GhadirKhumm.com - First Sunni website solely about Ghadir Khumm

[whoaretheshia]

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.

I am very aware of what is in our books and i have debated this particular point many times. You are taking two entirely different time periods and contexts and then juxtaposing them together. When the Imam said that those who fought Ali were worse than those who fought the Prophet ﷺ , he was making a few things clear:

1. When Makkah was still under the power of the polytheists such as Abu Sufiyan, and the others , before they converted at the very end, all those wars they fought the Prophet ﷺ were done by people who never accepted the Shahadah.

2. However, those who fought Ali had accepted the Shahadah, yet still disobeyed the Allah and his Prophet ﷺ.

3. You have confused the statement of the Imam claiming that the hypocrites of Makkah were better than those Medina after they had all accepted Islam, whereas the Imam is referring to before the Makkans had accepted Islam.

4. A number of those who were originally from Makkah were the ones who fought Ali as well! How can this be ? This is after they renounced their polytheism and recited the Shahdatayn.

On the alleged apostasy, i highly recommend you read the works of Islamic Salvation, who has addressed this issue in great depth. It is the best assessment of the traditions i have ever read, and a work of profound insight: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/blogs/entry/233-did-the-sahaba-become-kafir/

Let us try to limit how many topics we are going to debate in depth so i would rather discuss this in full depth at another time, but i have responded sufficiently.

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)?

I am claiming that Hypocrites will wait often wait for favourable circumstances before showing their hypocrisy. Someone can gladly give Zakat, and pray, and their words may please you, and they may recite the Quran beautifully, but as soon as you begin to talk about leadership, rule and authority, this can create opportunities for people to begin to spread rumours, accuse you of favouritism or keeping rule to your own family among other things. One of the very distinguishing factors about the Khawarij are that while they were happy to pray, fast, recite the Quran, the issue pertaining over leadership was of fundamental importance to them as well as accepting anyone other than the Prophet ﷺ.

On one hand, you had the Banu Ummayah who were sworn enemies of the Banu Hashim. They loathed them so much so, Ali was cursed on the Pulpits when M'uawiyah was the Caliph. Before M'uawiyah became Caliph, he fought Ali in two civil wars, refused to give the rightful Caliph ownership and control of Sham, which in those days was a massive amount of land encompassing four or five countries today. He then forced Hasan ibn Ali into a peace treaty, threatened Hussain ibn Ali into giving Bayah [which he and some others refused], and this was concluded by Yazid ibn M'uawiyah being the root cause for the slaughter of Hussain ibn Ali. One must not underestimate tribal schisms and jealousy.  Let us put aside Ali ibn Abi Talib was responsible for slaughtering many of their family members at several of the battles.

You then had men even within Medina who looked at Ali and saw they were older, or more experienced, or had a Jealousy of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Jealousy turned even Shaytan, who was an ardent worshipper of Allah, the Almighty, into one of the most wicked. Imagine, Iblis was a Jinn who worshipped and was exalted to the assembly of angels.  All he was asked was to submit to the authority and superiority of Adam over him, and jealousy and pride caused him to turn away.

Others may have felt the Prophet ﷺ was trying to keep rule and power in his own family, by favouring his cousin. How many times do we find in many countries today , when one family member decides their brother should be the ruler, it outrages people.

The seat of the Prophet ﷺ was a powerful one, and power can turn even the best men into something else. We have seen this occur a countless number of times in history. Saqifah demonstrated the chaotic power struggle and vying for power. Yes, i am aware you have written a book, but i don't think anyone who is honest can deny what it really was. And yes, i know some of the traditions in Tabari about the Ansaar wanting to make Ali the leader are weak.

There were also clearly many who became apostate in the Ridda wars, who accepted the rule and authority of the Prophet ﷺ, gave Zakat, but were under the impression that once he died, that was the end of their pact with him. The Ridda wars were brutal and people were apostatising from Yemen, T'aif, Oman, and many other places.

I really could go on and on, but i don't want to overwhelm you with sheer volume and to keep my posts to what i deem concise.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

The reality of the matter is, Umar ibn al Khattab wanted to make an important declaration about the fact people after him must elect people via Shurah. He wanted to warn the people about rushing to choose others without doing so, and that whoever does so will be killed. This is a very important message, but he realised that at Hajj , in Makkah, people can hear his statement and start to spread lies about it, assumptions he did not make, misconceptions, or accuse him of certain things. He knew that the people who would best understand and implement his message at the people of Medina.

