Ghadeer Khum

[Taha]

بسم مولانا علي المرتضى

السلام عليكم


This is a brief discussion of the events at the pond of Kumm.  I am prompted to write this in response to the thread regarding a debate about this topic.  I do not, however, intend for this to become a debate.  I merely want to express my thoughts on the topic and see what Ahl Al-Sunnah has to say in regards to my thoughts.  I lack knowledge and do not expect to change anybody's mind.  In fact, I'll probably be overwhelmed by the correctness of refutations against what I write.  Nonetheless, let us begin ..

To begin, I quote the text of the hadeeth of Ghadeer Khum.

"O people, Allah the Most Kind the Omniscient has told me that no apostle lives to more than half the age of him who had preceded him. I think I am about to be called to death and thus I must respond. I am responsible and you are responsible, then what do you say?" They said, "We witness that you have informed, advised and striven. May Allah bless you." He said, "Do you not bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and Apostle, and that His Heaven is true, His Hell is true, death is true, the Resurrection after death is true, that there is no doubt that the Day of Judgment will come, and that Allah will resurrect the dead from their graves?" They said, "Yes, we bear witness." He said, "O Allah, bear witness, of whomsoever I had been Mawla, Ali here is also his Mawla. O Allah, be a supporter of whoever supports Ali and an enemy of whoever opposes him and divert the Truth from Ali."

My arguments rest on a few key points.

First, The Messenger (s.a.w.a.) asks Allah (s.w.t.) to testify that `Ali (a.s.) is mawla of the people right after the testimony that there is only one God and that Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) is the messenger.  Therefore, the mawla-hood of `Ali (a.s.) is part and parcel of Islamic faith, just as tawhid and nubuwwah are.

Secondly, the word mawla derives from the word awla.  This word is used in the Holy Qur'an in the following way.

النبي أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم وأزواجه أمهاتهم وأولو الأرحام بعضهم أولى ببعض في كتاب الله من المؤمنين والمهاجرين إلا أن تفعلوا إلى أوليائكم معروفا كان ذلك في الكتاب مسطورا

The Prophet has more authority on the faithful than they have on themselves, and his wives are their mothers; and the possessors of relationship have the better claim in the ordinance of Allah to inheritance, one with respect to another, than (other) believers, and (than) those who have fled (their homes), except that you do some good to your friends; this is written in the Book.

As can be seen, the word awla refers to the authority of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), which he has over the believers.  Likewise, due to the hadeeth of Ghadeer Khum, it can be derived that `Ali (a.s.) has equal authority after the death of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

Thirdly, a common Sunni objection is that the word mawla means friend, or comrade as opposed to master/one that has awla.  I reject this line of thinking for one major reason.  There were thousands and thousands of people that were with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) when he made this designation.  He stopped many, many people at the pond of Khum.  He called for those that were ahead to come back.  He waited for those that were behind him to catch up.  Why on earth would the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) inconvenience so many people just to announce that `Ali (a.s.) is his friend?  That makes no rational sense.  Brother Farid lives on the other side of the planet for me.  If I called him over to my home, told him that it was an emergency, and by some miracle he did come, only for me to say "I like you, bro.  You're my friend.  You can go home now.", how would he react?  I'm not positive, but I think he might be a little bit angry.  Even more so if I inconvenienced thousands of other people just so I could announce that Farid is my friend.  If you truly believe that mawla means friend, then I invite Farid and 10,000 other people to come all the way to where I live so I can publicly announce that Farid is my friend.

Well, that's all I've got.  Let the refutations begin, I guess? 


[/size]و عليكم السلام

[sword_of_sunnah]

could you please provide a source for this claim:

He stopped many, many people at the pond of Khum.  He called for those that were ahead to come back.  He waited for those that were behind him to catch up. 

[Taha]

could you please provide a source for this claim:

No brother, I can't unfortunately. Sorry. I saw it on an anonymous Facebook page so even if I was thiqa, the one I narrate from is majhul.

Inshallah those with more knowledge than me can either verify or refute that claim.

[Husayn]

Assalamu Alaikum,

This topic has been addressed many times, so I won't go over it again.

