TwelverShia.net Forum

GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

iceman

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2017, 04:00:12 AM »
And to mention that the Prophet (s) went and put the people through so much effort and trouble just to clear a silly misunderstanding? At Ghadeer, straight after Hajj? Come on.

iceman

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2017, 04:15:02 AM »
Apparently, Khalid was in a war with the Apostasy. So, when he got evidence that Malik distributed collected Zakah on hearing the news of prophets death, and of his pact with Sajah, he confidently declared Malik an Apostate and ordered his execution. After the execution, in the same night he married Layla, the wife of Malik ibn Nuwayra, who was said to be one of the most beautiful women in Arabia at that time.-[al-Tabari: Vol. 2, p- 5]

al-Minhal al-Tamimi: Amongst Malik’s bin Nuwayrah’s relatives. He [Lahu Idraak] converted (during Prophet’s time), al-Zubair bin Bakr mentioned him in al-Muwafaqyat (book)…He said: ‘al-Minhal passed by Malik bin Nuwayrah’s body when Khalid killed him, then he brought a cloth from his bag and shrouded his dead body and then buried him.’-[al Isaba, Vol. 6, p. 249]

Malik's death penalty and marrying his wife Layla without fulfilling Sharia Law created a controversy. It should be noted that, according to Islamic Sharia, one permitted to marry a widow only after her Iddah and it was 4 months 10 days for Layla.
Apparently, it seems to everyone that Khalid killed Malik to take his beautiful wife.

Thus, some officers of khalid's army—including a prominent companion of Prophet Muhammad, Abu Qatada al-Ansari, confused. It is written in Kanz ul Ummal- ibn Abi Aun and others narrated that Khalid bin al-Walid claimed that Malik bin Nuwayra had become a Murtad according to the information he had received. Malik denied this and said: ‘I am a Muslim, I never changed.’

Abu Qutada and Abdullah ibn Omar testified that (Malik is Muslim) but Khalid ordered Dharar bin al-Auzwar to behead him. Then Khalid took his wife. -[Mullah Muttaqi Hindi (d. 975 H), Kanz ul Ummal. Vol- 5, p- 619, No. 1409:I]

And it is written in Sunan al-Bayhaqi that this Dharar bin al-Auzwar was a rapist, He raped a captured woman when he served under Khalid- Narrated by Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan that is said to be came through a chain from Harun bin al-Asam: Omar bin al-Khattab sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Banu Asad.

They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: ‘I permit you and made it lawful to you.’
He said: ‘No, not until you write a message to Omar’.

Then they sent a message to Omar, and Omar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Omar’s message was delivered, Dharar was dead. Khalid said: ‘Allah didn’t want to disgrace Dharar’-[Sunan al-Bayhaqi, Vol. 2, p. 365, No. 18685]

And in al-Musanaf,- Narrated by Abdul Razaq that is said to be came through a chain from Aba Qutada: During Ridda, we marched to Ahl al-Bya't and reached there at sunset, then we raised our spears, hence they asked: ‘Who are you?’

And when it was morning Khalid ordered their beheading. Then I said: ‘Oh Khalid! Fear Allah, this is not allowed for you.’

Then Abu Qutada swore by Allah never to march with Khalid for any war, and he said: ‘The desert Arabs encouraged him (Khalid) on killing them for the sake of booties and that was Malik bin Nuwayra’s case.’ -[al-Musanaf, Vol. 10, p. 174, No. 18721]

Abu Qutada then back to Medina, as he failed to justify the execution of Malik and  for his oath. As he was among them who believe Malik was a Muslim. It may be because he may know such an event as described in al-Fadael, we find-

Hani

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2017, 05:27:28 AM »
And to mention that the Prophet (s) went and put the people through so much effort and trouble just to clear a silly misunderstanding? At Ghadeer, straight after Hajj? Come on.

He didn't put them through any effort, in fact they were taking a break at Ghadir.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2017, 05:28:27 AM »
Apparently, Khalid was in a war with the Apostasy. So, when he got evidence that Malik distributed collected Zakah on hearing the news of prophets death, and of his pact with Sajah, he confidently declared Malik an Apostate and ordered his execution. After the execution, in the same night he married Layla, the wife of Malik ibn Nuwayra, who was said to be one of the most beautiful women in Arabia at that time.-[al-Tabari: Vol. 2, p- 5]

al-Minhal al-Tamimi: Amongst Malik’s bin Nuwayrah’s relatives. He [Lahu Idraak] converted (during Prophet’s time), al-Zubair bin Bakr mentioned him in al-Muwafaqyat (book)…He said: ‘al-Minhal passed by Malik bin Nuwayrah’s body when Khalid killed him, then he brought a cloth from his bag and shrouded his dead body and then buried him.’-[al Isaba, Vol. 6, p. 249]

etc..etc...


This is a thread about Ghadir, why are you discussing Khalid? Whatever you copied seems to be quoting Kanz-ul-`Ummal a lot, pretty unreliable stuff.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2017, 05:37:52 AM »
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
اسلام علیکم


We are proud to announce the official launch of www.GhadirKhumm.com the first ever Sunni website that revolves around Hadith Al Ghadir. The site includes a full analysis of the texts and chains of narration. It also includes a section for refutations against the Shia scholar Al Amini the author of the Kitab Al-Ghadir.

I understand that to take the time and effort to produce this site requires some level of sincerity. Perhaps, with the information you possess, you may feel that your position reflects the most rational understanding of what occur at Ghadeer Khumm.

It seems you have broken down your discussion into three main groups:

1. Context
2. What was spoken
3. The aftermath

We have addressed your points and claims here: https://Forbidden_Link/ghadeer-response/

Just for example, one could ask, why the Prophet [saw] did not declare it at Makkah?:


Following on from analysing the contention as to why the declaration of Ghadeer Khumm was not delivered at Hajj when all the muslims could be present, but rather when he had made his way out of Mecca and in-between Mecca and Medina, a very revealing tradition on this matter can be found in the Saheeh of Imam Bukhari.

“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.’ `Umar became angry and then said, ‘Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership). `Abdur-Rahman said, “I said, ‘O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet’s Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.’ On that, `Umar said, ‘By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina.”
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6830, Book 86, Hadith 57/ Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 817 ENG

The above tradition is so remarkably similar to the situation the Prophet [saw] was in. The caliph of the time, Umar ibn Al Khattab, wishes to make a declaration regarding successorship and warning people about an issue pertaining to it in the Hajj season itself. Rather than giving the speech at Hajj, he is advised by Abdur Rahman bin Auf that the Hajj will gather people from all around Arabia and the other conquered lands, and that rather, he should make this important statement in Medina, where the prophets traditions were preserved and were Islam had gain a true stronghold. Furthermore he warned that people at Hajj from different regions were far weaker with regards to understanding, comprehending, and upholding the true meanings and intentions of the Sunnah and putting statements in their proper place. Umar ibn Al Khattab seemed to accept and agree with this advice, and waited only until Medina to give his very important speech.

Abdur Rahman bin Auf was also correct in his assertion, given that the “Mu’alafati Quloobuhum’ who converted at the day of the conquest of Mecca and after had very little if at all any contribution to reporting from the Prophet [saw] and having the same role in the traditions of the Prophet and an understanding of the religion.

Furthermore one must also consider that by the time of Umar ibn Al Khattab, many of the apostate tribes of Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, T’aif and other regions had been dealt with in the Ridda wars. Furthermore, Islam had been in these lands for at least a decade, if not more than this. Despite this, Umar ibn Al Khattab is still worried about hypocrites from Mecca and those of surrounding regions in Arabia not putting his statement in its proper place and misinterpreting it and causing mischief. Undoubtedly, the situation was far more grave at the time of the Prophet [saw] where Mecca had barely just been taken, and the neighbouring regions of Yemen,Ta’if and other such places had only just been conquered or had been fought with to submission, still harbouring hypocrites who would en-masse apostate.

If Umar Ibn Al Khattab and other senior companions such as Abdurahman Ibn Awf could recognise the problematic nature of making certain proclamations in Mecca during the Hajj season when all had gathered, pertaining to the issue of leadership itself, at a time when Islam had more time to grow in these lands and hypocrites had been generally dealt with, why could the Prophet [saw] also not desire and seek to do likewise, at a time when the situation was far graver? Although there is no doubt that there were hypocrites even among the people of Medina, but there were far more at Makkah.

