TwelverShia.net Forum
Off Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MuslimK on May 23, 2017, 04:11:21 PM
-
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
-
I hate these costume dramas.
However, perhaps Shias that watch this will be affected when they see how Imam Ahmad spoke up against the false ideology of the creation of the Qur'an while the Shia Imams sat quietly in hiding.
-
I hate these costume dramas.
However, perhaps Shias that watch this will be affected when they see how Imam Ahmad spoke up against the false ideology of the creation of the Qur'an while the Shia Imams sat quietly in hiding.
Maybe because the belief that the Holy Qur'an is eternal is a bid'ah? And by the way, Ahmad ibn Hanbal apparently did takfir of those who believed the Holy Qur'an was created, weird. As far as I know its not an Usool Al-Deen issue.
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
-
BTW, this is a 30 day series, not a film, and the guy playing Imam Ahmad is the same guy that played Khalid bin Waleed رضي الله عنه in the Omar رضي الله عنه series. He was great there and I'm sure he'll be great here too
-
^ Yeah that is correct. It is a TV series and it will be aired this Ramadan.
-
Maybe because the belief that the Holy Qur'an is eternal is a bid'ah? And by the way, Ahmad ibn Hanbal apparently did takfir of those who believed the Holy Qur'an was created, weird. As far as I know its not an Usool Al-Deen issue.
I agree the debates about the creation of the Qur'an may not seem important. However, the entire argument was regarding God truly speaking as recorded in Qur'anic text. Those Mu`tazilah who believed it was created only say so because they don't believe God actually spoke to Musa (as).
If you really think about it, it doesn't even matter whether God actually spoke or not. Furthermore, what does the word "actually" even mean!?
In the end, the point is that these brave men of knowledge stood up for what they believed in and spoke the word of truth in the face of their opponents as well as the rulers. They never broke under torture and God granted them triumph.
If one were to read the bios of these great Imams of Sunnah he'd see major accomplishments and outstanding success regardless of all the hardship and pain.
-
Oh and as far as the twelver Imams, at least according to the twelver narrative and how they portray them. If a man walked in on Ja`far or Muhammad, they would leave the tent after being misinformed because these "great Imams" were so cautious and wary of the rulers (who couldn't care less about them) that they had to constantly lie. BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO WIPING THE SOCKS! No, Taqiyyah is in everything except wiping the socks (or whatever)
Heck entire Shia sects were created apparently (acc to Shia scholars) because the Imam pointed to one of his sons in order to divert attention from the real Imam which was the other son. SubhanAllah.
-
Maybe because the belief that the Holy Qur'an is eternal is a bid'ah? And by the way, Ahmad ibn Hanbal apparently did takfir of those who believed the Holy Qur'an was created, weird. As far as I know its not an Usool Al-Deen issue.
I agree the debates about the creation of the Qur'an may not seem important. However, the entire argument was regarding God truly speaking as recorded in Qur'anic text. Those Mu`tazilah who believed it was created only say so because they don't believe God actually spoke to Musa (as).
If you really think about it, it doesn't even matter whether God actually spoke or not. Furthermore, what does the word "actually" even mean!?
In the end, the point is that these brave men of knowledge stood up for what they believed in and spoke the word of truth in the face of their opponents as well as the rulers. They never broke under torture and God granted them triumph.
If one were to read the bios of these great Imams of Sunnah he'd see major accomplishments and outstanding success regardless of all the hardship and pain.
Great man stays home and do nothing, let the majority of people goes astray, because they do taqiyah says you know who
-
Oh and as far as the twelver Imams, at least according to the twelver narrative and how they portray them. If a man walked in on Ja`far or Muhammad, they would leave the tent after being misinformed because these "great Imams" were so cautious and wary of the rulers (who couldn't care less about them) that they had to constantly lie. BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO WIPING THE SOCKS! No, Taqiyyah is in everything except wiping the socks (or whatever)
Heck entire Shia sects were created apparently (acc to Shia scholars) because the Imam pointed to one of his sons in order to divert attention from the real Imam which was the other son. SubhanAllah.
Well, what do you say about how Prophet Haroon (as) dealt with Bani Israel after Prophet Musa (as) left him?
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
-
Oh and as far as the twelver Imams, at least according to the twelver narrative and how they portray them. If a man walked in on Ja`far or Muhammad, they would leave the tent after being misinformed because these "great Imams" were so cautious and wary of the rulers (who couldn't care less about them) that they had to constantly lie. BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO WIPING THE SOCKS! No, Taqiyyah is in everything except wiping the socks (or whatever)
Heck entire Shia sects were created apparently (acc to Shia scholars) because the Imam pointed to one of his sons in order to divert attention from the real Imam which was the other son. SubhanAllah.
Well, what do you say about how Prophet Haroon (as) dealt with Bani Israel after Prophet Musa (as) left him?
Always when the absurdity of Imams constantly lying is pointed out, one of the most used defenses is "What about Prophet Harun (a.s.)?". This, however is one of the worst analogies ever:
1. First of all, Harun (a.s.) openly told them and warned them not to do such a thing:وَلَقَدْ قَالَ لَهُمْ هَارُونُ مِن قَبْلُ يَا قَوْمِ إِنَّمَا فُتِنتُم بِهِ ۖ وَإِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ الرَّحْمَٰنُ فَاتَّبِعُونِي وَأَطِيعُوا أَمْرِي
Sahih International
And Aaron had already told them before [the return of Moses], "O my people, you are only being tested by it, and indeed, your Lord is the Most Merciful, so follow me and obey my order."
When did any of the Imams go and preach openly and publicly that they were doing wrong and that they should follow him instead?
2. Second of all, prophet Musa (a.s.) was furious regarding prophet Harun (a.s.) doing too little about it:
قَالَ يَا هَارُونُ مَا مَنَعَكَ إِذْ رَأَيْتَهُمْ ضَلُّوا
Sahih International
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray,
أَلَّا تَتَّبِعَنِ ۖ أَفَعَصَيْتَ أَمْرِي
Sahih International
From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
قَالَ يَا ابْنَ أُمَّ لَا تَأْخُذْ بِلِحْيَتِي وَلَا بِرَأْسِي ۖ إِنِّي خَشِيتُ أَن تَقُولَ فَرَّقْتَ بَيْنَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَلَمْ تَرْقُبْ قَوْلِي
Sahih International
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
3. More importantly, it is true that one of the reasons for waiting was to not create division among the Children of Israel, but the situation is entirely different from the situation after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.). The whole idea of waiting was because prophet Musa (a.s.) was still the de facto leader of the community. Musa(a.s) only left for forty days and was expected to return. That is why he said:
Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Adding to the confusion was that the other people that worshipped the calf told him (after he warning them) that they would not stop until Musa (a.s.) returns:قَالُوا لَن نَّبْرَحَ عَلَيْهِ عَاكِفِينَ حَتَّىٰ يَرْجِعَ إِلَيْنَا مُوسَىٰ
Sahih International
They said, "We will never cease being devoted to the calf until Moses returns to us."
The Imams were never temporary replacements and waiting for the return of anyone, nor did people say that they will continue doing what they did until the Prophet (s.a.w.s) returns. How is this remotely comparable?
4. Lastly and most importantly, prophet Harun(a.s.) never lied about what he stood for. He never pretended to endorse them to save his own life. And to add this:
- As far as we know, he never pledged allegiance to them publicly and cursed them only privately.
- As far as we know, he never pretended to praise them.
- As far as we know, he never prayed behind them while they were praying to the calf and he was supposedly praying on his own to Allah.
- As far as we know, he never joined a council of them to pick the replacement of as Samiri
- As far as we know, he never named his sons after as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never married from as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never married to as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never gave rulings in their favor or in line with their theology only to refute them in secrecy.
How in the world is this comparable? Is the insult to the Ahl al Bayt not enough? Do we have to drag prophet Harun (a.s.) into this as well every single time?
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
which brave soldiers? The one who not long after join Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam to many battles or the one who ran away even before facing the enemies and then hiding for 1000+yrs due to fear? You shia shouldnt mention running away issue. Its so embarrasing :D
-
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
They retreated when ambushed and under a barrage of fire then they regrouped and returned to aid the Messenger (saw). Do you wish to compare this with your 12th? 11th? 9th? etc...?
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
They would, along with the fact that Allah revealed verses of Quran, forgivening those fallible men. Unlike for the "infallible Imam".
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
in fact better still they should put in the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of well trained American equipped Iraqi army soldiers running scared of a few gangs of Isis's rag tag army in Mosul
Ooooh the amount of taqiyya that must have taken place lol
-
Oh and as far as the twelver Imams, at least according to the twelver narrative and how they portray them. If a man walked in on Ja`far or Muhammad, they would leave the tent after being misinformed because these "great Imams" were so cautious and wary of the rulers (who couldn't care less about them) that they had to constantly lie. BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES TO WIPING THE SOCKS! No, Taqiyyah is in everything except wiping the socks (or whatever)
Heck entire Shia sects were created apparently (acc to Shia scholars) because the Imam pointed to one of his sons in order to divert attention from the real Imam which was the other son. SubhanAllah.
Well, what do you say about how Prophet Haroon (as) dealt with Bani Israel after Prophet Musa (as) left him?
Always when the absurdity of Imams constantly lying is pointed out, one of the most used defenses is "What about Prophet Harun (a.s.)?". This, however is one of the worst analogies ever:
1. First of all, Harun (a.s.) openly told them and warned them not to do such a thing:وَلَقَدْ قَالَ لَهُمْ هَارُونُ مِن قَبْلُ يَا قَوْمِ إِنَّمَا فُتِنتُم بِهِ ۖ وَإِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ الرَّحْمَٰنُ فَاتَّبِعُونِي وَأَطِيعُوا أَمْرِي
Sahih International
And Aaron had already told them before [the return of Moses], "O my people, you are only being tested by it, and indeed, your Lord is the Most Merciful, so follow me and obey my order."
When did any of the Imams go and preach openly and publicly that they were doing wrong and that they should follow him instead?
2. Second of all, prophet Musa (a.s.) was furious regarding prophet Harun (a.s.) doing too little about it:
قَالَ يَا هَارُونُ مَا مَنَعَكَ إِذْ رَأَيْتَهُمْ ضَلُّوا
Sahih International
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray,
أَلَّا تَتَّبِعَنِ ۖ أَفَعَصَيْتَ أَمْرِي
Sahih International
From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
قَالَ يَا ابْنَ أُمَّ لَا تَأْخُذْ بِلِحْيَتِي وَلَا بِرَأْسِي ۖ إِنِّي خَشِيتُ أَن تَقُولَ فَرَّقْتَ بَيْنَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَلَمْ تَرْقُبْ قَوْلِي
Sahih International
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
3. More importantly, it is true that one of the reasons for waiting was to not create division among the Children of Israel, but the situation is entirely different from the situation after the death of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.). The whole idea of waiting was because prophet Musa (a.s.) was still the de facto leader of the community. Musa(a.s) only left for forty days and was expected to return. That is why he said:
Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Adding to the confusion was that the other people that worshipped the calf told him (after he warning them) that they would not stop until Musa (a.s.) returns:قَالُوا لَن نَّبْرَحَ عَلَيْهِ عَاكِفِينَ حَتَّىٰ يَرْجِعَ إِلَيْنَا مُوسَىٰ
Sahih International
They said, "We will never cease being devoted to the calf until Moses returns to us."