Similarly, the Prophet ﷺ was in a position whereby he knew that at Makkah, there were many hypocrites, people who may not have recognised the true Status of Ali, and those who would have accused him and lied upon him. He saw people from around Arabia, and those in Makkah, and no doubt there existed hypocrites from Medina. This is what made his chest tighten and made him concerned. So we find he declared it to a crowd i can concede would have comprised mainly of the Muslims of Medina, and some of those also travelling north of Makkah.

We know that the only group who has ever elected the first group of successors after the Prophet ﷺ actually comprised of people from the Muhajirun and Ansaar, and then after that, the rest of the nation had to obey was was decided. So if the Prophet ﷺ declared Ali infant of a  crowd of the Muhajirun and Ansar, who he knew would be the most influential group in Arabia for time to come, that was sufficient. If they knew his message, and heard it, and conveyed it to those absent, there would not be doubt. However, the reality is there existed hypocrites even from among those in Medina, but the situation was more grave in Makkah.

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. 

I adjure you by Allah to take this statement back, for i have never made it. What i said was there existed a greater proportion of hypocrites and trouble makers among the people of Makkah, and some of the surrounding regions, than those of Medina. Not only that, there existed people who would not have properly known of the virtues of Ali, were only freshly Muslims and would not have appreciated the declaration and assumed one thing or another. I have also been clear that among the people of Medina existed hypocrites. However, the people most likely who would have distorted, twisted and misunderstood his message - as well as understood it but rebelled out of hypocrisy, were in Makkah , and gathered from regions in and around Arabia.

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.

If you had studied our 'fabricated' religion you would have known our official position is Wilayah and Imamah are in the Quran. The Prophet ﷺ is the one who expounds on them and tells who the designated leaders are.  Furthermore, the Prophet not making a statement in front of a group does not mean it will not reach them. Are you aware that  the vast majority of the Sunnah for people living in Makkah, in and around Arabia and other locations in the empire was obtained from the primary narrators in Medina? They took almost all of their religion from them, while the Prophet had never directly and verbally told them anything. So this idea the Prophet has to tell you something directly for him to have done his job is weak, and can not be used.

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.

I have mentioned this before. The Prophet ﷺ for the vast majority of his life, dealt with the non-muslims. While he was faced with hypocrites in his own nation, the biggest threat for most if his prophethood were external enemies. However, when he realised that the very sensitive, and highly divisive issue of leadership after him would cause great internal friction, this worried him.

Why ? Because it is one thing when your enemy is external, but when the enemy becomes internal, it causes far more worry and concern. He was not scared of delivering the message, he would have done so, and he only hesitated. He was not ordered to do it, but knew he had to. When the verse came down to proclaim it, he obliged right away.

By the way, the majority of the companions had barely seen the Prophet ﷺ, and converted only at the very end. Many of them were ignorant of the truth, and we do not pass judgement on the bulk of them.  Many had freshly converted and returned to their lands. Many were women and children , and elderly, and those with no real power or influence.

[whoaretheshia]

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.

The Prophet ﷺ never ignored an important religious law. He knew he had to deliver it, but the choice of when was up to him. After seeing the worry in his heart and concern, the verses were revealed to give him confidence, strength and a firm time to deliver the message and he obliged.  There is a big difference between polytheists accusing you of lying - the enemy that is external which saddened him, and  your own community breaking up and the enemy now being internal. By attacking the enemy, the Ummah can still remain intact. But by knowing something may cause friction in your own community, this causes much more concern.

There's an African proverb which says : "If there's no enemy within, the enemy outside can do us no harm"

[MuslimK]

The Shia as usual make lots of assumptions that there were many hypocrites and that etc instead of providing academic evidence and response - as if he knows what was in the heart of large number of people while the Prophet (saw) had no clue.

[MuslimK]

Also, you said there were tens of thousands of people in Ghadir and in another post you mentioned the number 40-50 thousand. May I know, where did you get this info from?

[whoaretheshia]

The Shia as usual make lots of assumptions that there were many hypocrites and that etc instead of providing academic evidence and response - as if he knows what was in the heart of large number of people while the Prophet (saw) had no clue.

I provided an incredible amount of evidence, narrations, and clear and rational logic. If you read brother Hanis arguments against me, i will not put him down in any way, but any objective reader can clearly see they have been addressed robustly. I give credit where it is due, and there are some articles on here that make me question and do make me think harder , but everything i have been met with so far has been addressed.

[whoaretheshia]

Also, you said there were tens of thousands of people in Ghadir and in another post you mentioned the number 40-50 thousand. May I know, where did you get this info from?

