The Caliphates Versus Prophet's (PBUH) Islam

[Bhabha]

Is there anyone familiar with the caliphates and the spread of Islam after the death of our Prophet (PBUH)?

[Hamza :)]

What do you want to know in particular?

[noraina]

I'm studying that at the moment sis, do you have any particular questions?

[ramen-thelegend]

me too is studying all this.

i guess thats some of the very little stuff i know!
finally, i know something:phew

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Bhabha]

What do you want to know in particular?

Well.

I do not personally think all of the caliphates were rightly guided. Because for sure there were caliphates who were horrible to their subordinates.

Is there a consensus of which ones were guided and which ones were led astray? Also would it be bad to reject the leadership of caliphates if they displayed bad behaviour?

[Hamza :)]

Well.

I do not personally think all of the caliphates were rightly guided. Because for sure there were caliphates who were horrible to their subordinates.

Is there a consensus of which ones were guided and which ones were led astray? Also would it be bad to reject the leadership of caliphates if they displayed bad behaviour?

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “You must adhere to my Sunnah and the way of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs who come after me. Adhere to it and cling to it strongly, and beware of newly-invented matters, for every newly-invented matter is an innovation (bid’ah) and every innovation is a going astray.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (4607) and classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

The scholars unanimously agree that the right duided caliphs are four, 'Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali', Allah is pleased with them all.

They were the best amongst the ashaab beyond a shadow of doubt.

And Umar ibn Abdul Azeez, may Allah be pleased with him, is referred to as ' the fifth rightly guided caliph' because of his successful and just rule.


No hadith says that all the caliphs were right guided. There were many who came after the time of ashaab and tortured the ulema and caused fitnah amongst the ummah.

[Bhabha]

Did the prophet state that these were the rightly guided caliphs? Or did he mean that those that are rightly guided qualify as rightly guided? Uthman had a lot of problems in the way he ruled ....

[Hamza :)]

Did the prophet state that these were the rightly guided caliphs? Or did he mean that those that are rightly guided qualify as rightly guided? Uthman had a lot of problems in the way he ruled ....

There's this hadith which hints to the fact that they were rightly guided. Apart from that, if they were not rightly guided, then no one could have been because they were the best of people after Rasulullah sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam as stated by the Prophet himself
Sa'eed bin Jumhan narrated:

"Safinah narrated to me, he said: 'The Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) said: "Al-Khilafah will be in my Ummah for thirty years, then there will be monarchy after that."' Then Safinah said to me: 'Count the Khilafah of Abu Bakr,' then he said: 'Count the Khilafah of 'Umar and the Khilafah of 'Uthman.' Then he said to me: 'Count the Khilafah of 'Ali."' He said: "So we found that they add up to thirty years."

The Prophet gave them the glad tidings of jannah during their lifetime. He used to praise each one of them. There are many ahadith which speak of their excellence.

That said, ashaab were humans and were not free from mistakes and sins. What problems were those?

[anatolian]

Probably Uthman was the most controversial Khalipha with in the four Khaliphas. However, I personally respect the four Khaliphas.

[Yahya.]

What problems were those?

I think he means the appointment of people from his family-tribe to goverment positions, but like you said, nobody is free from mistakes. And these ''issues'' started after 6 years of his rule, they weren't existing at the start, according to my remembrance :) and there was someone, who was also from Uthmans -radıyallahu anh- family, who led him to these mistakes, because he made bad advises...so this also shows that you need to take care of whom you take as ''friend'' or spend time with.

[Yahya.]

Now I looked it up, the person I meant is called ''Marwan Ibn Hakam Ibn Abu al-As'' مروان ابن حكم ابن ابي العاص
He later became Caliph of the Umayyads (Marwan I) and had served as the governer of Medina for some time. And during this time he gave Uthman (ra) false advises, which led to these mistakes. For example he demanded government positions for some people of his family etc.

[Yahya.]

Well.

I do not personally think all of the caliphates were rightly guided. Because for sure there were caliphates who were horrible to their subordinates.

Is there a consensus of which ones were guided and which ones were led astray? Also would it be bad to reject the leadership of caliphates if they displayed bad behaviour?

