-
First of all this isn't a polemical topic, so don't start comparing our system of Imamah and khilafa to your system of khilafa. I just want an honest answer, with you defending your sect.
The Sunni Caliphate system has produced drunkards, oppressors and reportedly even faggots leading the Muslim communities. You can look at the accursed Caliphs of the Ummayad dynasty, you will find many examples to what I stated above.
How is it that Allah and His Prophet want us, the greatest Ummah, to be legitimately led by such fasiqs?
-
Good luck trying to avoid a polemical discussion by asking a question like that one bro. Hahah!
Here is my attempt at a straight answer:
It all depends on what you mean by legitamacy. Does that mean that Allah is satisfied with the ruler?
To us, a ruler is to be obeyed in matters that he is not ordering a transgression. I am not aware of a rule that says: Don't follow rulers that Allah is not satisfied with.
The same applies to a ruler that is not from Quraish. The nass says that the ruler has to be from Quraish. However, the nass also orders us to obey rulers that are not from Quraish.
Keep in mind that a ruler's sins are his own. Also, there is maslaha for citizens to follow the orders of a ruler.
-
First of all this isn't a polemical topic, so don't start comparing our system of Imamah and khilafa to your system of khilafa. I just want an honest answer, with you defending your sect.
The Sunni Caliphate system has produced drunkards, oppressors and reportedly even faggots leading the Muslim communities. You can look at the accursed Caliphs of the Ummayad dynasty, you will find many examples to what I stated above.
How is it that Allah and His Prophet want us, the greatest Ummah, to be legitimately led by such fasiqs?
[EDITED BY MOD]
Please brother let's no shift this into Syria, that situation is quite clear.
-
First of all this isn't a polemical topic, so don't start comparing our system of Imamah and khilafa to your system of khilafa. I just want an honest answer, with you defending your sect.
The Sunni Caliphate system has produced drunkards, oppressors and reportedly even faggots leading the Muslim communities. You can look at the accursed Caliphs of the Ummayad dynasty, you will find many examples to what I stated above.
How is it that Allah and His Prophet want us, the greatest Ummah, to be legitimately led by such fasiqs?
There are righteous rulers & then there a bad rulers.
The two greatest leaders after the prophet SAW were the first two caliphs. History testifies to that.
Your leaders are elected by the people just like sunni's.
But the worst leader of all is the one who has been useless for over a thousand years.
-
How is the ummayads dynasty a Sunni system? Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain all accepted the Sunni system to become the Caliphas.
-
Good luck trying to avoid a polemical discussion by asking a question like that one bro. Hahah!
Here is my attempt at a straight answer:
It all depends on what you mean by legitamacy. Does that mean that Allah is satisfied with the ruler?
To us, a ruler is to be obeyed in matters that he is not ordering a transgression. I am not aware of a rule that says: Don't follow rulers that Allah is not satisfied with.
The same applies to a ruler that is not from Quraish. The nass says that the ruler has to be from Quraish. However, the nass also orders us to obey rulers that are not from Quraish.
Keep in mind that a ruler's sins are his own. Also, there is maslaha for citizens to follow the orders of a ruler.
I said I'll try not to be polemical, but I'll try to give an example of what I mean: the Sunni system allows anyone to become a Caliph as long as he assumes power, and not just Caliph, also common day rulership too (modern day Muslim presidents etc...).
However, for example, in the modern day Usooli marja'iyya system, one of the known conditions to the legitimacy of following a marja is adala. Should he lose his adala, he is not a legitimate marja (until his adala returns atleast).
It seems to me that the Sunni system of khilafa gives a green light to anyone, if they are from Quraysh, to assume position and do what he wants as long as he doesn't reach the point of kufr. Adala is hardly considered.
Which is why I am asking: is that what Allah planned for the Ummah after the Prophet's death?
-
How is the ummayads dynasty a Sunni system? Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain all accepted the Sunni system to become the Caliphas.
By the way, I'm not going to reply to Mythbuster1's foolish comment, to which he attempts to change the subject and talk about Bashar and Syria and whatever. I hope Hani cleans this thread, I didn't want it to turn about modern day politics, but this guy couldn't himself. So desperate lol
As for Zaid, a weak attempt at trying to turn this topic into a polemical one.
As for Rationalist, the Umayyad dynasty is Sunni and wajib al taa'a according to Sunni standards. They were Caliphs.
-
If that's the case then why isn't Muawiyah the next rightly guided Calipah after Ali or Hassan?
Why do Sunnis only have 4?
According to Sunnis Umar bin Abdul Aziz and Mamoon Rashid are the best rulers after the 4 or 5.
Also even the 12er Shia version of Imams they used to refer to ruler as prince of believers under Taqiyyah. In fact some hadith indicate that Hassan and Hussain prayed behind
-
@zlatan
My point is that one way or another all more or less all people accept or are forced to accept a person amongst them.
Sunni or shia or whatever its the same.
So if Allah SWT was to always appoint the leader then your logic dicates astagfirullah that Allah SWT has failed in terms of the real world.
-
Refer to this link about the imams praying behind Marwaan.
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235000228-did-imam-hussain-as-pray-behind-marwan/
-
Ok so according to shia, the caliphate is illegimate, but most if not all of the caliphs received their legitimacy from ALL 11 imam. One of the worst caliph according to shia (mu'awiya) wouldn't be a caliph without direct involvement & help from 2nd imam.
Dont you think you should blame the sunni AND imam for their involvement in giving this so called false system a long lasting legitimacy? Ok i know, if shia brain went to meltdown due to what the imam did, theres always "it was taqiyya!" card 😂
-
How is it that Allah and His Prophet want us, the greatest Ummah, to be legitimately led by such fasiqs?
Please elaborate in what sense the fasiqs led the Ummah? You mean spiritually or politically?
-
Good luck trying to avoid a polemical discussion by asking a question like that one bro. Hahah!
Here is my attempt at a straight answer:
It all depends on what you mean by legitamacy. Does that mean that Allah is satisfied with the ruler?
To us, a ruler is to be obeyed in matters that he is not ordering a transgression. I am not aware of a rule that says: Don't follow rulers that Allah is not satisfied with.
The same applies to a ruler that is not from Quraish. The nass says that the ruler has to be from Quraish. However, the nass also orders us to obey rulers that are not from Quraish.
Keep in mind that a ruler's sins are his own. Also, there is maslaha for citizens to follow the orders of a ruler.
I said I'll try not to be polemical, but I'll try to give an example of what I mean: the Sunni system allows anyone to become a Caliph as long as he assumes power, and not just Caliph, also common day rulership too (modern day Muslim presidents etc...).
However, for example, in the modern day Usooli marja'iyya system, one of the known conditions to the legitimacy of following a marja is adala. Should he lose his adala, he is not a legitimate marja (until his adala returns atleast).
It seems to me that the Sunni system of khilafa gives a green light to anyone, if they are from Quraysh, to assume position and do what he wants as long as he doesn't reach the point of kufr. Adala is hardly considered.
Which is why I am asking: is that what Allah planned for the Ummah after the Prophet's death?
Maybe I wasn't too clear with my first post. Briefly, I meant to say that one is to follow the ruler even if he is "illegitimate".
Allah wanted the rulers to all be good rulers and He wanted all their subjects to be good people. However, He ordained something else to happen and allowed fasaqa and kuffar to rule.
-
First of all this isn't a polemical topic, so don't start comparing our system of Imamah and khilafa to your system of khilafa. I just want an honest answer, with you defending your sect.
The Sunni Caliphate system has produced drunkards, oppressors and reportedly even faggots leading the Muslim communities. You can look at the accursed Caliphs of the Ummayad dynasty, you will find many examples to what I stated above.
The Shia Caliphate did not fare much better - the Fatimids had one fella who called Al-Hakim Bi Amrillah (d.13/02/1021) called himself God! The point that you miss is that All of us including these Caliphs are obliged to follow Rasulallah (saw), no one is obliged to follow the Caliphs if they are not following Rasulallah (saw); Abu Bakr (ra) said as much in the beginning of his rule "... Obey me as long as I obeyed Allah and His messenger, so if I disobey Allah and His messenger then you owe me no obedience." - Al-Bidayah
How is it that Allah and His Prophet want us, the greatest Ummah, to be legitimately led by such fasiqs?
We are a reflection of the leaders that lead us - this is a pointed fact, when in one of the battles during the Fitna a man from Ali's (ra) camp came and asked him, "during the time of the Shiekhayn we didn't have such troubles but how come we have these issues in your time" Ali (ra) replied "In there time they ruled over men like me, and in my time I must rule over men like you"
I hope this helps.
-
The "Sunni" system does list rules for one to become leader, these rules include justice, piety and knowledge. However, sometimes a tyrant will assume authority by force, then you'll have to deal with the reality of the situation in the least costly way.
Most leaders in ancient as well as modern history have not been satisfactory in terms of strict religious criteria, this applies to all nations throughout the ages. This is the nature of humanity for the most part, greedy filthy men always seek positions of power. Heck, we've seen prophetic narrations discouraging us from selecting leaders who actively seek authority. The test of a tyrant oppressor proves to be a great test for pious and patient believers time and again, maybe this is God's wisdom, that the best of humanity be tested by the filth of humanity, after-all this life is a test.
If you research in the Qur'an and Sunnah, you'll find a great deal of divine advice as to how to deal with bad leaders. Our duties towards them and their duties towards us.
The means of selecting a leader are left to the experts to decide in Islam, a lot of Muslims adopt democracy as the best means of choosing leaders, I tend to prefer the system of the rule of elites. In the end, no matter what system you choose it matters not, for if the wrong person is chosen he will not govern well nor will you be pleased, if the right person is chosen he will win the people's hearts even if he is a monarch. Islam simply teaches us how to deal with certain realities in life, anything else is unrealistic and from there some people criticized the Imami belief in infallible divine heads of state.
I do stress this important point that was brought up previously by some brothers (in an unfitting way), a bad leader or corrupt one is still much better than a non-existent or absent leader. Ponder on this point objectively.
-
I do stress this important point that was brought up previously by some brothers (in an unfitting way), a bad leader or corrupt one is still much better than a non-existent or absent leader. Ponder on this point objectively.
lets not say bad & corrupt leader is "much better", because it sounds like we are OK with his bad & corrupt ways. For sure, even bad & corrupt leaders have done many useful things compare to someone who is non exsistent and hiding all his life. A bad & corrupt leader will fight & protect his nation from his enemy, not to be scared for his life and hiding for 1000+ yrs leaving his people to fend for themselves, confused & in the end using system similar to sunni (follow non divinely appointed scholars & leaders). Shia will say i ridicule their mahdi, but fail to understand it is the reality of their ridiculous imama mixed with ghayba system. Your system is unrealistic & your "great" imama mythical system has been busted
-
Here's the thing though bro, the OP requested that we do not discuss the Shia system or compare to Imami beliefs. He just wants to discuss mainstream Islam and its views on leadership and politics. I would recommend two books that discuss leadership from Sunni perspective:
Al-Muqaddimah al Zahra' fi Idah al Imamat al Kubra By Imam al-Dhahabi.
http://ia600200.us.archive.org/8/items/waq96941/96941.pdf
Ghiyath-ul-Umam Filtiyath al-Dhulam by Imam al-Juwayni.
https://ia802606.us.archive.org/13/items/FP0414/0414.pdf
These are two very traditional books that you can download (maybe in English if available) so you can learn about it from the perspective of traditionalists.
-
http://mahajjah.com/navigating-the-complexities-of-leadership-imamah-by-imam-al-dhahabial-muqaddimah-al-zahra-fi-idah-al-imamat-al-kubra/
Al-Thahabi's work in English. Great short read.
-
http://mahajjah.com/navigating-the-complexities-of-leadership-imamah-by-imam-al-dhahabial-muqaddimah-al-zahra-fi-idah-al-imamat-al-kubra/
Al-Thahabi's work in English. Great short read.
I have read this book, its really nice.
-
Here's the thing though bro, the OP requested that we do not discuss the Shia system or compare to Imami beliefs.
of course he doesnt wanna discuss shia system, because when we compare our system and theirs, any sincere person can tell which one works and which one is just mythical theory. No wonder in the end they themselves copy us. Our "illegitemate" system has been proven to be practical, their "legitimate" system has been proven to be mythical
-
Alright let me write a VERY brief summary of what the traditionalists require as criteria for Imamah:
Physique, sensory ability, lineage, necessary qualities, gender, acquired merits...
As far as senses: He cannot be blind, deaf or mute for obvious reasons like his own independence, communication, accessibility, planning and strategizing etc...
As far as physical parts: Any missing or damaged part that does not constitute an obstacle towards fulfilling your duties as Imam, such as your mobility, your activity, your health etc... As for deformities, such as being bald, one-eyed, scarred from injury or any birth deformity these are non-issues acc to majority.
As far as lineage: The majority agreed on the Qurashi Nasab but if a non-Qurashi reaches authority he is accepted in case he is chosen in the absence of a qualified Qurashi or he conquers by force through revolutions and becomes de-facto leader.
As far as gender: Majority agreed on the Imamah of men over women.
As far as liberty: They do not allow the owned servants to rule over free men.
As far as age: They required maturity.
As far as brain function: Sanity is a must.
As far as necessary qualities: A sufficient degree of courage, honor, justice, ethics are required. This is to lead wars, make decisive decisions, forbid evil and encourage good, earn people's respect, rule fairly among many other matters and qualities they discussed. Even though no one is perfect, yet those who possess the biggest share of such qualities are the first candidates.
As far as acquired virtues and merits: Knowledge and piety are essential. Often required to be in the status of an independent Mufti who is cautious of God, wise and experienced in politics and state affairs.
etc..etc... It's much longer and more detailed than this but this is a sample. Of course, what is sought is not always found so we do our best to choose the closest candidate to these criteria and we deal with the unfortunate times when oppressive tyrants rule in the wisest manners.
-
http://mahajjah.com/navigating-the-complexities-of-leadership-imamah-by-imam-al-dhahabial-muqaddimah-al-zahra-fi-idah-al-imamat-al-kubra/
Al-Thahabi's work in English. Great short read.
salam bro,
Page 5
The Ahl al-Sunnah, Muʿtazilah, Murji’ah, Shīʿah and Khawārij—with the exception of the Najdiyyah—all agree on the necessity of imāmah (leadership), and that obedience to an imām ʿādil (just imām) is compulsory upon the Ummah.
who are these najdiyyah?
-
quran [76:24]
"Therefore wait patiently for the command of your Lord, and obey not
from among them a sinner or an ungrateful one".
any thoughts if the above ayat applicable to rulers as well?
-
salam bro,
Page 5
The Ahl al-Sunnah, Muʿtazilah, Murji’ah, Shīʿah and Khawārij—with the exception of the Najdiyyah—all agree on the necessity of imāmah (leadership), and that obedience to an imām ʿādil (just imām) is compulsory upon the Ummah.
who are these najdiyyah?
The quote continues as:
{...However, the Najdiyyah—a sect within the Khawarij—say that imamah is not necessary}.
So this was a sect within the Khawarij, as per Imam Dhahabi. Ofcourse, a typical jahil would think it has something to do with Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab Najdi, but the fact is this was a sect that emerged centuries before Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab's birth.
quran [76:24]
"Therefore wait patiently for the command of your Lord, and obey not
from among them a sinner or an ungrateful one".
any thoughts if the above ayat applicable to rulers as well?
This verse and the verse before it, was for Prophet Muhammad(saws) in specific. It is not a general command.
Verily! It is We Who have sent down the Quran to you (O Muhammad SAW) by stages. Therefore be patient (O Muhammad SAW) and submit to the Command of your Lord (Allah, by doing your duty to Him and by conveying His Message to mankind), and obey neither a sinner nor a disbeliever among them.[Quran 76: 23-24 ; Muhsin Khan and Mohammad al-Hilal]
The pronoun is also singular, it says (رَبِّكَ) RabbiKA/your(singular) Lord. If it was general then, the pronoun should have been plural. RabbiKUM(رَّبِّكُمْ).
As for obeying or following fallible rulers or scholars/people. Then this is proven from Quran. Like the verse 4:59, where in Ulil Amr are not infallible, if they were infallible then there was no scope to dispute with them and to refer back to Allah and Prophet(saws).
Secondly, We read in Quran:
And (as for) the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him...(Quran 9:100).
Muhajireen and Ansar were fallible people, yet those who followed them are praised.
Moreover, Shia obey and follow their Scholars, esp. the Marja whose Taqleed they make. They are fallible.