I just wanted to comment on the following:

You said:

First, The Messenger (s.a.w.a.) asks Allah (s.w.t.) to testify that `Ali (a.s.) is mawla of the people right after the testimony that there is only one God and that Muhammad (s.a.w.a.) is the messenger.  Therefore, the mawla-hood of `Ali (a.s.) is part and parcel of Islamic faith, just as tawhid and nubuwwah are.

I don't like this "therefore". This was something that always annoyed me about Shiism. Why does everything have to be qualified beforehand with a "therefore", "so this must mean", "in other words" e.t.c.

This is an issue of the foundations of the faith. There can be no room for interpretation. Can we interpret the following foundations of faith:

1. Tawhid

Who can argue that belief in tawhid is not obligatory in Islam? Tawhid is spelled out in the Qur'an as though it were meant for a baby to understand.

"Say, He Allah is One!" Qur'an 112:1

2. Nubuwah

Can we argue that Muhammad (saws) is the messenger of Allah (swt)? Is there any room for interpretation here? The Qur'an makes this abundantly clear.

"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah!" Qur'an 48:29

3. Salaat, Zakaat

Again, any room for interpretation? Sure, we can argue over how to pray, how to give zakat, but can we argue that it is obligatory? Ofcourse not. The Qur'an makes this clear in dozens of verses, one of which is:

"Tell my believing servants to establish prayer and give in charity!" Qur'an 14:31

4. Hajj

"And complete the Hajj and Umrah!" Qur'an 2:196

----------------

The fact is, you don't need to refer to any ahadith to prove that these are core beliefs of Islam.

You need ahadith to explain the details yes, but not to prove that they are obligatory beliefs or practises.

Let me ask you this - can you prove that 'Ali was the successor, or that 12 Imams exist, without any hadith?

The answer ofcourse is no, you can't.

So, what's my point? My point is, there are two modern-day interpretations for the Prophet (saws)'s words at Ghadir Khumm.

1. 'Ali (ra) is the ally of every believer.

2. 'Ali (ra) is the successor to the Prophet (saws).

Which of these beliefs is obligatory?

Obviously, only number 2. Point number 1 is good to know, but not obligatory for one to know about, or even to believe in.

Knowing that every other obligatory belief in Islam is specifically spelled out in the Qur'an - isn't it strange that 'Ali (ra) being the successor isn't? Isn't it strange that the only way to know that 'Ali (ra) was designated the successor is by interpreting a hadith - all the while knowing that every other obligatory belief in Islam can be proven without ahadith?

What should a person do in this case? He should adopt the course of moderation, and reject that extremist opinion - and the extremist opinion is without a doubt the opinion that 'Ali (ra) was made the successor on the day of Ghadir Khum.

[Taha]

^ I will give you a much longer and more detailed reply in the near future inshallah. I'm writing this on my phone and will address your whole post when I can inshallah. But there is one point I would like to address for now. You asked if I can prove the Imamate of `Ali (a.s.) from the Qur'an. No, I cannot. But I can prove Imamate itself from the Qur'an. Surah Yaseen says "wa kulli shay in ahsaynahu fee Imamim mubin" which means "and we have vested EVERYTHING in the manifest (mubin) Imam". It was the hadeeth that explain WHO the Imam is. Imamate is clearly established in the Qur'an. If one wants to deny the Imamate of Hadhrat `Ali (a.s.) then he must demonstrate an alternative Imam from the Qur'an or ahadeeth.

Wallahu alim.

[Taha]

Wa alaykum al salaam, by the way. I forgot my manners. My sincere apologies. Peace be upon every Muslim.

[Husayn]

Assalamu Alaikum,

You said:

You asked if I can prove the Imamate of `Ali (a.s.) from the Qur'an. No, I cannot. But I can prove Imamate itself from the Qur'an. Surah Yaseen says "wa kulli shay in ahsaynahu fee Imamim mubin" which means "and we have vested EVERYTHING in the manifest (mubin) Imam". It was the hadeeth that explain WHO the Imam is. Imamate is clearly established in the Qur'an. If one wants to deny the Imamate of Hadhrat `Ali (a.s.) then he must demonstrate an alternative Imam from the Qur'an or ahadeeth.

There is a big problem here, and it is one of the core deadly issues of Shiism.