Yes, not all Caliphs are rightly-guided, and the ''caliphs'' after the time of the four rightly guided caliphs are more likely to be called ''Sultans'' or ''Kings'', because they just heired the position of a caliph, which is not possible, because caliphs need to be choosen by the majority of a council, consisting of scholars and influence-possessing pepole, or being appointed by the procceeding caliph. If we look at how the four caliphs came to power (suming up):
1- Abu Bakr -ra- was choosen by the Sahaba, without (nearly) any real disagreement, only some people didn't agree, because of personal reasons
2- Umar -ra- was appointed by Abu Bakr -ra- to be the next caliph, because he saw him the most suitable person.
3- Uthman -ra- was choosen by a council, consisting of 7 sahabi (companions), the majority chosed Uthman -ra-
4- Ali -ra- became caliph in a time of chaos, because there was a conflict between muslims after the death of Uthman -ra-, so some of the sahaba came to him and offered him/recommended him or supported him to be the caliph, because it was an urgent situation, a caliph/leader was needed to solve the conflict and bring stability

There were still just muslim rulers in the history of islam, but they aren't considered real caliphs, because of the way they got to power. For example Yusuf Ibn Tashfin and his son Ali Ibn Yusuf, Nuraddin al Zanki, Salahaddin al-Ayyubi, Suleiman the Magnificent etc. were some of the most-just muslim rulers, who listened to the scholars. Umar Ibn Abdilaziz (like written before) was called the fifth rightly guided caliph.

Scholars do not always say who is rightly guided or not, they narrate their mistakes and their good deeds, and sometimes add their own opinion at the end. But for sure they were better than todays rulers :)

[Bhabha]

Ok so I understand that the first four who ruled. Such as until 661. Just around 30 years after his death. But what troubles me is that Muawiya demanded the death of those who murdered Uthman, and Ali refused to accept this demand as something conditional to his rule. Since he didn't need to prove to Muawiya that he was fit to rule, since he had been one of the appointed caliphs in the first place.

Did this not lead to the division of the Sunni and the Shia

If people refuse to also follow Ali and understand his authority. Are these people also then refusing the command to follow the first four caliphs? Ali being the last.

[Hamza :)]

Ok so I understand that the first four who ruled. Such as until 661. Just around 30 years after his death. But what troubles me is that Muawiya demanded the death of those who murdered Uthman, and Ali refused to accept this demand as something conditional to his rule. Since he didn't need to prove to Muawiya that he was fit to rule, since he had been one of the appointed caliphs in the first place.

Did this not lead to the division of the Sunni and the Shia

If people refuse to also follow Ali and understand his authority. Are these people also then refusing the command to follow the first four caliphs? Ali being the last.

Ali radiAllahu anh never *refused* to punish the murderers of Uthman. There was too much chaos in the Islamic state at that time, and he wanted to resolve other issues first.

Shias are a totally different story.

We love all the ashaab, and we believe what happened to ahlul bayt was wrong.

They were supposed to give pledge of allegiance to Ali. And as I said earlier, ashaab were humans.

[Bhabha]

Ali radiAllahu anh never *refused* to punish the murderers of Uthman. There was too much chaos in the Islamic state at that time, and he wanted to resolve other issues first.

Shias are a totally different story.

We love all the ashaab, and we believe what happened to ahlul bayt was wrong.

They were supposed to give pledge of allegiance to Ali. And as I said earlier, ashaab were humans.

I was under the impression that this dispute between Ali and Muawiya is what caused the actual political dispute between the Shia and the Sunni.

Did the Sunni not side with Muawiya and thus neglected the rightly guided caliph of Ali?

[ramen-thelegend]

I was under the impression that this dispute between Ali and Muawiya is what caused the actual political dispute between the Shia and the Sunni.

Did the Sunni not side with Muawiya and thus neglected the rightly guided caliph of Ali?

it might have originated from there, maybe the roots but the sunni and shia dispute started when imam hussein was martyred.

there were no sunnis at that time so there is no siding of sunnis with ameer muawiya.

[Zafran]

I was under the impression that this dispute between Ali and Muawiya is what caused the actual political dispute between the Shia and the Sunni.

Did the Sunni not side with Muawiya and thus neglected the rightly guided caliph of Ali?

Salaam

No There was no sunni and shia clear position at the time of Muawiya (ra) and Ali (ra) - After the battle of Siffin Muawiya Controlled Damascus and the surrounding region - Ali Controlled Kufa and the Surrounding region. The Sunnis hold the position that after Uthamn (ra) Ali (ra) is the rightly guided Caliph. However Muawiya (ra) with all his differences with Ali (ra) is still a companion of the prophet and he also helped the Ummah against the Byzantines at the time - he is respected for that reason.