Lastly, the verse you used cannot be used in general sense because:
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنِيعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَيْدُ بْنُ الْحُبَابِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مَسْعَدَةَ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ : " كُلُّ بَنِي آدَمَ خَطَّاءٌ وَخَيْرُ الْخَطَّائِينَ التَّوَّابُونَ "
It was narrated from Anas that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Every son of Adam commits sin, and the best of those who commit sin are those who repent.’”[Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 37, Hadith 4392; Hasan]
-
salam bro,
Page 5
The Ahl al-Sunnah, Muʿtazilah, Murji’ah, Shīʿah and Khawārij—with the exception of the Najdiyyah—all agree on the necessity of imāmah (leadership), and that obedience to an imām ʿādil (just imām) is compulsory upon the Ummah.
who are these najdiyyah?
The quote continues as:
{...However, the Najdiyyah—a sect within the Khawarij—say that imamah is not necessary}.
So this was a sect within the Khawarij, as per Imam Dhahabi. Ofcourse, a typical jahil would think it has something to do with Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab Najdi, but the fact is this was a sect that emerged centuries before Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab's birth.
thanks. my bad.
quran [76:24]
"Therefore wait patiently for the command of your Lord, and obey not
from among them a sinner or an ungrateful one".
any thoughts if the above ayat applicable to rulers as well?
This verse and the verse before it, was for Prophet Muhammad(saws) in specific. It is not a general command.
Verily! It is We Who have sent down the Quran to you (O Muhammad SAW) by stages. Therefore be patient (O Muhammad SAW) and submit to the Command of your Lord (Allah, by doing your duty to Him and by conveying His Message to mankind), and obey neither a sinner nor a disbeliever among them.[Quran 76: 23-24 ; Muhsin Khan and Mohammad al-Hilal]
The pronoun is also singular, it says (رَبِّكَ) RabbiKA/your(singular) Lord. If it was general then, the pronoun should have been plural. RabbiKUM(رَّبِّكُمْ).
As for obeying or following fallible rulers or scholars/people. Then this is proven from Quran. Like the verse 4:59, where in Ulil Amr are not infallible, if they were infallible then there was no scope to dispute with them and to refer back to Allah and Prophet(saws).
Secondly, We read in Quran:
And (as for) the foremost, the first of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and those who followed them in goodness, Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him...(Quran 9:100).
Muhajireen and Ansar were fallible people, yet those who followed them are praised.
Moreover, Shia obey and follow their Scholars, esp. the Marja whose Taqleed they make. They are fallible.
Lastly, the verse you used cannot be used in general sense because:
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنِيعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا زَيْدُ بْنُ الْحُبَابِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مَسْعَدَةَ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ : " كُلُّ بَنِي آدَمَ خَطَّاءٌ وَخَيْرُ الْخَطَّائِينَ التَّوَّابُونَ "
It was narrated from Anas that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Every son of Adam commits sin, and the best of those who commit sin are those who repent.’”[Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 37, Hadith 4392; Hasan]
thanks once again.
-
First of all this isn't a polemical topic, so don't start comparing our system of Imamah and khilafa to your system of khilafa. I just want an honest answer, with you defending your sect.
The Sunni Caliphate system has produced drunkards, oppressors and reportedly even faggots leading the Muslim communities. You can look at the accursed Caliphs of the Ummayad dynasty, you will find many examples to what I stated above.
The Shia Caliphate did not fare much better - the Fatimids had one fella who called Al-Hakim Bi Amrillah (d.13/02/1021) called himself God! The point that you miss is that All of us including these Caliphs are obliged to follow Rasulallah (saw), no one is obliged to follow the Caliphs if they are not following Rasulallah (saw); Abu Bakr (ra) said as much in the beginning of his rule "... Obey me as long as I obeyed Allah and His messenger, so if I disobey Allah and His messenger then you owe me no obedience." - Al-Bidayah
How is it that Allah and His Prophet want us, the greatest Ummah, to be legitimately led by such fasiqs?
We are a reflection of the leaders that lead us - this is a pointed fact, when in one of the battles during the Fitna a man from Ali's (ra) camp came and asked him, "during the time of the Shiekhayn we didn't have such troubles but how come we have these issues in your time" Ali (ra) replied "In there time they ruled over men like me, and in my time I must rule over men like you"
I hope this helps.
It doesn't really help. Those Shi'a Caliphates are as valuable to me as those Sunni ones. Same illegitimacy.
Also, I didn't say we are not a reflection of who leads us. The critetia for appointing someone as a leader in Sunnism is pretty bad. Why? There is no criteria for adala. Anyone who is a male Muslim who is sane and of Qurayshi lineage and bla bla bla can lead the Ummah even if he is the worst of sinners.
-
I gave you criteria above from a traditional Sunni book in reply #20. Why did you default to "Sunnies have no criteria?" We have more criteria than Shia, it's Shia who actually have only one criteria "Appointed Imam from Ahlul-Bayt", simple enough. The case of the Shia is like someone who is trying to figure out the criteria for a prophet that he may choose, in that case God chooses the prophet you don't need to worry about criteria. Sunni criteria is common sense, but the circumstances block this from being implemented often. The least that can be said is that Sunni ideas are a lot more rooted in reality, they deal with the reality on the ground instead of the useless "criteria" of the Imamis that can never and has never been implemented at all. How practical is a sect that claims leadership is restricted to a certain divine infallible descendant who is inaccessible?
-
I gave you criteria above from a traditional Sunni book in reply #20. Why did you default to "Sunnies have no criteria?" We have more criteria than Shia, it's Shia who actually have only one criteria "Appointed Imam from Ahlul-Bayt", simple enough. The case of the Shia is like someone who is trying to figure out the criteria for a prophet that he may choose, in that case God chooses the prophet you don't need to worry about criteria. Sunni criteria is common sense, but the circumstances block this from being implemented often. The least that can be said is that Sunni ideas are a lot more rooted in reality, they deal with the reality on the ground instead of the useless "criteria" of the Imamis that can never and has never been implemented at all. How practical is a sect that claims leadership is restricted to a certain divine infallible descendant who is inaccessible?
Your criteria is what is in theory, not in practice. Whether the Muslim leader fulfills some of these requirements or not, he is obligatory to obey according to you guys.
In the absence of the Imam we still have people of authority in the Shi'i world. I will give the example of the fuqaha, whose criteria is much more rigirous than the non-practical yet still simple criteria you gave me.
One of the important ones is: adala. Strike one (once you lose your adala) and your out, you're not even allowed to be followed anymore for taqleed purposes. Unless you repent.
-
Those Muslims who claim that they follow the traditions (the statements and practices) of Muhammad Mustafa, the Prophe of Islam, and of his companions, are called Ahl-es-Sunnat wal-Jama'at or Sunni. They also call themselves “orthodox” Muslims, and they make up the overwhelming majority of the Muslims in the world.
The Sunni Muslims believe that the Prophet of Islam did not designate anyone as his successor, and he (probably) assumed that after his death, the Muslims would find a leader for themselves. They further say that the Prophet did not even tell his followers how they ought to select their future leaders or what qualifications those leaders should have.
Thus, lacking both precedent and guidance in the matter of finding their leaders, the companions had no choice but to take recourse to improvisation.
But improvisation is not policy, and inevitably, it turned out to be a rather erratic manner of finding leaders of the Muslim umma (community). In one case the companions found a leader through what was supposed to be an election.
In another case, the first incumbent (who was elected), nominated and appointed his own successor.
In the third instance, the second incumbent (who was nominated), appointed a committee of six men and charged them with the duty of selecting one out of themselves as the future leader of the Muslim community.
The third leader, so selected, was killed in the midst of anarchy and chaos, and the umma was left without a head. The companions then turned to the family of their Prophet, and appealed to one of its members to take charge of the government of the Muslims, and thereby to save it from breakdown and dissolution.
The fourth incumbent was still ruling the Muslims when a new candidate for leadership arose in Syria. He brushed aside the hoax of election, challenged the lawful sovereign of the Muslims by invoking the principle of brute force, and succeeded in capturing the government. His action brought the number of the “principles” for finding leaders of the Muslim umma to four, viz.
-
1. Election
Abu Bakr was elected khalifa (successor of the Prophet) by a vote in Saqifa.(Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth incumbent, was also elected khalifa by a majority of the Muhajireen and Ansar who were present in Medina at the death of the third khalifa).
2. Nomination:
Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr as his successor.
3. Selection by plutocrats:
Uthman was selected khalifa by a committee of six men appointed by Umar.
4. Seizure of the government by naked force:
Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan seized the government of the Muslims by military action.
The Sunni Muslims consider all these four “principles” as lawful and valid. In this manner, four different “constitutional” modes of finding a leader for the Muslim umma came into being.
Here it should be pointed out that though the Sunni Muslims have given to each of these four different modes of finding leaders for the umma, the “status” of a “principle,” none of them was derived from the Book of God (Qur’an) or from the Book of the Prophet (Hadith). All of them were derived from the events which took place after the death of the Prophet of Islam.
In the history of any country, constitution-making is the first step toward nation-building. The constitution is the organic law of the land. It is the basic framework of public authority. It determines and defines the responsibilities, duties and powers of the government.
All major decisions affecting the interests of the nation, are taken in the light of its principles. Whatever is in agreement with it, is held legal and valid; whatever is not, is discarded as unconstitutional.
-
You can't even proof from your own books that each and every imam choosed his next imam. So much so for the so-called divine appointment.
-
So Sunnis had an opinion on government. What else is new of people deciding what and who should govern?
I am interested in one thing only: how to make God rule humanity and submission to him become an accurate reality.
Not to fabrications by Jinn Worshippers deceiving humans, not the sorcery and love of world type authority that Pharaoh argued by and said "don't you see Egypt is under me".
I want the truth to rule, and the truth is God's Name truly rules humanity because that is where the consequences of hell and paradise happens, and that is where we gain value or negative condemnation, and that is where we gain everything or lose everything, and God's Name per Quran is a reminder to who he is by which all things can glorify God and connect to God, and it is the leader who he has encompassed all things in, the witness of the people who they will be called with, their leader, their Captain, their driver.
Whether this truth is hidden or manifest, the kingdom belongs to God, and his authority is given to who he pleases.
-
The truth and the reality is that your current imam never rules. No proof whatsoever.
As for me, he doesn't exist in the first place. Those khumm scammers of the 3rd AH invented him. You guys are conned by them.
-
If the dark shadows are given reign and taken authority, it doesn't mean the light brought down and revealed and way and door out of the darkness and the way towards safety and security is not the King, because God is the True King.
The Quran remains the true leader of humanity and Mohammad was a reminder brought down, and it is a leader due to the leaders it appoints and nominates, the leaders who guide by God's command, the Twelve Captains, the ways, the rivers and pure springs from God, the beautiful Names of God, the Signs of God, the adornment of God brought out for his servants.
-
If the dark shadows are given reign and taken authority, it doesn't mean the light brought down and revealed and way and door out of the darkness and the way towards safety and security is not the King, because God is the True King.
The Quran remains the true leader of humanity and Mohammad was a reminder brought down, and it is a leader due to the leaders it appoints and nominates, the leaders who guide by God's command, the Twelve Captains, the ways, the rivers and pure springs from God, the beautiful Names of God, the Signs of God, the adornment of God brought out for his servants.
What are you trying to say there, Mr. Plato? Too philosophical for me.
By the way, as I understood, no proof whatsoever that each and every imam of yours appointed his next imam. There might be there for a few appointments, but for all of the appointments, good luck searching for that proof.
-
God providing proof is one thing, as using reasoning to assess proofs and see is another.
Remember, people thought they would believe always before demanding an exact miracle. When the miracle was provided, they moved the goal posts.
This is nothing new. Quran verifies not only the family of Mohammad but the exact number of the Twelve Imams and their exact number in all covenants of the moon green light mountain in the past, but once you accept their number, you can also see themes that verify the exact names of the Imams, but it takes time to see.
But you haven't even acknowledged Ali in there yet and all the allusions to his station and name, you ignore. And their names and their wisdom are explained in conjunction with the Shariah and there are so many themes in Quran that we have not even begun to scratch the surface of.
-
Great. My thread has been derailed. Emotions run deep here, it seems.
-
1. Election
Abu Bakr was elected khalifa (successor of the Prophet) by a vote in Saqifa.(Ali ibn Abi Talib, the fourth incumbent, was also elected khalifa by a majority of the Muhajireen and Ansar who were present in Medina at the death of the third khalifa).
2. Nomination:
Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr as his successor.
3. Selection by plutocrats:
Uthman was selected khalifa by a committee of six men appointed by Umar.
4. Seizure of the government by naked force:
Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan seized the government of the Muslims by military action.
The Sunni Muslims consider all these four “principles” as lawful and valid. In this manner, four different “constitutional” modes of finding a leader for the Muslim umma came into being.
Here it should be pointed out that though the Sunni Muslims have given to each of these four different modes of finding leaders for the umma, the “status” of a “principle,” none of them was derived from the Book of God (Qur’an) or from the Book of the Prophet (Hadith). All of them were derived from the events which took place after the death of the Prophet of Islam.
In the history of any country, constitution-making is the first step toward nation-building. The constitution is the organic law of the land. It is the basic framework of public authority. It determines and defines the responsibilities, duties and powers of the government.
All major decisions affecting the interests of the nation, are taken in the light of its principles. Whatever is in agreement with it, is held legal and valid; whatever is not, is discarded as unconstitutional.
This is one of the oft quoted hadeeth by Shia propagandists. It seems that they don't realize that, what they try to use against Muawiya(ra) and Sunnis, backfires at them at some point of time.
Abi Al-'Aliyah narrated: Abu Zarr said to Yazid bin Abu Sufyan: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah (saws) say: “The first one to change my Sunnah will be a man from Banu Umayyah.”
Allama Albani commented: Perhaps what is meant by the hadith is changing the system of election of the Khalifah, and turning it into succession.
[AL-AWA'IL BY IBN ABI 'AASIM: 63; DECLARED HASAN BY ALLAMA ALBANI IN SILSILAH AS- SAHEEHA: 1749]
Abubakr(ra) and Umar(ra) both weren't from Bani Umayyah.
This hadeeth of Prophet(saws) legalizes the selection process of all khulafa rashideen, which includes Abubakr, umar and Uthman as well.
Not only this, but the authentic hadeeth about the caliphate on methodology of Prophethood being for 30 years also legalizes the caliphate of Abubakr, umar, uthman and Ali(ra).
Any objective reader would prefer the opinion of Prophet(saws) on theses issues over the arguments of bias and hateful Shias.
-
Those Muslims who claim that they follow the traditions (the statements and practices) of Muhammad Mustafa, the Prophe of Islam, and of his companions, are called Ahl-es-Sunnat wal-Jama'at or Sunni. They also call themselves “orthodox” Muslims, and they make up the overwhelming majority of the Muslims in the world.
The Sunni Muslims believe that the Prophet of Islam did not designate anyone as his successor, and he (probably) assumed that after his death, the Muslims would find a leader for themselves. They further say that the Prophet did not even tell his followers how they ought to select their future leaders or what qualifications those leaders should have.
Thus, lacking both precedent and guidance in the matter of finding their leaders, the companions had no choice but to take recourse to improvisation.
But improvisation is not policy, and inevitably, it turned out to be a rather erratic manner of finding leaders of the Muslim umma (community). In one case the companions found a leader through what was supposed to be an election.
In another case, the first incumbent (who was elected), nominated and appointed his own successor.
In the third instance, the second incumbent (who was nominated), appointed a committee of six men and charged them with the duty of selecting one out of themselves as the future leader of the Muslim community.
The third leader, so selected, was killed in the midst of anarchy and chaos, and the umma was left without a head. The companions then turned to the family of their Prophet, and appealed to one of its members to take charge of the government of the Muslims, and thereby to save it from breakdown and dissolution.
The fourth incumbent was still ruling the Muslims when a new candidate for leadership arose in Syria. He brushed aside the hoax of election, challenged the lawful sovereign of the Muslims by invoking the principle of brute force, and succeeded in capturing the government. His action brought the number of the “principles” for finding leaders of the Muslim umma to four, viz.
How can there be lack of guidance when there was NO SUCH INSTRUCTION.....I keep asking you for CLEAR proof of that but all your posts you couldn't, so that theory is dead.
Yes election, ELECTED from consultation SHURA, Abu Bakr ra didn't want to but was chosen just like the 4th, as well as the 2 in between.
Abu Bakr ra elected by shura and was SELECTED, (even though in Islam Abu Bakr ra was a choice of the prophet saw also)
Umar ra was a candidate put forward, SELECTED,but eventually chosen and agreed by shura
Uthman ra again consulted and chosen by shura
Ali ra same situation as first khalif SELECTED and then agreement within shura
Allah swt blessed their rule and it spread far and wide.
Yet........the world has NEVER seen a divine imam rule, where is it? In Narnia?
This shura is sure killing off the divine Imamate theory, intelligently and logically, as can be seen.