It is the fact that you always find Shias only half-quoting verses when they try to prove 'Ali (ra)'s khilafa or even Imamah in general from the Qur'an.

There are two modern-day interpretations of this verse. There is the "at-face-value" version (i.e. first impression from reading the verse), and then there is the mystical version that needs a hadith:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ وَنَكْتُبُ مَا قَدَّمُوا وَآثَارَهُمْ ۚ وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ فِي إِمَامٍ مُبِينٍ

At-face-value version:

Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book.

Here, Imamin is translated as "book". This flows on from the beginning of the verse, which is talking about things being recorded "wa naktibu" (and we record).

Then there is the mystical version:

Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things we have vested in a clear Imam.

Now, I have a problem here. If I reject the context of the verse, and reject "book" as an understanding, what do I translate Imam as? The word "Imam" has several meanings in the Qur'an. It can mean:

 - Road (15:79)

 - Book (11:17, 17:71)

 - Guide -  in reference to an inanimate object (46:12)

  - Leader - OK, now it gets interesting. When is the word Imam used to mean "leader" in the Qur'an. In two verses:

(2:214) And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an IMAM to the Nations." He pleaded: "And also (IMAMs) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers."

(25:74) And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous."

Verse 2:214 refers to Ibrahim (as) being made an "Imam", or "leader". This is the only verse in the Qur'an which specifically refers to an individual as being an Imam. Unfortunately for Shias, it is not in reference to 'Ali (ra) or any of the 12 Imams.

Verse 25:74 indicates that anyone, who prays hard enough and whose prayer is accepted, can become an Imam!

Now, with all these different meanings to Imam, how do I interpret Imam in verse 36:12 to be a person? I can't do it by referring to the context - the context is clearly referring to a book.

So, do you see the issue? Forget about needing a hadith to prove "who" the Imam is in verse 36:12 - I actually need a hadith to prove that its even referring to a person at all!

[Hani]

بسم مولانا علي المرتضى

السلام عليكم

I'm more interested in why you would like to begin your discussion with


"In the name of our Mawla `Ali al-Murtada"


Is it really better and more worthy than


"In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate"


?

[Husayn]

^ lol

[Ameen]

Assalamu Alaikum,

You said:

You asked if I can prove the Imamate of `Ali (a.s.) from the Qur'an. No, I cannot. But I can prove Imamate itself from the Qur'an. Surah Yaseen says "wa kulli shay in ahsaynahu fee Imamim mubin" which means "and we have vested EVERYTHING in the manifest (mubin) Imam". It was the hadeeth that explain WHO the Imam is. Imamate is clearly established in the Qur'an. If one wants to deny the Imamate of Hadhrat `Ali (a.s.) then he must demonstrate an alternative Imam from the Qur'an or ahadeeth.

There is a big problem here, and it is one of the core deadly issues of Shiism.

It is the fact that you always find Shias only half-quoting verses when they try to prove 'Ali (ra)'s khilafa or even Imamah in general from the Qur'an.

There are two modern-day interpretations of this verse. There is the "at-face-value" version (i.e. first impression from reading the verse), and then there is the mystical version that needs a hadith:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ وَنَكْتُبُ مَا قَدَّمُوا وَآثَارَهُمْ ۚ وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ فِي إِمَامٍ مُبِينٍ

At-face-value version:

Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book.

Here, Imamin is translated as "book". This flows on from the beginning of the verse, which is talking about things being recorded "wa naktibu" (and we record).

Then there is the mystical version:

Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things we have vested in a clear Imam.

Now, I have a problem here. If I reject the context of the verse, and reject "book" as an understanding, what do I translate Imam as? The word "Imam" has several meanings in the Qur'an. It can mean:

 - Road (15:79)

 - Book (11:17, 17:71)

 - Guide -  in reference to an inanimate object (46:12)

  - Leader - OK, now it gets interesting. When is the word Imam used to mean "leader" in the Qur'an. In two verses:

(2:214) And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an IMAM to the Nations." He pleaded: "And also (IMAMs) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers."

(25:74) And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous."

Verse 2:214 refers to Ibrahim (as) being made an "Imam", or "leader". This is the only verse in the Qur'an which specifically refers to an individual as being an Imam. Unfortunately for Shias, it is not in reference to 'Ali (ra) or any of the 12 Imams.