The Imams were never temporary replacements and waiting for the return of anyone, nor did people say that they will continue doing what they did until the Prophet (s.a.w.s) returns. How is this remotely comparable?
4. Lastly and most importantly, prophet Harun(a.s.) never lied about what he stood for. He never pretended to endorse them to save his own life. And to add this:
- As far as we know, he never pledged allegiance to them publicly and cursed them only privately.
- As far as we know, he never pretended to praise them.
- As far as we know, he never prayed behind them while they were praying to the calf and he was supposedly praying on his own to Allah.
- As far as we know, he never joined a council of them to pick the replacement of as Samiri
- As far as we know, he never named his sons after as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never married from as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never married to as Samiri.
- As far as we know, he never gave rulings in their favor or in line with their theology only to refute them in secrecy.
How in the world is this comparable? Is the insult to the Ahl al Bayt not enough? Do we have to drag prophet Harun (a.s.) into this as well every single time?
1) Prophet Harun (as) was the de-facto leader of Bani Israel as you stated, so it is safe to assume he had atleast some power. One thing is certain, the Imams (as) with the exception of a few didn't have much political power. However, when Imam Ali (as) did gain power, he did attempt to reverse the innovations of those who came before him. The Imams (as) didn't have much political power and in fact some where placed under house arrest and others put in jail, but that doesn't mean the Imams (as) weren't spreading the truth by narrating our true beliefs to our companions.
2) He was furious before he understood fully the situation. Not even sure why this is an argument.
3) It is extremely comparable because the people were hellbent on only waiting for Prophet Musa (as), it is safe to assume that they would not listen to what Prophet Haroon (as) would tell them, and perhaps might kill him. Wouldn't you say this is comparable to the situation of the Imams (as)?
4) All of these scenarios can be explained by saying that not doing those actions can lead to worse things happening in the Ummah.
This hadith is clear:
أبى رحمه الله قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد ابن عيسى، عن العباس بن معروف، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز، عن بريد بن معاوية، عن أبي جعفر " ع " قال: إن عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
which brave soldiers? The one who not long after join Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam to many battles or the one who ran away even before facing the enemies and then hiding for 1000+yrs due to fear? You shia shouldnt mention running away issue. Its so embarrasing :D
Who said the Imam (as) is scared of being killed due to worldly reasons? May Allah bless him, he is concerned with the religion of Allah and the believers. Unlike those guys that ran away from death just because they were afraid of confronting the enemies ;)
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
They would, along with the fact that Allah revealed verses of Quran, forgivening those fallible men. Unlike for the "infallible Imam".
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
They retreated when ambushed and under a barrage of fire then they regrouped and returned to aid the Messenger (saw). Do you wish to compare this with your 12th? 11th? 9th? etc...?
Yeah, they ran away TWICE. At Uhud and Hunayn. Lol.
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
in fact better still they should put in the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of well trained American equipped Iraqi army soldiers running scared of a few gangs of Isis's rag tag army in Mosul
Ooooh the amount of taqiyya that must have taken place lol
Look at your brothers in Syria and what Hezbollah has done to them LOL
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
in fact better still they should put in the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of well trained American equipped Iraqi army soldiers running scared of a few gangs of Isis's rag tag army in Mosul
Ooooh the amount of taqiyya that must have taken place lol
Look at your brothers in Syria and what Hezbollah has done to them LOL
lol don't make me larfff, hezbullah is GOOD AT KILLING SUNNIS..........look at them in Syria killing innocents👍👍👍
hezbullah the army of shitites
👍👍😂😂
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
in fact better still they should put in the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of well trained American equipped Iraqi army soldiers running scared of a few gangs of Isis's rag tag army in Mosul
Ooooh the amount of taqiyya that must have taken place lol
Look at your brothers in Syria and what Hezbollah has done to them LOL
lol don't make me larfff, hezbullah is GOOD AT KILLING SUNNIS..........look at them in Syria killing innocents👍👍👍
https://youtu.be/4Eom6l6VLcw
hezbullah the army of shitites
👍👍😂😂
-
are these the brothers you talking about?
LOOK what they are doing to hizbullah faggotts
https://youtu.be/gXpJVXfKOqI
😂😂😂
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
in fact better still they should put in the THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of well trained American equipped Iraqi army soldiers running scared of a few gangs of Isis's rag tag army in Mosul
Ooooh the amount of taqiyya that must have taken place lol
Look at your brothers in Syria and what Hezbollah has done to them LOL
Hezb + Asad were losing VERY badly until Russian airforce intervened.
-
Who said the Imam (as) is scared of being killed due to worldly reasons? May Allah bless him, he is concerned with the religion of Allah and the believers. Unlike those guys that ran away from death just because they were afraid of confronting the enemies ;)
عن أبي عبدالله (ع) قال: قال رسول الله (ص): لابد للغلام من غيبة
فقيل له: ولم يا رسول الله؟
قال: يخاف القتل
ِAbi `Abdillah said: The prophet (saw) said: The boy must disappear. They asked: "Why?" He (saw) said: "He fears being killed."
أبا جعفر (ع) يقول: إن للقائم غيبة قبل ظهوره
قلت: ولم؟
قال: يخاف وأومئ بيده إلی بطنه
قال زراره: يعني القتل
Aba Ja`far says: The riser will disappear before he emerges. I said why? Imams said: "He is fearful" and he pointed to his stomach. Zurarah said: "Meaning fear of being killed."
This is why al-Murtada said: There's no other possible reason for his absence except fear of being killed.
Now just to turn the funny table, I'll say also the Sahabah who ran were not afraid of being killed due to worldly reasons, they wanted to spread religion later.
How'd this sound?
-
Yeah, they ran away TWICE. At Uhud and Hunayn. Lol.
Alright, I'm gonna go all the way with you. They ran because they're cowards acc to you but then they returned and fought back, why is this? They became brave again? What about all the tons of other battles, were they brave and suddenly turned coward then came back to bravery?
Link with a thorough refutation: http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/09/03/who-was-the-bravest-companion-ibn-hazm/ (http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/09/03/who-was-the-bravest-companion-ibn-hazm/)
Truth is, these people risked their lives unlike most of your so called divine leaders, especially that last one. His father hid him from al-`Abbasi and then what? Never thought of coming back did he?
-
YYYEAAAAHHH!!!!
Are they going to put the part where he sticks his fingers in his ears cause he doesn't like hearing certain hadiths?
I bet they'll put in the part where he goes into hiding for 1200 years because he's scared of Al-Ma'moon ;D
No, they'll put in the part where they show "brave soldiers" running away from a battle which their Prophet is fighting in.
which brave soldiers? The one who not long after join Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam to many battles or the one who ran away even before facing the enemies and then hiding for 1000+yrs due to fear? You shia shouldnt mention running away issue. Its so embarrasing :D
Who said the Imam (as) is scared of being killed due to worldly reasons? May Allah bless him, he is concerned with the religion of Allah and the believers. Unlike those guys that ran away from death just because they were afraid of confronting the enemies ;)
hahaha another shia who dont know your own narration about Mahdi dissapear aka hiding aka ran away before facing the enemy for 1000+ year due to what
....FEAR OF BEING KILLED
Thats your "bravest mujahidin" 😀. I told you dont ever mention "running away" stuff, its so embarassing & cringeworthy
-
Well the running scared manifested itself in the wake of a few rag tags that threatened the brave Shiite Iraqi soldiers, its in their history.
Poor shitites I really really do feel sorry for the DAFT sods, I mean over a millennia and the only thing they shout about is battle of uhud and running of Sahaba, without reading upon the history, it sure has made a fool out of you sabaites.
Let's see the history of the coward sabaites and the bravery of their ancestors ( I will post just a few sabaite bravery in the history of Islam).
First runner and in the lead= The one and only hidden geezer watching you while he is in hiding he hears your prayers the......great.....Houdini sorry sorry mr Mahdi
The sly and weak no faith kufans your late great great great ancestors again FEARED for their lives when the Syrian army come marching and abandoned a noble soul a prince of paradise......kufans ran and ran they weren't interested in no princes of paradise.
The first prince Hassan ra gave up the Islamic leadership willingly to muawiya ra, because the sly trouble causing weak followers sabaites wouldn't support him
We can't forget Ali ra the father of the two princes above, he also was left on his own because the sabaites talked the talk but just couldn't walk, forcing him to move to kufa.......LEADIN to what was martyrdom of imam hussein ra
That's just the start, it's exactly the same in this day and age.......if it wasn't for USA helping you, you would've been defeated long time ago by a few sunni, if it wasn't for Russia the same ragtag army would've defeated you in Syria, nothing to do with hizbullah, they are just a smokescreen for your cowardice.
Run sabai run
-
1) Prophet Harun (as) was the de-facto leader of Bani Israel as you stated, so it is safe to assume he had atleast some power. One thing is certain, the Imams (as) with the exception of a few didn't have much political power. However, when Imam Ali (as) did gain power, he did attempt to reverse the innovations of those who came before him. The Imams (as) didn't have much political power and in fact some where placed under house arrest and others put in jail, but that doesn't mean the Imams (as) weren't spreading the truth by narrating our true beliefs to our companions.
I didn't say anything about the power Harun held. We don't know anything about the situation, he might not have had any power at all. Second, it's not about reversing some innovations, it's about not speaking up when one of the world's biggest mistakes was about to occur. Harun(a.s.) did, Ali didn't, it's as simple as that.
2) He was furious before he understood fully the situation. Not even sure why this is an argument.
It is important, because he had to explain to him that he was not being reluctant or fearful or a coward, but that he was postponing/waiting for him to return so that they could better deal with the situation.
3) It is extremely comparable because the people were hellbent on only waiting for Prophet Musa (as), it is safe to assume that they would not listen to what Prophet Haroon (as) would tell them, and perhaps might kill him. Wouldn't you say this is comparable to the situation of the Imams (as)?