In fact, we find in Saheeh Shia narrations that the Prophet [saw] indeed was worried about those who were hypocrites, or those who would claim he is lying, or turn away. Though this is of no value to sunni’s, it merely confirms that Shia’s have original and reliable sources which confirm rational sense, historical context, and the very same worry is echoed in Sahhih Bukhari by Abdurahman ibn Awf and agreed upon by Umar ibn Al Khattab. The following is from Al Kafi and is a Saheeh [Authentic] hadith:

“Allāh commanded Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) that he explains to them al-Wilāyah like he has explained to them al-Salāh, al-Zakāh, al-Sawm, al-Hajj. So when this came to him from Allāh, He tightened with that the Messenger of Allāh’s (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) chest, and he became frightened that people will apostate from their religion and they would (accuse) him of lying, and his chest became tightened, and he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) returned to his Lord (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ), and Allāh (عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ) revealed (wahy) to him – ‘O Messenger, convey what is revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not do so, it will be as though you have not conveyed My message. Allāh protects you from men.’ (5:67). So he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) executed the command of Allāh (تعالى), and he mentioned and established the wilāyah of `Alī (عليه السلام) on the day of Ghadīr, and he called for a congregational salāh and commanded the people to convey what they witnessed to the absentees (i.e. convey the news of Wilāyah of `Alī to those who are not present)”
Reference: Al Kafi [Volume 1, Usul Al Kafi]

Weak argument, the following are the issues:

A- First issue is you're saying `Umar avoided making a declaration at Makkah MEANWHILEWHILE the Prophet (saw) did in fact make a VERY LENGTHY declaration in Makkah and he announced his farewell sermon which had a great amount of sensitive and serious requests. Therefore your objection does not apply.

B- By `Umar's time the nation grew considerably and many ignorant folks embraced Islam and he feared reproaching those people (i.e Zubayr/`Ammar who wanted to appoint `Ali) on the Mimbar that they may misunderstand, possibly even harm those people. In the time of the Prophet (saw) the Muslim community was in better shape and the ratio of foreigners was not as large as in the time of `Umar.

C- Makkah was a more important location and the timing at `Arafah was a more suitable time, an intelligent man would not miss that chance and replace it with a location in the middle of nowhere.

D- If the "riff-raff" at Makkah are what's scaring him, he could have announced upon his return to Madinah in his own mosque which would have been a better location and a better timing. Instead, complete silence and he (saw) acted like nothing happened.

E- It's not possible that he (saw) held-off from revelation out of fear of the people since when he first announced his message he (saw) was in a much more vulnerable condition. Your Kafi story makes no sense since it was a Shia invention.

F- Just to add, what `Umar wished to say was VERY different then the so called prophetic declaration you speak of. `Umar was very upset and wanted to literally directly criticize and rebuke the individuals he heard about, it's a good thing he waited since he seems to have had time to cool off and revise his speech. That's why it wasn't a good idea for him to do this in Makkah according to Ibn `Awf as it may lead to more issues. The Ghadir declaration was nothing of this nature, the Prophet (saw) simply reminded them of `Ali's closeness and relation.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 07:32:29 AM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #25 on: November 23, 2017, 05:54:19 AM »
.

Was Ghadeer Khumm an attempt merely to reiterate that people who loved the Prophet [saw] ought to also love Ali ibn Abi Talib, and hence put aside their grudge towards what he had done in Yemen?


One of the ways to explain why Muhammed [saw] would choose to specially deliver a speech at Ghadeer Khumm and use the words he did, as well as interpret ‘Mawla’ is that this was all to defend Ali ibn Abi Talib from rumours which had spread about him from discontent members of his battalion who had accompanied him to Yemen, shortly before he rejoined the Prophet [saw] for Hajj. It is stated that because some of these companions decided to speak out against him, and spread rumours about his usurpation of the Khums and unfair treatment, the Prophet [saw] opted to defend him after the Hajj.

Although there can be debate about particular details of this, it is accepted that some among the companions did show discontent against Ali ibn Abi Talib. It is written in the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq, as well as that of Ibn Hisham the following:

“The army showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali,the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed…”…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..”
Reference: (Ibn Ishaq, Seerah Rasool-Allah, p.650 and Ibn Hisham in his Seeraah)

 

Important points to raise based on the above:

1. The evidence from the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq, and Ibn Hisham should be clear evidence that the Prophet [saw] very quickly addressed the issue there and then, rising up to tell the army that Ali ibn Abi Talib is not one they should blame, but rather, he is so committed and fair in the way of Allah that he would never wrong anybody. This statement, if anyone respected the words of the Prophet [saw] should have sufficed there and then and he continued on with the Hajj after settling the matter. If these clear words had not, then they ought to have removed any ill-feelings after the final sermon, where the Prophet [saw] had stated “Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves.” If the Prophet [saw] felt there was any need to add more to this to defend Ali ibn Abi Talib in this particular instance, he would have done so, but his words were clear and decisive to anyone who regarded the Prophet [saw] as Awla over them and their Mawla.

2. Is it not more logical that the Prophet [saw] would have opted to settle the issue immediately, rather than waiting almost two weeks until the 18th of Dhul-Hijjah which was the date of the declaration of Ghadeer?

3. If the Prophet [saw] had made his declaration of Ghadeer Khumm to stop rumours against Ali ibn Abi Talib which had begun to spread as well as reprimand some members of the Army, why did he not do it at Makkah, which would have been the opportune moment to close the issue without letting it grow as the Hajj carried on? Afterall, when he had left Hajj, rumours about Ali ibn Abi Talib may have remained among those who did not follow him on his way to Medina through Ghadeer Khumm.

4. It was well known that Ali ibn Abi Talib was a man loved by the Prophet [saw]. He was the hero of Badr, the hero of Khandaq, the Hero of Khaybar, the first male muslim, married to the daughter of the Prophet [saw], the one made his brother in the pact of brotherhood, the one whose relation to the Prophet [saw] was as Aron was to Moses. The one for whom love was faith and hatred was hypocrisy. Those from the army ought to have known that, considering that they themselves were of the people of Medina. They knew full well the close relation and the virtue and merit the Prophet [saw] had with Ali ibn abi talib. Their issue with him – those among the army- was how he handled the Khums and so it makes more sense for the Prophet [saw] rather than saying whosoever friend he is, Ali is also his friend, to clearly state what Ali ibn abi talib had done was not wrong. They already knew the relation he had to the Prophet [saw] and were more concerned with what the judgement of the Prophet [saw] was on a particular action of Ali ibn Abi Talib. This goes for a large cohort of those who has followed the Prophet [saw] and were from Medina and so returned with him – they knew full well the relationship enjoyed by Ali to the Prophet [saw].

 

The real aftermath of Yemen

 

 “The Commander of the Faithful, peace be on him, said farewell to him and returned to his army. He met them nearby and found that they had put on the breastplates which they had had with them. He denounced them for that. “Shame on you!” he said to the man whom he had appointed as his deputy over them. “Whatever made you give them the breastplates before we hand them over to the Apostle of Allāh, may Allāh bless Him and His Family? I did not give you permission to do that.” “They asked me to let them deck themselves out and enter into the state of consecration in them, and then they would give them back to me,” he replied. The Commander of the Faithful, peace be on him, took them off the people and put them back in the sacks. They were discontented with him because of that. When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be on him, became numerous [many complained, but this does not imply the whole army or most]. The Apostle of Allāh ordered the call to be given among the people: “Stop your tongues (speaking) against ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, peace be on him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of Allāh, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion.” At this the people refrained from mentioning him and they realised the high position he enjoyed with the Prophet, may Allāh bless Him and His Family, and his anger against anyone who wanted to find fault with him.”[/color]
Reference: Shaykh-Al-Mufeed [shia scholar] thus writes in Kitab Al Irshad:

The above is only brought to show that shia’s and the shia ulema are not ignorant of what happened in Yemen, but given the evidence it is quite clear that the matter had been addressed by the Prophet [saw] and resolved immediately.

 

Weaker arguments due to your following of desires and lack of reading.

Firstly, what you read in Ibn Ishaq is regarding the narration of Buraydah, the Prophet (saw) did not address the entire army then, he address those individuals who walked into his tent to complain. Therefore, NO the entire issue was not addressed at the time.

As for your other four arguments respectively,

1- You argue that the Prophet (saw) said general words at `Arafah that were sufficient thus there was no need to repeat at Ghadir. Well, There are verses in the Qur'an saying the same concerning love and brotherhood, in that case we can say his (saw) speech at the final Hajj was useless because the Qur'an also said we Muslims are brother and we're supposed to love eachother.

