According to the doomed Khomeini, the Prophet (S) failed

[Kalaam]

Khomeini says in his book 'Kashaf ul Asrar':

Based on these evidences and plenty of narrations, we come to know that the Prophet (S) feared the people in preaching the Imamate of Ali. And if any person studies the history books of history and narrations, then he will come to know that the fear of the Prophet (S) was rational. But God had given him order to convey the important instructions and orders and promised to protect him, and the Prophet (S) did convey the order (regarding the Imamate) and tried till the last time of his life, but the opposition didn't let him fulfil the job.
Kashaf ul Asrar, p. 130-131

[iceman]

Khomeini says in his book 'Kashaf ul Asrar':

The Prophet s.a.w failed? What, according to Khomeini only? The Prophet s.a.w also failed according to you. The Prophet s.a.w took the oath of allegiance from others by managing to convince people to become Muslims. Either the Prophet s.a.w made people to become Muslim or people started to enter Islam because of Muhammad s.a.w.

But according to you and your sect Muhammad s.a.w absolutely failed in getting Abu Talib to enter Islam. So if I was you I'd be very careful in mentioning and highlighting failure of the Prophet s.a.w. when you believe in it so dearly.

[Rationalist]

Th issue is the 12er Shia say the Mahdi will succeed. Even in our books it says he will bring justice on the entire planet. This again did not happen in the time of Prophet(pbuh).

[iceman]

Th issue is the 12er Shia say the Mahdi will succeed. Even in our books it says he will bring justice on the entire planet. This again did not happen in the time of Prophet(pbuh).

"Even in our books it says he will bring justice on the entire planet"

So are the Sunnis going to conclude that the Prophet s.a.w failed. Or what the Prophet s.a.w preached and the message he spread didn't work. Or where have or are things going to go wrong and why?

[Rationalist]

"Even in our books it says he will bring justice on the entire planet"

So are the Sunnis going to conclude that the Prophet s.a.w failed. Or what the Prophet s.a.w preached and the message he spread didn't work. Or where have or are things going to go wrong and why?

There are two extremes on this. The popular Sunni opinion is after the liberation of Makkah all the Makkans sincerely accepted Islam. Then we have the popular 12er Shia opinion which states whoever wasn't Shia among the sahaba were monafiqs pretending to be Muslim. Then we have this Mahdi coming where everything is supposed to be fixed.

[iceman]

There are two extremes on this. The popular Sunni opinion is after the liberation of Makkah all the Makkans sincerely accepted Islam. Then we have the popular 12er Shia opinion which states whoever wasn't Shia among the sahaba were monafiqs pretending to be Muslim. Then we have this Mahdi coming where everything is supposed to be fixed.

"The popular Sunni opinion is after the liberation of Makkah all the Makkans sincerely accepted Islam"

Ok. So how did they come to this conclusion that after the liberation of Makkah all, meaning every single individual, sincerely accepted Islam. The intention of every single individual was 100% pure and true.

"Then we have the popular 12er Shia opinion which states whoever wasn't Shia among the sahaba were monafiqs pretending to be Muslim"

Hang on a minute. One step at a time. Lets deal with the first opinion, that the intention of every single Makkan individual was 100% pure and true after the liberation of Makkah.

[Kalaam]

The Prophet s.a.w failed? What, according to Khomeini only? The Prophet s.a.w also failed according to you. The Prophet s.a.w took the oath of allegiance from others by managing to convince people to become Muslims. Either the Prophet s.a.w made people to become Muslim or people started to enter Islam because of Muhammad s.a.w.

But according to you and your sect Muhammad s.a.w absolutely failed in getting Abu Talib to enter Islam. So if I was you I'd be very careful in mentioning and highlighting failure of the Prophet s.a.w. when you believe in it so dearly.

