TwelverShia.net Forum

GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MuslimK

  • *****
  • Total likes: 222
  • +7/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
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.
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری

www.Nahjul-Balagha.net | www.TwelverShia.net | www.ghadirkhumm.com

Farid

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2017, 10:47:19 PM »
Looks better than that ghadir786 site. ;)

Ebn Hussein

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2017, 11:17:00 PM »
In Majoosi Imami speak:

*Man konto mola fa haza Faridov molah. Allahomma vaali man vaalah va 3aadi man aadah, vansur man nasarah, vakhzol man khazalah*

salavat shahavat, great project ya Bakris, ya mukhalifeen, ya gheir movaleen.
الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله
لم أر أحداً من أهل الأهواء أشهد بالزور من الرافضة! - الخطيب في الكفاية والسوطي.

Imam Al-Shafi3i - may Allah have mercy upon him - said: "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Rafidah." [narrated by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi/Al-Kifayah]

Hani

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2017, 01:16:43 AM »
Cool, looking forward to reading the refutations, Amini's book as I recall was 90% poetry 10% relevant material.
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

Ebn Hussein

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2017, 01:36:37 AM »
Cool, looking forward to reading the refutations, Amini's book as I recall was 90% poetry 10% relevant material.

On my daily TV show (between 2011-2014 on Wesal Farsi TV) we went through that book, wallahi what a con artist that Amini is, how gullible the Shias are to fall for his likes. They always introduce this charlatan as some next level 3Allaamah who compiled "volumes" proving the Shia narrative of Ghadir, what they don't mention is exactly what you mentioned i.e. is so called "evidences" are mostly poems and other text from Batini Sufis and other muta2akhirin, not secondary by 5 grade sources that can only impress Shias but not a serious seeker of knowledge (let alone a scholar).
الإمام الشافعي رحمه الله
لم أر أحداً من أهل الأهواء أشهد بالزور من الرافضة! - الخطيب في الكفاية والسوطي.

Imam Al-Shafi3i - may Allah have mercy upon him - said: "I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Rafidah." [narrated by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi/Al-Kifayah]

AbbasQasimov

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2017, 02:55:01 AM »
Salam can I used to for my upcoming book and if yes, what is your name so I can give you the credit

Hani

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2017, 05:01:03 AM »
credit "twelvershia.net" since it's producing these special sites.
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 #7 on: November 21, 2017, 10:57:10 AM »
بسم الله الرحمن الرحیم
اسلام علیکم

http://ghadirkhumm.com/


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:

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]
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 07:37:58 PM by Hani »
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 #8 on: November 21, 2017, 11:05:08 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.

 
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

Abu Muhammad

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2017, 06:34:47 PM »
Taken from your website on Ghadeer Khum.

"Does it make sense for the Prophet [saw] to appoint anyone, and is the timing of Ghadeer in coherence with this?

We ask everyone to consider this particular issue in as objective a manner as possible. The Prophet Muhammed [saw] was a man who had supreme religious, political, social, and spiritual rule and authority over all of the muslims. He was their focal point; his leadership was essential.

The Prophet [saw] knew full well that many tribes had not truly embraced Islam, many had not done so at all, and there were hypocrites in Mecca and even Medina itself who sought to use his death as an opportunity to rebel, apostate and cause rebellion. So much was the Prophet [saw] concerned about insuring there was always a system of order that he left Ali ibn Abi Talib behind in charge of Medina when he made for the battle of Tabouk at the very end of his life, so as to ensure there would be order and the hypocrites would not take advantage of the death of Muhammed [saw]. No-one can deny that Muhammed [saw] constantly grieved for his Ummah and pondered over how to solve the many issues that plagued it. He was so stringent in even neglecting small matters, that it is not befitting on him to claim he ignored one of the most pertinent issues of all – which is leadership after him. Would he not have thus been mindful of ensuring that he dealt with the matter of who would replace him?

For sake of argument, even if he did not need to appoint a person himself and rather wanted some among the muslims to do so under a Shurah, would it not make sense for him to set out the conditions for this consultation and possibly also have it done during his own life time, so that the muslims could choose and receive his blessing and know full well who would be the one to lead after him? Perhaps he could define the members to be allowed in the Shurah – as Umar ibn Al Khattab did, and set key conditions which Umar ibn Al Khattab had done.

In many political hierarchies, the position of President or leader is one that is highly protected. In America, if the president dies the one who will take charge is the Vice President. So much are they concerned with ensuring there is never a power gap , if both the president and the vice president die in a catastrophic accident, there is an individual named as the ‘Designated’ president who is never allowed to be in the some location as both the president and vice president, who will assume charge. We find that even Abu Bakr sought to appoint someone at his death, and Umar ibn Al Khattab sought to clearly define the conditions of the Shurah and what members are to be allowed in it.