2- He (saw) addressed those individuals directly when they complained, then addressed the rest of the army at Ghadir. Two weeks time is nothing as he (saw) had more important things to share with people concerning the rights of women etc... at Hajj rather than an issue like that between `Ali and his soldiers. So no, it wasn't at the top of his priorities list.

3- Because the people going back to Madinah were his army and they are `Ali's neighbors and community. The Prophet (saw) did not need to open a topic about a matter that did not concern other Muslims who lived in distant lands and almost never interacted with `Ali except during Hajj season.

4- You'd be surprised that most of those people in Madinah did not know those specific narrations you're mentioning since the Prophet (saw) never went around praising his cousin. Whatever you mentioned above were certain reports heard by a very limited number of people and they only surfaced during the Fitnah to inform people of `Ali's status especially the new Muslims. Of course most knew that `Ali was close to the Prophet (saw) but jealousy is jealousy.

To conclude, the Prophet (saw) reminded them specifically of `Ali's status during their break in Ghadir.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #26 on: November 23, 2017, 06:01:50 AM »
If this context & period is when the Meccan were in wars Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassalam, when did people of Medina whom the imam said were worse than Meccan ever in wars against Prophet sallallahu alayhi wassalam? It clearly shows that hadith refer to period after Prophet passed away.

Brother, what the Imam was trying to say is, while the Meccans were disbelievers, their rebellion against the Prophet, as bad as it was, comprised of those who did not affirm belief. However, those who fought Ali ibn abi Talib affirmed belief, should have known better, and yet still transgressed in the gravest sense by waging wars against him.

The Imam is not saying that after Mecca submitted and many outwardly declared Islam, as well as those of other tribes [some may have been genuine, others not], comprised of hypocrites who knew very little of Islam nor had an understanding of his Sunnah. We can all acknowledge that the only people who knew about the real way and path of the Prophet were those people in Medina. Many tribes who converted and were now muslims were still hypocrites.

Can i just add, many of those Meccans and non-muslims who fought the Prophet and converted to Islam actually joined the side of Umulmumineen Aisha when fighting Ali ibn Abi Talib, so this proves not to take a statement rigidly but appreciate it refers to different contexts.

What a weak excuse, basically saying "The fact that the messenger (Saw) never declared `Ali's appointment in front of the majority of Muslims was because they were all hypocrites." You guys are the most desperate sect I've seen. SO they submitted to his prophet-hood and religion, but they were going to throw a fit if he said his cousin succeeds him? What about the enormous tribe of Thaqif who NEVER apostated after the death of the Prophet (saw)? I don't recall Quraysh and the people of Makkah apostating either, let's just label them all hypocrites because we're Shia slanderers no?

Secondly, hypocrites are to be treated as Muslims, so he (saw) had NO EXCUSE not to inform them of `Ali's Imamah eitherway. Hypocrites would have listened and not done anything, since hypocrites show outward belief but internally are not believers. So they would have listened to his sermon and declaration just like they listened to all his other sermons and declaration, what harm would it have caused them?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 06:03:43 AM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Hani

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #27 on: November 23, 2017, 06:07:45 AM »

These narrations above are the ones you have mentioned. We do not believe in such narrations, why? Because they go against Ali's character and nature. Those who are familiar with Ali's character and nature which you will find throughout history know that this is absolute nonsense. Slave girl? Do you believe such nonsense about Ali but are quick to defend Khalid bin Waleed when he killed a companion of the Prophet (s) along with others and then married his wife instantly and slept with her overnight.

What a cheap stunt pulled by the Ummayd dynasty to mitigate the event of Saqifa. And look at the damage it's done to the Ummah. The Ummayds have really done a good job by taking their anger of the Prophet (s) out on Islam and the progeny. Do you honestly believe that such narrations fit the character and personality of Ali.

Bro, you're a textbook ignorant. This material is in your most authentic book al-Kafi, `Ali's entire will at the time of death is in al-Kafi and it's not just ONE slave girl he had, he had like 16 slave girls some of which were pregnant with his children. So these are your Imams' words in al-Kafi, if you must object, object to your Imam.

PS. we can say the same, how can you believe in the narrations accusing Khalid of wrongdoings? WHy not dismiss those narrations too since they oppose the character of Khalid.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 06:08:54 AM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #28 on: November 23, 2017, 12:39:59 PM »
I have seen you produce some good works brother Hani, but this was a poor response.

Weaker arguments due to your following of desires and lack of reading.

Firstly, what you read in Ibn Ishaq is regarding the narration of Buraydah, the Prophet (saw) did not address the entire army then, he address those individuals who walked into his tent to complain. Therefore, NO the entire issue was not addressed at the time.

This has been covered in the entire piece if you were to read it holistically brother. When men began to come to the Prophet ﷺ, we see different narrations where he addresses individual people, like Buraida, and others. And then we see the tradition in Ibn Ishaq where it clearly states, when a number began to come the Prophet ﷺ rose to address them. Unless someone claims the two are referring to the same incident which is not plausible, clearly demonstrates he addressed individuals first and then decided to emphatically give a call out and rose up and stated (Ibn Ishaq): "when the men complained of Ali,the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed…”…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..” 

I must ask you, if the Prophet ﷺ gave out such am emphatic reply, and then as you can see after having done so decided to continue the rites, it is a clear indication he felt that the call he gave out would naturally have spread and people would have been aware of the anger of the Prophet ﷺ against anyone who accused Ali. 

You also keep using the word 'Army'. Are you aware Ali ibn Abi Talib was only in charge of a small battalion of 300? This was not a Tabouk sized army, not even a Hunayn sized army. This was a small localised force. One may claim Khalid also had another battalion, but you are not talking big numbers here.

The people who were sent with him were from Medina. They would have known he was the made who single-handedly lifted the gate of Khaybar and that not only does the Prophet ﷺ love him , but Allah loves him and has used him in famous victories when the situation was dire for the Muslims. They knew of his close position to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Their only issue [some among the small battalion] was whether he handed to Khums in a justifiable way.

 Once the Prophet ﷺ addressed a few of the companions as is reported in traditions here and there using direct wordings to direct companions, we then see him rising to address a group, whatever size, and making sure the call was to be given out that there was no way in which Ali was unjust, and that he forbids them for blaming Ali, for he is a man who is so dedicated in equity and justice in the way of Allah and can not be blamed. This message would have been heard by others surrounding the Prophet ﷺ, because he was not in a sound chamber, but out in the open, and the most rational understanding of it is by Shayk-al-Mufid when he says [in his al-Irshad]:

"When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be on him, became numerous [many complained, but this does not imply the whole army or most]. The Apostle of Allāh ordered the call to be given among the people: “Stop your tongues (speaking) against ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, peace be on him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of Allāh, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion.” At this the people refrained from mentioning him and they realised the high position he enjoyed with the Prophet, may Allāh bless Him and His Family, and his anger against anyone who wanted to find fault with him.”

Notice how al-Mufid accepts the cries against Ali became numerous? This does not mean the whole group of the small battalion complained, but only a contingent among them, perhaps a fair number. The fact a number complained clearly denotes - as Ibn Ishaq also implies- that he was addressing a larger group and the call was given out to desist in their criticism and that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ has passed judgement emphatically in favour of Ali. We will expand on this when we touch on your counter points, inshAllah.

Quote
As for your other four arguments respectively,

1- You argue that the Prophet (saw) said general words at `Arafah that were sufficient thus there was no need to repeat at Ghadir. Well, There are verses in the Qur'an saying the same concerning love and brotherhood, in that case we can say his (saw) speech at the final Hajj was useless because the Qur'an also said we Muslims are brother and we're supposed to love eachother.

This is , with due respect, not a valid point at all. I can see why you would bring this example, but the fact that there is something in the Quran does not mean the Messenger of Allah can not reiterate on the general points he wishes to emphasise, particularly when the entire community is there and he wished to say that which promoted tolerance and harmony, so that people do not divide , fight, and dislike each other. The Quran at many times orders us to be kind of our parents, yet, the Prophet ﷺ repeated this often.

I did not claim his words were sufficient such that there are no points that can ever be repeated. Rather, after addressing individuals like Buraidah, and then seeing voices rising against what had occurred in Yemen, he called out and also ordered the call to be given out to stop anyone criticising Ali, and we have discussed this previously. He qualifies this by then discussing the fact that all Muslims are brothers to one another, and must love and respect one another, forgive each other and unite. My argument was, that even after addressing individuals, and then even after rising up and addressing a larger contingent and giving the order for the call to be given out that Ali was in the right, and a man of justice and can never be blamed, this should have been sufficient for anyone who respects the words of the Prophet to recognise Ali was in the right ﷺ.

The people who heard this and were also in the crowded area where the Prophet ﷺ was and where many pilgrims had gathered are likely to have spread this declaration by the Prophet ﷺ. However, if there was anyone who kept any malice, when the Prophet ﷺ gave the emotional speech about brotherhood and forgiveness, any remaining grudge should have been quashed.


Quote
2- He (saw) addressed those individuals directly when they complained, then addressed the rest of the army at Ghadir. Two weeks time is nothing as he (saw) had more important things to share with people concerning the rights of women etc... at Hajj rather than an issue like that between `Ali and his soldiers. So no, it wasn't at the top of his priorities list.

Do you think that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ did not want harmony to be in place before Hajj? At one point, articles written by TSN and other rebuttal websites claim there was a larger proportion of the small battalion complaining about Ali. Would he have felt it was wiser to allow people to nurse a grudge and feel wronged, and perhaps spread rumours against Ali when all the muslims had gathered, or to really give the call to make a simple statement - 'I, the Prophet of Allah, declare Ali was in the right, do not blame him, for he acted justly, and he is far too cognisant of Allah to ever deal in matters wrongly. '

The reality is, it would not have taken much energy at all to address the issue. The only reason there is still stubbornness among our Sunni brothers to accept his is because this narrative is absolutely essential for them to justify what occurred about two weeks later at Ghadir Khumm.


Quote
3- Because the people going back to Madinah were his army and they are `Ali's neighbors and community. The Prophet (saw) did not need to open a topic about a matter that did not concern other Muslims who lived in distant lands and almost never interacted with `Ali except during Hajj season.

The reality is, there were tens of thousands, if not more gathered near or around the Prophet ﷺ at this time, from Mecca and from around Arabia. The Prophet was actually waiting for the small battalion to arrive from Yemen with Ali ibn abi Talib, because most of the others had already reached. If one man comes into the mosques and begins to shout, does not the entire mosque of hundreds become aware there is something going on? It is quite clear that now if voices rise from the small battalion, as Ibn Ishaq clearly says they had, and implies it was far more than a few individuals before the Prophet ﷺ decided to rise to address them, there will be disturbance. People will be wondering as to what is going on and many might even start to gather around and see what the discord is about.

Do you believe the Prophet ﷺ knowing many have become aware of this from Mecca, of the others from Medina, of the tribes who gathered from other regions of Arabia, would not want the issue resolved immediately? Would he want rumours being spread against Ali ibn Abi Talib by people who had heard the discord?

Rather, we find traditions from Saheeh al-Bukhari where Buraida is addressed individually, and then where other individual companions are addressed. The tradition of ibn Ishaq is clearly when voices raise above those of a few individuals, but larger a larger group. It is here where the Prophet ﷺ makes his emphatic and deviant defence of Ali. Those among the small battalion with problems would have heard it, and heard it from others. People who were surrounding the Prophet ﷺ who at the time would have had thousands of pilgrims in ear shot of him would have also heard it and recognised the just character of Ali, the order of the Prophet ﷺ against anyone who blamed him, and the position he held with the Prophet ﷺ.

Quote
4- You'd be surprised that most of those people in Madinah did not know those specific narrations you're mentioning since the Prophet (saw) never went around praising his cousin. Whatever you mentioned above were certain reports heard by a very limited number of people and they only surfaced during the Fitnah to inform people of `Ali's status especially the new Muslims. Of course most knew that `Ali was close to the Prophet (saw) but jealousy is jealousy.

Brother, i am surprised someone as learned as you can make such statement. Are you forgetting that in Khaybar, the entire army were not able to take the last remaining fort. The Muslims had camped for weeks and there was no victory. The Prophet then made a call out to the general masses that tomorrow he would give a banner to a Man who loves Allah and his Messenger ﷺ and who loves Allah and his Messenger ﷺ love. What was even more powerful,  is that he was chosen to bring victory to the Muslims when others had failed, despite nursing an eye infection and no-one thinking it could possibly be him. So many had longed to be chosen and whispers began to spread each man hoping it would be them. And in the morning the Prophet ﷺ calls out ' Where is Ali? Bring me Ali!'. The people en-masse see him defeat Harith, Marhab, and then lift the gate of Khaybar which was a feat of superhuman strength, making a bridge for the other Sahaba to cross.

Do you not think this itself was enormous praise on Ali, such that people would have known he is one of the best in their communities, enjoys the closest [or one of the closest] positions to the Prophet  ﷺ and one through whom Allah brings victory? Would the emphatic and miraculous stand of Ali not have been spread when they returned home with the riches of Fadak and people wished to know how it happened? You have to be intellectually honest and recognise most of the praise regarding Ali were not mere words here and there isolated from people, but they were said en-masse when he had performed incredible feats.

Let us ignore his heroics in Badar, his heroics killing a man everyone feared in Khaybar, being the man the Prophet ﷺ chose as his brother in Medina when no other Muhajir was paired with another Muhajir. Let us ignore he was the husband of Fatima. Let us not conceder that shortly before the Pilgrimage he was the one chosen to represent 'ourselves 'of the Prophet in the Mubahila.

There can not be a shadow of doubt he was a man whose closeness to the Prophet ﷺ, whose position among the most righteous Muslims, and a man who people knew full well was famous for being the one who though him Allah brought them victory in the most desperate moments.

Quote
To conclude, the Prophet (saw) reminded them specifically of `Ali's status during their break in Ghadir.

I feel no such conclusion can be warranted.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 12:41:17 PM by whoaretheshia »
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #29 on: November 23, 2017, 01:16:21 PM »
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
اسلام علیکم


بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم

وعليكم السلام


Quote
Weak argument, the following are the issues:

A- First issue is you're saying `Umar avoided making a declaration at Makkah MEANWHILEWHILE the Prophet (saw) did in fact make a VERY LENGTHY declaration in Makkah and he announced his farewell sermon which had a great amount of sensitive and serious requests. Therefore your objection does not apply. 

This is not an adequate response in any way. It also ignores one of the most fundamental points: the problem is not making any kind of speech in front of the mass of people at Mecca/Makkah, but rather one that is of a more specific and sensitive nature pertaining to rule and leadership. No-one is going to spread rumours about not wronging women, or about being brothers of one another, or about giving charity and up keeping the prayer. These are so general and topics which are very neutral.

Historically when you study the psychology of human beings and how this sociologically manifests within society, you will clearly see that matters pertaining to leadership are a fare more sensitive issue. Power, authority, and control arouse emotions from people. This why Umar ibn al-Khattab did not want to make the declaration at Hajj. He knew that the specific declaration was as to how people should be choosing a leader, and what truly ought to take blame - and to forbid people from declaring 'such and such' the leader after he dies. 

We have covered this in greater depth, but it is pretty clear - even from our own authentic traditions - Muhammed ﷺ feared hypocrites and those who would have called him a liar. He knew that while  many can go along with fasting, prayer, charity, as soon as you talk about issues pertaining to rule, authority, and leadership it becomes a more controversial issue. Power can make even the best of men turn against being righteous. Arrogance is something that even made Iblis, a devout worshipper of God, raised as a Jinn to the assembly of Angels, astray. He could not concede a man he regarded as inferior being put over him and one he should submit to.

There are many reasons why those of tribes would have accused the Prophet. Many of them may not have known the true virtues of Ali, as they were not present in most of the battles - particularly those in the surrounding regions. Many had only just converted after having no other option when the Prophet was victorious and recognising they were better off doing so, now that their decades of oppressing the Prophet did not bring them victory, and that he had power over them. You had various tribes in and around Arabia who would have felt the Prophet was merely retaining leadership in his own clan.

Let us not ignore the fact the Banu Ummayah had long been advisories to the Banu Hashim. They were major instigators of the battle of Jamal [though did not really fight], but joined against Ali in Narhawan and Siffin. Many of the governors placed by M'uawiyah cursed Ali on the very pulpit of the Messenger of Allah. Hatred against him and members of the Banu Hashim is clear for all historians, and it was brutal. When looking at Arabia one must look at the influence tribal feuds had.

I have not even scratched the surface here, but it is clear that any speech or statement pertaining to leadership is a far more sensitive issue and far more pertinent.



Quote
B- By `Umar's time the nation grew considerably and many ignorant folks embraced Islam and he feared reproaching those people (i.e Zubayr/`Ammar who wanted to appoint `Ali) on the Mimbar that they may misunderstand, possibly even harm those people. In the time of the Prophet (saw) the Muslim community was in better shape and the ratio of foreigners was not as large as in the time of `Umar.

Actually, at the time of the Prophet ﷺ it was far more dire, and anyone with an objective lens would agree with this. Makkah had only recently submitted after decades of warring against the Prophet ﷺ and having no other choice when he was the victor and entered into it. While he did not force anyone , it was clearly advantageous to convert at this stage. There may have been genuine converts but among them were certainly hypocrites who recognised it would be for their own interest. He was the leader, and he had power. It is just a shame they did not recognise the truth when oppressing him for 13 years when he was in Makkah, fighting war after war against him in Medina up until the last two years of his life. 

Most of the tribes in and around Arabia had only recently succumbed, and Islam was still weak in those lands. T'aif for instance did not truly submit , after running from Hunayn. Yemen resisted Khalid ibn Walid and only succumbed to Ali but comprised of large contingents of hypocrites who rebelled within and after the life of the Prophet. You can find many examples of this. Most of them knew little of Islam as it had only just touched their lands. Arabia was a far more unstable place, and there is no doubt Umar ibn al-Khattab had more security, power and control over it than did Muhammed ﷺ. I would go so far as to saying it was even more unstable at the time of Uthman, and then far more at the time of Ali. Umar probably had it best out of all of the them.


Quote
C- Makkah was a more important location and the timing at `Arafah was a more suitable time, an intelligent man would not miss that chance and replace it with a location in the middle of nowhere.

The entire purpose of this discussion or debate is to prove that making a basic inference like this will lead one to error if they do not look at the context of the situation. Repeating your main argument again - which in the course of the debate you have to prove and substantiate- does nothing to add to your claim brother, with respect. We are debating on this issue and i am proving it is not the case.   Umar ibn al-Khattab certainly didn't consider Makkah a place to make an important declaration regarding leadership after him, for the sake of the stability of the Ummah.

Quote
D- If the "riff-raff" at Makkah are what's scaring him, he could have announced upon his return to Madinah in his own mosque which would have been a better location and a better timing. Instead, complete silence and he (saw) acted like nothing happened.

This would have made sense if the Prophet ﷺ said nothing at all. But are we forgetting he held up the hand of Ali in front of what i would say would probably be at least thirty or forty thousand ? I would hardly call that silence. I never claimed that fearing hypocrites solely in Makkah are what caused him to hesitate, but only that historical analysis proves this was a valid concern. There were hypocrites among those in Medina, and travelling north away from Makkah - but it was certainly more problematic when still in Makkah.


Quote
E- It's not possible that he (saw) held-off from revelation out of fear of the people since when he first announced his message he (saw) was in a much more vulnerable condition. Your Kafi story makes no sense since it was a Shia invention.

He did not hold off from revelation. He knew he had to declare Ali, but hesitated until the command came down to declare it immediately - and he obliged. He could have done so before needing to be reassured. The Prophet announced his message in a more vulnerable position when Islam was in its infancy. However, things were already dire and he was given the promise of victory by Allah. However, when he had already overcome his enemies and Islam had spread, he hated with all his heart that people begin to turn back, after the favours Allah had placed over them, granting them victory over the other polytheists, and the non-muslims, and choosing for them Islam.

When you're being slaughtered and forced to flee from your home is one thing, because the enemy is external. However, when the enemy is internal it often causes far more concern and regret.

Quote
F- Just to add, what `Umar wished to say was VERY different then the so called prophetic declaration you speak of. `Umar was very upset and wanted to literally directly criticize and rebuke the individuals he heard about, it's a good thing he waited since he seems to have had time to cool off and revise his speech. That's why it wasn't a good idea for him to do this in Makkah according to Ibn `Awf as it may lead to more issues. The Ghadir declaration was nothing of this nature, the Prophet (saw) simply reminded them of `Ali's closeness and relation.

I did not claim they wanted to say the exact same things - or that Umar ibn al-Khattab wished to declare a successor. Rather, the parallel made was both men wanted to make a very important point concerning leadership after them. Umar wanted to command the people not to select those whom rumours are being spread about, without consulting the Muslim, and anyone doing so should be killed. However, even he feared people would rebel, cause trouble, and use that against him - because discussing pertinent issues of leadership is incredibly sensitive.

However, Umar recognises that he does not need to give a declaration in front of the people gathered in Makkah. If he puts his point across to the people who have historically kept leadership or been involved in deciding the leader i.e the Muhajirin and Ansaar, once they obeyed his commands, the rest of the people would follow suit - or should follow suit.

Umar was not intending to merely rebuke anyone. He was giving out clear instructions: Do not appoint who you want as Caliph , and it is an order that leadership after him must be done in the form of Shurah.

I am actually surprised that no-one was vying for power after the death of Muhammed ﷺ, but we can see people vying for it after the death of Umar, and that he cared so much about leadership that he not only rebuked those wanting to cause instability, he made sure to declare a Shurah, dictate the men in the Shurah, the conditions of the Shurah itself. But our Prophet ﷺ is allegedly one who remained absolutely silent?
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #30 on: November 23, 2017, 01:24:15 PM »

Bro, you're a textbook ignorant. This material is in your most authentic book al-Kafi, `Ali's entire will at the time of death is in al-Kafi and it's not just ONE slave girl he had, he had like 16 slave girls some of which were pregnant with his children. So these are your Imams' words in al-Kafi, if you must object, object to your Imam.

PS. we can say the same, how can you believe in the narrations accusing Khalid of wrongdoings? WHy not dismiss those narrations too since they oppose the character of Khalid.

The consensus among the Shia scholars and the learned is that Ali ibn abi Talib had slave girls. Many of our Aimmah are children of slave girls - freed of course. You can address weak points like this brother, but i would say the time for that has long gone and i would not occupy myself addressing points made which a good number of Sunni scholars do not accept either way. It is a moot point, he did had a slave girl, it proves nothing, Islam allows it, many of our Imams did it. Al-Mahdi is the son of black-bondswoman. There is no pure race on Islam, we are all human beings and our piety separates us.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #31 on: November 23, 2017, 01:30:39 PM »
What a weak excuse, basically saying "The fact that the messenger (Saw) never declared `Ali's appointment in front of the majority of Muslims was because they were all hypocrites." You guys are the most desperate sect I've seen. SO they submitted to his prophet-hood and religion, but they were going to throw a fit if he said his cousin succeeds him? What about the enormous tribe of Thaqif who NEVER apostated after the death of the Prophet (saw)? I don't recall Quraysh and the people of Makkah apostating either, let's just label them all hypocrites because we're Shia slanderers no?

This is a straw man. I have never even made an argument like this. All i have stated is, that the Prophet  ﷺ was aware that for the majority of his life, Makkah had been an enemy to him. It has driven him out, forced him into exile, refused him to return, and fought him and helped others fight him in several wars up until the last two years of his life. It harboured many hypocrites, and no doubt among them many who might have believed. But i argue that a land like this undoubtedly would on average have harboured more hypocrites than not, and more ignorant about the Sunnah, than not, and more who would have taken statements of the Prophet ﷺ out of its proper place, and accused him, than not.

Quote
Secondly, hypocrites are to be treated as Muslims, so he (saw) had NO EXCUSE not to inform them of `Ali's Imamah eitherway. Hypocrites would have listened and not done anything, since hypocrites show outward belief but internally are not believers.

Are you aware of what hypocrites do ? They submit outwardly, and their words please you , and their behaviour pleases you, but when you give them a chance to ferment discord that is when the hypocrisy comes out.  Claiming they would no 'nothing' is not valid. The Prophet ﷺ did not declare them non-muslims, he only wanted a declaration on a pertinent matter not to be used to cause Fitnah and corruption. Much the same way as Umar ibn al-Khattab did not want to occur either. The message of Ali at Ghadir would have certainly got out to them, just as the fact the people of Medina are the ones who transmitted the majority of the sayings of the Prophet ﷺ many of which are mutawattir - which those in Makkah would have not been able to know, but should have submitted to.

