2. REFUTATION BY A SHIA SCHOLAR
Yes, ironically the second refutation is by a Shia scholar. Ayatullah Kamal Al-Haydari seems to start using his brain and brings a very strong argument as to why the apparently logical and strong Shia argument ("How can the Prophet leave the world without a successor") is actually anything but strong and this will not just become clear for any truth-seeker by actually analysing the TRUE Sunni stance (which is NOT the naive claim that the Prophet just left the world without preparing anything, that's the Shia accusation, the Sunni position is that the Prophet PREPARED his companions with ALL neccass. knowledge to appoint a successor after him and in future!)
but rather by contemp. Shia politics that prove the Sunni methodology politically and ethnically (and religiously anyway, as per our sources) right.Here the video:
Here a quite detailed summary (in bullet point):
- He says that the Sunni will ask us that it is us the Shia (Rawafid) who claim that acc. to customs, logic etc. it is impossible that any leader, let alone the Prophet (SAWS) leaves the world without clearly appointing a leader.
- He says this is one of the strongest arguments the Shias have (but wait how he will destroy this argument by his own hands)
- The accursed enemy of Allah and kafir Al-Haydari then says that it is us Shias who say it is unlogical (that the Prophet did not appoint a successor), especially keeping in mind that Islam around the time of the Prophet's (SAWS) demise was in a dangerous state, surrounded by enemies, like the hypocrites. He then explicitely says that the hypocrites (worse than any Mushrik kafir) were those who became caliphs straight after Rasulullah (SAWS) i.e. Abu Bakr, Omar etc. As for the enemies outside Arabia then he mentions Rome and his masters the Majoosi Persians.
- Based on the aforementioned he says that we (the Shias) say to our opponents (the Sunnis): The Prophet (SAWS) who did not even leave Madinah without appointed a deputy, does it make sense then that he left the Ummah after his demise without a successor?!!?
- He goes on saying that this famous Shia argument ("How can the Prophet leave the world without a successor") is also an essential part of the concept of "Wilayat Al-Faqih" (Guardianship of the Jurist or Providence of the Jurist (Arabic: ولاية الفقيه, Wilayat al Faqih) is a post-Age-of-Occultation theory in Shiism which holds that during the occultation of their 12th Imam the faqīh (Islamic jurist) has custodianship over people i.e. he is his deputy!)
- He further goes on (on the often ignored and in fact biggest flaw of Shiism that proves THEIR hypocracy) saying that the Shias themselves (after the demise of the 11th Imam) where left without an infallible GUIDE who is GUIDING (and not hiding), their hidden saviour is in occultation so in modern times Shias (like Khomeini, Montazeri) invented the concept of "Wilayat Al-Faqih" i.e. Guardianship of the Jurist in the absence of the 12th Imam i.e. basically his deputy.
-
(Now he start destroying the foundation of this Shia argument that seems to be strong outwardly yet it's more muddy than the mud of Karbala' where the Rawafidh use to soak themselves into): It seems that he reads from a Sunni book (a scholars refuting Shiism), there he reads a part where the Sunni scholar says that the famous Shia argument ("How can the Prophet leave the world without a successor") seems to be apparently strong but in reality it is anything but that and the irony is that Al-Haydari is proving the weakness of this argument to his students (probably to prevent them using it in future like the Jahil Shia masses and even scholars):
- He reads the argument of the (I guess) Sunni scholar who basically will counter back by saying that first of all if the Shias use this argument as a "Dharurah" (necessity) then LOGICALLY they must apply it (the argument) in all instances and for all times. Secondly the Shia argument is nothing but a "Nadhariyyah" and not the absolute truth, this is (as Al-Haydari says) because every Sunni can LOGICALLY destroy that argument in the case of the Prophet (SAWS) NOT having appointed a successor by some few but strong points which are the following:
1. You Shias have Soo' Al-Dhann (bad opinion) about the MAJORITY of the companions in general whereas the Prophet (SAWS) had a good opinion about them (i.e. he trusted them).
2. Hence your (apparently logical) Shia argument is based upon a FALSE PREMISE i.e. that the majority of the Sahaba (as special his closest companions!) were a bunch of Dunya-Seeking Munafiqs and traitors!
3. The Prophet (SAWS) on the other hand trusted them and KNEW (due to his upringing of them) that they will not betray him and gather upon the best man after him (at Saqifah and then later the majority of the Sahaba gave the Bay3a to Abu Bakr) i.e. Islam did NOT become leaderless, the Prophet DID prepare everything and his companions gathered upon the best man after him (without him appointing him).