-
Those Muslims who claim that they follow the traditions (the statements and practices) of Muhammad Mustafa, the Prophe of Islam, and of his companions, are called Ahl-es-Sunnat wal-Jama'at or Sunni. They also call themselves “orthodox” Muslims, and they make up the overwhelming majority of the Muslims in the world.
The Sunni Muslims believe that the Prophet of Islam did not designate anyone as his successor, and he (probably) assumed that after his death, the Muslims would find a leader for themselves. They further say that the Prophet did not even tell his followers how they ought to select their future leaders or what qualifications those leaders should have.
Thus, lacking both precedent and guidance in the matter of finding their leaders, the companions had no choice but to take recourse to improvisation.
But improvisation is not policy, and inevitably, it turned out to be a rather erratic manner of finding leaders of the Muslim umma (community). In one case the companions found a leader through what was supposed to be an election.
In another case, the first incumbent (who was elected), nominated and appointed his own successor.
In the third instance, the second incumbent (who was nominated), appointed a committee of six men and charged them with the duty of selecting one out of themselves as the future leader of the Muslim community.
The third leader, so selected, was killed in the midst of anarchy and chaos, and the umma was left without a head. The companions then turned to the family of their Prophet, and appealed to one of its members to take charge of the government of the Muslims, and thereby to save it from breakdown and dissolution.
The fourth incumbent was still ruling the Muslims when a new candidate for leadership arose in Syria. He brushed aside the hoax of election, challenged the lawful sovereign of the Muslims by invoking the principle of brute force, and succeeded in capturing the government. His action brought the number of the “principles” for finding leaders of the Muslim umma to four, viz.
How can there be lack of guidance when there was NO SUCH INSTRUCTION.....I keep asking you for CLEAR proof of that but all your posts you couldn't, so that theory is dead.
Yes election, ELECTED from consultation SHURA, Abu Bakr ra didn't want to but was chosen just like the 4th, as well as the 2 in between.
Abu Bakr ra elected by shura and was SELECTED, (even though in Islam Abu Bakr ra was a choice of the prophet saw also)
Umar ra was a candidate put forward, SELECTED,but eventually chosen and agreed by shura
Uthman ra again consulted and chosen by shura
Ali ra same situation as first khalif SELECTED and then agreement within shura
Allah swt blessed their rule and it spread far and wide.
Yet........the world has NEVER seen a divine imam rule, where is it? In Narnia?
This shura is sure killing off the divine Imamate theory, intelligently and logically, as can be seen.
LOL. I don't need to repeat myself over and over and over again and again based on your constantly denial. You have either divine Imamate or Shura. Your Khilafat isn't based on either of them. The first was picked coincidently. The second was appointed by the first as his successor.The third was picked by a six man committee to decide amongst themselves. Your Shura has just been blown out of the window. LOL.
-
First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.
To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.
Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6). Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).
The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).
-
First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.
To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.
Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6). Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).
The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).
So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?
-
First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.
To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.
Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6). Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).
The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).
So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?
Those who waged war on Ali(ra)[khawarij] or those on whom Ali(ra) waged war, were on error, as per Sunni Perspective.
-
First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.
To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.
Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6). Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).
The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).
So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?
Those who waged war on Ali(ra)[khawarij] or those on whom Ali(ra) waged war, were on error, as per Sunni Perspective.
What kind of an error and why? Who's fault was it, the rightly guided Khalifa or those who used violence and threatening behaviour against the Khalifa to have their demands met BT taking up arms?
-
First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.
To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.
Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6). Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).
The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).
So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?
Those who waged war on Ali(ra)[khawarij] or those on whom Ali(ra) waged war, were on error, as per Sunni Perspective.
What kind of an error and why? Who's fault was it, the rightly guided Khalifa or those who used violence and threatening behaviour against the Khalifa to have their demands met BT taking up arms?
These questions are irrelevant. The initial argument was your ignorance about shura regarding the three Sunni Caliphs, which I answered.
-
First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.
To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.
Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6). Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).
The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).
And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. Can Shura be restricted to Muhajirs and Ansars only? As Sunni Caliphate System is based on Shura as First Four Rightly Guided Caliphs were chosen by Shura then... how can Sunni Caliph now (i.e. at present) be elected by Shura if Shura is only the right of Muhajirs and Ansars?
-
First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.
To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.
Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6). Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).
The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).
And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. Can Shura be restricted to Muhajirs and Ansars only? As Sunni Caliphate System is based on Shura as First Four Rightly Guided Caliphs were chosen by Shura then... how can Sunni Caliph now (i.e. at present) be elected by Shura if Shura is only the right of Muhajirs and Ansars?
The statement was made in the context of that era, and is restricted for that time only.
-
First three caliphs were elected by shura, the one who have made a sincere study about this topic, objectively and without any bias and has some basic understanding of the terminology would definitely agree that the first three CaliPhs were elected by shura. Even though the process was not identical in all, but it was still shura through which they were appointed. The one who disagrees is a jahil, fooled by the misguided scholars he blindly follows, so I pity such people honestly.
To educate such misguided bigots about the correct understanding , let me quote what Ali(ra) himself said in Nahjul Balagha.
Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6). Similar report is present in Bihar al anwar (32/368)(33/76), noor al thaqalayn(1/551).
The people who appointed Ali as fourth caliPh where muhajireen and Ansar, and they appointed the first three caliphs through shura, and this was their right, as mentioned by Ali(ra).
So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?
Those who waged war on Ali(ra)[khawarij] or those on whom Ali(ra) waged war, were on error, as per Sunni Perspective.
What kind of an error and why? Who's fault was it, the rightly guided Khalifa or those who used violence and threatening behaviour against the Khalifa to have their demands met BT taking up arms?
These questions are irrelevant. The initial argument was your ignorance about shura regarding the three Sunni Caliphs, which I answered.
I have no ignorance regarding Shura. My question is does Shura mean all parties concerned get a fair say and then the decision is made or can just few sit down and chose one amongst themselves like the third was chosen. The second was appointed. There was no assembly/gathering to choose the second and six men were appointed by the second to choose the third amongst themselves. So what exactly is Shura and the circumstances and conditions?
-
Your criteria is what is in theory, not in practice. Whether the Muslim leader fulfills some of these requirements or not, he is obligatory to obey according to you guys.
In the absence of the Imam we still have people of authority in the Shi'i world. I will give the example of the fuqaha, whose criteria is much more rigirous than the non-practical yet still simple criteria you gave me.
One of the important ones is: adala. Strike one (once you lose your adala) and your out, you're not even allowed to be followed anymore for taqleed purposes. Unless you repent.
No it isn't "theory", it's rules that can be applied in real life. For us obedience to a ruler is only binding if it doesn't conflict with religious rulings, if the ruler orders what opposes Shari`ah, the people can refuse and the country's jurists judge in favor of God's book in times of difference.
As for your Fuqaha', the whole thing is a scam as according to your early leaders non-infallible men cannot rule. That's why there was HUGE opposition by many known Shia scholars against "Wilayat-ul-Faqih" which is nothing more than a mob who took Iran hostage. The only way out for you is if you can prove Khamina'i is appointed by the 12th Imam.
As for the `Adalah business, I don't know if you understand the inner workings of the Hawza, but there's a million scandals of corruption (monetary, sexual, political etc..) revolving around all the top maraji` and their direct followers so spare me your idealistic mumbo-jumbo.
-
LOL. I don't need to repeat myself over and over and over again and again based on your constantly denial. You have either divine Imamate or Shura. Your Khilafat isn't based on either of them. The first was picked coincidently. The second was appointed by the first as his successor.The third was picked by a six man committee to decide amongst themselves. Your Shura has just been blown out of the window. LOL.
Actually, first was appointed at Saqifah after much discussions until one side was able to convince the other. The second was chosen when Muslims asked the first to appoint a man for them. The second picked a committee of the top six candidates (not including his relatives) and they consulted and chose their man.
-
So those who opposed Ali and in fact went far as waging war what is your opinion on them?
If you mean the mother of believers `A'ishah may God be pleased with her, `Ali's opinion was that he wept for the opposing army and was saddened at the loss of some of the most pious men, he supplicated God for them especially Talhah and Zubayr, he honored them and their relatives, he prepared `A'ishah's return trip in the most respectable way, he silenced all those who spoke ill of the opposing army, he called them "our brothers", he wished to be united in heaven with them, he never executed anybody because there were no ill intentions nor did he consider them criminals who needed to be punished.
In other words, according to all reputable historical sources, `Ali ALWAYS punished criminals and outlaws, he didn't view this situation in the same way otherwise he technically allowed the biggest criminals to get away unpunished, rather he honored them and prayed for them.
If anything, this proves he wasn't divinely appointed nor did he share your opinion towards those individuals.
-
And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. Can Shura be restricted to Muhajirs and Ansars only? As Sunni Caliphate System is based on Shura as First Four Rightly Guided Caliphs were chosen by Shura then... how can Sunni Caliph now (i.e. at present) be elected by Shura if Shura is only the right of Muhajirs and Ansars?
The Muslims today have two systems, The modern system currently is based on democratic elections and that everyone must have an equal voice. A few countries still run on the ancient system of royalty and bloodlines.
When `Ali said what he said above, he was reflecting his opinion and that of the top figures at the time. This is an ancient philosophical system called the rule of the elites. Meaning, the common farmers and peasants cannot be trusted in choosing, only the elites in society can choose. In `Ali's time, the elite were the earliest of Muslims, emigrants and supporters, those who went through thick and thin for the sake of God and his messenger (saw).
This last system is no longer in practice although I personally prefer the rule of the elites as long as those elites are pious on top of being educated.
Secondly, the title of "Caliph" is not some mythical position, ANYONE who rules the Muslims and takes charge of their affairs after the passing of the Prophet (saw), is technically his deputy/successor whether you call him "king" "sultan" or "president".
-
Secondly, the title of "Caliph" is not some mythical position, ANYONE who rules the Muslims and takes charge of their affairs after the passing of the Prophet (saw), is technically his deputy/successor whether you call him "king" "sultan" or "president".
How do they succeed the position of Mohammad in what sense? In the sense of his spiritual authority: no. In sense of his religion authority: no.
But we have one last thing to check: Do they have the same political authority as the Nabi?
And I would say no, since you can question a political command of ruler per Sunnis and say it is not according to Shariah right?
So the ruler ends up being necessarily one that people must agree is implementing Quran and Sunnah or per your words, you can disobey him and must replace him if he is against Quran and Sunnah.
This shows it is more a job and is not holding the authority of the Prophet in either the matters of safety and peace regarding religion or political matters but rather is just entrusted to implement the will of the people as far Quran and Sunnah goes in their interpretation.
The question is government really suppose to be looked at something that is the position of a Prophet in any sense of the word?
From what I look at. There is two possible times for humans.
1) When infallible leader is present among them in their land and time and place and outwardly manifest.
2) When he is hidden.
I don't see any person having a portion in any authority of the Prophet which is divine authority.
Governing and ruling is more like a social contract. This is true whether people are duped into giving this contract out of fear or misguided or it is based on truth.
In this sense, I incline and agree with democratic anarchy. I think we have to see power for what it is, it is given by the people and hence it is people responsibility.... and people shouldn't look at as a top down thing.
The exception of course is the light of God and his command. That is an authority we have to obey. And a Messenger has proof of that authority, and so to succeed that, whether politically, religiously or spiritually, you have to proof that God gave you that position.
And that is one of the meanings of "King" and Talut (as) talk, is that Quran in a true sense, rejects kings except those who God chosen.
That is why Imam Hussain is careful in his words and says "those with knowledge (of the religion) are suppose to entrusted over the affairs of people" but didn't say they are kings or authorities.....
It is the same with an official or battle commander, they have a job to do, but if people see one of the governor during Mohammad time tell them to do something evil, they are suppose to disobey and tell the Rasool.
That is why really it is more of a job, and judging same thing, it's not that a judge on behalf of Rasool, has the same authority as Rasool. That is absurd. Not even a portion.
Rather he has a job to fulfill.
And people with knowledge should be responsible over the affairs of people, and when people who know leave it to ignorant people, darkness rules, and when people who know take responsibility, then the light is obeyed through their help.
But those who hold Authority of Moses in his people for example, they were those who had been made to be vicegerents and inherit the earth by God's proofs, and they were given the same manifest authority as Moses.
Anyways, carry on..... You don't have to respond if you don't want to.
But from what I read of good democratic anarchy. I agree, and I think Quran agrees with them when no manifest leader from God is present in many respects but they are still wrong in how knowledge should be sought and spread in society....
-
As for your Fuqaha', the whole thing is a scam as according to your early leaders non-infallible men cannot rule. That's why there was HUGE opposition by many known Shia scholars against "Wilayat-ul-Faqih" which is nothing more than a mob who took Iran hostage. The only way out for you is if you can prove Khamina'i is appointed by the 12th Imam.
Ahh... it make sense now.
I was in conversation with a Twelver on Facebook (though briefly) and he said that Khamenei is one of the 12th Imam's representatives. Don't really bother at first (may be he is a lunatic for believing in that) but now it makes sense.
-
But we have one last thing to check: Do they have the same political authority as the Nabi?
And I would say no, since you can question a political command of ruler per Sunnis and say it is not according to Shariah right?
So the ruler ends up being necessarily one that people must agree is implementing Quran and Sunnah or per your words, you can disobey him and must replace him if he is against Quran and Sunnah.
Excellent. You described it perfectly. That is what Al-Quran calls as "Ulil Amri min kum" if you care to read 4:59.
-
Secondly, the title of "Caliph" is not some mythical position, ANYONE who rules the Muslims and takes charge of their affairs after the passing of the Prophet (saw), is technically his deputy/successor whether you call him "king" "sultan" or "president".
How do they succeed the position of Mohammad in what sense? In the sense of his spiritual authority: no. In sense of his religion authority: no.
But we have one last thing to check: Do they have the same political authority as the Nabi?
And I would say no, since you can question a political command of ruler per Sunnis and say it is not according to Shariah right?
So the ruler ends up being necessarily one that people must agree is implementing Quran and Sunnah or per your words, you can disobey him and must replace him if he is against Quran and Sunnah.
This shows it is more a job and is not holding the authority of the Prophet in either the matters of safety and peace regarding religion or political matters but rather is just entrusted to implement the will of the people as far Quran and Sunnah goes in their interpretation.
The question is government really suppose to be looked at something that is the position of a Prophet in any sense of the word?
From what I look at. There is two possible times for humans.
1) When infallible leader is present among them in their land and time and place and outwardly manifest.
2) When he is hidden.
I don't see any person having a portion in any authority of the Prophet which is divine authority.
Governing and ruling is more like a social contract. This is true whether people are duped into giving this contract out of fear or misguided or it is based on truth.
In this sense, I incline and agree with democratic anarchy. I think we have to see power for what it is, it is given by the people and hence it is people responsibility.... and people shouldn't look at as a top down thing.
The exception of course is the light of God and his command. That is an authority we have to obey. And a Messenger has proof of that authority, and so to succeed that, whether politically, religiously or spiritually, you have to proof that God gave you that position.
And that is one of the meanings of "King" and Talut (as) talk, is that Quran in a true sense, rejects kings except those who God chosen.
That is why Imam Hussain is careful in his words and says "those with knowledge (of the religion) are suppose to entrusted over the affairs of people" but didn't say they are kings or authorities.....
It is the same with an official or battle commander, they have a job to do, but if people see one of the governor during Mohammad time tell them to do something evil, they are suppose to disobey and tell the Rasool.
That is why really it is more of a job, and judging same thing, it's not that a judge on behalf of Rasool, has the same authority as Rasool. That is absurd. Not even a portion.
Rather he has a job to fulfill.
And people with knowledge should be responsible over the affairs of people, and when people who know leave it to ignorant people, darkness rules, and when people who know take responsibility, then the light is obeyed through their help.
But those who hold Authority of Moses in his people for example, they were those who had been made to be vicegerents and inherit the earth by God's proofs, and they were given the same manifest authority as Moses.
Anyways, carry on..... You don't have to respond if you don't want to.
But from what I read of good democratic anarchy. I agree, and I think Quran agrees with them when no manifest leader from God is present in many respects but they are still wrong in how knowledge should be sought and spread in society....
In the good simple past, the Caliph (aka Leader) was expected to be a top ranking jurist as well as experienced political figure. In our days, things are shaping up in a different way, we have a lot of eminent scholars we can ask, we have access to books, online lectures etc... No one is going to travel all the way to the house of a prime minister and ask him to issue a verdict in religion.
We're living in times were people specialize in different fields, I wouldn't even ask a Hadith scholar to interpret a verse for me, I would ask a Qur'anic exegesist/interpreter (Mufassir), that is his field. A person who spent a lifetime studying international politics and its intricacies may not know a whole lot about religious laws and similarly a grand Mufti may not know anything about politics.
In our days, humanity became educated and developed, what we want from today's "Caliphs" is the following:
A- Safety and security.