Quote
So they would have listened to his sermon and declaration just like they listened to all his other sermons and declaration, what harm would it have caused them?

There's a difference between giving a general sermon on treating women well, being kind to each other, giving to charity, and then discussing the issue of leadership - and i have covered this in a previous post i have only just submitted. Refer to that inshAllah.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #32 on: November 23, 2017, 01:36:17 PM »
My objection is simple, its about your website claiming the reason it was not declared when southern region people were still around, because they have large proportion of hypocrites.

I explained that it is incorrect reasoning, because imam said meccan commited kufr openly & medinan were worst of people (worse than even christian & of course worse than southern region people etc)

Brother, i said that the Imam was referring to two entirely different time periods. His issue was not of geography, but of belief. Those who had attacked the Prophet while they were non-muslims were not really hypocrites on the whole, but just polytheists. They had never submitted to Islam and their crime on he whole, was not Nifaq. However those who had submitted to Islam and attacked the one left behind by the Prophet ﷺ at Jamal, Siffin, Narhwan [how many wrong 'Ijtihads' i daresay],  accepted Islam but went against what Islam had commanded.  There were ex-polytheists who had joined in some of these battles can i just remind you, so we have to put the statement in its proper place.

Quote
You countered saying the context & period was when Meccan still fought Muslim
I said that is incorrect, because if it was about Meccan during that warring period then how come Medinan were considered worse than Meccan as well?

Two entirely different time periods are being referred to, and not when the Prophet was giving the farewell sermon when they were mostly generally outwardly muslim.

Quote
So that shia hadith confirms that Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam declared it to people who were worse disbelievers & hypocrites than southern region people. Your "large hypocrite" reasoning contradict what imam said. Thats all im saying.

There is no doubt hypocrites existed among the people of Medina, but the reality is, the situation was more dire in Makkah for rational and clear historical reasons. The Imam i repeat, is making reference to two entirely different time periods - when Makkah had not been taken and when they were mostly polytheists.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2017, 02:36:56 PM »
Could i also just comment , for some reason when i had typed empathetically on the document i had used before posting it onto here, it may have auto-corrected to 'emphatically' which means something else. I can't seem to edit some of my posts, so just bear this in mind when reading my responses.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

Hadrami

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #34 on: November 23, 2017, 04:02:48 PM »
There is no doubt hypocrites existed among the people of Medina, but the reality is, the situation was more dire in Makkah for rational and clear historical reasons. The Imam i repeat, is making reference to two entirely different time periods - when Makkah had not been taken and when they were mostly polytheists.
You still dont get it do you? Shia believe imam knew whats in people's heart whether they are believers or not. Are you saying shia dont believe Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam knew as well? So regardless of which period it was, Prophet knew Medinan is worse than Meccan and yet here you are claiming he didnt declare it to southern region people due to large hypocrites among them. Then how come he declared it to the worst or the worst people, Medinan? You cant escape from that by using period excuse. Prophet would have known Medinan were the worst just like imam did according to shia

Hani

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #35 on: November 23, 2017, 07:25:57 PM »
I hate discussing with people who write newspapers, in this sense you're another "Link".

1- You say there are narrations where he addresses individuals and other were he addresses a group of men. I say both are pretty much referring to the same thing. The entire army was not addressed, it was simply Buraidah and maybe a few individuals who had come in with him or after him. Therefore, you hadn't refuted my point and you saying "It's not plausible" means absolutly nothing because in fact it is most clearly VERY plausible and in fact the case.

2- You assuming the call would spread after being announced to a couple of individuals does not mean he (saw) wouldn't make sure to announce it again at Ghadir to make sure it is resolved before getting back home and dealing with other more important matters. The size of `Ali's army doesn't matter, 300 is a big number of people. Then you desperately quote al-Mufid again, a man who gets his history from his local grocer.

3- You say because it's in the QUr'an doesn't mean the Prophet (saw) cannot reitirate, I say even if it's in the Sunnah the Prophet (Saw) is known to repeat and remind so there falls your argument. A couple of individuals came in and complained about `Ali, the Prophet (saw) got angry, stood up and addressed those individuals. Still the entire army as well as the community in Madinah (their neighbors) was not addressed. The Mawla Hadith was a part of a sermon given about his (saw) family (Thaqalayn) at that location to request that people be good to his family members after his passing.

4- You claim the Prophet (saw) wasn't wise to not address the entire army right away, I say you're not wise for claiming a Prophet of God isn't wise. He did address those who spoke to him directly and then went the extra mile at Ghadir. No harm done and the world doesn't revolve around `Ali and his sensitive feelings.

5- It's not up to you (who were not present nor did you witness) to decide that the situation was so chaotic and serious that it HAD to be dealt with on the spot by calling a major meeting of thousands of Muslims who are worshipping at Hajj to talk about `Ali's problem. Maybe nobody was in on it except the few individuals mentioned (who could be three, not sure why you're imagining a dramatic scene). Did the Prophet (saw) use a microphone or megaphone to announce perhaps and everyone heard? Was he standing on a tall Mimbar where everyone heard? Please enough of your baseless speculations. Heck if five men came around him, surrounding him and complaining, that is sufficient for anyone else to not have even heard or completely understood what they were talking about.

6- As for `Ali's praise, it's sufficient that some of his closest companions and soldiers (who lived in Madinah) never even heard of Ghadir until `Ali mentioned it a hundred days after Jamal. I think you assume too much about how news spreads and what kind of news spreads, of course people knew he was close to him but not all details were necessarily known except by those who witnessed them. It could be most of the 300 battalion were not aware of this or they heard it at the time and forgot.

7- Again with the hypocrites talk, I don't know if you read your own narrations but the people of Madinah are the worst hypocrites according to some Shia traditions. Heck they're the same people who ignored `Ali and accepted Abu Bakr's Caliphate. When `Ali as well as Fatimah at a later point asked them for help (acc to your narrations) they all abandonned them turned a blind eye. On top of it you have the narrations of the nation's apostasy except for 5-7 individuals that are quite explicit in your main books. So you're saying hypocrites are OK with actively spending their own money and giving their wealth to the Prophet (saw) as regular Zakat and Sadaqat BUT if `Ali was appointed as successor they'd be terribly upset? How would that change anything in the equation if they're planning on rebelling and apostating after his death (saw)?

8- `Umar's speech was not simply about the mode of how to choose a leader, he hadn't even decided on a specific way at the time. His speech was supposed to be a refutation and a criticism of the individuals who wanted to rush and appoint `Ali. This would have created misundertsaindg and possibly caused those individuals harm if hooligans heard of it.

9- Your point that you keep repeating, accusing the entire nation of lack of faith and hypocricy except Madanis is still useless, that won't change if you keep repeating it. According to your fabricated religion, Imamah is an essential tenet of Islamic faith, it is inexcusable to keep the majority of Muslims oblivious to this major matter simply because there were hypocrites among them. His job is to announce the religion, not be afraid of pagans and hypocrites, the QUr;an says "Whoever wishes can believe and whoever wishes can disbelieve". This narration of yours on how the people would have apostated upon `Ali's appointment was stupid to say the least and is probably invented by a simple Iraqi in the desert that managed to fool you and your society to this day.

10- You say he (saw) didn't hold-off, I say according to your narrations he did in fact do that and he did it for the most nonsensical reason that does not fit his character. I like to ask is there a precedent to this? Please inform me of any precedents when the Prophet (saw) ignored an important religious law until he was threatened by his Lord out of fear that people may accuse him of being a liar. Heck, the story of Isra' wal-Mi`raj itself refutes this when he went and told PAGANS and new Muslims that he traveled on a heavenly creature in one night and back, he didn't care about being called a liar nor did he care that some people apostated as a result.



« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 08:17:29 PM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

iceman

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #36 on: November 23, 2017, 09:16:42 PM »
Apparently, Khalid was in a war with the Apostasy. So, when he got evidence that Malik distributed collected Zakah on hearing the news of prophets death, and of his pact with Sajah, he confidently declared Malik an Apostate and ordered his execution. After the execution, in the same night he married Layla, the wife of Malik ibn Nuwayra, who was said to be one of the most beautiful women in Arabia at that time.-[al-Tabari: Vol. 2, p- 5]

al-Minhal al-Tamimi: Amongst Malik’s bin Nuwayrah’s relatives. He [Lahu Idraak] converted (during Prophet’s time), al-Zubair bin Bakr mentioned him in al-Muwafaqyat (book)…He said: ‘al-Minhal passed by Malik bin Nuwayrah’s body when Khalid killed him, then he brought a cloth from his bag and shrouded his dead body and then buried him.’-[al Isaba, Vol. 6, p. 249]

etc..etc...


