Upcoming movie about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

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 

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.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

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 

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

[Mythbuster1]

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 

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

👍👍😂😂

[Mythbuster1]

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 

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

👍👍😂😂

[Mythbuster1]

are these the brothers you talking about?

LOOK what they are doing to hizbullah faggotts

https://youtu.be/gXpJVXfKOqI


😂😂😂

[Hani]

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 

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.

[Hani]

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?

[Hani]

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/

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?

[Hadrami]

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 

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

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

[Mythbuster1]

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

[GreatChineseFall]

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.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[GreatChineseFall]

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.

[MuslimK]

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?

[Hadrami]

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

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

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.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

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.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

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.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

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/