TwelverShia.net Forum

Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

glorfindel

Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« on: July 18, 2017, 05:35:40 AM »
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MWI2kyo77IU

To be honest the Shia fella did much better then Mohammed Hijab in this one.

To answer his question - we do see people electing each other to lead, in the battle of Mutah the Prophet (saw) appointed three commanders, Abdullah bin Rawaha, Jafar bin Abi-Talib and Zaid bin Haritha.  When people asked him what should we do if they are all martyred the prophet (saw) said "appoint your own commander" and they did (they chose Khalid bin Walid) this is also mentioned in Hayat Al-Qulub by At-Tabrasi <= Shia Reference.

As per the rules of the previous discussion what Mohammed Hijab should have concentrated on was the discussion of the Qati' evidence from Quran and the mutawatir Sunnah for the belief of Imamah.

Also why doesn't anyone ask the Shia why they quote from Sunni books? If they are talking about Ghadir etc, bring from your own books because it is only the Murtadeen/Nasibi companions narrating all of these things aren't they...kind of defeats the point doesn't it?

Ma' As-Salama.

ANTI-MAJOS - Kas-SAHEL!

  • ***
  • Total likes: 18
  • +1/-0
  • إن الرافضة قوم لا عقل لهم ولا نقل
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2017, 06:56:22 AM »
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MWI2kyo77IU

To be honest the Shia fella did much better then Mohammed Hijab in this one.

To answer his question - we do see people electing each other to lead, in the battle of Mutah the Prophet (saw) appointed three commanders, Abdullah bin Rawaha, Jafar bin Abi-Talib and Zaid bin Haritha.  When people asked him what should we do if they are all martyred the prophet (saw) said "appoint your own commander" and they did (they chose Khalid bin Walid) this is also mentioned in Hayat Al-Qulub by At-Tabrasi <= Shia Reference.

As per the rules of the previous discussion what Mohammed Hijab should have concentrated on was the discussion of the Qati' evidence from Quran and the mutawatir Sunnah for the belief of Imamah.

Also why doesn't anyone ask the Shia why they quote from Sunni books? If they are talking about Ghadir etc, bring from your own books because it is only the Murtadeen/Nasibi companions narrating all of these things aren't they...kind of defeats the point doesn't it?

Ma' As-Salama.

The question the Rafidi constantly repeated could have been answered easily responded to by pointing out the FALLACY of his notion which is:

"ALLAH always chooses DIVINELY appointed leaders, this is the Sunnah of Allah, is there a single case where the people choose their divine leader"

This is like asking: Can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? You see, a false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. So of course all DIVINE leaders are choosen by Allah only and not the people, but who said that his 12 Imams are DIVENELY choosen leaders? Are they Prophets? NO! Is there a text in the Qur'an and Sunnah stating that Allah has chosen them? NO! So they are not included in the list of Prophet's and other clearly APPOINTED individuals, especially since with our Prophet (saws) the seal of Prophecy occured.

And the Prophet (saws) and the Ahl Al-Bayt did not just elect commanders who were free to elect others, the Prophet (saws) left the city of Madinah numerous time under the authority of Sahabah such as Abu Dharr, Abu Dujana and many others. Remember, Madinah was THE capital of Islam, yet the Prophet (saws) did not always chose 'Ali (only once). 'Ali himself then appointed GOVERNOURS to rule VAST lands, this itself destroys the Shia myth that only infallible and perfect people can rule over us, it is a wishful and unrealistic thinking.

Pearl

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2017, 07:48:21 AM »


Also why doesn't anyone ask the Shia why they quote from Sunni books? If they are talking about Ghadir etc, bring from your own books because it is only the Murtadeen/Nasibi companions narrating all of these things aren't they...kind of defeats the point doesn't it?

Ma' As-Salama.
It's because the Shias think that the  Sunnis believe that their source is authentic especially the Hadith books in fact they think we treat the Hadith books like Quran.