This is a thread about Ghadir, why are you discussing Khalid? Whatever you copied seems to be quoting Kanz-ul-`Ummal a lot, pretty unreliable stuff.

Because Khalid bin Waleed has been mentioned in the narrations you've put forward on  your Ghadeer site. It's obvious anything that doesn't suit you would be considered unreliable. The narrations you've mentioned about Ali and a slave girl and mentioning Ali's character and  behaviour we don't accept such narrations either and consider them unreliable. Don't mitigate and insult such an important event as Ghadeer and then go on to justify a coincidental incident as Saqifa. I thought you really had something on that site but it turned out to be ridiculous narrations.

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #37 on: November 23, 2017, 10:12:40 PM »

Because Khalid bin Waleed has been mentioned in the narrations you've put forward on  your Ghadeer site. It's obvious anything that doesn't suit you would be considered unreliable. The narrations you've mentioned about Ali and a slave girl and mentioning Ali's character and  behaviour we don't accept such narrations either and consider them unreliable. Don't mitigate and insult such an important event as Ghadeer and then go on to justify a coincidental incident as Saqifa. I thought you really had something on that site but it turned out to be ridiculous narrations.

Brother, i understand that with all the negativity about Shias and twisting our sources that it we do suspect certain things, but the reality is Ali deed indeed procure a slave girl and it is halal and permitted.  The didn't mind about the slave girl, but that he took from the Khums while he made them remove what they wore of the Khums. Many of our Imams had bondswomen as mothers, including Imam al-Mahdi.  If we deny this, it makes it  easy for them to prove it occurred. The truth is, it happened but it has absolutely nothing to do with Ghadir.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 10:14:06 PM by whoaretheshia »
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #38 on: November 23, 2017, 10:20:56 PM »
I hate discussing with people who write newspapers, in this sense you're another "Link".

I understand from your signature that you view islam as something simple. And i would agree. However, simplicity does not mean it is basic and there is no depth. It is essential at times to elaborate on a concept. Leaving it half way or keeping it too brief will only open the doors for doubt and misunderstanding. It would be easy to write a Shia-Pen style article and walk into the trap of relying on too many sources which you can just weaken and find Jarh of narrators which is easy to do, but the only way to ascertain the truth is to hold onto what is clear, and use intellectually rigorous and consistent argumentation.
 
Quote
1- You say there are narrations where he addresses individuals and other were he addresses a group of men. I say both are pretty much referring to the same thing. The entire army was not addressed, it was simply Buraidah and maybe a few individuals who had come in with him or after him. Therefore, you hadn't refuted my point and you saying "It's not plausible" means absolutly nothing because in fact it is most clearly VERY plausible and in fact the case.


Quote
2- You assuming the call would spread after being announced to a couple of individuals does not man he (saw)


Now i understand why you have misunderstood it. Also dear brother, i wrote a lengthy response to this very issue , and i did not just reply with 'It's not plausible'. What you have done is assumed that the tradition of Ibn Ishaq referring to the Prophet ﷺ rising up to address the men is for the same one or two, or even four individuals who complained individually about the Prophet ﷺ. You then say it might have been one or two after the Prophet ﷺ, but this is a massive assumption on your part, and is not faithful to the text - and i will demonstrate how.


Let us bring the traditions to examine if they are referring to the very same event.


Buraidah:

Quote
The Prophet (ﷺ) sent `Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated `Ali, and `Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. `Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus." [Saheeh Bukhari]

Where in Ibn Ishaq do you find him replying with that? In this instance, he already directly responds to one individual. There is no 'rising up to address them' , nor the same words. This proves that the Prophet ﷺ rebuked some who came individually to him, and when complaints began to grow he decided to make a definitive statement in favour of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and thus conclude the matter.

So what is different with the tradition in Ibn Ishaq?


“The army showed resentment at their treatment…when the men complained of Ali,the Apostle arose to address them and he (the narrator) heard him (the Prophet) say: “Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of Allah, or in the way of Allah, to be blamed…”…Then the apostle continued his pilgrimage, and showed the men the rites..” 

Points:

A. The wording used against Buraidah is entirely different to that narrated in Ibn Ishaq. You can not claim he said two different things, because the truth is they are variants of the very same message. What was said individually to Buraidah was enough to make him reconsider the error of his ways. It is quite clear that the rebuke in Ibn Ishaq is after Buraidah and when a group came. Why? Because we also see him responding to individuals with a rebuke directly.


B. You are going out of your way to try and prove as little people as possible heard the Prophet ﷺ, and that only one or two men , or maybe three were there to hear him respond only to a very small number of individuals. However, the text in Ibn Ishaq is clear in denoting the fact the Prophet ﷺ arose to address men. Abu Said-al-Khudri, who heard what he had said, clearly first states the army showed resentment, meaning it was observable that there was wide discontent, and that the men then complained to the Prophet ﷺ. He did not say ‘when two of the men complained’, and what is clearly implied is that a group complained. What you have done is try to ignore the apparent meaning, and purport that the fewest number of people you could possibly class in plurality [two] were the ones he rose up to address. He did not say ‘one or two showed complained’. He could tell that the a fair number in the battalion showed resentment, and that the men complained to the Prophet ﷺ. The very word ‘arose’ indicates the Prophet ﷺ physically situated himself in a manner whereby he could address a group.

C . The Prophet ﷺ was not in an isolated gas chamber. He had many companions around him, and thousands of Pilgrims too, who had gathered. If the Prophet ﷺ arose to address a group of men, it does not mean the men and the Prophet ﷺ were in an isolated region where sound could not penetrate. Clearly, not only would members of the small battalion who also had grievances gathered around the spokes people who complained to hear the verdict of the Prophet ﷺ , but you would have also had people who were not even in the small battalion, nor who complained about Ali, but rather were in the surrounding area densely filled with  scores of pilgrims. Abu Saed al-Khudri for instance, being witness to it is proof of this.

It is clear that after addressing individuals with one reply, he decided to rise up and address a larger body, with words that were empathetically in favour of Ali and his judgement. Not only did the members of the small battalion of 300 [and maybe Khalids] hear this, but you are not giving any importance to the thousands of Pilgrims who must have been around the Prophet ﷺ at the time, many of whom would have heard it. Do you not think brother, given how curious we humans are, men riding back from Yemen would arouse interest? Especially when some of those men are upset, and complaining? Many may have gathered to see what was going on, and would have heard the Prophets ﷺ response, or heard it from someone who had heard it.



Quote
wouldn’t make sure to announce it again at Ghadir to make sure it is resolved before getting back home and dealing with other more important matters. The size of `Ali's army doesn't matter, 300 is a big number of people.

You are assuming all 300 complained. The fact is, a proportion of that 300 complained. Maybe a proportion of Khalid battalion. The Prophet ﷺ would have been very well aware of this, and would have absolutely disliked any attack on the integrity of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and as proven would not and did not wait for two weeks before giving a response, but arose to address the group and firmly defended Ali ibn Abi Talib and the call was also spread. After feeling his words on the matter were clear, authoritative and did not leave room for doubt, he continued the Hajj. The issue there and then was closed, and finished [for anyone who respected the Prophet].

Quote
Then you desperately quote al-Mufid again, a man who gets his history from his local grocer.


al-Mufid relied on earlier historical works. You proudly have promoted the ’12 reasons to leave Shia Islam’ one of which claims our later scholars relied heavily on earlier historical works of he ‘Sunni’ historians. Shaykh al-Mufid again said  [Yes i’ll quote him, because he is just confirming the Shia understanding of the event, which conforms to rational sense] “… When they came to Mecca, their complaints against the Commander of the Faithful, peace be on him, became numerous [many complained, but this does not imply the whole army or most]. The Apostle of Allāh ordered the call to be given among the people: “Stop your tongues (speaking) against ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, peace be on him. He is one who is harsh in the interests of Allāh, the Mighty and High, not one who deceives in His religion.” At this the people refrained from mentioning him and they realised the high position he enjoyed with the Prophet, may Allāh bless Him and His Family, and his anger against anyone who wanted to find fault with him.” [Al-Irshad].

Let’s not get sidetracked nonetheless. I don’t engage in discussions of finding niche points here and there and all the subjective Jarh and Tadil.