B- Freedom to worship in whatever way we desire and the religious establishment be of repute.
C- That our human-rights are respected and our needs met.
D- That we and our families live a dignified life in society.
E- That we get a say or a voice in shaping the future of our country and its policies.
F- That there is a civilized system to combat corruption or impeach a leader should he be not up to the task.
etc..
People in our days don't care about a bearded guy with a turban claiming a fancy title like "Caliph" or that he's God's mouth-peice. We need responsible humanitarian leaders more than anything and that's the majority opinion.
(Otherwise go join silly groups like Hiz-ul-Tahrir)
-
Salam
What you are not understanding is the term "Authority" comes with it a lot of baggage.
When I was a Deist, I became a democratic anarchist. Anarchy means no power become the population determines and governs itself. The "government" which they refuse to call even government, was people entrusted to implement the will of the people.
So far there is no democracy in any part of the world. There is republics, and even by definition of republic, that is pushing it. There is semi-republics at most, but they are closer to oligarchy than republics.
This is whether they are of just laws or not, I am just talking about what by definition democracy or republic is.
God knows what is behind words like "kingship" "authority" it can be said one of purposes of Prophets was to negate it almost in total, the exception would be them because they represent God.
That it has termed all sense of "leadership" be it religious or political as dark and evil and of shadows, whether we realize it or not.
It also by the word "Rabani" has said we all must become that: learn and teach God's book and what we study.
So I think you are not realize the depth Quran has gone to this.
Another word we can use is that government leader is suppose to navigate society towards justice but Quran has refuted that as well, and said only chosen ones can hold that position.
If we look at the word leader, it went to great lengths on it. And even interconnected with the straight path by calling a literal road an Imam showing these are interconnected even linguistically.
A leader leads somewhere, it's fine a soccer team leader regarding the game, or coach, or boss in a job...those are fine.
But political/spiritual/religious leadership and authority has been forbidden for all but the chosen ones.
So what are we suppose to do in Ghayba? Perhaps something different, perhaps, more of a social anarchy and that even our religion is all counseling one another and gaining insights and knowledge from one another?
If Kings can only be chosen by God and governing is for God alone, and navigating and directing is suppose be God's Name and knowledge and wisdom is to be sought by his doors, then yes, it is important question: "What is Authority" and who holds it absence of those he chosen.
Again, it has to be none, no one.
So how do organize ourselves. I would say organizing ourselves has to be through counseling one another and that society has to learn the truth and enjoin the truth.
Than what is termed government today, becomes: People entrusted to organize society, deal with taxes, etc...
Because Quran must remain the authority and because God is authority, naturally, those it assigns as leaders are authorities.
But we can't choose this ourselves, we can't choose our leaders, I believe this is clear.
The fact was Khomeini was very hasty. Very very hasty. I am going to write refutation in detail of Islamic government. It contradicts itself in many ways, and there is only one set of ahadith and one interpretation presented of them.
And the interpretation of Quran...was soooo bad in this regard. I will write a refutation. Inshallah, I promise I plan on to.
-
Those Muslims who claim that they follow the traditions (the statements and practices) of Muhammad Mustafa, the Prophe of Islam, and of his companions, are called Ahl-es-Sunnat wal-Jama'at or Sunni. They also call themselves “orthodox” Muslims, and they make up the overwhelming majority of the Muslims in the world.
The Sunni Muslims believe that the Prophet of Islam did not designate anyone as his successor, and he (probably) assumed that after his death, the Muslims would find a leader for themselves. They further say that the Prophet did not even tell his followers how they ought to select their future leaders or what qualifications those leaders should have.
Thus, lacking both precedent and guidance in the matter of finding their leaders, the companions had no choice but to take recourse to improvisation.
But improvisation is not policy, and inevitably, it turned out to be a rather erratic manner of finding leaders of the Muslim umma (community). In one case the companions found a leader through what was supposed to be an election.
In another case, the first incumbent (who was elected), nominated and appointed his own successor.
In the third instance, the second incumbent (who was nominated), appointed a committee of six men and charged them with the duty of selecting one out of themselves as the future leader of the Muslim community.
The third leader, so selected, was killed in the midst of anarchy and chaos, and the umma was left without a head. The companions then turned to the family of their Prophet, and appealed to one of its members to take charge of the government of the Muslims, and thereby to save it from breakdown and dissolution.
The fourth incumbent was still ruling the Muslims when a new candidate for leadership arose in Syria. He brushed aside the hoax of election, challenged the lawful sovereign of the Muslims by invoking the principle of brute force, and succeeded in capturing the government. His action brought the number of the “principles” for finding leaders of the Muslim umma to four, viz.
How can there be lack of guidance when there was NO SUCH INSTRUCTION.....I keep asking you for CLEAR proof of that but all your posts you couldn't, so that theory is dead.
Yes election, ELECTED from consultation SHURA, Abu Bakr ra didn't want to but was chosen just like the 4th, as well as the 2 in between.
Abu Bakr ra elected by shura and was SELECTED, (even though in Islam Abu Bakr ra was a choice of the prophet saw also)
Umar ra was a candidate put forward, SELECTED,but eventually chosen and agreed by shura
Uthman ra again consulted and chosen by shura
Ali ra same situation as first khalif SELECTED and then agreement within shura
Allah swt blessed their rule and it spread far and wide.
Yet........the world has NEVER seen a divine imam rule, where is it? In Narnia?
This shura is sure killing off the divine Imamate theory, intelligently and logically, as can be seen.
LOL. I don't need to repeat myself over and over and over again and again based on your constantly denial. You have either divine Imamate or Shura. Your Khilafat isn't based on either of them. The first was picked coincidently. The second was appointed by the first as his successor.The third was picked by a six man committee to decide amongst themselves. Your Shura has just been blown out of the window. LOL.
Yawn*** you are getting boring now, your argument against shura has no standing, you say first was a coincidence:
He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph.
You say second was appointed:
2nd was put forward as a choice, that choice was agreed by the people
You say third was a committee deciding amongst themselves:
3rd again chosen by the people
consultation was done amongst them to get a unified decision on a leader. However the end result was through consultation.shura.
It's that simple, obviously it wasn't smooth and things happen but they used shura for choosing the next leader.
We have the Quran, sunna and the above living example of shura in action, this is reality.
And yes a khalif can appoint another coz we ain't no divine beings.
Again.......your problem is shura, it TRUMPS divine authority, no one ruled by divine Imamate authority EVER in the history of the world..........you still haven't given us a good solid argument of any divine leadership from Quran and sunnah, its that simple.
-
Those Muslims who claim that they follow the traditions (the statements and practices) of Muhammad Mustafa, the Prophe of Islam, and of his companions, are called Ahl-es-Sunnat wal-Jama'at or Sunni. They also call themselves “orthodox” Muslims, and they make up the overwhelming majority of the Muslims in the world.
The Sunni Muslims believe that the Prophet of Islam did not designate anyone as his successor, and he (probably) assumed that after his death, the Muslims would find a leader for themselves. They further say that the Prophet did not even tell his followers how they ought to select their future leaders or what qualifications those leaders should have.
Thus, lacking both precedent and guidance in the matter of finding their leaders, the companions had no choice but to take recourse to improvisation.
But improvisation is not policy, and inevitably, it turned out to be a rather erratic manner of finding leaders of the Muslim umma (community). In one case the companions found a leader through what was supposed to be an election.
In another case, the first incumbent (who was elected), nominated and appointed his own successor.
In the third instance, the second incumbent (who was nominated), appointed a committee of six men and charged them with the duty of selecting one out of themselves as the future leader of the Muslim community.
The third leader, so selected, was killed in the midst of anarchy and chaos, and the umma was left without a head. The companions then turned to the family of their Prophet, and appealed to one of its members to take charge of the government of the Muslims, and thereby to save it from breakdown and dissolution.
The fourth incumbent was still ruling the Muslims when a new candidate for leadership arose in Syria. He brushed aside the hoax of election, challenged the lawful sovereign of the Muslims by invoking the principle of brute force, and succeeded in capturing the government. His action brought the number of the “principles” for finding leaders of the Muslim umma to four, viz.
How can there be lack of guidance when there was NO SUCH INSTRUCTION.....I keep asking you for CLEAR proof of that but all your posts you couldn't, so that theory is dead.
Yes election, ELECTED from consultation SHURA, Abu Bakr ra didn't want to but was chosen just like the 4th, as well as the 2 in between.
Abu Bakr ra elected by shura and was SELECTED, (even though in Islam Abu Bakr ra was a choice of the prophet saw also)
Umar ra was a candidate put forward, SELECTED,but eventually chosen and agreed by shura
Uthman ra again consulted and chosen by shura
Ali ra same situation as first khalif SELECTED and then agreement within shura
Allah swt blessed their rule and it spread far and wide.
Yet........the world has NEVER seen a divine imam rule, where is it? In Narnia?
This shura is sure killing off the divine Imamate theory, intelligently and logically, as can be seen.
LOL. I don't need to repeat myself over and over and over again and again based on your constantly denial. You have either divine Imamate or Shura. Your Khilafat isn't based on either of them. The first was picked coincidently. The second was appointed by the first as his successor.The third was picked by a six man committee to decide amongst themselves. Your Shura has just been blown out of the window. LOL.
Yawn*** you are getting boring now, your argument against shura has no standing, you say first was a coincidence:
He was chosen and elected by the decision makers (ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd). For example, Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq became caliph when he was elected by the decision makers, then the Sahaabah unanimously agreed with that and swore allegiance to him, and accepted him as caliph.
You say second was appointed:
2nd was put forward as a choice, that choice was agreed by the people
You say third was a committee deciding amongst themselves:
3rd again chosen by the people
consultation was done amongst them to get a unified decision on a leader. However the end result was through consultation.shura.
It's that simple, obviously it wasn't smooth and things happen but they used shura for choosing the next leader.
We have the Quran, sunna and the above living example of shura in action, this is reality.
And yes a khalif can appoint another coz we ain't no divine beings.
Again.......your problem is shura, it TRUMPS divine authority, no one ruled by divine Imamate authority EVER in the history of the world..........you still haven't given us a good solid argument of any divine leadership from Quran and sunnah, its that simple.
It's not getting boring it's just becoming a waste of time now. I've said what I had to say and made my point. I have no intentions on running around in circles. You carry on mate.
-
No points made.
Shura from Quran trumps divine leadership theory made up from false reports.
You have no clear evidences from Quran and sunnah.
Good luck in your false beliefs, try again from another angle😂😂😂👍👍
-
It doesn't matter which angle you try from you will not succeed with the arrogant and ignorant. You're better off speaking to a wall than those handful who have a mindset. You carry on justifying incidents and events through Shura. We don't bother you but you're the ones who are obsessed with us. Get a life and do something useful.
-
Shura to choose leader was bad
BUT
Shura to choose khamenei was good
*facepalm*
Its like at first shia say only infallibles can guidr us and then fallibles guiding them now. Always contradicting themselves in the end
-
It doesn't matter which angle you try from you will not succeed with the arrogant and ignorant. You're better off speaking to a wall than those handful who have a mindset. You carry on justifying incidents and events through Shura. We don't bother you but you're the ones who are obsessed with us. Get a life and do something useful.
BOO HOO HOO, no evidence from Quran and sunnah or any logical ANGLE..........now it's emotions and sob stories bout how Shiites get picked on, LOL.
Typical Shiite COP OUT.
-
It doesn't matter which angle you try from you will not succeed with the arrogant and ignorant. You're better off speaking to a wall than those handful who have a mindset. You carry on justifying incidents and events through Shura. We don't bother you but you're the ones who are obsessed with us. Get a life and do something useful.
BOO HOO HOO, no evidence from Quran and sunnah or any logical ANGLE..........now it's emotions and sob stories bout how Shiites get picked on, LOL.
Typical Shiite COP OUT.
LOL and LOL again. Can't you have or don't you want a discussion? What is Shura and what are the circumstances and conditions relating to it? Were the first six Khalifs selected by Shura?
Once again Abu Bakr was selected by Shura when all parties concerned weren't present in Saqifa. Only the Ansaar gathered there to do their thing.
Omar was selected by Shura. Where and when did all parties concerned gather?
The third was selected by just six people, is this Shura? Is Shura or can Shura be limited just to a few or handful? Was Yazeed also brought in by Shura?
Come on, do you have any standards? Is there any standards? I don't need your childish stance.
The bottom line seems to be that you can't discuss because your belief is not based on reality and facts. You have no principles or standards.
-
Shura to choose leader was bad
BUT
Shura to choose khamenei was good
*facepalm*
Its like at first shia say only infallibles can guidr us and then fallibles guiding them now. Always contradicting themselves in the end
We don't believe in Shura when it comes to the Prophet's (s) successor. Selecting a spiritual leader for your country, for example Iran, is totally a different thing. First get your head around understanding things and their foundation rather than yapping on thoughtlessly.
-
Shura to choose leader was bad
BUT
Shura to choose khamenei was good
*facepalm*
Its like at first shia say only infallibles can guidr us and then fallibles guiding them now. Always contradicting themselves in the end
We don't believe in Shura when it comes to the Prophet's (s) successor. Selecting a spiritual leader for your country, for example Iran, is totally a different thing. First get your head around understanding things and their foundation rather than yapping on thoughtlessly.
haha another funny excuse. Its ok to have shura to elect spiritual leader. Isnt your imam a spiritual leader? See, everytime shia answers it only contradict your other answer
-
We don't believe in Shura when it comes to the Prophet's (s) successor. Selecting a spiritual leader for your country, for example Iran, is totally a different thing. First get your head around understanding things and their foundation rather than yapping on thoughtlessly.
Esteemed Shia scholar Ayatullah Khomeini writes in his book:
“When we say that after the Occultation, the just faqih has the same authority that the Most Noble Messenger and the Imams (‘a) had, do not imagine that the status of the faqih is identical to that of the Imams and the Prophet(‘a). For here we are not speaking of status, but rather of function. By “authority” we mean government, the administration of the country, and the implementation of the sacred laws of the shari‘ah. These constitute a serious, difficult duty but do not earn anyone extraordinary status or raise him above the level of common humanity. In other words, authority here has the meaning of government, administration, and execution of law; contrary to what many people believe, it is not a privilege, but a grave responsibility. The governance of the faqih is a rational and extrinsic matter; it exists only as a type of appointment, like the appointment of a guardian for a minor. With respect to duty and position, there is indeed no difference between the guardian of a nation and the guardian of a minor. It is as if the Imam were to appoint someone to the guardianship of a minor, to the governorship of a province, or to some other post. In cases like these, it is not reasonable that there would be a difference between the Prophet and the Imams (‘a), on the one hand, and the just faqih, on the other.” (Islamic Goverment, page 45 by Ayatullah Khomeini,)
-
It doesn't matter which angle you try from you will not succeed with the arrogant and ignorant. You're better off speaking to a wall than those handful who have a mindset. You carry on justifying incidents and events through Shura. We don't bother you but you're the ones who are obsessed with us. Get a life and do something useful.
BOO HOO HOO, no evidence from Quran and sunnah or any logical ANGLE..........now it's emotions and sob stories bout how Shiites get picked on, LOL.
Typical Shiite COP OUT.
LOL and LOL again. Can't you have or don't you want a discussion? What is Shura and what are the circumstances and conditions relating to it? Were the first six Khalifs selected by Shura?
Once again Abu Bakr was selected by Shura when all parties concerned weren't present in Saqifa. Only the Ansaar gathered there to do their thing.
Omar was selected by Shura. Where and when did all parties concerned gather?
The third was selected by just six people, is this Shura? Is Shura or can Shura be limited just to a few or handful? Was Yazeed also brought in by Shura?
Come on, do you have any standards? Is there any standards? I don't need your childish stance.
The bottom line seems to be that you can't discuss because your belief is not based on reality and facts. You have no principles or standards.
Why are you getting worked up for? If you cannot comprehend an argument or answer it just admit it instead of all the tripe you post.
So to you Quran and sunnah are not reality and facts, considering I base my shura understanding from them.
At the least I can say divine leadership is not based on reality and facts as there is no understanding of the concept in Quran and sunnah.
shiism in a nutshell👍
-
Shura to choose leader was bad
BUT
Shura to choose khamenei was good
*facepalm*
Its like at first shia say only infallibles can guidr us and then fallibles guiding them now. Always contradicting themselves in the end
We don't believe in Shura when it comes to the Prophet's (s) successor. Selecting a spiritual leader for your country, for example Iran, is totally a different thing. First get your head around understanding things and their foundation rather than yapping on thoughtlessly.
haha another funny excuse. Its ok to have shura to elect spiritual leader. Isnt your imam a spiritual leader? See, everytime shia answers it only contradict your other answer
After the Messenger (s) we follow the Messenger (s) and have accepted and taken the two weighty things he has left behind for us, 1. The book of Allah which we take just as you and 2. The progeny which you along with the Sahaba have rejected.