It is pertinent here to note that the declaration of Ghadeer took place shortly before the death of the Prophet [saw]. If there was ever a time to make an absolute declaration of this manner pertaining to leadership and successorship, what better time then to do it before he was about to pass away?"


The argument is nothing new really. Trying to rationalize between appointing and not appointing a leader after him (saw).
                         
You tried to sound rationale at one incident (appointment of leader after Prophet (saw)) without realizing it might come back and bite you at another incident.

This is what I mean: Why don't you apply the same to your 12th imam? He leaves nobody behind to take charge of the Shia. You even argued that Prophet (saw) left somebody behind to take charge of Madinah while he (saw) was TEMPORARILY away. It was the same situation like your 12th imam. TEMPORARILY away. But unfortunately, he leaves nobody behind to take charge of the Shia. To quote what you wrote, seems like he didn't bother to "insuring there was always a system of order" like Prophet (saw). Ironic, isn't it?

In fact, it took Khumaini to realize 1,100 years later the need of a functional leader. I repeat, a functional leader. And interestingly, Khumaini employed fundamentally the same method like Umar in selecting those leaders. Another irony.

Note:
Prophet didn't leave Ali behind to take charge of Madinah when he went out to Tabuk. It was given to someone else. Ali was only in-charged of the Ahlul Bayt.

Please do the necessary correction.


"We ask everyone to consider this particular issue in as objective a manner as possible."

Agreed. Need to be objective and not selective as above.

Hadrami

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2017, 12:24:16 PM »
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.
But in your website it says it was due to greater proportion of hypocrites among people from southern region. Doesn't it contradict imam who said people from Medina were worse than Meccan and Meccan were openly kufr. So why declare it to those who were disbelievers (mecca) and people who were worse than disbelievers (medina)?

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2017, 12:18:17 AM »
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.
But in your website it says it was due to greater proportion of hypocrites among people from southern region. Doesn't it contradict imam who said people from Medina were worse than Meccan and Meccan were openly kufr. So why declare it to those who were disbelievers (mecca) and people who were worse than disbelievers (medina)?

Those who fought the Messenger of Allah did not submit to Islam, but were Mushriks and disbelievers. Those who fought Ali ibn Abi Talib did so despite being Muslims, praying, fasting, believing in Allah and knowing full well they were causing enormous Fitnah in the Ummah and challenging the rightful leader.

However, this does not mean there existed hypocrites among those of Mecca, and other regions. There is no doubt these individuals were worse, but what the Imam was saying was in an entirely different context and time period. One was when the Meccans had not submitted yet - but were in the period of the wars with the Prophet [saw].
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 #12 on: November 23, 2017, 12:24:42 AM »
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.
But in your website it says it was due to greater proportion of hypocrites among people from southern region. Doesn't it contradict imam who said people from Medina were worse than Meccan and Meccan were openly kufr. So why declare it to those who were disbelievers (mecca) and people who were worse than disbelievers (medina)?

Those who fought the Messenger of Allah did not submit to Islam, but were Mushriks and disbelievers. Those who fought Ali ibn Abi Talib did so despite being Muslims, praying, fasting, believing in Allah and knowing full well they were causing enormous Fitnah in the Ummah and challenging the rightful leader.

However, this does not mean there existed hypocrites among those of Mecca, and other regions. There is no doubt these individuals were worse, but what the Imam was saying was in an entirely different context and time period. One was when the Meccans had not submitted yet - but were in the period of the wars with the Prophet [saw].
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?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 12:26:41 AM by Hadrami »

whoaretheshia

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2017, 12:26:05 AM »
The argument is nothing new really. Trying to rationalize between appointing and not appointing a leader after him (saw). You tried to sound rationale at one incident (appointment of leader after Prophet (saw)) without realizing it might come back and bite you at another incident.

This is what I mean: Why don't you apply the same to your 12th imam? He leaves nobody behind to take charge of the Shia. You even argued that Prophet (saw) left somebody behind to take charge of Madinah while he (saw) was TEMPORARILY away. It was the same situation like your 12th imam. TEMPORARILY away. But unfortunately, he leaves nobody behind to take charge of the Shia. To quote what you wrote, seems like he didn't bother to "insuring there was always a system of order" like Prophet (saw). Ironic, isn't it?

These are two entirely different scenarios. Imam al-Mahdi was not in charge of an entire community , nor the political leader of any region or location. The ones ruling were an oppressive regime, such that he and his follower were often shunned into secrecy out fear of being murdered.

