Ali(as) was selected not only by prophet(saa) but by Allah(swt

It is pretty interesting how politics ends up affecting theology....

To continue...

Ali (AS) nominated Imam Hassan (AS) bin Ali who left the Caliphate after being unable to secure the vote of confidence ...

He ultimately did derive a pension in return for giving up his claim to Caliphate- as far as I know.

I think the Saqeefah is not where the problem started- unless ofcourse one is referring to the incident afterwards...

In my opinion- a structure was in place. Abu Bakr (R.A) got elected- and others gave a vote of confidence. One might disagree with the choice of the Caliph but one has to accept him as the will of the people. He then, before his death, nominated Umar (R.A) who later got the vote of confidence (aka Baiyah) inclduing Ali (A.S)

After Umar's martyrdom- another election took place- electoral college was created and an election resulted, with Usman (RA) as victor. The problem started when Ummayads got strong under Usman RA. Usman's death was followed Ali (AS) which finally brought Hashemites into power.. but Ummayads had by then tasted blood.. and they revolted.

From a neutral perspective... the best course of action would have been to elect a non-Quraish third caliph... neither Usman (RA) nor Ali (AS)

How could it be about Saqeefa is the ummah was stabilized after the incident for over 20 odd years?

On the other hand, if it weren't for Saqeefah, the rupture would have occured even earlier...

I can't stand studying Post-Prophet PBUH history, mainly because of all the heartbreak that took place

Being a Sufi, somewhat, excuses me from the debate --- but I sure do admire the efforts that Shias go through to keep the Ummah mindful of the horrible injustices that took place

I'm useless in that argument --- just hearing the name "Yazid" causes my blood to boil in such anger, that I could never rationally study, argue, or truly confront what took place

Maybe I'll have enough patience to do that someday though....

yup. y'all gotta read about Saqifa.

it was originated in sakifa

The impact of wealth in being a motivating factor for some people to fabricate 'religion' for the people in power was very well known. One of the unique things about the learned who attained such re-known that the Muslim world holds them in such esteem is that they WERE VERY WELL TO DO BUSINESSMEN. Abu Haneefa (R) was extremely wealthy as a result of his trade in textiles. He use to encourage his followers to establish themselves on the worldly front so that later on they can be free to study religion with full mind. If it was Saad ibn Mubarak who one time pointed to an example of his wealth, and stated to his followers,

"This is what prevents us from going before the kings."

There is plenty of truth in this article. The ORIGINATIONS of the split had to do with 'tribalism', qualities that were clearly jahilliya in nature. Arabian society AS A WHOLE, before Islam, was partison to wars based upon clan distinction. The Arabs inherited this from their forefathers, and one of the movements of the Rasool (S) was to abolish this mentality. This is precisely why he did NOT appoint anyone from among Banu Hashim into positions of leadership. He always took into account the 'will of the people'. The early Companions imbibed this attributes very well, but during the later years of Uthman's (R) reign, A RAPIDLY GROWING EMPIRE that assimilated many different cultural backgrounds into the mix came into play, ALONG WITH ENORMOUS WEALTH. These new converts, and those that converted during the time of the Prophet (S) simply because of worldy success were among those that never imbibed the ideals of Islam in the first place. Jealous factions, arose. Struggle for power and wealth became a norm, and this is where intrigue resulted.

Uthman (R) and the Companions (R) cannot be blamed, and in fact, the claim that Uthman (R) was favoring his own relatives cannot stand history precisely because he rarely replaced those already serving key posts, and during his reign, less than a handful of those appointed by him were from own kith and kin. The only thing he can be blamed for is that he was not such a strong personality as his predecessor Umar (R), who was a unique personality in Islamic history in his ability to maintain cohesion in an empire that grew at such enormous rates. Even Umar (R) understood the effects of expansion on cohesion when he forbade more attempts at expansion. By the end of the reign of Uthman (R), the MAJORITY of the elder Companions (R) has already passed, thus the guiding force in the Muslim community was lost.

After the death of the rightly-guided Khaleephas, , the original impule of Islam as a liberatin force was waning. Power fell into the hands of the Ummayads. After the Ummayads, came the Abbasids. During these times, hadeeths were fabricated by those who supported the people in power. The Abbasids are no exception to this. These fabrications eventually gave way to 'theological' differences. The Persian 'dynastic' ideologies, as well as 'spiritual' lineage were incorporated into shia and sufi doctrine. Leadership in Islam became something 'hereditary'. People started passing off 'secret spiritual' doctrines under the guise of 'sufiism', which are directly against the 'naturalistic' doctrines of Islam. Mysticism and pre-destination, clearly Persian and Manichean ideas were also added to the theology of Islam. What we have today is a hodeg-podge of this 'historical' Islam.

But this does not mean Islam was not preserved:

To argue that an 'underground' movement meant 'religious' corruption is not necessarily the case for the Muslim world, because the ulema began to separate themselves from the people of power. They also were preserving the religion from the corruption o the government. This is precisely why we find scholars such as Qadi Abu Yusuf rejecting certain practices under the pretext that it was the norm of corrupt government official. In fact, those 'learned' that sought the presence of the king were looked upon as power-seekers, and they fell in the eyes of the people. On the other hand, the great scholars are testimony to the fact that they held the power. Even the government officials use to come to them walking, instead of the other way around. The scholars played a HUGE role in the preservation of shareeah. Even the expansion of Islam played a huge role in the preservation of shareeah, because it allowed Islam to spread so fast that it was beyond the power of corrupt people to manipulate it.

Yes, most certainly, its all a struggle between Banu Ummaya and Bani Hashim. And one who studies Islamic history should always reflect, when examining these two tribes, which one maneuvered through islam to serve its own cause and which one consistently sacrificed itself for the cause of Islam.

Although, I dont agree with the point that Hassan ibn Ali struck a financial deal with Yazid. It was more of a truce to refrain from war, which is something totally different.