TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: Ijtaba on December 07, 2018, 07:47:04 AM
-
Salaam.
In this forum the concept of Imamah in Shia Islam has been discussed a lot. Ahlul Sunnah criticises that Shi'i concept of Imamah is not found in al-Quran and Hadiths.
I want to know whether concept of Imamah exists in Ahlul Sunnah. If yes, then does such Imamah (Imamah according to Ahlul Sunnah) exists in al-Quran and Hadiths? And secondly what is difference between Imamah, Khilafah & Malookiyat (i.e. Kingship/Monarchy). Are they one & same or different in Ahlul Sunnah?
-
I want to know whether concept of Imamah exists in Ahlul Sunnah. If yes, then does such Imamah (Imamah according to Ahlul Sunnah) exists in al-Quran and Hadiths?
The term Imamah is a Broad term and is used for different positions. If you intend to ask regarding head of the state who runs its affairs, establishing the Islamic law and judging by the Shariah, then yes, the term Imamah can be used in the context too. And its same as Khilafah.
And since Imamah isn't a fuundamental principle in the view of Ahlesunnah, then there isn't any explicit verse or hadeeth which describes it. BUt one can find info about it in bits pieces, in Quraninc implicit verses and ahadeeth, which when gathered can give us a picture.
So which as aspect of Khilafah/Imamah you want to know? if everything, then its a though job, and it requires time to gather info, so may be someone else could help you. If you want to know about a specific aspect of Imamah/Khilafah then, you may ask.
And secondly what is difference between Imamah, Khilafah & Malookiyat (i.e. Kingship/Monarchy). Are they one & same or different in Ahlul Sunnah?
Imamah and Khilafah is answered, as for Kingship then, its when someone is appointed a ruler without the consultation of the people, in case there is no direct command from Allah about appointing him.
Wallahu alam.
-
Salaam.
In this forum the concept of Imamah in Shia Islam has been discussed a lot. Ahlul Sunnah criticises that Shi'i concept of Imamah is not found in al-Quran and Hadiths.
You were unfair in presenting the Sunni Case. You are making it to seem neutral. But the fact is that, Sunnis say that the Shia concept of Imamah is destroyed from Quran and ahadeeth. So don't try to hide the actual Sunni stance by saying, we just say Shia concept of Imamah is absent in Quran.
If you want to know how then refer this:
The Noble Quranic Verse Which Doomed Shi’ite Concept Of Imamate.
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/
-
The term Imamah is a Broad term and is used for different positions. If you intend to ask regarding head of the state who runs its affairs, establishing the Islamic law and judging by the Shariah, then yes, the term Imamah can be used in the context too. And its same as Khilafah.
So according to you Imamah & Khilafah are one and same thing (i.e. they can be used interchangeably)
And since Imamah isn't a fuundamental principle in the view of Ahlesunnah, then there isn't any explicit verse or hadeeth which describes it. BUt one can find info about it in bits pieces, in Quraninc implicit verses and ahadeeth, which when gathered can give us a picture.
So on what basis do people call themselves Imam according to Ahlul Sunnah? For e.g. Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi, etc?
So which as aspect of Khilafah/Imamah you want to know? if everything, then its a though job, and it requires time to gather info, so may be someone else could help you. If you want to know about a specific aspect of Imamah/Khilafah then, you may ask.
I am talking about verses in Quran mentioning Imamah/Khilafah. Are those titles only restricted to Prophets or can non-Prophets also be appointed by ALLAH (SWT) as Imams and Khalifahs?
For e.g. ALLAH (SWT) appointed Nabi Adam (a.s) and Nabi Dawud (a.s) as Khalifahs of Earth and promised to make Righteous people as Khalifahs of Earth.
And ALLAH (SWT) made Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) as Imam of Mankind and promised Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) to make from his (a.s) progeny Imams of Mankind.
Imamah and Khilafah is answered, as for Kingship then, its when someone is appointed a ruler without the consultation of the people, in case there is no direct command from Allah about appointing him.
Wallahu alam.
ALLAH (SWT) has mentioned in al-Quran that it is ALLAH (SWT) who gives Kingdom to whomever HE (SWT) likes. How do you interpret this verse?
-
You were unfair in presenting the Sunni Case. You are making it to seem neutral. But the fact is that, Sunnis say that the Shia concept of Imamah is destroyed from Quran and ahadeeth. So don't try to hide the actual Sunni stance by saying, we just say Shia concept of Imamah is absent in Quran.
If you want to know how then refer this:
The Noble Quranic Verse Which Doomed Shi’ite Concept Of Imamate.
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/
Its better not to assume things and blame others for dishonesty as you don't have knowledge about people's intentions and it's only ALLAH (SWT) who has knowledge of people's intentions.
-
If you want to know how then refer this:
The Noble Quranic Verse Which Doomed Shi’ite Concept Of Imamate.
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/
I read the article and did not find anything which would make me believe that concept of Shi'i Imamat is false (or doomed)
The author argues that Shi'i concept of non-Prophet being Masum (infallibility) does not exist but in Sahih Bukhari there is hadith which clearly mentions about non-Prophet being Masum.
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 306:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "Allah never sends a prophet or gives the Caliphate to a Caliph but that he (the prophet or the Caliph) has two groups of advisors: A group advising him to do good and exhorts him to do it, and the other group advising him to do evil and exhorts him to do it. But the protected person (against such evil advisors) is the one protected by Allah.' "
Ahlul Sunnah believes their Rulers (Imams, Khalifas, Ameers, Kings) were all non-Masum i.e. they were not protected by GOD against group advising them to do evil and exhorting them to do evil.
Lastly, the author mentions about Ulil-Amr. The author misunderstood the concept of Shi'i Imamah. We shias believe that at one time there can be only one Imam. Only after the Imam (a.s) dies he (a.s) is replaced by his (a.s) brother (a.s) or son (a.s) as Imam.
I want to know who according to Ahlul Sunnah are Ulil-Amr? During the lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w.w) was he (s.a.w.w) alone the ruler of Muslim Ummah or were more than one ruler? There is hadith of Prophet (s.a.w.w) which mentions of ruler besides him (s.a.w.w).
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me."
References:
al-Bukhari Book of Judgments #251
al-Bukhari 7137
Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 251
Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book of Judgments, Hadith 251
-
So according to you Imamah & Khilafah are one and same thing (i.e. they can be used interchangeably)
In context to the what I said then yes.
So on what basis do people call themselves Imam according to Ahlul Sunnah? For e.g. Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi, etc?
The problem here is that, you make such foolish arguments, that they put me in a dilemma that whether I should answer such arguments or just ignore them, like i do most of the time, when you argue out of your ignorance, and lack of understanding.
Anyways, I have some free time, so I'll entertain this unworthy arguments. They were spiritual Imams, not political ones. If you read my comment carefully, I clearly stated that the term Imam is quite broad and is used for different position. Even the leader of a prayer in congregation is called Imam. Now your silly argument demands a counter question, on what basis Shia call some people Imam, example Imam Khomeini.
I am talking about verses in Quran mentioning Imamah/Khilafah. Are those titles only restricted to Prophets or can non-Prophets also be appointed by ALLAH (SWT) as Imams and Khalifahs?
For e.g. ALLAH (SWT) appointed Nabi Adam (a.s) and Nabi Dawud (a.s) as Khalifahs of Earth and promised to make Righteous people as Khalifahs of Earth.
If you mean divine appointment, then I disagree with you. These verses you mention are talking about Qadr of Allah. And in this context, every ruler whether good or bad was appointed by Allah.
For example we read in quran:
(It is We Who portion out between them their livelihood in this world, and We raised some of them above others in ranks, so that some may employ others in their work.) (Quran 43:32).
If you are working as a manager in a company, then even that position of authority is given to you
by Allah, but that doesn't mean its divine appointment.
I can quote a lot of Sunni and Shia hadeeth, but I'll keep them for some other time. Let's see some verses of Quran:
THESE VERSES OF QURAN SHOWS THAT DISBELIEVERS WERE MADE KHULAFA(plural of Khalifa).
Said the eminent ones who DISBELIEVED among his people, "Indeed, we see you in foolishness, and indeed, we think you are of the liars."(7:66) [Hud] said, "O my people, there is not foolishness in me, but I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds." (7:67). I convey to you the messages of my Lord, and I am to you a trustworthy adviser.(7:68). Then do you wonder that there has come to you a reminder from your Lord through a man from among you, that he may warn you? And remember when HE MADE YOU KHULAFA after the people of Noah and increased you in stature extensively. So remember the favors of Allah that you might succeed.(7:69)
Similar can be found when we read the verse where Allah said , He made or appointed Imams who invite to hell fire.
And We appointed them leaders(IMAMS) who invite unto the (Hell) Fire and on the Day of Judgment they shall not be helped.(28:41, Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli).
As for the verse regarding Adam(as) you are referring then, it's actually not a divine appointment rather it mentions the Qadr of Allah. Check out the response of the Angels.
(30. And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) khalifa on earth. '' They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You. '' He (Allah) said: "I know that which you do not know. '')
The Angels knew very well that Allah was not taking about divinely appointed caliphs/Imams when he said I will make Khalifa on the earth. If Khalifa stood for divinely appointed imams/caliphs then the Angels would have committed blasphemy as per shia belief by asking this question. Because shias preach that Imams were created before the Angels, And the Imams taught Angels how to worship and other deeds. But here we have Angels suggesting that the Imams will do mischief on earth and will shed blood.
And ALLAH (SWT) made Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) as Imam of Mankind and promised Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) to make from his (a.s) progeny Imams of Mankind.
Here it's not in the context of head of state or a ruler, rather its about making them spiritual examples for the mankind, which makes their followership beyond the Ummah they were sent to.
ALLAH (SWT) has mentioned in al-Quran that it is ALLAH (SWT) who gives Kingdom to whomever HE (SWT) likes. How do you interpret this verse?
The same way you interpret this Shia hadeeth.
عنه، عن ابن محبوب، عن إسحاق بن عمار، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إن الله عزوجل أوحى إلى نبي من أنبيائه في مملكة جبار من الجبارين أن ائت هذا الجبار فقل له: إنني لم أستعملك على سفك الدماء واتخاذ الاموال وإنما استعملتك لتكف عني أصوات المظلومين، فاني لم أدع ظلامتهم وإن كانوا كفارا
It is narrated from him (narrator of the Hadith above) from ibn Mahbub from Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar from abu ‘Abd Allah(as), who has said the following: “Allah, sent revelations to one of His prophets who lived in the time of an oppressive and tyrannical ruler. It said, ‘Tell this tyrant, “I have not given you this opportunity to shed blood and seize properties. I have given you this opportunity only that you hold back the voices of the oppressed from coming to Me. I will not allow any oppression without justice being served, even though they (the oppressed) might be unbelievers.’” (Al-Kafi, vol 2, page 334, H 2649, CH 132, h 14; Majlisi graded it as Muwathaq(reliable) in Miraat ul uqool, vol 10, page 303]
-
Its better not to assume things and blame others for dishonesty as you don't have knowledge about people's intentions and it's only ALLAH (SWT) who has knowledge of people's intentions.
Judgements are made on actions that are apparent. So did I.
-
I read the article and did not find anything which would make me believe that concept of Shi'i Imamat is false (or doomed)
You need to read it multiple times to understand the arguments made, because as i experienced your understanding is toooo weak.
The author argues that Shi'i concept of non-Prophet being Masum (infallibility) does not exist but in Sahih Bukhari there is hadith which clearly mentions about non-Prophet being Masum.
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 306:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "Allah never sends a prophet or gives the Caliphate to a Caliph but that he (the prophet or the Caliph) has two groups of advisors: A group advising him to do good and exhorts him to do it, and the other group advising him to do evil and exhorts him to do it. But the protected person (against such evil advisors) is the one protected by Allah.' "
Ahlul Sunnah believes their Rulers (Imams, Khalifas, Ameers, Kings) were all non-Masum i.e. they were not protected by GOD against group advising them to do evil and exhorting them to do evil.
1.There is no infallibility discussed in this hadeeth.
The hadeeth says:{“But the protected person (against such evil advisors) is the one protected by Allah.” }
This doesn’t mean that Caliphs are protected from every kind of sin. Because if we read the context of the hadeeth then we can clearly see that the protection mentioned there is regarding the specific issue that was mentioned, that is, from the advice of the evil advisers. Allah(swt) would protect that person from the advices of evil advisers, but this doesn’t mean protection from sins or mistakes they would commit. Thus trying to prove infallibility from this report is a failed attempt.
Moreover, the best explanation of a hadeeth is from a similar authentic hadeeth which would further elaborate the issue. Thus here is a similar authentic report which explains this issue.
إذا أراد الله بالأمير خيرا جعل له وزير صدق : إن نسي ذكره وإن ذكر أعانه وإذا أراد به غير ذلك جعل له وزير سوء : إن نسي لم يذكره وإن ذكر لم يعنه
Mother of believers `Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported: The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said, “When Allah desires good for a ruler, He appoints for him a sincere adviser who will remind him if he forgets and helps him if he remembers. When Allah wishes for him the contrary, He appoints for him a bad adviser who will not remind him if he forgets, nor will he help him if he remembers.”
source: al-Albani said “SAHIH” in Sahih al-Jami`.
So from this similar authentic report we came to know that , Allah doesn’t says that all the Caliphs will be protected from such advisers.
We would like to give a small example to further simplify this:
If an Arab got attacked by a group of evil men while walking in the street, and suddenly out of nowhere a police patrol car shows up just on time to save him from their harm, That Arab would say: “`Asamani Allahu minhum.” “عصمني الله منهم”.
In English this means “Allah protected me from them.” or “Allah prevented me from them” because `Ismah means protection simply or prevention. So this narration you quoted simply means in Arabic that Allah will protect the good ruler from the evil opinions of his advisers.
Here is it’s meaning from “Lisan al-`Arab”:
العِصْمة في كلام العرب: المَنْعُ.
وعِصْمةُ الله عَبْدَه: أن يَعْصِمَه مما يُوبِقُه. عَصَمه يَعْصِمُه عَصْماً: منَعَه ووَقَاه.
Easy examples to illustrate:
من حفظ عشر آيات من أول سورة الكهف عصم من فتنة الدجال
Abu al-Darda’ (ra) narrates: The Prophet (SAWS) says: “He who memorizes the first ten verses from Surat al-Kahf, Allah will protect/prevent(`Asamahu) him [from being harmed by] the Fitnah of al-Dajjal.
source: Sahih Muslim.
من قرأ آيةَ الكُرسيِّ . و وأوَّلَ حم المؤمنُ ، عُصِمَ ذلِك اليومَ من كلِّ سوءٍ
Abu Huraira (ra) narrates: The Prophet (SAWS) said: “He who recites Ayat-ul-Kursi. and the beginning of Ha-Meem al-Mu’min, he will be prevented/protected(`Usima) from any evil on that day.”
source: al-Futouhat al-Rabbaniyyah.
So infallibility in the understanding and language of the Arabs is one thing, and infallibility which the Shias talk about is a completely different matter altogether.
Moreover, had it been that Ali(ra) was appointed as Caliph as ‘you’ wants to portray, then there weren’t any advisers of Ali(ra) during the period when Abubakr(ra), Umar(ra) and Uthman(ra) ruled the Ummah, infact Ali(ra) was himself their adviser, which the hadeeth signifies.
Taken from:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/part-2-a-multi-angular-refutation-of-shiite-views-on-ulil-amr/
Lastly, the author mentions about Ulil-Amr. The author misunderstood the concept of Shi'i Imamah. We shias believe that at one time there can be only one Imam. Only after the Imam (a.s) dies he (a.s) is replaced by his (a.s) brother (a.s) or son (a.s) as Imam.
This argument clearly demonstrates two things, one is that that you haven't read the article, and other is that you are extremely poor in understanding. Let me quote an extract from the same article again:
And when there comes to them news of security or fear they spread it abroad; and if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the Shaitan save a few. [Quran 4:83]
Response:
(b). The verse quoted actually back fires the Shia belief, because it says in Arabic minhum(مِنْهُمْ) =among them. The word “Minhum” at the end signifies a group out of the whole. Which implies that among “Ulil Amr” are some who would know, meaning:
{…if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it…}
If the people referred the matter to those in authority from among them, then those among THEM who can draw correct conclusions would have known it. MEANING, among those in authority are THOSE who can draw correct conclusions, therefore a group from those in authority may not necessarily draw correct conclusions. Which means not necessarily all Ulil-Amr would know how to deal with the issue. Which conflicts with infallibility.
(c). This verse is like a probability, having a conditional particle (لَوْ/if), which says, {“if they had referred it to….would have known it”}. This conditional statement is made in the context of people who had spread confidential news or rumors, and it reprimands them for their action and suggests what they should have done. It means this verse was revealed in reference to events that occurred in the past, and then it suggests people that they should have referred the Messenger and those in authority(Ulil Amr) during those events in the past. This implies that, even during those events before the verse revealed, Ulil Amr(those in authority) were present around people, so that people could refer them.
The problem that rises now is that even though Quran suggested that, people should have referred Ulil Amr(those in authority) during those events that occurred in the past, however Shias themselves claim that when one Imam is in authority then the other Imam even if present, isn’t in authority. In other words, only one Imam can be in divine authority at a time. So, if Prophet(SAWS) as an Imam(leader) was in divine authority then Ali(RA) can’t possess divine authority. Likewise, if Ali(RA) is in divine authority then Hassan(RA) and Hussain(RA) won’t be in divine authority. But Quran says that, during those events that occurred in the past, Ulil Amr(those in authority) alongside Prophet(SAWS) were present, so that people could refer them. So how could Multiple people possess divine authority at a time? During those events, only Prophet(SAWS) possessed divine authority, there cannot be anyone else alongside Prophet(SAWS) who possessed divine authority over people. Or if supposedly Ali(RA) held divine authority as one of Ulil Amr{Ulil Amr is plural not singular}, then Hasan(RA) or Hussain(RA) cannot possess divine authority alongside Ali(RA). Therefore, the only reasonable explanation left is, Ulil Amr(those in authority) mentioned in the verse were neither divinely appointed nor they possessed divine authority.
Taken from:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/
I want to know who according to Ahlul Sunnah are Ulil-Amr? During the lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w.w) was he (s.a.w.w) alone the ruler of Muslim Ummah or were more than one ruler? There is hadith of Prophet (s.a.w.w) which mentions of ruler besides him (s.a.w.w).
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me."
References:
al-Bukhari Book of Judgments #251
al-Bukhari 7137
Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 251
Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book of Judgments, Hadith 251
Pick any Sunni Tafseer of the verse and read it yourself. Sunni don't believe that Ulil Amr means only the Supreme leader. Its abroad term which encompasses anyone in authority, it could be a governor, it could be a leader of an army, etc.
-
Lastly, the author mentions about Ulil-Amr. The author misunderstood the concept of Shi'i Imamah. We shias believe that at one time there can be only one Imam. Only after the Imam (a.s) dies he (a.s) is replaced by his (a.s) brother (a.s) or son (a.s) as Imam.
Refer to the 3 min mark of clip below. This Zakir says the succeeding Imam is an Imam during predecessor Imamate.
-
The author argues that Shi'i concept of non-Prophet being Masum (infallibility) does not exist but in Sahih Bukhari there is hadith which clearly mentions about non-Prophet being Masum.
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 306:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:
The Prophet said, "Allah never sends a prophet or gives the Caliphate to a Caliph but that he (the prophet or the Caliph) has two groups of advisors: A group advising him to do good and exhorts him to do it, and the other group advising him to do evil and exhorts him to do it. But the protected person (against such evil advisors) is the one protected by Allah.' "
Since when did "protected" become synonymous with "infallible"?
I want to know who according to Ahlul Sunnah are Ulil-Amr? During the lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w.w) was he (s.a.w.w) alone the ruler of Muslim Ummah or were more than one ruler? There is hadith of Prophet (s.a.w.w) which mentions of ruler besides him (s.a.w.w).
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me."
References:
al-Bukhari Book of Judgments #251
al-Bukhari 7137
Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 251
Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book of Judgments, Hadith 251
When the Muslims would go to battles and wars, the Prophet (saw) would leave behind a "leader" for those staying behind. At other times, he (saw) would appoint a general, or a "leader", for the dispatched Muslim army. So I do not see how this hadith justifies the notion that there was another ruler present alongside with the Prophet (saw). In fact, and here is where Ijtaba missed out on opening a bigger can of worms, the narration does not even necessitate (or make it mandatory) for the Prophet (saw) to appoint a ruler after himself. Thought I should shut that argument down before it is even presented.
-
Since when did "protected" become synonymous with "infallible"?
When the Muslims would go to battles and wars, the Prophet (saw) would leave behind a "leader" for those staying behind. At other times, he (saw) would appoint a general, or a "leader", for the dispatched Muslim army. So I do not see how this hadith justifies the notion that there was another ruler present alongside with the Prophet (saw). In fact, and here is where Ijtaba missed out on opening a bigger can of worms, the narration does not even necessitate (or make it mandatory) for the Prophet (saw) to appoint a ruler after himself. Thought I should shut that argument down before it is even presented.
"When the Muslims would go to battles and wars, the Prophet (saw) would leave behind a "leader" for those staying behind. At other times, he (saw) would appoint a general, or a "leader", for the dispatched Muslim army"
And when he was about to pass away he didn't bother to name and appoint anyone where and when most needed.
How astonishing!
-
And when he was about to pass away he didn't bother to name and appoint anyone where and when most needed.
How astonishing!
You have me cornered! Oh boy! But I hope we are not conflating leaving someone behind to protect the women, elderly and children with leaving someone in charge of the affairs of the ummah because they are not one in the same. Also, during one of the dispatches, the Prophet (saw) named three Sahaba (ra) to lead the army. If all three were to die, the Prophet (saw) instructed the army to pick their own leader (to lead the army).
There is just as much precedence for election as there was for appointment so what is your point now that you have been refuted?
-
You have me cornered! Oh boy! But I hope we are not conflating leaving someone behind to protect the women, elderly and children with leaving someone in charge of the affairs of the ummah because they are not one in the same. Also, during one of the dispatches, the Prophet (saw) named three Sahaba (ra) to lead the army. If all three were to die, the Prophet (saw) instructed the army to pick their own leader (to lead the army).
There is just as much precedence for election as there was for appointment so what is your point now that you have been refuted?
Cornered?😊 No one can corner someone with your nature and stance 😀
"If all three were to die, the Prophet (saw) instructed the army to pick their own leader (to lead the army)"
"INSTRUCTED THE ARMY" So that would be the army, meaning the heads of the army. What if only three members of the army rushed off to lets say Saqifa, not to choose the head of the army but to stop something TERRIBLE from happening and coincidently they decided to choose the head of the army there just among themselves and the rest of the army and the heads didn't have a damn clue about it.
This would be fine according to you, if the three individuals were extremely dear to you then you wouldn't care. You'd be hellbent in justifying this, wouldn't you.
-
"When the Muslims would go to battles and wars, the Prophet (saw) would leave behind a "leader" for those staying behind. At other times, he (saw) would appoint a general, or a "leader", for the dispatched Muslim army"
And when he was about to pass away he didn't bother to name and appoint anyone where and when most needed.
How astonishing!
He thought of appointing even in that situation but he was informed that the one whom he wanted to appoint, would eventually be appointed by the believers, hence he decided not to do so, that’s why Khilafah after him didn’t become kingship.
-
Cornered?😊 No one can corner someone with your nature and stance 😀
Got your stupid smileys out of the way, you 12 year old girl?
"INSTRUCTED THE ARMY" So that would be the army, meaning the heads of the army. What if only three members of the army rushed off to lets say Saqifa, not to choose the head of the army but to stop something TERRIBLE from happening and coincidently they decided to choose the head of the army there just among themselves and the rest of the army and the heads didn't have a damn clue about it.
I have a better scenario for you to ponder over. Assuming the Prophet (saw) appointed a leader after him, someone actually ordained by Allah (swt), but two of them shun responsibility. One gives bayyah to Abu Bakr (ra), another gives his "Divinely Ordained" right to Muawiya and a 12th one that has completely ran off into hiding, absolving himself from all responsibilities? Would you stand by such "appointed" leaders? They behaved like anything but "appointed".
Having said that, I can see how Saqifa has deeply scarred you for life.
This would be fine according to you, if the three individuals were extremely dear to you then you wouldn't care. You'd be hellbent in justifying this, wouldn't you.
If three fallible individuals (ra) can coerce an entire nation, and in the process also subdue three living "infallible" Imams (ra), then they must be some men of valor who deserve the utmost respect and support. Add to this the fact that their action have inflicted lifelong wounds upon imbeciles like you and it is twice the barakah.
-
The problem here is that, you make such foolish arguments, that they put me in a dilemma that whether I should answer such arguments or just ignore them, like i do most of the time, when you argue out of your ignorance, and lack of understanding.
Anyways, I have some free time, so I'll entertain this unworthy arguments. They were spiritual Imams, not political ones. If you read my comment carefully, I clearly stated that the term Imam is quite broad and is used for different position. Even the leader of a prayer in congregation is called Imam. Now your silly argument demands a counter question, on what basis Shia call some people Imam, example Imam Khomeini.
My arguments are all reasonable but it is you who don't have answers so you resorted to personal insults. I won't be responding to such nonsense in future. I will only be responding to arguments presented.
As for Abu Hanifa & Shafi being spiritual leaders... can you quote any verse from Quran or give any hadith stating that there can exist Spiritual Leaders? Aren't Abu Hanifa & Shafi, etc Ulemas? Isn't Imam/Caliph a political leader and Ulemas spiritual leaders or are the words "Imam" and "Ulema" also interchangeable?
About person leading prayer in congregation then Yes he is called Imam but I am talking about Imams mentioned in Quran and hadiths in the context of ruler.
If you mean divine appointment, then I disagree with you. These verses you mention are talking about Qadr of Allah. And in this context, every ruler whether good or bad was appointed by Allah.
Clearly define to me what do you understand by "divine appointment" because according to my understanding divine appointment means "to be appointed by GOD."
I can quote a lot of Sunni and Shia hadeeth, but I'll keep them for some other time. Let's see some verses of Quran:
THESE VERSES OF QURAN SHOWS THAT DISBELIEVERS WERE MADE KHULAFA(plural of Khalifa).
Said the eminent ones who DISBELIEVED among his people, "Indeed, we see you in foolishness, and indeed, we think you are of the liars."(7:66) [Hud] said, "O my people, there is not foolishness in me, but I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds." (7:67). I convey to you the messages of my Lord, and I am to you a trustworthy adviser.(7:68). Then do you wonder that there has come to you a reminder from your Lord through a man from among you, that he may warn you? And remember when HE MADE YOU KHULAFA after the people of Noah and increased you in stature extensively. So remember the favors of Allah that you might succeed.(7:69)
Khulafa means successors. According to the verse you quoted it can be clearly seen that Disbelievers (i.e. People of Hud a.s) were Khulafa of Disbelievers (i.e. People of Noah a.s)
What we shias are saying is that only Masum (i.e. Imam a.s) can be Khalifa or Masum (Prophet a.s)
Similar can be found when we read the verse where Allah said , He made or appointed Imams who invite to hell fire.
And We appointed them leaders(IMAMS) who invite unto the (Hell) Fire and on the Day of Judgment they shall not be helped.(28:41, Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli).
How can GOD appoint dead people as Imams? I thought only living people were appointed as Imams. Can you enlighten me as to how did Pharoah become leader inviting people to Hell-fire after his death?
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And Pharaoh said, "O eminent ones, I have not known you to have a god other than me. Then ignite for me, O Haman, [a fire] upon the clay and make for me a tower that I may look at the God of Moses. And indeed, I do think he is among the liars." And he was arrogant, he and his soldiers, in the land, without right, and they thought that they would not be returned to Us. So We took him and his soldiers and threw them into the sea. So see how was the end of the wrongdoers. And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they will not be helped. (28:38-41)
As for the verse regarding Adam(as) you are referring then, it's actually not a divine appointment rather it mentions the Qadr of Allah. Check out the response of the Angels.
(30. And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) khalifa on earth. '' They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You. '' He (Allah) said: "I know that which you do not know. '')
The Angels knew very well that Allah was not taking about divinely appointed caliphs/Imams when he said I will make Khalifa on the earth. If Khalifa stood for divinely appointed imams/caliphs then the Angels would have committed blasphemy as per shia belief by asking this question. Because shias preach that Imams were created before the Angels, And the Imams taught Angels how to worship and other deeds. But here we have Angels suggesting that the Imams will do mischief on earth and will shed blood.
If by the words "Khalifa tul Ardh" non-Masum humans are meant then as can be seen from the verse that Angels prediction about non-Masum humans came to be true because non-Masum Kings/Leaders did do mischief on earth and shed blood. So how do you interpret the verse quoted by you i.e. why did GOD prefer non-Masum Humans over Masum Angels?