Both, the book of Allah and the progeny, are pure and authentic 100%. You have clear verses about the progeny that rijs was removed from them and they were purified to the state of purification. And Allah did this for a purpose.
These are our Ulul Amre and our walies after Allah and his Messenger (s). We have clear verses in the Qoran about third in line in authority after Allah and his Messenger (s). I'm repeating my self constantly and you are ignoring this and beating around the bush constantly.
Iran is a country and they believe in the democratic process just like any other country. They do not reject the concept of Al Mahdi but actually believe in it.
Imam (Al Mahdi) is present but not available. He is in Occultation. Read the meaning and get the understanding about occultation before speaking. Because the Imam is not available due to occultation our substitute is ijtihad and we follow a Mujtahid.
Learn, understand and get to know by asking and listening.
-
It doesn't matter which angle you try from you will not succeed with the arrogant and ignorant. You're better off speaking to a wall than those handful who have a mindset. You carry on justifying incidents and events through Shura. We don't bother you but you're the ones who are obsessed with us. Get a life and do something useful.
BOO HOO HOO, no evidence from Quran and sunnah or any logical ANGLE..........now it's emotions and sob stories bout how Shiites get picked on, LOL.
Typical Shiite COP OUT.
LOL and LOL again. Can't you have or don't you want a discussion? What is Shura and what are the circumstances and conditions relating to it? Were the first six Khalifs selected by Shura?
Once again Abu Bakr was selected by Shura when all parties concerned weren't present in Saqifa. Only the Ansaar gathered there to do their thing.
Omar was selected by Shura. Where and when did all parties concerned gather?
The third was selected by just six people, is this Shura? Is Shura or can Shura be limited just to a few or handful? Was Yazeed also brought in by Shura?
Come on, do you have any standards? Is there any standards? I don't need your childish stance.
The bottom line seems to be that you can't discuss because your belief is not based on reality and facts. You have no principles or standards.
Why are you getting worked up for? If you cannot comprehend an argument or answer it just admit it instead of all the tripe you post.
So to you Quran and sunnah are not reality and facts, considering I base my shura understanding from them.
At the least I can say divine leadership is not based on reality and facts as there is no understanding of the concept in Quran and sunnah.
shiism in a nutshell👍
I'm not getting worked up at all. It's you by looking at your posts. I'm just repeating myself constantly because you're beating around the bush continuously. Ok enough said, give us Sunism in a nutshell. Can you? I don't think so. This is where the water works will come on. If you can't speak about your belief and faith openly and freely then why raise suspicion and cast doubt about ours. This is exactly your problem.
-
It doesn't matter which angle you try from you will not succeed with the arrogant and ignorant. You're better off speaking to a wall than those handful who have a mindset. You carry on justifying incidents and events through Shura. We don't bother you but you're the ones who are obsessed with us. Get a life and do something useful.
BOO HOO HOO, no evidence from Quran and sunnah or any logical ANGLE..........now it's emotions and sob stories bout how Shiites get picked on, LOL.
Typical Shiite COP OUT.
LOL and LOL again. Can't you have or don't you want a discussion? What is Shura and what are the circumstances and conditions relating to it? Were the first six Khalifs selected by Shura?
Once again Abu Bakr was selected by Shura when all parties concerned weren't present in Saqifa. Only the Ansaar gathered there to do their thing.
Omar was selected by Shura. Where and when did all parties concerned gather?
The third was selected by just six people, is this Shura? Is Shura or can Shura be limited just to a few or handful? Was Yazeed also brought in by Shura?
Come on, do you have any standards? Is there any standards? I don't need your childish stance.
The bottom line seems to be that you can't discuss because your belief is not based on reality and facts. You have no principles or standards.
Why are you getting worked up for? If you cannot comprehend an argument or answer it just admit it instead of all the tripe you post.
So to you Quran and sunnah are not reality and facts, considering I base my shura understanding from them.
At the least I can say divine leadership is not based on reality and facts as there is no understanding of the concept in Quran and sunnah.
shiism in a nutshell👍
I'm not getting worked up at all. It's you by looking at your posts. I'm just repeating myself constantly because you're beating around the bush continuously. Ok enough said, give us Sunism in a nutshell. Can you? I don't think so. This is where the water works will come on. If you can't speak about your belief and faith openly and freely then why raise suspicion and cast doubt about ours. This is exactly your problem.
What? divinity imami appointments v shura, stick to the topic, Shiism in a nutshell.......you are contradictive and can NEVER answer simple answers, as can be seen by your poor attempts to force thoughts of alien nature in to the Quran and sunnah. It doesn't work.
Iceman came in here with ALL his knowledge and experience to prove to sunni that divine appointment leadership is god chosen and shura is manmade he even got 10 questions that would kill us!!.............And look at iceman now, all the posts he posted have NO CLEAR proof of divinity leadership from an imam unless he goes into essays of explanations and stories.
i beat around the bush coz:
1) I proved there is no divine leadership appointments in any verse you gave.
2) I proved to you shura consultation is in Quran and sunna and how to implement it.
.........Now that icemans water works are jammed by not finding an answer to the fake divine imam theory concept, he wants to turn sunni taps on.......LOL.
👍
-
It doesn't matter which angle you try from you will not succeed with the arrogant and ignorant. You're better off speaking to a wall than those handful who have a mindset. You carry on justifying incidents and events through Shura. We don't bother you but you're the ones who are obsessed with us. Get a life and do something useful.
BOO HOO HOO, no evidence from Quran and sunnah or any logical ANGLE..........now it's emotions and sob stories bout how Shiites get picked on, LOL.
Typical Shiite COP OUT.
LOL and LOL again. Can't you have or don't you want a discussion? What is Shura and what are the circumstances and conditions relating to it? Were the first six Khalifs selected by Shura?
Once again Abu Bakr was selected by Shura when all parties concerned weren't present in Saqifa. Only the Ansaar gathered there to do their thing.
Omar was selected by Shura. Where and when did all parties concerned gather?
The third was selected by just six people, is this Shura? Is Shura or can Shura be limited just to a few or handful? Was Yazeed also brought in by Shura?
Come on, do you have any standards? Is there any standards? I don't need your childish stance.
The bottom line seems to be that you can't discuss because your belief is not based on reality and facts. You have no principles or standards.
Why are you getting worked up for? If you cannot comprehend an argument or answer it just admit it instead of all the tripe you post.
So to you Quran and sunnah are not reality and facts, considering I base my shura understanding from them.
At the least I can say divine leadership is not based on reality and facts as there is no understanding of the concept in Quran and sunnah.
shiism in a nutshell👍
I'm not getting worked up at all. It's you by looking at your posts. I'm just repeating myself constantly because you're beating around the bush continuously. Ok enough said, give us Sunism in a nutshell. Can you? I don't think so. This is where the water works will come on. If you can't speak about your belief and faith openly and freely then why raise suspicion and cast doubt about ours. This is exactly your problem.
What? divinity imami appointments v shura, stick to the topic, Shiism in a nutshell.......you are contradictive and can NEVER answer simple answers, as can be seen by your poor attempts to force thoughts of alien nature in to the Quran and sunnah. It doesn't work.
Iceman came in here with ALL his knowledge and experience to prove to sunni that divine appointment leadership is god chosen and shura is manmade he even got 10 questions that would kill us!!.............And look at iceman now, all the posts he posted have NO CLEAR proof of divinity leadership from an imam unless he goes into essays of explanations and stories.
i beat around the bush coz:
1) I proved there is no divine leadership appointments in any verse you gave.
2) I proved to you shura consultation is in Quran and sunna and how to implement it.
.........Now that icemans water works are jammed by not finding an answer to the fake divine imam theory concept, he wants to turn sunni taps on.......LOL.
👍
You sound like a very emotional and disturbed man. I don't blame you since you've got everything to worry about. No discussion on the two weighty things and holding on to them. No discussion on the purification verse and your perspective. According to you the Prophet (s) didn't bother to appoint anyone because you probably think it wasn't that important to him. You believe in Shura and I have continuously asked you about the principles and circumstances of Shura and what are the conditions on selecting a leader according to Shura. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FROM YOU.
SHURA? The companions didn't even follow Shura. The first, the second and the third weren't selected by Shura. Moawiya wasn't elected by Shura.And I asked you about Yazeed if he got in by Shura and once again no comment from. No discussion, no comment on any of my points, no answers in fact nothing from you. Just tantrums and childish behaviour. Why are you so frightened in getting into a civilised discussion? Are you scared that you will get cornered?
One more time, you or anyone;
What are the principles and circumstances regarding Shura?
When you select/elect a leader what is tje method/procedure and what are the conditions?
Can any one answer and discuss according to Qoran and Sunah? Surely it can't be that difficult.
-
Iceman
you really are stuck, divinity flakey imami leadership has no base.
You want to put shura against some fake divinity leadership ideology,this is your fallacy, you do realise shura is not a system of governance but it was the way prophet saw usedit and Quran urged it. This is our point. It's more closer to Quran and sunnah than divine Imamate leadership which has zilch coverage in Quran and sunnah.
If you cannot COMPREHEND or UNDERSTAND well that's not my issue, I have you Quran and sunna as evidences and yet you couldn't.............which means I AM BASING my evidence from Quran and sunnah and you are basing your evidence from HUMANS born 100's of years later.
That's IT.......you have nothing!!!
You can carry on all you want with different angles and sob stories and stretching meanings of verses in Quran to accommodate the made up theory of divine Imamate leadership.
As for using it,shura, yes they all used it as previously posted before.
As for the side issue I have answered if you care to look for it........yazid wasn't a rashidun khalifa and he has NOTHING to do with shura.
Your clutching on straws if your gonna use yazid, honestly I thought you would be more intelligent than that.
Honestly 😂
-
Iceman
you really are stuck, divinity flakey imami leadership has no base.
You want to put shura against some fake divinity leadership ideology,this is your fallacy, you do realise shura is not a system of governance but it was the way prophet saw usedit and Quran urged it. This is our point. It's more closer to Quran and sunnah than divine Imamate leadership which has zilch coverage in Quran and sunnah.
If you cannot COMPREHEND or UNDERSTAND well that's not my issue, I have you Quran and sunna as evidences and yet you couldn't.............which means I AM BASING my evidence from Quran and sunnah and you are basing your evidence from HUMANS born 100's of years later.
That's IT.......you have nothing!!!
You can carry on all you want with different angles and sob stories and stretching meanings of verses in Quran to accommodate the made up theory of divine Imamate leadership.
As for using it,shura, yes they all used it as previously posted before.
As for the side issue I have answered if you care to look for it........yazid wasn't a rashidun khalifa and he has NOTHING to do with shura.
Your clutching on straws if your gonna use yazid, honestly I thought you would be more intelligent than that.
Honestly 😂
Another post full of rant and rave. Here we go agian;
What are the principles and circumstances concerning Shura?
What is the method/procedure regarding Shura? There has to be a particular way to conduct it. Or are you that I'll informed about what you believe in.
The first was elected/selected coincidentally and it was a hasty decision. Like I said before the Shaykhain rushed towards Saqifa to stop the Ansaar from going ahead and chosing their own leader. And one thing lead to another.
The second was appointed by the first. Oh yes, the first appointed his successor. And the second arranged a six man committee to choose the third just amongst themselves.
So how do you conduct Shura? What is the procedure/method? What are the principles and circumstances? Just because Yazeed turned out to be a bad person Shura is disappeared in thin air? If he turned out to be good the you would most definitely be beating the drums and blowing the trumpet of Shura.
Do you have any standards? Come on, it surely can't be that difficult to answer . You can RUN but you can't HIDE!
-
Which Sunah did Abu Bakr follow when he appointed his successor Omar and which Sunah did Omar follow when he strategically appointed a Council of 6 and imposed a condition which he knew Ali would not accept to choose his successor?
-
Iceman
you really are stuck, divinity flakey imami leadership has no base.
You want to put shura against some fake divinity leadership ideology,this is your fallacy, you do realise shura is not a system of governance but it was the way prophet saw usedit and Quran urged it. This is our point. It's more closer to Quran and sunnah than divine Imamate leadership which has zilch coverage in Quran and sunnah.
If you cannot COMPREHEND or UNDERSTAND well that's not my issue, I have you Quran and sunna as evidences and yet you couldn't.............which means I AM BASING my evidence from Quran and sunnah and you are basing your evidence from HUMANS born 100's of years later.
That's IT.......you have nothing!!!
You can carry on all you want with different angles and sob stories and stretching meanings of verses in Quran to accommodate the made up theory of divine Imamate leadership.
As for using it,shura, yes they all used it as previously posted before.
As for the side issue I have answered if you care to look for it........yazid wasn't a rashidun khalifa and he has NOTHING to do with shura.
Your clutching on straws if your gonna use yazid, honestly I thought you would be more intelligent than that.
Honestly 😂
Another post full of rant and rave. Here we go agian;
What are the principles and circumstances concerning Shura?
What is the method/procedure regarding Shura? There has to be a particular way to conduct it. Or are you that I'll informed about what you believe in.
The first was elected/selected coincidentally and it was a hasty decision. Like I said before the Shaykhain rushed towards Saqifa to stop the Ansaar from going ahead and chosing their own leader. And one thing lead to another.
The second was appointed by the first. Oh yes, the first appointed his successor. And the second arranged a six man committee to choose the third just amongst themselves.
So how do you conduct Shura? What is the procedure/method? What are the principles and circumstances? Just because Yazeed turned out to be a bad person Shura is disappeared in thin air? If he turned out to be good the you would most definitely be beating the drums and blowing the trumpet of Shura.
Do you have any standards? Come on, it surely can't be that difficult to answer . You can RUN but you can't HIDE!
ok, how to conduct shura consultation......hmmmm......YOU CONSULT, you (ask, seek advice/information from, take counsel from, call on/upon/in, turn to). LOL.
"Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by MUTUAL CONSULTAION among themselves; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance" [are praised]. Quran 42-39.
Thus it is due to mercy from God that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take COUNSEL with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in God; surely God loves those who trust.quran 3-159.
khalif Abu Bakr ra was selected by shura; His hand was raised by Umar ra and the parties agreed, then they CONSULTED with sahaba ra same with Umar ra He was by nomination. The current Khalifa may nominate his successor, the next Khalifa. The people have to accept him just as in the first case. If the old Khalifa appoints someone unworthy out of ulterior motives, the people must reject that appointee.
Uthmaan ra became caliph in a similar manner, when Umar ra delegated the appointment of the caliph to come after him to a shura council of six of the senior sahaba ra who were to elect one of their number. ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf consulted the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, and when he saw that the people were all inclined towards ‘Uthman ra, he swore allegiance to him first, then the rest of the six swore allegiance to him, followed by the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, so he was elected as caliph by the decision makers.
Whether it was six man or 2 man or the khalif himself who selects his choice to put forward for the shura it doesn't matter as long as they consulted with each other and wanted the best outcome for the umma, read the verses of Quran above it corresponds with this statement.
There you have it from Quran and is the choice of Nabi Muhammad saw as espoused by the umma for choosing a leader.
compare shura to divine imam leadership, the latter has no base, no reality or no sense to be honest as well as not being mentioned directly like shura in the Quran.
see........no long essays or stories or angles for that matter, simple and easy, as our Lord Allah swt intended for us to understand it.
Pity it's not as easy to explain divine Imamate leadership theory to the Muslim ummah.
-
Which Sunah did Abu Bakr follow when he appointed his successor Omar and which Sunah did Omar follow when he strategically appointed a Council of 6 and imposed a condition which he knew Ali would not accept to choose his successor?
Calm down boy........none of them APPOINTED, they NOMINATED as answered above, stop TWISTING it.
Ali ra had problems when He came to power, that's another story and you can open a thread up for that if you want and other knowledgeable brothers can answer you, I am done answering you on shura v divine Imamate and which is right according to Quran and sunnah.
-
Iceman
you really are stuck, divinity flakey imami leadership has no base.
You want to put shura against some fake divinity leadership ideology,this is your fallacy, you do realise shura is not a system of governance but it was the way prophet saw usedit and Quran urged it. This is our point. It's more closer to Quran and sunnah than divine Imamate leadership which has zilch coverage in Quran and sunnah.
If you cannot COMPREHEND or UNDERSTAND well that's not my issue, I have you Quran and sunna as evidences and yet you couldn't.............which means I AM BASING my evidence from Quran and sunnah and you are basing your evidence from HUMANS born 100's of years later.
That's IT.......you have nothing!!!
You can carry on all you want with different angles and sob stories and stretching meanings of verses in Quran to accommodate the made up theory of divine Imamate leadership.
As for using it,shura, yes they all used it as previously posted before.
As for the side issue I have answered if you care to look for it........yazid wasn't a rashidun khalifa and he has NOTHING to do with shura.