Muhammed[saw] on the other hand, presided over an Ummah that was barely in its infancy, with external enemies waiting to attack, several hypocrite tribes in every region. He was the one people turned  to for everything, and had far more power, influence and control over the Arabian Peninsula. If he were to pass away it would indeed have been an enormous power gap.

However, we do not find him -as per the Sunni view- stating that 'you choose amongst yourselves who your leader will be', nor appointing anyone himself. It was dead silence. For Imam al-Mahdi, after he appointed his representatives, he clearly stated no-one will be an official representative and that he is entering into the longer Ghaybah. He still remains the Imam of the time, mind, but circumstances are earth and sky between this, and what was the political scenario at the time of the Prophet [saw]. There was total silence [allegedly] on part of the Prophet [saw], but clear words from Imam Mahdi about the issue of succession.

Just to add, we also made a note that even if you do not believe he should have appointed anyone, surely he would have made a reference to the people that they must choose amongst themselves? He does not have to appoint like the first Caliph did, but he can organise a Shurah like the second one had done. Even if you claim he did not want to set the terms for the Shurah, he could have at least declared he was passing away, and it was of utmost importance for the Muslims to engage in consultation, and that leadership must to go the Q'uraysh and only they must be made candidates for leadership. Yet again - there is nothing but silence.

Quote
In fact, it took Khumaini to realize 1,100 years later the need of a functional leader. I repeat, a functional leader. And interestingly, Khumaini employed fundamentally the same method like Umar in selecting those leaders. Another irony.

Are you aware that most of our scholars believe in Wilayatul Faqih, and that is the guardianship of the Jurist to help control the affairs of the state? They only differ on how much power they should be given. The belief is that someone versed in the religion is better equipped at guiding the community to what is upright.

Quote
Note:
Prophet didn't leave Ali behind to take charge of Madinah when he went out to Tabuk. It was given to someone else. Ali was only in-charged of the Ahlul Bayt.

Please do the necessary correction.

There is a legitimate difference of opinion here between the two positions. We did not include it on error, but on our position and even the position of other Sunnis [though not all i concede]. We have amended our article to reflect on the fact differences of opinion occur, but it does not change the essence of the post - someone was left behind in charge.

Quote
Agreed. Need to be objective and not selective as above.

No such selectivity has occurred. They were two entirely different contexts.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 12:34:34 AM 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 #14 on: November 23, 2017, 12:29:56 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.
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 #15 on: November 23, 2017, 12:37:35 AM »
Just as a disclaimer, our Ghadeer article is undergoing major improvement. We considered it strong before, but we felt after feedback it was too long and wordy. We want our rebuttal to be accessible for all people, and so brevity without sacrificing the power of argumentation is pertinent.  We have updated the first two sections, and will conclude the third soon, inshAllah.

An example:


We arguably now come on to the most compelling evidence which every objective reader should ponder over when considering why the Prophet ﷺ may have felt hesitant to make the declaration in Mecca. On this occasion, we have no choice but to agree with the reasoning of Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf, and Umar ibn al-Khattab as narrated in Saheeh-al-Bukahri [1].
Quote
“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.

There are significant parallels between what occurred with Umar ibn al-Khattab, and what occurred with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.  If we consider the case of Umar ibn al-Khattab first, he had an opportunity to make a very important statement and warning in front those who were residents of Mecca, Medina, tribes from Southern Arabia, Northern Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and other conquered lands, pertaining to the issue of succesorship after him. Yet, Abdurahman ibn Awf recognises that among the people of Mecca, and those who have gathered from all over the empire for the Hajj, are many hypocrites, as well as those who may not be able to truly appreciate and recognise the significance of certain statements and declarations, nor put them in their proper place.

Some may accuse Umar ibn al-Khattab of one thing or another, distort his words, or use it to cause discord among the people against him. He is advised to wait until he reaches Medina, when people have already dispersed and he is only in the company of those who had spent the most amount of time with the Prophet ﷺ and had the greatest role in preserving his traditions. It is these individuals who would be able to put statements of great importance in their proper place. Umar ibn al-Khattab is pleased with his logic and agrees to it at once, and postpones his statement until he reaches Medina. We have already clearly demonstrated the insignificant role of those Muslims who converted at the conquest of Mecca and after this period in transmitting from the Prophet ﷺ – and so Abdurahman ibn Awf is correct in his claim.

