Ali Ibn Abi Talib Did Not Burn Apostates Alive – Historical Analysis

Interesting research

Discover The Truth

Kaleef K. Karim

Content:

1. Introduction
2. Sab’iyyans: Ali Was Divine And Sowing Discord Among Muslims
3. Evidence: Ali Did Not Burn Saba’s Followers Alive
4. The Prohibition Of Burning And Mutilation
5. Did Ali Ibn Abi Talib Reject Ibn Abbas’s Opinion?
6. Conclusion

1. Introduction

The aim of this article is to examine an episode in the life-time of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra), in which it is claimed that he burned alive a number of people as a result of them leaving the religion of Islam. In this article, we will explore the Hadith reports which are used for this, and look into the historical context surrounding these reports. We will aim to find out when the statement was made, and why did he carry out what he did against the person(s), 1400 years ago.

The reports which are used on this incident are very ambiguous and does not…

View original post 8,517 more words

Advertisements


Categories: Islam

36 replies

  1. I don’t agree with the article, and I advise my brothers no to follow christians & secular ones with their accusations against Islam.
    Those people will not be satisfied till you leave Islam completely in case you think that their satisfaction is a goal in Islam which is NOT.

    I hope from my brothers to consider this point.

    Like

    • Do you mean you don’t agree with the claim they make against Ali?

      Liked by 1 person

    • What don’t you agree with and where is the appeasement of which you speak?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Brother, I clearly said that I don’t agree with the article.
      What you called it a ” claim” is an authentic narration you can read in Sahih Al-Bukhari.

      Like

    • What is stated is accepted by some giant classical scholars. And I am sure you wouldn’t accuse of them of anything brother.

      Ibn Abd al-Barr

      Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali quotes scholars of his time and before who had this view.

      Ibn Hajar al-Asqaani and many others agree with what is said in the article.

      There are many Hadith where it said that they were NOT burned alive.

      I know it is uncomfortable to accept something that you haven’t heard before but that should not make you reject the article’s content because you have not been taught about this.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Sorry brother Flying pir. I really appreciate your work and efforts, and I’m sure that you know that from me.
      However, that doesn’t mean we have to agree with each other in every thing. I’ve read about the subject before, and I’m aware of it.
      You have raised many good points in this article, but at the end of the day I don’t agree with it for many reasons.
      My point here is that I don’t like the attitude when muslims put themselves in the position of defense while they don’t have to, especially if the opponents are christians.
      Before we approve their accusations against us, we have to ask ourselves why I consider these accusations as real accusations in the first place. In other words, why you think that incident is somehow problematic, and you need to write an article about it. What’s the real problem if Ali really did burn those people, then Ibn Abasa corrected him by saying of the prophet peace be upon him?

      Like

  2. Ali ibn Abi Talib(ra) did burn the (Sab’yyeen), yet the prophet peace be upon him had prohibited that act.
    Therefore, Ali may have thought that prohibition was just something (Makrooh) not (Muharram) or he just forgot about that prohibition. Personally, I choose that second choice, especially if you read the period of Ali. He had to deal with lot of issues, and there’re lot of problems.

    Like

  3. There’s a lot more to it than just “it’s in Bukhārī.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • I know that.
      However, what’s the problem of the narration in Sahih Al Bukhari?
      If you read the personality of Ali (ra), you know how pure that man was. How truthful that man was. He was really upset about the status of the Ummah in his period. He had to deal with lot of things. You can imagine what an attitude he had when those people said that ” you’re our God” in front of his face, and they spread that saying among muslims as if that is the last thing Ali wanted.

      BTW, Ibn Sab’ was Paul of this Ummah, yet Sahabah dealt with him perfectly. They cut that mentality from its root.

      Like

    • I think that it’s a legit position to believe that people should not be burned and that this didn’t happen.
      But the problem is that there are certain people who will go further and deny that apostates should be killed. So we have to be take care.