It's not about what the people who deviated thought or claimed. Again, it's about the fact that Harun (a.s.) chose to wait/postpone dealing with the situation (NOT doing nothing about it, NOT accepting the situation as it was) for the return of Musa (a.s.) as they would be in a better position to deal with this. Basically, he had the option of (1)fighting them and causing bloodshed, (2)leave them and inform Musa (a.s.) immediately and cause division among the Children of Israel or (3)wait for prophet Musa (a.s.) and return all the deviators to the right path (as they were willing to listen to him) without any bloodshed. How is that comparable?
You might have had a point if the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) left for Tabuk for example and left Ali(r.a.) as the leader of the Muslims who remained. Then after a group of the Muslims deviated, Ali might have chosen to wait patiently for the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) to return. That is a TOTALLY different picture than after the Prophet's (s.a.w.s.) death. The Prophet just died, Ali is the one everyone is listening to for the final instructions. So it is not comparable at all.
4) All of these scenarios can be explained by saying that not doing those actions can lead to worse things happening in the Ummah.
This hadith is clear:
أبى رحمه الله قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد ابن عيسى، عن العباس بن معروف، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز، عن بريد بن معاوية، عن أبي جعفر " ع " قال: إن عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.
I am sure you can find justification for lying in your sect as your entire sect's ideology revolves around the justification of just that but that is not the point. The point is, Harun(a.s.) never lied, so it's not comparable at all.
By the way, the hadith is talking about not calling towards one's cause and being silent about it, it doesn't speak about lying and pretending to love your enemies and praying behind them.
-
1) Prophet Harun (as) was the de-facto leader of Bani Israel as you stated, so it is safe to assume he had atleast some power. One thing is certain, the Imams (as) with the exception of a few didn't have much political power. However, when Imam Ali (as) did gain power, he did attempt to reverse the innovations of those who came before him. The Imams (as) didn't have much political power and in fact some where placed under house arrest and others put in jail, but that doesn't mean the Imams (as) weren't spreading the truth by narrating our true beliefs to our companions.
I didn't say anything about the power Harun held. We don't know anything about the situation, he might not have had any power at all. Second, it's not about reversing some innovations, it's about not speaking up when one of the world's biggest mistakes was about to occur. Harun(a.s.) did, Ali didn't, it's as simple as that.
2) He was furious before he understood fully the situation. Not even sure why this is an argument.
It is important, because he had to explain to him that he was not being reluctant or fearful or a coward, but that he was postponing/waiting for him to return so that they could better deal with the situation.
3) It is extremely comparable because the people were hellbent on only waiting for Prophet Musa (as), it is safe to assume that they would not listen to what Prophet Haroon (as) would tell them, and perhaps might kill him. Wouldn't you say this is comparable to the situation of the Imams (as)?
It's not about what the people who deviated thought or claimed. Again, it's about the fact that Harun (a.s.) chose to wait/postpone dealing with the situation (NOT doing nothing about it, NOT accepting the situation as it was) for the return of Musa (a.s.) as they would be in a better position to deal with this. Basically, he had the option of (1)fighting them and causing bloodshed, (2)leave them and inform Musa (a.s.) immediately and cause division among the Children of Israel or (3)wait for prophet Musa (a.s.) and return all the deviators to the right path (as they were willing to listen to him) without any bloodshed. How is that comparable?
You might have had a point if the Prophet (s.a.w.s.) left for Tabuk for example and left Ali(r.a.) as the leader of the Muslims who remained. Then after a group of the Muslims deviated, Ali might have chosen to wait patiently for the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) to return. That is a TOTALLY different picture than after the Prophet's (s.a.w.s.) death. The Prophet just died, Ali is the one everyone is listening to for the final instructions. So it is not comparable at all.
4) All of these scenarios can be explained by saying that not doing those actions can lead to worse things happening in the Ummah.
This hadith is clear:
أبى رحمه الله قال: حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله قال: حدثنا أحمد بن محمد ابن عيسى، عن العباس بن معروف، عن حماد بن عيسى، عن حريز، عن بريد بن معاوية، عن أبي جعفر " ع " قال: إن عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.
I am sure you can find justification for lying in your sect as your entire sect's ideology revolves around the justification of just that but that is not the point. The point is, Harun(a.s.) never lied, so it's not comparable at all.
By the way, the hadith is talking about not calling towards one's cause and being silent about it, it doesn't speak about lying and pretending to love your enemies and praying behind them.
1) And who told you Imam Ali (as) didn't? Imam Ali (as) never backed down from his right as the Imam appointed by Allah, nor did the loyalists among the sahaba such as Abu Dharr, Salman and Al-Miqdad. The fact is the Imam (as) knew that if he did call for his leadership then the outward Islam might be lost.
2) He told the Prophet Musa (as) that they had intended to kill him and he told Prophet Musa (as) that he feared he would say that he caused a division between Bani Israel and that he did not wait for his word.
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
3) Alhamdulillah. Did you see what you said? "As they were willing to listen to him" i.e to Musa (as). Imam Ali (as) didn't have that extra option, the people would not listen to him, similar to Prophet Harun (as).
4) If lying will save Islam, then lying is a good thing, not a bad thing.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
-
You are trying to justify the actions of Ali(r.a.), while I wasn't talking about the justification, I was talking about the resemblance with Harun(a.s.) which is totally baseless.
For starters:
1) And who told you Imam Ali (as) didn't? Imam Ali (as) never backed down from his right as the Imam appointed by Allah, nor did the loyalists among the sahaba such as Abu Dharr, Salman and Al-Miqdad. The fact is the Imam (as) knew that if he did call for his leadership then the outward Islam might be lost.
It's not about his right, it's about speaking up when thousands and thousands of people make the biggest mistake of their lives. Why is it always about his right, and what he rightfully owns and what he lost? Why don't you care about the total misguidance that was taking place? Again, Harun spoke up, Ali didn't.
By the way, as far as the justification goes: What do you mean by "not backing down from his right" while at the same time saying that he "didn't call for his leadership"?
2) He told the Prophet Musa (as) that they had intended to kill him and he told Prophet Musa (as) that he feared he would say that he caused a division between Bani Israel and that he did not wait for his word.
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
So Harun(a.s.) simply waited for the return of Musa and was only postponing for while Ali was not calling to himself in order to protect Islam. Waiting/postponing is NOT the same as not doing anything. So again, they are not comparable.
As for the justification: what Hani said.
3) Alhamdulillah. Did you see what you said? "As they were willing to listen to him" i.e to Musa (as). Imam Ali (as) didn't have that extra option, the people would not listen to him, similar to Prophet Harun (as).
Harun was only waiting for the return of Musa(a.s.) as I said. In the case of Ali, there was no one to wait for. So it's not comparable. Now you will speculate about what Harun would do in Ali's shoes or what Ali would do in Harun's shoes, but that is all irrelevant. Fact is, it is not comparable.
As for the justification: Ali didn't have that option as you said so why would he not do anything? It's like a group retreats tactically to wait for reinforcements and another group retreats indefinitely. And then when the last group is criticized, you say: "What about the former group?"
4) If lying will save Islam, then lying is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Point is, Harun (a.s.) never lied, so in any case it is not comparable.
As for the justification: So if the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) finds a group of Jews who can't accept a son of Ismaeel(a.s.) as a Prophet, you would have no problem if the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) would not call to his Prophethood? In fact, he would even be able to lie about it according to you, as Jews who accept a part of the Tauraat is better than having them abandon the Tauraat altogether, right? Subhanallah, how far you are willing to go with the insulting the Ahl al Bayt and others all just to protect your sect.
-
Getting rid of Imamah = Protecting Islam. That's what Ali did. < Indirect admission by the Shia.
What if it was Prayer or Zakat or Fast instead of Imamah - if Abubakr and the Muslim community had rejected any of those would Ali keep quite just to protect Islam? what Islam would that be without Prayer, Zakah, Fast etc?
-
Getting rid of Imamah = Protecting Islam. That's what Ali did. < Indirect admission by the Shia.
What if it was Prayer or Zakat or Fast instead of Imamah - if Abubakr and the Muslim community had rejected any of those would Ali keep quite just to protect Islam? what Islam would that be without Prayer, Zakah, Fast etc?
well many shia scholars believe Ali deprived muslim of the most important guide, al-Qur'an which is hidden with the hidden imam of misguidance. Shia will make up any story to save their sad religion, but it will only make their story worse & more unbelievable
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
-
You are trying to justify the actions of Ali(r.a.), while I wasn't talking about the justification, I was talking about the resemblance with Harun(a.s.) which is totally baseless.
For starters:
1) And who told you Imam Ali (as) didn't? Imam Ali (as) never backed down from his right as the Imam appointed by Allah, nor did the loyalists among the sahaba such as Abu Dharr, Salman and Al-Miqdad. The fact is the Imam (as) knew that if he did call for his leadership then the outward Islam might be lost.
It's not about his right, it's about speaking up when thousands and thousands of people make the biggest mistake of their lives. Why is it always about his right, and what he rightfully owns and what he lost? Why don't you care about the total misguidance that was taking place? Again, Harun spoke up, Ali didn't.
By the way, as far as the justification goes: What do you mean by "not backing down from his right" while at the same time saying that he "didn't call for his leadership"?
2) He told the Prophet Musa (as) that they had intended to kill him and he told Prophet Musa (as) that he feared he would say that he caused a division between Bani Israel and that he did not wait for his word.
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
So Harun(a.s.) simply waited for the return of Musa and was only postponing for while Ali was not calling to himself in order to protect Islam. Waiting/postponing is NOT the same as not doing anything. So again, they are not comparable.
As for the justification: what Hani said.
3) Alhamdulillah. Did you see what you said? "As they were willing to listen to him" i.e to Musa (as). Imam Ali (as) didn't have that extra option, the people would not listen to him, similar to Prophet Harun (as).
Harun was only waiting for the return of Musa(a.s.) as I said. In the case of Ali, there was no one to wait for. So it's not comparable. Now you will speculate about what Harun would do in Ali's shoes or what Ali would do in Harun's shoes, but that is all irrelevant. Fact is, it is not comparable.
As for the justification: Ali didn't have that option as you said so why would he not do anything? It's like a group retreats tactically to wait for reinforcements and another group retreats indefinitely. And then when the last group is criticized, you say: "What about the former group?"
4) If lying will save Islam, then lying is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Point is, Harun (a.s.) never lied, so in any case it is not comparable.
As for the justification: So if the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) finds a group of Jews who can't accept a son of Ismaeel(a.s.) as a Prophet, you would have no problem if the Prophet(s.a.w.s.) would not call to his Prophethood? In fact, he would even be able to lie about it according to you, as Jews who accept a part of the Tauraat is better than having them abandon the Tauraat altogether, right? Subhanallah, how far you are willing to go with the insulting the Ahl al Bayt and others all just to protect your sect.
1) You keep sticking to this difference, but the scenarios are also different. Because in the instance of Harun (as) it was straight out kufr and shirk, in the instance of Imam Ali (as) - by speaking up the Ummah may return to Jahilliya and worship idols again.