The Prophet ﷺ was in a similar position. The people of Mecca who had abused and opposed him for most of his life had only just succumbed. Many of the tribes around Arabia – particularly the southern regions- had succumbed but with great hostility. There existed hypocrites in their large numbers, who may have accused him of trying to keep rule within his clan, or our of jealousy claim he is favouring a member of his own family. We do not here rule out that hypocrites all existed among those in Medina, and those travelling north of Mecca, however the situation was far graver when everyone had gathered in one place.

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 was concerned about hypocrites from Mecca and those of surrounding regions not putting his statement in its proper place and misinterpreting it and causing mischief. Undoubtedly, the situation was graver at the time of the Prophet ﷺ whenMecca had only just been taken, and the neighbouring regions of Yemen, Ta’if and other regions had only just been conquered or had been fought with to submission, still harbouring hypocrites who would apostate during and after his death.

Indeed, we find from an authentic narration contained in al-Kafi [2] whereby the Prophet ﷺ is described as hesitating and being frightened he would be accused of lying – perhaps favouring his own cousin and wishing to procure rule for his own clan. No doubt it shows he was worried about people not putting his declaration and statement in its proper place, and assuming the Prophet ﷺ is essentially a man who has cunningly obtained power and now wants to ensure he has his own circle of blood-relatives share in that power, ruling over the others. Many people who had originally submitted to the Prophet ﷺ , apostated after his death, and the Ridda wars are evidence of this.

Quote
“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)”


References:


[1] Sahih al-Bukhari 6830, Book 86, Hadith 57/ Vol. 8, Book 82, Hadith 817 ENG

[2] Al Kafi – Kulayni. Usul-al-Kafi, Volume 1.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 07:32:43 PM by Hani »
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 #16 on: November 23, 2017, 12:39:00 AM »
Updated:

The Messenger of Allah , Muhammed ﷺ was a man who held supreme religious, political, social, and spiritual authority over all of the muslims. He was the focal point of the entire  Arabian Peninsula; his leadership was of paramount importance. So engrossed was he in worrying about his nation, the Prophet ﷺ ensured that he maintained stability and was on the constant watch for any signs of external or internal threats. When he would embark on battles or travel away from Medina, he ensured a governor was left behind to be in maintain order in his place. 

As he was nearing his death, he was cognisant of the fact many tribes in the Arabian Peninsula had not truly embraced Islam and harboured great malice and hypocrisy.  Mecca had only recently succumbed after being long time enemies of the Muslims , having partaken in several wars against them, barred them from returning to their homes or from preforming – until the very end- pilgrimage. There is no doubt it had harboured hypocrites who only submitted after the eventual dominance of Islam had left them no choice. Even within Medina, Muhammed [saw] was often challenged by the hypocrites, who would attempt to torment discord in the community and at many times took advantage of his absence to do so ; as mentioned remedied by the Prophet ﷺ leaving behind a governor when he was absent.

Perhaps even more pertinent were the external enemies – the Byzantines and the Persians. When the Prophet ﷺ left for Tabouk upon hearing that the external enemies were mounting an attack, he left behind Ali ibn Abi Talib عليهم السلام in his place as narrated in the famous ‘Hadith al-Manzila [1] (حدیث المنزلة)’. Though opinions differ as to whether the Prophet ﷺ left him in charge of the city , or only his family members and appointed someone else to look after the city, what is pertinent here is that he ensured someone had been left behind to look after the city.  Could a man who gave this degree of attention in ensuring there were no power vacuums in his absence , die without giving any tangible attention with regards to who would succeed him?

One may claim that he had left his nation to choose amongst themselves through the means of Shūrā (شورى) , which is generally rendered to mean consultation. However, we do not find at any point the Prophet ﷺ clearly stating that when he passes away, the Muslims are to consult among themselves. It would only seem rational for a leader to either nominate one after him, as the first Caliph, Abu Bakr ibn Abi Quhafa had sone so, or set the conditions to best facilitate others to consult among themselves as was done by Umar ibn al-Khattab in the Shūrā he had specifically defined as far as its members and upon what conditions they must abide by. If we were to accept the Sunni view, then Muhammed ﷺ never explicitly gave a speech detailing to his Ummah as to who should lead after him, or how to choose the leader after him. One would at least expect some reference to the fact he was going to return to his Lord, and that the Muslims should begin to choose themselves, even if he neither wanted to nominate , nor define the conditions by which the others nominated. We are therefore led to believe, if we were to take the Sunni position, there was abject and deafening silence by the Prophet ﷺ on arguably one of the most pertinent matters of all – leadership after him and the stability of his nation.