Hadrami

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2017, 11:18:27 AM »
ok, so Allah appointed a leader for us. Now, where is this leader again?

glorfindel

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2017, 01:53:18 PM »

The question the Rafidi constantly repeated could have been answered easily responded to by pointing out the FALLACY of his notion which is:

"ALLAH always chooses DIVINELY appointed leaders, this is the Sunnah of Allah, is there a single case where the people choose their divine leader"

This is like asking: Can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? You see, a false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. So of course all DIVINE leaders are choosen by Allah only and not the people, but who said that his 12 Imams are DIVENELY choosen leaders? Are they Prophets? NO! Is there a text in the Qur'an and Sunnah stating that Allah has chosen them? NO! So they are not included in the list of Prophet's and other clearly APPOINTED individuals, especially since with our Prophet (saws) the seal of Prophecy occured.

And the Prophet (saws) and the Ahl Al-Bayt did not just elect commanders who were free to elect others, the Prophet (saws) left the city of Madinah numerous time under the authority of Sahabah such as Abu Dharr, Abu Dujana and many others. Remember, Madinah was THE capital of Islam, yet the Prophet (saws) did not always chose 'Ali (only once). 'Ali himself then appointed GOVERNOURS to rule VAST lands, this itself destroys the Shia myth that only infallible and perfect people can rule over us, it is a wishful and unrealistic thinking.

I think the thing that most people are forgetting is that this is not a new tactic.  When the Shia guy was saying (sorry I don't know his name) is that within the corpus of Islamic Theology there is enough latitude to believe that Rasulallah (saw) has appointed someone to lead the Ummah after his demise; if you concede this then the next logical step is who is this appointed person - for them it is Ali ibn Abi-Talib (ra), whether he appoints 11 after him or 4, or 6 is beside the point.  If this appointed Imam decides to add to the theology of Islam you have to accept it also.


It's because the Shias think that the  Sunnis believe that their source is authentic especially the Hadith books in fact they think we treat the Hadith books like Quran.

The point I was trying to make was that for example the Hadith of Kisa is narrated by 'Aisha (ra) there is no chain in the Shia books going back to this incident - so why do you accept this from Aisha (ra) who they accuse of many horrible things.

Ma'a Salama.

GreatChineseFall

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2017, 03:10:21 PM »
There is another problem with his question he keeps asking. He keeps reminding that leaders were always appointed by Allah from Adam to Muhammad and he asks, is there any reference where Allah said to His Servants, go choose your own leader or is it just assumed that it is allowed? The way to counter this and bring the topic back to Imamah at the same time is as follows:

First of all, it's not true that it is proven that there always was appointment by Allah concerning the selection of leaders. There could be millions and millions of leaders not appointed by Allah. Yes, there is no reference for this and I AM assuming and this is not a problem at all. I am assuming, because assuming about what is possible is allowed, unlike assuming about what is true. The shia's are the ones who are really assuming in a dangerous fashion here, because they assume something to be true, ie the continued presence of divinely chosen leaders throughout the existence of humankindas a whole.

Second of all, there is a difference between considering something to be permissible and considering something to be obligatory. In order to consider something to be obligatory, especially something so foundational, can not be justified from some random general verse, it must be specifically pointed out. Not only that, if you really want to speak about the sunnah of Allah, it is also the Sunnah of Allah to repetitively point that out. Whereas considering something permissible, you don't necessarily need a specific instruction, a general instruction can be fine too unless there is something specific forbidding it. For example a general command to eat that which is good can be used to justify the eating of apples. Likewise, a general command to do good can be enough to elect a leader, if you can justify the election of leaders to be something good. In contrast, an obligation to exclusively eat bananas and nothing else, no general command can be sufficient here. You must have a specific instruction to defend such a view.

So, when could the election of leaders be considered as something good? Well, for starters both Sunni and Shia agree that there must be a leader to lead a community. So if the current leader dies and Allah doesn't select a new leader, then automatically a leader must be chosen and is something praiseworthy. Pair that with the verse commanding consultation regarding the affairs of the believers and you are basically done. No one is saying that the selection of Allah can be put aside and election should take place instead. This is only when there is no selection by Allah to begin with. There is no way any Shia can disagree with this, but this is considering a hypothetical situation. The only thing they can say is that such a situation will never occur but this is their assumption. Again, I can assume things to be possible, he can't assume anything to be true or not true unless he proves that. So he has his work cut out for him to prove that there will always be leaders chosen from Allah, because he will never be able to prove this.

