imams, because there will be NO Imam after him. As such, he is the LAST of the Imams. His name is Muhammad, and his title is "the Mahdi", meaning the one who has been guided by Allah the Almighty. This is the Mahdi who will be SENT during the End of Time, when the earth will have been filled with injustice and oppression and the truth will have been forgotten... At that period, Allah the Almighty will SEND this man as a male Imam to reform THE CREATION and to restore the truth"

Ref: {Sharh al-'Aqidah al-Safariniyyah, p. 450-451}

^It is very reckless to lie against the person of the holy Prophet and it is more reckless to denied the meaning of his ahadith.

Nubian113:




Amen sis. The truth is always easy I say. I love how you put it so eloquently. 73... guys up there you hear that Let that statement humble you. Islam IS with or without US Muslims. Check yourself before you wreck yourselves that's the message Islam gives me. I didn't read half those books, I haven't met, heard or read about those men mentioned. We argue about the size of our breads, trousers, skirt lol while still disobeying our MAKER!!!! It's off putting if anything but I don't think it's helping us as Muslims.

I am a sinner and the shahada is my rope. I am a Muslim full stop....

Yes, 73 sects, and we can see them emerging everyday all claiming to be in the right, but who are those in the right? The Jammah, those who follow the dictates of Allah, the sunnah of the Prophet and the ways of the Companions, simple. There are several places in the Quran where Muslims were warned against creating sects, yet we see them emerging everyday worse still they fight against themselves, bring up several acts of bid'ah,etc these are the problems.
Be a Muslim, simple!

HaneefahRN:

Yes, 73 sects, and we can see them emerging everyday all claiming to be in the right, but who are those in the right? The Jammah, those who follow the dictates of Allah, the sunnah of the Prophet and the ways of the Companions, simple. There are several places in the Quran where Muslims were warned against creating sects, yet we see them emerging everyday worse still they fight against themselves, bring up several acts of bid'ah,etc these are the problems.
Be a Muslim, simple!

Amazing is when Sunnis are shown the truth and for whatsoever reason they cannot accept and embrace it, they become neutral robots who are "Muslims only", even though everything about their beliefs and practices is Sunni.

Dear Haneefah, while we all agree on the Holy Quran, can you tell us where you are told to follow the Sunnah? While we also agree on following the authentic Sunnah embodied in the authentic hadiths, because obedience to the Prophet (s) is obedience to Allah as per the Holy Quran, there was nothing called "sunnah"/Hadiths that was written, codified or preserved as at the time of the Prophet's passing away. Therefore from whom do you learn and take the prophetic sunnah unadulterated ? This brings us to your third point of following the companions. Again, where and who told you to follow the companions? And which companions? There were companions who left Islam for Christianity, for instance. Are you to follow them too? If you say the righteous companions that we should follow, how do you separate the righteous ones from the ones that were not righteous? Or were the companions themselves ordered by the Prophet to follow someone or others? Yes, the companions themselves were told to follow the Thaqalain (The Two Weighty Things)-The Quran and the Progeny (Ahlul-Bayt). Their adherence to follow these two is the yardstick to judge their righteousness. And therefore, the Prophet (s) had said: My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah; all those who embark on it are saved!". So don't blame us for separating the chaff from the wheat when it comes to the companions. There are some we love, respect and honor; and others we don't. And the same applies to you if you fail to follow the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (s) through his Ahlul-Bayt (as). The same Ahlul-Bayt (as) we read about in verse 33:33 that Allah has made pure and kept sins away from them. If you follow them, then the title of Muslim that you claim befits you. If you don't, then you're a pretender by claiming that title. The choice is yours.

ZhulFiqar:


Amazing is when Sunnis are shown the truth and for whatsoever reason they cannot accept and embrace it, they become neutral robots who are "Muslims only", even though everything about their beliefs and practices is Sunni.