Verse 25:74 indicates that anyone, who prays hard enough and whose prayer is accepted, can become an Imam!

Now, with all these different meanings to Imam, how do I interpret Imam in verse 36:12 to be a person? I can't do it by referring to the context - the context is clearly referring to a book.

So, do you see the issue? Forget about needing a hadith to prove "who" the Imam is in verse 36:12 - I actually need a hadith to prove that its even referring to a person at all!

Salaam brother.
Lets leave Shia version of Imamath out of this for a minute. Abraham (as) was made an Imam by his Lord after he was tried. So would you accept that Imamath does exist??? Allah does chose and make Imams??? And my final question that what is your opinion, was Abraham (as) promoted, demoted or was he given a title of a similar level??? Humble request, please do not duck and dive or twist and turn like all brothers do when asked. I would definitely like a positive answer. Please answer to the best of your ability.
Wassalaam!

[Taha]

Assalamu Alaikum,

و عليكم السلام

I don't like this "therefore". This was something that always annoyed me about Shiism. Why does everything have to be qualified beforehand with a "therefore", "so this must mean", "in other words" e.t.c.

Because that is how logical reasoning works?  Without using the "therefore" or "in other words", we wouldn't get anywhere in life, let alone religion.  Why do you use hadeeths?  Because the Qur'an says to obey the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), right?  THEREFORE, we use his narrations because there isn't a better way to follow him.  It's a therefore issue that Ahl Al-Sunnah uses to justify their following the Sunnah.  There's nothing wrong with "therefore".

1. Tawhid

Who can argue that belief in tawhid is not obligatory in Islam? Tawhid is spelled out in the Qur'an as though it were meant for a baby to understand.

"Say, He Allah is One!" Qur'an 112:1

We can't argue that tawhid is not obligatory, no.  But we can discuss what tawhid means and what the limits of it are.  There are debates that classical scholars (both Sunni and Shi`a) had about the nature of tawhid.  For example, is tawassul allowed?  Up until fairly recently, both Sunni and Shi`a allowed it, at least in the context of saying "Ya Nabi" or something similar. 

2. Nubuwah

Can we argue that Muhammad (saws) is the messenger of Allah (swt)? Is there any room for interpretation here? The Qur'an makes this abundantly clear.

"Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah!" Qur'an 48:29

No, we cannot argue about the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).   However, we can discuss what it means to be a Messenger or Prophet.  We can discuss what his status is, what his role is, etc.  For example, Quranists say that he was nothing but a divine tape recorder to give us the Qur'an and his usefulness ended there.  Sunnis say that his words and deeds are also divinely inspired so we must follow them as well.  Shi`a say that he is the bearer of the Noor of Allah (s.w.t.) so he IS the message of Islam just as much as he BROUGHT the message.  Which is true?  That is a discussion for another thread, but we can still discuss things such as Nubuwwah.

3. Salaat, Zakaat

Again, any room for interpretation? Sure, we can argue over how to pray, how to give zakat, but can we argue that it is obligatory? Of course not. The Qur'an makes this clear in dozens of verses, one of which is:

"Tell my believing servants to establish prayer and give in charity!" Qur'an 14:31

You hit the nail on the head with this one.  Salaat and Zakaat are obligatory according to the Qur'an, but the details aren't mentioned.  How many times per day do we pray?  Two (morning and night)?  Three?  Five?  Non stop?  The Qur'an mentions all of the above.  The general principle is mentioned in the Qur'an, but any and all details are left out.

4. Hajj

"And complete the Hajj and Umrah!" Qur'an 2:196

How?  When?  Is it obligatory or just a recommendation?  This discussion could go on for hours.

The fact is, you don't need to refer to any ahadith to prove that these are core beliefs of Islam.

You need ahadith to explain the details yes, but not to prove that they are obligatory beliefs or practises.

This is 100% correct, and I believe that I can prove Imamate from the Qur'an.  See below.

Let me ask you this - can you prove that 'Ali was the successor, or that 12 Imams exist, without any hadith?

No, but as I mentioned already, I can prove Imamate.  We merely turn to the hadeeths to figure out who the Imam is.

So, what's my point? My point is, there are two modern-day interpretations for the Prophet (saws)'s words at Ghadir Khumm.