Here it's not in the context of head of state or a ruler, rather its about making them spiritual examples for the mankind, which makes their followership beyond the Ummah they were sent to.
So you mean Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) and Imams from his (a.s) progeny were spiritual leaders and not political leaders? So following you logic can Ahlul Sunnah apply this concept to our 12 Imams i.e. they are spiritual leaders like Nabi Ibrahim (a.s)?
The same way you interpret this Shia hadeeth.
عنه، عن ابن محبوب، عن إسحاق بن عمار، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إن الله عزوجل أوحى إلى نبي من أنبيائه في مملكة جبار من الجبارين أن ائت هذا الجبار فقل له: إنني لم أستعملك على سفك الدماء واتخاذ الاموال وإنما استعملتك لتكف عني أصوات المظلومين، فاني لم أدع ظلامتهم وإن كانوا كفارا
It is narrated from him (narrator of the Hadith above) from ibn Mahbub from Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar from abu ‘Abd Allah(as), who has said the following: “Allah, sent revelations to one of His prophets who lived in the time of an oppressive and tyrannical ruler. It said, ‘Tell this tyrant, “I have not given you this opportunity to shed blood and seize properties. I have given you this opportunity only that you hold back the voices of the oppressed from coming to Me. I will not allow any oppression without justice being served, even though they (the oppressed) might be unbelievers.’” (Al-Kafi, vol 2, page 334, H 2649, CH 132, h 14; Majlisi graded it as Muwathaq(reliable) in Miraat ul uqool, vol 10, page 303]
Why did GOD knowing beforehand that a person would become oppressive and tyrant ruler give him rulership? GOD could have given rulership to Prophet instead of that oppressive and tyrant person. Following muslim720 logic of blaming Imam Hassan (a.s) for Muawiya's actions (during rulership) by giving latter the rulership can GOD be blamed (GOD Forbid) for the actions of oppressive and tyrant king as it was GOD who had given that person rulership in the first place?
-
Judgements are made on actions that are apparent. So did I.
Never expected such arrogance. I leave this matter to ALLAH (SWT) to decide between us on the Day of Judgement.
-
1.There is no infallibility discussed in this hadeeth.
The hadeeth says:{“But the protected person (against such evil advisors) is the one protected by Allah.” }
This doesn’t mean that Caliphs are protected from every kind of sin. Because if we read the context of the hadeeth then we can clearly see that the protection mentioned there is regarding the specific issue that was mentioned, that is, from the advice of the evil advisers. Allah(swt) would protect that person from the advices of evil advisers, but this doesn’t mean protection from sins or mistakes they would commit. Thus trying to prove infallibility from this report is a failed attempt.
Moreover, the best explanation of a hadeeth is from a similar authentic hadeeth which would further elaborate the issue. Thus here is a similar authentic report which explains this issue.
إذا أراد الله بالأمير خيرا جعل له وزير صدق : إن نسي ذكره وإن ذكر أعانه وإذا أراد به غير ذلك جعل له وزير سوء : إن نسي لم يذكره وإن ذكر لم يعنه
Mother of believers `Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported: The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said, “When Allah desires good for a ruler, He appoints for him a sincere adviser who will remind him if he forgets and helps him if he remembers. When Allah wishes for him the contrary, He appoints for him a bad adviser who will not remind him if he forgets, nor will he help him if he remembers.”
source: al-Albani said “SAHIH” in Sahih al-Jami`.
So from this similar authentic report we came to know that , Allah doesn’t says that all the Caliphs will be protected from such advisers.
If your understanding is to be taken then I want to know why would GOD protect good ruler from evil advisors but not from the ruler's own incorrect judgments/decisions? If evil advisors were to give good ruler some suggestions regarding decisions/judgments to make regarding some matter then GOD would protected good ruler from acting on those suggestions but on the other hand if evil advisors had not given suggestions to good ruler and good ruler acted on his own behalf and gave judgments/decisions (which were same as evil advisors had suggested) then GOD would not had protected good ruler as such judgments and decisions were to be counted as mistakes of good ruler?
Moreover, had it been that Ali(ra) was appointed as Caliph as ‘you’ wants to portray, then there weren’t any advisers of Ali(ra) during the period when Abubakr(ra), Umar(ra) and Uthman(ra) ruled the Ummah, infact Ali(ra) was himself their adviser, which the hadeeth signifies.
Did Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman act on all the advises given by Imam Ali (a.s)?
I thought Abu Bakr's adviser was Umar and Uthman's adviser was Marwan.
This argument clearly demonstrates two things, one is that that you haven't read the article, and other is that you are extremely poor in understanding. Let me quote an extract from the same article again:
Taken from:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/
Imam Ali (a.s) during the time of Prophet's (s.a.w.w) rulership was like Nabi Haroon (a.s) was during the time of Nabi Musa's (a.s) rulership.
Imam Jafar as Sadiq (a.s) during the Imamat of Mohammed Baqir's (a.s) was like Nabi Yaqoob (a.s) during the Nabi Ishaq's (a.s) Imamat.
Pick any Sunni Tafseer of the verse and read it yourself. Sunni don't believe that Ulil Amr means only the Supreme leader. Its abroad term which encompasses anyone in authority, it could be a governor, it could be a leader of an army, etc.
I got it. You believe Ulil Amr can be more than one people at one time i.e. Caliph/King, governor, leader of an army etc.
-
He thought of appointing even in that situation but he was informed that the one whom he wanted to appoint, would eventually be appointed by the believers, hence he decided not to do so, that’s why Khilafah after him didn’t become kingship.
"but he was informed that the one whom he wanted to appoint, would eventually be appointed by the believers"
Are you serious. He wasn't appointed by the believers because all the believers were busy mourning the Prophet s.a.w and with his funeral arrangements.
The three of them rushed off as soon as they knew what the heads of the Ansar were up to.
There was no selection or election process of any kind taking place. So his (Abu Bakr) appointment wasn't legitimate to begin with.
All that comes out of this discussion from your side is how and in what way can we justify Saqifa. How can you hold on to Saqifa which is something wrong from the very start and to begin with.
"but he was informed"
Informed by whom? 😊
-
Got your stupid smileys out of the way, you 12 year old girl?
I have a better scenario for you to ponder over. Assuming the Prophet (saw) appointed a leader after him, someone actually ordained by Allah (swt), but two of them shun responsibility. One gives bayyah to Abu Bakr (ra), another gives his "Divinely Ordained" right to Muawiya and a 12th one that has completely ran off into hiding, absolving himself from all responsibilities? Would you stand by such "appointed" leaders? They behaved like anything but "appointed".
Having said that, I can see how Saqifa has deeply scarred you for life.
If three fallible individuals (ra) can coerce an entire nation, and in the process also subdue three living "infallible" Imams (ra), then they must be some men of valor who deserve the utmost respect and support. Add to this the fact that their action have inflicted lifelong wounds upon imbeciles like you and it is twice the barakah.
"Got your stupid smileys out of the way, you 12 year old girl?"
12 year old girl? You've got me confused with MYTHBUSTER 😊
"Having said that, I can see how Saqifa has deeply scarred you for life"
Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊 It can be clearly seen. But you're too blinded by Saqifa to realise that.
"If three fallible individuals (ra) can coerce an entire nation, and in the process also subdue three living "infallible" Imams (ra), then they must be some men of valor who deserve the utmost respect and support"
Well if you've got the connection, influence, support and backup then you are going to use it to your advantage. You ain't going to care what the Prophet s.a.w wants and advises. You're going to say "well the book of Allah is enough for us, so we don't care about anything else".
Muawiyah at Safeen and Aisha at Jamal did a lot better than those three wouldn’t you think. How many lives do you think were lost because they decided to revolt?
"Add to this the fact that their action have inflicted lifelong wounds upon imbeciles like you and it is twice the barakah"
Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all.
-
"but he was informed that the one whom he wanted to appoint, would eventually be appointed by the believers"
Are you serious. He wasn't appointed by the believers because all the believers were busy mourning the Prophet s.a.w and with his funeral arrangements.
Keep your half-baked and twisted stories in your pocket.
The believers eventually accepted his appointment.
حدثنا أبو حفص عمر بن أيوب السقطي ، قال : حدثنا محمد بن معاوية بن مالج ، قال : حدثنا علي بن هاشم ، عن أبيه ، عن أبي الجحاف ، قال : قام أبو بكر رضي الله عنه بعدما بويع له وبايع له علي رضي الله عنه وأصحابه قام ثلاثا ، يقول : ” أيها الناس ، قد أقلتكم بيعتكم هل من كاره ؟ قال : فيقوم علي رضي الله عنه أوائل الناس يقول : ” لا والله لا نقيلك ، ولا نستقيلك قدمك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فمن ذا الذي يؤخرك ” .
[abu Hafs `Umar bin Ayyub al-Siqati told us, Muhammad bin Mu`awiyah bin Malaj said, `Ali bin Hisham told us, from his father, from abu al-Jahhaf that he said:
Abu Bakr (ra) stood up three times after he received Bay`ah from `Ali (ra) and his companions, saying: “O people, I shall return your Bay`ah to you, does anyone dislike this?” he said: So `Ali (ra) would stand among the first of them and say: “No by Allah we shall not let you retire, if the messenger of Allah (SAWS) placed you ahead (means leading Salat), then who can put you behind.”] ( al-Shari`ah lil-Aajurri (b.280 – d.360 AH).]
أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ الْقَطِيعِيُّ، ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، وَأَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنِيعٍ، قَالا: ثنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ، ثنا عَاصِمٌ، عَنْ زِرٍّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ: ” مَا رَأَى الْمُسْلِمُونَ حَسَنًا فَهُوَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ حَسَنٌ، وَمَا رَآهُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ سَيِّئًا فَهُوَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ سَيِّءٌ، وَقَدْ رَأَى الصَّحَابَةُ جَمِيعًا أَنْ يَسْتَخْلِفُوا أَبَا بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ
Abdullah ibn Masood(RA) said: “What the Muslims saw as good was good for Allah, and what the Muslims saw as bad was bad for Allah, and all the companions saw that they should make Abu Bakr the successor.”[Mustadrak al-Hakim vol 3, page 78-79].
Similarly we read:
حدثني أبو محمد جعفر بن حميد الكوفي أخو أحمد بن حميد يلقب بدار بأم سلمة ، حدثني يونس بن أبي يعفور ، عن أبيه ، عن الأسود بن قيس العبدي ، عن أبيه ، قال : ” شهدت خطبة علي يوم البصرة قال : فحمد الله وأثنى عليه وذكر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وما عالج من الناس ثم قبضه الله عز وجل إليه ثم رأى المسلمون أن يستخلفوا أبا بكر رضي الله عنه فبايعوا وعاهدوا وسلموا ، وبايعت وعاهدت وسلمت ، ورضوا ورضيت ، وفعل من الخير وجاهد حتى قبضه الله عز وجل ، رحمة الله عليه
Narrated Qays bin al Abdi: I Witnessed the Sermon of Ali on the Day of Basarah, he said: ” He praised Allah and thanked him and he mentioned the Prophet(SAWS) and his sacrifice to the people, then Allah(SWT) took his soul, Then the Muslims saw that they should give the Caliphate to Abu bakr(RA) so they pledged their allegiance and made their promise of loyalty, and I gave my pledge and I promised him my loyalty, They were pleased and so was I. He(Abu Bakr) did good deeds and made Jihad until Allah took his soul may Allah have mercy on him.” [ Al Sunnah by Abdullah bin Ahmad vol 2, page 563, #1208 ; The Narrators are all trustworthy.]
We even read in Nahjul Balagha:
Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6)
"but he was informed"
Informed by whom? 😊
By whom is a prophet informed about the future?
-
As for Abu Hanifa & Shafi being spiritual leaders... can you quote any verse from Quran or give any hadith stating that there can exist Spiritual Leaders? Aren't Abu Hanifa & Shafi, etc Ulemas? Isn't Imam/Caliph a political leader and Ulemas spiritual leaders or are the words "Imam" and "Ulema" also interchangeable?
Try figuring out the answers for these questions about Shia's Imam Khomeini, which you tried to dodge. Since you are here for argumentation. you can't ask us to educate you for your ignoramus arguments while you think they are reasonable.
About person leading prayer in congregation then Yes he is called Imam but I am talking about Imams mentioned in Quran and hadiths in the context of ruler.
So why did you bring the example of Imam Abu Hanifa(rah) and Imam Shafai(rah) ? DOn't you even know the basics that they weren't rulers? Don't you realize that you have started making contradictory claims out of confusion.
Clearly define to me what do you understand by "divine appointment" because according to my understanding divine appointment means "to be appointed by GOD."
Khulafa means successors. According to the verse you quoted it can be clearly seen that Disbelievers (i.e. People of Hud a.s) were Khulafa of Disbelievers (i.e. People of Noah a.s)
Mr. Confused so do you believe that disbelievers were too appointed divinely by Allah as Khulafa of Disbelievers? Because you say that divine appointment according to you means, to be appointed by God. Remember you have used the example of Adam(as), in response I used the above verse. So please distinguish between the two appointments.
As for Sunni view then, by divine appointment we mean that Allah(swt) communicates in a higher level with a person either directly or through a messenger and then commands him to guide people.
What we shias are saying is that only Masum (i.e. Imam a.s) can be Khalifa or Masum (Prophet a.s)
Your concept is corrupt and baseless. Most of Shia companions/narrators of Imams didn't believe Imams to be infallible either.
Shia Allama Majlisi quotes Shaheed al thani as saying:
جمعى از راويان كه در اعصار ايمه بودهاند از شيعيان اعتقاد بعصمت ايشان نداشتهاند بلكه ايشان را از علماى نيكوكار ميدانستهاند چنانچه از رجال كشى ظاهر ميشود و مع ذلك ايمه (ع) حكم بايمان بلكه بعدالت ايشان ميكردهاند
Most of the Shia narrators around the Imams didn’t believe in their infallibility but considered them pious scholars only, as is clear from Rijal Kashi, and still the Imams would declare them faithful and even trustworthy. [Haqqul Yaqin, p. 544]
Secondly be clear in your statement. Say Khalifa of believers. Because disbelievers have different Khulafa.
How can GOD appoint dead people as Imams? I thought only living people were appointed as Imams. Can you enlighten me as to how did Pharoah become leader inviting people to Hell-fire after his death?
You are not here to learn from us isn't it. You are here to argue. So you behave arrogantly at one place and ask to be enlightened too.
As for the main question then its invalid because you seems to have missed the point which I was making. I was using these verses to prove that its not appointment rather its Qadr of Allah. I used these to refute your misunderstanding since you brought up the example of Adam(as), hence I responded accordingly. If you still dont get, read my previous response again.
If by the words "Khalifa tul Ardh" non-Masum humans are meant then as can be seen from the verse that Angels prediction about non-Masum humans came to be true because non-Masum Kings/Leaders did do mischief on earth and shed blood. So how do you interpret the verse quoted by you i.e. why did GOD prefer non-Masum Humans over Masum Angels?
Its not about Masum or Ghayr Masoom, but rather about a creation having free will. Angels had experience regarding the Jinns who were inhabiting earth and had a free will.
So you mean Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) and Imams from his (a.s) progeny were spiritual leaders and not political leaders? So following you logic can Ahlul Sunnah apply this concept to our 12 Imams i.e. they are spiritual leaders like Nabi Ibrahim (a.s)?
Yes with a exception, that they weren't divinely appointed and being spiritual Imams isnt restricted to them, it includes all the other spiritual Imams as well, example Abu Bakr(ra), Umar(ra), Uthman(ra), ABu Hanifa(ra), Shafaei(ra).
Note that: This even has the exception for Ali(ra), Hassan(ra) , who were political rulers too.
Why did GOD knowing beforehand that a person would become oppressive and tyrant ruler give him rulership? GOD could have given rulership to Prophet instead of that oppressive and tyrant person. Following muslim720 logic of blaming Imam Hassan (a.s) for Muawiya's actions (during rulership) by giving latter the rulership can GOD be blamed (GOD Forbid) for the actions of oppressive and tyrant king as it was GOD who had given that person rulership in the first place?
Its Shia hadeeth, so you need to answer it, instead of asking me.
-
"Got your stupid smileys out of the way, you 12 year old girl?"
12 year old girl? You've got me confused with MYTHBUSTER 😊
"Having said that, I can see how Saqifa has deeply scarred you for life"
Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊 It can be clearly seen. But you're too blinded by Saqifa to realise that.
"If three fallible individuals (ra) can coerce an entire nation, and in the process also subdue three living "infallible" Imams (ra), then they must be some men of valor who deserve the utmost respect and support"
Well if you've got the connection, influence, support and backup then you are going to use it to your advantage. You ain't going to care what the Prophet s.a.w wants and advises. You're going to say "well the book of Allah is enough for us, so we don't care about anything else".
Muawiyah at Safeen and Aisha at Jamal did a lot better than those three wouldn’t you think. How many lives do you think were lost because they decided to revolt?
"Add to this the fact that their action have inflicted lifelong wounds upon imbeciles like you and it is twice the barakah"
Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all.
Lol speaks the lying turd who accuses people and passes judgements on people.
saqifa has messed up your braincells that much, even the most stupid idea of promotions after prophethood has rendered you brain dead........you can’t even answer your own made up theory, even a 12 year old Sunni would laugh at you.
One prophet gets it
Last prophet saw NEVER mentions it or recieves it
Non prophet recieve it at birth
Thinking bad about saqifa has had a bad effect on your braincells as can be seen.
You are scarred ......IT SHOWS, you keep bringing it up but you keep getting REFUTED.
This numpty believes Abu Bakr ra was rich and powerful and had plenty of support to take away khilafah😂😂😂😂😂😂
You are rendering islam as WEAK lol
Only in your mind!!
The imams had the chance to rectify it......yet they didn’t all 12 including the hidden one didn’t, you are rendering them WEAK also.
Your sect your arguments are weak with no strong evidence from the Quran........SAQIFA HAS MADE DIVINE IMAMATE REDUNDANT, that’s why you haven’t a counter argument with facts or evidences instead you come with ideas and notions that sound stupid and don’t even make sense like being promoted after prophethood.
Your dumb mind doesn’t connect the dots instead it’s built on HATE and HERESAY so you make your own dots to connect and come up with nonsensical theories based on hate and lies.
Well that’s shiism for you.😜
-
Keep your half-baked and twisted stories in your pocket.
The believers eventually accepted his appointment.
حدثنا أبو حفص عمر بن أيوب السقطي ، قال : حدثنا محمد بن معاوية بن مالج ، قال : حدثنا علي بن هاشم ، عن أبيه ، عن أبي الجحاف ، قال : قام أبو بكر رضي الله عنه بعدما بويع له وبايع له علي رضي الله عنه وأصحابه قام ثلاثا ، يقول : ” أيها الناس ، قد أقلتكم بيعتكم هل من كاره ؟ قال : فيقوم علي رضي الله عنه أوائل الناس يقول : ” لا والله لا نقيلك ، ولا نستقيلك قدمك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فمن ذا الذي يؤخرك ” .
[abu Hafs `Umar bin Ayyub al-Siqati told us, Muhammad bin Mu`awiyah bin Malaj said, `Ali bin Hisham told us, from his father, from abu al-Jahhaf that he said:
Abu Bakr (ra) stood up three times after he received Bay`ah from `Ali (ra) and his companions, saying: “O people, I shall return your Bay`ah to you, does anyone dislike this?” he said: So `Ali (ra) would stand among the first of them and say: “No by Allah we shall not let you retire, if the messenger of Allah (SAWS) placed you ahead (means leading Salat), then who can put you behind.”] ( al-Shari`ah lil-Aajurri (b.280 – d.360 AH).]
أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ جَعْفَرٍ الْقَطِيعِيُّ، ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، وَأَحْمَدُ بْنُ مَنِيعٍ، قَالا: ثنا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ عَيَّاشٍ، ثنا عَاصِمٌ، عَنْ زِرٍّ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ: ” مَا رَأَى الْمُسْلِمُونَ حَسَنًا فَهُوَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ حَسَنٌ، وَمَا رَآهُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ سَيِّئًا فَهُوَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ سَيِّءٌ، وَقَدْ رَأَى الصَّحَابَةُ جَمِيعًا أَنْ يَسْتَخْلِفُوا أَبَا بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ
Abdullah ibn Masood(RA) said: “What the Muslims saw as good was good for Allah, and what the Muslims saw as bad was bad for Allah, and all the companions saw that they should make Abu Bakr the successor.”[Mustadrak al-Hakim vol 3, page 78-79].
Similarly we read:
حدثني أبو محمد جعفر بن حميد الكوفي أخو أحمد بن حميد يلقب بدار بأم سلمة ، حدثني يونس بن أبي يعفور ، عن أبيه ، عن الأسود بن قيس العبدي ، عن أبيه ، قال : ” شهدت خطبة علي يوم البصرة قال : فحمد الله وأثنى عليه وذكر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وما عالج من الناس ثم قبضه الله عز وجل إليه ثم رأى المسلمون أن يستخلفوا أبا بكر رضي الله عنه فبايعوا وعاهدوا وسلموا ، وبايعت وعاهدت وسلمت ، ورضوا ورضيت ، وفعل من الخير وجاهد حتى قبضه الله عز وجل ، رحمة الله عليه
Narrated Qays bin al Abdi: I Witnessed the Sermon of Ali on the Day of Basarah, he said: ” He praised Allah and thanked him and he mentioned the Prophet(SAWS) and his sacrifice to the people, then Allah(SWT) took his soul, Then the Muslims saw that they should give the Caliphate to Abu bakr(RA) so they pledged their allegiance and made their promise of loyalty, and I gave my pledge and I promised him my loyalty, They were pleased and so was I. He(Abu Bakr) did good deeds and made Jihad until Allah took his soul may Allah have mercy on him.” [ Al Sunnah by Abdullah bin Ahmad vol 2, page 563, #1208 ; The Narrators are all trustworthy.]
We even read in Nahjul Balagha:
Ali(ra) wrote in his letter stating:
إنه بايعني القوم الذين بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان ، على ما بايعوهم عليه ، فلم يكن للشاهد أن يختار ولا للغائب أن يرد ، وإنما الشورى للمهاجرين والأنصار ، فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسموه إماماً كان ذلك لله رضى فإن خرج منهم خارج بطعن أو بدعة ردوه إلى ماخرج منه فإن أبى قاتلوه على اتباعه غير سبيل المؤمنين ، وولاه الله ما تولى
Verily, the people who payed allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have payed allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him. (Nahjul-Balaghah, Letter #6)
By whom is a prophet informed about the future?
The believers accepted Alhamdulillah yet to this day the non believers still haven’t accepted.😉👍
-
Lol speaks the lying turd who accuses people and passes judgements on people.
saqifa has messed up your braincells that much, even the most stupid idea of promotions after prophethood has rendered you brain dead........you can’t even answer your own made up theory, even a 12 year old Sunni would laugh at you.
One prophet gets it
Last prophet saw NEVER mentions it or recieves it
Non prophet recieve it at birth
Thinking bad about saqifa has had a bad effect on your braincells as can be seen.
You are scarred ......IT SHOWS, you keep bringing it up but you keep getting REFUTED.
This numpty believes Abu Bakr ra was rich and powerful and had plenty of support to take away khilafah😂😂😂😂😂😂
You are rendering islam as WEAK lol
Only in your mind!!
The imams had the chance to rectify it......yet they didn’t all 12 including the hidden one didn’t, you are rendering them WEAK also.
Your sect your arguments are weak with no strong evidence from the Quran........SAQIFA HAS MADE DIVINE IMAMATE REDUNDANT, that’s why you haven’t a counter argument with facts or evidences instead you come with ideas and notions that sound stupid and don’t even make sense like being promoted after prophethood.
Your dumb mind doesn’t connect the dots instead it’s built on HATE and HERESAY so you make your own dots to connect and come up with nonsensical theories based on hate and lies.
Well that’s shiism for you.😜
"saqifa has messed up your braincells"
Nope. Not at all. 😊 It's messed up Islam and the Muslims.
"even the most stupid idea of promotions after prophethood has rendered you brain dead......"
That's exactly what the Qur'an says. If you think it's the most stupid idea then take it up with God when you see him.
"you can’t even answer your own made up theory"
Answered it MANY TIMES OVER. You just don't want to accept it. Your arrogance is stepping in the way.
"even a 12 year old Sunni would laugh at you"
Laugh, well that's all you've been doing. That's what Sunnis do, have a laugh. 😊
"One prophet gets it
Last prophet saw NEVER mentions it or recieves it
Non prophet recieve it at birth"
Steady on there. One step at a time my dear. Allah gave the example of Abraham. You don't want to accept it then that's down to you. Don't look for excuses. The last Prophet saw mentioned it. It's in your books. Most of your books. And Allah decides who he honours, how and when. Any problems then take it up with him.
"Thinking bad about saqifa has had a bad effect on your braincells as can be seen"
I don't think bad about anything or anyone. Tell me what's right about Saqifa? 😊
"You are scarred ......IT SHOWS, you keep bringing it up but you keep getting REFUTED"
I'm not scared. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. There's nothing to be scared about here. Refuted? Your arrogance over a matter is no refute.
-
If your understanding is to be taken then I want to know why would GOD protect good ruler from evil advisors but not from the ruler's own incorrect judgments/decisions? If evil advisors were to give good ruler some suggestions regarding decisions/judgments to make regarding some matter then GOD would protected good ruler from acting on those suggestions but on the other hand if evil advisors had not given suggestions to good ruler and good ruler acted on his own behalf and gave judgments/decisions (which were same as evil advisors had suggested) then GOD would not had protected good ruler as such judgments and decisions were to be counted as mistakes of good ruler?
None of these questions refute the explanation given for the hadeeth. Hence I won’t waste time answering them.
Did Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman act on all the advises given by Imam Ali (a.s)?
I don’t want to make any sarcastic comment. But please re-read and try to first understand the hadeeth you yourself were quoting. The hadeeth you mentioned us talking about a group of Advisors, not just one. So a group may differ on one issue, and the Caliph would choose the opinion which he think is better.
Imam Ali (a.s) during the time of Prophet's (s.a.w.w) rulership was like Nabi Haroon (a.s) was during the time of Nabi Musa's (a.s) rulership.
Haroon(as) was an active Prophet. During the lifetime of Musa(as). Was Ali(ra) an active Imam during the time of Prophet(saws)?
I got it. You believe Ulil Amr can be more than one people at one time i.e. Caliph/King, governor, leader of an army etc.
Alhamdulillah.
-
12 year old girl? You've got me confused with MYTHBUSTER 😊
No, I have you figured out.
Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊
haha, did you just separate yourself from the Muslim Ummah? Awesome!
You distanced yourself from the Ummah and yet cannot say a word against a kufr-infested video. This is your "auqaat".
It can be clearly seen. But you're too blinded by Saqifa to realise that.
I am scarred by Saqifa, which is visibly clear, but I am also too blinded by Saqifa to realize that! Do you eat $hit for breakfast to come up with such nonsense?
Well if you've got the connection, influence, support and backup then you are going to use it to your advantage.
According to your theology, the Imams (ra) had connections. They were influenced, supported and backed up by Allah (swt). Are you saying that Allah (swt) abandoned them when He (swt) did not even abandon Yunus (asws)?
So much for Imams (ra) being higher than Prophets (asws), lol.
You ain't going to care what the Prophet s.a.w wants and advises.
No, we don't care about what the Shias (falsely) attribute to the Prophet (saw) and Ahlul Bayt (ra).
Muawiyah at Safeen and Aisha at Jamal did a lot better than those three wouldn’t you think.
Safeen? Siffeen, perhaps?
Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all.
By separating yourself from Islam and Muslims, for a second time now, you are intentionally or unknowingly testifying to be outside Islam and not a Muslim, lol.
-
No, I have you figured out.
haha, did you just separate yourself from the Muslim Ummah? Awesome!
You distanced yourself from the Ummah and yet cannot say a word against a kufr-infested video. This is your "auqaat".
I am scarred by Saqifa, which is visibly clear, but I am also too blinded by Saqifa to realize that! Do you eat $hit for breakfast to come up with such nonsense?
According to your theology, the Imams (ra) had connections. They were influenced, supported and backed up by Allah (swt). Are you saying that Allah (swt) abandoned them when He (swt) did not even abandon Yunus (asws)?
So much for Imams (ra) being higher than Prophets (asws), lol.
No, we don't care about what the Shias (falsely) attribute to the Prophet (saw) and Ahlul Bayt (ra).
Safeen? Siffeen, perhaps?
By separating yourself from Islam and Muslims, for a second time now, you are intentionally or unknowingly testifying to be outside Islam and not a Muslim, lol.