      Like

  4. Although I agree with the conclusion that Ali ibn Abi Talib did not burn people alive….

    It is disturbing if some educated Muslims are not sure of what is true about burning people alive….the Qur’an does not give any permission to burn anyone alive.

    In terms of crimes within people, God says in multiple verses that retaliation has to be equal at most but that it is better if it is less and forgiven.

    And the Qur’an never talks about giving permission to burn anyone alive.

    So sad….just shows how far Muslims have went away from the Qur’an.

    God commands us as to the specific requirements of making claims 2 (282).

    Some 95% of Sahih hadith do not meet these claims.

    But who cares about obeying God…more important to obey tradition and sectarianism and methodological fanaticism!

    Wake up brothers…wake up….enough is enough. Time to start obeying God and taking His words much more seriously than tradition!

    I am not saying that one should not investigate but to hypothetically consider the state burning someone permissible based on belief or behavior of that person is disturbing because of a non certain evidence like a Sahih hadith is disturbing.

    This is not to say we should not take Sahih hadith seriously.

    We must take “Sahih” hadith seriously and try integrating them in our lives but if it does not conflict with the Qur’an and clear facts and clear morals. The Qur’an commands us to use our intellect and for us to be for justice and mercy.

    The more grave the action, the more certain one needs that it is allowed. To make commercial transactions, 2(282) gives criteria for valid claims. Making a claim that it is allowed for the state to burn alive people based on specific beliefs or actions of the people without a commensurate increase in certainty that such a grave action is allowed (i.e. allowing judging on a sahih hadith when a sahih hadith is not certain knowledge) is horrifying according to the Quranic ethos and what the Quran refers to as the fitrat (natural disposition) that God put in each of us.

    We can’t say with certainty that a specific sahih hadith is false unless it contradicts the Qur’an but to act on any grave hadith, we have to be certain….and thus not basing judgment on such a grave issue on a “sahih” hadith!

    We need to wake up and start obeying God completely and taking His words much more seriously than fallible oral narrations.

    No wonder the only cry mentioned of the Prophet in the hereafter is that his people left the Qur’an 25 (30).

    Of course God knows best.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “of a non certain evidence like a Sahih hadith is disturbing”
      Sahih Hadith is a certin evidence. I do not need to drop that Hadith.
      Dropping Hadiths will not give you the green card to christians, btw.
      Ahl Alhadith are Ahl Al Quran.
      I’ve no idea why people think if you consider hadiths, that means you neglect Quran. Who says so?

      Finally, There’s no Shahi whch contradicts Quran.

      Like

  5. I am wrong to have written as if anyone was wondering whether it is allowable to burn anyone alive. Of course no one hear is having the faintest of such thoughts and the article is not saying that anyone’s juridical view (there are clear hadith saying that only God is allowed to use fire).

    However, it is most likely that Ali did not do something like that even without analyzing more than reading that one hadith alone….there was great pressure for stories like that for sectarian reasons…of course if anyone considered Ali to be divine, then that would be a tremendous evil.

    But, it can be exaggerated reports.

    It is hard to believe that someone would continue to insist that person A is God while person A is threatening to burn them if they continue to say so and even more absurd to think that the people would continue and not take back that claim while they are in the process of being put aflame.

    A little hard to believe indeed this politically convenient oral narration.

    But the narration that he burnt the bodies after they died is much less weird but stlll not likely.

    Liked by 1 person

    • “A little hard to believe indeed this politically convenient oral narration.”
      !!!!
      I would understand that if the one who says that is an orientalist, but a muslim?
      I’m giving you a glad tiding, whatever you do with Quran and Sunnah to make it fit with christians and secular ones, they will kerp rejecting you. So don’t be happy with this “knowledge”.

      “there are clear hadith saying that only God is allowed to use fire”
      Yes! Because of that incident, Ibn Abbas said that hadith.
      Why did Ibn Abbas say that hadith if Ali had not burnt those evil people?

      Like

  6. I meant to say no one “here”….not “hear”

    Like

  7. I have no interest whatsoever in the least to get in the good books of any soul so thinking I am trying to get in accepted by Christians and secularists are bogus psychoanalysis.