1. 'Ali (ra) is the ally of every believer.

2. 'Ali (ra) is the successor to the Prophet (saws).

Which of these beliefs is obligatory?

Obviously, only number 2. Point number 1 is good to know, but not obligatory for one to know about, or even to believe in.

Precisely.  So why the grandiose method of announcing it?  He could have added it on to another speech he made.  Or he could have mentioned it to people in passing.  But he didn't.  He inconvenienced a large number of people just to announce that `Ali (a.s.) is his friend?  Doesn't make sense.

Knowing that every other obligatory belief in Islam is specifically spelled out in the Qur'an - isn't it strange that 'Ali (ra) being the successor isn't? Isn't it strange that the only way to know that 'Ali (ra) was designated the successor is by interpreting a hadith - all the while knowing that every other obligatory belief in Islam can be proven without ahadith?

The big red part is false.  The basics are mentioned in the Qur'an, not specifically spelled out.  Imamate is mentioned in the Qur'an (I will provide more arguments and references in my next post), whereas the details are spelled out in the hadeeths.  Same thing with Salaat.  Can you show me, exactly, how to perform salaat from the Qur'an alone?  No.




Please do not reply to this until I have made two further posts in this thread.  I am trying to get caught up on responding to every post إن شاء الله

[Taha]

Assalamu Alaikum,

و عليكم السلام

There are two modern-day interpretations of this verse. There is the "at-face-value" version (i.e. first impression from reading the verse), and then there is the mystical version that needs a hadith:

[/size]إِنَّا نَحْنُ نُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ وَنَكْتُبُ مَا قَدَّمُوا وَآثَارَهُمْ ۚ وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ فِي إِمَامٍ مُبِينٍ

At-face-value version:

Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book.

Here, Imamin is translated as "book". This flows on from the beginning of the verse, which is talking about things being recorded "wa naktibu" (and we record).

Then there is the mystical version:

Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things we have vested in a clear Imam.

It really isn't all that mystical.  Ever heard of raj'ah?  This verse is speaking about it.  Also, what does Imam mean?  And what does mubin mean?  If you take it at it's face value, it is speaking about a mubin (manifest) Imam.

Now, I have a problem here. If I reject the context of the verse, and reject "book" as an understanding, what do I translate Imam as? The word "Imam" has several meanings in the Qur'an. It can mean:

 - Road (15:79)

 - Book (11:17, 17:71)

 - Guide -  in reference to an inanimate object (46:12)

11:17 doesn't say book.  It is referring to Musa (a.s.) as the Imam.  17:71 actually does mention a book, but it also mentions an Imam.  It says people will be raised with their Imam (remember the hadeeth that says "whoever dies without recognizing the Imam dies the death of ignorance?  This verse is referencing that hadeeth).  Later in the verse it says that we will read our book (of deeds).  But the first, and most important issue is who your Imam is.  So Imam doesn't mean book.

  - Leader - OK, now it gets interesting. When is the word Imam used to mean "leader" in the Qur'an. In two verses:

(2:214) And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an IMAM to the Nations." He pleaded: "And also (IMAMs) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers."

(25:74) And those who pray, "Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous."

Verse 2:214 refers to Ibrahim (as) being made an "Imam", or "leader". This is the only verse in the Qur'an which specifically refers to an individual as being an Imam. Unfortunately for Shias, it is not in reference to 'Ali (ra) or any of the 12 Imams.

Verse 25:74 indicates that anyone, who prays hard enough and whose prayer is accepted, can become an Imam!

Thank you for quoting 2:214.  I actually really love this verse because it clearly proves that an Imam is superior to a Prophet.  After all, Ibrahim (a.s.) was a Prophet, and then he was made into an Imam.  Not the other way around.      Now, speaking of that verse, Allah (s.w.t.) promises that there will be Imams from Ibrahim's (a.s.) offspring, as long as they are the righteous.  Can you tell me who these Imams are?  I'll give you a clue, Musa (a.s.) is mentioned as an Imam in the Qur'an.  Go find more.  Imams is plural, not singular. 

As for 25:74, it is referencing the simple meaning of Imam -- a leader.  After all, a pesh Imam is the one that leads prayers, no?  We are speaking about the Infallible Imamate, not a simple leader.

