It was narrated that Abu Lulu (ar) wrote to Umar, asking: ‘What is the punishment for someone who disobeys his master, takes what's rightfully his, and assaults his wife?’ Umar replied: ‘He must be killed.’ So when Abu Lulu (ar) found Umar, he said: ‘Why did you disobey Ali (a), when he's your master?’ Abu Lulu (ar) then stabbed him a few times, cursing him with every stab. After killing Umar, Abu Lulu (ar) fled to Qom, where he stayed for a while, then settled in Kashan. He remained a Shia until he died in that city. A few Shias carried his body to a nearby village, where he is currently buried. It was also mentioned that the people of Kashan welcomed Abu Lulu (ar) and held him in high esteem, as they were Shias of Ahlulbayt (a). They looked at Umar exactly like the people of Sabzawar looked at Abu Bakr — worthless lowlives. [Farhat al-Zahraa, page 125] سَلَامُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ وَرَحْمَتُهُ عَلَيْكَ يَا أَبَا لُؤْلُؤَةَ فَيْرُوزَ النَّهَاوَنْدِي ❤️🌹

𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝗜𝗺𝗮𝗺 𝗔𝗹𝗶 (𝗮) 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝘆'𝗮𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗯𝘂 𝗕𝗮𝗸𝗿? — 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗮𝗹, 𝗖𝗼𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗕𝗮𝘆'𝗮𝗵 بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ Before appealing to an alleged handshake as proof that "Imam Ali (a) accepted Abu Bakr's legitimacy," and drowning into historical reports, let's first establish what actually happened. A forced outward action DOES NOT automatically equal inward approval. What exactly does a forced bay'ah prove? The Quran establishes an important principle: compulsion and genuine conviction are not the same thing. Allah says: لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ “𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗹𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻.” [𝟮:𝟮𝟱𝟲] And even more explicitly, when describing someone who is forced into an outward statement contrary to what he actually believes, Allah says: “𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵…” [𝟭𝟲:𝟭𝟬𝟲] An outward act performed under compulsion does not automatically prove inward approval. So the Sunni argument of “Ali did X, therefore Ali approved of X” is not even a valid Quranic principle and neither does the conclusion follow. • First prove that the alleged bay'ah was voluntary in the first place. • Then prove that it represented recognition and approval. A bay'ah obtained through coercion, threats or force cannot simply be presented as voluntary recognition. A man's hand can be forced; his conviction cannot be manufactured by force. And what exactly makes a bay'ah meaningful in the first place? Allah says regarding those who pledged allegiance to the Prophet (s): “𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗵.” [𝟰𝟴:𝟭𝟬] The Quran therefore does not present bay'ah as some meaningless physical gesture or political handshake. The significance of the pledge comes from the authority of the person to whom the pledge is being made. The believers' allegiance to the Prophet (s) had religious significance because he was the Messenger of Allah (s), possessing authority established by Allah. So if sunnis want to argue: “Ali's alleged bay'ah proves Abu Bakr was the legitimate successor.” Then the burden is on them to establish why Abu Bakr possessed that legitimate authority in the first place. Otherwise the argument becomes circular: “Abu Bakr was legitimate because Ali gave him bay'ah,” 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻, “Ali's bay'ah proves Abu Bakr was legitimate.” That proves nothing. If a person's hand is physically forced, if he is threatened, seized, dragged, or otherwise compelled, then the physical occurrence of a hand touching another person's hand does not magically transform coercion into genuine political endorsement. Even inerrant Bukhari records that Imam Ali (a) did not give Abu Bakr the oath of allegiance during the six months following the Prophet's (s) death. Bukhari's report states that after Sayyida Fatima (a) "died," Imam Ali (a), after all the threat and oppression, suddenly woke up one day and allegedly sought "reconciliation" with Abu Bakr and gave the oath, which explicitly describes the preceding period as one in which Imam Ali (a) had not given the oath. The same report states that Fatima (a) remained angry with Abu Bakr and did not speak to him until her death, and when she died, Imam Ali (a) buried her at night in secret, did not inform Abu Bakr of her death, and performed her funeral prayer himself as per her will. sunnah.com/bukhari:3092 sunnah.com/bukhari:4240 sunnah.com/muslim:1759a sunnah.com/tirmidhi:1609 sunnah.com/ahmad:25 sunnah.com/ahmad:55 sunnah.com/bukhari:6725 So Sunnis should stop pretending that their sources describe some immediate, enthusiastic acceptance of Abu Bakr's caliphate. They DON'T. Cont.