Brother Hani, you asked for a separate thread!

[Ameen]

First of all those nations that were destroyed by Allah because they were disobedient towards their Messenger/prophet, how can these Messengers/Prophets name and appoint a successor when the entire nation has been destroyed??? Don't you see the common basic sense here??? To name and appoint a successor you have to have a nation to appoint them over but if the nation is being destroyed, then it's obvious that those Messengers/Prophets won't be naming and appointing anyone because there is no one there to be appointed over. So this example of yours doesn't fit.

Secondly, not every Messenger/Prophet named and appointed their successor??? Ok, was every Messenger/Prophet's status the same??? We're they all equal??? Allah say that he gave some privilege over others "bazz alaa bazz darajaath". So if every Messenger/ Prophet was not the same and were not equal, so therefore their circumstances, situation and condition was not the same either. So this example of yours doesn't fit either.

Thirdly, did Prophet Moses (as) name and appoint his successor Did he name and appoint someone to govern the nation??? What was Haroon's (as) relationship to Moses (as)? Did Muhammad (pbuh) not say to Ali(as) that "your relationship to me is the same as Haroon's to Moses". What did the Prophet (pbuh) mean by this???

Fourthly, the words Mawla and Wali have different meanings and their meanings depend on the sentence, paragraph and subject in question. You can't use one example to justify the other and stick your exact desire and meaning to prove the other.

[Hani]

Salam,


Thank you for this new thread, now let's get to your questions that you had posted here: http://forum.twelvershia.net/official-debates/did-the-prophet-(saw)-appoint-a-man-to-succeed-him/


The first and second point I shall not answer, because you wrote them concerning the examples I gave to disprove the Imami Shia belief of "Every Prophet had a Wasi". You seem to agree with me that NOT EVERY PROPHET HAS A WASI.


So, this ends this section and proves that our Prophet (saw) must not necessarily have a "Wasi" because it simply isn't a general rule.


Your third point was concerning Musa (as), he was succeeded by Yusha` (as) by consensus of Muslims, thus Haroun (as) was not his successor. The Hadith you mentioned concerning `Ali shows only that his situation during Tabouk was similar to that of Musa (as) and Haroun (as), in that he was a blood relative who was left in charge of the people during the absence of the Prophet (saw). Yusha` (as) accompanied Musa (as) on his trip and was his successor just like Abu Bakr accompanied the Prophet (saw) to Tabouk and was his successor.




Fourthly,

Fourthly, the words Mawla and Wali have different meanings and their meanings depend on the sentence, paragraph and subject in question. You can't use one example to justify the other and stick your exact desire and meaning to prove the other.

I just quoted traditional Arabic books of language. Ahlul-Sunnah will ALWAYS insist that "Mawla" here is Muwalat fil-Deen and that it means love and friendship and closeness NOT leadership and authority and government.

[Ameen]

Ok brother Hani, lets get down to business. You said that Yusha (as) succeeded Musa (as) by consensus of Muslims but further on you said that, just like Yusha (as) acompanied Musa (as) on his trip and because of this became his successor, Abu Bakar (ra) acompanied the Prophet (pbuh) on his trip and therefore because of this became his successor.

What's going on here bro??? I asked you a question that did the Prophet (pbuh) not name and appoint anyone to succeed him and you replied by saying "yes sir". Now you claim that Abu Bakar (ra) succeeded him because of the trip.

Please do clear my confusion here that was the trip the reason why Yusha (as) succeeded Musa (as) and becamehis successor??? Was it the consensus of the people??? What was it???

The Prophet (pbuh) didn't have a successor, no body succeeded him and now you say that Abu Bakar (ra) succeeded him, became his successor??? What's going on here???

If Abu Bakar (ra) succeeded him and became his successor then, what was Sakeefa all a out??? One minute you claim he left it to the Ummah and the next minute you claim he did have a successor.

[Hani]

Salam,

What's going on here bro??? I asked you a question that did the Prophet (pbuh) not name and appoint anyone to succeed him and you replied by saying "yes sir". Now you claim that Abu Bakar (ra) succeeded him because of the trip.

I didn't say he succeeded him because of the trip, I said he succeeded him LIKE the story of the trip.

Please do clear my confusion here that was the trip the reason why Yusha (as) succeeded Musa (as) and becamehis successor??? Was it the consensus of the people??? What was it???

Musa (as) was supported by two individuals Haroun (as) and Yusha` (as).


Haroun (as) was left behind as `Ali was left behind during Tabouk and he never got to succeed Musa (as).


Abu Bakr accompanied just as Yusha` (as) accompanied Musa (as) and he was the one who ended up succeeding him.

The Prophet (pbuh) didn't have a successor, no body succeeded him and now you say that Abu Bakar (ra) succeeded him, became his successor??? What's going on here???

He had a successor and was in fact succeeded but he never appointed the successor.