"No, I have you figured out"
You've got yourself all mixed up, here as well as there and everywhere.
"haha, did you just separate yourself from the Muslim Ummah? Awesome!"
Why is the Muslim Ummah in such as mess at a global level? It all started off from Saqifa. Muslim turning against Muslims. Muslim rulers exercising heavy handed tactics on the Ummah. I don't think this is AWESOME.
"You distanced yourself from the Ummah and yet cannot say a word against a kufr-infested video. This is your "auqaat".
What's the definition of Kufr? No reply from you. That's your AUQAAT! You don't want to get into a discussion. You're afraid of being cornered and caught out.
"Do you eat $hit for breakfast to come up with such nonsense?"
You're very familiar with s..., it seems like you have a very close relationship with it. Saqifa was just a coincidence. The three rushed there just to stop something terrible from happening. Read your own books.
"Are you saying that Allah (swt) abandoned them when He (swt) did not even abandon Yunus (asws)?"
Well if that's what you think then why don't you ask yourself why Allah left the fate of mankind in the hands of Satan for him to toy and play.
"So much for Imams (ra) being higher than Prophets (asws), lol."
Allah's decision, not mine. Sort it out with him when you see him.
"No, we don't care about what the Shias (falsely) attribute to the Prophet (saw) and Ahlul Bayt (ra)"
We don't falsely attribute. It's your rulers who took matter into their own hands when it came to Sunnah especially hadiths.
"Safeen? Siffeen, perhaps?"
It doesn't matter be it Safeen or Jamal, they went against your Caliphate 😊 Yes your beloved Caliphate which you so eagerly justify and defend but uptil Usman. After that your doubts start kicking in about Caliphate. That's double standards for you. You can't stick to one thing, matter or principle. And you never will.
"By separating yourself from Islam and Muslims, for a second time now, you are intentionally or unknowingly testifying to be outside Islam and not a Muslim, lol"
If that's what you think then I'll answer that with a hadith from your own books.
-
The Messenger, upon whom be peace, said:
"He who says to his brother 'O disbeliever', then it returns upon one of them."
Reported by Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Malik, At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud
He also said:
"And he who accuses a believer of kufr (disbelief) then it is like killing him."
Reported by Al-Bukhari
-
"saqifa has messed up your braincells"
Nope. Not at all. 😊 It's messed up Islam and the Muslims.
"even the most stupid idea of promotions after prophethood has rendered you brain dead......"
That's exactly what the Qur'an says. If you think it's the most stupid idea then take it up with God when you see him.
"you can’t even answer your own made up theory"
Answered it MANY TIMES OVER. You just don't want to accept it. Your arrogance is stepping in the way.
"even a 12 year old Sunni would laugh at you"
Laugh, well that's all you've been doing. That's what Sunnis do, have a laugh. 😊
"One prophet gets it
Last prophet saw NEVER mentions it or recieves it
Non prophet recieve it at birth"
Steady on there. One step at a time my dear. Allah gave the example of Abraham. You don't want to accept it then that's down to you. Don't look for excuses. The last Prophet saw mentioned it. It's in your books. Most of your books. And Allah decides who he honours, how and when. Any problems then take it up with him.
"Thinking bad about saqifa has had a bad effect on your braincells as can be seen"
I don't think bad about anything or anyone. Tell me what's right about Saqifa? 😊
"You are scarred ......IT SHOWS, you keep bringing it up but you keep getting REFUTED"
I'm not scared. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. There's nothing to be scared about here. Refuted? Your arrogance over a matter is no refute.
Saqifa was successful and implemented........divine Imamate NEVER has been.
You can’t prove otherwise and now it hurts you that events at saqifa we’re more successful because IT happened.
Idea was first thought of by ibn Saba.
Is he who you worship?
God never mentioned Ibrahim as was PROMOTED to a being what ibn Saba thought to be divine.😉
Iceman Logic ;
God gives divine authority higher than prophethood to Abraham
God misses/skips that divine authority higher than prophethood on Muhammad pbuh
The children of the last prophet pbuh AUTOMATICALLY are born and bred with divine authority.
Icemans answers to the logic above;
Iceman says it’s gods plan without giving details He chooses and that’s it, then iceman either says he has answered or I am too stubborn or blind or the best answer you gave....”go ask god”😂
You are not giving answers to questions asked, how some don’t need to be prophets to get divine Imamate? yet you post a verse of a great prophet whom Allah swt called KHALIL how He had to go through trials and is mentioned by Allah swt in the Quran Yet the ahle baith ra were left out and not mentioned.
And your complaining others are arrogant?
Every human laughs at clowns and Sunnis aren’t any different.😉
Oh another gem.......please do provide the source or sources of prophet saw mentioning He is now an imam after His prophecy.
You make claims but fall short of providing proofs for them.
All hot air.😉
Chill out I wrote “scarred” not scared lol
I am sure you are a brave guy following in the footsteps of a hero hiding out of fear 1300 years ago.😉
-
Why is the Muslim Ummah in such as mess at a global level? It all started off from Saqifa. Muslim turning against Muslims. Muslim rulers exercising heavy handed tactics on the Ummah. I don't think this is AWESOME.
The awesome comment was for your separation of yourself from the Islamic Ummah. You distanced yourself from Islam; shot yourself in the foot.
As for global level mess, I blame the "infallible" Imams. It was during the time of Imam Ali (ra) that Muslims fought each other on a large scale. Then again at the time of Imam Hassan (ra). Therefore, the absent concept of Imamah is the root cause of mess for the Ummah.
What's the definition of Kufr? No reply from you. That's your AUQAAT! You don't want to get into a discussion. You're afraid of being cornered and caught out.
No, kanjar, that is your auqaat! You are so caught up in licking your wounds inflicted by Saqifa that you actually issued a statement distancing yourself from Islam and Muslims. You made takfeer on your own self. SubhanAllah, from the horse's mouth! More like from the donkey's mouth in your case.
You're very familiar with s..., it seems like you have a very close relationship with it.
I deal with $hit everyday because you keep spewing it.
Saqifa was just a coincidence. The three rushed there just to stop something terrible from happening. Read your own books.
Coincidence or not, the three got what they wanted. Your four "infallibles" (ra) alive at the time could not achieve their objectives. Game over, you lost!
Well if that's what you think then why don't you ask yourself why Allah left the fate of mankind in the hands of Satan for him to toy and play.
We are talking about Prophets (asws) and Imams (ra), the latter being higher than the former in your theology. If Allah (swt) accepted Yunus (asws) even when he temporarily disobeyed Allah (swt), why were your Imams (ra) never supplemented and granted respite? Is it that Allah (swt) abandoned them or is the entire concept of Imamah is a fabrication?
Allah's decision, not mine. Sort it out with him when you see him.
Allah's (swt) decision is clear. The three "rushed" to Saqifa and got everyone in line. They took the power and won so much for Islam; brought vast areas of the globe under Islamic rule. On the other hand, the "infallibles" (ra) achieved nothing. Womp womp womp!
We don't falsely attribute. It's your rulers who took matter into their own hands when it came to Sunnah especially hadiths.
Assuming rulers took matter into their own hands, how does that weaken our ahadith literature? Compare this to your own Imam (ra) issuing dubious dichotomous fatwa regarding some of your most prolific narrators like Zurarah, lol. One one occasion he was cursed, in another he was praised. What a tragedy! The Imams (ra) were actually misguiding people. Oh what a disaster!
It doesn't matter be it Safeen or Jamal, they went against your Caliphate 😊
It does matter! You are an "imbecile", not "imbasil". Makes a world of a difference!
Yes your beloved Caliphate which you so eagerly justify and defend but uptil Usman. After that your doubts start kicking in about Caliphate. That's double standards for you. You can't stick to one thing, matter or principle. And you never will.
Caliphate is not nearly a principle within our theology as is the absent-from-Qur'an concept of Imamah for you. However, to burn you further, may Allah be pleased with Muawiya. Had he not fought back, we would have never known that Imamah is a failure, lol.
If that's what you think then I'll answer that with a hadith from your own books.
It is not what I think; it is exactly what you said. You clearly distinguished yourself from Islam and the Muslim Ummah. Hence, you made takfeer upon your own self. And that is your auqaat!
The Messenger, upon whom be peace, said:
"He who says to his brother 'O disbeliever', then it returns upon one of them."
Reported by Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Malik, At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud
He also said:
"And he who accuses a believer of kufr (disbelief) then it is like killing him."
Reported by Al-Bukhari
These ahadith talk about a Muslim making takfeer on another; it does not address a situation in which an imbecile separates himself from the Muslims and makes takfeer upon himself (which is exactly what you did).
-
The awesome comment was for your separation of yourself from the Islamic Ummah. You distanced yourself from Islam; shot yourself in the foot.
As for global level mess, I blame the "infallible" Imams. It was during the time of Imam Ali (ra) that Muslims fought each other on a large scale. Then again at the time of Imam Hassan (ra). Therefore, the absent concept of Imamah is the root cause of mess for the Ummah.
No, kanjar, that is your auqaat! You are so caught up in licking your wounds inflicted by Saqifa that you actually issued a statement distancing yourself from Islam and Muslims. You made takfeer on your own self. SubhanAllah, from the horse's mouth! More like from the donkey's mouth in your case.
I deal with $hit everyday because you keep spewing it.
Coincidence or not, the three got what they wanted. Your four "infallibles" (ra) alive at the time could not achieve their objectives. Game over, you lost!
We are talking about Prophets (asws) and Imams (ra), the latter being higher than the former in your theology. If Allah (swt) accepted Yunus (asws) even when he temporarily disobeyed Allah (swt), why were your Imams (ra) never supplemented and granted respite? Is it that Allah (swt) abandoned them or is the entire concept of Imamah is a fabrication?
Allah's (swt) decision is clear. The three "rushed" to Saqifa and got everyone in line. They took the power and won so much for Islam; brought vast areas of the globe under Islamic rule. On the other hand, the "infallibles" (ra) achieved nothing. Womp womp womp!
Assuming rulers took matter into their own hands, how does that weaken our ahadith literature? Compare this to your own Imam (ra) issuing dubious dichotomous fatwa regarding some of your most prolific narrators like Zurarah, lol. One one occasion he was cursed, in another he was praised. What a tragedy! The Imams (ra) were actually misguiding people. Oh what a disaster!
It does matter! You are an "imbecile", not "imbasil". Makes a world of a difference!
Caliphate is not nearly a principle within our theology as is the absent-from-Qur'an concept of Imamah for you. However, to burn you further, may Allah be pleased with Muawiya. Had he not fought back, we would have never known that Imamah is a failure, lol.
It is not what I think; it is exactly what you said. You clearly distinguished yourself from Islam and the Muslim Ummah. Hence, you made takfeer upon your own self. And that is your auqaat!
These ahadith talk about a Muslim making takfeer on another; it does not address a situation in which an imbecile separates himself from the Muslims and makes takfeer upon himself (which is exactly what you did).
"for your separation of yourself from the Islamic Ummah. You distanced yourself from Islam"
😀😀😀 I don't know where you get your fairytales from.
"As for global level mess, I blame the "infallible" Imams. It was during the time of Imam Ali (ra) that Muslims fought each other on a large scale"
Allow me to correct you. Muslims didn't fight each other, certain individuals rebelled against your 4th RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH OF THE MUSLIMS. They challenged your Caliph and your Caliphate system by means of violence and threatening behaviour. And you don't have the courage to criticise and condemn those and what needs to be criticised and condemned.
And you talk about crticisism and condemnation of Kufr in a silly clip created and designed for propaganda purposes.
"Therefore, the absent concept of Imamah is the root cause of mess for the Ummah"
Ok, so where's Caliphate then? The absent concept of Imamah is because of certain Muslims pushing for authority rather than being governed by the Prophet's s.a.w desire and choice. Remember the black day, where the Prophet s.a.w was refused access to pen and paper. That's what caused the problem.
"As for global level mess, I blame the "infallible" Imams"
It's got nothing to do with you or I or what we think. It's to do with reality and facts. Blame those who need to be blamed. And those are the ones who refused the Prophet s.a.w access to pen and paper and disregarded what he wanted them to have. There's your blame and who needs to be blamed.
"No, kanjar, that is your auqaat! You are so caught up in licking your wounds inflicted by Saqifa"
I'm not the slightest worried about saqifa. Why would an coincidental and unfortunate incident worry me, and the unfair, unjust, immature decision made by a handful of people.
that you actually issued a statement distancing yourself from Islam and Muslims"
-
The awesome comment was for your separation of yourself from the Islamic Ummah. You distanced yourself from Islam; shot yourself in the foot.
As for global level mess, I blame the "infallible" Imams. It was during the time of Imam Ali (ra) that Muslims fought each other on a large scale. Then again at the time of Imam Hassan (ra). Therefore, the absent concept of Imamah is the root cause of mess for the Ummah.
No, kanjar, that is your auqaat! You are so caught up in licking your wounds inflicted by Saqifa that you actually issued a statement distancing yourself from Islam and Muslims. You made takfeer on your own self. SubhanAllah, from the horse's mouth! More like from the donkey's mouth in your case.
I deal with $hit everyday because you keep spewing it.
Coincidence or not, the three got what they wanted. Your four "infallibles" (ra) alive at the time could not achieve their objectives. Game over, you lost!
We are talking about Prophets (asws) and Imams (ra), the latter being higher than the former in your theology. If Allah (swt) accepted Yunus (asws) even when he temporarily disobeyed Allah (swt), why were your Imams (ra) never supplemented and granted respite? Is it that Allah (swt) abandoned them or is the entire concept of Imamah is a fabrication?
Allah's (swt) decision is clear. The three "rushed" to Saqifa and got everyone in line. They took the power and won so much for Islam; brought vast areas of the globe under Islamic rule. On the other hand, the "infallibles" (ra) achieved nothing. Womp womp womp!
Assuming rulers took matter into their own hands, how does that weaken our ahadith literature? Compare this to your own Imam (ra) issuing dubious dichotomous fatwa regarding some of your most prolific narrators like Zurarah, lol. One one occasion he was cursed, in another he was praised. What a tragedy! The Imams (ra) were actually misguiding people. Oh what a disaster!
It does matter! You are an "imbecile", not "imbasil". Makes a world of a difference!
Caliphate is not nearly a principle within our theology as is the absent-from-Qur'an concept of Imamah for you. However, to burn you further, may Allah be pleased with Muawiya. Had he not fought back, we would have never known that Imamah is a failure, lol.
It is not what I think; it is exactly what you said. You clearly distinguished yourself from Islam and the Muslim Ummah. Hence, you made takfeer upon your own self. And that is your auqaat!
These ahadith talk about a Muslim making takfeer on another; it does not address a situation in which an imbecile separates himself from the Muslims and makes takfeer upon himself (which is exactly what you did).
"that you actually issued a statement distancing yourself from Islam and Muslims"
Did I? 😀 Where and when?
"No, kanjar, that is your auqaat!, and "More like from the donkey's mouth in your case"
😀😁😂😅 I know I'm getting the better of you. Your comments and behaviour tells. Lovin it. 😊
"Coincidence or not, the three got what they wanted"
Absolutely they got what THEY WANTED. Not what the PROPHET S.A.W WANTED. Thanks for admitting it.
"Your four "infallibles" (ra) alive at the time could not achieve their objectives. Game over, you lost!"
That's how you see it. They were given a title and a job to do (Imamah), and mashallah they did it well. They didn't let their desire or will get in their way. Mashallah 😊
"If Allah (swt) accepted Yunus (asws) even when he temporarily disobeyed Allah (swt), why were your Imams (ra) never supplemented and granted respite? Is it that Allah (swt) abandoned them or is the entire concept of Imamah is a fabrication?"
You don't understand why Imamah is all about. Because you've been fed rubbish about it from day one so how would you. Start a thread on Imamah, commit yourself to a discussion not argument and stick to the thread and what is being discussed and I ill tell you infact educate you on Imamah and what it's all about.
-
The awesome comment was for your separation of yourself from the Islamic Ummah. You distanced yourself from Islam; shot yourself in the foot.
As for global level mess, I blame the "infallible" Imams. It was during the time of Imam Ali (ra) that Muslims fought each other on a large scale. Then again at the time of Imam Hassan (ra). Therefore, the absent concept of Imamah is the root cause of mess for the Ummah.
No, kanjar, that is your auqaat! You are so caught up in licking your wounds inflicted by Saqifa that you actually issued a statement distancing yourself from Islam and Muslims. You made takfeer on your own self. SubhanAllah, from the horse's mouth! More like from the donkey's mouth in your case.
I deal with $hit everyday because you keep spewing it.
Coincidence or not, the three got what they wanted. Your four "infallibles" (ra) alive at the time could not achieve their objectives. Game over, you lost!
We are talking about Prophets (asws) and Imams (ra), the latter being higher than the former in your theology. If Allah (swt) accepted Yunus (asws) even when he temporarily disobeyed Allah (swt), why were your Imams (ra) never supplemented and granted respite? Is it that Allah (swt) abandoned them or is the entire concept of Imamah is a fabrication?
Allah's (swt) decision is clear. The three "rushed" to Saqifa and got everyone in line. They took the power and won so much for Islam; brought vast areas of the globe under Islamic rule. On the other hand, the "infallibles" (ra) achieved nothing. Womp womp womp!
Assuming rulers took matter into their own hands, how does that weaken our ahadith literature? Compare this to your own Imam (ra) issuing dubious dichotomous fatwa regarding some of your most prolific narrators like Zurarah, lol. One one occasion he was cursed, in another he was praised. What a tragedy! The Imams (ra) were actually misguiding people. Oh what a disaster!
It does matter! You are an "imbecile", not "imbasil". Makes a world of a difference!
Caliphate is not nearly a principle within our theology as is the absent-from-Qur'an concept of Imamah for you. However, to burn you further, may Allah be pleased with Muawiya. Had he not fought back, we would have never known that Imamah is a failure, lol.
It is not what I think; it is exactly what you said. You clearly distinguished yourself from Islam and the Muslim Ummah. Hence, you made takfeer upon your own self. And that is your auqaat!
These ahadith talk about a Muslim making takfeer on another; it does not address a situation in which an imbecile separates himself from the Muslims and makes takfeer upon himself (which is exactly what you did).
"These ahadith talk about a Muslim making takfeer on another; it does not address a situation in which an imbecile separates himself from the Muslims and makes takfeer upon himself (which is exactly what you did)"
How did I separate myself from the Muslims and make takfeer upon myself? You've accused me of things before and when questioned you came up with nothing. I don't expect much from you now either.
"It is not what I think; it is exactly what you said. You clearly distinguished yourself from Islam and the Muslim Ummah. Hence, you made takfeer upon your own self. And that is your auqaat!"
Show me how, when and where?
"Caliphate is not nearly a principle within our theology"
When and where did I say it was? Was the selection of Abu Bakr fair and justified? Was it legitimate? That's what I'm asking.
"absent-from-Qur'an concept of Imamah for you"
It isn't absent you're in constant denial over it. You don't want to discuss it but argue over it. You question and ask to raise suspicion and cast doubt over it because you already have a mindset which is against it.
-
The awesome comment was for your separation of yourself from the Islamic Ummah. You distanced yourself from Islam; shot yourself in the foot.
As for global level mess, I blame the "infallible" Imams. It was during the time of Imam Ali (ra) that Muslims fought each other on a large scale. Then again at the time of Imam Hassan (ra). Therefore, the absent concept of Imamah is the root cause of mess for the Ummah.
No, kanjar, that is your auqaat! You are so caught up in licking your wounds inflicted by Saqifa that you actually issued a statement distancing yourself from Islam and Muslims. You made takfeer on your own self. SubhanAllah, from the horse's mouth! More like from the donkey's mouth in your case.
I deal with $hit everyday because you keep spewing it.
Coincidence or not, the three got what they wanted. Your four "infallibles" (ra) alive at the time could not achieve their objectives. Game over, you lost!
We are talking about Prophets (asws) and Imams (ra), the latter being higher than the former in your theology. If Allah (swt) accepted Yunus (asws) even when he temporarily disobeyed Allah (swt), why were your Imams (ra) never supplemented and granted respite? Is it that Allah (swt) abandoned them or is the entire concept of Imamah is a fabrication?
Allah's (swt) decision is clear. The three "rushed" to Saqifa and got everyone in line. They took the power and won so much for Islam; brought vast areas of the globe under Islamic rule. On the other hand, the "infallibles" (ra) achieved nothing. Womp womp womp!
Assuming rulers took matter into their own hands, how does that weaken our ahadith literature? Compare this to your own Imam (ra) issuing dubious dichotomous fatwa regarding some of your most prolific narrators like Zurarah, lol. One one occasion he was cursed, in another he was praised. What a tragedy! The Imams (ra) were actually misguiding people. Oh what a disaster!
It does matter! You are an "imbecile", not "imbasil". Makes a world of a difference!
Caliphate is not nearly a principle within our theology as is the absent-from-Qur'an concept of Imamah for you. However, to burn you further, may Allah be pleased with Muawiya. Had he not fought back, we would have never known that Imamah is a failure, lol.
It is not what I think; it is exactly what you said. You clearly distinguished yourself from Islam and the Muslim Ummah. Hence, you made takfeer upon your own self. And that is your auqaat!
These ahadith talk about a Muslim making takfeer on another; it does not address a situation in which an imbecile separates himself from the Muslims and makes takfeer upon himself (which is exactly what you did).
"It does matter! You are an "imbecile", not "imbasil". Makes a world of a difference!"
And, "No, kanjar, that is your auqaat!" And, "it does not address a situation in which an imbecile separates himself "
You're right, it really doesn't matter how you shoot off your mouth. I like to say and behave in a respectable manner to represent and show myself as well mannered and you as I'll mannered. You can carry on with your tongue as you please, it doesn't bother me the slightest. With your behaviour I can tell that I've got and I'm getting the better of you.
"However, to burn you further, may Allah be pleased with Muawiya. Had he not fought back, we would have never known that Imamah is a failure, lol."
Muawiyah didn't fight back. This is where you're dead wrong and you know it. I know you love to defend and protect certain personalities to such an extent that you can't distinguish between true and false and right and wrong anymore.
Muawiyah opposed your Caliphate system. In fact he made a mockery out of it by using means of violence and threatening behaviour. He used his influence, support and connections which he built under the regin of the first three and used it to his advantage.
If this wasn't Ali but one of the first three then your stance on Muawiya would be absolutely and totally different. You wouldn't have fallen short of branding Muawiya as a Murtad just like Malik bin Nuwayrah. I know your difference in principles and your double standards. And I'm very familiar with your hypocritical stance and tactics.
"Assuming rulers took matter into their own hands, how does that weaken our ahadith literature?"
Have some dignity and shame by sticking to one thing and principle. Accept the Caliphate system by not going weak on the 4th Caliph and then completely loosing it from there onwards. Yazeed was your beloved Caliph as well. Honour and praise him just like the first three.
-
“And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)) gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it) , and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Severe in punishment”
[al-Hashr 59:7]
“Say: "Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away, he (Messenger Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)) is only responsible for the duty placed on him (i.e. to convey Allah’s Message) and you for that placed on you. If you obey him, you shall be on the right guidance. The Messengers duty is only to convey (the message) in a clear way (i.e. to preach in a plain way)”
[an-Noor 24:54]
“We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allah’s Leave”
[an-Nisa’ 4:64]
The Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper so he may give something. Was the Prophet s.a.w obeyed? Were the people present willing take what the Prophet s.a.w was giving/offering? 😊
The matter is crystal clear and in black and white. All matters are. But certain people wish to continue to mitigate matters by raising suspicion and casting doubt. Don't let these people fool you. Don't continue to fool yourself. 😊
-
😀😀😀 I don't know where you get your fairytales from.
From the mouth of the donkey who clearly distinguished himself from Islam and the Muslims.
Allow me to correct you. Muslims didn't fight each other, certain individuals rebelled against your 4th RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH OF THE MUSLIMS. They challenged your Caliph and your Caliphate system by means of violence and threatening behaviour. And you don't have the courage to criticise and condemn those and what needs to be criticised and condemned.
Muslims fought each other because Imam Ali (ra) never considered them "certain individuals" but instead as "Muslims". And they did not challenge the Caliphate system; they disagreed over the blood of Uthman (ra) and it was Imam Ali (ra) to bring troops to fight them. However, the point still stands. The first major bloodshed among Muslims happened at the time of Imam Ali (ra) and then Imam Hassan (ra). Hence, you should blame Imamah for Islamic bloodshed.
And you talk about crticisism and condemnation of Kufr in a silly clip created and designed for propaganda purposes.
No, I want to see how far will you go to not condemn such a kufr-ish clip to show you your "auqaat".
Ok, so where's Caliphate then? The absent concept of Imamah is because of certain Muslims pushing for authority rather than being governed by the Prophet's s.a.w desire and choice.
Caliphate is gone, unfortunately, but the first instance of Muslim infighting and bloodshed came at the time of an "infallible" (ra). Therefore, blame Imamah!
Remember the black day, where the Prophet s.a.w was refused access to pen and paper. That's what caused the problem.
Going by your belief, on that day, much like on so many other days, the "infallibles" (ra) stood around incapable of bringing pen and paper. Once again, Umar (ra) incapacitated the "Divinely Appointed Infallibles" (ra). They could not even overcome Umar (ra) to bring pen and paper and you want us to believe that they will guide all mankind.
And those are the ones who refused the Prophet s.a.w access to pen and paper and disregarded what he wanted them to have. There's your blame and who needs to be blamed.
For the sake of argument, I blame everyone who refused, and was unable, to bring pen and paper. That is the fair stance. If we adopt it, then, we have to also blame those who sat idly and did nothing, like Imam Ali (ra).
Time and again, your accusations fall directly upon your own "infallibles" (ra). Every. Time.
I'm not the slightest worried about saqifa. Why would an coincidental and unfortunate incident worry me, and the unfair, unjust, immature decision made by a handful of people.
It should worry you because, among many other reasons, the same "immature decision" was upheld by Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) who accepted to rule as per the "immature decision".
Did I? 😀 Where and when?
"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"
"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."
In both those statements, you have made the claim that Saqifa scarred Islam and Muslims, not you. From that, it can be inferred that you are outside Islam and do not belong with the Muslims. Had you been a little smarter, you would have said that Saqifa has scarred "most", "a significant portion", etc, of the Ummah.
Absolutely they got what THEY WANTED. Not what the PROPHET S.A.W WANTED. Thanks for admitting it.
How do you know it is not what the Prophet (saw) wanted? The Prophet (saw) had left the earthly existence when the first three (ra) coerced your "infallibles" (ra) into unimportance and rendered them helpless, lol.
That's how you see it. They were given a title and a job to do (Imamah), and mashallah they did it well. They didn't let their desire or will get in their way. Mashallah 😊
Yes, they did their job. They affirmed that Abu Bakr (ra) was right when it comes to Fadak. They affirmed that Muawiya, contrary to your belief, was a Muslim. They affirmed, beyond a shadow of doubt, and to darken your face, that their rule was not "Divinely Ordained". Indeed they did a good job except their deeds go against your beliefs. Oops!
You don't understand why Imamah is all about.
You could not distinguish Yunus (asws) from Yusuf (asws).
Because you've been fed rubbish about it from day one so how would you.
I asked at Shi'i mosques. If you do not like my understanding of Imamah, you should fight those mosques. I believe I already provided you their names and location.
Start a thread on Imamah, commit yourself to a discussion not argument and stick to the thread and what is being discussed and I ill tell you infact educate you on Imamah and what it's all about.
Seems like you should first educate your own mosques because clearly you know something they don't!
It isn't absent you're in constant denial over it.
Then where is it? Not a single verse!
With your behaviour I can tell that I've got and I'm getting the better of you.
Consolation prize?
Muawiyah opposed your Caliphate system. In fact he made a mockery out of it by using means of violence and threatening behaviour. He used his influence, support and connections which he built under the regin of the first three and used it to his advantage.
So Muawiya used his influence, support and connections to render Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) - who were being aided by Allah (swt) - useless? A mere mortal outsmarted and outwitted two "Divinely Chosen Infallible" beings (ra)! I say this Muawiya was a genius. No wonder he gives you nightmares.
Have some dignity and shame by sticking to one thing and principle.
Kaminay, kanjar, you brought up ahaadith, not me.
Yazeed was your beloved Caliph as well. Honour and praise him just like the first three.
Compared to you, Yazeed, indeed, was an honorable and praiseworthy man. His crime was that he killed Imam Hussain (ra); your crime is that you are hell-bent upon throwing the entire Ummah in confusion by undermining the message of Islam.
-
From the mouth of the donkey who clearly distinguished himself from Islam and the Muslims.