2) Yes, he waited for Musa (as). Why did he wait for Musa (as)? You answered yourself before, because Bani Israel would listen to him. But the question is, would the Ummah listen to Imam Ali (as)? So why do you expect him to speak up in this case?
3) So why would he do anything about it? I believe I answered that like 5 times. I even gave a hadith explaining why. Speaking up may have led to the apostasy of the Ummah.
-
Getting rid of Imamah = Protecting Islam. That's what Ali did. < Indirect admission by the Shia.
What if it was Prayer or Zakat or Fast instead of Imamah - if Abubakr and the Muslim community had rejected any of those would Ali keep quite just to protect Islam? what Islam would that be without Prayer, Zakah, Fast etc?
In actual fact, what happened was that misguidance took over, but at least the dhahir of Islam (such as the shahadatayn) and returning to the worship of idols didn't happen.
A Ummah which doesn't pray, or fast, or do zakat but atleast believes in the shahadatayn is better than an Ummah filled with apostates who returned back to worshipping idols.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
-
In actual fact, what happened was that misguidance took over, but at least the dhahir of Islam (such as the shahadatayn) and returning to the worship of idols didn't happen.
A Ummah which doesn't pray, or fast, or do zakat but atleast believes in the shahadatayn is better than an Ummah filled with apostates who returned back to worshipping idols.
You didn't get my point. Shahadatayn becomes meaningless if you reject Prayer, Fast and Zakat.
The same can not be said about divine Imamah of Ali.
-
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
Ok, so according to shia, a leader of muslim who is suppose to guide and warn people, can just hide for 1000+yr¬ doing what he suppose to do which is guiding or warning his ummah. Its like saying "im a tour guide, but you folk just have to go around yourself while im sipping tea and hiding in my unknown flat" Thats a shia version of tour guide 😂😂😂
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
-
In actual fact, what happened was that misguidance took over, but at least the dhahir of Islam (such as the shahadatayn) and returning to the worship of idols didn't happen.
A Ummah which doesn't pray, or fast, or do zakat but atleast believes in the shahadatayn is better than an Ummah filled with apostates who returned back to worshipping idols.
You didn't get my point. Shahadatayn becomes meaningless if you reject Prayer, Fast and Zakat.
The same can not be said about divine Imamah of Ali.
No, it doesn't become meaningless. Someone who testifies the shahadatayn is a Muslim and is treated as such.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
In actual fact, what happened was that misguidance took over, but at least the dhahir of Islam (such as the shahadatayn) and returning to the worship of idols didn't happen.
A Ummah which doesn't pray, or fast, or do zakat but atleast believes in the shahadatayn is better than an Ummah filled with apostates who returned back to worshipping idols.
You didn't get my point. Shahadatayn becomes meaningless if you reject Prayer, Fast and Zakat.
The same can not be said about divine Imamah of Ali.
No, it doesn't become meaningless. Someone who testifies the shahadatayn is a Muslim and is treated as such.
Actually he's right, rejecting what is known by necessity as being from the fundamentals is Kufr. Some people are too extreme when it comes to Takfeer, they make Takfeer of anything that moves, they will make Takfeer out of things that are not fundamentals such as building on graves etc... On the other hand, a group is too lenient and doesn't make Takfeer on the most essential issues that are certain fundamentals (Tahreef al-Qur'an).
Truth is, Takfeer can only be done on matters that are fundamentals, that cannot be interpreted differently and are clearly stated in Qur'an or what's mass-transmitted to the point of certainty as Sunnah.
-
Yep, Ali did not view himself as the best man after the Prophet (saw) but he viewed himself as having most claim to it. What opposes all historical books and accounts is Ali being a divinely appointed Imam, neither he, his family or anyone else had a clue about such appointment.
-
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.
No further comments.
-
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.
No further comments.
you forgot his is the majoos version of Islam 😂😂😂
-
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.
No further comments.
Way to lie about someone, but then again, one only has to open the TV or YouTube and watch the retarded Wahabi Saudi propaganda channels against the Shi'a and watch their lies against the Shi'a - so this is nothing new to your creed.
What I am saying is that someone who does not pray but says the shahadatayn is still a Muslim - outwardly. Not someone who rejects Salat or Zakat. There is a difference between disbelieving in Salat and not praying Salat.
-
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.
No further comments.
you forgot his is the majoos version of Islam 😂😂😂
Quite the funny thing to say, seeing as Umar probably was fascinated by the majoos and likely injected some majoosi teachings and practices into Islam. Ha.
-
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.
No further comments.
you forgot his is the majoos version of Islam 😂😂😂
Quite the funny thing to say, seeing as Umar probably was fascinated by the majoos and likely injected some majoosi teachings and practices into Islam. Ha.
Speaking about injecting, who is more likely injecting some majoosi practices into Islam?
“The Late Allamah Majlisi writes in Zad al-Ma‘aad that, “From a reliable chain of narrators from Mu‘alla ibne Janis it has been narrated that on the day of Nowrooz, he was blessed to be in the presence of Imam as-Sadiq (AS). The Imam asked, “Do you know the status of this day?” Mu‘alla replied, “May I be sacrificed for your sake! This is the day which the Iranians took as a great day. On this day, they send gifts to one another.” The Imam replied, “The act of holding this day in esteem and greatness is due to certain historical events which took place which I will now explain to you.” The Imam then mentioned the following events: Nowrooz is the day when Allah, the High, took the promise from the souls of all human beings (before their creation) to His oneness, that they would not associate partners with Him and that they would accept and believe in His Prophets and Imams; this is also the day when the flood during the time of Prophet Nuh (AS) subsided and the ark rested on the mountain of Joodi; Nowrooz is also the day when the Messenger of Allah destroyed the idols of the polytheists of the Quraish in the city of Makkah. This was also the day that Prophet Ibrahim destroyed the idols; also the day when the Messenger of Allah ordered his companions to pledge allegiance to Ali as the Commander of the Faithful (this is in reference to the Day of Ghadeer which took place on the Eid-e-Nowrooz); it is also the day when the Qa’im from Aale Muhammad (the 12th Imam) will make his advent…”
Hmmm....
-
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.
No further comments.
you forgot his is the majoos version of Islam 😂😂😂
Quite the funny thing to say, seeing as Umar probably was fascinated by the majoos and likely injected some majoosi teachings and practices into Islam. Ha.
Speaking about injecting, who is more likely injecting some majoosi practices into Islam?
“The Late Allamah Majlisi writes in Zad al-Ma‘aad that, “From a reliable chain of narrators from Mu‘alla ibne Janis it has been narrated that on the day of Nowrooz, he was blessed to be in the presence of Imam as-Sadiq (AS). The Imam asked, “Do you know the status of this day?” Mu‘alla replied, “May I be sacrificed for your sake! This is the day which the Iranians took as a great day. On this day, they send gifts to one another.” The Imam replied, “The act of holding this day in esteem and greatness is due to certain historical events which took place which I will now explain to you.” The Imam then mentioned the following events: Nowrooz is the day when Allah, the High, took the promise from the souls of all human beings (before their creation) to His oneness, that they would not associate partners with Him and that they would accept and believe in His Prophets and Imams; this is also the day when the flood during the time of Prophet Nuh (AS) subsided and the ark rested on the mountain of Joodi; Nowrooz is also the day when the Messenger of Allah destroyed the idols of the polytheists of the Quraish in the city of Makkah. This was also the day that Prophet Ibrahim destroyed the idols; also the day when the Messenger of Allah ordered his companions to pledge allegiance to Ali as the Commander of the Faithful (this is in reference to the Day of Ghadeer which took place on the Eid-e-Nowrooz); it is also the day when the Qa’im from Aale Muhammad (the 12th Imam) will make his advent…”
Hmmm....
Weak hadith. And furthermore, just because there is a day which is honoured by more than one faith, that doesn't mean it was taken from that religion.
The people used to fast the Day of Ashura in the time of Jahilliya. And the Jews did too.
This is a weak argument. Not surprised though.
-
Weak hadith. And furthermore, just because there is a day which is honoured by more than one faith, that doesn't mean it was taken from that religion.
The people used to fast the Day of Ashura in the time of Jahilliya. And the Jews did too.
This is a weak argument. Not surprised though.
What makes the hadeeth weak?
-
Weak hadith. And furthermore, just because there is a day which is honoured by more than one faith, that doesn't mean it was taken from that religion.
The people used to fast the Day of Ashura in the time of Jahilliya. And the Jews did too.
This is a weak argument. Not surprised though.
What makes the hadeeth weak?
I have come across this hadith before I believe with a knowledgable brother and I remember him saying it is weak.
-
Weak hadith. And furthermore, just because there is a day which is honoured by more than one faith, that doesn't mean it was taken from that religion.
The people used to fast the Day of Ashura in the time of Jahilliya. And the Jews did too.
This is a weak argument. Not surprised though.
What makes the hadeeth weak?
I have come across this hadith before I believe with a knowledgable brother and I remember him saying it is weak.
Based on what? Does it contradict the Qur'an? I know that Uloom al-Hadeeth (which Shi'as ignorantly shrink down to just Ilm ar-Rijal) is meaningless to you guys. So how do you know which hadeeths are saheeh or not? Is it really through "believing" that you come across this hadeeth with a "knowledgeable brother" who you "remember" him "saying" it was weak? Then you have the gall to call us out to read your books of Usool? ;D
-
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.
No further comments.
Way to lie about someone, but then again, one only has to open the TV or YouTube and watch the retarded Wahabi Saudi propaganda channels against the Shi'a and watch their lies against the Shi'a - so this is nothing new to your creed.
What I am saying is that someone who does not pray but says the shahadatayn is still a Muslim - outwardly. Not someone who rejects Salat or Zakat. There is a difference between disbelieving in Salat and not praying Salat.
Lets see who is lying and who is the truthful:
My earlier comment:
You didn't get my point. Shahadatayn becomes meaningless if you reject Prayer, Fast and Zakat.
The same can not be said about divine Imamah of Ali.
Your reply:
No, it doesn't become meaningless. Someone who testifies the shahadatayn is a Muslim and is treated as such.
I clearly used the word REJECT more than once. It seems like you were deliberately ignoring the point I was trying to make and when finally I made a conclusion about your stance you accused me of lying.
Anyways, now that you have finally come to the point my original comment stands:
Getting rid of Imamah = Protecting Islam. That's what Ali did. < Indirect admission by the Shia.
What if it was Prayer or Zakat or Fast instead of Imamah - if Abubakr and the Muslim community had rejected any of those would Ali keep quite just to protect Islam? what Islam would that be without Prayer, Zakah, Fast etc?
-
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.
No further comments.