Your clutching on straws if your gonna use yazid, honestly I thought you would be more intelligent than that.
Honestly 😂
Another post full of rant and rave. Here we go agian;
What are the principles and circumstances concerning Shura?
What is the method/procedure regarding Shura? There has to be a particular way to conduct it. Or are you that I'll informed about what you believe in.
The first was elected/selected coincidentally and it was a hasty decision. Like I said before the Shaykhain rushed towards Saqifa to stop the Ansaar from going ahead and chosing their own leader. And one thing lead to another.
The second was appointed by the first. Oh yes, the first appointed his successor. And the second arranged a six man committee to choose the third just amongst themselves.
So how do you conduct Shura? What is the procedure/method? What are the principles and circumstances? Just because Yazeed turned out to be a bad person Shura is disappeared in thin air? If he turned out to be good the you would most definitely be beating the drums and blowing the trumpet of Shura.
Do you have any standards? Come on, it surely can't be that difficult to answer . You can RUN but you can't HIDE!
ok, how to conduct shura consultation......hmmmm......YOU CONSULT, you (ask, seek advice/information from, take counsel from, call on/upon/in, turn to). LOL.
"Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by MUTUAL CONSULTAION among themselves; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance" [are praised]. Quran 42-39.
Thus it is due to mercy from God that you deal with them gently, and had you been rough, hard hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from around you; pardon them therefore and ask pardon for them, and take COUNSEL with them in the affair; so when you have decided, then place your trust in God; surely God loves those who trust.quran 3-159.
khalif Abu Bakr ra was selected by shura; His hand was raised by Umar ra and the parties agreed, then they CONSULTED with sahaba ra same with Umar ra He was by nomination. The current Khalifa may nominate his successor, the next Khalifa. The people have to accept him just as in the first case. If the old Khalifa appoints someone unworthy out of ulterior motives, the people must reject that appointee.
Uthmaan ra became caliph in a similar manner, when Umar ra delegated the appointment of the caliph to come after him to a shura council of six of the senior sahaba ra who were to elect one of their number. ‘Abd al-Rahmaan ibn ‘Awf consulted the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, and when he saw that the people were all inclined towards ‘Uthman ra, he swore allegiance to him first, then the rest of the six swore allegiance to him, followed by the Muhaajireen and Ansaar, so he was elected as caliph by the decision makers.
Whether it was six man or 2 man or the khalif himself who selects his choice to put forward for the shura it doesn't matter as long as they consulted with each other and wanted the best outcome for the umma, read the verses of Quran above it corresponds with this statement.
There you have it from Quran and is the choice of Nabi Muhammad saw as espoused by the umma for choosing a leader.
compare shura to divine imam leadership, the latter has no base, no reality or no sense to be honest as well as not being mentioned directly like shura in the Quran.
see........no long essays or stories or angles for that matter, simple and easy, as our Lord Allah swt intended for us to understand it.
Pity it's not as easy to explain divine Imamate leadership theory to the Muslim ummah.
You said,
"you do realise shura is not a system of governance but it was the way prophet saw used it and Quran urged it."
You said that 'Shura is not a system of governance' then you say something different that 'it was the way Prophet (s) used it'. Two different statements here that collide with each other. The Prophet (s) was the governor/leader and you say that he used Shura, what for? What did he use Shura for if not for governance? How did he govern?
I didn't say Shura wasn't in Qoran and Sunah, I said that the Sahaba didn't follow it in Saqifa by selecting the first or the second or the third. You said yourself that Shura isn't a system of governance then what is it for? To choose a governor/leader, is that what it's for? And you haven't mentioned the principles and circumstances because your post tells me there is no principles and circumstances concerning it.
You're all mixed and your post is mumbles and jumbles. Will comment on your other points.
-
Iceman
you really are stuck, divinity flakey imami leadership has no base.
You want to put shura against some fake divinity leadership ideology,this is your fallacy, you do realise shura is not a system of governance but it was the way prophet saw usedit and Quran urged it. This is our point. It's more closer to Quran and sunnah than divine Imamate leadership which has zilch coverage in Quran and sunnah.
If you cannot COMPREHEND or UNDERSTAND well that's not my issue, I have you Quran and sunna as evidences and yet you couldn't.............which means I AM BASING my evidence from Quran and sunnah and you are basing your evidence from HUMANS born 100's of years later.
That's IT.......you have nothing!!!
You can carry on all you want with different angles and sob stories and stretching meanings of verses in Quran to accommodate the made up theory of divine Imamate leadership.
As for using it,shura, yes they all used it as previously posted before.
As for the side issue I have answered if you care to look for it........yazid wasn't a rashidun khalifa and he has NOTHING to do with shura.
Your clutching on straws if your gonna use yazid, honestly I thought you would be more intelligent than that.
Honestly 😂
What is the title of the thread? You've probably forgotten or lost attention. Let me remind you, it's
'SUNNI CALIPHATE SYSTEM'
This is what the subject is, not Imamah.
You've mentioned Shura from the Qoran and I've asked you constantly and continuously about the principles and circumstances regarding Shura. This is what is used according to you by the Sahaba to choose a leader for the Muslim Ummah.
Now my question has been what is the procedure/method used to choose a leader. You've given me mumbles and jumbles.
One place you've said that Abu Bakr didn't appoint his successor and now your saying that the Khalifa has a right to appoint his successor. Here is what you've said;
I will Continue this.
-
Mythbuster1 this is what you said,
"The current Khalifa may nominate his successor, the next Khalifa."
Now tell me is this Shura (consultation)? There is a difference between selection and appointment. So was Omar selected through Shura, did Abu Bakr leave it to the Ummah to select the their second leader or did Abu Bakr appoint his successor?
As far as Yazeed us concerned why isn't he amongst Khulafa e Rashedoon? Does it depend on your character, performance and achievement, if you turn out to be good and do well then you are selected by Shura otherwise Shura goes straight out of the window.
-
Which Sunah did Abu Bakr follow when he appointed his successor Omar and which Sunah did Omar follow when he strategically appointed a Council of 6 and imposed a condition which he knew Ali would not accept to choose his successor?
Calm down boy........none of them APPOINTED, they NOMINATED as answered above, stop TWISTING it.
Ali ra had problems when He came to power, that's another story and you can open a thread up for that if you want and other knowledgeable brothers can answer you, I am done answering you on shura v divine Imamate and which is right according to Quran and sunnah.
Ali didn't have any problems. When he came into power people looked for excuses to rebel against him. He was the rightly guided Khalifa of the Muslims and those who opposed him and rebelled, used their influence to wage war amongst the Muslims and cause division were the ones who were wrong. This is another area where your double standards kick in.
Shura is consultation and this takes place before you select a leader and not the other way around as you've put it. Where the first was selected coincidently and not everyone was involved and present. Heck they didn't even gather in Saqifa for the purpose of choosing a leader for the Ummah. The heads of the Ansaar only gathered there to do their thing.
The first named and appointed his successor and you claim this is also Shura. What's this got to do with Shura and who did Abu Bakr consult and when? Your posts as well as you are absolutely twisted. You have different scenarios and things happened differently on each and every occasion. You just don't want to admit it.
-
Wow you are trying hard with your posts, ok shura is a part of governance, my bad for writing in haste, but the bottom line is Shura/consultation it's principle lies in Quran and circumstances is prophet saw, as examples I gave you ayah from Quran (previous post) as well as the Hadith posted below in sahih Muslim.
you keep beating your drums about Abu Bakr ra selecting His successor when infact it's allowed as long as the candidate is fit for the office, to us Muslims they 2 were with the prophet saw and they were praised by Him a lot and the 2 were pious and god feariing good men, they didn't have any issue or problem with the Muslims everyone gave them bayah you are really clutching on straws again, youre desperate I know, but it's not a divine process my friend, even after selection every one agreed and gave bayah just like Ali ra gave bayah to Umar ra. In fact we have Hadith from sahih Muslim in which prophet saw names His successor (just to counter your argument)............."A’isha reported that Allah’s Messenger (saw) in his (last) illness asked me to call Abu Bakr, her father, and her brother too, so that he might write a document, for he feared that someone else might be desirous (of succeeding him) and that some claimant may say: I have better claim to it, whereas Allah and the Faithful do not substantiate the claim of anyone but that of Abu Bakr.”(Sahih Muslim #5878).https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=31&translator=2&start=10
As for Umar ra not choosing but leaving it to the council to choose them that is also allowed in shura.........."it has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. 'Umar who said: I was present with my father when he was wounded. People praised him and said: May God give you a noble recompense! He said: I am hopeful (of God's mercy) as well as afraid (of His wrath) People said: Appoint anyone as your successor. He said: Should I carry the burden of conducting your affairs in my life as well as in my death? (So far as Caliphate is concerned) I wish I could acquit myself (before the Almighty) in a way that there is neither anything to my credit nor anything to my discredit. If I would appoint my successor, (I would because) one better than me did so. (He meant Abu Bakr.) If I would leave You alone, (I would do so because) one better than me, i. e. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), did so. 'Abdullah says: When he mentioned the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) I understood that he would not appoint anyone as Caliph."sahih Muslim 4485.
https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=20&translator=2&start=10
Any other angle?
Now you use yazid as a strawman in your final desperate attempt lol Why are you obsessed with the guy? Look he wasn't a rashidun khalif he was a king a monarch a bad king bad ruler nothing to do with shura at all, he wasn't chosen by the people, he isn't an example you should be using, it's like you are desperate in trying to portray shura in a negative light by using him as an example when he has nothing to do with shura.
-
Which Sunah did Abu Bakr follow when he appointed his successor Omar and which Sunah did Omar follow when he strategically appointed a Council of 6 and imposed a condition which he knew Ali would not accept to choose his successor?
Calm down boy........none of them APPOINTED, they NOMINATED as answered above, stop TWISTING it.
Ali ra had problems when He came to power, that's another story and you can open a thread up for that if you want and other knowledgeable brothers can answer you, I am done answering you on shura v divine Imamate and which is right according to Quran and sunnah.
Ali didn't have any problems. When he came into power people looked for excuses to rebel against him. He was the rightly guided Khalifa of the Muslims and those who opposed him and rebelled, used their influence to wage war amongst the Muslims and cause division were the ones who were wrong. This is another area where your double standards kick in.
Shura is consultation and this takes place before you select a leader and not the other way around as you've put it. Where the first was selected coincidently and not everyone was involved and present. Heck they didn't even gather in Saqifa for the purpose of choosing a leader for the Ummah. The heads of the Ansaar only gathered there to do their thing.
The first named and appointed his successor and you claim this is also Shura. What's this got to do with Shura and who did Abu Bakr consult and when? Your posts as well as you are absolutely twisted. You have different scenarios and things happened differently on each and every occasion. You just don't want to admit it.
Yes He Ali ra had problems.....Number 1 being not to rule not to be a khalif!! He didn't want to rule, just like Abu Bakr ra, the people chose him coz of the circumstances surrounding the martyrdom of Uthman ra, the rest is your opinion void of facts or truths, I ain't interested.
You are really getting boring now, I will just answer as below if I believe your getting repetitive
Answered in previous post, saqifa hurts but I've answered your just repeating.
Again same repetitive question on Abu Bakr ra choosing and not selecting, snap out of it I have answered you........and you finish off with ad hom attack.
Another angle?
-
The first named and appointed his successor and you claim this is also Shura. What's this got to do with Shura and who did Abu Bakr consult and when? Your posts as well as you are absolutely twisted. You have different scenarios and things happened differently on each and every occasion. You just don't want to admit it.
"It is incorrect to state that Shura (mutual consultation) was not done in the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) finalized his decision to appoint Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (رضّى الله عنه) , Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) , and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah (رضّى الله عنه) . During the nomination of Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , the Shura council consisted of six representatives; the same is the case with the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , in which at least this many prominent figures mutually consulted each other. The only difference here was that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) met the prominent figures seperately, as opposed to conjoining them in one room at the same time, as Umar (رضّى الله عنه) would do in the nomination of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) . Based on this fact, it would be a lie to say that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not use Shura."
(@iceman, for the rest of the article, please click the link below)
https://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/how-did-umar-ibn-al-khattab-رضی-الله-عنه-became-caliph/amp/
-
The first named and appointed his successor and you claim this is also Shura. What's this got to do with Shura and who did Abu Bakr consult and when? Your posts as well as you are absolutely twisted. You have different scenarios and things happened differently on each and every occasion. You just don't want to admit it.
"It is incorrect to state that Shura (mutual consultation) was not done in the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) . Before Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) finalized his decision to appoint Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf (رضّى الله عنه) , Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) , and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah (رضّى الله عنه) . During the nomination of Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) , the Shura council consisted of six representatives; the same is the case with the nomination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) , in which at least this many prominent figures mutually consulted each other. The only difference here was that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) met the prominent figures seperately, as opposed to conjoining them in one room at the same time, as Umar (رضّى الله عنه) would do in the nomination of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) . Based on this fact, it would be a lie to say that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) did not use Shura."
(@iceman, for the rest of the article, please click the link below)
https://islamistruth.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/how-did-umar-ibn-al-khattab-رضی-الله-عنه-became-caliph/amp/
Thank you. This is the kind of response I was looking for, free of sarcasm and prejudice. My point has never been about the person/s or to speak about any individual/s. I just want to speak about and stick to the point that if one doesn't believe in Imamah/divine guidance after the Messenger (s) and he (s) didn't name and appoint his successor then what procedure/method does one have and follow to choose a leader after the Messenger (s) and what is the system of governance and what are the principles and circumstances relating to them. That is all.
-
Omar learned of this (i.e. the gathering of the Ansar at Saqifah) and went to the Prophet’s house and sent (a message) to Abu Bakr, who was in the building…[Omar] sent a message to Abu Bakr to come to him. Abu Bakr sent back (a message) that he was occupied (i.e. with caring for the Prophet’s body), but Umar sent him another message, saying: “Something (terrible) has happened that you must attend to personally.” So he (Abu Bakr) came out to him…
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)
"Something terrible has happened"?
What was so terrible about the Ansaar gathering in Saqifa?
-
Is the following true?
It is related by Umar that as they were seated in the Prophet’s house, a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: “O Son of Khattab (i.e. Umar), pray step out for a moment.” Umar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occurred: the Ansar were gathering in force at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, and–as the situation was grave–it was necessary that he (Umar) should go and look into the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a (civil) war. On this, Umar said to Abu Bakr: “Let us go.”
(Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1, p.87)
If yes then was the gathering in Saqifa about consultation and choosing a leader for the Ummah? Or did the Shaykhain rush there to prevent something terrible from happening?
-
Is the following true?
The) Ansar said: “In case they reject our Caliph, we shall drive them out from Al-Medinah at the point of our swords.” However, the few Muhajirs in the assembly protested against this attitude and this led to a dispute and disorder of a serious nature and a war between the Muhajirs and Ansars seemed possible. When the situation took this ugly turn, Mughirah ibn Shubah left the trouble spot and came to the Prophet’s Mosque to relate what was going on in Saqifah Banu Sa’idah.
(Tareekh Al-Islam, Vol.1, p.273-274)
Is this exactly what was going on in Saqifa? Was this consultation?
-
So the two of them (Abu Bakr and Umar) hurried toward them (the Ansar); they met Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah (on the way), and the three of them marched towards them (the Ansar).
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)
Only three rushed to Saqifa? What about the other important individuals, shouldn't this be conducted properly, fairly and justly? This was about the Ummah and everyone should have had a fair say.
-
In a situation packed with confusion, disorder, anger, and emotion, only a man like Abu Bakr could do what was necessary. When Umar made an attempt to say something, Abu Bakr put a check on him for he knew that the emotionally charged Umar could mishandle the already deteriorating situation. Abu Bakr himself rose to speak…
(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.274)
Is this consultation?
-
I (Umar) told Abu Bakr that we should go to our brothers, the Ansar, so we went off to go to them, when two honest fellows met us (on the way) and told us of the conclusion the people (the Ansar) had come to (i.e. to declare their own Caliph). They (the two honest fellows) asked us where we were going, and when we told them, they said that there was no need for us to approach them and we must make our own decision (i.e. elect our own Muhajir Caliph).
(Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.685)
-
The following information is from a Suni site,
The reality is that it is not right to complain about how Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was not taken along to Saqifah. How can anyone complain of this when the Shaikhayn did not even bring along their closest friends and supporters? Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) and Umar (رضّى الله عنه) didn’t find the need to bring along Ali (رضّى الله عنه)–or any of the other Muhajir Sahabah, for that matter–because they had no idea whatsoever that an election would take place. Instead, they went only to prevent the Ansar from electing their own leader: it was well-known that if the Ansar announced themselves the leaders, then the other tribes would fail to recognize them, declare their own leader, and fall into civil war.