    Although we can easily fact-check many political claims today, we here fake news and alternative facts today….even from top political leaders.

    So we really need to be suspicious of hadith that sound fishy even if they have a “sahih” isnad.

    I can fraudently write up a “sahih” isnad that Trump heard such and such from the Russians….should I be immediately believed?

    Ali and Abbas and Aisha were The MOST politically charged people for anyone to talk about those days.

    Even the basic historians know that the Abbassids were partly successful in overcoming the Ummayads with the Abbassids claim that they are returning the power to the Prophet’s family.

    There were political motivations to show Ali made mistake(s) and political motivations to show that of all people Abbas (who the Abbasids are obviously connected with) corrected him.

    I am not saying all this is impossible and never happened. It may very well have happened but it is not certain.

    Some aspect of it may have happened such as Ali ordering execution of those who claimed Ali was God.

    But to think that these people were threatened to be burned to death but still did not recant …presumably did not recant until they became shish kabob (unless they were not allowed to recant after a certain time…though that also is weird)….although possible is not very likely.

    It is not a normal thing for someone to burn someone to death….it is barbaric and people generally don’t do that! Most especially great, learned pious people like Ali.

    So let us not construct history on statements that are not very likely.

    Regarding apostate question by Rider….I don’t know….I believe that the Qur’an does not allow killing of apostates (2:256).

    But at that time, there were political issues such as treasons and so forth…people who went back to Quraysh idolators who were trying to annihilate the Muslims in Madina could have been seen as making a political decision to betray their convenant and do treason.

    So it gets a little complicated.

    God knows best.

    Liked by 1 person

    • There are three different understanding of 2:256.

      1) Apostates and Arab pagans are an exception to it.
      2) The punishment for apostasy has a political dimension and is therefore not to be seen in the context of 2:256.
      3) 2:256 does not even talk about force in the meaning of someone forcing someone else to belief. The verse talks about how religion should be clear and nobody will have to force oneself to accept something that is not reasonable.

      The first opinion is the majority opinion of Islamic scholars. The second and third are the opinions of the Hanafi school mainly. That what you said is related to the second point.

      In any case, the killing of apostates does not go against the Qur’an.

      Like

    • “There were political motivations to show Ali made mistake(s) and political motivations to show that of all people Abbas (who the Abbasids are obviously connected with) corrected him.”
      Please ! That narration is found in book of Shia!

      “It is not a normal thing for someone to burn someone to death….it is barbaric and people generally don’t do that! Most especially great, learned pious people like Ali.”
      Barber people were civilized! We don’t need Roman terminlongy to describe something savage. If you want to describe something savage, why don’t you use terms such as Roman or western!?

      Your comment is exactly what Edward Saiid was complaining about regarding orientalists and their view toward Islamic tradition.
      If your tongue were sick, you would taste everything with bitterness.

      Like

  8. The problem with the narration is that it comes via a violent extremist who was a member of a sect renowned for its hatred of `Alī `alayhi salām (who I feel the need to remind readers was one of the most insightful and skilled of the fuqahā’ of the sahābah radiyAllāhu `anhum).

    How convenient, right? “Confirmation” of the un-Qur’ānic notion of killing people for apostasy AND a chance to make `Alī look bad ALL IN ONE NARRATION… too good to be true. But Imām Bukhārī’s principles allow him to accept narrations from khawārij (even ones who, those knew the man personally called him liar), so now we have to believe it? Nah.

    And no, sorry, “sahīh” chain of narration does not mean certain knowledge. Tawātur (y’know, like the Qur’an to has) means certain knowledge. “Sahīh” just means it’s LESS likely the matn is a forgery.

    Like

    • Killing apostates is based on more than just one hadith by Ikrimah. It is convenient for Shukurov to deny it based on that it is only one narration by a controversial narrator.

      But it’s not like that. Don’t believe what Shukurov is saying.