Dear Haneefah, while we all agree on the Holy Quran, can you tell us where you are told to follow the Sunnah? While we also agree on following the authentic Sunnah embodied in the authentic hadiths, because obedience to the Prophet (s) is obedience to Allah as per the Holy Quran, there was nothing called "sunnah"/Hadiths that was written, codified or preserved as at the time of the Prophet's passing away. Therefore from whom do you learn and take the prophetic sunnah unadulterated ?

Brother, you dragged it. Please leave the sister alone. Her message is clear enough to understand. You do not need to dig. That's the problem. This is what i condemned others of doing. The sister did not stump her feet on anyone here. She's simply neutral and that should just be it.

^^^

"There is no compulsion in religion"
(Holy Quran 2:256)

"But if they turn away from you, (O Prophet remember that) your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message (entrusted to you)"
(Holy Quran 16:82 )

ZhulFiqar:


Amazing is when Sunnis are shown the truth and for whatsoever reason they cannot accept and embrace it, they become neutral robots who are "Muslims only", even though everything about their beliefs and practices is Sunni.

Dear Haneefah, while we all agree on the Holy Quran, can you tell us where you are told to follow the Sunnah? While we also agree on following the authentic Sunnah embodied in the authentic hadiths, because obedience to the Prophet (s) is obedience to Allah as per the Holy Quran, there was nothing called "sunnah"/Hadiths that was written, codified or preserved as at the time of the Prophet's passing away. Therefore from whom do you learn and take the prophetic sunnah unadulterated ? This brings us to your third point of following the companions. Again, where and who told you to follow the companions? And which companions? There were companions who left Islam for Christianity, for instance. Are you to follow them too? If you say the righteous companions that we should follow, how do you separate the righteous ones from the ones that were not righteous? Or were the companions themselves ordered by the Prophet to follow someone or others? Yes, the companions themselves were told to follow the Thaqalain (The Two Weighty Things)-The Quran and the Progeny (Ahlul-Bayt). Their adherence to follow these two is the yardstick to judge their righteousness. And therefore, the Prophet (s) had said: My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah; all those who embark on it are saved!". So don't blame us for separating the chaff from the wheat when it comes to the companions. There are some we love, respect and honor; and others we don't. And the same applies to you if you fail to follow the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (s) through his Ahlul-Bayt (as). The same Ahlul-Bayt (as) we read about in verse 33:33 that Allah has made pure and kept sins away from them. If you follow them, then the title of Muslim that you claim befits you. If you don't, then you're a pretender by claiming that title. The choice is yours.

Let me guess u are a Shiite. Bro. ZulFiqar, I'm nt interested in the Shiite-Sunni debates and wht not. And my being a true Muslim or not is not subject to ur judgement, thanks.

Demmzy15:
[font=serif]ZhulFiqar, I read all your posts carefully with no biased mind. And it's still doesn't make sense!

complete your sentence:

"And it's still doesn't make sense!...to me"

The narration says that there will be glory UNTIL twelve caliphs, not AFTER caliphs.

no one is saying AFTER. that is point number 1. where did you get that from? there is even nothing in the Arabic wordings containing the word "glory". i understood that was figurative, not literal. there is no word as "MAJD" (glory) in the arabic. literally, the hadith states that the religion will NOT CEASE TO STAND UNTIL there are 12 successors. there is no word as "glory" in the Arabic. you are trying to insert or plunge words that i have not said and the hadith does not contain literally. i can read Arabic, in case you cannot. if you cannot, you can be excused. but if you can and you are being dishonest, as all your arguments in this thread are dishonest, then it is not excusable. you are therefore deceitful.

point number 2, please get to know the definition of "UNTIL". the hadith says : this religion will not cease to stand UNTIL there are 12 successors. meaning for as long as there are the 12 successors, the religion will STAND. the word in arabic is "hattah". there is a difference between "UNTIL" and "AFTER". this means the religion will survive up to the time of the 12th successor. this evidently means going by the time that has elapsed (over a 1000 years), logic entails we believe that the 12th successor has not yet passed away. we are in the era of the 12th. this justifies the Shia belief in the 12th Imam's disappearance for over a thousand years and still counting and will return at the end of time along with Prophet Isa (as). the Shia belief in Ghaibah is thus justified just with one word you are using to confuse yourself because you have dodged the truth. otherwise, answer this question:

how can a religion over a thousand years old be said to continue or stand UNTIL there are 12 rulers? this means the reign of the 12 successors amount to the time of the religion's existence. this goes to show that AFTER the 12th, the end time begins.

note again: the word UNTIL is what WE emphasize on and accept wholely, and not AFTER. we do not say the religion will exist AFTER there are 12 rulers. meaning before 12 rulers, the religion will cease to exist or will not exist.

