The Sulaiman inheriting Dawood would only negate the issue of Yushua not being mentioned in the Quran. However, the following remains standing:
No, that’s not the only thing it negates, in fact that wasn’t even what I was trying to refute.
I was refuting the notion that this implies Ali رضي الله عنه is the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم’s successor because it was a temporary leadership position. If he عليه الصلاة والسلام was going to use this as some sort of appointment of that Ali was supposed to succeed him, then he would’ve used the Sulayman/Dawood عليهما السلام example.
Harun is the alwa to successorship of Musa, such that, if he outlives Musa he would succeed him.
But that’s not what happened is it. There’s no need to use such an example when a much better one exists and wouldn’t cause any doubts.
Harun was by which the knot of the tongue of Musa was lifted and his chest expanded, and this role he had DURING the life of Musa, Mohammad wanted to emphasize Ali had that too which was the role he had as the door to the house of wisdom.
As a side point, I’m always shocked by how easily Shi’is use the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم’s first name so loosely when talking about him, خير إن شاء الله. In any case, how do you know that’s what the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم wanted? When was it that Ali رضي الله عنه was used as to “lift the knot of the tongue” and “expand the chest” of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم “DURING HIS LIFETIME?” Can’t we use examples of other Sahaba aiding the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم during his lifetime as example that they were like Harun was to Musa عليهما السلام? One example that comes to mind is the story of Um Salama رضي الله عنها at the treaty of Hudaybiyah.
5) Allah and Rasool knew the deniers of the manzilah would convey but interpret illogically, and hence, this was an appropriate thing to mention and safeguard Ali's Role.
Again, this is just utter speculation on your part basically implying you know what Allah and His Messenger want. Again, I point to you time and time again that I disagree with your logic, and so do the majority of Muslim scholars; even the most extreme of Sufis who attribute themselves to Ali رضي الله عنه don’t understand that hadeeth in that way.
Furthermore, you keep pulling out the logic card. Yet I want to know, according to which rules of logic? I don’t see you following any rules that I remember learning about neither from the Greeks nor the Muslim scholars.
Finally, if this hadeeth leads to several different opinions, then it cannot be an Asl for the religion. I can’t quote “The Fire, they are exposed to it, morning and afternoon.” (40:46) as explicit evidence for the Punishment of the Grave and make it a basis for this religion because there are several different interpretations possible. This is one of the major disagreements between the mainstream Muslims scholars and those of the Baatini sects such as the Twelvers and the Ismailiyah, for the mainstream scholars, a Nass is something that can’t be interpreted in two different ways; this is why none of the Twelver evidences are considered Nusoos in the Usooli sense.
Furthermore your statement that Harun was only temporary leader can be said about every Prophet. They are only on earth temporarily. But we see in Quran Harun is such that he is by which the knot of Musa is untied and Musa's breast expanded meaning the teachings on the tongue of Harun were important to Bani-Israel. He was the key to understanding the message of Musa such that without Harun, Musa felt his tongue didn't convey what was in his heart of the truth and his breast was constricted. And we similarly Ali is the door to the house of wisdom.
Again, your logic doesn’t add up; but this is really just a restatement of what you said earlier. However, your statement that the statement that the Prophet’s are temporary leaders is incorrect because the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم is this Ummah’s leader in religious matters until the Day of Judgement. Therefore, unless you show us how Ali رضي الله عنه has that exclusive role, your argument will have been shown to be false. Also, don’t forget that you must prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt because this is so important that it caused the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم to use the Harun/Musa example instead of the Sulayman/Dawood example, which would’ve been more helpful for your theologly.
So pardon me, but, what do you mean all he had was temporary leadership? Isn't this case of Dawood and Sulaiman as well. They were temporary leaders?
No, I don’t think you are being genuine here, you know full well that what we mean is that this was temporary during the life of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. Harun عليه السلام was also temporarily in charge until Musa عليه السلام returned, unlike Sulayman عليه السلام who was in charge after Dawood عليه السلام. I’m really surprised you wanted me to explain that to you.
Does it mean there words are not binding authority from God? Of course not. Does it mean their leadership is like leadership of other people? Of course not.
Exactly, this is why the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم’s leadership is not temporary despite what you implied بارك الله فيك.
And Harun's place with Musa was such that he would be the one to take his place in his absence. The same is true of Ali. So this shows beyond doubt Ali is his first successor.
Yet the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “If you don’t find me go to Abu Bakr.” And countless incidents from the Seerah show that it was not always true of Ali رضي الله عنه. Obviously he is one of the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم’s main deputies, but he was not the only one. However, based on your logic, the only thing this would show beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Abu Bakr is his first successor. Remember, this is called ilzaam in Islamic logic, I do not agree with your logic; I’m just showing the logical conclusion of your thought.
والله أعلم
42 Replies
10506 Views
July 14, 2015, 08:18:37 AM