Muslims fought each other because Imam Ali (ra) never considered them "certain individuals" but instead as "Muslims". And they did not challenge the Caliphate system; they disagreed over the blood of Uthman (ra) and it was Imam Ali (ra) to bring troops to fight them. However, the point still stands. The first major bloodshed among Muslims happened at the time of Imam Ali (ra) and then Imam Hassan (ra). Hence, you should blame Imamah for Islamic bloodshed.
No, I want to see how far will you go to not condemn such a kufr-ish clip to show you your "auqaat".
Caliphate is gone, unfortunately, but the first instance of Muslim infighting and bloodshed came at the time of an "infallible" (ra). Therefore, blame Imamah!
Going by your belief, on that day, much like on so many other days, the "infallibles" (ra) stood around incapable of bringing pen and paper. Once again, Umar (ra) incapacitated the "Divinely Appointed Infallibles" (ra). They could not even overcome Umar (ra) to bring pen and paper and you want us to believe that they will guide all mankind.
For the sake of argument, I blame everyone who refused, and was unable, to bring pen and paper. That is the fair stance. If we adopt it, then, we have to also blame those who sat idly and did nothing, like Imam Ali (ra).
Time and again, your accusations fall directly upon your own "infallibles" (ra). Every. Time.
It should worry you because, among many other reasons, the same "immature decision" was upheld by Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) who accepted to rule as per the "immature decision".
"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"
"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."
In both those statements, you have made the claim that Saqifa scarred Islam and Muslims, not you. From that, it can be inferred that you are outside Islam and do not belong with the Muslims. Had you been a little smarter, you would have said that Saqifa has scarred "most", "a significant portion", etc, of the Ummah.
How do you know it is not what the Prophet (saw) wanted? The Prophet (saw) had left the earthly existence when the first three (ra) coerced your "infallibles" (ra) into unimportance and rendered them helpless, lol.
Yes, they did their job. They affirmed that Abu Bakr (ra) was right when it comes to Fadak. They affirmed that Muawiya, contrary to your belief, was a Muslim. They affirmed, beyond a shadow of doubt, and to darken your face, that their rule was not "Divinely Ordained". Indeed they did a good job except their deeds go against your beliefs. Oops!
You could not distinguish Yunus (asws) from Yusuf (asws).
I asked at Shi'i mosques. If you do not like my understanding of Imamah, you should fight those mosques. I believe I already provided you their names and location.
Seems like you should first educate your own mosques because clearly you know something they don't!
Then where is it? Not a single verse!
Consolation prize?
So Muawiya used his influence, support and connections to render Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) - who were being aided by Allah (swt) - useless? A mere mortal outsmarted and outwitted two "Divinely Chosen Infallible" beings (ra)! I say this Muawiya was a genius. No wonder he gives you nightmares.
Kaminay, kanjar, you brought up ahaadith, not me.
Compared to you, Yazeed, indeed, was an honorable and praiseworthy man. His crime was that he killed Imam Hussain (ra); your crime is that you are hell-bent upon throwing the entire Ummah in confusion by undermining the message of Islam.
"From the mouth of the donkey who clearly distinguished himself from Islam and the Muslims"
Where and when? You accuse then run off on to something else. PROVE IT.
"Muslims fought each other because Imam Ali (ra) never considered them"
WHAT A LOUSY EXCUSE. They took up arms against the Caliph (Ali) because he didn't give them governmental roles and positions? You must be joking. But thanks for being honest. At least we're getting somewhere.
He (Ali) had the right to choose his own administration and cabinet, just like his predecessors. Nice one though, it was the Caliphs (Ali) fault and not the ones who took on violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met😊 Nice one.
If this wasn't Ali but one of the first three then your belief and story would be absolutely the other way around.
-
From the mouth of the donkey who clearly distinguished himself from Islam and the Muslims.
Muslims fought each other because Imam Ali (ra) never considered them "certain individuals" but instead as "Muslims". And they did not challenge the Caliphate system; they disagreed over the blood of Uthman (ra) and it was Imam Ali (ra) to bring troops to fight them. However, the point still stands. The first major bloodshed among Muslims happened at the time of Imam Ali (ra) and then Imam Hassan (ra). Hence, you should blame Imamah for Islamic bloodshed.
No, I want to see how far will you go to not condemn such a kufr-ish clip to show you your "auqaat".
Caliphate is gone, unfortunately, but the first instance of Muslim infighting and bloodshed came at the time of an "infallible" (ra). Therefore, blame Imamah!
Going by your belief, on that day, much like on so many other days, the "infallibles" (ra) stood around incapable of bringing pen and paper. Once again, Umar (ra) incapacitated the "Divinely Appointed Infallibles" (ra). They could not even overcome Umar (ra) to bring pen and paper and you want us to believe that they will guide all mankind.
For the sake of argument, I blame everyone who refused, and was unable, to bring pen and paper. That is the fair stance. If we adopt it, then, we have to also blame those who sat idly and did nothing, like Imam Ali (ra).
Time and again, your accusations fall directly upon your own "infallibles" (ra). Every. Time.
It should worry you because, among many other reasons, the same "immature decision" was upheld by Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) who accepted to rule as per the "immature decision".
"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"
"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."
In both those statements, you have made the claim that Saqifa scarred Islam and Muslims, not you. From that, it can be inferred that you are outside Islam and do not belong with the Muslims. Had you been a little smarter, you would have said that Saqifa has scarred "most", "a significant portion", etc, of the Ummah.
How do you know it is not what the Prophet (saw) wanted? The Prophet (saw) had left the earthly existence when the first three (ra) coerced your "infallibles" (ra) into unimportance and rendered them helpless, lol.
Yes, they did their job. They affirmed that Abu Bakr (ra) was right when it comes to Fadak. They affirmed that Muawiya, contrary to your belief, was a Muslim. They affirmed, beyond a shadow of doubt, and to darken your face, that their rule was not "Divinely Ordained". Indeed they did a good job except their deeds go against your beliefs. Oops!
You could not distinguish Yunus (asws) from Yusuf (asws).
I asked at Shi'i mosques. If you do not like my understanding of Imamah, you should fight those mosques. I believe I already provided you their names and location.
Seems like you should first educate your own mosques because clearly you know something they don't!
Then where is it? Not a single verse!
Consolation prize?
So Muawiya used his influence, support and connections to render Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) - who were being aided by Allah (swt) - useless? A mere mortal outsmarted and outwitted two "Divinely Chosen Infallible" beings (ra)! I say this Muawiya was a genius. No wonder he gives you nightmares.
Kaminay, kanjar, you brought up ahaadith, not me.
Compared to you, Yazeed, indeed, was an honorable and praiseworthy man. His crime was that he killed Imam Hussain (ra); your crime is that you are hell-bent upon throwing the entire Ummah in confusion by undermining the message of Islam.
Compared to you, Yazeed, indeed, was an honorable and praiseworthy man"
You mean compared to Abu Bakr. In Saqifa there was no campaign no gathering on selecting a leader and Abu Bakr was chosen by a handful there. They just took the matter into their own hands. Then the decision was imposed on the others.
Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.
Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards.
"His crime was that he killed Imam Hussain (ra)"
Why did he kill him? Thanks for accepting this though. Some of you (Sunnis) believe Yazeed had nothing to do with it. He wasn't even aware of what was going on. Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad acted according to himself. Just as Khalid ibn Waleed did in the case of Malik bin Nuwayrah and his clan.
"your crime is that you are hell-bent upon throwing the entire Ummah in confusion by undermining the message of Islam"
You accuse but can't prove. At least discuss so I can clear your misunderstanding.
-
From the mouth of the donkey who clearly distinguished himself from Islam and the Muslims.
Muslims fought each other because Imam Ali (ra) never considered them "certain individuals" but instead as "Muslims". And they did not challenge the Caliphate system; they disagreed over the blood of Uthman (ra) and it was Imam Ali (ra) to bring troops to fight them. However, the point still stands. The first major bloodshed among Muslims happened at the time of Imam Ali (ra) and then Imam Hassan (ra). Hence, you should blame Imamah for Islamic bloodshed.
No, I want to see how far will you go to not condemn such a kufr-ish clip to show you your "auqaat".
Caliphate is gone, unfortunately, but the first instance of Muslim infighting and bloodshed came at the time of an "infallible" (ra). Therefore, blame Imamah!
Going by your belief, on that day, much like on so many other days, the "infallibles" (ra) stood around incapable of bringing pen and paper. Once again, Umar (ra) incapacitated the "Divinely Appointed Infallibles" (ra). They could not even overcome Umar (ra) to bring pen and paper and you want us to believe that they will guide all mankind.
For the sake of argument, I blame everyone who refused, and was unable, to bring pen and paper. That is the fair stance. If we adopt it, then, we have to also blame those who sat idly and did nothing, like Imam Ali (ra).
Time and again, your accusations fall directly upon your own "infallibles" (ra). Every. Time.
It should worry you because, among many other reasons, the same "immature decision" was upheld by Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) who accepted to rule as per the "immature decision".
"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"
"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."
In both those statements, you have made the claim that Saqifa scarred Islam and Muslims, not you. From that, it can be inferred that you are outside Islam and do not belong with the Muslims. Had you been a little smarter, you would have said that Saqifa has scarred "most", "a significant portion", etc, of the Ummah.
How do you know it is not what the Prophet (saw) wanted? The Prophet (saw) had left the earthly existence when the first three (ra) coerced your "infallibles" (ra) into unimportance and rendered them helpless, lol.
Yes, they did their job. They affirmed that Abu Bakr (ra) was right when it comes to Fadak. They affirmed that Muawiya, contrary to your belief, was a Muslim. They affirmed, beyond a shadow of doubt, and to darken your face, that their rule was not "Divinely Ordained". Indeed they did a good job except their deeds go against your beliefs. Oops!
You could not distinguish Yunus (asws) from Yusuf (asws).
I asked at Shi'i mosques. If you do not like my understanding of Imamah, you should fight those mosques. I believe I already provided you their names and location.
Seems like you should first educate your own mosques because clearly you know something they don't!
Then where is it? Not a single verse!
Consolation prize?
So Muawiya used his influence, support and connections to render Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) - who were being aided by Allah (swt) - useless? A mere mortal outsmarted and outwitted two "Divinely Chosen Infallible" beings (ra)! I say this Muawiya was a genius. No wonder he gives you nightmares.
Kaminay, kanjar, you brought up ahaadith, not me.
Compared to you, Yazeed, indeed, was an honorable and praiseworthy man. His crime was that he killed Imam Hussain (ra); your crime is that you are hell-bent upon throwing the entire Ummah in confusion by undermining the message of Islam.
"The first major bloodshed among Muslims happened at the time of Imam Ali (ra) and then Imam Hassan (ra). Hence, you should blame Imamah for Islamic bloodshed"
Yes and we along with the noble Ahle Sunnah believe Ali was right and on Haq. And we strongly criticise and condemn those who used violence and threatening behaviour against the rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Islamic Caliphate. We see them as terrorists because they engaged in terrorism. And this is where certain handful of Muslims (like ISIS) get their ideology from and think they're doing right.
"Hence, you should blame Imamah for Islamic bloodshed"
We don't blame the police, we blame the criminals and those who take on criminal activity. We don't blame the government but the terrorists and those engaged in such activity. We are honest about it. You aren't!
-
Where and when? You accuse then run off on to something else. PROVE IT.
Donkey, for the second time:
"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"
"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."
WHAT A LOUSY EXCUSE. They took up arms against the Caliph (Ali) because he didn't give them governmental roles and positions? You must be joking. But thanks for being honest. At least we're getting somewhere.
I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]
Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you. With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?
If this wasn't Ali but one of the first three then your belief and story would be absolutely the other way around.
Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken.
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]
Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!
You mean compared to Abu Bakr.
Again you have contradicted Imam Ali (ra)! You are tarnishing the man to whom your first "infallible" Imam (ra) gave bayyah.
They just took the matter into their own hands. Then the decision was imposed on the others.
So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)? Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them? Shame!
Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards.
Therefore, according to you, Malik bin Nuwayrah was braver and more honorable than your first three Imams (ra). For Abu Bakr (ra) to impose himself upon Malik, he (according to your lie) had to send an army to coerce Malik and his people. However, your three "infallible" Imams (ra) gave in without any resistance, lol!
Why did he kill him? Thanks for accepting this though.
Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).
Some of you (Sunnis) believe Yazeed had nothing to do with it. He wasn't even aware of what was going on.
No, those Sunnis lay it into you. It is true that Yazeed was not there so apart from the handful - Shimr, etc - the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school.
You accuse but can't prove. At least discuss so I can clear your misunderstanding.
Are you in denial? Matters that are more than 1400 years old, you cannot lay them to rest despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them.
Yes and we along with the noble Ahle Sunnah believe Ali was right and on Haq.
Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed.
And this is where certain handful of Muslims (like ISIS) get their ideology from and think they're doing right.
These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes. By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it.
We don't blame the police, we blame the criminals and those who take on criminal activity.
Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa. However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali (ra). By your standards, if you are not a hypocrite - I am sure it is very hard for you to shake it off - you should blame Imamah.
We don't blame the government but the terrorists and those engaged in such activity.
You don't blame the government? What about this?
"Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.
Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards."
You are putting the blame on the government but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts.
We are honest about it. You aren't!
Still believe you are honest?
-
Donkey, for the second time:
"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"
"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."
I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]
Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you. With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?
Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken.
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]
Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!
Again you have contradicted Imam Ali (ra)! You are tarnishing the man to whom your first "infallible" Imam (ra) gave bayyah.
So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)? Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them? Shame!
Therefore, according to you, Malik bin Nuwayrah was braver and more honorable than your first three Imams (ra). For Abu Bakr (ra) to impose himself upon Malik, he (according to your lie) had to send an army to coerce Malik and his people. However, your three "infallible" Imams (ra) gave in without any resistance, lol!
Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).
No, those Sunnis lay it into you. It is true that Yazeed was not there so apart from the handful - Shimr, etc - the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school.
Are you in denial? Matters that are more than 1400 years old, you cannot lay them to rest despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them.
Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed.
These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes. By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it.
Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa. However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali (ra). By your standards, if you are not a hypocrite - I am sure it is very hard for you to shake it off - you should blame Imamah.
You don't blame the government? What about this?
"Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.
Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards."
You are putting the blame on the government but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts.
Still believe you are honest?
"Donkey, for the second time"
I strongly disagree. I didn't think you were a donkey for the first time, never mind about the second, third or fourth. Unless you consider yourself one then that's a different matter.
"I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra)"
You seem to live on assumptions, thoughts, emotions and feelings. You're not sure about anything.
"Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you. With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?"
According to the Ahle Sunnah aqeedah the Ulul Amre is hakim e waqth, the ruler of the time. So with which face are you going to consider Muawiya and Ali the same?
"Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken"
Double standards has always been the way of the Ahle Sunnah. You can't stick to one thing. Heck, you can't even stick to your own belief and principles.
"Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!"
Nope. The situation between Ali and Muawiyya has exposed your double standards. Here Caliphate has no meaning for you. It suddenly disappears in thin.air.
-
Donkey, for the second time:
"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"
"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."
I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]
Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you. With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?
Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken.
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]
Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!
Again you have contradicted Imam Ali (ra)! You are tarnishing the man to whom your first "infallible" Imam (ra) gave bayyah.
So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)? Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them? Shame!
Therefore, according to you, Malik bin Nuwayrah was braver and more honorable than your first three Imams (ra). For Abu Bakr (ra) to impose himself upon Malik, he (according to your lie) had to send an army to coerce Malik and his people. However, your three "infallible" Imams (ra) gave in without any resistance, lol!
Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).
No, those Sunnis lay it into you. It is true that Yazeed was not there so apart from the handful - Shimr, etc - the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school.
Are you in denial? Matters that are more than 1400 years old, you cannot lay them to rest despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them.
Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed.
These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes. By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it.
Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa. However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali (ra). By your standards, if you are not a hypocrite - I am sure it is very hard for you to shake it off - you should blame Imamah.
You don't blame the government? What about this?
"Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.
Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards."
You are putting the blame on the government but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts.
Still believe you are honest?
"You are putting the blame on the government"
Did the government (Abu Bakr) act on Shariah law or governmental law?
"but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts"
How and in what way? You're playing DOUBLE STANDARDS. When it comes to Abu Bakr you're trying to justify everything. But when it comes to Ali the whole concept of Caliphate comes into doubt and suspicion. Definitely DOUBLE STANDARDS!
"Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa"
Never said that. I don't know how you came up with that.
"However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali"
Nope. It happened well before that. Does the WAR OF ZAKAH during Abu Bakr's reign ring any bells.
"you should blame Imamah"
For the bloodshed caused by others? You talk like those non muslims who believe that if it wasn't for Muhammad s.a.w then the killings (Badr, Ohad etc) wouldn’t have taken place.
-
Donkey, for the second time:
"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"
"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."
I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]
Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you. With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?
Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken.
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]
Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!
Again you have contradicted Imam Ali (ra)! You are tarnishing the man to whom your first "infallible" Imam (ra) gave bayyah.
So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)? Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them? Shame!
Therefore, according to you, Malik bin Nuwayrah was braver and more honorable than your first three Imams (ra). For Abu Bakr (ra) to impose himself upon Malik, he (according to your lie) had to send an army to coerce Malik and his people. However, your three "infallible" Imams (ra) gave in without any resistance, lol!
Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).
No, those Sunnis lay it into you. It is true that Yazeed was not there so apart from the handful - Shimr, etc - the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school.
Are you in denial? Matters that are more than 1400 years old, you cannot lay them to rest despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them.
Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed.
These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes. By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it.
Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa. However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali (ra). By your standards, if you are not a hypocrite - I am sure it is very hard for you to shake it off - you should blame Imamah.
You don't blame the government? What about this?
"Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.
Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards."
You are putting the blame on the government but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts.
Still believe you are honest?
"By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it"
What on earth are you talking about. Are you OK?
"Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed"
I don't know where on earth you got that from.
"despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them"
To prevent them from being the cause of further mischief. And to save the Ummah from further harm.
"the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school"
Nope. They were Muslims before Kufans and part of the Muslim army. And they were following the orders of your Caliph Yazeed.
-
Donkey, for the second time:
"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"
"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."
I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]
Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you. With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?
Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken.
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]
Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!
Again you have contradicted Imam Ali (ra)! You are tarnishing the man to whom your first "infallible" Imam (ra) gave bayyah.
So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)? Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them? Shame!
Therefore, according to you, Malik bin Nuwayrah was braver and more honorable than your first three Imams (ra). For Abu Bakr (ra) to impose himself upon Malik, he (according to your lie) had to send an army to coerce Malik and his people. However, your three "infallible" Imams (ra) gave in without any resistance, lol!
Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).
No, those Sunnis lay it into you. It is true that Yazeed was not there so apart from the handful - Shimr, etc - the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school.
Are you in denial? Matters that are more than 1400 years old, you cannot lay them to rest despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them.
Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed.
These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes. By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it.
Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa. However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali (ra). By your standards, if you are not a hypocrite - I am sure it is very hard for you to shake it off - you should blame Imamah.
You don't blame the government? What about this?
"Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.
Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards."
You are putting the blame on the government but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts.
Still believe you are honest?
"Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!"
No, in fact Muawiya darkened yours by challenging your Caliphate system, making a mockery out of it and by telling and showing you where to STICK YOUR CALIPHATE!
"So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)? Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them? Shame!"
There were 124,000 messengers. Take a look at how many were successful and how successful, if we go by your theory. Everything seems to be in between winning a loosing and might is strength, according to you. You are so emotional and answer less that you want to just argue like a child.
"I until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra)."
You must be living in cuckoo land then uptil now.
"It is true that Yazeed was not there"
He was hiding in his Caliphate compound. He just gave the orders. Wasn't anywhere near being a warrior. His father Muawiya, how many battles did he fight with Ali? 72. I mean how many did Muawiya actually physically take part in? 😊 Go on, have a guess.
-
I strongly disagree. I didn't think you were a donkey for the first time, never mind about the second, third or fourth. Unless you consider yourself one then that's a different matter.
Imam Kulayni narrated from a donkey so you should have taken that as a compliment. Also, it is good to see you offer no rebuttal to that point (that you made takfeer upon yourself) so it still stands.
You seem to live on assumptions, thoughts, emotions and feelings. You're not sure about anything.
I offered you proof.
According to the Ahle Sunnah aqeedah the Ulul Amre is hakim e waqth, the ruler of the time. So with which face are you going to consider Muawiya and Ali the same?
Another point for which you offered no rebuttal. Imam Ali (ra) considered Muawiya to be Muslim in your own books and you want us to believe otherwise.
Double standards has always been the way of the Ahle Sunnah. You can't stick to one thing. Heck, you can't even stick to your own belief and principles.
Ad hominem will get you no where! You have failed to answer the report I quoted from Nahjul Balagha. May Allah (swt) be pleased with Muawiya for the reason that centuries later, he is still winning and darkening the faces of Rawaafidh, lol.
Nope. The situation between Ali and Muawiyya has exposed your double standards. Here Caliphate has no meaning for you. It suddenly disappears in thin.air.
Caliphate has nothing to do with eemaan and Imam Ali (ra), in your own Nahjul Balagha, gave Muawiya the certificate of Islam. Happy miserable days to you, lol.
Did the government (Abu Bakr) act on Shariah law or governmental law?
Did Imam Hassan (ra) act in accordance to Sharia law, government law or his own independent opinion when he gave his "Divinely Ordained Right" to Muawiya?
Did Imam Ali (ra) act in accordance to Sharia law, government law or his own independent opinion when he brought the army to fight Muawiya?
No matter which way you slice it, my point stands. The first major bloodshed (among Muslims) took place when Imam Ali (ra) was the Caliph. Since you love to blame Abu Bakr (ra) for everything that happened during his rule, let us see you blame your own first "infallible" Imam (ra) for a monumental catastrophe which he participated in.
How and in what way? You're playing DOUBLE STANDARDS. When it comes to Abu Bakr you're trying to justify everything. But when it comes to Ali the whole concept of Caliphate comes into doubt and suspicion. Definitely DOUBLE STANDARDS!
It is called "giving you a dose of your own medicine". Had I not had enough exchanges with you, I would have found it hard to believe that you're that dumb to figure it out.
Never said that. I don't know how you came up with that.
Not a single discussion you have participated in has ended without you bringing up Saqifa. Along with being in loser denial, you are into other denials as well.
Nope. It happened well before that. Does the WAR OF ZAKAH during Abu Bakr's reign ring any bells.
War of Zakah? How about "Apostasy Wars" or "Ridda" wars? You would not use the actual name because it would expose your lie. The war was between Muslims and apostates whereas at the time of Imam Ali (ra), Muslim armies fought each other.
For the bloodshed caused by others?
If Saqifa is the foundation for what ISIS is doing, a conclusion championed by Shias like yourself and Ammar Nakshawani, then Imam Ali (ra) is just as responsible for Muslim in-fighting because he brought the army to fight Muslims.
What on earth are you talking about. Are you OK?
You said: "And this is where certain handful of Muslims (like ISIS) get their ideology from and think they're doing right."
So I responded with: "These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes. By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it."
With salaavot, we hope that your pea-sized brain understands it now.
I don't know where on earth you got that from.
You said: "Yes and we along with the noble Ahle Sunnah believe Ali was right and on Haq."
So I responded with: "Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed."
So yes, Imam Ali (ra) was upon haq but he was also an active participant in a war.
With one more salaavot, we hope that your pea-sized brain could process it.
To prevent them from being the cause of further mischief. And to save the Ummah from further harm.
How much more harm could they have caused? Despite Imam Hassan (ra) giving up his Caliphate, Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra). How did Imam Hassan's (ra) generosity prevent further mischief or save the Ummah? In fact, Imam Hassan (ra) actually strengthened the killer of his own brother while having the knowledge of the unseen.
Nope. They were Muslims before Kufans and part of the Muslim army. And they were following the orders of your Caliph Yazeed.
Are you calling the army that fought Imam Hussain (ra) to be Muslims? Then why do you call Yazeed kafir?
Whether they were following the orders of Yazeed or not, it does not change the fact that they are your spiritual forefathers who shaped your theology.
No, in fact Muawiya darkened yours by challenging your Caliphate system, making a mockery out of it and by telling and showing you where to STICK YOUR CALIPHATE!
Within our narrative, Muawiya wanted qisas. Taking your narrative into account, yes, Muawiya made a mockery of your Imamah and showed you where to stick it. In fact, Muawiya stuck it so far up yours that your 12th infallible, out of fear, is hiding in a cellar/cave, a place where the sun does not shine.
There were 124,000 messengers. Take a look at how many were successful and how successful, if we go by your theory. Everything seems to be in between winning a loosing and might is strength, according to you. You are so emotional and answer less that you want to just argue like a child.
All Prophets (asws) were successful; their success was realized in the coming of the Holy Prophet (saw). So I may argue like a child but Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself upon your first three "infallible" Imams (ra) like they were small children who could be manipulated and overpowered.
#Winning
You must be living in cuckoo land then uptil now.
Upholding the tactics of true Rawaafidh, you have half-quoted my statement.
Here is what you quoted: "I until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra)."
Here is my original statement: "Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra)."
What I was saying is that you insinuate or allege that I never accepted Yazeed to have killed Imam Hussain (ra).
He was hiding in his Caliphate compound. He just gave the orders.
Orders were enough! For one rogue Yazeed, there were thousands of rogue Kufans who wrote to Imam Hussain (ra) and then rained swords upon him.
If I had such despicable creatures to use as peasants, I would not work another day.
Wasn't anywhere near being a warrior.
With so many crap chute Kufans around, no need to do the dirty work yourself.
His father Muawiya, how many battles did he fight with Ali? 72. I mean how many did Muawiya actually physically take part in? 😊 Go on, have a guess
Are you saying that each and every battle between Muawiya and Imam Ali (ra), the latter was actually on the battlefield with his sword drawn and taking part in the combat?
Nonetheless, rest assured, Muawiya eventually outdid your second "infallible" Imam (ra) and his son came after your third "infallible" Imam (ra).
I only see one side get out-dueled pretty badly. What do you think?
-
Imam Kulayni narrated from a donkey so you should have taken that as a compliment. Also, it is good to see you offer no rebuttal to that point (that you made takfeer upon yourself) so it still stands.
I offered you proof.
Another point for which you offered no rebuttal. Imam Ali (ra) considered Muawiya to be Muslim in your own books and you want us to believe otherwise.
Ad hominem will get you no where! You have failed to answer the report I quoted from Nahjul Balagha. May Allah (swt) be pleased with Muawiya for the reason that centuries later, he is still winning and darkening the faces of Rawaafidh, lol.
Caliphate has nothing to do with eemaan and Imam Ali (ra), in your own Nahjul Balagha, gave Muawiya the certificate of Islam. Happy miserable days to you, lol.
Did Imam Hassan (ra) act in accordance to Sharia law, government law or his own independent opinion when he gave his "Divinely Ordained Right" to Muawiya?
Did Imam Ali (ra) act in accordance to Sharia law, government law or his own independent opinion when he brought the army to fight Muawiya?
No matter which way you slice it, my point stands. The first major bloodshed (among Muslims) took place when Imam Ali (ra) was the Caliph. Since you love to blame Abu Bakr (ra) for everything that happened during his rule, let us see you blame your own first "infallible" Imam (ra) for a monumental catastrophe which he participated in.
It is called "giving you a dose of your own medicine". Had I not had enough exchanges with you, I would have found it hard to believe that you're that dumb to figure it out.
Not a single discussion you have participated in has ended without you bringing up Saqifa. Along with being in loser denial, you are into other denials as well.
War of Zakah? How about "Apostasy Wars" or "Ridda" wars? You would not use the actual name because it would expose your lie. The war was between Muslims and apostates whereas at the time of Imam Ali (ra), Muslim armies fought each other.
If Saqifa is the foundation for what ISIS is doing, a conclusion championed by Shias like yourself and Ammar Nakshawani, then Imam Ali (ra) is just as responsible for Muslim in-fighting because he brought the army to fight Muslims.
You said: "And this is where certain handful of Muslims (like ISIS) get their ideology from and think they're doing right."
So I responded with: "These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes. By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it."
With salaavot, we hope that your pea-sized brain understands it now.
You said: "Yes and we along with the noble Ahle Sunnah believe Ali was right and on Haq."
So I responded with: "Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed."
So yes, Imam Ali (ra) was upon haq but he was also an active participant in a war.
With one more salaavot, we hope that your pea-sized brain could process it.
How much more harm could they have caused? Despite Imam Hassan (ra) giving up his Caliphate, Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra). How did Imam Hassan's (ra) generosity prevent further mischief or save the Ummah? In fact, Imam Hassan (ra) actually strengthened the killer of his own brother while having the knowledge of the unseen.
Are you calling the army that fought Imam Hussain (ra) to be Muslims? Then why do you call Yazeed kafir?
Whether they were following the orders of Yazeed or not, it does not change the fact that they are your spiritual forefathers who shaped your theology.
Within our narrative, Muawiya wanted qisas. Taking your narrative into account, yes, Muawiya made a mockery of your Imamah and showed you where to stick it. In fact, Muawiya stuck it so far up yours that your 12th infallible, out of fear, is hiding in a cellar/cave, a place where the sun does not shine.
All Prophets (asws) were successful; their success was realized in the coming of the Holy Prophet (saw). So I may argue like a child but Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself upon your first three "infallible" Imams (ra) like they were small children who could be manipulated and overpowered.
#Winning
Upholding the tactics of true Rawaafidh, you have half-quoted my statement.
Here is what you quoted: "I until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra)."
Here is my original statement: "Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra)."
What I was saying is that you insinuate or allege that I never accepted Yazeed to have killed Imam Hussain (ra).
Orders were enough! For one rogue Yazeed, there were thousands of rogue Kufans who wrote to Imam Hussain (ra) and then rained swords upon him.
If I had such despicable creatures to use as peasants, I would not work another day.
With so many crap chute Kufans around, no need to do the dirty work yourself.
Are you saying that each and every battle between Muawiya and Imam Ali (ra), the latter was actually on the battlefield with his sword drawn and taking part in the combat?
Nonetheless, rest assured, Muawiya eventually outdid your second "infallible" Imam (ra) and his son came after your third "infallible" Imam (ra).
I only see one side get out-dueled pretty badly. What do you think?
"Another point for which you offered no rebuttal. Imam Ali (ra) considered Muawiya to be Muslim in your own books and you want us to believe otherwise"
I never asked you to believe otherwise. Ali also said this. Take a look and digest it.
"O those whose bodies are present but whose wits are absent, whose wishes are scattered, and whose rulers are afflicted by them. Your leader obeys Allah but you disobey him while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah but they obey him. By Allah, I wish Mu’awiyah exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams, so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them"
Notice this bit which ALI ALSO SAID;
"Your leader obeys Allah but you disobey him while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah but they obey him"
You going to accept this as well? 😊
-
I never asked you to believe otherwise. Ali also said this. Take a look and digest it.
I will see how well you can digest my points coming up.
"Your leader obeys Allah but you disobey him while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah but they obey him"
Exactly why we ask you to renounce your books! What has been (falsely) attributed to your Imams (ra) contradict each other.
In one place, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do" about Muawiya.
In another, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "...while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah..."
These sort of contradictions are many in your ahaadith; authentic reports with contradictory information.
Thank you for proving my point right.
You going to accept this as well? 😊
https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-97-although-allah-gives-time-oppressor
"By Allah in Whose power my life lies, these people (Mu’awiyah and his men) will overcome you not because they have a better right than you but because of their hastening towards the wrong with their leader and your slowness about my right (to be followed)." So even Imam Ali (ra) admits that Muawiya was #winning, lol.
"I called you for war but you did not come." Such brave men!
"I warned you but you did not listen." Sounds a lot like Shias today.
"By Allah, I wish Mu’awiyah exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams, so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them." So one from Muawiya's men was more able than ten of Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, lol.
Finally, the main message which you will never hearken:
"I have seen the companions of the Prophet but I do not find anyone resembling them. They began the day with dust on the hair and face (in hardship of life) and passed the night in prostration and standing in prayers. Sometimes they put down their foreheads and sometimes their cheeks. With the recollection of their resurrection it seemed as though they stood on live coal. It seemed that in between their eyes there were signs like knees of goats, resulting from long prostrations. When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched. They trembled for fear of punishment and hope of reward as the tree trembles on the day of stormy wind."
-
I will see how well you can digest my points coming up.
Exactly why we ask you to renounce your books! What has been (falsely) attributed to your Imams (ra) contradict each other.
In one place, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do" about Muawiya.
In another, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "...while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah..."
These sort of contradictions are many in your ahaadith; authentic reports with contradictory information.
Thank you for proving my point right.
https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-97-although-allah-gives-time-oppressor
"By Allah in Whose power my life lies, these people (Mu’awiyah and his men) will overcome you not because they have a better right than you but because of their hastening towards the wrong with their leader and your slowness about my right (to be followed)." So even Imam Ali (ra) admits that Muawiya was #winning, lol.
"I called you for war but you did not come." Such brave men!
"I warned you but you did not listen." Sounds a lot like Shias today.
"By Allah, I wish Mu’awiyah exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams, so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them." So one from Muawiya's men was more able than ten of Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, lol.
Finally, the main message which you will never hearken:
"I have seen the companions of the Prophet but I do not find anyone resembling them. They began the day with dust on the hair and face (in hardship of life) and passed the night in prostration and standing in prayers. Sometimes they put down their foreheads and sometimes their cheeks. With the recollection of their resurrection it seemed as though they stood on live coal. It seemed that in between their eyes there were signs like knees of goats, resulting from long prostrations. When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched. They trembled for fear of punishment and hope of reward as the tree trembles on the day of stormy wind."
"I will see how well you can digest my points coming up"
I've digested your insults and sarcasm for the sake of dealing with your accusations, your points aren't a problem.
"Exactly why we ask you to renounce your books! What has been (falsely) attributed to your Imams (ra) contradict each other"
This is exactly my point. Allow me to correct you. First of all, "your books", they are not our books and out belief and faith doesn’t depend entirely on those books. We don't consider those books on and at the level as you do Sehih Sitta. The AhleSunnah statement 'Haza Sehih Bukhari Baad Az Kitaab e Baari'.
When you put forward references from books about Imams saying about those who refuse to pay Zakah, why did I challenge you on this. For the same reason. This is why I asked you for a direct reference from the Qur'an.
"In one place, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do" about Muawiya.
In another, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "...while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah..."
Why do you pick and choose what suits you then? If there's a contradiction then you shouldn't use such as reference just to suit yourself.
"These sort of contradictions are many in your ahaadith; authentic reports with contradictory information"
Then you shouldn't pick and choose for reference what suits .
"Sounds a lot like Shias today"
They weren't Shias. They were Muslims. But if you see them as Shias then who were the Sunnis? Or where were the Sunnis.
"So one from Muawiya's men was more able than ten of Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, lol"
Those who disbelieved or went astray were always greater in number. Might and numbers have value for you but not in the eyes of us and Allah.
""I have seen the companions of the Prophe"
Does this mean every single companion of the Prophet s.a.w? The Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper, so what happened? Companions? Which companions.
"When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched"
And when the Prophet s.a.w mentioned about pen and paper, what happened then?
-
I've digested your insults and sarcasm for the sake of dealing with your accusations, your points aren't a problem.
I was referring to the bits from Nahjul Balagha; you have made a blunder.
This is exactly my point. Allow me to correct you. First of all, "your books", they are not our books and out belief and faith doesn’t depend entirely on those books.
Then who and what define your beliefs? Do you freestyle it? Or do your scholars freestyle it?
We don't consider those books on and at the level as you do Sehih Sitta. The AhleSunnah statement 'Haza Sehih Bukhari Baad Az Kitaab e Baari'.
Haza? Hada, maybe, then again, Arabic and Shias are opposite ends of spectrum. Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an" based on the statement of earlier, classical scholars. Akhbaris considered the four books of ahaadith to be authentic, cover to cover. Play this card against rookies!
When you put forward references from books about Imams saying about those who refuse to pay Zakah, why did I challenge you on this. For the same reason. This is why I asked you for a direct reference from the Qur'an.
I challenge you to consult your marja'a and ask them their ruling on a Shi'i who rejects an authentic saying of an Imam (ra), like you did. For once, walk the walk!
It is ridiculous when you ask for Qur'anic proof when the Qur'an mandates Zakah. Going against a Qur'anic obligation is kufr and as per your Imam (ra), the offender must face capital punishment.
Why do you pick and choose what suits you then? If there's a contradiction then you shouldn't use such as reference just to suit yourself.
To me, Nahjul Balagha is not a source worthy of any repute. The issue I have is two-fold:
1. How is it that you miss certain positive statements made by Imam Ali (ra) in regards to the Sahaba (ra)?
2. Why do you rely on anything falsely attributed to the Imams (ra) when they are contradictory, thereby confusing and misguiding people, while the job of the Imams (ra) were to guide people?
They weren't Shias. They were Muslims. But if you see them as Shias then who were the Sunnis?
These were Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, no matter how bad you want them to be otherwise.
Or where were the Sunnis.
With the Imams (ra) having knowledge of the unseen, why would they need the Sunnis, lol? All of a sudden, the "Guides" (ra) aided by Allah (swt) with power over atoms needed Sunnis to come to their aid?
Those who disbelieved or went astray were always greater in number. Might and numbers have value for you but not in the eyes of us and Allah.
In the comment before this one, you asked as to where the Sunnis were! And now you claim that Allah (swt) is sufficient. Well, according to your theology, Allah (swt) was not sufficient, naudhibillah, for your Imams (ra) who faced humiliation, conspiracies and defeat at every turn.
Does this mean every single companion of the Prophet s.a.w? The Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper, so what happened? Companions? Which companions.
The Prophet (saw) asked for a pen and paper and the Sahaba (ra) could not deliver, including Imam Ali (ra). If there is blame, it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra).
And when the Prophet s.a.w mentioned about pen and paper, what happened then?
Well, when the Sahaba (ra) saw that Imam Ali (ra) was subdued and that Imam Ali (ra) could not fulfill the wish of the Prophet (saw), they followed suit. You wanted Sahaba (ra) to follow Imam Ali (ra), right? So they did! And you are still complaining. Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
-
I was referring to the bits from Nahjul Balagha; you have made a blunder.
Then who and what define your beliefs? Do you freestyle it? Or do your scholars freestyle it?
Haza? Hada, maybe, then again, Arabic and Shias are opposite ends of spectrum. Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an" based on the statement of earlier, classical scholars. Akhbaris considered the four books of ahaadith to be authentic, cover to cover. Play this card against rookies!
I challenge you to consult your marja'a and ask them their ruling on a Shi'i who rejects an authentic saying of an Imam (ra), like you did. For once, walk the walk!
It is ridiculous when you ask for Qur'anic proof when the Qur'an mandates Zakah. Going against a Qur'anic obligation is kufr and as per your Imam (ra), the offender must face capital punishment.
To me, Nahjul Balagha is not a source worthy of any repute. The issue I have is two-fold:
1. How is it that you miss certain positive statements made by Imam Ali (ra) in regards to the Sahaba (ra)?
2. Why do you rely on anything falsely attributed to the Imams (ra) when they are contradictory, thereby confusing and misguiding people, while the job of the Imams (ra) were to guide people?
These were Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, no matter how bad you want them to be otherwise.
With the Imams (ra) having knowledge of the unseen, why would they need the Sunnis, lol? All of a sudden, the "Guides" (ra) aided by Allah (swt) with power over atoms needed Sunnis to come to their aid?
In the comment before this one, you asked as to where the Sunnis were! And now you claim that Allah (swt) is sufficient. Well, according to your theology, Allah (swt) was not sufficient, naudhibillah, for your Imams (ra) who faced humiliation, conspiracies and defeat at every turn.
The Prophet (saw) asked for a pen and paper and the Sahaba (ra) could not deliver, including Imam Ali (ra). If there is blame, it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra).
Well, when the Sahaba (ra) saw that Imam Ali (ra) was subdued and that Imam Ali (ra) could not fulfill the wish of the Prophet (saw), they followed suit. You wanted Sahaba (ra) to follow Imam Ali (ra), right? So they did! And you are still complaining. Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
"I was referring to the bits from Nahjul Balagha"
Oh, the bits you pick and choose to suit your need when you're stuck.
"you have made a blunder" What ever.
"Then who and what define your beliefs?"
The QUR'AN. Does it wring a bell?
"Haza? Hada, maybe, then again, Arabic and Shias are opposite ends of spectrum"
You seem to make mountains out of molehills. Well it's obvious you've got nothing solid to jump up and down about, so you've got to make a fuss over something to comfort yourself.
"Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an" based on the statement of earlier, classical scholars. Akhbaris considered the four books of ahaadith to be authentic, cover to cover. Play this card against rookies"
Does Salman Rushdie and his book the satanic verses wring a bell? Where do you think he got the material for his book? Take a guess. Take a look down your girebaan.
"These were Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, no matter how bad you want them to be otherwise"
Shias are the ones who stood by no matter what. The others always looked at what benefited and suited them, just like nowadays.
"I challenge you to consult your marja'a and ask them their ruling on a Shi'i who rejects an authentic saying of an Imam (ra), like you did. For once, walk the walk!"
And I challenge you to prove from the Qur'an that if you refuse to pay Zakah to the ruler of the time then you are Wajib Ul Qatal.
I also challenge you to tell me why the Prophet s.a.w all of a sudden and out of the blue prohibited Mu'tah.
Your faith and belief doesn't stand on much. All you do is keep yourself busy in slagging others off. That's what keeps you going.
"And now you claim that Allah (swt) is sufficient"
You've got it all mixed up. Umar claimed and reminded the others that we have the book of Allah and that is sufficient for us.
"Well, according to your theology, Allah (swt) was not sufficient, naudhibillah,"
No, according to Umar's theology there was no need for what the Prophet s.a.w had to say or write.
-
I was referring to the bits from Nahjul Balagha; you have made a blunder.
Then who and what define your beliefs? Do you freestyle it? Or do your scholars freestyle it?
Haza? Hada, maybe, then again, Arabic and Shias are opposite ends of spectrum. Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an" based on the statement of earlier, classical scholars. Akhbaris considered the four books of ahaadith to be authentic, cover to cover. Play this card against rookies!
I challenge you to consult your marja'a and ask them their ruling on a Shi'i who rejects an authentic saying of an Imam (ra), like you did. For once, walk the walk!
It is ridiculous when you ask for Qur'anic proof when the Qur'an mandates Zakah. Going against a Qur'anic obligation is kufr and as per your Imam (ra), the offender must face capital punishment.
To me, Nahjul Balagha is not a source worthy of any repute. The issue I have is two-fold:
1. How is it that you miss certain positive statements made by Imam Ali (ra) in regards to the Sahaba (ra)?
2. Why do you rely on anything falsely attributed to the Imams (ra) when they are contradictory, thereby confusing and misguiding people, while the job of the Imams (ra) were to guide people?
These were Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, no matter how bad you want them to be otherwise.
With the Imams (ra) having knowledge of the unseen, why would they need the Sunnis, lol? All of a sudden, the "Guides" (ra) aided by Allah (swt) with power over atoms needed Sunnis to come to their aid?
In the comment before this one, you asked as to where the Sunnis were! And now you claim that Allah (swt) is sufficient. Well, according to your theology, Allah (swt) was not sufficient, naudhibillah, for your Imams (ra) who faced humiliation, conspiracies and defeat at every turn.
The Prophet (saw) asked for a pen and paper and the Sahaba (ra) could not deliver, including Imam Ali (ra). If there is blame, it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra).
Well, when the Sahaba (ra) saw that Imam Ali (ra) was subdued and that Imam Ali (ra) could not fulfill the wish of the Prophet (saw), they followed suit. You wanted Sahaba (ra) to follow Imam Ali (ra), right? So they did! And you are still complaining. Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
"The Prophet (saw) asked for a pen and paper and the Sahaba (ra) could not deliver, including Imam Ali (ra). If there is blame, it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra)"
And the Sahaba? And Umar. Could not deliver? Umar believed there was no need for it. Including Ali? Ali didn't object and wasn't from the objection party of Umar.
"If there is blame"
If there is blame? If? Is this how much you love the Prophet s.a.w? Is this how much you care about the truth?
"it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra)"
This is the only problem, you're not willing to recognise and accept the truth.
-
I was referring to the bits from Nahjul Balagha; you have made a blunder.
Then who and what define your beliefs? Do you freestyle it? Or do your scholars freestyle it?
Haza? Hada, maybe, then again, Arabic and Shias are opposite ends of spectrum. Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an" based on the statement of earlier, classical scholars. Akhbaris considered the four books of ahaadith to be authentic, cover to cover. Play this card against rookies!
I challenge you to consult your marja'a and ask them their ruling on a Shi'i who rejects an authentic saying of an Imam (ra), like you did. For once, walk the walk!
It is ridiculous when you ask for Qur'anic proof when the Qur'an mandates Zakah. Going against a Qur'anic obligation is kufr and as per your Imam (ra), the offender must face capital punishment.
To me, Nahjul Balagha is not a source worthy of any repute. The issue I have is two-fold:
1. How is it that you miss certain positive statements made by Imam Ali (ra) in regards to the Sahaba (ra)?
2. Why do you rely on anything falsely attributed to the Imams (ra) when they are contradictory, thereby confusing and misguiding people, while the job of the Imams (ra) were to guide people?
These were Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, no matter how bad you want them to be otherwise.
With the Imams (ra) having knowledge of the unseen, why would they need the Sunnis, lol? All of a sudden, the "Guides" (ra) aided by Allah (swt) with power over atoms needed Sunnis to come to their aid?
In the comment before this one, you asked as to where the Sunnis were! And now you claim that Allah (swt) is sufficient. Well, according to your theology, Allah (swt) was not sufficient, naudhibillah, for your Imams (ra) who faced humiliation, conspiracies and defeat at every turn.
The Prophet (saw) asked for a pen and paper and the Sahaba (ra) could not deliver, including Imam Ali (ra). If there is blame, it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra).
Well, when the Sahaba (ra) saw that Imam Ali (ra) was subdued and that Imam Ali (ra) could not fulfill the wish of the Prophet (saw), they followed suit. You wanted Sahaba (ra) to follow Imam Ali (ra), right? So they did! And you are still complaining. Damned if you do, damned if you don't!
"Well, when the Sahaba (ra) saw that Imam Ali (ra) was subdued and that Imam Ali (ra) could not fulfill the wish of the Prophet (saw), they followed suit"
It was Umar. He's your man who's actions you're so eager to protect that you're willing to screw yourself up for it.
"It is ridiculous when you ask for Qur'anic proof"
Is it? It's not ridiculous when you ask.
"Going against a Qur'anic obligation is kufr"
Where does it say not paying Zakah to the ruler of the time is going against a Qur'anic obligation?
"and as per your Imam (ra), the offender must face capital punishment"
CAN YOU PROVE THIS FROM THE QUR'AN. NO YOU CAN'T.
"How is it that you miss certain positive statements made by Imam Ali (ra) in regards to the Sahaba (ra)?"
I don't miss anything. You pick and choose. I just mention the other bit or the other side of the argument.
"Why do you rely on anything falsely attributed to the Imams (ra) when they are contradictory"
Why are you casting doubt over what I mention? What about what you mention, why are you adamant that it is sehih?
-
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)."
We learn from the traditions that towards the end of his noble life, the Prophet's (s) condition was deteriorating. The majority opinion holds that the Prophet (s) left no will before his death, and made no attempt to do so. However, according to the Qur'an it is absolutely obligatory on all Muslims to leave a will. Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book:
"It is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind any goods that he makes a bequest for Parents and (the nearest kinsmen) in goodness, this is a duty upon the pious" (The Qur'an 2:180)).
We may thus ask the question: Would the Prophet of Allah (s) of all Muslims - the one whose Sunnah we are obliged to follow - disregard an order stipulated in the Holy Qur'an?
When a group of companions visited the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he (s.a.w.a.) ordered them:
آتُوْنِیْ بِدَوَاتٍ وَ قِرْطَاسٍ اِکْتُبُ لَکُمْ کِتَابًا لَنْ تَضِلُّوْا بَعْدَہ اَبَدًا
“Fetch me a pen and a paper so that I write a will for you so that you are not deviated after me.”
Umar said:
اِنَّ النَّبِیَّ غَلَبَہ الْوَجْعُ وَ عِنْدَکُمْ کِتَابُ اللهِ، حَسْبُنَا کِتَابُ اللهِ۔
“Surely the Prophet is overcome by illness (suggesting that his words should not be taken seriously).The Book of Allah is with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us!!!”
So what did the Prophet s.a.w say?
"Fetch me a pen and a paper so that I write a will for you so that you are not deviated after me.”
And what did Umar say?
“Surely the Prophet is overcome by illness, the Book of Allah is with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us!!!”
And what did Allah say?
"Surah Anfal verse 20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)."
Muslim 720, what's Ali got to do with this? And why are you disregarding everything and mentioning Ali?
People decide for yourselves.
-
Oh, the bits you pick and choose to suit your need when you're stuck.
No, the bits that goes unnoticed by your scholars, lol.
The QUR'AN. Does it wring a bell?
Okay, Qur'anist, show me Imamah from the Qur'an. If you offer anything but unequivocal proof, I will take it that not only your Imams (ra) failed but you failed them too.
You seem to make mountains out of molehills.
Your people do not know Arabic. You do not have a chain for the Qur'an. Yet you claim to have your beliefs derived from the Qur'an.
Does Salman Rushdie and his book the satanic verses wring a bell? Where do you think he got the material for his book? Take a guess. Take a look down your girebaan.
The point stands; Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an". Another fail!
I have never read the book by Salman Rushdie but if your claim is that he (mis)used our ahaadith, well, don't you do the same? In fact, people like Salman Rushdie use Shi'i criticism of our ahaadith to use against us. In other words, you supplied Salman Rushdie with material for the Satanic Verses. That is the scene down your girebaan!
Shias are the ones who stood by no matter what. The others always looked at what benefited and suited them, just like nowadays.
They were his Shias and you have failed to rebut this point. In fact, you only stand by Imam Ali (ra) when it benefits you. If you stood by him no matter what, you would not have sliced up his family, thrown out Imam Hassan's (ra) progeny and carve a small population out of Imam Hussain's (ra) progeny.
And I challenge you to prove from the Qur'an that if you refuse to pay Zakah to the ruler of the time then you are Wajib Ul Qatal.
Hahaha, another fail!
Choke on this: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/part-6-it-obligatory-obey-true-imams
"According to reliable source Abu Sabah has narrated that I give witness that I have heard Imam Sadiq (a.s.) saying: Ali (a.s.) was the Imam whose obedience was made obligatory by Allah, and similarly Hasan, Husain and Ali bin Husain (a.s.) were the Imams whose obedience was made compulsory by Allah.
Also the same Imam Baqir (a.s.) is reported to have said that: We are same group of Imams whose obedience has been made obligatory by Allah for the people and you should follow those (Imams) for knowing whom is not impossible for the people."
"It is narrated according to reliable chains of narrators that a man from Fars asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Is your obedience compulsory? He said: Yes. He asked: Is it obligatory as was the case with Amirul Momineen (a.s.). He replied: Yes.
Again, according to reliable sources, Abu Baseer has reported that he asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Are all the Imams (a.s.) like one person in the matter of Imamate and is the obedience to them compulsory? Does the command apply to all of them? He replied: Yes."
Chapter 1 heading of Hayat-ul-Qulub reads: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/chapter-one-there-imam-every-age-and-his
"Which mentions that the existence of Imam is essential in every period of the time and that no age ever remains without an Imam and that it is obligatory to obey him and that people do not get guidance but through the Imam and that it is necessary that the Imam must be clear of all sins and that he ought to be appointed by Allah. Also a brief description of the Divine texts (Nusoos) revealed regarding the Imams. So also some of their virtues."
I also challenge you to tell me why the Prophet s.a.w all of a sudden and out of the blue prohibited Mu'tah.
I told you! There were many children of Mu'tah claiming to be lovers of Ahlul Bayt (ra) who were also self-claimed scholars. It had to be brought to an end.
Your faith and belief doesn't stand on much.
My faith rests on such a strong foundation that I can forego so much territory and still be right. You cannot even give up an inch worth of territory.
You've got it all mixed up. Umar claimed and reminded the others that we have the book of Allah and that is sufficient for us.
No, you are conflating things. First, you asked as to where the Sunnis were (when your Imams were in despair). Then, in the very next statement, you said that Allah (swt) is sufficient for your Imams (ra). So which one is it?
If we go by your narrative, Allah (swt) was not sufficient for your Imams (ra) because they were met with defeat at every step of the way.
No, according to Umar's theology there was no need for what the Prophet s.a.w had to say or write.
According to Imam Ali's (ra) theology as well because he did not seek to challenge or change Umar's (ra) stance.
And the Sahaba? And Umar. Could not deliver? Umar believed there was no need for it. Including Ali? Ali didn't object and wasn't from the objection party of Umar.
You can slice this as many ways as you like but it will remain bitter (for you). If what Umar (ra) did was wrong, Imam Ali (ra), as the Divinely Chosen Leader next in line, should have made it right. Imam Ali (ra) did not do anything. Now you are faced with two options:
1. Imam Ali (ra), with all said and done, agreed with Umar (ra).
OR
2. Imam Ali (ra) is equally to be blamed for failing to deliver.
If there is blame? If? Is this how much you love the Prophet s.a.w? Is this how much you care about the truth?
I care about truth just as much as Umar and Imam Ali (peace and blessings upon them) did. They both did not bring a pen and paper so I stand by them. It is you who has a problem. The problem wreaks with stench when we see that your hypocrisy compels you to blame Umar (ra) but not his accomplice (Imam Ali).
This is the only problem, you're not willing to recognise and accept the truth.
It is not my fault you are hurt by Imam Ali's (ra) decision to not act and not deliver.
It was Umar. He's your man who's actions you're so eager to protect that you're willing to screw yourself up for it.
There is no better screwjob than what the Imams (ra) did to you. Did not claim Fadak, did not bring pen and paper, did not preach Imamah, negotiated with Muawiya twice, gave up Caliphate (their Divinely Ordained Right) to Muawiya....list goes on!
You may not know this but Shias, deep down, have no issues with Umar (ra). It is actually that they are hurt by the actions of their own Imams (ra) because none of it adds up with their concocted beliefs.
Is it? It's not ridiculous when you ask.
No, it is ridiculous when you act dumb.
It has been narrated from Abi {Abdullah (Imam) al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “Allah has not imposed anything more serious than Zakat upon this nation – and due to it, many of them shall perish.”
Al-Kafi, Volume 3, Page 497, and Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 22
It has been narrated from Abul Hasan (Imam) al-Ridha (peace be upon him), that he said: “Indeed Allah, the Sublime and Glorious, commanded three things and coupled them with three other things: He prescribed the prayer and the zakat (together). Thus, whoever prays and does not act upon the zakat, his prayer shall not be accepted from him ...”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 12
It has been narrated from Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “There is no prayer for whom there is no zakat; and there is no zakat for whom there is no piety.”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 81, Page 252
So there is no prayer without Zakat, as per your "infallible" Imams (ra).
CAN YOU PROVE THIS FROM THE QUR'AN. NO YOU CAN'T.
Imam, Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (as) said, "Indeed we do not classify a person as a true believer until he follows all of our teachings..." (al-Kafi, vol. 2, pg. 78, sec. al-Wara’, no. 13)
According to your Imam (ra), you are not a true believer but since you fake being one, that must mean you are a hypocrite, lol.
Muslim 720, what's Ali got to do with this? And why are you disregarding everything and mentioning Ali?
Imam Ali (ra) was present in the room. As the "Divinely Chosen Leader" next in line, he should have accommodated the Prophet's (saw) request. However, Imam Ali (ra) did not. That means that he either agreed with Umar (ra) or was too weak to act on his own which disqualifies him from being a leader.
As far as you are concerned, you blame Umar (ra). My point is simple and rational; the blame is equally on Imam Ali (ra).
-
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)."
When the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was being written, the Prophet (saw) asked Imam Ali (ra) to erase the words "Messenger of God".
Imam Ali (ra) said:
"This high rank has been bestowed upon you by Allah Himself, and I shall never delete the words ‘Messenger of Allah' with my hand."
So, in the face of this disobedience, what did the Prophet (saw) do?
The Prophet (saw), disobeyed in front of the idolaters of Quraysh, took the pen in his own hand and deleted the words which were offensive to the idolaters.
And what did Allah say?
"Surah Anfal verse 20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)."
In front of idolaters, Imam Ali (ra) disobeyed the Holy Prophet (saw) and disrespected his order.
Imagine the message Imam Ali (ra) was sending to the idolaters. Imam Ali (ra) challenged the Holy Prophet (saw) in front of the idolaters and showed them that the Holy Prophet (saw) had no control over his own followers. Imam Ali (ra) cast doubt upon the rule of the Holy Prophet (saw), RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE IDOLATERS. Imam Ali (ra) also hinted to the idolaters that there is clear dissent among the Muslims and more so, between him and the Holy Prophet (saw).
People decide for yourselves.
-
No, the bits that goes unnoticed by your scholars, lol.
Okay, Qur'anist, show me Imamah from the Qur'an. If you offer anything but unequivocal proof, I will take it that not only your Imams (ra) failed but you failed them too.
Your people do not know Arabic. You do not have a chain for the Qur'an. Yet you claim to have your beliefs derived from the Qur'an.
The point stands; Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an". Another fail!
I have never read the book by Salman Rushdie but if your claim is that he (mis)used our ahaadith, well, don't you do the same? In fact, people like Salman Rushdie use Shi'i criticism of our ahaadith to use against us. In other words, you supplied Salman Rushdie with material for the Satanic Verses. That is the scene down your girebaan!
They were his Shias and you have failed to rebut this point. In fact, you only stand by Imam Ali (ra) when it benefits you. If you stood by him no matter what, you would not have sliced up his family, thrown out Imam Hassan's (ra) progeny and carve a small population out of Imam Hussain's (ra) progeny.
Hahaha, another fail!
Choke on this: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/part-6-it-obligatory-obey-true-imams
"According to reliable source Abu Sabah has narrated that I give witness that I have heard Imam Sadiq (a.s.) saying: Ali (a.s.) was the Imam whose obedience was made obligatory by Allah, and similarly Hasan, Husain and Ali bin Husain (a.s.) were the Imams whose obedience was made compulsory by Allah.
Also the same Imam Baqir (a.s.) is reported to have said that: We are same group of Imams whose obedience has been made obligatory by Allah for the people and you should follow those (Imams) for knowing whom is not impossible for the people."
"It is narrated according to reliable chains of narrators that a man from Fars asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Is your obedience compulsory? He said: Yes. He asked: Is it obligatory as was the case with Amirul Momineen (a.s.). He replied: Yes.
Again, according to reliable sources, Abu Baseer has reported that he asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Are all the Imams (a.s.) like one person in the matter of Imamate and is the obedience to them compulsory? Does the command apply to all of them? He replied: Yes."
Chapter 1 heading of Hayat-ul-Qulub reads: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/chapter-one-there-imam-every-age-and-his
"Which mentions that the existence of Imam is essential in every period of the time and that no age ever remains without an Imam and that it is obligatory to obey him and that people do not get guidance but through the Imam and that it is necessary that the Imam must be clear of all sins and that he ought to be appointed by Allah. Also a brief description of the Divine texts (Nusoos) revealed regarding the Imams. So also some of their virtues."
I told you! There were many children of Mu'tah claiming to be lovers of Ahlul Bayt (ra) who were also self-claimed scholars. It had to be brought to an end.
My faith rests on such a strong foundation that I can forego so much territory and still be right. You cannot even give up an inch worth of territory.
No, you are conflating things. First, you asked as to where the Sunnis were (when your Imams were in despair). Then, in the very next statement, you said that Allah (swt) is sufficient for your Imams (ra). So which one is it?
If we go by your narrative, Allah (swt) was not sufficient for your Imams (ra) because they were met with defeat at every step of the way.
According to Imam Ali's (ra) theology as well because he did not seek to challenge or change Umar's (ra) stance.
You can slice this as many ways as you like but it will remain bitter (for you). If what Umar (ra) did was wrong, Imam Ali (ra), as the Divinely Chosen Leader next in line, should have made it right. Imam Ali (ra) did not do anything. Now you are faced with two options:
1. Imam Ali (ra), with all said and done, agreed with Umar (ra).
OR
2. Imam Ali (ra) is equally to be blamed for failing to deliver.
I care about truth just as much as Umar and Imam Ali (peace and blessings upon them) did. They both did not bring a pen and paper so I stand by them. It is you who has a problem. The problem wreaks with stench when we see that your hypocrisy compels you to blame Umar (ra) but not his accomplice (Imam Ali).
It is not my fault you are hurt by Imam Ali's (ra) decision to not act and not deliver.
There is no better screwjob than what the Imams (ra) did to you. Did not claim Fadak, did not bring pen and paper, did not preach Imamah, negotiated with Muawiya twice, gave up Caliphate (their Divinely Ordained Right) to Muawiya....list goes on!
You may not know this but Shias, deep down, have no issues with Umar (ra). It is actually that they are hurt by the actions of their own Imams (ra) because none of it adds up with their concocted beliefs.
No, it is ridiculous when you act dumb.
It has been narrated from Abi {Abdullah (Imam) al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “Allah has not imposed anything more serious than Zakat upon this nation – and due to it, many of them shall perish.”
Al-Kafi, Volume 3, Page 497, and Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 22
It has been narrated from Abul Hasan (Imam) al-Ridha (peace be upon him), that he said: “Indeed Allah, the Sublime and Glorious, commanded three things and coupled them with three other things: He prescribed the prayer and the zakat (together). Thus, whoever prays and does not act upon the zakat, his prayer shall not be accepted from him ...”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 12
It has been narrated from Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “There is no prayer for whom there is no zakat; and there is no zakat for whom there is no piety.”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 81, Page 252
So there is no prayer without Zakat, as per your "infallible" Imams (ra).
Imam, Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (as) said, "Indeed we do not classify a person as a true believer until he follows all of our teachings..." (al-Kafi, vol. 2, pg. 78, sec. al-Wara’, no. 13)
According to your Imam (ra), you are not a true believer but since you fake being one, that must mean you are a hypocrite, lol.
Imam Ali (ra) was present in the room. As the "Divinely Chosen Leader" next in line, he should have accommodated the Prophet's (saw) request. However, Imam Ali (ra) did not. That means that he either agreed with Umar (ra) or was too weak to act on his own which disqualifies him from being a leader.
As far as you are concerned, you blame Umar (ra). My point is simple and rational; the blame is equally on Imam Ali (ra).
"No, the bits that goes unnoticed by your scholars, lol"
They don't go unnoticed but contradict. Those that contradict are not mentioned.
"Okay, Qur'anist"
So if I ask proof from the Qur'an then I become a Qur'anist, and if you ask...? 😊
"show me Imamah from the Qur'an"
Show me IMAMAH from the Qur'an? What, really? How many times? Either you like going in circles or playing dumb. I don't engage in such.
"If you offer anything but unequivocal proof"
Ok, since you've asked and then set the standard and restricted to your desire and need as usual then, you tell me what you see and consider as 'unequivocal proof'.
"will take it that not only your Imams (ra) failed but you failed them too"
Can't you engage in a discussion based on literacy and intelect. What is failure according to you? Define failure for me and give me an example of it. I know this is something that fightens you.
-
No, the bits that goes unnoticed by your scholars, lol.
Okay, Qur'anist, show me Imamah from the Qur'an. If you offer anything but unequivocal proof, I will take it that not only your Imams (ra) failed but you failed them too.
Your people do not know Arabic. You do not have a chain for the Qur'an. Yet you claim to have your beliefs derived from the Qur'an.
The point stands; Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an". Another fail!
I have never read the book by Salman Rushdie but if your claim is that he (mis)used our ahaadith, well, don't you do the same? In fact, people like Salman Rushdie use Shi'i criticism of our ahaadith to use against us. In other words, you supplied Salman Rushdie with material for the Satanic Verses. That is the scene down your girebaan!
They were his Shias and you have failed to rebut this point. In fact, you only stand by Imam Ali (ra) when it benefits you. If you stood by him no matter what, you would not have sliced up his family, thrown out Imam Hassan's (ra) progeny and carve a small population out of Imam Hussain's (ra) progeny.
Hahaha, another fail!
Choke on this: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/part-6-it-obligatory-obey-true-imams
"According to reliable source Abu Sabah has narrated that I give witness that I have heard Imam Sadiq (a.s.) saying: Ali (a.s.) was the Imam whose obedience was made obligatory by Allah, and similarly Hasan, Husain and Ali bin Husain (a.s.) were the Imams whose obedience was made compulsory by Allah.
Also the same Imam Baqir (a.s.) is reported to have said that: We are same group of Imams whose obedience has been made obligatory by Allah for the people and you should follow those (Imams) for knowing whom is not impossible for the people."
"It is narrated according to reliable chains of narrators that a man from Fars asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Is your obedience compulsory? He said: Yes. He asked: Is it obligatory as was the case with Amirul Momineen (a.s.). He replied: Yes.
Again, according to reliable sources, Abu Baseer has reported that he asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Are all the Imams (a.s.) like one person in the matter of Imamate and is the obedience to them compulsory? Does the command apply to all of them? He replied: Yes."
Chapter 1 heading of Hayat-ul-Qulub reads: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/chapter-one-there-imam-every-age-and-his
"Which mentions that the existence of Imam is essential in every period of the time and that no age ever remains without an Imam and that it is obligatory to obey him and that people do not get guidance but through the Imam and that it is necessary that the Imam must be clear of all sins and that he ought to be appointed by Allah. Also a brief description of the Divine texts (Nusoos) revealed regarding the Imams. So also some of their virtues."
I told you! There were many children of Mu'tah claiming to be lovers of Ahlul Bayt (ra) who were also self-claimed scholars. It had to be brought to an end.
My faith rests on such a strong foundation that I can forego so much territory and still be right. You cannot even give up an inch worth of territory.
No, you are conflating things. First, you asked as to where the Sunnis were (when your Imams were in despair). Then, in the very next statement, you said that Allah (swt) is sufficient for your Imams (ra). So which one is it?
If we go by your narrative, Allah (swt) was not sufficient for your Imams (ra) because they were met with defeat at every step of the way.
According to Imam Ali's (ra) theology as well because he did not seek to challenge or change Umar's (ra) stance.
You can slice this as many ways as you like but it will remain bitter (for you). If what Umar (ra) did was wrong, Imam Ali (ra), as the Divinely Chosen Leader next in line, should have made it right. Imam Ali (ra) did not do anything. Now you are faced with two options:
1. Imam Ali (ra), with all said and done, agreed with Umar (ra).
OR
2. Imam Ali (ra) is equally to be blamed for failing to deliver.
I care about truth just as much as Umar and Imam Ali (peace and blessings upon them) did. They both did not bring a pen and paper so I stand by them. It is you who has a problem. The problem wreaks with stench when we see that your hypocrisy compels you to blame Umar (ra) but not his accomplice (Imam Ali).
It is not my fault you are hurt by Imam Ali's (ra) decision to not act and not deliver.
There is no better screwjob than what the Imams (ra) did to you. Did not claim Fadak, did not bring pen and paper, did not preach Imamah, negotiated with Muawiya twice, gave up Caliphate (their Divinely Ordained Right) to Muawiya....list goes on!
You may not know this but Shias, deep down, have no issues with Umar (ra). It is actually that they are hurt by the actions of their own Imams (ra) because none of it adds up with their concocted beliefs.
No, it is ridiculous when you act dumb.
It has been narrated from Abi {Abdullah (Imam) al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “Allah has not imposed anything more serious than Zakat upon this nation – and due to it, many of them shall perish.”
Al-Kafi, Volume 3, Page 497, and Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 22
It has been narrated from Abul Hasan (Imam) al-Ridha (peace be upon him), that he said: “Indeed Allah, the Sublime and Glorious, commanded three things and coupled them with three other things: He prescribed the prayer and the zakat (together). Thus, whoever prays and does not act upon the zakat, his prayer shall not be accepted from him ...”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 12
It has been narrated from Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “There is no prayer for whom there is no zakat; and there is no zakat for whom there is no piety.”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 81, Page 252
So there is no prayer without Zakat, as per your "infallible" Imams (ra).
Imam, Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (as) said, "Indeed we do not classify a person as a true believer until he follows all of our teachings..." (al-Kafi, vol. 2, pg. 78, sec. al-Wara’, no. 13)
According to your Imam (ra), you are not a true believer but since you fake being one, that must mean you are a hypocrite, lol.
Imam Ali (ra) was present in the room. As the "Divinely Chosen Leader" next in line, he should have accommodated the Prophet's (saw) request. However, Imam Ali (ra) did not. That means that he either agreed with Umar (ra) or was too weak to act on his own which disqualifies him from being a leader.
As far as you are concerned, you blame Umar (ra). My point is simple and rational; the blame is equally on Imam Ali (ra).
"Your people do not know Arabic"
We've got and have had plenty of Scholars who were of Arabian origin and those who can and could read, write and speak arabic fluently.
You do not have a chain for the Qur'an"
Here is our chain, pay attention.
Hassan ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Musa ibn jaffar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali from Muhammad s.a.w.
The above is our authentic, reliable and pure chain. WHAT ABOUT YOURS? CAN YOU MATCH THAT? CAN YOU EVEN COME ANYWHERE NEAR OR CLOSE TO THIS.
"Yet you claim to have your beliefs derived from the Qur'an"
ABSOLUTELY 😊
Vast majority of you follow the Hanafi school of thought. Started and kicked off by Imam Abu Hanifa. Who and what was he and his heritage and link? Relax, just trying to answer what new you've asked and started.
Imam Abu Hanifa wasn't of Arabian origin. He was of persian origin. Do correct me if I'm wrong. And his father and grandfather weren't even Muslims. They were FIRE WORSHIPPERS. So what chain or do you have.
"The point stands; Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an". Another fail!"
If you use references from books, be it ours or yours, then that's ok but if we use references from the exact and same books then why is there a problem? I'll answer that, your double standards. You have one principal for us and a separate one for yourself.
-
They don't go unnoticed but contradict. Those that contradict are not mentioned.
Thank you for admitting you have contradictory beliefs. Exactly what I have been saying all this time!
Show me IMAMAH from the Qur'an? What, really? How many times? Either you like going in circles or playing dumb. I don't engage in such.
In the words of Floyd "Money" Mayweather, millions have tried and millions have failed. Thank you for proving Imamah does not exist in the Qur'an. It is a lie you have concocted which you falsely attribute to the Qur'an.
Ok, since you've asked and then set the standard and restricted to your desire and need as usual then, you tell me what you see and consider as 'unequivocal proof'.
It is quite clear that you have no "unequivocal proof" which is why you want me to define terms rather than furnish your proof.
Can't you engage in a discussion based on literacy and intelect.
You have lost that privilege to be treated as an equal.
What is failure according to you? Define failure for me and give me an example of it. I know this is something that fightens you.
Failure is everything your "infallibles" (ra) experienced, as per your theology and when you speak of fear, be careful. The hidden one might retrace his steps and run right back into hiding.
We've got and have had plenty of Scholars who were of Arabian origin and those who can and could read, write and speak arabic fluently.
And they speak the language of donkeys too which is why they narrate from a donkey, lol.
Hassan ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Musa ibn jaffar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali from Muhammad s.a.w.
As laughable as your evidence is, it actually contradicts your popular false belief that Imam Ali (ra) preserved the Qur'an because there is no Imam Ali (ra) in the chain.
Factually speaking, the Qur'an in your house is known as the Uthmanic Qur'an. We gave you so much and not even a thank-you, you ungrateful dimwit.
The above is our authentic, reliable and pure chain. WHAT ABOUT YOURS? CAN YOU MATCH THAT? CAN YOU EVEN COME ANYWHERE NEAR OR CLOSE TO THIS.
Our chain is even better. We got it directly from the Prophet (saw), put into a book form at the time of Uthman (ra) and you borrow our recitation of Hafs n Asim, both of whom are majhool (unknown) to you guys.
Waiting for a thank-you.
Imam Abu Hanifa wasn't of Arabian origin. He was of persian origin. Do correct me if I'm wrong. And his father and grandfather weren't even Muslims. They were FIRE WORSHIPPERS. So what chain or do you have.
We can always talk about Imam Kulayni and the remaining scholars from whom you got your Four Books; all of them were of non-Arab origin, in fact Persians.
How about your present marjas? Ayatollahs Sistani, Shirazi and Khamenei are all Persians. According to your own assessment, they are fire-worshipers and you follow them.
Your spit landed right back on your own face, lol.
-
And his father and grandfather weren't even Muslims.
The father of Imam Ali (ra) was a mushrik and never accepted Islam. So your point is.....
-
The father of Imam Ali (ra) was a mushrik and never accepted Islam. So your point is.....
Are you telling me that a MUSHRIK raised and nourished Muhammad s.a.w? 😊 Is this your point that Muhammad became an orphan and Allah gave him refuge by putting him in the hands of a MUSHRIK? 😊
Surah 93, verse 6.
"Did He not find you an orphan and give [you] refuge?"
Who is Allah speaking to here? Is Allah not speaking/referring to Muhammad s.a.w here?
What, Allah found Muhammad s.a.w as an orphan and gave him REFUGE. What, by putting him in the hands of a MUSHRIK? What king of refuge is this from Allah?
-
Are you telling me that a MUSHRIK raised and nourished Muhammad s.a.w? 😊 Is this your point that Muhammad became an orphan and Allah gave him refuge by putting him in the hands of a MUSHRIK? 😊
Allah (swt) says that!
“It is not for the Prophet and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of polytheists even if they were their relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the people of hell.” [Qur’an 9:113]
It is stated in Tafsir al-Nasafi, “The Messenger of Allah intended to ask for the forgiveness of Abu Talib, so this verse was revealed that ‘it is not for the Prophet.’” Similarly, it is in Tafsir al-Jalalayn, “It was revealed because of the Messenger of Allah’s asking for forgiveness for his uncle, Abu Talib.”
The Hadith mentions the reason of revelation of both the aforesaid verses; Sa’eed bin al-Musaiyab narrated, “When Abu Talib was on his death bed, the Messenger of Allah came to him and found with him - Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya bin al-Mughira. The Messenger of Allah said, “O uncle! Say, none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, a sentence with which I will defend you before Allah.” On that Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya said to Abu Talib, “Will you now leave the religion of Abdul Muttalib?” The Messenger of Allah kept on inviting him to say that sentence while the other two kept on repeating their sentence before him till Abu Talib said as the last thing he said to them, “I am on the religion of ‘Abdul Muttalib,” and refused to say, None has the right to be worshipped except Allah. On that the Messenger of Allah said, “By Allah, I will keep on asking Allah’s forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden (by Allah) to do so.” So Allah revealed, “It is not for the Prophet and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of polytheists even if they were their relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the people of hell.” [Qur’an 9:113] And then Allah specifically revealed about Abu Talib ‘Indeed it is not such that you can guide whomever you love, but Allah guides whomever He wills.’” [Qur’an 28:56] [Sahih Bukhari: Kitab al-Janaiz, Kitab al-Manaqib, Kitab al-Tafseer – Surah al-Bara’ah and Surah al-Qasas, Sahih Muslim: Kitab al-Iman, Sunan al-Nasa’i: Kitab al-Janaiz].
Surah 93, verse 6.
"Did He not find you an orphan and give [you] refuge?"
Who is Allah speaking to here? Is Allah not speaking/referring to Muhammad s.a.w here?
Does it say that Abu Talib was a believer?
What, Allah found Muhammad s.a.w as an orphan and gave him REFUGE. What, by putting him in the hands of a MUSHRIK? What king of refuge is this from Allah?
Allah (swt) is saying that He (Himself) gave the Prophet (saw) refuge; Abu Talib was just the medium. At any rate, your emotional tantrum does not prove Abu Talib's "eemaan".
-
Are you telling me that a MUSHRIK raised and nourished Muhammad s.a.w?
And, before I forget, Allah (swt) also placed Musa (asws) in the palace of Firaun where he grew up. So what is your point now?
-
Allah (swt) says that!
“It is not for the Prophet and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of polytheists even if they were their relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the people of hell.” [Qur’an 9:113]
It is stated in Tafsir al-Nasafi, “The Messenger of Allah intended to ask for the forgiveness of Abu Talib, so this verse was revealed that ‘it is not for the Prophet.’” Similarly, it is in Tafsir al-Jalalayn, “It was revealed because of the Messenger of Allah’s asking for forgiveness for his uncle, Abu Talib.”
The Hadith mentions the reason of revelation of both the aforesaid verses; Sa’eed bin al-Musaiyab narrated, “When Abu Talib was on his death bed, the Messenger of Allah came to him and found with him - Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya bin al-Mughira. The Messenger of Allah said, “O uncle! Say, none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, a sentence with which I will defend you before Allah.” On that Abu Jahl and Abdullah bin Abi Umaiya said to Abu Talib, “Will you now leave the religion of Abdul Muttalib?” The Messenger of Allah kept on inviting him to say that sentence while the other two kept on repeating their sentence before him till Abu Talib said as the last thing he said to them, “I am on the religion of ‘Abdul Muttalib,” and refused to say, None has the right to be worshipped except Allah. On that the Messenger of Allah said, “By Allah, I will keep on asking Allah’s forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden (by Allah) to do so.” So Allah revealed, “It is not for the Prophet and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of polytheists even if they were their relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the people of hell.” [Qur’an 9:113] And then Allah specifically revealed about Abu Talib ‘Indeed it is not such that you can guide whomever you love, but Allah guides whomever He wills.’” [Qur’an 28:56] [Sahih Bukhari: Kitab al-Janaiz, Kitab al-Manaqib, Kitab al-Tafseer – Surah al-Bara’ah and Surah al-Qasas, Sahih Muslim: Kitab al-Iman, Sunan al-Nasa’i: Kitab al-Janaiz].
Does it say that Abu Talib was a believer?
Allah (swt) is saying that He (Himself) gave the Prophet (saw) refuge; Abu Talib was just the medium. At any rate, your emotional tantrum does not prove Abu Talib's "eemaan".
"Does it say that Abu Talib was a believer?"
Anybody with a bit of sense and a straight mind knows that this proves Abu Talib was a believer. 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? We think with sense and logic. You think with emotions and feelings. 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?
So what does Allah say about SHIRK, lets have a look,
"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. 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?
-
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)."
When the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was being written, the Prophet (saw) asked Imam Ali (ra) to erase the words "Messenger of God".
Imam Ali (ra) said:
"This high rank has been bestowed upon you by Allah Himself, and I shall never delete the words ‘Messenger of Allah' with my hand."
So, in the face of this disobedience, what did the Prophet (saw) do?
The Prophet (saw), disobeyed in front of the idolaters of Quraysh, took the pen in his own hand and deleted the words which were offensive to the idolaters.
And what did Allah say?
"Surah Anfal verse 20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)."
In front of idolaters, Imam Ali (ra) disobeyed the Holy Prophet (saw) and disrespected his order.
Imagine the message Imam Ali (ra) was sending to the idolaters. Imam Ali (ra) challenged the Holy Prophet (saw) in front of the idolaters and showed them that the Holy Prophet (saw) had no control over his own followers. Imam Ali (ra) cast doubt upon the rule of the Holy Prophet (saw), RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE IDOLATERS. Imam Ali (ra) also hinted to the idolaters that there is clear dissent among the Muslims and more so, between him and the Holy Prophet (saw).
People decide for yourselves.
Bukhari adds in 3.862:
"Narrated Al-Bara bin 'Azib"
When Allah's Apostle concluded a peace treaty with the people of Hudaibiya, Ali bin Abu Talib wrote the document and he mentioned in it, "Muhammad, Allah's Apostle ." The pagans said, "Don't write: 'Muhammad, Allah's Apostle', for if you were an apostle we would not fight with you." Allah's Apostle asked Ali to rub it out, but Ali said, "I will not be the person to rub it out." Allah's Apostle rubbed it out and made peace with them on the condition that the Prophet and his companions would enter Mecca and stay there for three days, and that they would enter with their weapons in cases."
So who wrote the document? Ali bin Abu Talib wrote the document. What did he write in it? He mentioned in it, "Muhammad, Allah's Apostle. What was the Pagans objection? The pagans said, "Don't write: 'Muhammad, Allah's Apostle'. How did the Prophet s.a.w respond to this? Allah's Apostle asked Ali to rub it out. What did Ali say? I will not be the person to rub it out. Why did Ali say that? 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.
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.
DISENCHANTMENT WITH THE TREATY
However, this Treaty was not to the Companions liking:
"Umar jumped up and went to Abu Bakr saying, "Is he not God's apostle, and are we not Muslims, and are they not polytheists?" to which Abu Bakr agreed, and he went on: "Then why should we agree to what is demeaning to our religion?" - Sirat page 504.
What did Umar say? "Then why should we agree to what is demeaning to our religion?" Umar disagreed and wasn't happy and in favour of the treaty. Ali didn't disagree. But if Umar sees something demeaning and objects then that is fine because it shows Umar is saying it out of loyalty. But if Ali doesn’t want to be the person to rub it out since he sees it demeaning to the Prophet s.a.w then you play the disobedience card. WOW. People judge for yourselves.
-
This treaty is called the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. It is the most important political document in the history of Islam. The secretary selected to indite its terms was Ali ibn Abi Talib.
When the Treaty of Hudaybiyya was being indited, an incident took place which throws a revealing sidelight upon the character of the various protagonists engaged in drafting its terms.
Dictating to Ali, the Prophet said: “Write, In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent.” Suhayl, the Makkan envoy, at once raised objection, and said, “Do not write this. Instead, write, ‘In Thy name O Allah.'“ The Prophet complied with this demand.
The Prophet next asked Ali to write: “This is a treaty of peace between Muhammad, the Messenger of God and the Quraysh...” Suhayl again objected, and said: “If we had acknowledged you a messenger of God, why would we be fighting against you? Therefore, do not write the words, ‘the Messenger of God,' and write only your own name and the name of your father.”
The Prophet was agreeable to comply with this demand also but Ali had already written the words, “Muhammad, the Messenger of God,” and he refused to delete them. He said to his master: “This high rank has been bestowed upon you by Allah Himself, and I shall never delete the words ‘Messenger of Allah' with my hand.” Thereupon, the Prophet took the pen in his own hand, and deleted the words which were offensive to the idolaters.
This shows the LOYALTY AND STRONG BELIEF of Ali, not DISOBEDIENCE AND OBJECTION towards the treaty.
Among the followers of the Prophet, however, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya was to produce some violent allergic reactions. Oddly, just like the pagans of Makkah, the “chauvinists” in the Muslim camp also equated it with “surrender.” They were led by Umar bin al-Khattab. He considered its terms “dishonorable,” and he was so much distressed by them that he turned to Abu Bakr for answers to his questions, and the following exchange took place between them:
Umar: Is he (Muhammad) or is he not the Messenger of God?
Abu Bakr: Yes. He is the Messenger of God.
Umar: Are we or are we not Muslims?
Abu Bakr: Yes, we are Muslims
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.
But Umar's defiance only escalated another notch after the admonition by Abu Bakr, and he went to see the Prophet himself. He later said: “I went into the presence of the Prophet, and asked him: ‘Are you not the Messenger of God?' He answered, ‘Yes, I am.' I again asked: ‘Are we Muslims not right, and are the polytheists not wrong?' He replied: ‘Yes, that is so.' I further asked: ‘Then why are we showing so much weakness to them? After all we have an army. Why are we making peace with them?' He said: ‘I am the Messenger of God, and I do whatever He commands me to do.'“
But it appears that Umar was not satisfied even with the answers of the Prophet himself to his questions. 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.”
-
It is really strange that Umar was unwilling to risk his life by visiting Makkah. There was no risk involved for him because he was not one of those Muslims who were “stained with Meccan blood.” Since Umar had not killed any Makkan, he would be grata persona with the idolaters at all times. His refusal to obey the command of the Messenger of God, therefore, is incomprehensible.
Umar did not go to Makkah. Nevertheless, he solved the problem by producing his stand-in, Uthman bin Affan. Instead of him, therefore, Uthman was sent to Makkah to parley with the Quraysh. Like Umar himself, Uthman also was not stained with any pagan blood.
The reason why people disliked Ali and held resentment towards him in the years to come was because Ali was stained with Pagan blood in the battle of Badr and Ohad etc.
-
And, before I forget, Allah (swt) also placed Musa (asws) in the palace of Firaun where he grew up. So what is your point now?
My point is......
“So when you want to recite the Qur’aan, seek refuge with Allaah from Shaytaan (Satan), the outcast (the cursed one)”
[al-Nahl 16:98]
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.
Allah clearly says to Muhammad s.a.w,
Surah 93, verse 6.
"Did He not find you an orphan and give [you] refuge?"
Allah gave him refuge. You seek refuge with Allah but you believe Allah gave refuge to Muhammad s.a.w by placing him with a Mushrik.
We Shias also seek refuge with Allah by saying "A'uzobillah". And we also believe Allah gave refuge to Muhammad s.a.w by placing him with a God fearing and obeying believer.
Your belief 'eemaan' is with you and ours is with us.
-
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.
-
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 (swt) had Musa (asws) grow up in the palace of Firaun, probably the worst human being.
I just proved the opposite; you think with emotions and feelings and we go by sense and logic within Islam.
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.
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).
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.
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)."
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!
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?
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).
As were many other Muslims who had left Madinah with the firm intention of entering Makkah and doing Umrah. They felt beaten and crushed.
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".
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.
Imam Ali (ra) did not go either so it is really strange that he, too, was unwilling to risk his life.
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.
I've proved Imamah from the Qur'an many times over. And here it is again just to refresh your memory.
-
I've proved Imamah from the Qur'an many times over. And here it is again just to refresh your memory.
NO YOU HAVENT STOP LYING I BEAR WITNESS TO THAT YOU CANNOT PROVE DIVINE IMAMATE APART FROM YOU COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE ARE BLIND AND WE ARE UNWILLING TO OPEN OUR MIND UP TO A FALSE MADE UP THEORY THAT YOUR ANCESTORS CREATED!!!!!
Stop making false statements.
-
I've proved Imamah from the Qur'an many times over. And here it is again just to refresh your memory.
Not only you but Shi'i scholars over 14 centuries have failed to prove Imamah. Wallaahi, if there would have been anything substantial regarding Imamah in Qur'an and authentic ahaadith, I would have been the first one to become an Imami Shia. However, there is nothing convincing except all the so-called "proof" that many others before you have already exhausted.
Thank you for not touching my points, notably the fact that Musa (asws) was raised in the palace of Firaun and the verse revealed to console Muslims, including Umar (ra), in the immediate aftermath of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Keep in mind that Imam Ali (ra) married his own daughter to the same Umar (ra) so there is something you know better than your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).
-
I've proved Imamah from the Qur'an many times over. And here it is again just to refresh your memory.
And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."
This is more than enough to prove that Imamah is in the Qur'an and Imamah is from Allah. He alone chooses and makes Imams.
"in which there is a verse which was revealed when Abu Talib refused to accept Islam"
Which verse is that.
"Allah (swt) had Musa (asws) grow up in the palace of Firaun, probably the worst human being"
We ain't talking about Moses or Messenger hood. Focus on what is being discussed rather than bringing in arguments just to score points.
Allah said to Muhammad s.a.w that he found him as an orphan and gave hin refuge. Focus on the bit where Allah says he gave Muhammad s.a.w refuge. What, by handing him over to a disbeliever. Is this refuge with Allah or from Allah.
"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"
No I'm not trying to squeeze him in. Your mindset, based on anti Shia sentiment, is not allowing you to think straight and clearly.
Allah clearly said that he himself provided refuge. So what exactly is refuge provided by Allah, shirk and kufr?
You mentioned about Moses, I understand your point. I'm not here to argue regardless. If I said to you for example "how can it be possible for a Messenger to be raised and nourished by a disbeliever" then you put the point of Moses forward and I would gladly accept it with my hands up.
But that isn't the case here. For example Muhammad s.a.w is who we are talking about and discussing here. He became an orphan and was put in the hands of a disbeliever and was raised and nourished by him. OK, and so was Moses. So what.
So, in Muhammad's saw case Allah said this "We found you as an orphan and we gave you refuge" this case is exceptional because of Allah, because of what Allah has said. "We gave you refuge" So what exactly is "refuge with Allah"?
There was Islam and there were believers before Muhammad s.a.w declared his Messenger status. In fact there was Islam and there were believers even before Muhammad s.a.w was born. This is exactly where you've gone completely blind if you don't believe and accept this.
-
Not only you but Shi'i scholars over 14 centuries have failed to prove Imamah. Wallaahi, if there would have been anything substantial regarding Imamah in Qur'an and authentic ahaadith, I would have been the first one to become an Imami Shia. However, there is nothing convincing except all the so-called "proof" that many others before you have already exhausted.
Thank you for not touching my points, notably the fact that Musa (asws) was raised in the palace of Firaun and the verse revealed to console Muslims, including Umar (ra), in the immediate aftermath of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Keep in mind that Imam Ali (ra) married his own daughter to the same Umar (ra) so there is something you know better than your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).
Ok, lets move the argument forward because your arrogance and stance is a constant obstruction.
You: "CAN YOU PROVE IMAMAH FROM THE QUR'AN?"
Me: "IS IT NECESSARY THAT EVERYTHING IMPORTANT AND SERIOUS HAS TO BE IN AND FROM THE QUR'AN DIRECTLY?"
-
And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."
This is more than enough to prove that Imamah is in the Qur'an and Imamah is from Allah. He alone chooses and makes Imams.
What this proves is that the word “Imam” is in the Qur’an; it only proves that much. From this, in a mind-baffling move involving obnoxious mental gymnastics, you extract that Imams (ra) are above all Prophets (asws) except the Holy Prophet (saw) who is both an Imam and a Prophet. Yet, we see that the Qur’an only declares Ibrahim (asws) to be a Prophet and an Imam. Hence, if you abide by your explanation of the verse and maintain consistency, you have no choice but to admit that Imams (ra) are above all Prophets (asws) except Ibrahim (asws). That degrades the Holy Prophet (saw) and goes against your own belief.
Not to mention that no scholar worth the name has described the verse on your terms and we know that Ibrahim (asws) was made an Imam, or leader, for mankind. Till date, we perform Hajj on an annual basis to uphold Ibrahim’s (asws) legacy. When we visit the Holy Mosque in Mecca, we stand behind “Maqam Ibrahim” to pray; so on and so forth.
Which verse is that.
“It is not for the Prophet and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of polytheists even if they were their relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the people of hell.” [Qur’an 9:113]
We ain't talking about Moses or Messenger hood. Focus on what is being discussed rather than bringing in arguments just to score points.
The situation of Musa (asws) is very relevant to our discussion and it goes beyond just messengership. It is a pity that you overlook such a crucial piece of information only to expose your own dishonesty.
Focus on the bit where Allah says he gave Muhammad s.a.w refuge. What, by handing him over to a disbeliever. Is this refuge with Allah or from Allah.
Allah (swt) commanded the mother of Musa (asws) to suckle him and then “cast him in the sea” with the promise that he would be returned to her. Then, He (swt) had Musa (asws) be raised by Firaun’s wife in his palace. Why would Allah (swt) have Musa (asws) to be raised in the palace of the worst disbeliever ever?
No I'm not trying to squeeze him in. Your mindset, based on anti Shia sentiment, is not allowing you to think straight and clearly.
If I could not think straight, I would not have been able to refute every single point you have raised.
Allah clearly said that he himself provided refuge. So what exactly is refuge provided by Allah, shirk and kufr?
Appeal to emotions is useless.
You mentioned about Moses, I understand your point. I'm not here to argue regardless. If I said to you for example "how can it be possible for a Messenger to be raised and nourished by a disbeliever" then you put the point of Moses forward and I would gladly accept it with my hands up.
Good, because you have no other choice but to raise your hands and surrender your weak argument.
But that isn't the case here. For example Muhammad s.a.w is who we are talking about and discussing here. He became an orphan and was put in the hands of a disbeliever and was raised and nourished by him. OK, and so was Moses. So what.
So what? Well, let us see! You can conclude from both the cases that Allah (swt) can deliver Prophets (asws) in the hands of disbelievers to be raised by them. Such an occurrence does not make the disbelievers believers nor does it degrade the Prophets (asws).
So, in Muhammad's saw case Allah said this "We found you as an orphan and we gave you refuge" this case is exceptional because of Allah, because of what Allah has said. "We gave you refuge" So what exactly is "refuge with Allah"?
You are beating a dead horse!
There was Islam and there were believers before Muhammad s.a.w declared his Messenger status. In fact there was Islam and there were believers even before Muhammad s.a.w was born. This is exactly where you've gone completely blind if you don't believe and accept this.
I acknowledge that there were believers even before the Holy Prophet (saw) but how does that prove Abu Talib’s eemaan?
-
And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."
This is more than enough to prove that Imamah is in the Qur'an and Imamah is from Allah. He alone chooses and makes Imams.
Since I forgot to mention the main point, if we go by your assessment, the Qur'an sets the precedence that in order to attain Imamah, you must be a Prophet. After all, Ibrahim (asws) was "promoted" from being a Prophet to being an Imam. Therefore, only a Prophet can be "promoted" to being an Imam. Were your 12 "infallibles" (ra) Prophets? No! Case closed!
So even if we take your understanding of the verse, it discredits your argument more than it helps it.
-
I really really hate wasting my time by responding to Iceman, but honestly, I couldn't help but just marvel at the mental gymnastics employed here. Notice how his argument immediately was shut down, but instead of acknowledging it, he changed the goal posts. Unfortunately, because of his ignorance of the Arabic language, he thought the word "آوى" is the same word as "استعاذة", so he came up to the conclusion that since we "seek refuge with Allah from Shaytan", and here Allah gave the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم "refuge", that we are talking about the same concept. This is what happens when the combination of ignorance and arrogance are found in the same person.
I will say though, how do you understand the verse right after it? Allah found the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم:
وَوَجَدَكَ ضَالًّا فَهَدَى
That verse goes against your theology no? Was the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم considered "ضال" by Allah when he was in the Abu Talib's care?
-
What this proves is that the word “Imam” is in the Qur’an; it only proves that much. From this, in a mind-baffling move involving obnoxious mental gymnastics, you extract that Imams (ra) are above all Prophets (asws) except the Holy Prophet (saw) who is both an Imam and a Prophet. Yet, we see that the Qur’an only declares Ibrahim (asws) to be a Prophet and an Imam. Hence, if you abide by your explanation of the verse and maintain consistency, you have no choice but to admit that Imams (ra) are above all Prophets (asws) except Ibrahim (asws). That degrades the Holy Prophet (saw) and goes against your own belief.
Not to mention that no scholar worth the name has described the verse on your terms and we know that Ibrahim (asws) was made an Imam, or leader, for mankind. Till date, we perform Hajj on an annual basis to uphold Ibrahim’s (asws) legacy. When we visit the Holy Mosque in Mecca, we stand behind “Maqam Ibrahim” to pray; so on and so forth.
“It is not for the Prophet and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of polytheists even if they were their relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the people of hell.” [Qur’an 9:113]
The situation of Musa (asws) is very relevant to our discussion and it goes beyond just messengership. It is a pity that you overlook such a crucial piece of information only to expose your own dishonesty.
Allah (swt) commanded the mother of Musa (asws) to suckle him and then “cast him in the sea” with the promise that he would be returned to her. Then, He (swt) had Musa (asws) be raised by Firaun’s wife in his palace. Why would Allah (swt) have Musa (asws) to be raised in the palace of the worst disbeliever ever?
If I could not think straight, I would not have been able to refute every single point you have raised.
Appeal to emotions is useless.
Good, because you have no other choice but to raise your hands and surrender your weak argument.
So what? Well, let us see! You can conclude from both the cases that Allah (swt) can deliver Prophets (asws) in the hands of disbelievers to be raised by them. Such an occurrence does not make the disbelievers believers nor does it degrade the Prophets (asws).
You are beating a dead horse!
I acknowledge that there were believers even before the Holy Prophet (saw) but how does that prove Abu Talib’s eemaan?
"What this proves is that the word “Imam” is in the Qur’an; it only proves that much"
Have you seen your words "it only proves that much" can you hear yourself. Who are you to decide how much of this or that. It clearly proves that Imamah is in the Qur'an and Allah alone chooses and makes Imams. It proves that Abraham was tested by his Lord and when he fulfilled that test only then and after he was made an Imam. Stop mitigating matters and twisting and turning them to suit your belief and need.
-
"What this proves is that the word “Imam” is in the Qur’an; it only proves that much"
Have you seen your words "it only proves that much" can you hear yourself. Who are you to decide how much of this or that. It clearly proves that Imamah is in the Qur'an and Allah alone chooses and makes Imams. It proves that Abraham was tested by his Lord and when he fulfilled that test only then and after he was made an Imam. Stop mitigating matters and twisting and turning them to suit your belief and need.
No it doesn’t and no way can you prove it as you have desperately tried when corresponding with me on the same argument.
It only says “imam” a leader, YOU added the concept of divine Imamate through a promotion YOURSELF!!!!
Stop mitigating matters and twisting and turning them to suit your belief and need.😉
-
It clearly proves that Imamah is in the Qur'an and Allah alone chooses and makes Imams. It proves that Abraham was tested by his Lord and when he fulfilled that test only then and after he was made an Imam.
It does not prove any of it, let alone all the characteristics that you lump on (like, infallibility, etc). However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah. Then you have no choice but to acknowledge that Prophethood is necessary for one to attain Imamah.
Allow me to teach you some "lawgic", logic that they use on law school admission tests (hence, "lawgic").
If we accept your interpretation of the verse, then we have a sufficient (Imamah) and necessary (Prophethood) and the equation is as follows:
Sufficient ----> Necessary
Meaning, if one is an Imam, he must be a Prophet.
Therefore, replacing S and N, we get:
Imamah (Imam) ----> Prophethood (Prophet)
Now, the contra-positive is "flip and negate" and it looks like this:
/Prophethood (/Prophet) ----> /Imamah (/Imam)
Reading the slash or "/" as "NOT" (that is what it symbolizes), the contra-positive says, if one is not a Prophet, he cannot be an Imam.
The two statements (conditional statement and its contra-positive) are logically sound. In fact, "lawgically" sound too!
How will you wiggle out of this dilemma? After all, the verse necessitates Prophethood for Imamah whereas none of your Imams (ra) were Prophets!
Stop mitigating matters and twisting and turning them to suit your belief and need.
I abided by your interpretation of the verse and still proved to you how it fails when logically applied to your theology.
-
It does not prove any of it, let alone all the characteristics that you lump on (like, infallibility, etc). However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah. Then you have no choice but to acknowledge that Prophethood is necessary for one to attain Imamah.
Allow me to teach you some "lawgic", logic that they use on law school admission tests (hence, "lawgic").
If we accept your interpretation of the verse, then we have a sufficient (Imamah) and necessary (Prophethood) and the equation is as follows:
Sufficient ----> Necessary
Meaning, if one is an Imam, he must be a Prophet.
Therefore, replacing S and N, we get:
Imamah (Imam) ----> Prophethood (Prophet)
Now, the contra-positive is "flip and negate" and it looks like this:
/Prophethood (/Prophet) ----> /Imamah (/Imam)
Reading the slash or "/" as "NOT" (that is what it symbolizes), the contra-positive says, if one is not a Prophet, he cannot be an Imam.
The two statements (conditional statement and its contra-positive) are logically sound. In fact, "lawgically" sound too!
How will you wiggle out of this dilemma? After all, the verse necessitates Prophethood for Imamah whereas none of your Imams (ra) were Prophets!
I abided by your interpretation of the verse and still proved to you how it fails when logically applied to your theology.
"However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah"
Is this a dream or reality. Lets hear this again,
"However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah"
Finally we're getting somewhere. There is proof of Imamah in the Qur'an. That wasn't too difficult was it. Lets move on.
"Then you have no choice but to acknowledge that Prophethood is necessary for one to attain Imamah"
I disagree with this. Prophethood isn't necessary for one to attain Imamah. And here is the proof straight and direct from the Qur'an.
Surah Qasas verse 41,
"And We made them Imams who call to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall not be assisted"
This verse proves that Prophethood is not necessary for one to attain Imamah.
"Allow me to teach you some "lawgic", logic that they use on law school admission tests (hence, "lawgic")"
You need to learn yourself first boy. In fact you're in desperate need for some basic common sense to begin with.
Save your equation based on your version of logic for some other day. Here's how I'm going to wiggle out of this one.
Surah Qasas verse 41,
"And We made them Imams who call to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall not be assisted"
Notice; "And we made them Imams" meaning Imamah is from Allah. What do these particular Imams do? They call to the hellfire. So you still think Prophethood is necessary for one to attain Imamah?
-
I disagree with this. Prophethood isn't necessary for one to attain Imamah. And here is the proof straight and direct from the Qur'an.
Surah Qasas verse 41,
"And We made them Imams who call to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall not be assisted"
This verse proves that Prophethood is not necessary for one to attain Imamah.
"Allow me to teach you some "lawgic", logic that they use on law school admission tests (hence, "lawgic")"
You need to learn yourself first boy. In fact you're in desperate need for some basic common sense to begin with.
Save your equation based on your version of logic for some other day. Here's how I'm going to wiggle out of this one.
Surah Qasas verse 41,
"And We made them Imams who call to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall not be assisted"
Notice; "And we made them Imams" meaning Imamah is from Allah. What do these particular Imams do? They call to the hellfire. So you still think Prophethood is necessary for one to attain Imamah?
Are you trolling? I'm serious here, would any Shi'a who is reading this please tell me; does this sort of thinking represent your school in any way? Please, someone, ANYONE, please come and help this guy out.
I'm serious Amin, go and post this on Shiachat or ask any of your Shia friends about this post so you can see the level of cringe in their response.
-
Are you trolling? I'm serious here, would any Shi'a who is reading this please tell me; does this sort of thinking represent your school in any way? Please, someone, ANYONE, please come and help this guy out.
I'm serious Amin, go and post this on Shiachat or ask any of your Shia friends about this post so you can see the level of cringe in their response.
Is that it? I wonder what seems to be the problem. Oh yes, the problem is that you're answer less. You know the truth and you know what is right. But because I'm a Shia so you're finding it difficult to agree and be on the same page. That's the problem with you guys.
-
"However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah"
Is this a dream or reality. Lets hear this again,
"However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah"
Finally we're getting somewhere. There is proof of Imamah in the Qur'an. That wasn't too difficult was it. Lets move on.
Allow me to re-post my statement, before you go on a victory lap, lol.
Here it is, once again: However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah
Do you see it now or still need help?
I disagree with this.
I do not give two $hits if you agree or disagree. The verse is cited by Shias not only to prove Imamah but also to show that it is a "promotion", something you have often alluded to as well. Therefore, Prophethood becomes a necessary in that equation (if we accept your interpretation of the verse).
Prophethood isn't necessary for one to attain Imamah. And here is the proof straight and direct from the Qur'an.
Surah Qasas verse 41,
"And We made them Imams who call to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall not be assisted"
This verse proves that Prophethood is not necessary for one to attain Imamah.
Are you saying that there are those who have attained Imamah who will call people to the Fire? This is exactly why I said that the verse regarding Ibrahim (asws) only proves that the word "Imam" occurs in the Qur'an. Here, in Surah Qasas, we see that the same word occurs in verse 41.
I am shocked to see you use this verse in favor of Imamah when it actually is saying that there will be "imams" who will lead people to Hellfire.
You need to learn yourself first boy. In fact you're in desperate need for some basic common sense to begin with.
You keep regurgitating nonsense when you know what I shared with you went over your head.
Save your equation based on your version of logic for some other day. Here's how I'm going to wiggle out of this one.
My version of logic? You dimwit, ask any lawyer or law student regarding conditional statements, necessaries, sufficients and contra-positives.
Surah Qasas verse 41,
"And We made them Imams who call to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall not be assisted"
Notice; "And we made them Imams" meaning Imamah is from Allah. What do these particular Imams do? They call to the hellfire. So you still think Prophethood is necessary for one to attain Imamah?
For argument's sake, let us pretend that you are right and Prophethood is not necessary to attain Imamah. Are you saying that Allah (swt) appoints "Divinely Guided Leaders" who mislead? Does that make sense? No! And this is why we reject your theology because for every one authentic hadith you report from one of your Imams (ra), there is another hadith which opposes it, equally as authentic, also reported by your Imams (ra). So yes, in your paradigm, the Imams (ra), to whom you attribute lies, lead us to Hellfire with their dichotomous teachings (falsely attributed to them). And this is why we reject your theology.
-
Are you trolling? I'm serious here, would any Shi'a who is reading this please tell me; does this sort of thinking represent your school in any way? Please, someone, ANYONE, please come and help this guy out.
I'm serious Amin, go and post this on Shiachat or ask any of your Shia friends about this post so you can see the level of cringe in their response.
This is exactly why I entertain this guy! His level of stupidity does not surprise me anymore. Just when I think he has hit rock bottom, he finds a way to go even lower.
He is using a verse which says that imams will lead you to Hellfire to substantiate Imamah. This is like using a polytheistic book to make a case for Tawheed.
-
Allow me to re-post my statement, before you go on a victory lap, lol.
Here it is, once again: However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah
Do you see it now or still need help?
I do not give two $hits if you agree or disagree. The verse is cited by Shias not only to prove Imamah but also to show that it is a "promotion", something you have often alluded to as well. Therefore, Prophethood becomes a necessary in that equation (if we accept your interpretation of the verse).
Are you saying that there are those who have attained Imamah who will call people to the Fire? This is exactly why I said that the verse regarding Ibrahim (asws) only proves that the word "Imam" occurs in the Qur'an. Here, in Surah Qasas, we see that the same word occurs in verse 41.
I am shocked to see you use this verse in favor of Imamah when it actually is saying that there will be "imams" who will lead people to Hellfire.
You keep regurgitating nonsense when you know what I shared with you went over your head.
My version of logic? You dimwit, ask any lawyer or law student regarding conditional statements, necessaries, sufficients and contra-positives.
For argument's sake, let us pretend that you are right and Prophethood is not necessary to attain Imamah. Are you saying that Allah (swt) appoints "Divinely Guided Leaders" who mislead? Does that make sense? No! And this is why we reject your theology because for every one authentic hadith you report from one of your Imams (ra), there is another hadith which opposes it, equally as authentic, also reported by your Imams (ra). So yes, in your paradigm, the Imams (ra), to whom you attribute lies, lead us to Hellfire with their dichotomous teachings (falsely attributed to them). And this is why we reject your theology.
"This is what you said in post #69,
"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"
Let me highlight your words "YOU COULD NOT PROVE IMAMAH"
-
"This is what you said in post #69,
"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"
Let me highlight your words "YOU COULD NOT PROVE IMAMAH"
I still stand by those words; you have NOT proven Imamah. However, you have proven us right on two points:
1. You will continuously fail to prove Imamah (since it is not in the Qur'an).
2. Imamah leads to Hellfire (as per the verse in Surah Qasas).
Thank you :)
-
I still stand by those words; you have NOT proven Imamah. However, you have proven us right on two points:
1. You will continuously fail to prove Imamah (since it is not in the Qur'an).
2. Imamah leads to Hellfire (as per the verse in Surah Qasas).
Thank you :)
This is what you said in post #69,
"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"
Let me highlight your words "YOU COULD NOT PROVE IMAMAH"
And here is what you said in post #80,
"However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah"
Are you reading this Mythbuster. Muslim 720 has accepted that IT PROVES IMAMAH.
So tell me have I proved Imamah from the Qur'an or not?
"I do not give two $hits if you agree or disagree"
Yes you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be refuting me.
"The verse is cited by Shias not only to prove Imamah but also to show that it is a "promotion", something you have often alluded to as well"
It proves Imamah, something you and others have been constantly denying all along. You tell me what it is in this particular case. Is it promotion, demotion or was Abraham given a title a grade of a similar nature and level. Or was it something else. And if it was then what was it.
"Therefore, Prophethood becomes a necessary in that equation (if we accept your interpretation of the verse)"
No it doesn't. Allow me to educate you in this matter. Messengers, are all Messengers the same, are they exactly equal? Messenger hood, is that equal and the same? Prophets, are all prophets the same, are they equal? Prophecy, is that equal and the same?
The answer is NO. Just as all Messengers and Prophets aren't equal and the same neither are the Imams and Imamah. And this can be easily proven from the Qur'an. Obey and follow the Qur'an. Not your own instincts and assumptions.
-
I still stand by those words; you have NOT proven Imamah. However, you have proven us right on two points:
1. You will continuously fail to prove Imamah (since it is not in the Qur'an).
2. Imamah leads to Hellfire (as per the verse in Surah Qasas).
Thank you :)
And this is what you said in post #84,
"Here it is, once again: However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah"
And this is what you said in post #80,
"It does not prove any of it, let alone all the characteristics that you lump on (like, infallibility, etc). However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah. Then you have no choice but to acknowledge that Prophethood is necessary for one to attain Imamah"
Look at the two statements that contradict,
"It does not prove any of it, let alone all the characteristics that you lump on"
And then you go,
"I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah"
See how you are all over the place and making a mess of yourself.
-
This is what you said in post #69,
"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"
Let me highlight your words "YOU COULD NOT PROVE IMAMAH"
And here is what you said in post #80,
"However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah"
Are you reading this Mythbuster. Muslim 720 has accepted that IT PROVES IMAMAH.
Yes brother Mythbuster, can you please acknowledge Iceman's victory and give him a standing ovation before his mental breakdown becomes the cause of further complicated health issues? Iceman seems to be dying for your approval, lol. Also, bro Mythbuster, do not mention the quotation marks I put around the word proves.
So tell me have I proved Imamah from the Qur'an or not?
Not only did you fail to prove Imamah, you have failed to offer counter-rebuttal for my refutation.
Yes you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be refuting me.
Thank you for your admission that I have refuted you, lol.
Is it promotion, demotion or was Abraham given a title a grade of a similar nature and level. Or was it something else. And if it was then what was it.
The verse has nothing to do with Shi'i Imamah. However, I can entertain you and pretend that it "proves" Imamah. Then again, the verse makes it very clear that only a Prophet (asws) can become an Imam.
As for the verse you shared from Surah Qasas (regarding Imams leading to Hellfire), the Shias run from that verse when discussing Imamah with Sunnis. Other than the linguistic use of the word "Imam", the Shias maintain that it has nothing to do with their concept of Imamah. I was shocked to see you use that verse to substantiate Imamah. It actually destroys it!
No it doesn't. Allow me to educate you in this matter. Messengers, are all Messengers the same, are they exactly equal? Messenger hood, is that equal and the same? Prophets, are all prophets the same, are they equal? Prophecy, is that equal and the same?
You say you will "educate" me and then you pose questions!
The answer is NO. Just as all Messengers and Prophets aren't equal and the same neither are the Imams and Imamah. And this can be easily proven from the Qur'an. Obey and follow the Qur'an. Not your own instincts and assumptions.
A bunch of whimsical statements concluded with the usual phrases such as "follow Qur'an" and "not your instincts and assumptions". How original!
Look at the two statements that contradict
If you do not understand the usage of quotation marks, you have no business being on this forum. You have more fundamental and basic things to learn. If you choose to overlook quotation marks and prefer to act dumb, you need a date with a psychiatrist.
-
Yes brother Mythbuster, can you please acknowledge Iceman's victory and give him a standing ovation before his mental breakdown becomes the cause of further complicated health issues? Iceman seems to be dying for your approval, lol. Also, bro Mythbuster, do not mention the quotation marks I put around the word proves.
The poor lad craves attention from me I do give him real truths hence he needs me to cheer him up now because I don’t think his own kind acknowledge half the things he says, he needs a pat on the back or someone to say....well done.😜
Well it’s the belief in stupid ideas of divine imamates that leads him to such actions I suppose.😜
Ps.....I won’t mention the quotation mark, it will break his lil heart if he realised what you really meant.😂😂😂
-
Calm down people. You said "can you prove Imamah from the Qur'an". And I proved it. You and mythbuster both accepted it. Then came the twist and turn as such from you two "oh but this doesn't prove divine Imamah or shia Imamah" but my dears my lovelies,
you didn't say anything about any particular or specific version of Imamah. You said "can you prove Imamah from the Qur'an" or "you've failed to prove Imamah from the Qur'an" And that's what I replied to and addressed. And you accepted.
I do think I deserve a standing ovation for this. 😀
-
I do think I deserve a standing ovation for this. 😀
Wow so you are really that shallow, lol. Never a dull moment with you, Iceman. Just when we think you cannot stoop any lower!
-
Calm down people. You said "can you prove Imamah from the Qur'an". And I proved it. You and mythbuster both accepted it. Then came the twist and turn as such from you two "oh but this doesn't prove divine Imamah or shia Imamah" but my dears my lovelies,
you didn't say anything about any particular or specific version of Imamah. You said "can you prove Imamah from the Qur'an" or "you've failed to prove Imamah from the Qur'an" And that's what I replied to and addressed. And you accepted.
I do think I deserve a standing ovation for this. 😀
What did you prove? A verse saying Imams that lead people to hellfire lol.
You posted it & realise you messed up big by refusing to acknowledge you posted it.
So here we have it.
According to Iceman Imamah is proven from Quran & one of the things mentioned about it is the Imams will lead people to hellfire.
Amazing.
This guy came on here & refuted his own years of posts with one single refutation from himself lol.
-
Calm down people. You said "can you prove Imamah from the Qur'an". And I proved it. You and mythbuster both accepted it. Then came the twist and turn as such from you two "oh but this doesn't prove divine Imamah or shia Imamah" but my dears my lovelies,
you didn't say anything about any particular or specific version of Imamah. You said "can you prove Imamah from the Qur'an" or "you've failed to prove Imamah from the Qur'an" And that's what I replied to and addressed. And you accepted.
I do think I deserve a standing ovation for this. 😀
You liar you know EXACTLY what I asked for “divine imams” the theory of divinity how they the imams are.......DIVINE! You even answered by giving your version of a quranic verse of imams being promoted to a status higher than prophets.