My objection is that the Shaykhain went only to prevent the Ansaar from choosing their own leader and they had no idea that an election would take place there.
How on earth would suddenly and coincidentally an election take place when there was only a handful of Muhajir present there? One can't and shouldn't even think of this. This is what I've said all along that why did the Shaykhain end up there? And how can you justify Abu Bakr's selection and base it on Shura?
-
Consultation (Shura) is a way and method mentioned to govern or how to govern which is the opposite of dictatorship. It is not a method or way to choose your leader or successor and most certainly not after the Prophet (s). But lets say that it is or such way and method needs or wants to be taken then surely and most certainly it should be done fairly, justly, properly and with in reason. And all parties concerned should be involved and the gathering should be for such purpose.
-
It was in this precarious situation that the Ummah needed a strong and capable leader to quickly replace the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) before the various groups split apart in complete disarray and utter chaos. It was in this atmosphere that the people needed to declare a Caliph posthaste in order to quell any rebellion. We read:
Amir asked: “When was the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr?”
“The very day the Messenger of Allah died,” he (Saeed) replied. “People disliked to be left even part of the day without being organized into a community (jama’ah).”
(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)
If this is true then what was the need for Saqifa? And the Ansaar gathered there to choose a leader, why wasn't their candidate acceptable according to the Shaykhain and why would the Shaykhain not unite behind and with the Ansaar?
In other words the Ansaar gathered there to select a leader, why didn't the Shaykhain let them get on with it and then just rally around and behind the Ansaar and give allegiance to the new leader Saad?
Why wete the Shaykhain not willing to accept an Ansari as a leader of the Ummah and threatened the Ansaar with civil war if things didn't go their way?
-
...Why wete the Shaykhain not willing to accept an Ansari as a leader of the Ummah and threatened the Ansaar with civil war if things didn't go their way?
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
In my copy of Tabari (3/205-206) Abu Bakr says this as an explanation:
وَقَالَ: أَمَّا بَعْدُ يَا مَعْشَرَ الأَنْصَارِ، فَإِنَّكُمْ لا تَذْكُرُونَ مِنْكُمْ فَضْلا إِلا وَأَنْتُمْ لَهُ أَهْلٌ، وَإِنَّ الْعَرَبَ لا تَعْرِفُ هَذَا الأَمْرَ إِلا لِهَذَا الْحَيِّ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ، وَهُمْ أَوْسَطُ الْعَرَبِ دَارًا وَنَسَبًا، وَلَكِنْ قَدْ رَضِيتُ لَكُمْ أَحَدَ هَذَيْنِ الرَّجُلَيْنِ، فَبَايِعُوا أَيَّهُمَا شِئْتُمْ.
O Group of Ansar! You did not mention a quality except that you were worthy of it. But that Arabs does not know this issue (i.e. governance) to anyone except this "hayy" from Quraysh; they have the best lineage and abode among the Arabs. So, I have approved for you either one of these two men (Omar or Abu Ubaydah), so pledge your allegiance to whoever you want.
I hope that helps إن شاء الله
-
...Why wete the Shaykhain not willing to accept an Ansari as a leader of the Ummah and threatened the Ansaar with civil war if things didn't go their way?
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
In my copy of Tabari (3/205-206) Abu Bakr says this as an explanation:
وَقَالَ: أَمَّا بَعْدُ يَا مَعْشَرَ الأَنْصَارِ، فَإِنَّكُمْ لا تَذْكُرُونَ مِنْكُمْ فَضْلا إِلا وَأَنْتُمْ لَهُ أَهْلٌ، وَإِنَّ الْعَرَبَ لا تَعْرِفُ هَذَا الأَمْرَ إِلا لِهَذَا الْحَيِّ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ، وَهُمْ أَوْسَطُ الْعَرَبِ دَارًا وَنَسَبًا، وَلَكِنْ قَدْ رَضِيتُ لَكُمْ أَحَدَ هَذَيْنِ الرَّجُلَيْنِ، فَبَايِعُوا أَيَّهُمَا شِئْتُمْ.
O Group of Ansar! You did not mention a quality except that you were worthy of it. But that Arabs does not know this issue (i.e. governance) to anyone except this "hayy" from Quraysh; they have the best lineage and abode among the Arabs. So, I have approved for you either one of these two men (Omar or Abu Ubaydah), so pledge your allegiance to whoever you want.
I hope that helps إن شاء الله
Thanks.
-
Lets say for example Obaidah went to Ali instead of Omar and told him what was about to happen in Saqifa and Ali went with Ammar or Abu Zar, and exactly the same thing happened, one thing led to another and guess what.....Ali ended up being Khalifa.
Would you call this consultation based on justice, fairness and reasoning towards others? Oh but Ali is a good man, he is from Ahle Bayth he is this that and the other. It doesn't matter and that's not the point. This is not just and fair. It hasn't been carried out fairly and justly. Well people would accept it or did accept for what ever reason one or the other, I'm afraid it's wrong and hasn't been conducted properly and legitimately.
-
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then said:
“Allah is my witness that we are not pressing the claim of the Quraish because of any selfish interest. The proposal is prompted in the interest of the solidarity of Islam (i.e. to maintain unity and prevent civil war). To give you a proof of our sincerity, I declare before you that I do not covet the office. Here are Umar and Abu Ubaidah. You may choose any one of these.”
(Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab, Chapter of “Death of the Prophet”)
Abu Bakr said that they were only there to prevent civil war? Well why would there be civil war and who would start it.
-
Lets say for example Obaidah went to Ali instead of Omar and told him what was about to happen in Saqifa and Ali went with Ammar or Abu Zar, and exactly the same thing happened, one thing led to another and guess what.....Ali ended up being Khalifa.
Would you call this consultation based on justice, fairness and reasoning towards others? Oh but Ali is a good man, he is from Ahle Bayth he is this that and the other. It doesn't matter and that's not the point. This is not just and fair. It hasn't been carried out fairly and justly. Well people would accept it or did accept for what ever reason one or the other, I'm afraid it's wrong and hasn't been conducted properly and legitimately.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
I hope everything is going well with you إن شاء الله.
Had Abu Obaydah gone to Ali رضي الله عنهما and the same scenario played out, I would say the same thing I say now, it was the best possible scenario to a bad situation and الحمدلله their action "saved Islam." I would also side with the overwhelming Sahabah who approved and pledged allegiance to it. I wouldn't, however, use it to attack Ali رضي الله عنه's character, nor as an example that Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه was a divinely appointed Imam.
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then said:
“Allah is my witness that we are not pressing the claim of the Quraish because of any selfish interest. The proposal is prompted in the interest of the solidarity of Islam (i.e. to maintain unity and prevent civil war). To give you a proof of our sincerity, I declare before you that I do not covet the office. Here are Umar and Abu Ubaidah. You may choose any one of these.”
(Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab, Chapter of “Death of the Prophet”)
Abu Bakr said that they were only there to prevent civil war? Well why would there be civil war and who would start it.
I want to first of all say that I am amazed that you can read that quote and still come away with a negative perception of Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه.
Second of all, I think the answer is found in the previous quote, he feared that the "Arabs" would not accept leadership from anyone other than Quraysh. Therefore, the civil war would be between the Muslims/Arabs and he feared that would cause a war that could possibly end the spreading of Islam. Practical thinking that actually saved the deen, may Allah have mercy and be pleased with Abu Bakr, as well as Omar, Uthman and Ali رضي الله عنهم أجمعين
-
After the Messenger (s) we follow the Messenger (s) and have accepted and taken the two weighty things he has left behind for us, 1. The book of Allah which we take just as you and 2. The progeny which you along with the Sahaba have rejected.
OK, so there are 2 things that are left behind for us, but only 1 is available and another one is hidden for 1000+ yr
Imam (Al Mahdi) is present but not available. He is in Occultation. Read the meaning and get the understanding about occultation before speaking. Because the Imam is not available due to occultation our substitute is ijtihad and we follow a Mujtahid.
Yep, in the end you follow us by following fallible scholars. No infallible to guide you. In short, its like someone saying "hey, i will leave you this so you can make use of it, but i will hide it so you cant find and use it"
Learn, understand and get to know by asking and listening.
No mate, you have to learn to understand that occultation belief is the exact opposite & contradict your imamah belief. Thats why your scholars need a philosophical mumbo jumbo just to explain ghayba because they know it is a contradiction of your "we always need infallible imam to guide us" belief
-
Lets say for example Obaidah went to Ali instead of Omar and told him what was about to happen in Saqifa and Ali went with Ammar or Abu Zar, and exactly the same thing happened, one thing led to another and guess what.....Ali ended up being Khalifa.
Would you call this consultation based on justice, fairness and reasoning towards others? Oh but Ali is a good man, he is from Ahle Bayth he is this that and the other. It doesn't matter and that's not the point. This is not just and fair. It hasn't been carried out fairly and justly. Well people would accept it or did accept for what ever reason one or the other, I'm afraid it's wrong and hasn't been conducted properly and legitimately.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
I hope everything is going well with you إن شاء الله.
Had Abu Obaydah gone to Ali رضي الله عنهما and the same scenario played out, I would say the same thing I say now, it was the best possible scenario to a bad situation and الحمدلله their action "saved Islam." I would also side with the overwhelming Sahabah who approved and pledged allegiance to it. I wouldn't, however, use it to attack Ali رضي الله عنه's character, nor as an example that Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه was a divinely appointed Imam.
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then said:
“Allah is my witness that we are not pressing the claim of the Quraish because of any selfish interest. The proposal is prompted in the interest of the solidarity of Islam (i.e. to maintain unity and prevent civil war). To give you a proof of our sincerity, I declare before you that I do not covet the office. Here are Umar and Abu Ubaidah. You may choose any one of these.”
(Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab, Chapter of “Death of the Prophet”)
Abu Bakr said that they were only there to prevent civil war? Well why would there be civil war and who would start it.
I want to first of all say that I am amazed that you can read that quote and still come away with a negative perception of Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه.
Second of all, I think the answer is found in the previous quote, he feared that the "Arabs" would not accept leadership from anyone other than Quraysh. Therefore, the civil war would be between the Muslims/Arabs and he feared that would cause a war that could possibly end the spreading of Islam. Practical thinking that actually saved the deen, may Allah have mercy and be pleased with Abu Bakr, as well as Omar, Uthman and Ali رضي الله عنهم أجمعين
Believe me I have no negative perception about anyone let alone Abu Bakr who was one of the very first to embrace Islam and his character, performance, achievements and merits are there all the way through.
My point and discussion is not about individual/s or character/s, it's about consultation (Shura) and its principles and circumstances along with its method and procedure, how it was conducted and what actually happened and went on. It's about the Suni Khilafat system and how it works. And me trying to understand and get to know it.
Thanks for your response. I must say, very well said and put forward! This is exactly the kind of response and discussion that I am looking for.
-
What one should ask themselves is 'why were only three prominent companions from the Muhajireen present at Saqifa? Were men such as Ali and the other members of Banu Hashim, Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas not prominent?
The modern day Sunni scholar El Awa manages to clarify this incorrect approach as follows:
"To consider the Muhajirin as party is incorrect because those of the Muhajirin who attended the Saqifa meeting were Abu Bakr, Umar b. Al Khattab, and Abu 'Ubaida b. al-Jarrah. The Muhajirin had not delegated them any authority nor did they represent any specific political group connected with them".
On the political system of the Islamic State, by Muhammad S. El Awa page 32 (American Trust Publications, Indiana)
-
No mention of the Qoran, Sunah, ijma or qiyas at Saqifa. In the eyes of the Wahabies "The sources for the creed ('aqeedah) are: The Book of Allah, the authentic Sunah of his Messenger (s) and the consensus (ijma) of the Pious Predecessors"
In addition to this, the four Ahl'ul Suna Imams have added the principle of Qiyas (analogical reasoning). Curiously the debate at Saqifa was devoid of all four principles, why is that? We believe that everything is contained with Allah (swt)'s book.
As it was Omar himself who had said just days earlier "the Qur'an is sufficient for us" then why did he not plead to the parties to turn to the Book of Allah (swt) and reach a conclusion in light of Allah (swt)'s commands?
General Precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaykh Naasir al-Aql, English translation by Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, page 13 (Message of Islam First edition, 1999)
-
The Sunah was also not used or suggested, comments on tribal superiority were given precedence, nothing else. Ijma (consensus of the companions) a pivotal part if Islamic jurisprudence in the eyes of the Ahl'ul Sunah was not even entertained.
Abu Bakr and Omar did not seek the counsel of the other companions as to whether or not they should proceed to the Saqifa and discuss the issue of succession. Why did these two prominent companions take it upon themselves to go to the Saqifa? Why did they ignore the principle of ijma?
-
Words of the Hanafi scholar, Allamah Shibli Numani:
"It is apparently surprising that no sooner did the Prophet die than the struggle for Caliphate commenced and even the burial of the body of the Founder of Islam became a matter of secondary consideration in the quarrels that arose over the question of succession. Who can for a moment conceive the spectacle of the Prophet lying dead, while those who asserted their love and attachment towards him in his lifetime, without even waiting to look to his remains being suitably interred, were hurrying away to see that others did not secure the headship of the state for themselves!
-
Umdahthul Qaree Volume 11 page 167 Bab Rajm
Saheeh al Bukharee, Sharh Kirmanee, Volume 23 page 219
Irshad al Saree Volume 10 page 35
All three contain the proud admission of Omar:
"By Allah, when matters that we were faced with following the death of the Prophet, namely his Ghusl, shrouding and funeral, we deemed the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr to be of greater importance"
-
Believe me I have no negative perception about anyone let alone Abu Bakr who was one of the very first to embrace Islam and his character, performance, achievements and merits are there all the way through.
My point and discussion is not about individual/s or character/s, it's about consultation (Shura) and its principles and circumstances along with its method and procedure, how it was conducted and what actually happened and went on. It's about the Suni Khilafat system and how it works. And me trying to understand and get to know it.
Thanks for your response. I must say, very well said and put forward! This is exactly the kind of response and discussion that I am looking for.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
I don't think there is such thing as "Sunni khalifat system"; not at least in the way you are trying to frame it بارك الله فيك. Muslims as a whole, for the exception of the 12er Shi'as, believe in the verse (42:38) to be a general verse which calls to consultation as a general principle. You shouldn't think of Shura as some sort of political system like the one found in the United States today for example, nor should you think of it as an act of worship like prayer with conditions, pillars, sunan etc. Rather, consultation is exactly what the ayah says it is, an issue that is between us. In the US, we have a system that we might like and works for us, while in a tribal society things would work differently. So you shouldn't try to understand it as a "Sunni khalifat system" and try to understand it that non-12ers simply don't believe in an infallible Imam (neither in its obligation nor in its actual possibility) and therefore, the system is different for each time and place. It was even different in each time each Khalifah was chosen. Interestingly, Imam Ali رضي الله عنه didn't come in through consultation, I am wondering why you don't seem to have a problem with that?
What one should ask themselves is 'why were only three prominent companions from the Muhajireen present at Saqifa? Were men such as Ali and the other members of Banu Hashim, Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas not prominent?
The modern day Sunni scholar El Awa manages to clarify this incorrect approach as follows:
"To consider the Muhajirin as party is incorrect because those of the Muhajirin who attended the Saqifa meeting were Abu Bakr, Umar b. Al Khattab, and Abu 'Ubaida b. al-Jarrah. The Muhajirin had not delegated them any authority nor did they represent any specific political group connected with them".
On the political system of the Islamic State, by Muhammad S. El Awa page 32 (American Trust Publications, Indiana)
There was only three as you know from the passages you quoted from Tabari, because it was a quick decision that was made after the Ansar gathered at Saqifah. I'm surprised you would ask such a question considering you are quoting from Tabari.
As far as your quote, two questions come to mind, 1) who is Muhammad S. El Awa and 2) and how does this relate to our discussions.
The rest of your quotes seems to indicate that you DO have a "negative perception" of Abu Bakr and Omar رضي الله عنهما. They also are pretty much rephrasing of your first post. Since I already answered here, I don't feel like rephrasing it again.
As far as your quote from Shibili, please have a read here http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/08/29/6-misquotation-of-shibli-al-numanis-al-faruq/
You should be careful quoting from al-islam.org, Shiapen etc. These website are known to be run by people who are big on misquoting.
-
Believe me I have no negative perception about anyone let alone Abu Bakr who was one of the very first to embrace Islam and his character, performance, achievements and merits are there all the way through.
My point and discussion is not about individual/s or character/s, it's about consultation (Shura) and its principles and circumstances along with its method and procedure, how it was conducted and what actually happened and went on. It's about the Suni Khilafat system and how it works. And me trying to understand and get to know it.