glorfindel

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2017, 04:35:23 PM »
There is another problem with his question he keeps asking. He keeps reminding that leaders were always appointed by Allah from Adam to Muhammad and he asks, is there any reference where Allah said to His Servants, go choose your own leader or is it just assumed that it is allowed? The way to counter this and bring the topic back to Imamah at the same time is as follows:

First of all, it's not true that it is proven that there always was appointment by Allah concerning the selection of leaders. There could be millions and millions of leaders not appointed by Allah. Yes, there is no reference for this and I AM assuming and this is not a problem at all. I am assuming, because assuming about what is possible is allowed, unlike assuming about what is true. The shia's are the ones who are really assuming in a dangerous fashion here, because they assume something to be true, ie the continued presence of divinely chosen leaders throughout the existence of humankindas a whole.

Second of all, there is a difference between considering something to be permissible and considering something to be obligatory. In order to consider something to be obligatory, especially something so foundational, can not be justified from some random general verse, it must be specifically pointed out. Not only that, if you really want to speak about the sunnah of Allah, it is also the Sunnah of Allah to repetitively point that out. Whereas considering something permissible, you don't necessarily need a specific instruction, a general instruction can be fine too unless there is something specific forbidding it. For example a general command to eat that which is good can be used to justify the eating of apples. Likewise, a general command to do good can be enough to elect a leader, if you can justify the election of leaders to be something good. In contrast, an obligation to exclusively eat bananas and nothing else, no general command can be sufficient here. You must have a specific instruction to defend such a view.

So, when could the election of leaders be considered as something good? Well, for starters both Sunni and Shia agree that there must be a leader to lead a community. So if the current leader dies and Allah doesn't select a new leader, then automatically a leader must be chosen and is something praiseworthy. Pair that with the verse commanding consultation regarding the affairs of the believers and you are basically done. No one is saying that the selection of Allah can be put aside and election should take place instead. This is only when there is no selection by Allah to begin with. There is no way any Shia can disagree with this, but this is considering a hypothetical situation. The only thing they can say is that such a situation will never occur but this is their assumption. Again, I can assume things to be possible, he can't assume anything to be true or not true unless he proves that. So he has his work cut out for him to prove that there will always be leaders chosen from Allah, because he will never be able to prove this.

The way I have always understood this within the paradigm of Allah choosing people is as follows:

Allah chose certain people to be:

1. Prophets
2. Messengers
3. Imams
4. Kings

With respect to first 3 they are inclusive of the stations preceding them, i.e. a Messenger cannot be a Messenger without being a Prophet in the first place, similarly the example of Imam is that in the Quran the example of Ibrahim is that he is a prophet/messenger as well as an Imam - there are no examples of Imams who are not prophets/messengers appointed by Allah.

As for Kings, Imams and kings are distinct and different.

Ma'a Salama.

Rationalist

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2017, 05:46:20 PM »
Hijab wasn't well prepared on this one. When the 12er Shia countered his point on Caliphate about how Abi Bakr wasn't elected, he could have easily pointed out that Ali wasn't was appointed through Nass when he became the 4th Calipah. Next, Ali himself doesn't use any of the hadith to justify his caliphate. He just states he was more suited for the position.

ZulFiqar

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2017, 11:18:20 PM »
In my humble opinion Muhammad Hijab made the mistake of saying there is valid Ikhtilaaf among Ahlus Sunnah regarding the khilaafah of sayyidina Abi Bakr Radi Allahu anhu, i.e., whether he was elected through consultation, or divinely appointed through being directly named by the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam. The latter is a minority opinion which ought to be dismissed as it clearly goes against the historical record. By refusing to take a position on the issue himself, Hijab opened himself up to a bold attack by the Shi'i debater. There is a sound Hadith:

عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ اقْتَدُوا بِاللَّذَيْنِ مِنْ بَعْدِي أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ
"Stick to those after me, Abu Bakr and Umar" (Jaami at-Tirmidhi: Isnaaduhu Hasan)

But this is Khabr (prophecy) and not explicit divine appointment.

The Jarudiyya sect of the Zaydi Shi'a believe that the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam appointed Sayyidina Ali b. Abi Talib Karam Allah Wajhahu through description and not by name. The belief of Ahlus Sunnah about the Khilafa of Abi Bakr Radi Allahu anhu is something similar to this, i.e., that the Prophet hinted to his Sahaaba that Abu Bakr should be the Successor after him. But this isn't divine appointment (at least in the sense that Shi'a understand the term "divine appointment".
« Last Edit: July 18, 2017, 11:19:37 PM by ZulFiqar »

ZulFiqar

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2017, 11:55:46 PM »
The Shi'a say that the Prophet's Successor or the Imam of the Ummah has to be divinely appointed by name. Why not point out to them that based on this premise the government of every single Muslim country is illegitimate? This includes the government of Iran based on Wilayat al Faqih. Was Khomeini or Khamanei divinely appointed to lead? If the Shi'a say that Khomeini and Khamanei are not leaders in their essence, but are agents and representatives of the Absent 12th Imam; then that is the same concept of Khilaafah with the Sunnis, i.e., that the Prophet's Khalifa has the same authority, not derived from his essence but in his being the Prophet's representative and successor, as the Iranian "Supreme Leader" is the Hidden Imam's representative and agent.

Whenever I debate with a Shi'i, I never miss an opportunity to drag the concept of Wilaayat-al-Faqeeh into the discussion, it always catches them off guard

ZulFiqar

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2017, 12:08:53 AM »
In this debate, the Shi'i gentleman put forward the challenge to provide a precedent (from the Quraan al Kareem) about someone given leadership through consultation and election. However, it is not necessary to disprove the Shi'ite concept of divinely appointed Imamate and the Wilaayah of everyone else being invalid and usurpation simply by pointing to a precedent of a leader being appointed through consultation. The appointment of a leader through bequeathing, as is the case with monarchy, is also enough to disprove the Shi'ite concept, if that leadership is acknowledged as righteous. The Shi'a not only reject leader appointed through consultation, but also leadership that is inherited i.e. dynastic rule.

In the Quraan al-Kareem:


وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِ يَا قَوْمِ اذْكُرُوا نِعْمَةَ اللَّـهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ جَعَلَ فِيكُمْ أَنبِيَاءَ وَجَعَلَكُم مُّلُوكًا وَآتَاكُم مَّا لَمْ يُؤْتِ أَحَدًا مِّنَ الْعَالَمِينَ
And when Moses said to his people, "O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you Prophets and made you Possessors (Kings) and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds." (Sura 5:20)

Hence it is proven that the Mulook (Kings) that appeared among Bani Israel were a Ni'mah (divine blessing). Now it remains to be seen whether each and every one of these righteous Kings who ruled over Bani Israel were divinely appointed by name by Allah, or if some of them inherited power without being divinely appoint. Certainly, many of the Kings were divinely appointed by Name by Allah (such as Talut), and likewise those Kings who were simultaneously Prophets (Dawud, Suleman alaihuma as salaam). However, there were many other Kings, from both the northern Kingdom of Israel, and the southern Kingdom of Judah, who were righteous kings, but were not divinely appointed by name by Allah, yet Allah refers to their Kingship as a Ni'mah.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 12:10:45 AM by ZulFiqar »

ZulFiqar

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2017, 12:36:29 AM »
The Negus (AsHama) was the emperor of Ethiopia. He was not divinely appointed by name by Allah to rule over Ethiopia. Yet the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam did not object to his kingship. This is a mistake to think that the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam was sent to remove all kings and rulers of the Earth who were not divinely appointed by Allah. He wrote in his letter to Caesar Heraclius:

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ مِنْ مُحَمَّدٍ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ إِلَى هِرَقْلَ عَظِيمِ الرُّومِ سَلاَمٌ عَلَى مَنِ اتَّبَعَ الْهُدَى أَمَّا بَعْدُ فَإِنِّي أَدْعُوكَ بِدِعَايَةِ الإِسْلاَمِ أَسْلِمْ تَسْلَمْ وَأَسْلِمْ يُؤْتِكَ اللَّهُ أَجْرَكَ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَإِنْ تَوَلَّيْتَ فَإِنَّ عَلَيْكَ إِثْمَ الأَرِيسِيِّينَ

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious and Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Hiraql, the Emperor of the Romans. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. After this, I extend to you the invitation to accept Islam. Embrace Islam and you will be safe. Accept Islam, God will give you double the reward. And if you turn away, upon you will be the sin of your subjects.

So it is evident that the Prophet Sallallahu alaih wasallam did not command Heraclius to vacate his throne since he was not divinely appointed. Instead, he only invited him to Islam, and stated that if the emperor accepted Islam, he would be safe in his position. The Prophet Sallallahu alaihi wasallam even acknowledged the position of Heraclius when he referred to him as Azeem ar-Room.


GreatChineseFall

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2017, 01:00:15 PM »
The way I have always understood this within the paradigm of Allah choosing people is as follows:

Allah chose certain people to be:

1. Prophets
2. Messengers
3. Imams
4. Kings

With respect to first 3 they are inclusive of the stations preceding them, i.e. a Messenger cannot be a Messenger without being a Prophet in the first place, similarly the example of Imam is that in the Quran the example of Ibrahim is that he is a prophet/messenger as well as an Imam - there are no examples of Imams who are not prophets/messengers appointed by Allah.

As for Kings, Imams and kings are distinct and different.

Ma'a Salama.

I dont think that is correct, people have a very distorted view of Allah choosing

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2017, 01:29:11 PM »
The guys in the background were annoying.

At the end the shia guy says there's no examples of the prophet SAW calling anyone other than Ali as wali or maula or Imam.

Yet Hijab showed that Allah SWT refers to the believer as Wali in the Quran & also Ali refers to himself as being elected & quotes the 3 before him as Imams.

For me this end part was probably the most concise part of the discussion.

ZulFiqar

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2017, 06:17:52 PM »
At the end the shia guy says there's no examples of the prophet SAW calling anyone other than Ali as wali or maula or Imam.


the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)  said to Zaid b. Harithah:
أَنْتَ أَخُونَا وَمَوْلاَنَا
“You are our brother and our Mawlaa” (Bukhari)

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2017, 06:49:19 PM »
The shia would claim its fabricated.

So good job Hijab quoted the Quran & nahj ul balagha one of the shi'ites main sources.


ZulFiqar

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2017, 07:14:36 PM »
The shia would claim its fabricated.

So good job Hijab quoted the Quran & nahj ul balagha one of the shi'ites main sources.

The Shī’a argue that the Prophet ﷺ named sayyidina ‘Ali as ‘Wali’ and ‘Mawlā’, whereas the Verses in the Qur’ān al-Karīm are generic and do not identify any individual by name. Since the Shī’a reference our sources when arguing about the Khilāfa bilā Fasl of sayyidina ‘Ali (Karam Allāh Wajhahu) through Hadīth al-Ghadīr, therefore, it only makes sense to respond with our Ahādīth in which the words ‘Wali’ and ‘Mawlā’ have been applied to other individuals by name, hence why I cited the Hadīth wherein Zayd b. Hāritha is called ‘Mawlā’.

MuslimK

  • *****
  • Total likes: 227
  • +8/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2017, 08:15:42 PM »
The guys in the background were annoying.

At the end the shia guy says there's no examples of the prophet SAW calling anyone other than Ali as wali or maula or Imam.

Yet Hijab showed that Allah SWT refers to the believer as Wali in the Quran & also Ali refers to himself as being elected & quotes the 3 before him as Imams.

For me this end part was probably the most concise part of the discussion.

For those who are wondering here is the clip of that part:

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

ANTI-MAJOS - Kas-SAHEL!

  • ***
  • Total likes: 18
  • +1/-0
  • إن الرافضة قوم لا عقل لهم ولا نقل
  • Religion: Sunni
Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2017, 05:48:57 PM »
The Rafida's argument is a logical fallacy based on wrong premises. Let me share with you guys this beautiful article that I found online:

Wasiyy وصِي

A spiritual legatee; inheritor; someone nominated to succeed in political and spiritual sense.

Primarily a word of Shi`as theology coinage, meaning those who were nominated to succeed a prominently spiritual authority. Their belief is that every Messenger left a legatee behind him and that the legatee (wasiyy) of Prophet Muahmmad was `Ali b. abi Talib; and that `Ali left a will that he should be succeeded by Hassan, and so on, until the twelfth Imam. In fact, Hassan b. Ali promptly withdrew from Imamah, in favour of Mu`awiyyah and to the applause of the Ahl al-Bayt, fulfilling a prophetic prediction.