This is very shameful on your part to consider the Prophet (S) to have failed. What is failure or success according to your criterion? Is it the embracing of Islam by all people? If that is your criterion, then you need to check your standards. For us, he was successful. For you, he failed (nauzu billah). We consider him to have succeeded. Because we consider that he was successful in his mission. He successfully conveyed the message of Islam. And he established the basis for Islam's fort in Medina, which was successfully defended by his followers. This is his success, we can't say he failed just because Mr. XYZ didn't embrace Islam. This is a ridiculous criterion, which can only be considered valid by a person who follows a sadistic cult, and whose purpose of life is very limited. How dare you think like that while you claim to be a Muslim? It's ridiculous, unacceptable.

[Rationalist]

"The popular Sunni opinion is after the liberation of Makkah all the Makkans sincerely accepted Islam"

Ok. So how did they come to this conclusion that after the liberation of Makkah all, meaning every single individual, sincerely accepted Islam. The intention of every single individual was 100% pure and true.

The Sunni mosques want to tell us that everything was good, and therefore we should be good too. They think reality will cause issues. The first time, I heard the name Muawiyah was when I was 14. Then I started getting more details about him when I was 20. Also, the general popular opinion is that there were over 100,000 sahaba in the end, and that one can even reach the status of the dust they walked on.

[Kalaam]

The Sunni mosques want to tell us that everything was good, and therefore we should be good too. They think reality will cause issues. The first time, I heard the name Muawiyah was when I was 14. Then I started getting more details about him when I was 20. Also, the general popular opinion is that there were over 100,000 sahaba in the end, and that one can even reach the status of the dust they walked on.
 

Is your understanding limited edition? Even the Shias say that some real issues cause issues, so much so that there is a narration in Shia books that Imam Jafar said, "By Allah, if abu Dhar knew what was in the heart of Salam he would have killed him even though the Messenger of Allah had formed brotherhood between them. What then would you think of the rest of the people?" Source - al-Kafi, by Kulayni.

Some issues definitely arose after the death of the Prophet (S). But the way they were tackled by his followers was unprecedented. Did any bloodshed happen at Saqifah? Rather a discussion occurred in the gathering, and the Ansars agreed with the Muhajireen, and left their own claimant to caliphate. And look at how you guys try to portray this great event as 'oppression'. If it was not for Abu Bakr and Umar, then it is hundred percent sure that no one in the followers of the Prophet (S) would have come to an agreement with the Ansar and stop one of them from claiming leadership of the whole Muslims.

I don't know what the Shias have got to do with Saqifah. Their concept of caliphate was doomed in both ways. Either Sa'd ibn Ubadah was going to become caliph or Abu Bakr was going to become caliph. Ansars didn't gather in Saqifah to make Ali the caliph of the Muslims. This is a reality check. If you are a rationalist, ponder over it at sober times.

[Rationalist]

Is your understanding limited edition? Even the Shias say that some real issues cause issues, so much so that there is a narration in Shia books that Imam Jafar said, "By Allah, if abu Dhar knew what was in the heart of Salam he would have killed him even though the Messenger of Allah had formed brotherhood between them. What then would you think of the rest of the people?" Source - al-Kafi, by Kulayni.

Some issues definitely arose after the death of the Prophet (S). But the way they were tackled by his followers was unprecedented. Did any bloodshed happen at Saqifah? Rather a discussion occurred in the gathering, and the Ansars agreed with the Muhajireen, and left their own claimant to caliphate. And look at how you guys try to portray this great event as 'oppression'. If it was not for Abu Bakr and Umar, then it is hundred percent sure that no one in the followers of the Prophet (S) would have come to an agreement with the Ansar and stop one of them from claiming leadership of the whole Muslims.

I don't know what the Shias have got to do with Saqifah. Their concept of caliphate was doomed in both ways. Either Sa'd ibn Ubadah was going to become caliph or Abu Bakr was going to become caliph. Ansars didn't gather in Saqifah to make Ali the caliph of the Muslims. This is a reality check. If you are a rationalist, ponder over it at sober times.

Im just talking about how success is viewed in exaguarted ways for both schools. I think Khomeini believed success will come with the 12th Imam.