Quote
3- You say because it's in the QUr'an doesn't mean the Prophet (saw) cannot reitirate, I say even if it's in the Sunnah the Prophet (Saw) is known to repeat and remind so there falls your argument. A couple of individuals came in and complained about `Ali, the Prophet (saw) got angry, stood up and addressed those individuals.

It has been proven that it was not ‘ a couple of individuals’ and that this is wishful thinking and a complete distortion of the text. At first he rebuked individuals with entirely unique comments, before arising to address a group of men, who did not live in a gas chamber and obviously would have had other men gathered around them, and some of many of the pilgrims who numbered in their tens of thousands to hear the judgement of the Prophet ﷺ on the matter. I did not say tens of thousand heard it, but that it was a densely packed location at the time, and that it is not rational to claim that people who were around the Prophet ﷺ did not witness him making this declaration.

If it is in the Quran, or the Sunnah, the Prophet ﷺ can obviously reiterate and explain it. However, you assume he needed to reiterate because he only addressed two people, i say the text and any honest reading of it would show after addressing people individually, he addressed a group of men,  and empathetically judge his judgement and the case was closed. There was no need to ‘repeat’ anything.

If we are to talk of repeating, for his whole Prophethood ﷺ, the Prophet ﷺ had already repeated the virtues of Ali in far more powerful terms than ‘friend’ or ‘beloved’.  Their problem was not they they doubted the high position of Ali, or his closeness to the Prophet ﷺ. They wanted to know if Ali had been unjust in his ijtihad on how to handle the Khums. The Prophet ﷺ in ibn Ishaq is said to have emphatically rebutted this issue head on.

In fact, the Sunni position would be substantiated if the Prophet ﷺ had said: “What do you have to say about a man who loves Allah and his apostle, and Allah and his apostle love him?”

« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 10:28:56 PM by whoaretheshia »
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2017, 10:34:49 PM »
4- You claim the Prophet (saw) wasn't wise to not address the entire army right away, I say you're not wise for claiming a Prophet of God isn't wise. He did address those who spoke to him directly and then went the extra mile at Ghadir. No harm done and the world doesn't revolve around `Ali and his sensitive feelings.

Brother you have taken my words wholly out of context. I did not claim the Prophet ﷺ was not wise. It claimed that it would not be wise for the Prophet to have seen thirty, fourty, let us say even a hundred men complaining about Ali, ignore their concerns, address one or two, and wait for two weeks before referring to it again. Rational sense dictates he would have addressed it to settle the matter, and so the minds of the people can focus on the Hajj. And we have demonstrated he addressed individuals, and then a group, and thus closed any room for doubt.

As for ‘Ali and his sensitive feelings’ this is a man who never allowed his anger to get in the way of his decision making , or his fear to ever overwhelm him. This is a man who was spat at by Amr at the battle of Khandaq, and instead of finishing him, decided to walk away, calm down, so he could return to kill him only when he knew it was not out of his ‘feelings’ but for the sake of Allah. We also find in another tradition the Prophet ﷺ was incensed and furious at those who made these claims about Ali supporting the argument [which already had a clear textual basis] that he found it pertinent to deal with the matter immediately, rather than two weeks later.

“The Prophet (ﷺ) dispatched two armies and put ‘Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of one of them, and Khalid bin Al-Walid in charge of the other. He said: “When there is fighting, then (the leader is) ‘Ali.” He said: “So ‘Ali conquered a fortress and took a slave girl. So Khalid sent me with a letter to the Prophet (ﷺ) complaining about him. So I came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and he read the letter and his color changed, then he said: ‘What is your view concerning one who loves Allah and His Messenger, and Allah and His Messenger love him.'” He said: “I said: ‘I seek refuge in Allah from the wrath of Allah and the anger of His Messenger, and I am but a Messenger.’ So he became silent.” [Tirmidhi, and yes i know there is a weakness the chain]


Quote
5- It's not up to you (who were not present nor did you witness) to decide that the situation was so chaotic and serious that it HAD to be dealt with on the spot by calling a major meeting of thousands of Muslims who are worshipping at Hajj to talk about `Ali's problem.

This is distortion about what i have said. The Prophet ﷺ does not need to ‘stop the worshippers’ to call them and address them. All he needs to do is when the men in horses come riding into Makkah , and we see voices against Ali start to be numerous, for him to rise up and address them, firmly supporting Ali - which he did as proven. The tradition in Ibn Ishaq from Abu Sa'id clearly states that Abu Sa'id saw that the army entered showing discontent, and that the men then complained to the Prophet ﷺ. The the discontent was so visible and obvious which is why Abu Sa'id noticed it.

 
Quote
Maybe nobody was in on it except the few individuals mentioned (who could be three, not sure why you're imagining a dramatic scene). Did the Prophet (saw) use a microphone or megaphone to announce perhaps and everyone heard? Was he standing on a tall Mimbar where everyone heard? Please enough of your baseless speculations. Heck if five men came around him, surrounding him and complaining, that is sufficient for anyone else to not have even heard or completely understood what they were talking about.

It has been proven this idea that ‘only few individuals’ were in on it is not rational nor supported by text. The Prophet ﷺ does not need to be on a Mimbar, or have a microphone for his voice to be elevated. I remember sitting in lecture theatres and there was no microphone whatsoever, and we could hear the speaker if he wished to boldly and loudly make a point. I don’t know why you’ve opted to raise points like this at all. You have assumed it was only a few individuals, and i have proven this is in fact, a baseless assertion which clearly goes against text and rational sense. The very fact the arose implies he physically positioned himself to talk to a group of people.


Quote
6- As for `Ali's praise, it's sufficient that some of his closest companions and soldiers (who lived in Madinah) never even heard of Ghadir until `Ali mentioned it a hundred days after Jamal. I think you assume too much about how news spreads and what kind of news spreads, of course people knew he was close to him but not all details were necessarily known except by those who witnessed them. It could be most of the 300 battalion were not aware of this or they heard it at the time and forgot.

Many of his closest companions were not even present during the declaration at Ghadir. Kumayl, Malik ibn Ashtar, Maytham, et al. Many of the companions by the time of Jamal which was almost three decades after Ghadir Khumm either died in the many wars, of old age, or were not present and may have been young or  forgot it. The very fact twelve men stood up right away [and remember, Ali ibn Abi Talib only asks for those who had seen and heard the Prophet ﷺ say it, and not heard it from someone else] it a pretty respectable number. The sheer number of chains for this event are an indication as to how it spread. There were at least thirty or forty thousand present.

As for the argument that many may not have been aware of the special position of Ali ibn Abi Talib this is not logical. If you imagine the fact the Muslims [of Medina] had heard Muhammed ﷺ say that the banner will be given to a man who loves Allah and his Prophet, and the Prophet ﷺ and Allah love him, and that victory will be granted through him - those are statements that would have spread across the army. We know that everyone in the army was hoping it would be them, because it would have been a significant honour. Then seeing him slaughter Hartih, slaughter Marhab who was a ferocious warrior, and lift the gate of Khaybar which forty men could not lift, are not just isolated events. They are rather feats of superhuman power, and not only did the army witness them, but when they got back home, there is no doubts the extraordinary feats of Ali ibn Abi Talib would have been a topic of much discussion.

We are not talking isolated praise and mediocre incidents. Rather, we are talking about acts of Ali which were so mesmerising, it would have been the talk of the town. Killing a man who was well known to be one of the fiercest warriors in Arabia - Amr bin Abdi Wud, being the one chosen to be given the banner, killing Harith and Marhab, lifting the gate of Khaybar with his own hands. Put aside the fact he was the husband of the daughter of the Prophet , people knew he was from his family, people had heard his praises and seen his acts and his status and closeness to the Prophet ﷺ should have been known to the vast majority.
DISCLAIMER: I AM AWAY UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR, PM ME IF I OWE YOU A REPLY, MAY ALLAH HAVE MERCY ON ALL OF US, FI AMANILLAH
" O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice.. even if it be against yourselves... So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be jus

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1371 Views
Last post September 11, 2014, 06:13:34 AM
by Ebn Hussein
1 Replies
449 Views
Last post August 31, 2016, 04:35:24 PM
by Abu Muhammad
5 Replies
411 Views
Last post November 25, 2017, 04:13:42 PM
by Farid
21 Replies
753 Views
Last post August 27, 2017, 01:24:14 AM
by Link