UNTIL: "UP TO".

As per the Shia view of history, Islam was never in a time of glory.

speak for yourself.not on behalf of things you are evidently ignorant of but insist on expressing your empty opinions on based on sectarian blindness.

The Prophet peace be upon him was surrounded by hypocrites,

this is not an assertion exclusive to the Shia. it is a Quranic assertion. there is a Surat in the Holy Quran called Surat al-Munafiqun (Hypocrites). the Prophet (s) was indeed surrounded by hypocrites; people who claimed to have believed but did not believe. there are many verses on them, and even miraculous ones that expose their hypocrisy as part of the knowledge of the unseen given divinely to the Prophet (s). we simply disagree on the hypocrisy of some, who you have elevated beyond reason.

Ali's rights were usurped,

this is found in Sunni Islam's most authentic books. in both Bukhari and Muslim, the protest of Imam Ali (as) and his refusal to give Ba'yah to Abu Bakr are recorded. we did not invent this.

and the Mahdi is hidden.

and so also are prophets of Allah: namely Jesus and Elijah (as).

You Shias hold the view that Islam was disgraced during the reign of Ali, Al-Hasan, Al-Hussain, and then his children, and will continue to be in a state of disgrace until the rise of the 12th Imam.

that is your stupidity.

the Shia stance is that "their honor from Allah is martyrdom"...these was the reply of Imam Ali Ibn al-Hussain Zainul-Abideen (as), the fourth holy Imam from the progeny of the Prophet Muhammad (s), to Yazeed the tyrant, and fifth Sunni caliph, after the tragedy of Karbala and the beheading of Imam Hussain (as)-grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (s).

This interpretation totally contradicts the meaning of the Hadith. Some of you guys even claimed that some of this great men had to carry out takkiyah just to save themselves.

prophets of Allah also practiced Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is a Quranic and Islamic doctine. it is found in the Quran, and in times of necessity and when the conditions exist for Taqiyyah, it must and should be practiced to save the believers, their lives and properties from harms-way. if you dont believe in Taqiyyah, then no one would be surprised.

What's funny is that, the hadith of Ahl Sunnah in which your Ulama then adopted you then use and twist it's meanings. Allah's refuge is sought!

you are a clown, so even the truth is funny to you.

I state this hadith again:
Al-Bukhari (#6682) narrated through the path of Shu’ba from Abdulmalik from Jabir bin Samura that the Prophet – peace be upon him – said that there will be twelve amirs. Shu’ba narrates it in this short form, which others, like Sufyan in Saheeh Muslim (#3394) and Abu Abd Al-Samad Al-Ami in Musnad Ahmad (#20019) narrated a lengthier form from Abdulmalik. The former said: The matters of the people will continue to progress as long as they are led by twelve men. The latter said: This religion will stay at a state of glory or the people will be in a good state until the passing of twelve caliphs.
The meaning you gave to "state of glory" is not restricted to that because there's no evidence for that. A point you've dwindling around since and you've not yet disproved is that only two of your Imams were Caliphs. The hadith never said "12 men who are supposed to be caliphs" but it stated explicitly "12 caliphs".

you have to stop beating around the bush. the version we deal about and i give importance to are the ones in Bukhari and Muslim. if you bring up one isolated version, to talk about "state of glory", then you have to bring the arabic version, let us first see if the arabic word for "glory" is found in it. secondly, talking about "state of glory", your Sunni caliphs or during their time cannot be described as "glorious" going by their atrocities and bloodshed.