-
(Now it gets interesting again, now Al-Haydari moves on brining a contemp. political reality of the very country that he resides in into the discussion, proving that the Shia argument is not just weak, but also quite hypocritical in the light of their OWN system and the decisions of their OWN modern day leaders!): Al-Haydari addressing the Iranians (and Arabs who lived for a long time in Iran) in the room (he lives in Qom for over two decades or more) saying that they should know better how bad of an argument the famous line of the Shia is ("How can the Prophet leave the world without a successor").
- He brings the example of the kafir Khomeini. Al-Haydari the Munafiq sends blessing upon him as if Khomeini is some sort of angel he says may Allah sanctify Khomeini's soul! Remember, this is the same Munafiq who a few lines before accused the absolute majority of the Sahaba of being traitors and Munafiq Kafirs who usurped the Caliphate! Those who were generally praised by Allah are Munafiqs but a mass murdering pagan like Khomeini is supposed to have a holy soul!!!! Khomeini who said:
"إن الذين لم يكن لهم ارتباط بالإسلام والقرآن إلا لأجل الرئاسة والدنيا ، و كانوا يجعلون القرآن وسيلة لمقاصدهم الفاسدة ، كان من الممكن أن يحرفوا هذا الكتاب السماوي في حالة ذكر اسم الإمام في القرآن و أن يمسحوا هذه الآيات منه و أن يلصقوا وصمة العار هذه على حياة المسلمين"
كشف الأسرار ( ص 114 ).
Those (referring to sahaba) who
had no attachment with Islam and Qur'an except for sake of Leadership and the World, and used to make Qur'an a means for their corrupt goals, it was possible for them to alter this Heavenly Book (Qur'an) whenever the name of Imam in Qur'an was mentioned, and erase those verses and attach stigma and shame on the lives of muslims.
(Kashful Asrar Page 114)
Anyways, he says that
Khomeini himself did NOT appoint an successor!- Now Al-Haydari directs all the questions that Shias normally direct to Sunnis to his students, asking them if they (Shias) can now accuse Khomeini of acting irrational, not caring about the revolution etc.
- Al-Haydari provides the answer that every Shia who defends Khomeini will bring and says that of course we (the Shia) will argue that Khomeini did not act irrational nor wasn't he careless about the revolution when he did NOT appoint a successor, rather the people SURROUNDING him (i.e. HIS Sahabah/companions) were people whom he trusted i.e. he KNEW that they will appoint a SUCCESSOR after him and this what actually happened (i.e. Khomeini's followers did not fall into chaos, rather they were UNITED upon one leader just like the Sahaba under Abu Bakr!)
- At 4:50 he does a bit of a mocking advising his Shias not to be to sure about their apparently strong and logical argument ("How can the Prophet leave the world without a successor") cause as Al-Haydari has proven, it is anything but an invincible argument.
- Finally he says that the Sunni will basically refute you (Shia) by saying that all your (Shia) argument is based on a false premise i.e. that the Sahaba in general (except a tiny number) are not just untrustworthy (ghayr 3udool) but in fact Murtaddeen (apostates) so based on this false premises your Shia house has been built. As for the reality, then we the Sunnis have evidence that the Sahaba (despite not being infallible of course) were still generally trustworthy i.e. the Prophet (SAWS) trusted them just as your Khomeini trusted HIS close companions (Khamenei, Rafsanjani etc.). The Sunni (Al-Haydari says) will argue that the close companions of the Prophet were not just some random people but his close students, with some he spent more than 20 years with, raised them, nutured them, advised them etc.
- He brings a final quote from Khomeini that despite NOT having selected a successor (in the age of Television back in his time where nobody could doubt his message!) Khomeini was very much relaxed, certain and confident in the last stage of his life, this is illustrated by Khomeini's famous statement in his WASIYYAH (testament!) when he said:
ا دلی آرام و قلبی مطمئن و روحی شاد و ضمیری امیدوار به فضل خدا ازخدمت خواهران و برادران مرخص ، و به سوی جایگاه ابدی سفر می كنم
With a peaceful mind, a certain heart, a happy spirit, and a conscience hopeful for God's mercy, I take my leave of all brothers and sisters to journey to the eternal abode.
Source: Last Will and Testamant of Imam Khomeini:
http://www.erfan.ir/article/article.php?id=16171Lastly he goes on challenging Shia scholars to address this "conflict" and objection of Sunnis (probably he will come up with some mumbo jumbo falsafah himself in the near future, after all the Majoos of Iran are feeding him and you don't bite the hand that ...)
8 Replies
7671 Views
April 07, 2016, 01:52:14 PM