Ali (ra) and Muwaiya (ra) agreed to rule the two regions until the Khawirj Killed Ali (ra) after that Hasan met with Muwaiya and gave him the caliphate and united the Ummah.

[Bhabha]

Salaam

No There was no sunni and shia clear position at the time of Muawiya (ra) and Ali (ra) - After the battle of Siffin Muawiya Controlled Damascus and the surrounding region - Ali Controlled Kufa and the Surrounding region. The Sunnis hold the position that after Uthamn (ra) Ali (ra) is the rightly guided Caliph. However Muawiya (ra) with all his differences with Ali (ra) is still a companion of the prophet and he also helped the Ummah against the Byzantines at the time - he is respected for that reason.

Ali (ra) and Muwaiya (ra) agreed to rule the two regions until the Khawirj Killed Ali (ra) after that Hasan met with Muwaiya and gave him the caliphate and united the Ummah.

Ok so who killed Ali's son in the battle at Karbala?

[ramen-thelegend]

Ok so who killed Ali's son in the battle at Karbala?

yazid( muawiya's son) and his army.

[Misbah0411]

yazid( muawiya's son) and his army.

You are incorrect. Yazid never issued the orders to kill Hussien. Do not become mislead by weak narrations on the subject. Ibn Ziyaad killed Hussein without permission from the Caliph Yazid.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah was born during the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with him) and was not one of those who were well-known for religious commitment and righteousness. He was one of the Muslim youth, and he became caliph after his father’s death despite the objections of some of the Muslims and with the approval of others. He was courageous and generous, and he did not openly commit shameful deeds as his opponents said concerning him. During his reign several significant events occurred, one of which was the killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him). He did not issue orders that al-Husayn be killed, and he did not express joy at his killing, and he did not poke the teeth of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) with a stick or carry the head of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) to Syria. But he did issue orders that al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) be resisted and his efforts to become caliph were to be hindered, even if that meant fighting him. His deputies went too far in following his commands, and ash-Shamar ibn Dhi’l-Jawshan incited ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad to kill him, so ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad attacked him. Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) asked them to let him come to Yazeed, or go and guard the Muslim border, or to go back to Makkah. But they did not allow him (may Allah be pleased with him) to do any of these things, and the only choice they gave him was to surrender to them, and Ziyaad ordered ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d to fight him, and they killed him unlawfully, him and a number of his family members (may Allah be pleased with them). The killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was a great calamity, for the killing of al-Husayn and of ‘Uthmaan before him were two of the greatest causes of tribulation in this ummah. They were killed by the worst of people before Allah. When his family (may Allah be pleased with them) came to Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah, he honoured them and let them go to Madinah. It was narrated that he cursed Ibn Ziyaad for killing him and said: I would have been content with the obedience of the people of Iraq, without the killing of al-Husayn. Yet despite that, he did not take any action to show disapproval of his killing or to avenge him, when he should have done that. So the Muslims criticised him for not doing what he should have done, in addition to other things. As for his opponents, they added other lies and fabrications about him. End quote. Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (3/410)

[ramen-thelegend]

You are incorrect. Yazid never issued the orders to kill Hussien. Do not become mislead by weak narrations on the subject. Ibn Ziyaad killed Hussein without permission from the Caliph Yazid.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah was born during the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with him) and was not one of those who were well-known for religious commitment and righteousness. He was one of the Muslim youth, and he became caliph after his father’s death despite the objections of some of the Muslims and with the approval of others. He was courageous and generous, and he did not openly commit shameful deeds as his opponents said concerning him. During his reign several significant events occurred, one of which was the killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him). He did not issue orders that al-Husayn be killed, and he did not express joy at his killing, and he did not poke the teeth of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) with a stick or carry the head of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) to Syria. But he did issue orders that al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) be resisted and his efforts to become caliph were to be hindered, even if that meant fighting him. His deputies went too far in following his commands, and ash-Shamar ibn Dhi’l-Jawshan incited ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad to kill him, so ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad attacked him. Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) asked them to let him come to Yazeed, or go and guard the Muslim border, or to go back to Makkah. But they did not allow him (may Allah be pleased with him) to do any of these things, and the only choice they gave him was to surrender to them, and Ziyaad ordered ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d to fight him, and they killed him unlawfully, him and a number of his family members (may Allah be pleased with them). The killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was a great calamity, for the killing of al-Husayn and of ‘Uthmaan before him were two of the greatest causes of tribulation in this ummah. They were killed by the worst of people before Allah. When his family (may Allah be pleased with them) came to Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah, he honoured them and let them go to Madinah. It was narrated that he cursed Ibn Ziyaad for killing him and said: I would have been content with the obedience of the people of Iraq, without the killing of al-Husayn. Yet despite that, he did not take any action to show disapproval of his killing or to avenge him, when he should have done that. So the Muslims criticised him for not doing what he should have done, in addition to other things. As for his opponents, they added other lies and fabrications about him. End quote. Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (3/410)