Now, with all these different meanings to Imam, how do I interpret Imam in verse 36:12 to be a person? I can't do it by referring to the context - the context is clearly referring to a book.

As I have shown, the Qur'an never intends Imam to mean book.  The word for book is kitab and the Qur'an uses very, very frequently.  Why would it suddenly use Imam in this one and only verse?     That is really, really far-fetched.

So, do you see the issue? Forget about needing a hadith to prove "who" the Imam is in verse 36:12 - I actually need a hadith to prove that its even referring to a person at all!

I don't really see the issue, unfortunately.  I think that the Qur'an explains itself pretty well on this issue.

[Taha]

السلام عليكم

I'm more interested in why you would like to begin your discussion with

"In the name of our Mawla `Ali al-Murtada"

Is it really better and more worthy than

"In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate"

?

I never said it was more worthy or better than the 786.  But I am neither reciting the Qur'an nor am I speaking about Allah (s.w.t.).  I am writing in defense of My Lord, Imam `Ali (a.s.) so I am dedicating my post to him.  Besm mawlana `Ali al-Murtada simply means in the name of our master/Lord, Murtada `Ali.  My post was in his holy name.  That doesn't diminish the status of Allah (s.w.t.) one bit.  You must have a pretty low opinion of God if you think that merely dedicating a post to Imam `Ali (a.s.) could take away from his greatness. 

[Taha]

Okay, I'm done with my posts, so anybody else is free to respond and refute now إن شاء الله

I apologize if my posts were hastily written or deficient in some way.  Please not that my deficiency in defending Imam `Ali (a.s.) does not reflect on any deficiency on his part, but is rather my own mistake and misunderstandings.

اللهم صلي على مولانا علي المرتضى

[Hani]

السلام عليكم

I'm more interested in why you would like to begin your discussion with

"In the name of our Mawla `Ali al-Murtada"

Is it really better and more worthy than

"In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate"

?

I never said it was more worthy or better than the 786.  But I am neither reciting the Qur'an nor am I speaking about Allah (s.w.t.).  I am writing in defense of My Lord, Imam `Ali (a.s.) so I am dedicating my post to him.  Besm mawlana `Ali al-Murtada simply means in the name of our master/Lord, Murtada `Ali.  My post was in his holy name.  That doesn't diminish the status of Allah (s.w.t.) one bit.  You must have a pretty low opinion of God if you think that merely dedicating a post to Imam `Ali (a.s.) could take away from his greatness.

Do you think that when Allah (swt) begins every Qur'anic chapter with his name, that He's trying to teach us something? Maybe to do everything for his sake and no one else? To dedicate our actions to him and no one else?


Secondly, this means that the action that you shall do will be in His name and if it were not for him you would not have done it and that the strength gained to do it comes from Allah. It also means that the action will be done for His sake and in His blessed name so that He may bless it and that it is not done in my own name or that of a beloved or a Sultan, but purely for Allah.

[Hani]

@Taha,

Because that is how logical reasoning works?  Without using the "therefore" or "in other words", we wouldn't get anywhere in life, let alone religion.  Why do you use hadeeths?  Because the Qur'an says to obey the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), right?  THEREFORE, we use his narrations because there isn't a better way to follow him.  It's a therefore issue that Ahl Al-Sunnah uses to justify their following the Sunnah.  There's nothing wrong with "therefore".

You guys are hasty at jumping to conclusions and often misread religious texts whether Qur'anic or Hadithi narratives.


Also you guys read every narration with bias and do not take into consideration anything but your pre-conceptions and therefore All of Your "Therefores" usually lead to corrupt conclusions.

We can't argue that tawhid is not obligatory, no.  But we can discuss what tawhid means and what the limits of it are.  There are debates that classical scholars (both Sunni and Shi`a) had about the nature of tawhid.  For example, is tawassul allowed?  Up until fairly recently, both Sunni and Shi`a allowed it, at least in the context of saying "Ya Nabi" or something similar.

Except the text of `Ali's Imamah is not mentioned nor obligatory, so don't bother discussing what his Imamah means nor its limits.

No, we cannot argue about the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).   However, we can discuss what it means to be a Messenger or Prophet.