Also, you said there were tens of thousands of people in Ghadir and in another post you mentioned the number 40-50 thousand. May I know, where did you get this info from?

Imam Shafie' estimated half of all of the companions by the end of the life of the Prophet ﷺ were from Medina. We know how many there had been at the farewell Hajj [90-120 thousand] and so i placed my estimate on the lower end of that, just to allow margin for error. While Imam Shafie' underestimated the total number of companions, i agree with how he has divided the proportion of the companions. I have not even factored in for the many who were not from Medina but also travelling north.

Here is my source brother:  [al-Dhahabi’s Tajrid Asmaa al-Sahaba and Ibn Kathir’s Ikhtisar ‘Uloum al-Hadith] where they cite Imam Shafi' claiming half of the companions at the time of the passing away of the Prophet ﷺ were from Medina, and half from outside of it.

Tens of thousands can also refer to forty or fifty thousand.  Realistically if you take into account the people of Medina and those going North in the same direction, there is an argument it could even have been sixty or seventy thousand.

[MuslimK]

I see! So the number you came up with is just your estimation which is questionable.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

This article is also benefitical on this topic. I suggest the readers to read this article as well.

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-ghadeer-khumm-event-as-understood-by-ahlelbayt-sahaba-ahlus-sunnah/

[whoaretheshia]

This article is also benefitical on this topic. I suggest the readers to read this article as well.

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-ghadeer-khumm-event-as-understood-by-ahlelbayt-sahaba-ahlus-sunnah/

Would you like a debate on Ghadeer Khumm?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

This article is also benefitical on this topic. I suggest the readers to read this article as well.

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-ghadeer-khumm-event-as-understood-by-ahlelbayt-sahaba-ahlus-sunnah/

Would you like a debate on Ghadeer Khumm?

Debate on what aspect of ghadeer?

Did you read the article THOROUGLY which I linked ? If yes, then on which aspect of this article you disagree? And do you feel that there is scope for a difference of opinion on that issue or not ?

[whoaretheshia]

I see! So the number you came up with is just your estimation which is questionable.

Brother, it is not questionable at all. Reliable sources tell us that around 100,000 or more were present at the farewell Hajj. Instead of claiming that number were present to witness the proclamation of the Prophet, all i have said is that we know from a number of sources Medinans at the time comprised of half of those Muslims and half of the representation at Hajj. Imam Shafi'e, one of the main four Imams, believed this. Furthermore, it was not only the Medinians, who travelled North, but also those in Northern tribes. We can assume safely that the number would have been around 40,0000 or 50,0000. Unless you have sources that prove otherwise, which i would be happy to accept and concede.

[whoaretheshia]

Debate on what aspect of ghadeer?

Did you read the article THOROUGLY which I linked ? If yes, then on which aspect of this article you disagree? And do you feel that there is scope for a difference of opinion on that issue or not ?

From the beginning. Let us make a debate thread on this forum , and have a one on one debate so others do not dilute our conversation. Not only have i read that article several times, i have read variants of it , and i have spent years reflecting on it.

I will leave the ball in your court dear brother, if you would like a robust debate on this issue. It will be respectful, and maybe you will convince me or maybe i will convince you. Or perhaps, we may both leave with a better understanding of the view of the other.

What do you say?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Debate on what aspect of ghadeer?

Did you read the article THOROUGLY which I linked ? If yes, then on which aspect of this article you disagree? And do you feel that there is scope for a difference of opinion on that issue or not ?

From the beginning. Let us make a debate thread on this forum , and have a one on one debate so others do not dilute our conversation. Not only have i read that article several times, i have read variants of it , and i have spent years reflecting on it.

I will leave the ball in your court dear brother, if you would like a robust debate on this issue. It will be respectful, and maybe you will convince me or maybe i will convince you. Or perhaps, we may both leave with a better understanding of the view of the other.

What do you say?

You haven't answered my other questions. Please answer them, because it's hard these days for me to indulge in a debate due to lack of free time.

[whoaretheshia]

You haven't answered my other questions. Please answer them, because it's hard these days for me to indulge in a debate due to lack of free time.

As you can read on this thread dear brother, i have spent a lot of time in writing a rebuttal and debating others on the contents of what was written. InshAllah, because they have banned my website on this forum, i will make a thread and post the main article on here.  Do take a look at what i have already posted on here, as i have been through this debate with another user.

I understand real life can sometimes be busy, and it should take priority. However, any debate we have can be over a few months. You can post once a week, and i can reply and wait for you until you are ready. I will ultimately respect your wish however.