      Like

    • That’s not his sole reason for denying it though. Keep misrepresenting Shaykh Atabek. Just makes you look sily.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sorry, but after this, I’m telling you that you have nothing to do with Hadith and its knowledge.
      Imam Bukhari the one who transmitted Ali’s honorable attributes.
      Nothing.
      Also, how on earth do that narration show Ali as bad person?

      Like

    • Sorry, but after this, I’m telling you that you have nothing to do with Hadith and its knowledge.
      Imam Bukhari the one who transmitted Ali’s honorable attributes.
      Nothing.
      Also, how on earth do that narration show Ali as bad person?

      Like

    • Abu Talha is a good guy but he’s a little bit under Tabekian influence.

      Like

    • Which is a good thing.

      Like

    • That narration was not frm Khwarij!
      In fact, Khwarij was accusing Ali that he’s soft with his opponents not the opposite.
      I don’t like when someone throw words like this, and for what? To make christians be satisfied. It’s not our goal in Islam for God sake!

      Like

    • Your opinion is noted. Look into it further, that’s my advice.

      Like

    • BTW, that narration is found in books of Shia, and they approve it even without the last part related to Ibn Abbas. Are you telling me Shia want to show Ali as a bad person?

      ========
      “The problem with the narration is that it comes via a violent extremist who was a member of a sect renowned for its hatred of”
      My brother, I think you need to provide an apology for this misrepresentation regarding the prince of hadith, Imam Al bukhari.
      Again, that narration has nothing to do with Khwarij at all.

      Like

    • No I don’t lol. Imām Bukhārī was simply following his principles in grading chains (and he’s not whom I was talking about in the text you quoted from me). Calm down.

      Like

    • You said “The problem with the narration”.
      If you meant the narration in Sahih Bukhari, I’m telling you that narration has nothing to do with Khawarij. You can check its Isnad.
      If you meant that Imam Al Bukhari was taking hadith from Khawarij just like that an, you’re wrong. He has conditions which is called( Shorrot Al- rewayahf min Almubatidi’).

      Like

    • “Abu Talha is a good guy but he’s a little bit under Tabekian influence”
      Who is this Tabekian?

      Like

    • Shaykh Atabek Shukurov… someone “Rider” has a pathological hatred for and bias against.

      Like

  9. Rider, I never met Shaykh Imam Shukurov as I am not in UK, but as your brother, I ask you to leave hatred and bias. Enough of that! Fee Aman Allah.

    Back to the topic….

    Surah 4, verse 23 lists woman who are prohibited to marry but grandmothers are not listed.

    If an archeological dig, someone finds a hadith with sahih isnad that says one can marry one’s grandmother, would you believe it?

    Of course not!

    Because God gave us an intellect…He did not make us into apes and swine but He gave us an intellect.

    And God gave us morals….we are all born with a fitrat of basic morality.

    God commands us to use it and cultivate this moral conscience (Surah Shams).

    Time to wake up brothers! Time to wake up!

    Time to love God and obey Him more than our sectarian and ideological and methodological passions.

    Time to be more good.

    So again, Surah 4, verse 23 lists woman who are prohibited to marry but grandmothers are not listed.
    If an archeological dig, someone finds a hadith with sahih isnad that says one can marry one’s grandmother, would you believe it?

    time to believe in God when He says that anything other than God will have much contradictions in it…like the many contradictions in hadith…yes, the many contradictions even in Sahih hadith.

    I am not saying to disregard the hadith as a whole…that would be the other extreme and that would be a type of madness…but this methodological madness on isnad needs to end yesterday!

    ..and a method that the Qur’an does not prescribe as sufficient….read God’s longest verse in 2(282) if God is more important than other desires listed above.

    A nice method for the time it was created.

    People in the past may be excused.

    But now, through vast studies in religious evolution, politics, history, memory research, statistics, etc, we know better that it is less certain….unless we cover it up by our desires.

    time to wake up.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Is a muslim still considered a muslim if he doesn’t believe in some of the sahih hadeeths?

    Like

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: