Concept of Imamah in Ahlul Sunnah

[muslim720]

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.....

[iceman]

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?

[muslim720]

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".

[muslim720]

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?

[iceman]

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?

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

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.”

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[muslim720]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[Mythbuster1]

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.

[muslim720]

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).

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

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?"

[muslim720]

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?

[muslim720]

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.

[Khaled]

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?

[iceman]

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.

[Mythbuster1]

"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.😉