Way to lie about someone, but then again, one only has to open the TV or YouTube and watch the retarded Wahabi Saudi propaganda channels against the Shi'a and watch their lies against the Shi'a - so this is nothing new to your creed.
What I am saying is that someone who does not pray but says the shahadatayn is still a Muslim - outwardly. Not someone who rejects Salat or Zakat. There is a difference between disbelieving in Salat and not praying Salat.
Lets see who is lying and who is the truthful:
My earlier comment:
You didn't get my point. Shahadatayn becomes meaningless if you reject Prayer, Fast and Zakat.
The same can not be said about divine Imamah of Ali.
Your reply:
No, it doesn't become meaningless. Someone who testifies the shahadatayn is a Muslim and is treated as such.
I clearly used the word REJECT more than once. It seems like you were deliberately ignoring the point I was trying to make and when finally I made a conclusion about your stance you accused me of lying.
Anyways, now that you have finally come to the point my original comment stands:
Getting rid of Imamah = Protecting Islam. That's what Ali did. < Indirect admission by the Shia.
What if it was Prayer or Zakat or Fast instead of Imamah - if Abubakr and the Muslim community had rejected any of those would Ali keep quite just to protect Islam? what Islam would that be without Prayer, Zakah, Fast etc?
Because I am objective and I am not arrogant, I will stand corrected. I did not read "reject" properly, I thought you were trying to say someone who is a aasi and doesn't pray.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).
Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.
2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.
3. Read the answer for point 1.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).
Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.
2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.
3. Read the answer for point 1.
Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).
Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.
2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.
3. Read the answer for point 1.
Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.
This is an exceptional case, which is applicable only when there is certainty through experience that the sinner will indulge in a major sin compared to the former one, as the person had experienced.
And as for the Salafi aalim you mention then it is possible that Salafi aalim, himself experienced this situation when he tried to implement amr bin maroof, based on which he formed that opinion. Most, likely you are talking about Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa on the Tatar soldiers drinking alcohol.
-
The Shia member is saying that if you reject Prayer, Fast, Zakat etc etc then your Islam remains valid.
No further comments.
you forgot his is the majoos version of Islam 😂😂😂
Quite the funny thing to say, seeing as Umar probably was fascinated by the majoos and likely injected some majoosi teachings and practices into Islam. Ha.
Maybe because of Umar, all these sunni are like this people on the video eh? Oops wrong video, its actually about you folk, the neo majoos :D
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).
Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.
2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.
3. Read the answer for point 1.
Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.
This is an exceptional case, which is applicable only when there is certainty through experience that the sinner will indulge in a major sin compared to the former one, as the person had experienced.
And as for the Salafi aalim you mention then it is possible that Salafi aalim, himself experienced this situation when he tried to implement amr bin maroof, based on which he formed that opinion. Most, likely you are talking about Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa on the Tatar soldiers drinking alcohol.
Well, there you go. That should end this discussion about Imam Ali (as) then, who knew that the ummah would turn to a bigger evil.
-
Ibn Taymiyyah's fatwa was taken out of context, it was established after those Tatar soldiers innovated their own un-Islamic laws and followed them religiously and after they plundered, slaughtered, raped and killed while drunk. The scholars differed, some refrained due to the fact that these primitive violent people were Muslims who testified the Shahadatayn. Ibn Taymiyyah issued a verdict that they must be fought even if they testify and his verdict makes a lot more sense in this situation and in that historical context.
Takfeeri groups need an excuse for anything, they began quoting the Fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah about the Tatar. However, does this really apply to our times? If anything Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa applies to ISIS and their likes who deserve to be fought and defeated even though they testify since what they're doing resembles the behavior of Tatar.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).
Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.
2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.
3. Read the answer for point 1.
Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.
This is an exceptional case, which is applicable only when there is certainty through experience that the sinner will indulge in a major sin compared to the former one, as the person had experienced.
And as for the Salafi aalim you mention then it is possible that Salafi aalim, himself experienced this situation when he tried to implement amr bin maroof, based on which he formed that opinion. Most, likely you are talking about Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa on the Tatar soldiers drinking alcohol.
Well, there you go. That should end this discussion about Imam Ali (as) then, who knew that the ummah would turn to a bigger evil.
Not at all, Ali(ra) never experienced any greater evil in order chose a lesser evil. This assumption of yours is baatil. On the contrary Ali(ra) believed that he would have fought if Prophet(saws) have given a command regarding Caliphate, which again exposes the incorrectness of your assumption.
Anyways, what needs to be reminded that, the example of Haroon(as) is actually against Shias, which they didn't realize, so bringing up his example actually weakens the Shia claim.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).
Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.
2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.
3. Read the answer for point 1.
Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.
This is an exceptional case, which is applicable only when there is certainty through experience that the sinner will indulge in a major sin compared to the former one, as the person had experienced.
And as for the Salafi aalim you mention then it is possible that Salafi aalim, himself experienced this situation when he tried to implement amr bin maroof, based on which he formed that opinion. Most, likely you are talking about Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa on the Tatar soldiers drinking alcohol.
Well, there you go. That should end this discussion about Imam Ali (as) then, who knew that the ummah would turn to a bigger evil.
Not at all, Ali(ra) never experienced any greater evil in order chose a lesser evil. This assumption of yours is baatil. On the contrary Ali(ra) believed that he would have fought if Prophet(saws) have given a command regarding Caliphate, which again exposes the incorrectness of your assumption.
Anyways, what needs to be reminded that, the example of Haroon(as) is actually against Shias, which they didn't realize, so bringing up his example actually weakens the Shia claim.
The Imam (as) does not need to experience it, he has special ilm. He knows what will happen if he does do nahi an al munkar.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).
Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.
2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.
3. Read the answer for point 1.
Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.
This is an exceptional case, which is applicable only when there is certainty through experience that the sinner will indulge in a major sin compared to the former one, as the person had experienced.
And as for the Salafi aalim you mention then it is possible that Salafi aalim, himself experienced this situation when he tried to implement amr bin maroof, based on which he formed that opinion. Most, likely you are talking about Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa on the Tatar soldiers drinking alcohol.
Well, there you go. That should end this discussion about Imam Ali (as) then, who knew that the ummah would turn to a bigger evil.
Not at all, Ali(ra) never experienced any greater evil in order chose a lesser evil. This assumption of yours is baatil. On the contrary Ali(ra) believed that he would have fought if Prophet(saws) have given a command regarding Caliphate, which again exposes the incorrectness of your assumption.
Anyways, what needs to be reminded that, the example of Haroon(as) is actually against Shias, which they didn't realize, so bringing up his example actually weakens the Shia claim.
The Imam (as) does not need to experience it, he has special ilm. He knows what will happen if he does do nahi an al munkar.
This excuse is as preposterous as the excuse of Taqiyyah. On contrary we find that Ali(ra) himself beliieved that he would have fought, had it been that Prophet(SAWS) had ordered anything about Caliphate. And the actions of Ansar regarding Saqifa and their discussions itself is a proof that no one was appointed by Prophet(saws).
Anyways the point is that the preposterous excuse you made goes against the Sunnah of Haroon(as), hence next time don't use he example of Haroon(as) as its against SHiism.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).
Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.
2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.
3. Read the answer for point 1.
Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.
This is an exceptional case, which is applicable only when there is certainty through experience that the sinner will indulge in a major sin compared to the former one, as the person had experienced.
And as for the Salafi aalim you mention then it is possible that Salafi aalim, himself experienced this situation when he tried to implement amr bin maroof, based on which he formed that opinion. Most, likely you are talking about Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa on the Tatar soldiers drinking alcohol.
Well, there you go. That should end this discussion about Imam Ali (as) then, who knew that the ummah would turn to a bigger evil.
Not at all, Ali(ra) never experienced any greater evil in order chose a lesser evil. This assumption of yours is baatil. On the contrary Ali(ra) believed that he would have fought if Prophet(saws) have given a command regarding Caliphate, which again exposes the incorrectness of your assumption.
Anyways, what needs to be reminded that, the example of Haroon(as) is actually against Shias, which they didn't realize, so bringing up his example actually weakens the Shia claim.
The Imam (as) does not need to experience it, he has special ilm. He knows what will happen if he does do nahi an al munkar.
This excuse is as preposterous as the excuse of Taqiyyah. On contrary we find that Ali(ra) himself beliieved that he would have fought, had it been that Prophet(SAWS) had ordered anything about Caliphate. And the actions of Ansar regarding Saqifa and their discussions itself is a proof that no one was appointed by Prophet(saws).
Anyways the point is that the preposterous excuse you made goes against the Sunnah of Haroon(as), hence next time don't use he example of Haroon(as) as its against SHiism.
You're sadly changing the topic my friend. The basis of this topic was the assumption (or in my case, belief) that the Prophet had appointed a successor. Not whether he appointed one or not.
Now, you say the duty of Imam Ali (as) - had he indeed been chosen by Allah to lead the Ummah after the Prophet's death - is that he should do nahi an al munkar because his right was snatched off him and the Ummah became deviant, and he just stood there and watched. Therefore, he did not fulfill his obligation.
My reply to this shubha is that nahi an al munkar is dropped according to many Sunnis if it will lead to a bigger evil coming from the sinner.
You said Imam Ali (as) has to experience this first, and I replied that Imam Ali (as) already knows.
As for Prophet Harun (as) - I can say that I have moved on from that argument, as I find that this argument has many shortcomings in this discussions.
-
This excuse is as preposterous as the excuse of Taqiyyah. On contrary we find that Ali(ra) himself beliieved that he would have fought, had it been that Prophet(SAWS) had ordered anything about Caliphate. And the actions of Ansar regarding Saqifa and their discussions itself is a proof that no one was appointed by Prophet(saws).
Anyways the point is that the preposterous excuse you made goes against the Sunnah of Haroon(as), hence next time don't use he example of Haroon(as) as its against SHiism.
You're sadly changing the topic my friend. The basis of this topic was the assumption (or in my case, belief) that the Prophet had appointed a successor. Not whether he appointed one or not.
Now, you say the duty of Imam Ali (as) - had he indeed been chosen by Allah to lead the Ummah after the Prophet's death - is that he should do nahi an al munkar because his right was snatched off him and the Ummah became deviant, and he just stood there and watched. Therefore, he did not fulfill his obligation.
My reply to this shubha is that nahi an al munkar is dropped according to many Sunnis if it will lead to a bigger evil coming from the sinner.
You said Imam Ali (as) has to experience this first, and I replied that Imam Ali (as) already knows.
As for Prophet Harun (as) - I can say that I have moved on from that argument, as I find that this argument has many shortcomings in this discussions.
What a shallow argument... and yet Al-Hussein insisted on carrying out this "nahi wa munkar" that "led a bigger evil coming from sinners" i.e. brought almost all his family members to destruction...
What a confusing religion...