[whoaretheshia]

I see! So the number you came up with is just your estimation which is questionable.

If brother Noor does not wish to debate me, then as the owner of the first Sunni website dedicated to Ghadir Khumm, i challenge you to a respectful debate on the matter. What do you have to say regarding this brother?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

As you can read on this thread dear brother, i have spent a lot of time in writing a rebuttal and debating others on the contents of what was written. InshAllah, because they have banned my website on this forum, i will make a thread and post the main article on here.  Do take a look at what i have already posted on here, as i have been through this debate with another user.

This is not a straight answer to my question brother. Since you have read that article, then tell me with what aspect of that article, do you disagree ?

Do you disagree with everything?

If you disagree with some aspect and not all, then what is that?

I like that article because therein you find the aspect of the understanding of hadeeth al ghadeer by Sahaba and Ahlelbayt, and their understanding of the term Mawla, and their unawareness of appointment of a leader After Prophet Muhammad(saws). So do you disagree with this aspect?

[whoaretheshia]

As you can read on this thread dear brother, i have spent a lot of time in writing a rebuttal and debating others on the contents of what was written. InshAllah, because they have banned my website on this forum, i will make a thread and post the main article on here.  Do take a look at what i have already posted on here, as i have been through this debate with another user.

This is not a straight answer to my question brother. Since you have read that article, then tell me with what aspect of that article, do you disagree ?

Do you disagree with everything?

If you disagree with some aspect and not all, then what is that?

I like that article because therein you find the aspect of the understanding of hadeeth al ghadeer by Sahaba and Ahlelbayt, and their understanding of the term Mawla, and their unawareness of appointment of a leader After Prophet Muhammad(saws). So do you disagree with this aspect?

I understand what you are asking brother. What i essentially am saying is, given we have published a rebuttal on our website [] , and have been debated Hani and others on the contents of the website, and broken down that article and the classical Sunni response, rather than repeating myself again, it would be easier to either refer you to read the debate i have had on here , and refer to the rebuttal on the website. You could also engage in a debate or dialogue , and it could be over a week, four weeks , months or any time period that is most suitable for you. We could go point by point through that article. I need to assist with some real life matters, i will be publishing the full response on TSN soon, and summarise the main points for you as well, InshAllah.

However, most of what is in that article is highly suspect and questionable. The one part i will accept is that those from Makkah and from southern Arabia probably did not accompany the Prophet ﷺ up to Ghadir Khumm. This has little bearing on the issue however.

[Hani]

There we go again with the newspapers, ok either you write ONE post and summarize your points or someone else can bother reading and responding.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

As you can read on this thread dear brother, i have spent a lot of time in writing a rebuttal and debating others on the contents of what was written. InshAllah, because they have banned my website on this forum, i will make a thread and post the main article on here.  Do take a look at what i have already posted on here, as i have been through this debate with another user.

This is not a straight answer to my question brother. Since you have read that article, then tell me with what aspect of that article, do you disagree ?

Do you disagree with everything?

If you disagree with some aspect and not all, then what is that?

I like that article because therein you find the aspect of the understanding of hadeeth al ghadeer by Sahaba and Ahlelbayt, and their understanding of the term Mawla, and their unawareness of appointment of a leader After Prophet Muhammad(saws). So do you disagree with this aspect?

I understand what you are asking brother. What i essentially am saying is, given we have published a rebuttal on our website [] , and have been debated Hani and others on the contents of the website, and broken down that article and the classical Sunni response, rather than repeating myself again, it would be easier to either refer you to read the debate i have had on here , and refer to the rebuttal on the website. You could also engage in a debate or dialogue , and it could be over a week, four weeks , months or any time period that is most suitable for you. We could go point by point through that article. I need to assist with some real life matters, i will be publishing the full response on TSN soon, and summarise the main points for you as well, InshAllah.

However, most of what is in that article is highly suspect and questionable. The one part i will accept is that those from Makkah and from southern Arabia probably did not accompany the Prophet ﷺ up to Ghadir Khumm. This has little bearing on the issue however.

I don't think you discussed with hani regarding the article of youpuncturedtheark. It's a different article. And I'm not convinced with your response.

So again, I ask a simple question, which I'm interested in discussing.

[quoteI like that article because therein you find the aspect of the understanding of hadeeth al ghadeer by Sahaba and Ahlelbayt, and their understanding of the term Mawla, and their unawareness of appointment of a leader After Prophet Muhammad(saws). So do you disagree with this aspect?