you stated that only two of our 12 Imams (as), the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (s), were actually caliphs. you are mixing things up. "caliph" can literally mean successor or right successor regardless if the person actually held the political office and position of caliphate, or if he was denied the office but remains the rightful successor or caliph. also, the word "IMAM" carries more weight to the position of the rightful 12 successors of the Prophet (s) because the word "IMAM" denotes both political and spiritual leadership. now, if most of the rightful successors of the Prophet (s) did not hold the office of caliphate does not make them less of the rightfully designated successors of the Prophet (s). there were prophets rejected by their peoples. that does not make them less of prophets and truthful because of people's ignorance and rejection. to Sunnis, caliphate is a matter for people to decide and choose. to the Shia IMAMATE (which encompasses both political leadership-caliphate-and spiritual leadership) is a matter of Allah to choose and decide for the Ummah and for His Religion. therefore, it is not the choice of people or a thrown or an office wrongly usurped that makes one a successor of Rasulullah (s). it is the choice and will of Allah, as declared on several occasions by the Prophet (s) himself. to this end, i must mention the saying of the Prophet (s):

"Hassan and Hussain are TWO IMAMS whether they stand up or sit down".

"stand up" refers to Imam Hussain's (as) uprising with the sword. and "sit down" refers to Imam Hassan's (as) abdication of worldly position and signing a conditioned truce with Muawiyah to protect the blood of Muslims from being shed.

For your other points, no Ahl Sunnah would agree with you all the listed caliphs are Saints! No one would, in fact some of them persecuted known scholars like Imam Ahmad, Imam Abu Hanifah so your perception is totally wrong. Plus-- the assassinations of caliphs does not negate the glory of their times. Islam was in a state of expansion during those times.

you should not consider conquests and war as times of "glory". it is not glory for a religion to act like a bully and raging into the lands of non-Muslims and butchering them and forcing them to convert and forcefully taking over their wealth and ra.ping their women or taken them as s e x slaves. that is not Islam, but jahiliyyah. Islam does not force anyone to convert or die. i consider those times as times of shame, and not glory. if you hold on to such belief that justify conquest and forceful conversions to "spread your Islam", then what is the difference between you and ISIS or Boko Haram? that is why recently a truthful saudi wahhabi cleric (Kalbani, former imam of Makkah) said that ISIS represents the purest form of the salafist/wahhabi ideology. your denial that the likes of ISIS and Boko Haram have no relation to "your islam" is false. they are part and parcel of your creed. i am pointing to wahhabism/salafism, which is an extremist and violent ideological movement within Sunni Islam.

Coming to your post on Persia!
There's a huge difference between the blessed Superb Caliph Umar and Shah Isma'il.
Did Caliph Umar kill innocent people to accepting his religion? The people converted over the course of hundreds of years. Note how the Mother of Imam Zainul Abideen is from this 'haraam evil jihad' and Salman Farsi(Ahl Bayt) was a military general and became a governor. Very ironic tho!

Shah Ismaeel was one man. after he died, one would expect persians to go back to Sunnism. especially that subsequent rulers were Sunnis after Shah Ismaeel. but did that happen? no!

the conversion and conquest of Persia was bloody. the killer of Umar, Abu Lu'lu, was persian and he killed umar to take revenge.

the mother of Imam Zainul Abideen (as) being persian does not justify the crimes committed or conquest of foreign lands and their forceful conversion to Islam. the taking part of Salam al-Farisi (RA) can be disputed. Salman (RA) is listed in authentic Sunni narrations as part of the companions who refused to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr or recognize his caliphate. they stood by Imam Ali (as) loyally. and they were the pioneer Shia in resisting the oppression meted out on the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

Imam Ali (as), even though in his prime, did not take part in any battle after the death of the Prophet (s). Imam Ali (as) was active in all fields during the time of the Prophet (s), and when he took over the office of caliphate, he also fought three wars. yet, during the time of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Usthman, Imam Ali (as) refrained from fighting or actively going to the battlefield. why? he limited his rule to advising for the general wellfare of the ummah and the common Muslim, which was selfless sacrifice for the ummah at large and the religion of Allah.


TO BE CONTINUED...