-
This excuse is as preposterous as the excuse of Taqiyyah. On contrary we find that Ali(ra) himself beliieved that he would have fought, had it been that Prophet(SAWS) had ordered anything about Caliphate. And the actions of Ansar regarding Saqifa and their discussions itself is a proof that no one was appointed by Prophet(saws).
Anyways the point is that the preposterous excuse you made goes against the Sunnah of Haroon(as), hence next time don't use he example of Haroon(as) as its against SHiism.
You're sadly changing the topic my friend. The basis of this topic was the assumption (or in my case, belief) that the Prophet had appointed a successor. Not whether he appointed one or not.
Now, you say the duty of Imam Ali (as) - had he indeed been chosen by Allah to lead the Ummah after the Prophet's death - is that he should do nahi an al munkar because his right was snatched off him and the Ummah became deviant, and he just stood there and watched. Therefore, he did not fulfill his obligation.
My reply to this shubha is that nahi an al munkar is dropped according to many Sunnis if it will lead to a bigger evil coming from the sinner.
You said Imam Ali (as) has to experience this first, and I replied that Imam Ali (as) already knows.
As for Prophet Harun (as) - I can say that I have moved on from that argument, as I find that this argument has many shortcomings in this discussions.
What a shallow argument... and yet Al-Hussein insisted on carrying out this "nahi wa munkar" that "led a bigger evil coming from sinners" i.e. brought almost all his family members to destruction...
What a confusing religion...
Ahh that quote was actually representing a Sunni viewpoint, lol.
As for what Imam Al-Husayn (as) - in actual fact, was a different circumstance to Imam Ali (as)
-
This excuse is as preposterous as the excuse of Taqiyyah. On contrary we find that Ali(ra) himself beliieved that he would have fought, had it been that Prophet(SAWS) had ordered anything about Caliphate. And the actions of Ansar regarding Saqifa and their discussions itself is a proof that no one was appointed by Prophet(saws).
Anyways the point is that the preposterous excuse you made goes against the Sunnah of Haroon(as), hence next time don't use he example of Haroon(as) as its against SHiism.
You're sadly changing the topic my friend. The basis of this topic was the assumption (or in my case, belief) that the Prophet had appointed a successor. Not whether he appointed one or not.
Now, you say the duty of Imam Ali (as) - had he indeed been chosen by Allah to lead the Ummah after the Prophet's death - is that he should do nahi an al munkar because his right was snatched off him and the Ummah became deviant, and he just stood there and watched. Therefore, he did not fulfill his obligation.
My reply to this shubha is that nahi an al munkar is dropped according to many Sunnis if it will lead to a bigger evil coming from the sinner.
You said Imam Ali (as) has to experience this first, and I replied that Imam Ali (as) already knows.
As for Prophet Harun (as) - I can say that I have moved on from that argument, as I find that this argument has many shortcomings in this discussions.
What a shallow argument... and yet Al-Hussein insisted on carrying out this "nahi wa munkar" that "led a bigger evil coming from sinners" i.e. brought almost all his family members to destruction...
What a confusing religion...
Ahh that quote was actually representing a Sunni viewpoint, lol.
As for what Imam Al-Husayn (as) - in actual fact, was a different circumstance to Imam Ali (as)
Ahh... you didn't really believe in what you wrote in your reply. So, what represented the twelvers viewpoint then?
Next, please eloborate what the different circumstaces in Al-Hussein's (r.a.) case. I love to see Twelvers "logic" in explaining historical events of the past.
And also, please explain the difference of Ali (r.a.) carrying out "nahi an al-munkar" in the case of Siffin war with the event of his non-claimant of his imamah during Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman's (r.anhum) reigns.
-
You said:
Furthermore, one thing we must know is that Imam Ali (as) did not call to himseld because he did not want the people to apostate. So what Imam Ali (as) actually did PROTECTED Islam.
Salam,
Brother PLEASE try to ponder and reflect on your statement. If `Ali did not preach the message, then what applies to him applies to the Prophet (saw): {O Messenger (Muhammad SAW)! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.}
`Ali's job acc to you folks IS TO GUIDE, he never did. Why would the Prophet (saw) be commanded to proclaim the message and get a guarantee of protection then the leader right after him hides that same message and never proclaims it?
Secondly, your words "`Ali did not call to him in order to PROTECT ISLAM" This means that the belief in divine infallible leaders is not necessary for having faith.
If the so called Imamah was necessary for Islam, then it needed to be preached for Islam to be "protected". However, not announcing it to "protect Islam" says a lot about this irrational belief.
Just ponder on this and don't repeat the arguments of the Shia leaders without thought.
Please ponder on the comparison with Prophet Harun (as).
[Moses] said, "O Aaron, what prevented you, when you saw them going astray, From following me? Then have you disobeyed my order?"
[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "
Imam Ali (as) - yes, he is a guide. But by calling to himself he would be doing the opposite of guiding, because according to the hadith people might become kafirs due to this. So by you saying "well he should have just guided people" - this may result in people rejected the shahada and Islam in general, thereby doing the complete opposite.
Firstly, Hujjah cannot be established on assumptions, and this contradicts the obligatory principle of Amr bil maroof wa nahi anil munkar(Enjoining good & forbidding evil). Imagine Prophet(saw) assuming that Abu Jahl will never accept his prophethood so he doesn’t gives him the Message, this would sound irrational and nonsense, because hujjah cannot be established based on assumptions. And regarding forbidding the wrong we read in Shia hadeeth that:
The messenger of Allah(saw) said: Allah bears grudge (dislikeness) for the “WEAK BELIEVER”, who doesn’t have any religion(Deen). It is asked: Who will be believer who doesn’t have any religion? Prophet(saw) said: The one who doesn’t fulfill the obligation of “Forbidding Wrong”. (Furu’al Kafi Vol. 5 Page. 59).
Shias try to counter these points by bringing up the incident of Prophet Harun(as), when Prophet Musa(as) left him with the people, and those people started worshiping a calf and didn’t listen to Harun(as). However this issue is a proof against Shia, because Harun(as) did indeed try to forbid those people from wrong and evil, to the extent that they were about to kill him. This proves that he was not only forbidding them from tongue but also protesting them as much as he could. This is evidenced in the following verses of Quran:
And Hârûn (Aaron) indeed had said to them beforehand: “O my people! You are being tried in this, and verily, your Lord is (Allâh) the Most Beneficent, so follow me and obey my order.” They said: “We will not stop worshipping it (i.e. the calf), until Mûsa (Moses) returns to us.” (Quran 20:90-91)
When Musa returned to his people, angry and sad, he said, .How bad is the thing you have done in my absence! How did you act in haste against the command of your Lord?. He dropped down the Tablets, and grabbed the head of his brother, pulling him towards himself. He (Harun) said, .My mother‘s son, the people took me as weak and were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies laugh at me, and do not count me with the wrong-doers.(Quran 7:150).
Harun(as) didn’t just assume that people will disobey him, so he needs to be silent, on the contrary Harun(as) tried hard to forbid those people from wrong and evil and invited them towards good, to the extent that they were about to kill him, as they overpowered him and found him weak.
Answer taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/5-sunni-answers-to-shiapens-article-on-fadak-and-inheritance-of-prophetsaw-chapter-five/
1) In actual fact, one of the conditions of Amr bil Marouf and Nahi an Al Munkar according to our fuqaha is that it should be known that it will be effectual, otherwise the obligation is dropped.
2) It wasn't about assumptions, Imam Ali (as) knew what the consequences would be if he called for his right. Imam Ali (as) didn't want the religion of Allah and the risalah to be lost. His decision was based on circumstances.
3) The comparison between Harun (as) and Imam Ali (as) makes sense because both of them were bertrayed by their Ummah. I must also add, I have re-read Hani's book on Ali and Khilafah, and from what I have read, based on Sunni sources, Imam Ali (as) was clearly not all happy about others preceding him to the khilafa.
1. This is a preposterous claim, because guidance is ONLY from Allah. The duty of believer is to convey/remind the message. We also read in Quran;
(Muhammad), you cannot guide whomever you love, but God guides whomever He wants and knows best those who seek guidance.(Quran 28:56).
Moreover, Haroon(AS) implemented on Amr bil MAroof and Nahi an al Munkar, even though it wasn't effective, to the point that he was going to be killed. And Musa(as) didn't took it lightly thinking that stopping wouldn't have been ineffective. Rather he held the beard of Haroon(AS) and questioned him for DISOBEYING his order. And he only spared him when Haroon(AS) informed him that he did implement on the Amr bil MAroof principle in the best way. Hence, this absurd excuse of yours shows that the example of Haroon(AS) cannot be used by Shias since it is contrary to what Ali(ra) did. This example is against Shias.
2. No one is talking about armed rebellion. Even though as per some reports Ali(ra) said that he would have fought if there was any command from Prophet(saws) about Caliphate. Since you mentioned Hani's book. Let me quote from his book the words of Ali(ra). { Ali said: I would have fought them with my bare hands if I found no weapon.} But what I'm talking about is that he should have atleast verbally reminded people about his alleged appointment. And done his duty of Amr bil Maroof.
3. Read the answer for point 1.
Is amr bil maroof & nahi an al munkar still wajib according to Sunnis if the person will leave his sin and go on to a bigger evil as a result? Because I remember seeing a Salafi aalim saying in this case one should not do it.
This is an exceptional case, which is applicable only when there is certainty through experience that the sinner will indulge in a major sin compared to the former one, as the person had experienced.
And as for the Salafi aalim you mention then it is possible that Salafi aalim, himself experienced this situation when he tried to implement amr bin maroof, based on which he formed that opinion. Most, likely you are talking about Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa on the Tatar soldiers drinking alcohol.
Well, there you go. That should end this discussion about Imam Ali (as) then, who knew that the ummah would turn to a bigger evil.
Not at all, Ali(ra) never experienced any greater evil in order chose a lesser evil. This assumption of yours is baatil. On the contrary Ali(ra) believed that he would have fought if Prophet(saws) have given a command regarding Caliphate, which again exposes the incorrectness of your assumption.
Anyways, what needs to be reminded that, the example of Haroon(as) is actually against Shias, which they didn't realize, so bringing up his example actually weakens the Shia claim.
The Imam (as) does not need to experience it, he has special ilm. He knows what will happen if he does do nahi an al munkar.
This excuse is as preposterous as the excuse of Taqiyyah. On contrary we find that Ali(ra) himself beliieved that he would have fought, had it been that Prophet(SAWS) had ordered anything about Caliphate. And the actions of Ansar regarding Saqifa and their discussions itself is a proof that no one was appointed by Prophet(saws).
Anyways the point is that the preposterous excuse you made goes against the Sunnah of Haroon(as), hence next time don't use he example of Haroon(as) as its against SHiism.