His prophet-hood is clearly stated in the Qur'an and even if it wasn't his prophet-hood would still be clear since he's the one who brought us the Qur'an in the first place.


Unlike `Ali's Imamah.

You hit the nail on the head with this one.  Salaat and Zakaat are obligatory according to the Qur'an, but the details aren't mentioned.

`Ali's Imamah is not mentioned nor are its details mentioned.

How?  When?  Is it obligatory or just a recommendation?  This discussion could go on for hours.

`Ali's Imamah poses more questions, such as What? How? When? Who? Why?

This is 100% correct, and I believe that I can prove Imamate from the Qur'an.  See below.

You can prove that the concept of leadership exists and our Prophet (saw) is a leader, you can't prove the Shia definition of Imamah from the Qur'an.

No, but as I mentioned already, I can prove Imamate.  We merely turn to the hadeeths to figure out who the Imam is.

We know Allah mentioned leaders, so what? Nothing that catches the eye really... As for the part you say you want to turn to Hadith to figure out, this is exactly the part that should have been mentioned as it's the most important part, the rest is all detail.

Precisely.  So why the grandiose method of announcing it?  He could have added it on to another speech he made.  Or he could have mentioned it to people in passing.  But he didn't.  He inconvenienced a large number of people just to announce that `Ali (a.s.) is his friend?  Doesn't make sense.

It's not grandiose, it's quite average really. He mentioned it to a number of `Ali's soldiers and folks from Madinah who had a grudge against him. Also it was a part of another speech about his family in general.


That makes perfect sense to me. If he wanted it to be Grandiose he would have mentioned it at Hajj or at Madinah.

The big red part is false.  The basics are mentioned in the Qur'an, not specifically spelled out.  Imamate is mentioned in the Qur'an (I will provide more arguments and references in my next post), whereas the details are spelled out in the hadeeths.  Same thing with Salaat.  Can you show me, exactly, how to perform salaat from the Qur'an alone?  No.

Your great Lord `Ali's name is not worth mentioning in the Qur'an even if he is to be the leader of all mankind after the Prophet (saw)?


Okay, tell us then, where is it mentioned in the Qur'an that the Prophet (saw) will be succeeded by a leader? Forget all the details such as the successor's Job, his name, his abilities etc... just show me where this successor-ship is.

[Hani]

It really isn't all that mystical.  Ever heard of raj'ah?  This verse is speaking about it.  Also, what does Imam mean?  And what does mubin mean?  If you take it at it's face value, it is speaking about a mubin (manifest) Imam.

Really? Because I'm an Arab, I'm reading this verse and I don't see where Raj`ah comes? And what about the word "manifest" does this make it only for a human leader? What about this verse then:


{O men, a proof has now come to you from your Lord; We have sent down to you a manifest light.}


Or this verse?


{He knows what is in land and sea; not a leaf falls, but He knows it. Not a grain in the earth's shadows, not a thing, fresh or withered, but it is in a Book Manifest.}


What about the examples of the various meanings of the word Imam in the Qur'an that the brother gave you? You're going to ignore that and restrict Imam to a human leader?


I'll continue the rest later..

[Ameen]

@Taha,

Because that is how logical reasoning works?  Without using the "therefore" or "in other words", we wouldn't get anywhere in life, let alone religion.  Why do you use hadeeths?  Because the Qur'an says to obey the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), right?  THEREFORE, we use his narrations because there isn't a better way to follow him.  It's a therefore issue that Ahl Al-Sunnah uses to justify their following the Sunnah.  There's nothing wrong with "therefore".

You guys are hasty at jumping to conclusions and often misread religious texts whether Qur'anic or Hadithi narratives.


Also you guys read every narration with bias and do not take into consideration anything but your pre-conceptions and therefore All of Your "Therefores" usually lead to corrupt conclusions.

We can't argue that tawhid is not obligatory, no.  But we can discuss what tawhid means and what the limits of it are.  There are debates that classical scholars (both Sunni and Shi`a) had about the nature of tawhid.  For example, is tawassul allowed?  Up until fairly recently, both Sunni and Shi`a allowed it, at least in the context of saying "Ya Nabi" or something similar.

Except the text of `Ali's Imamah is not mentioned nor obligatory, so don't bother discussing what his Imamah means nor its limits.