Thanks for your response. I must say, very well said and put forward! This is exactly the kind of response and discussion that I am looking for.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
I don't think there is such thing as "Sunni khalifat system"; not at least in the way you are trying to frame it بارك الله فيك. Muslims as a whole, for the exception of the 12er Shi'as, believe in the verse (42:38) to be a general verse which calls to consultation as a general principle. You shouldn't think of Shura as some sort of political system like the one found in the United States today for example, nor should you think of it as an act of worship like prayer with conditions, pillars, sunan etc. Rather, consultation is exactly what the ayah says it is, an issue that is between us. In the US, we have a system that we might like and works for us, while in a tribal society things would work differently. So you shouldn't try to understand it as a "Sunni khalifat system" and try to understand it that non-12ers simply don't believe in an infallible Imam (neither in its obligation nor in its actual possibility) and therefore, the system is different for each time and place. It was even different in each time each Khalifah was chosen. Interestingly, Imam Ali رضي الله عنه didn't come in through consultation, I am wondering why you don't seem to have a problem with that?
What one should ask themselves is 'why were only three prominent companions from the Muhajireen present at Saqifa? Were men such as Ali and the other members of Banu Hashim, Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas not prominent?
The modern day Sunni scholar El Awa manages to clarify this incorrect approach as follows:
"To consider the Muhajirin as party is incorrect because those of the Muhajirin who attended the Saqifa meeting were Abu Bakr, Umar b. Al Khattab, and Abu 'Ubaida b. al-Jarrah. The Muhajirin had not delegated them any authority nor did they represent any specific political group connected with them".
On the political system of the Islamic State, by Muhammad S. El Awa page 32 (American Trust Publications, Indiana)
There was only three as you know from the passages you quoted from Tabari, because it was a quick decision that was made after the Ansar gathered at Saqifah. I'm surprised you would ask such a question considering you are quoting from Tabari.
As far as your quote, two questions come to mind, 1) who is Muhammad S. El Awa and 2) and how does this relate to our discussions.
The rest of your quotes seems to indicate that you DO have a "negative perception" of Abu Bakr and Omar رضي الله عنهما. They also are pretty much rephrasing of your first post. Since I already answered here, I don't feel like rephrasing it again.
As far as your quote from Shibili, please have a read here http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/08/29/6-misquotation-of-shibli-al-numanis-al-faruq/
You should be careful quoting from al-islam.org, Shiapen etc. These website are known to be run by people who are big on misquoting.
Wa aliakum assalam. It seems to you I have a negative perception but I really don't. Just trying to understand and reason with what went on. The information I put forward to you and which I'm trying to understand is from a Suni site.
We do not believe that the Messenger (s) passed away without naming his successor, without pointing out someone to govern after him.
We do not believe that the Prophet (s) died leaving the Ummah in disarray and leaving the Qoran and Sunah into the hands of who ever got into power.
The second, third and the 4th got murdered and I'm sure you're aware of what happened to Khilafat and where it went from there.
If the Prophet (s) didn't name and appoint anyone to govern then surely there should have been an indication to a just and fair method and system to elect/select and govern.
Otherwise one is indirectly accusing the Prophet (s) of negligence, carelessness and irresponsibility.
What we believe in is logical, sensible and according to Qoran and Sunah. You don't have any ups and downs, ifs and buts, good or bad or right and wrong when it comes to our Imams. Also the link and the lineage is clear and there. No suspicion or doubt.
-
Wa aliakum assalam. It seems to you I have a negative perception but I really don't. Just trying to understand and reason with what went on. The information I put forward to you and which I'm trying to understand is from a Suni site.
No, you're quote mining from al-islam.org and shiapen, that's why you used those quotes.
We do not believe that the Messenger (s) passed away without naming his successor, without pointing out someone to govern after him.
Most non-12ers who believe this (I personally don't) believe the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم left Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه as a successor. However, from my perspective, the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't leave a successor because if he did, some people may go to extremes and take these people as infallible or even go to the level of worshiping them. Personally, I think the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's actions were the best ولله الحمد.
We do not believe that the Prophet (s) died leaving the Ummah in disarray and leaving the Qoran and Sunah into the hands of who ever got into power.
We don't believe the Ummah went into disarray. That's your perspective, I belive the Ummah during the times of the 4 Caliphs, the Ummayids and Abbassids were the greatest Ummah of all time.
The second, third and the 4th got murdered and I'm sure you're aware of what happened to Khilafat and where it went from there.
Again, I think the Ummah was great up until around the 1700s and is the greatest civilization of all time. Different perspectives I suppose.
If the Prophet (s) didn't name and appoint anyone to govern then surely there should have been an indication to a just and fair method and system to elect/select and govern.
I think the way it was after the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم was just and that the Qur'an suggests Shura. I personally think the reign of Abu Bakr, Uthman, and especially Omar رضي الله عنهم as literally the best time in history.
What we believe in is logical, sensible and according to Qoran and Sunah. You don't have any ups and downs, ifs and buts, good or bad or right and wrong when it comes to our Imams. Also the link and the lineage is clear and there. No suspicion or doubt.
What you believe is something you read into the Qur'an and Sunnah. It is not found according to ALL Muslim sects, except the Shi'as, who are historically the furthest removed from the Qur'an and Sunnah.
-
If the Prophet (s) didn't name and appoint anyone to govern then surely there should have been an indication to a just and fair method and system to elect/select and govern.
Otherwise one is indirectly accusing the Prophet (s) of negligence, carelessness and irresponsibility.
I know the topic is about Sunni Caliphate but it intrigued me to the top when someone made the claim that Twelvers method is logical and sensible by closing one eye to their history.
Since your 12th imam does not do any governing after his ghayba kubra, what system or method did he leave you guys to govern among yourselves while he is away? If none, can I accuse your 12th imam for negligence, carelessness and irresponsible too?
What we believe in is logical, sensible and according to Qoran and Sunah. You don't have any ups and downs, ifs and buts, good or bad or right and wrong when it comes to our Imams. Also the link and the lineage is clear and there. No suspicion or doubt.
You are wrong. Go and study your 12th imam and come back to us with evidences showing that he has a clear lineage without suspicion or doubt. The evidences must be rock solid to uphold your claim as "clear and without suspicion and doubt".
-
I believe two views can be proven in Quran.
During the presence of a leader appointed by God, all must come to obey him, and he is a leader whether people obey him or not, a King whether people obey him or not, because God is the True King in all that.
During the absence of a leader, there is no such thing as "authority" or "government" but we must resort to democratic anarchy.
In fact democratic anarchy with sincerity to implement revelation and knowledge, to a degree, is needed even during times of Imams. That is the whole structure must assume no one has true authority until proven with insight. And what is followed with insight, is not really, that of authority taught by people. Even God doesn't want to be followed blindly but he wants people to see the path they are walking and the proofs he advocates.
That is how the light will rule, and it happens to be those who possess the authority, are those who are the witnesses, the lights in the darkness, the doors to God by which we will see.
Authority in other senses of the word, that people actually have the right to govern without proof from God or teach laws without proof from God and informing people with knowledge, much of Quran condemns that.
And the Taghut consisted of many types of leaders in many areas of life, many types of illusions of Iblis to make people take their focus away from the light that is connected to them.
Sometimes there is benefit to the leaders and proofs from God being present, but sometimes it becomes harmful and detrimental to humanity, when the so called followers are not obeying, believing lies attributed to them, and equating their leadership and authority to others who are not appointed by God and really following the latter in the name of following the Imams which is what happened during time of our Imams.
The Quran remains a clarification of all things pertaining to guiding humans. It has all they need, but we must begin to reflect, and build the foundational themes of it, through that everything will become easy.
-
And what I meant by "no such thing as authority or government" I was talking in realms of political power.
-
And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql
-
And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql
What does his personal sin got to do with obeying his ruling as long as that ruling does not going against Quran and Sunnah?
By the way, which one of these make more sense:
1. Obeying physically existed ruler whose ruling is still in accordance to Quran and Sunnah despite his personal issues; or
2. Obeying ruler who no one knows where he is despite having in existence for more than 1,100 years (I have no idea what kind of obeying is this if nobody knows where he is, let alone hearing his ruling). ☺
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql.
-
And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql
What does his personal sin got to do with obeying his ruling as long as that ruling does not going against Quran and Sunnah?
By the way, which one of these make more sense:
1. Obeying physically existed ruler whose ruling is still in accordance to Quran and Sunnah despite his personal issues; or
2. Obeying ruler who no one knows where he is despite having in existence for more than 1,100 years (I have no idea what kind of obeying is this if nobody knows where he is, let alone hearing his ruling). ☺
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql.
I would prefer the second one since it's been longer than that for Eesa as well as Khizar and no one has a clue where they are either. I'm not trying to justify the 12th or his occultation but I don't think you have a clue about Shia imamat and the understanding of occultation and the reasons for and behind it.
If you don't want to accept and follow who and what Allah has chosen for you then Allah does let you get on with it in and this is the case we believe in about the 12th. As far as Muslims taking matters into their own hands since the death of the Messenger (s) you tell me how wonderful have things exactly turned out for the Muslims up til now?
-
And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql
What does his personal sin got to do with obeying his ruling as long as that ruling does not going against Quran and Sunnah?
By the way, which one of these make more sense:
1. Obeying physically existed ruler whose ruling is still in accordance to Quran and Sunnah despite his personal issues; or
2. Obeying ruler who no one knows where he is despite having in existence for more than 1,100 years (I have no idea what kind of obeying is this if nobody knows where he is, let alone hearing his ruling). ☺
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql.
I would prefer the second one since it's been longer than that for Eesa as well as Khizar and no one has a clue where they are either. I'm not trying to justify the 12th or his occultation but I don't think you have a clue about Shia imamat and the understanding of occultation and the reasons for and behind it.
If you don't want to accept and follow who and what Allah has chosen for you then Allah does let you get on with it in and this is the case we believe in about the 12th. As far as Muslims taking matters into their own hands since the death of the Messenger (s) you tell me how wonderful have things exactly turned out for the Muslims up til now?
Thanks for adding up more confusion. Eisa and Khizr are not the imam of this ummah. Hence, their whereabout are not of our interest to know. Unlike your 12th imam. Leader but not leading the ummah... hmm...😏
-
And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql
What does his personal sin got to do with obeying his ruling as long as that ruling does not going against Quran and Sunnah?
By the way, which one of these make more sense:
1. Obeying physically existed ruler whose ruling is still in accordance to Quran and Sunnah despite his personal issues; or
2. Obeying ruler who no one knows where he is despite having in existence for more than 1,100 years (I have no idea what kind of obeying is this if nobody knows where he is, let alone hearing his ruling). ☺
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql.
I would prefer the second one since it's been longer than that for Eesa as well as Khizar and no one has a clue where they are either. I'm not trying to justify the 12th or his occultation but I don't think you have a clue about Shia imamat and the understanding of occultation and the reasons for and behind it.
If you don't want to accept and follow who and what Allah has chosen for you then Allah does let you get on with it in and this is the case we believe in about the 12th. As far as Muslims taking matters into their own hands since the death of the Messenger (s) you tell me how wonderful have things exactly turned out for the Muslims up til now?
Thanks for adding up more confusion. Eisa and Khizr are not the imam of this ummah. Hence, their whereabout are not of our interest to know. Unlike your 12th imam. Leader but not leading the ummah... hmm...😏
The title of this thread is;
'SUNNI CALIPHATE SYSTEM'
I really don't want to be accused of going of topic/subject or discussing something that is unrelated to the thread. Start one off about the 12th and his occultation and lets see what happens.☺
-
And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql
That's Ibn `Uthaymin's Madhab when it comes to leadership, he believes a rebellion will bring more corruption to the lands of Islam and that we must be patient with our rulers, to advise them and supplicate God for them while avoiding their wrath and concentrating on building society. (If u review the history of nations you'll see that 9/10 rebellions end in disaster)
On the other hand, many Sunnies hold a different Madhab when it comes to rebelling. That if the coast is clear and the conditions are right, one can rebel and remove the tyrant rulers by force for the sake God. The history of Ahlul-Sunnah testifies to this as we've rebelled against our rulers numerous times as opposed to Twelver Shia whose rebellions can't even be counted on the fingers of the one hand.
I respect both opinions (both have evidence) as long as intentions are sincerely for the sake of God.
-
Lets say for example Obaidah went to Ali instead of Omar and told him what was about to happen in Saqifa and Ali went with Ammar or Abu Zar, and exactly the same thing happened, one thing led to another and guess what.....Ali ended up being Khalifa.
Would you call this consultation based on justice, fairness and reasoning towards others? Oh but Ali is a good man, he is from Ahle Bayth he is this that and the other. It doesn't matter and that's not the point. This is not just and fair. It hasn't been carried out fairly and justly. Well people would accept it or did accept for what ever reason one or the other, I'm afraid it's wrong and hasn't been conducted properly and legitimately.
السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
I hope everything is going well with you إن شاء الله.
Had Abu Obaydah gone to Ali رضي الله عنهما and the same scenario played out, I would say the same thing I say now, it was the best possible scenario to a bad situation and الحمدلله their action "saved Islam." I would also side with the overwhelming Sahabah who approved and pledged allegiance to it. I wouldn't, however, use it to attack Ali رضي الله عنه's character, nor as an example that Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه was a divinely appointed Imam.
Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) then said:
“Allah is my witness that we are not pressing the claim of the Quraish because of any selfish interest. The proposal is prompted in the interest of the solidarity of Islam (i.e. to maintain unity and prevent civil war). To give you a proof of our sincerity, I declare before you that I do not covet the office. Here are Umar and Abu Ubaidah. You may choose any one of these.”
(Khalifa Umar bin al-Khattab, Chapter of “Death of the Prophet”)
Abu Bakr said that they were only there to prevent civil war? Well why would there be civil war and who would start it.
I want to first of all say that I am amazed that you can read that quote and still come away with a negative perception of Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه.
Second of all, I think the answer is found in the previous quote, he feared that the "Arabs" would not accept leadership from anyone other than Quraysh. Therefore, the civil war would be between the Muslims/Arabs and he feared that would cause a war that could possibly end the spreading of Islam. Practical thinking that actually saved the deen, may Allah have mercy and be pleased with Abu Bakr, as well as Omar, Uthman and Ali رضي الله عنهم أجمعين
Believe me I have no negative perception about anyone let alone Abu Bakr who was one of the very first to embrace Islam and his character, performance, achievements and merits are there all the way through.
My point and discussion is not about individual/s or character/s, it's about consultation (Shura) and its principles and circumstances along with its method and procedure, how it was conducted and what actually happened and went on. It's about the Suni Khilafat system and how it works. And me trying to understand and get to know it.
Thanks for your response. I must say, very well said and put forward! This is exactly the kind of response and discussion that I am looking for. brother im so tired of abu hurairahs fake narrations its no point of discussing with jahil and liars like abu hurairahs followers who couldnt find his father whole life he is not a narrator of real Hadiths only fake hadiths he is narrator of so Imam Ali AS said silence is best reply to a fool
-
And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql
That's Ibn `Uthaymin's Madhab when it comes to leadership, he believes a rebellion will bring more corruption to the lands of Islam and that we must be patient with our rulers, to advise them and supplicate God for them while avoiding their wrath and concentrating on building society. (If u review the history of nations you'll see that 9/10 rebellions end in disaster)
On the other hand, many Sunnies hold a different Madhab when it comes to rebelling. That if the coast is clear and the conditions are right, one can rebel and remove the tyrant rulers by force for the sake God. The history of Ahlul-Sunnah testifies to this as we've rebelled against our rulers numerous times as opposed to Twelver Shia whose rebellions can't even be counted on the fingers of the one hand.
I respect both opinions (both have evidence) as long as intentions are sincerely for the sake of God.
Lol, your sideshot on the Shi'a is out of order, since it's hard for a minority to topple a majority.
-
And what do you know, @hani, it seems Ibn Uthaymeen says even if the sultan drinks alcohol in Hajj, he is still "wajib al-taa'a".
Alhamdulillah on the ni3ma of aql
That's Ibn `Uthaymin's Madhab when it comes to leadership, he believes a rebellion will bring more corruption to the lands of Islam and that we must be patient with our rulers, to advise them and supplicate God for them while avoiding their wrath and concentrating on building society. (If u review the history of nations you'll see that 9/10 rebellions end in disaster)
On the other hand, many Sunnies hold a different Madhab when it comes to rebelling. That if the coast is clear and the conditions are right, one can rebel and remove the tyrant rulers by force for the sake God. The history of Ahlul-Sunnah testifies to this as we've rebelled against our rulers numerous times as opposed to Twelver Shia whose rebellions can't even be counted on the fingers of the one hand.
I respect both opinions (both have evidence) as long as intentions are sincerely for the sake of God.
Lol, your sideshot on the Shi'a is out of order, since it's hard for a minority to topple a majority.
Zaydis always rebelled and sometimes succeeded, it's the Imamis that were boot-lickers tbh.