You're sadly changing the topic my friend. The basis of this topic was the assumption (or in my case, belief) that the Prophet had appointed a successor. Not whether he appointed one or not.
Now, you say the duty of Imam Ali (as) - had he indeed been chosen by Allah to lead the Ummah after the Prophet's death - is that he should do nahi an al munkar because his right was snatched off him and the Ummah became deviant, and he just stood there and watched. Therefore, he did not fulfill his obligation.
My reply to this shubha is that nahi an al munkar is dropped according to many Sunnis if it will lead to a bigger evil coming from the sinner.
You said Imam Ali (as) has to experience this first, and I replied that Imam Ali (as) already knows.
As for Prophet Harun (as) - I can say that I have moved on from that argument, as I find that this argument has many shortcomings in this discussions.
No, I'm not changing the topic, nor do I intend to, because I mentioned about Prophet(SAWS) not appointing any Caliph as an additional point. And this came in because YOU mentioned about reading Hani's book and Ali(ra) being unhappy due to other Khulafa preceding him, hence I brought up the quote of Ali(ra) from the same book. So you see it was a follow up from my side.
Infact, The point from where OUR DISCUSSION began was regarding you using the example of Harun(as) and me refuting it, and when I repeatedly reminded you about this ORIGINAL ISSUE on which OUR DISCUSSION was going on, you chose to blame me of changing the topic, which is reactionary. Anyways since you admit that this main topic on which our discussion began, your argument has shortcomings then, that is a fair excuse.
Lastly, as for the excuse that Ali(ra) already knew due to special ilm, then I say that you know it very well that it is a very weak and unacademic excuse to be used in a discussion. If anything as such was real then Prophet(SAWS) would have never given the dawah to Mushrikeen of Makkah, especially the enemies of Islam, such as Abu Jahl and Co, due whom Muslims faced a very hard time which even cost lost of lives for some early Muslims. Infact, (As per your perspective) by remaining silent Ali(ra) has given Sunnis(which includes majority of companions of Ali(ra)] an excuse wherein they cannot be held responsible for disbelieving in his alleged divine appointment, and believing in the Caliphate of three Caliphs before him.
-
Guys DO NOT keep quoting each other's long posts. Makes things visually awkward. Next one to do this will have his entire post deleted.
-
Guys DO NOT keep quoting each other's long posts. Makes things visually awkward. Next one to do this will have his entire post deleted.
I think it would be OK to make 1 or 2 nested reply. More than that, its just a waste of space
-
And also, please explain the difference of Ali (r.a.) carrying out "nahi an al-munkar" in the case of Siffin war with the event of his non-claimant of his imamah during Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman's (r.anhum) reigns.
While he's at it, i also want him to explain the difference between imam ali & hasan "nahi an al-munkar" in regards to mu'awiya (why one fought & another made peace)
-
Lastly, as for the excuse that Ali(ra) already knew due to special ilm, then I say that you know it very well that it is a very weak and unacademic excuse to be used in a discussion. If anything as such was real then Prophet(SAWS) would have never given the dawah to Mushrikeen of Makkah, especially the enemies of Islam, such as Abu Jahl and Co, due whom Muslims faced a very hard time which even cost lost of lives for some early Muslims. Infact, (As per your perspective) by remaining silent Ali(ra) has given Sunnis(which includes majority of companions of Ali(ra)] an excuse wherein they cannot be held responsible for disbelieving in his alleged divine appointment, and believing in the Caliphate of three Caliphs before him.
I don't know why you compared this to the plight of the early Muslims, who were engaging in the daw'ah for Islam against the jahiliyyah Arabs.
That is different from what you yourseld admitted is a ruling by some of your scholars, which claims that one should leave nahi an al munkar if it will lead "fulan" going to a bigger sin. Isn't that what you said?
Yes the mass of the Sunnis who did not know about Imamah due to their jahl of the whole Imamah thing, cannot be held responsible. There are hadiths in our books to prove this.
-
Guys DO NOT keep quoting each other's long posts. Makes things visually awkward. Next one to do this will have his entire post deleted.
I think it would be OK to make 1 or 2 nested reply. More than that, its just a waste of space
I'll reply to you and Hadrami later. Going to celebrate Eid.
-
Next, please eloborate what the different circumstaces in Al-Hussein's (r.a.) case. I love to see Twelvers "logic" in explaining historical events of the past.
And also, please explain the difference of Ali (r.a.) carrying out "nahi an al-munkar" in the case of Siffin war with the event of his non-claimant of his imamah during Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman's (r.anhum) reigns.
While he's at it, i also want him to explain the difference between imam ali & hasan "nahi an al-munkar" in regards to mu'awiya (why one fought & another made peace)
I am sure he has the standard answers for all these cases ready because these questions are discussed very often. What I find more interesting is his statement in the other thread and the case of Abu Bakr and those who refused to pay zakat:
Yes, all their worship is nullified, and they are not our brothers in this religion. No doubt. However, they are Muslims when it comes to tahara, nikah, qisas etc... this is what differs Sunnis from atheists, Christians etc..
If this is the case and those who refused to pay zakat are still Muslims because they stil recited the shahadatayn, how come I don't see any sources with respect to their right and how qisas was guaranteed for them? Did Ali defend the innocent Muslims from the aggressive Muslims? Did he speak up?
When he was finally ruling, did he offer the heirs some compensation? Did he at least apologize? Every time Fadak is mentioned and why Ali didnt restore it, you hear shia's say that they dont take back something forcefully taken. How about these innocent Muslims who have been wrongfully transgressed upon? Were their properties that were taken as spoils of war restored? Was their any blood money paid?
-
Next, please eloborate what the different circumstaces in Al-Hussein's (r.a.) case. I love to see Twelvers "logic" in explaining historical events of the past.
And also, please explain the difference of Ali (r.a.) carrying out "nahi an al-munkar" in the case of Siffin war with the event of his non-claimant of his imamah during Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman's (r.anhum) reigns.
While he's at it, i also want him to explain the difference between imam ali & hasan "nahi an al-munkar" in regards to mu'awiya (why one fought & another made peace)
I am sure he has the standard answers for all these cases ready because these questions are discussed very often. What I find more interesting is his statement in the other thread and the case of Abu Bakr and those who refused to pay zakat:
Of course he will have an answer, shia have answer to ALL questions, after all it is a reactionary sect. That doesnt mean its a sound answer though.
-
This excuse is as preposterous as the excuse of Taqiyyah. On contrary we find that Ali(ra) himself beliieved that he would have fought, had it been that Prophet(SAWS) had ordered anything about Caliphate. And the actions of Ansar regarding Saqifa and their discussions itself is a proof that no one was appointed by Prophet(saws).
Anyways the point is that the preposterous excuse you made goes against the Sunnah of Haroon(as), hence next time don't use he example of Haroon(as) as its against SHiism.
You're sadly changing the topic my friend. The basis of this topic was the assumption (or in my case, belief) that the Prophet had appointed a successor. Not whether he appointed one or not.
Now, you say the duty of Imam Ali (as) - had he indeed been chosen by Allah to lead the Ummah after the Prophet's death - is that he should do nahi an al munkar because his right was snatched off him and the Ummah became deviant, and he just stood there and watched. Therefore, he did not fulfill his obligation.
My reply to this shubha is that nahi an al munkar is dropped according to many Sunnis if it will lead to a bigger evil coming from the sinner.
You said Imam Ali (as) has to experience this first, and I replied that Imam Ali (as) already knows.
As for Prophet Harun (as) - I can say that I have moved on from that argument, as I find that this argument has many shortcomings in this discussions.
What a shallow argument... and yet Al-Hussein insisted on carrying out this "nahi wa munkar" that "led a bigger evil coming from sinners" i.e. brought almost all his family members to destruction...
What a confusing religion...
I find it do simple even a 3 year old can understand it.
1) Imam Ali (as) refrained from calling the people as it would lead to a bigger evil.
2) Imam Al-Husayn (as) did what he did for the greater good for the religion of Allah.
-
And also, please explain the difference of Ali (r.a.) carrying out "nahi an al-munkar" in the case of Siffin war with the event of his non-claimant of his imamah during Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman's (r.anhum) reigns.
While he's at it, i also want him to explain the difference between imam ali & hasan "nahi an al-munkar" in regards to mu'awiya (why one fought & another made peace)
Same reason as the above. Circumstances are different, and when tbe circumstances are different the laws of nahi an al munkar are different. This is proven in both Shi'i and Sunni fiqh.
-
And also, please explain the difference of Ali (r.a.) carrying out "nahi an al-munkar" in the case of Siffin war with the event of his non-claimant of his imamah during Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman's (r.anhum) reigns.
While he's at it, i also want him to explain the difference between imam ali & hasan "nahi an al-munkar" in regards to mu'awiya (why one fought & another made peace)
Same reason as the above. Circumstances are different, and when tbe circumstances are different the laws of nahi an al munkar are different. This is proven in both Shi'i and Sunni fiqh.
What Ali ra did make more sense, I cant see how hasan ra giving authority of a muslim ummah to a kafir (according to shia) is a form of "nahi an al-munkar". Please do explain it in detail. I know shia always have a reply to everything no matter how ridiculous the reply is :D
-
You're sadly changing the topic my friend. The basis of this topic was the assumption (or in my case, belief) that the Prophet had appointed a successor. Not whether he appointed one or not.
Now, you say the duty of Imam Ali (as) - had he indeed been chosen by Allah to lead the Ummah after the Prophet's death - is that he should do nahi an al munkar because his right was snatched off him and the Ummah became deviant, and he just stood there and watched. Therefore, he did not fulfill his obligation.
My reply to this shubha is that nahi an al munkar is dropped according to many Sunnis if it will lead to a bigger evil coming from the sinner.
You said Imam Ali (as) has to experience this first, and I replied that Imam Ali (as) already knows.
As for Prophet Harun (as) - I can say that I have moved on from that argument, as I find that this argument has many shortcomings in this discussions.
What a shallow argument... and yet Al-Hussein insisted on carrying out this "nahi wa munkar" that "led a bigger evil coming from sinners" i.e. brought almost all his family members to destruction...
What a confusing religion...
I find it do simple even a 3 year old can understand it.
1) Imam Ali (as) refrained from calling the people as it would lead to a bigger evil.
2) Imam Al-Husayn (as) did what he did for the greater good for the religion of Allah.
Yeah, broad and generic reasons without any details. The level of understanding for a 3-year old kid...
-
I find it do simple even a 3 year old can understand it.
1) Imam Ali (as) refrained from calling the people as it would lead to a bigger evil.
By, bigger evil you mean the Sahaba apostating and starting the idol worship again, as you mention in your earlier posts. The evidence for this claim is the alleged "SPECIAL ILM" of Ali(ra), and it seems that you have inherited some of it, due to which you came know about the excuse of Ali(RA).