However, history does not reveal that `Ali left any will in favor of Hassan as his successor; nor did the Prophet leave any will in favor of `Ali.

It is alleged that at the time of his death the Prophet asked for pen and paper (saying, “So that you will not be lost after me”), but the Companions prevented him from writing because they were afraid that `Ali would be nominated the successor (wasiyy). The report is correct, but the allegation that the Companions did not produce pen and paper because they feared `Ali’s nomination, is wrong. There are several problems in such a conclusion.

1. The Companions did not know that the Prophet was going to die in a few day’s time to infer that he wished to nominate someone.

2. The Prophet recovered, and was alive for several days. He could have got it written down by others. He had several secretaries writing Revelations for him.

3. He could have said the same thing to any of those around him, e.g., Fatimah, `Ali, `Abbas and others who were frequenting him.

4. The Prophet said something (in a report well-published by the Shi`as) to Fatimah in secret which made her cry and then smile. It was about her own death. Fatimah revealed this after his death. If `Ali had been nominated, Fatimah would have revealed it.

5. One of the easiest ways of nominating `Ali would have been to appoint him the Imam in Prayers. But the Prophet appointed Abu Bakr. He did not even agree with `Umar as the Imam.

6. In his last moments the Prophet spoke of things that concerned him most: women’s treatment, slaves’ welfare, importance of Prayers, not taking graves as places of worship (!) etc. Those were his last words, and things of first concern. But he never said anything, nor dropped a hint about `Ali’s succession.

7. Throughout his career, the Prophet never spoke of the concept of a necessary wasiyy of every renowned spiritual personality. In fact, he did not use the word “wasiyy” with the Shi`as concept in any Sahih hadith, but rather he said, “Scholars are the inheritors of Prophet.” If the concepts of wasiyy” and “ wasiyyah” hold central place in the scheme, the Prophet would have explained it in a most thorough fashion, as was his habit about important issues, and would not have left it for the Shi`as scholars to expound it several centuries after him.

8. The concept – treated as the central pillar of Shi`aism is missing from the Quran altogether, where we find Prophet Ya`qub (delivering the wasiyyah) enjoining his children to remain on Tawhid until death, and nothing else.

As regards the Hadith that the Prophet said to `Ali that ‘you are to me like Harun was to Musa,’ and the Shi`as inference that it means `Ali was the wasiyy, first of all, none of the Companions – not even `Ali - understood the words as meaning `Ali should be the first Khalifah after him, secondly, perhaps the majority of Shi`as do not know that Harun – the supposed wasiyy of Musa– died before Musa.

Some of the earliest Shi`as have gone to such extent to say that since `Ali did not claim the Khalifah during the reigns of Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman, despite the Prophet’s instruction, he committed kufr, and broke away as sub-sects.

An Orientalists cleverly used the occasion to inject poison into the readers’ mind. Defining the term “WASI”, he wrote in the Brill Encyclopedia of Islam:

It was first used to designate `Ali as the inheritor of Muhammad’s worldly possessions (such as his books and weapons) and of his political and spiritual authority.

If someone points out the sneaky introduction of “books,” they would immediately say how sorry they are for the slip.

Hani

Re: Mohammed Hijab vs Shia Intellectual in The Park
« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2017, 09:44:51 PM »
Wasi was a word attributed to `Ali because many of his early Shia believed the Prophet (saw) made a Wasiyyah for him (i.e instructed him) to pay off his debts after his death.

Nothing to do with appointment or politics. Many people were also Awsiya (plural. Wasi) of the Prophet (saw) in that he gave them specific instructions to carry out after his death.

Later Shia adopted the word Wasi and coined a special theological meaning to it: "Spiritual & political heir" the same way they adopted the term Imam and coined a special theological meaning for it: "Infallible divinely appointed leader".
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

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
458 Views
Last post November 26, 2016, 01:29:51 AM
by ummahboard.com
13 Replies
2273 Views
Last post June 23, 2017, 07:02:07 PM
by Muhammad Tazin
2 Replies
230 Views
Last post October 03, 2017, 12:22:14 AM
by Hadrami
1 Replies
119 Views
Last post January 02, 2018, 11:30:30 AM
by Noor-us-Sunnah