If we avert our attention away from seventh century Arabia and focus on many of the countries and study the manner in which they handle political succession and stability, America is one particularly powerful example. In many political hierarchies, the position of president or leader is one that is highly protected. If the president were to die or be unable to perform his duties, the the vice president would assume the position of president. If the vice president were to also coincidentally die or be unable to perform his role, then there is an individual known as the designated president. This individual is not allowed to be within the same building or area as the president and vice president.

This is seen a means of insurance, whereby there will always be someone who can take immediately power and authority and that the nation is never left without a leader. When the president is still in power, the next one is chosen as the president elect, and ready to soon take charge. Even in countries like the United Kingdom, when parliament is dissolved for elections, the prime minister still retains power until the next one is chosen and a smooth transition can be facilitated.

In light of this, are we really to believe that the Prophet ﷺ who had never left a city behind without appointing governor in his place, would not make it clear as to what protocol people ought to follow pertaining to leadership after him?

However, we find that he indeed make an announcement. If there was ever a time to officially declare and reaffirm your successor, it would be shortly before your death. At Ghadir Khumm, Muhammed ﷺ raised the hands of Ali ibn Abi Talib عليهم السلام  and declared him as his successor.  What better time to do this, than when he was just about to pass away? When studying and examining the words of the Prophet ﷺ, the context of Ghadir Khumm, and he aftermath, it leaves no room for doubt that indeed, he had not neglected addressing the crucial matter of leadership after him, but empathically did so. 
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 07:32:12 PM by Hani »
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 #17 on: November 23, 2017, 01:12:00 AM »
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)

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?

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.


iceman

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2017, 03:37:58 AM »
Al-Tirmithi narrated in his Sunan (3725):

Abdullah bin Abi Ziyad narrated to us: Al-Ahwas bin Jawab narrated to us, from Yunus bin Abi Ishaaq, from Abi Ishaaq, from Al-Baraa’ that he said: The Prophet (peace be upon him) sent two armies and placed Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of one and Khalid bin Al-Waleed in charge of the other. He said, “If there is a battle, then Ali (shall lead).” He (Al-Baraa’) said: Ali then conquered a fort and took a slave-girl. Khalid then wrote to the Prophet (peace be upon him) a complaint. He (Al-Baraa’) said: I came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and read it. His face changed and he said, “What is your issue with a man that loves Allah and His prophet and is loved by Allah and His prophet?” I (Al-Baraa’) said: “I seek refuge by Allah from the anger of Allah and His messenger, and I  am but a messenger.” He then became quiet.

In another report, Al-Tirmithi (3712) proves greater clarity:

Qutaiba bin Sa’eed narrated to us: Ja’afar bin Sulaiman Al-Dhaba’ee narrated to us: From Yazeed Al-Rishk, from Mutarrif bin Abdullah, from Imran bin Husain, he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent an army and placed Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of it. He then got a slave-girl and they condemned him. Then, four of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) agreed and said, “When we go back to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) we will tell him about what Ali did.”
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 03:39:24 AM by iceman »

iceman

Re: GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2017, 03:55:13 AM »
Al-Tirmithi narrated in his Sunan (3725):

Abdullah bin Abi Ziyad narrated to us: Al-Ahwas bin Jawab narrated to us, from Yunus bin Abi Ishaaq, from Abi Ishaaq, from Al-Baraa’ that he said: The Prophet (peace be upon him) sent two armies and placed Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of one and Khalid bin Al-Waleed in charge of the other. He said, “If there is a battle, then Ali (shall lead).” He (Al-Baraa’) said: Ali then conquered a fort and took a slave-girl. Khalid then wrote to the Prophet (peace be upon him) a complaint. He (Al-Baraa’) said: I came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and read it. His face changed and he said, “What is your issue with a man that loves Allah and His prophet and is loved by Allah and His prophet?” I (Al-Baraa’) said: “I seek refuge by Allah from the anger of Allah and His messenger, and I  am but a messenger.” He then became quiet.

In another report, Al-Tirmithi (3712) proves greater clarity:

Qutaiba bin Sa’eed narrated to us: Ja’afar bin Sulaiman Al-Dhaba’ee narrated to us: From Yazeed Al-Rishk, from Mutarrif bin Abdullah, from Imran bin Husain, he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent an army and placed Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of it. He then got a slave-girl and they condemned him. Then, four of the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) agreed and said, “When we go back to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) we will tell him about what Ali did.”

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.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1337 Views
Last post September 11, 2014, 06:13:34 AM
by Ebn Hussein
1 Replies
418 Views
Last post August 31, 2016, 04:35:24 PM
by Abu Muhammad
5 Replies
336 Views
Last post November 25, 2017, 04:13:42 PM
by Farid
21 Replies
685 Views
Last post August 27, 2017, 01:24:14 AM
by Link