No, we cannot argue about the Prophethood of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).   However, we can discuss what it means to be a Messenger or Prophet.

His prophet-hood is clearly stated in the Qur'an and even if it wasn't his prophet-hood would still be clear since he's the one who brought us the Qur'an in the first place.


Unlike `Ali's Imamah.

You hit the nail on the head with this one.  Salaat and Zakaat are obligatory according to the Qur'an, but the details aren't mentioned.

`Ali's Imamah is not mentioned nor are its details mentioned.

How?  When?  Is it obligatory or just a recommendation?  This discussion could go on for hours.

`Ali's Imamah poses more questions, such as What? How? When? Who? Why?

This is 100% correct, and I believe that I can prove Imamate from the Qur'an.  See below.

You can prove that the concept of leadership exists and our Prophet (saw) is a leader, you can't prove the Shia definition of Imamah from the Qur'an.

No, but as I mentioned already, I can prove Imamate.  We merely turn to the hadeeths to figure out who the Imam is.

We know Allah mentioned leaders, so what? Nothing that catches the eye really... As for the part you say you want to turn to Hadith to figure out, this is exactly the part that should have been mentioned as it's the most important part, the rest is all detail.

Precisely.  So why the grandiose method of announcing it?  He could have added it on to another speech he made.  Or he could have mentioned it to people in passing.  But he didn't.  He inconvenienced a large number of people just to announce that `Ali (a.s.) is his friend?  Doesn't make sense.

It's not grandiose, it's quite average really. He mentioned it to a number of `Ali's soldiers and folks from Madinah who had a grudge against him. Also it was a part of another speech about his family in general.


That makes perfect sense to me. If he wanted it to be Grandiose he would have mentioned it at Hajj or at Madinah.

The big red part is false.  The basics are mentioned in the Qur'an, not specifically spelled out.  Imamate is mentioned in the Qur'an (I will provide more arguments and references in my next post), whereas the details are spelled out in the hadeeths.  Same thing with Salaat.  Can you show me, exactly, how to perform salaat from the Qur'an alone?  No.

Your great Lord `Ali's name is not worth mentioning in the Qur'an even if he is to be the leader of all mankind after the Prophet (saw)?


Okay, tell us then, where is it mentioned in the Qur'an that the Prophet (saw) will be succeeded by a leader? Forget all the details such as the successor's Job, his name, his abilities etc... just show me where this successor-ship is.

Ok, let's cut this short. What is you belief, did the Prophet (pbuh) pass away without naming and appointing someone to govern after him? Yes or no. Lets here hit and then we shall take it from there. One step at a time.

[Hani]

Ok, let's cut this short. What is you belief, did the Prophet (pbuh) pass away without naming and appointing someone to govern after him? Yes or no. Lets here hit and then we shall take it from there. One step at a time.

Yes sir, now go from there.

Since we're discussing Qur'an, can you give me your best evidence for the appointment of a successor from the Qur'an?

[Ameen]

Ok, let's cut this short. What is you belief, did the Prophet (pbuh) pass away without naming and appointing someone to govern after him? Yes or no. Lets here hit and then we shall take it from there. One step at a time.

Yes sir, now go from there.

Since we're discussing Qur'an, can you give me your best evidence for the appointment of a successor from the Qur'an?

Ok. You don't want to answer my question, no problem. I will answer yours, without a shadow of a doubt. I am going to put two very familiar verses from the Quran forward which clearly proves that there is a third authority, chosen and put in place by Allah. Before this third authority is introduced Allah has mentioned the first two authorities before and alongside this third authority. Why??? Just to show the importance of this third authority by mentioning it alongside and bringing it in line with the other two main authorities. Allah could have introduced this third authority by mentioning it by itself and on its own. But Allah didn't do that. Why??? So there is no confusion what so ever and no suspicion can be raised and no doubt can be casted about the acceptance and obedience to this third authority. The two verses are; 1, Ateeullaha, Wa Atee ur Rasool, Wa Ulul Amre minkum. 2, Innama Waliyo kumullaho, Wa Rasoolahu, Walazeena Amanoo. Now one can't deny that there is a third authority that has been introduced and put in to place alongside and in line with the other two main authorities.