i'm sorry. thats what i had read in different books.

[s.ali123]

i'm sorry. thats what i had read in different books.

I think there has always been difference of opinion what had really happened in terms of Yazid. And some made it a matter of belief and non-belief. I would add something which would be beneficial to know for you. I think this quote is from Ali (R.A.) that when someone recited the Quranic ayah that there will be not dipute among the people in jannah and everything will be settled etc... He said that this ayah is for me and Muwaiyyah (R.A.) :)
So in short we are supposed to follow the sunnah, which is very clear in front of us and not cause divide among the ummah. Even the conflicts at that time were more or else caused by divide in the ummah due to some internal and external factors.
BTW just from historical perspective, also look at the life of Abdullah ibn Zubair (R.A.) He had also remained as caliph for some time after the death of Imam Husain (R.A.). SO there were again divide in ummah. One followed Yazid and other Abdullah ibn Zubair (R.A.). They kept fighting, and at the end Abdullah ibn Zubair was killed by the forces of Yazid in Makkah. And Hajjaj Bin Yousuf led the army to Makkah. It is also said that by his attacks on makkah, even Ka'ba was damaged.
So you see, division has always caused us harm, that's why in Quran we are told to hold strongly the rope of Allah and not be divided :)

Oh and even though Abdullah ibn Zubair (R.A.) was also among the companion, but even he is not considered among the rightly guided ones. Only starting four, and Umar bin Abdul Aziz.

[Zafran]

Ok so who killed Ali's son in the battle at Karbala?

He was killed after he refused to give bayah to Yazid - Yazid does not have a favorable portrayal in Islamic history - sunni and shia.

[Abz2000]

Now I looked it up, the person I meant is called ''Marwan Ibn Hakam Ibn Abu al-As'' مروان ابن حكم ابن ابي العاص
He later became Caliph of the Umayyads (Marwan I) and had served as the governer of Medina for some time. And during this time he gave Uthman (ra) false advises, which led to these mistakes. For example he demanded government positions for some people of his family etc.

It is also useful to bear in mind that it is recorded in numerous texts that the protesters from egypt had accepted the assurances given by Uthman ra and had turned back, but then a letter bearing the Caliph's official seal was apparently intercepted instructing the recipients to assassinate the leaders in question
'Uthman (ra) categorically denied having dictated or stamped that letter, so there are two very strong possibilities, there were intelligence agents from among the ghassanis/persians/romans stirring up turmoil in anticipation of a break-up of the Islamic State, this theory can be strengthened by the fact that the ghassani king tried to court Mu'aawiyah during the resulting turmoil with 'Ali.
Another possibility is that there was a power hungry internal government cell within government amongst the umayyads that had remained in jahiliyyah despite an expression of Islam after the conquest of Makkah and they were attempting to regain the control and supreme authority they had lost after Islam. A high proportion of the umayyads were later stage Muslims after subdual and it makes sense since they had the luxuries, the vices, and the most to lose. They would have had easy access to the seal if it wasn't a forged document.
i cannot see the logic of 'Uthman attempting to reassure delegate protesters and then killing the chosen popular leadership and lying on top of it given the fact that it would cause an outrage and ignite a rebellion in egypt.
it definitely appears like an attempt to stir tormoil - or a very cold and ruthless streak not characteristic of 'Uthman - but more fitting for the likes of marwan and yazeed.
hell they even killed the prophet pbuh's beloved grandsons, didn't something stop them when they remembered how he doted over them?

[darullemon]

He was killed after he refused to give bayah to Yazid - Yazid does not have a favorable portrayal in Islamic history - sunni and shia.

I think the name of the guy who actually killed or gave death blow to Hussein (RA) was Shimr bin Ziljoshan.