Look at you poor kid you really messed up big time the verses contradicted your theory and now you think it was just imams we was talking about all along and we got it wrong. Self delusional 😂😂😜
You are even wanting an applause for your lies too.😂
The cheek!
-
You liar you know EXACTLY what I asked for “divine imams” the theory of divinity how they the imams are.......DIVINE! You even answered by giving your version of a quranic verse of imams being promoted to a status higher than prophets.
Look at you poor kid you really messed up big time the verses contradicted your theory and now you think it was just imams we was talking about all along and we got it wrong. Self delusional 😂😂😜
You are even wanting an applause for your lies too.😂
The cheek!
Post #55, Muslim 720,
"Okay, Qur'anist, show me Imamah from the Qur'an"
😊 Just give me a moment and I'll pull out your proof. Then call me a liar.
-
Post #55, Muslim 720,
"Okay, Qur'anist, show me Imamah from the Qur'an"
😊 Just give me a moment and I'll pull out your proof. Then call me a liar.
Wonder what’s taking you so long!
🤔
-
Can see how dishonest iceman is.
He made a huge blunder citing the Imam leading people to hellfire verse & ignores any reference to it. Not replying to any posts asking him about this blunder.
Complete fraudster.
-
Wonder what’s taking you so long!
🤔
Just letting the dust settle 😀
-
Can see how dishonest iceman is.
He made a huge blunder citing the Imam leading people to hellfire verse & ignores any reference to it. Not replying to any posts asking him about this blunder.
Complete fraudster.
What blunder, care to explain. The blunder was raising objection to giving the Prophet s.a.w pen and paper and giving a reason that there was no need for it. That's why it was called a BLACK DAY. That's blunder for yeh.
The blunder was killing Malik bin Nuwayrah and his fellow men. You have mixed reports on that. Some men from Khalid’s armed convoy complained to Abu Bakr that Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribe were Muslims and Khalid killed them unlawfully. That's blunder for Yeh.
The blunders made you don't want to recognize and you keep running from them.
-
Just letting the dust settle 😀
Come on LIAR.......you are carrying the Shiite trophy of LYING😂😂👍😂
Well done you😂👍👍
-
Just letting the dust settle 😀
What’s up??
Couldn’t you find a post of mine to twist and turn??
You definitely are keeping up the sunnah of Saba and are a great LIAR👍👍
No Muslim would lie like a Shiite like you and still not be ashamed!
Divine Imamate lol the biggest joke liars will defend like iceman 👍
Just like that divine verse iceman can’t find that post from me on just basic Imamate.
😂😂😂😂😂
This kid is pure entertainment........you would be great for lollywood.😂😂😂😜😜😜
-
What blunder, care to explain. The blunder was raising objection to giving the Prophet s.a.w pen and paper and giving a reason that there was no need for it. That's why it was called a BLACK DAY. That's blunder for yeh.
The blunder was killing Malik bin Nuwayrah and his fellow men. You have mixed reports on that. Some men from Khalid’s armed convoy complained to Abu Bakr that Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribe were Muslims and Khalid killed them unlawfully. That's blunder for Yeh.
The blunders made you don't want to recognize and you keep running from them.
You messed up yet AGAIN😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Answer the brother on sura qasas instead your bringing in Thursday and apostate nuwera.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You dishonest deceitful liar!!
-
You messed up yet AGAIN😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Answer the brother on sura qasas instead your bringing in Thursday and apostate nuwera.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You dishonest deceitful liar!!
Apostate Nuwera? What, the Companion Nuwera? I thought you believed companions never went astray? What happened to your love for the companions? 😀
-
Sehih Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817 :
Narrated by Ibn 'Abbas
I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with 'Umar bin Al-Khattab during 'Umar's last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.'
Yes it was a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards. It was an incident and a coincidence.
-
Sehih Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817 :
Narrated by Ibn 'Abbas
I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with 'Umar bin Al-Khattab during 'Umar's last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.'
Yes it was a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards. It was an incident and a coincidence.
That got implemented in the real world.........you keep crying over spilt milk.
Divine imamrmate NEVER even breathed or saw the light of day.
You are butt hurt and will find ANYTHING negative about saqifa you will even LIE to defend fake divine Imamate.
Oh iceman😊
-
Apostate Nuwera? What, the Companion Nuwera? I thought you believed companions never went astray? What happened to your love for the companions? 😀
It’s your lies and assumptions at play again, you do a lot of that without any facts, you want apostates as companions I wouldn’t be surprised for the first imam fought against this apostate but his followers call him a companion.
Make up go along shiism.😂😂👍👍
-
Just letting the dust settle 😀
Come on follower of divine imams, is this what believing in divine imams does to you??.....make you want to ......LIE?!?
Oh boy at least with saqifa it was a fact that was implemented and we don’t need to LIE about it.
It’s been over a day and you still haven’t found that post of mine which you THOUGHT you can twist and turn and outright LIE about it it’s just like that verse your kind have been searching for from the Quran for the last 1400 years.😂
I bet it’s in my post somewhere but we are just too blind to see.
😂😂
Shiism by the great intellectual lying iceman.👍
-
That got implemented in the real world.........you keep crying over spilt milk.
Divine imamrmate NEVER even breathed or saw the light of day.
You are butt hurt and will find ANYTHING negative about saqifa you will even LIE to defend fake divine Imamate.
Oh iceman😊
Negative? About Saqifa? Is there anything positive about something that is not legitimate and right to begin with? You want something positive about something that is negative to begin with? 😊 Stop crying over it.
Saqifa was a coincidence. It was an incident that should have been prevented. Obaid ibn Al Jarah got the attention of Umar by telling him that something TERRIBLE is about to happen. And they managed to get hold of Abu Bakr and ended up in Saqifa, to prevent something TERRIBLE from happening.
It wasn't a public gathering or event organised and arranged to select a leader. The Shaykhain wouldn't have gone with this because they wouldn't have got there way. How many Muhajir were at Saqifa? Only 3. Out of how many. Thousands. And what were they there for? To stop something TERRIBLE from happening.
Have a bit of honesty, decency and shame to accept the facts.
-
Negative? About Saqifa? Is there anything positive about something that is not legitimate and right to begin with? You want something positive about something that is negative to begin with? 😊 Stop crying over it.
Saqifa was a coincidence. It was an incident that should have been prevented. Obaid ibn Al Jarah got the attention of Umar by telling him that something TERRIBLE is about to happen. And they managed to get hold of Abu Bakr and ended up in Saqifa, to prevent something TERRIBLE from happening.
It wasn't a public gathering or event organised and arranged to select a leader. The Shaykhain wouldn't have gone with this because they wouldn't have got there way. How many Muhajir were at Saqifa? Only 3. Out of how many. Thousands. And what were they there for? To stop something TERRIBLE from happening.
Have a bit of honesty, decency and shame to accept the facts.
You what? Honesty?Decency? Shame?
Your the one who is disHONEST trying to twist and lie on me, at least be DECENT enough to admit it and don’t be ASHAMED of your blunders be a man about it and put your hands up.
Saqifa was real divine Imamate isn’t, you can cry as much as you want but reality bites.
No help for you in Quran or in real life on divine Imamate, especially for a liar like you.
-
You what? Honesty?Decency? Shame?
Your the one who is disHONEST trying to twist and lie on me, at least be DECENT enough to admit it and don’t be ASHAMED of your blunders be a man about it and put your hands up.
Saqifa was real divine Imamate isn’t, you can cry as much as you want but reality bites.
No help for you in Quran or in real life on divine Imamate, especially for a liar like you.
Saqifa was a coincidence and Imamah is reality. Saqifa ain't according to the Qur'an and Imamah is. Still want to play blind and dumb over it then you carry on.
-
Saqifa was a coincidence and Imamah is reality. Saqifa ain't according to the Qur'an and Imamah is. Still want to play blind and dumb over it then you carry on.
Divine Imamate is a fairytale theory made up by ibn Saba.
The outcome of which is you LIED, carry on the sunnah of your first imam ibn Saba you truly are a great follower of his.😂👍
-
Divine Imamate is a fairytale theory made up by ibn Saba.
The outcome of which is you LIED, carry on the sunnah of your first imam ibn Saba you truly are a great follower of his.😂👍
"Divine Imamate is a fairytale theory made up by ibn Saba"
Nope. Divine Imamate is a reality which is explained with an example by Allah. 😊
Ibne Saba is a fictional character created by your ancestors to hide the truth.
-
"Divine Imamate is a fairytale theory made up by ibn Saba"
Nope. Divine Imamate is a reality which is explained with an example by Allah. 😊
Ibne Saba is a fictional character created by your ancestors to hide the truth.
No example in Quran apart from you assuming it is then lying to upkeep your argument which is a sunna of your imam ibn Saba, infact you excell in lying and assuming he would be proud of you.😊
Ibn saba was a reality just like saqifa, the lie of divine Imamate he dreamed of became the reality of the Shiites hence your proudness and excellence in lying on the subject he dreamt of.😉👍
Taqiya and lying you don’t care and are actually proud of it. A cowards trait.👍
-
No example in Quran apart from you assuming it is then lying to upkeep your argument which is a sunna of your imam ibn Saba, infact you excell in lying and assuming he would be proud of you.😊
Ibn saba was a reality just like saqifa, the lie of divine Imamate he dreamed of became the reality of the Shiites hence your proudness and excellence in lying on the subject he dreamt of.😉👍
Taqiya and lying you don’t care and are actually proud of it. A cowards trait.👍
I ain't assuming anything. It's there in black and white. Allah granted Abraham Imamah after a test/trial by making him an Imam. Simple. He was a Messenger (divinity there) then a Prophet (divinity there) and then an Imam but you minus divinity here. So according to your constant rant he was demoted 😊 I wonder why you think that?
-
I ain't assuming anything. It's there in black and white. Allah granted Abraham Imamah after a test/trial by making him an Imam. Simple. He was a Messenger (divinity there) then a Prophet (divinity there) and then an Imam but you minus divinity here. So according to your constant rant he was demoted 😊 I wonder why you think that?
But where does the verse state or insinuate He was promoted?
You believe in divine Imamate so in your mind it makes sense the dots connect you can add that in and it’s all good.
In reality the word imam mentioned after prophethood He Ibrahim as lived as a leader/imam look at the world Islam/Judaism/Christianity the majority of the world follow the Abrahamic faith, His progeny the good the pious were leaders and are examples sticking true with the verse of the Quran that He was leader of His nation and now for most of the world. History is there and testifies to it.
The DIVINE bit you added to your above self made methadology by creating an impression that there must be a higher status at play because the sequence is .....messengerhood (divine) prophethood (divine) imam......must also be (divine), so it must be a promotion as your belief in imams being higher than prophets will crumble if they weren’t divine.
Imams are not divine beings they are just leaders without the divinity part, again you are adding the divine part yourself and boy you can’t even explain it and I ain’t even an Arabic speaker and I know you definitely aren’t.
-
But where does the verse state or insinuate He was promoted?
You believe in divine Imamate so in your mind it makes sense the dots connect you can add that in and it’s all good.
In reality the word imam mentioned after prophethood He Ibrahim as lived as a leader/imam look at the world Islam/Judaism/Christianity the majority of the world follow the Abrahamic faith, His progeny the good the pious were leaders and are examples sticking true with the verse of the Quran that He was leader of His nation and now for most of the world. History is there and testifies to it.
The DIVINE bit you added to your above self made methadology by creating an impression that there must be a higher status at play because the sequence is .....messengerhood (divine) prophethood (divine) imam......must also be (divine), so it must be a promotion as your belief in imams being higher than prophets will crumble if they weren’t divine.
Imams are not divine beings they are just leaders without the divinity part, again you are adding the divine part yourself and boy you can’t even explain it and I ain’t even an Arabic speaker and I know you definitely aren’t.
"But where does the verse state or insinuate He was promoted?"
I asked you the following,
1, Was he promoted?
2, Was he demoted?
3, Was he given a title of a similar nature, level and grade.
4, Anything different than above.
-
I ain't assuming anything. It's there in black and white. Allah granted Abraham Imamah after a test/trial by making him an Imam. Simple. He was a Messenger (divinity there) then a Prophet (divinity there) and then an Imam but you minus divinity here. So according to your constant rant he was demoted 😊 I wonder why you think that?
Well where was the promotion of Muhammed saw??? Your answer is......”it’s upto god”, so please could you forward ANY evidence the last prophet saw got PTOMOTED?
Or was our prophet demoted?
Your call kid.👍
-
"But where does the verse state or insinuate He was promoted?"
I asked you the following,
1, Was he promoted?
2, Was he demoted?
3, Was he given a title of a similar nature, level and grade.
4, Anything different than above.
I keep telling thee.......
1) NO
2)NO
3)NO
4)YES
He was a normal leader/imam without the added divinity part you keep throwing in without evidence.
-
I keep telling thee.......
1) NO
2)NO
3)NO
4)YES
He was a normal leader/imam without the added divinity part you keep throwing in without evidence.
If he was a normal leader then wasn't he a leader when he was a Prophet?
:And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."
And Abraham was asking for that same leadership that you are stuck with for his offsprings "Abraham] said, "And of my descendants" and how did Allah reply, "Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."
So if Imam means just and only leadership then why the condition from Allah? Normal leadership doesn't have conditions attached to them, does it.
-
We've all expressed our opinion and had our share of the argument. Lets take a look at this very carefully, in detail and in depth.
"And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."
First point, Abraham was tried by his Lord. He was put through a test, a trial. What was the test, the trial? With commands. Which commands or what kind? Allah knows better and best. So what was the result of this test, this trial? Abraham fulfilled those commands. He didn't fall short. In simple words, he passed he succeeded. What happened next? Allah said to Abraham "Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people".
Now this is where the issue is. Allah said to Abraham that I will make you an Imam of the people. For argument reasons lets say that this was just and only leadership. Allah promised Abraham that he will make him a leader of the people. The whole episode was just ordinary and there was nothing exciting or important here because Abraham was already a Messenger and a Prophet to begin with. So this wasn't something higher or more important.
Lets look at some facts concerning leadership and being a leader. Leaders can be good or bad or anywhere in between. One can classify and categorise leaders in such a way that they can get things wrong, make errors and mistakes or they can be right doers or wrongdoers. All this is attached and connected to just leadership and being a leader.
Now lets move forward on those verses. What did Abraham say to Allah after Allah said "Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people". Abraham replied by putting a request forward, "And of my descendants?" And how did Allah take this request? By responding "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers". Notice Allah's reply to Abraham's request "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers". See the condition. This condition proves that this wasn't just and only leadership. This condition proves it was DIVINE LEADERSHIP.
-
We've all expressed our opinion and had our share of the argument. Lets take a look at this very carefully, in detail and in depth.
"And [mention, O Muhammad], when Abraham was tried by his Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. [ Allah ] said, "Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people." [Abraham] said, "And of my descendants?" [ Allah ] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."
First point, Abraham was tried by his Lord. He was put through a test, a trial. What was the test, the trial? With commands. Which commands or what kind? Allah knows better and best. So what was the result of this test, this trial? Abraham fulfilled those commands. He didn't fall short. In simple words, he passed he succeeded. What happened next? Allah said to Abraham "Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people".
Now this is where the issue is. Allah said to Abraham that I will make you an Imam of the people. For argument reasons lets say that this was just and only leadership. Allah promised Abraham that he will make him a leader of the people. The whole episode was just ordinary and there was nothing exciting or important here because Abraham was already a Messenger and a Prophet to begin with. So this wasn't something higher or more important.
Lets look at some facts concerning leadership and being a leader. Leaders can be good or bad or anywhere in between. One can classify and categorise leaders in such a way that they can get things wrong, make errors and mistakes or they can be right doers or wrongdoers. All this is attached and connected to just leadership and being a leader.
Now lets move forward on those verses. What did Abraham say to Allah after Allah said "Indeed, I will make you an Imam for the people". Abraham replied by putting a request forward, "And of my descendants?" And how did Allah take this request? By responding "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers". Notice Allah's reply to Abraham's request "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers". See the condition. This condition proves that this wasn't just and only leadership. This condition proves it was DIVINE LEADERSHIP.
You can look as much as you can and I will help you along the way, I am sure your not a kindergarten kid although you post like it sometimes.
Ibrahim as passed trials and tests He passed as a great prophet and now prophethood had finished no more revelations no new commands, Allah swt made Him as a great leader/imam whom most of the world consider as a great leader, no divine attachments, just a normal imam AS THE QURAN CLEARLY STATES!!!
You are coming with shiite influenced divine Imamate ideas and trying very hard to add it to the verse but you keep failing MISERABLY hence you keep regurgitating the same argument.
It’s getting boring now.
Look at your desperation man
“And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with commands, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam for mankind. (Ibrahim) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders)? He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”. (2:124)
It was a question.....”and of my offspring?” He was asking about something He Ibrahim as didn’t know about, a genuine honest question with no added extras to think it’s about divine Imamate, like you do with your Shiite mindset.
Allah swt replied and blessed His off spring with leadership and there was plenty of them and they lived ruled and history has been written about them aplenty, your crying about words and meanings and what ifs and conditions words you add but cannot provide an example of a real living divine imam, it’s all in your head and you still cannot explain such an idea for there is no proof of it, our endless convo says it all, just as much you may think divine Imamate is real I answer you on your mistakes and contradictions for you to repeat the same again and again.
Stop adding in bits whom ibn saba championed.
-
اسم در نزد اهل لغت و اهل معرفت یعنی چی؟
• اسم ذات احتیاج به اسم دیگر دارد.
• "الله" یعنی خود اون ذات. نه لفظی که دلالت بر اون ذات میکند
pray time secret:
https://www.azangoo.ir/blogs/وبلاگ/292-اسرار-اذان-و-اقامه-استاد-سعادت-فر-قسمت-چهارم-از-هفتاد-دو.html (https://www.azangoo.ir/blogs/وبلاگ/292-اسرار-اذان-و-اقامه-استاد-سعادت-فر-قسمت-چهارم-از-هفتاد-دو.html)
-
In post #80 Muslim 720 says,
"However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah. Then you have no choice but to acknowledge that Prophethood is necessary for one to attain Imamah"
Notice the words again, "However, as I always do, I am willing to concede that it "proves" Imamah"
It proves Imamah. But the discussion now is 'what type of Imamah'. This is where you're taking the discussion now.
Mythbuster says in post #122,
"Ibrahim as passed trials and tests He passed as a great prophet and now prophethood had finished no more revelations no new commands"
No my dear, he didn't pass as a great prophet. He was already a Prophet even before he was tried by his Lord. Here he was tried by his Lord while he was already a prophet. So the trial has got nothing to do with Prophet hood but something else and different.
And when he succeeded only then Allah decided to make him an Imam of the people. Get it, IMAM not a leader which he already was to begin with. Is being a leader separate and different than being a Prophet? No it isn't. So you're mitigating matters by giving your own meaning and version to Imamah and becoming an Imam. You're making something serious and important look simple and small.
-
Mythbuster further says,
"Allah swt replied and blessed His off spring with leadership and there was plenty of them and they lived ruled and history has been written about them aplenty"
No my dear, that is not true. You're mixing things up and you're trying to make a mixture. Abraham asked "And of my descendants/offsprings" and Allah replied "my covenant is not for the wrongdoers" So there is a condition in place.
So Allah certainly didn't bless all of them with this covenant. And not all of them ruled as right doers . The wrongdoers were excluded and you failed to mention this. This condition means something. You can't brush it aside.
"but cannot provide an example of a real living divine imam"
Muhammad Al Mahdi is the example of a real living divine Imam.
"It was a question.....”and of my offspring?” He was asking about something He Ibrahim as didn’t know about, a genuine honest question with no added extras to think it’s about divine Imamate, like you do with your Shiite mindset"
If it was just a simple and ordinary question then why didn't Allah give a simple and straightforward answer by saying "yes there will be leaders from your offsprings"?
Why did Allah say, "He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”
Why did Allah add the extra?
“And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with commands, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam for mankind. (Ibrahim) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders)? He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”. (2:124)
-
"a genuine honest question with no added extras"
But a genuine honest answer in return with added extra.
"He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”
There you have the added extra.
"You are coming with shiite influenced divine Imamate ideas"
Nope. I'm just telling you what exactly is in the Qur'an. You keep denying it without any logical reason.
"and trying very hard to add it to the verse but you keep failing MISERABLY"
I'm not adding anything to it. Allah added by saying "my covenant does not include the unjust”
"hence you keep regurgitating the same argument"
Because you keep coming back with the confrontational stance.
-
If you read the entire story of the covenant between God and Ibrahim (as) in the bible, you realize the covenant is "circumcision". Now to conclude this, the word "oppressors" in the verse talks about people of an evil nature, as long as the person is descent then he is not from among the "oppressors".
-
No my dear, he didn't pass as a great prophet. He was already a Prophet even before he was tried by his Lord. Here he was tried by his Lord while he was already a prophet. So the trial has got nothing to do with Prophet hood but something else and different.
And when he succeeded only then Allah decided to make him an Imam of the people. Get it, IMAM not a leader which he already was to begin with. Is being a leader separate and different than being a Prophet? No it isn't. So you're mitigating matters by giving your own meaning and version to Imamah and becoming an Imam. You're making something serious and important look simple and small.
I say He passed in His prophethood
You say He was already a prophet before He was tried by His Lord
What’s the difference?
The trial has definitely got nothing to do with divine Imamate neither, as prophethood had finished and now Allah swt made Him a leader/imam not divine for mankind, the covenant wasn’t for divine leadership, that’s you adding in your interpretation.
Imamah of divine nature portrayed by you and your kind is nothing but an addition as can be seen how you twist the word imam to suit your interpretation there by mitigating matters by giving your own version of imamah and becoming an imam. You’re creating something when there is nothing there at all.
-
Mythbuster further says,
"Allah swt replied and blessed His off spring with leadership and there was plenty of them and they lived ruled and history has been written about them aplenty"
No my dear, that is not true. You're mixing things up and you're trying to make a mixture. Abraham asked "And of my descendants/offsprings" and Allah replied "my covenant is not for the wrongdoers" So there is a condition in place.
Mixing what? You are the one calling a covenant a condition AGAIN adding your own interpretation.
Nothing new here you are a master of mixing divine with normal imams.👍So Allah certainly didn't bless all of them with this covenant. And not all of them ruled as right doers . The wrongdoers were excluded and you failed to mention this. This condition means something. You can't brush it aside.
What? The covenant excludes wrongdoers, no wrongdoers will rule and they never did as I keep saying look into history and read and ponder over what bro hani posted .......THINK!!! You are CONDITIONED since childhood to twist and create something out of nothing with added words and meanings like you do here and it’s a miserable failure
Muhammad Al Mahdi is the example of a real living divine Imam.
I do wonder IF you understand English?
Could....you....please.....provide.....us......proof.....of......the.....real.....living.....divine.....I....M.....A....M.
Don’t give me a metaphor but a real breathing living imam.
My imam is at my local masjid living breathing and loves eating.😜
Where’s yours?😉
If it was just a simple and ordinary question then why didn't Allah give a simple and straightforward answer by saying "yes there will be leaders from your offsprings"?
Why did Allah say, "He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”
Why did Allah add the extra?
“And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with commands, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam for mankind. (Ibrahim) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders)? He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”. (2:124)
Yes a question and NOT a condition.
What of my offspring? Is that a condition or a question?
Allah swt replies not the wrong doers from your offspring.
A question asked is answered by Allah swt.........why are you ADDING conditions in a question?
You need to go back to school and learn the English language and understand it better honestly you are making a mockery of your kind and yourself.
There is no EXTRA here unless you start creating one like you do yourself with conditions.
Just like you add on divine to imams.
😉
-
"a genuine honest question with no added extras"
But a genuine honest answer in return with added extra.
"He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”
There you have the added extra
Yes as answered in previous post, you are desperately trying your hardest but your going in circles.
No condition but an answer and nothing extra added unless you mix in ideas yourself, as can be seen.
Nope. I'm just telling you what exactly is in the Qur'an. You keep denying without any logical reason.
Lol your LOGICAL reasoning creates an IDEA of a divine imam that you simply add it to verses of Quran to twist it to your understanding, the threads and post are full of your self made interpretations of verses from the Quran without you providing any REAL or CLEAR evidence from Quran saying imams are divine, infact you haven’t a real or living divine imam and never did.
Divine Imamate a miserable failure that never existed and never implemented since the idea was created by Saba.👍
Because you keep coming back with the confrontational stance.
I keep coming back with haqq which to you converts to a confrontational stance.😉👍
You are good at converting words and facts to your desires and whims.😜
-
If you read the entire story of the covenant between God and Ibrahim (as) in the bible, you realize the covenant is "circumcision". Now to conclude this, the word "oppressors" in the verse talks about people of an evil nature, as long as the person is descent then he is not from among the "oppressors".
I don't know what you're on about here but the verses in the Qur'an and the example of Imamah is clear how it was given to Abraham and the condition if it will be given to any of the descendants. You can twist and turn this as much as you like but the matter is clear.
-
I don't know what you're on about here but the verses in the Qur'an and the example of Imamah is clear how it was given to Abraham and the condition if it will be given to any of the descendants. You can twist and turn this as much as you like but the matter is clear.
Obviously you don’t because you spew that much nonsense that you don’t even understand simple things you end up twisting and turning to make yourself see divine additions where there simply is none. The matter is clear you lack aql when it comes to verses of Quran.😜
-
Obviously you don’t because you spew that much nonsense that you don’t even understand simple things you end up twisting and turning to make yourself see divine additions where there simply is none. The matter is clear you lack aql when it comes to verses of Quran.😜
No I don't. It's your constant denial and confrontational stance 😊
-
I don't know what you're on about here but the verses in the Qur'an and the example of Imamah is clear how it was given to Abraham and the condition if it will be given to any of the descendants. You can twist and turn this as much as you like but the matter is clear.
Yes, only the righteous from his descendants will be an example for the people to follow (i.e Imams), those who follow his tradition and do circumcision.
Here it is from Genesis 17
{I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.}
Your Shia interpretation is way off buddy.
-
Yes, only the righteous from his descendants will be an example for the people to follow (i.e Imams), those who follow his tradition and do circumcision.
Here it is from Genesis 17
{I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.}
Your Shia interpretation is way off buddy.
So what was the covenant here? Was it, "to be your God and the God of your descendants after you" or was it "The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
But in the Qur'an Allah mentions of Abraham being tried by his Lord and then Allah decided to make him an Imam of the people. You're putting together two different things here. Doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to make here?
-
That got implemented in the real world.........you keep crying over spilt milk.
Divine imamrmate NEVER even breathed or saw the light of day.
You are butt hurt and will find ANYTHING negative about saqifa you will even LIE to defend fake divine Imamate.
Oh iceman😊
"you keep crying over spilt milk"
I absolutely agree, yes it was spilt milk (Saqifa). If you still want to drink or use it (accept it) then that's down to you. We on the other hand mop it up. That's the difference. 😊
-
"you keep crying over spilt milk"
I absolutely agree, yes it was spilt milk (Saqifa). If you still want to drink or use it (accept it) then that's down to you. We on the other hand mop it up. That's the difference. 😊
Lol you mopped it up that much that the last one ran into hiding.😂😂😂
👍
-
Lol you mopped it up that much that the last one ran into hiding.😂😂😂
👍
The only difference is, you believe he ran into hiding and we believe he was ordered into occultation. That's the difference. But we do agree on one thing be it you or us, that a day will come where the world will be so full of cruelty, injustice, tyranny and corruption that mankind along with you and your ideology of Caliphate will cry out, infact scream out for help from Allah. Because nothing has gone right and there are no signs of going right.
Then the same individual you call in hiding will appear. The only difference is we along with some Sunnis believe he is in occultation and you believe he will be born. But it doesn't matter which way you look at it wasn't our Imams but your Caliphs who messed things up by getting them wrong. Be it Caliphs of which era.
-
I read the article and did not find anything which would make me believe that concept of Shi'i Imamat is false (or doomed)
Anyone who is sincere dont need an article to see the obvious that the concept of shia imamah was doomed almost 1200 yr ago when the last imam was nowhere to be found. The concept of ghayba doomed the concept of imamah.
-
Anyone who is sincere dont need an article to see the obvious that the concept of shia imamah was doomed almost 1200 yr ago when the last imam was nowhere to be found. The concept of ghayba doomed the concept of imamah.
Yes, anyone who is sincere knows that Saqifa was shambles. A few people gathering in a corner and making such an important decision which is going to effect all and everyone 😑 This is done at Masjid a Nabawi or somewhere similar in a public gathering where everyone concerned is involved.
You don't rush off and do it quietly and in secrecy. Only when you know that you won't be able to have your way if it's done properly and legitimately. 😊