But the claim you made from the "special ilm" you inherited goes against Quran, because we don't find in Quran that people turning away from Islam or people apostating would harm Islam in anyway. On the contrary Allah informs us that if people turn away from Islam or turn back from following some commands of Islam, the Allah says that He will replace such people with better people.
We read:
O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah's Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.[5:54].
Behold! you are those who are called upon to spend in Allah's way, but among you are those who are niggardly, and whoever is niggardly is niggardly against his own soul; and Allah is Self-sufficient and you have need (of Him), and if you turn back He will bring in your place another people, then they will not be like you.[47:38]
If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things.[9:39]
But if you turn back, then indeed I have delivered to you the message with which I have been sent to you, and my Lord will bring another people in your place, and you cannot do Him any harm; surely my Lord is the Preserver of all things.[11:57].
As for Protection of Islam, then Islam was already destined to be dominant, whether people apostate or not, if they would have apostated then Allah would replace them with better people, yet Islam would remain dominant.
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse. [61:9]
In commentary for this verse, Imam Ahmad recorded from Tamim Ad-Dari that he said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying:
«لَيَبْلُغَنَّ هَذَا الْأَمْرُ مَا بَلَغَ اللَّيْلُ وَالنَّهَارُ، وَلَا يَتْرُكُ اللهُ بَيْتَ مَدَرٍ وَلَا وَبَرٍ إِلَّا أَدْخَلَهُ هَذَا الدِّينَ، يُعِزُّ عَزِيزًا وَيُذِلُّ ذَلِيلًا، عِزًّا يُعِزُّ اللهُ بِهِ الْإِسْلَامَ وَذُلًّا يُذِلُّ اللهُ بِهِ الْكُفْر»
(This matter (Islam) will keep spreading as far as the night and day reach, until Allah will not leave a house made of mud or hair, but will make this religion enter it, while bringing might to a mighty person (a Muslim) and humiliation to a disgraced person (who rejects Islam). Might with which Allah elevates Islam (and its people) and disgrace with which Allah humiliates disbelief (and its people).) Tamim Ad-Dari ﴿who was a Christian before Islam﴾ used to say, "I have come to know the meaning of this Hadith in my own people. Those who became Muslims among them acquired goodness, honor and might. Disgrace, humiliation and Jizyah befell those who remained disbelievers. [Tafseer ibn Katheer]
Now the Question to you is that, why didn't Ali(ra) let the evil people who corrupted Islam get replaced with better people, as Allah(swt) promised? Like Haroon(AS), He should have implemented the obligation of Amr bil Maroof and Nahi al Munkar, and if the evil people would have left Islam, Allah would have replaced them with better people.
NOTE: We Sunnis believe that certain people did apostate after Prophet(SAWS), and the Sunni Caliph Abu Bakr(Ra) did believe in the promise Allah made, hence Allah did fulfill his promise.
-
I find it do simple even a 3 year old can understand it.
1) Imam Ali (as) refrained from calling the people as it would lead to a bigger evil.
By, bigger evil you mean the Sahaba apostating and starting the idol worship again, as you mention in your earlier posts. The evidence for this claim is the alleged "SPECIAL ILM" of Ali(ra), and it seems that you have inherited some of it, due to which you came know about the excuse of Ali(RA).
But the claim you made from the "special ilm" you inherited goes against Quran, because we don't find in Quran that people turning away from Islam or people apostating would harm Islam in anyway. On the contrary Allah informs us that if people turn away from Islam or turn back from following some commands of Islam, the Allah says that He will replace such people with better people.
We read:
O you who believe! whoever from among you turns back from his religion, then Allah will bring a people, He shall love them and they shall love Him, lowly before the believers, mighty against the unbelievers, they shall strive hard in Allah's way and shall not fear the censure of any censurer; this is Allah's Face, He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing.[5:54].
Behold! you are those who are called upon to spend in Allah's way, but among you are those who are niggardly, and whoever is niggardly is niggardly against his own soul; and Allah is Self-sufficient and you have need (of Him), and if you turn back He will bring in your place another people, then they will not be like you.[47:38]
If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things.[9:39]
But if you turn back, then indeed I have delivered to you the message with which I have been sent to you, and my Lord will bring another people in your place, and you cannot do Him any harm; surely my Lord is the Preserver of all things.[11:57].
As for Protection of Islam, then Islam was already destined to be dominant, whether people apostate or not, if they would have apostated then Allah would replace them with better people, yet Islam would remain dominant.
He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse. [61:9]
In commentary for this verse, Imam Ahmad recorded from Tamim Ad-Dari that he said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying:
«لَيَبْلُغَنَّ هَذَا الْأَمْرُ مَا بَلَغَ اللَّيْلُ وَالنَّهَارُ، وَلَا يَتْرُكُ اللهُ بَيْتَ مَدَرٍ وَلَا وَبَرٍ إِلَّا أَدْخَلَهُ هَذَا الدِّينَ، يُعِزُّ عَزِيزًا وَيُذِلُّ ذَلِيلًا، عِزًّا يُعِزُّ اللهُ بِهِ الْإِسْلَامَ وَذُلًّا يُذِلُّ اللهُ بِهِ الْكُفْر»
(This matter (Islam) will keep spreading as far as the night and day reach, until Allah will not leave a house made of mud or hair, but will make this religion enter it, while bringing might to a mighty person (a Muslim) and humiliation to a disgraced person (who rejects Islam). Might with which Allah elevates Islam (and its people) and disgrace with which Allah humiliates disbelief (and its people).) Tamim Ad-Dari ﴿who was a Christian before Islam﴾ used to say, "I have come to know the meaning of this Hadith in my own people. Those who became Muslims among them acquired goodness, honor and might. Disgrace, humiliation and Jizyah befell those who remained disbelievers. [Tafseer ibn Katheer]
Now the Question to you is that, why didn't Ali(ra) let the evil people who corrupted Islam get replaced with better people, as Allah(swt) promised? Like Haroon(AS), He should have implemented the obligation of Amr bil Maroof and Nahi al Munkar, and if the evil people would have left Islam, Allah would have replaced them with better people.
NOTE: We Sunnis believe that certain people did apostate after Prophet(SAWS), and the Sunni Caliph Abu Bakr(Ra) did believe in the promise Allah made, hence Allah did fulfill his promise.
So wait, put yourself in that scenario. There is a group of Muslims that are drinking alcohol, about 40 of them. You want to do nahi an al munkar, but you know if you do, they will all turn apostates. What would you do?
-
So wait, put yourself in that scenario. There is a group of Muslims that are drinking alcohol, about 40 of them. You want to do nahi an al munkar, but you know if you do, they will all turn apostates. What would you do?
I would certainly do it. I won't hide from them the command of their Lord- Allah(swt).
Allah Most High states in the Qur’an:
-“Verily those who conceal that which We have revealed of clear signs and guidance, after We have made it clear for people in the Book – on them shall be Allah’s curse, and the curse of those who curse. Except those who repent, make amends, and make manifest [the truth]; to them I relent, for I am Oft-returning, Most Merciful” [2:159-60]
-“Surely, those who conceal that which Allah has revealed of the Book and take for it a small price – they eat nothing into their bellies but fire. Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them; and they shall have a painful chastisement.” [2:174]
-“And when Allah took a covenant with those who were given the Book: ‘You shall certainly make it known to mankind and shall not hide it.’ But they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it – how vile is that which they gained thereby.” [3:187]
And as for the fear that some people will apostate, then Allah will not hold me answerable for that, they will be answerable for themselves. Alcohol is a bigger thing, we have an example where Prophet Muhammad(saws) didn't care about people apostating because of his Isra and Mira'j miracle. He would have hidden it from them, but during the time when Muslims were very few Prophet(saws) didn't compromise.
-
So wait, put yourself in that scenario. There is a group of Muslims that are drinking alcohol, about 40 of them. You want to do nahi an al munkar, but you know if you do, they will all turn apostates. What would you do?
I would certainly do it. I won't hide from them the command of their Lord- Allah(swt).
Allah Most High states in the Qur’an:
-“Verily those who conceal that which We have revealed of clear signs and guidance, after We have made it clear for people in the Book – on them shall be Allah’s curse, and the curse of those who curse. Except those who repent, make amends, and make manifest [the truth]; to them I relent, for I am Oft-returning, Most Merciful” [2:159-60]
-“Surely, those who conceal that which Allah has revealed of the Book and take for it a small price – they eat nothing into their bellies but fire. Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them; and they shall have a painful chastisement.” [2:174]
-“And when Allah took a covenant with those who were given the Book: ‘You shall certainly make it known to mankind and shall not hide it.’ But they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it – how vile is that which they gained thereby.” [3:187]
And as for the fear that some people will apostate, then Allah will not hold me answerable for that, they will be answerable for themselves. Alcohol is a bigger thing, we have an example where Prophet Muhammad(saws) didn't care about people apostating because of his Isra and Mira'j miracle. He would have hidden it from them, but during the time when Muslims were very few Prophet(saws) didn't compromise.
So do you think Ibn Taymiyya's fatwa contradicts the Holy Qur'an?
-
So wait, put yourself in that scenario. There is a group of Muslims that are drinking alcohol, about 40 of them. You want to do nahi an al munkar, but you know if you do, they will all turn apostates. What would you do?
I would certainly do it. I won't hide from them the command of their Lord- Allah(swt).
Allah Most High states in the Qur’an:
-“Verily those who conceal that which We have revealed of clear signs and guidance, after We have made it clear for people in the Book – on them shall be Allah’s curse, and the curse of those who curse. Except those who repent, make amends, and make manifest [the truth]; to them I relent, for I am Oft-returning, Most Merciful” [2:159-60]
-“Surely, those who conceal that which Allah has revealed of the Book and take for it a small price – they eat nothing into their bellies but fire. Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them; and they shall have a painful chastisement.” [2:174]
-“And when Allah took a covenant with those who were given the Book: ‘You shall certainly make it known to mankind and shall not hide it.’ But they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it – how vile is that which they gained thereby.” [3:187]
And as for the fear that some people will apostate, then Allah will not hold me answerable for that, they will be answerable for themselves. Alcohol is a bigger thing, we have an example where Prophet Muhammad(saws) didn't care about people apostating because of his Isra and Mira'j miracle. He would have hidden it from them, but during the time when Muslims were very few Prophet(saws) didn't compromise.
So do you think Ibn Taymiyya's fatwa contradicts the Holy Qur'an?
I can't be certain on this, because for this case one needs to prove that, Ibn Taymiyyah never tried Tatars from drinking wine. It could be that, he tried at a point of time and it was of no use, based on that experience, he preferred to remain silent. Since, he might have believed that he had already established the hujjah, and now it was more appropriate to remain silent, from the experience he gained about the behaviour of Tatars.