Anybody with a bit of sense and a straight mind knows that this proves Abu Talib was a believer.
You could not prove Imamah and now you are out to go against the Qur'an in which there is a verse which was revealed when Abu Talib refused to accept Islam.
Allah is giving the Prophet s.a.w refuge, how? By placing him in the hands of a disbeliever, a mushrik? Is this Allah's refuge?
Allah (swt) had Musa (asws) grow up in the palace of Firaun, probably the worst human being.
We think with sense and logic. You think with emotions and feelings.
I just proved the opposite; you think with emotions and feelings and we go by sense and logic within Islam.
So the Prophet s.a.w, and not a normal Prophet but the greatest out of 124,000, was raised and nourished by a MUSHRIK?
Perfect example of appealing to emotions! You cannot account for Musa (asws). Furthermore, Allah (swt) says that He (Himself) provided refuge. Allah (swt) is taking the credit so I do not see how Abu Talib fits in this verse except you are trying hard to squeeze him in.
"Surely Allah does not forgive that anything should be associated with him, and forgives what is besides that to whomsoever He pleases, and whoever associates anything with Allah, he devises indeed a great sin.” (Surah an-Nisā’ 4:48)
So according to the Ahle Sunnah the Prophet s.a.w was placed in the hands of a MUSHRIK, a sinner. He (saw) was raised by a MUSHRIK.
Where does the verse say anything about being placed in the hands of a Mushrik and being raised by one? Again, please account for Musa (asws) who has been mentioned in the Qur'an over 130 times; one of the mightiest Prophets of Allah (swt).
OK, who read Muhammad's saw Nikah? Do you Ahle Sunnah also believe that this Mushrik read the nikah of the Prophet s.a.w?
At the time of the nikah of the Prophet (saw) with Sayyidah Khadijah (ra), the Prophet (saw) was 25 years old whereas he announced Prophethood at the age 40. The nikah to Khadijah (ra) was conducted 15 years before the announcement of Prophethood, therefore, the rules of Islam were not in place, as Prophethood was not announced and the revelation of the Qur’an had not yet started.
What did Ali say? I will not be the person to rub it out.
So Imam Ali (ra) "disobeyed" the Prophet (saw). On the other hand, Allah (swt) says:
Surah Aal-e-Imran verse 32 Say, "Obey Allah and the Prophet, but if they turn back, then verily Allah does not love the disbelievers"
Surah Anfal verse 20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)."
Why did Ali say that?
Oh, so when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) "disobedience", there is an explanation. So why can't you be as generous when it comes to Umar (ra) and accept our reasoning? Double-standards much!
Because he saw that as an insult to the Prophet s.a.w. So was this disobedience on Ali's behalf? Would you see this as disobedience or would you see this as loyalty to Allah and his Messenger s.a.w.
And Umar (ra) saw that the Prophet (saw) was deteriorating in health. So was it disobedience on Umar's (ra) behalf? Would you see this as disobedience or would you see this as concern for the Prophet's (saw) health?
Ali didn't object to the treaty of Hudaibiya. Umar objected to it. Ali didn't try to prevent the treaty of Hudaibiya. Umar tried to obstruct and prevent it. Because he wasn't in favour of it.
So here comes the hypocrisy! If the Prophet (saw) would not have erased those words, the treaty would not have taken shape which would have spelled disaster for the Muslims.
Also, let us not forget that Imam Ali (ra) was present in the room but did not bring pen and paper. So blame your first "infallible" Imam (ra) for failing to hearken the plea of the Prophet (saw).
Oh, and by the way, the Prophet (saw) was alive for another three days and he delivered sermons. He (saw) never revealed what you think he would have dictated (to be written down on Thursday).
Umar disagreed and wasn't happy and in favour of the treaty.
As were many other Muslims who had left Madinah with the firm intention of entering Makkah and doing Umrah. They felt beaten and crushed.
Umar: If we are, then why are we surrendering to the pagans in a matter relating to our faith?
Abu Bakr: He is God's Messenger, and you must not meddle in this matter.
Alhamdulilah! Your evidence proves that Abu Bakr (ra) had strong eemaan. I will get to Umar (ra) in a bit but first let us complete the rest of the conversation.
Umar ibn al-Khattab asked Abu Bakr angrily, "Did not the Messenger(sallallahu alaiyhi wassallam) of Allah say to us that we were going to go to the Ka’bah and perform tawaf?" Abu Bakr (ra) replied, "Yes but did he tell you that it was going to be this very year!" Umar (ra) replied in the negative so Abu Bakr (ra) assured him, "You will go there and you will do tawaf."
Again, Alhamdulilah, thumma Alhamdulilah. You have substantiated that Abu Bakr (ra) was "As-Siddeeq".
The terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya had generated grave doubts in his mind, so he said: “I repeatedly questioned the Prophet regarding the terms of this treaty, and I had never before talked with him in this manner.”
This is an utter lie! Realizing that his outburst did not please the Prophet (saw), Umar (ra) was in tears saying he is destroyed. There is no authentic report which says that he "repeatedly questioned the Prophet (saw)". You are quoting Al-Islam, a Shi'i website, which borrows this lie from certain "R.V.C. Bodley" individual
without actually mentioning his work (in other words, there is no name of a book or anything).I researched R.V.C. Bodley and he was a "a British Army officer, author and journalist".
This is the disingenuous tactic of Shias; borrowing from a non-Muslim journalist, lol.
To console Umar (ra) and rest of the disheartened Muslims, Allah (swt) revealed the following verse:
"Surely We have given you a clear victory, that Allah may forgive you your former and later sins, and complete His blessing on you and guide you on a straight path and that Allah may help you with a mighty help." (Qur'an 48: 1-3)
Allah (swt) reveals verses to console Umar (ra) and others but Shias would not spare him from their curses. And then they wonder why certain Muslims make takfeer on them.
It is really strange that Umar was unwilling to risk his life by visiting Makkah.
Imam Ali (ra) did not go either so it is really strange that he, too, was unwilling to risk his life.
As a Sunni we say "A'uzobillah" meaning "we seek refuge with Allah" but as a Sunni we believe Muhammad s.a.w took refuge with a Mushrik.
Playing dumb is your trademark move but I am hoping that inside your empty head, you know the difference between Satan and a mushrik.
Keep running from my point regarding Musa (asws) raised in Firaun's palace.