Twelve Leaders of Quraysh

[muslim720]

[do excuse my ignorance] so whose interpretation is right? or both are wrong? any evidence to back it ip? 

I will excuse your ignorance hoping you are not an ignorant like Iceman who will engage in a discussion by posing question after question.

Whose interpretation is right, you asked!  My original statement was, "Every verse that Shias present to support Imamah is a verse they have interpreted according to their desires". 

The Qur'an cannot be interpreted according to our desires so you know who is in the wrong.  If you are still confused, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah has concrete evidence for the way they interpret the Qur'an.  Our interpretation goes back to the Prophet (saw) or the reliable Sahaba (ra) who narrated the interpretation from the Prophet (saw).

The evidence for my claim is our hadiths and their quality.  The Shi'i hadiths, and their "sciences", pale in comparison.

[iceman]

I will excuse your ignorance hoping you are not an ignorant like Iceman who will engage in a discussion by posing question after question.

Whose interpretation is right, you asked!  My original statement was, "Every verse that Shias present to support Imamah is a verse they have interpreted according to their desires". 

The Qur'an cannot be interpreted according to our desires so you know who is in the wrong.  If you are still confused, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah has concrete evidence for the way they interpret the Qur'an.  Our interpretation goes back to the Prophet (saw) or the reliable Sahaba (ra) who narrated the interpretation from the Prophet (saw).

The evidence for my claim is our hadiths and their quality.  The Shi'i hadiths, and their "sciences", pale in comparison.

i

"I will excuse your ignorance hoping you are not an ignorant like Iceman"

He also won't insult and humiliate anyone's mother on social media. 😊 My dear we are SHIA and Alhamdulilah our manners (Ikhlaq) and character comes from the AHLUL BAYTH. This is exactly where we take our religion from.

Which question haven't I answered and what point haven't I addressed. Talk to me.  Don't talk about me or behind me. 😊

[Mythbuster1]

i

"I will excuse your ignorance hoping you are not an ignorant like Iceman"

He also won't insult and humiliate anyone's mother on social media. 😊 My dear we are SHIA and Alhamdulilah our manners (Ikhlaq) and character comes from the AHLUL BAYTH. This is exactly where we take our religion from.

Which question haven't I answered and what point haven't I addressed. Talk to me.  Don't talk about me or behind me. 😊

Yea tatbir comes from ahle baith according to shiites cursing the sahaba and wives come from Shiites who follow ahle baith and a whole lot of lies to follow through with that, so I don’t think it’s ahle baith you follow but a certain individual who started the ball rolling you know his name the one and only Ibn Saba👏😁

You cannot provide a clear verse from the Quran without adding your desires to it as can be seen in your post responses to me........I BEAR WITNESS TO THAT😉👍

Alhamdulillah

[wannabe]

When Prophet was around he was the  divine authority over  Quran and Sunnah. After his demise, Quran and Sunnah is authoritative only if there's an authority whose interpretation of Quran and Sunnah is acknowledged and accepted by all, to dispel any dispute.

this is not my own little theory. it's what i understand from Al Kafi V 1 – The Book Of Divine Authority CH 1 H 4.
the following is an excerpt from it.
"I was in the presence of Imam abu 'Abdallah (a.s.) that a man from Sham (Syria) came to him and said, I am a man of Kalam (meaningful words) Fiqh (laws) and rules of obligations and I have come to debate your people...
.
.
Hisham then asked, "Who is the Divine authority after the Messenger of Allah?" The man replied, "It is the book of Allah and the Sunnah."
Hisham then said, "Have the Book and Sunnah helped us today in removing our differences?"
The man said, "Yes, they have helped us."
Hisham then asked, "Why then do  we have differences among us. You have come all the way from Sham to oppose and debate us?"
The man then remained quite.
The Imam asked him, "Why do not speak?"
The man said, "If I were to say that we have no differences I would speaking lies. Were I to say that the Book and Sunnah solves our differences it would be invalid because they can be interpreted in so many ways. Were I to say that we do have differences and each claims to be the rightful party then the Book and the Sunnah would have been proved of no help. However, I can ask the same question from him also."
The Imam (a.s.) then said to man from Sham, "Why do not then ask him this question?"
thanks bro @muslim720 for ur kind explanation.

[iceman]

Yea tatbir comes from ahle baith according to shiites cursing the sahaba and wives come from Shiites who follow ahle baith and a whole lot of lies to follow through with that, so I don’t think it’s ahle baith you follow but a certain individual who started the ball rolling you know his name the one and only Ibn Saba👏😁

You cannot provide a clear verse from the Quran without adding your desires to it as can be seen in your post responses to me........I BEAR WITNESS TO THAT😉👍

Alhamdulillahi

What, who, Ibn Saba? A fictional character created by your ancestors just to divert people's attention away from Shiaism. My dear, we have been facing propaganda from day one.

[Mythbuster1]

What, who, Ibn Saba? A fictional character created by your ancestors just to divert people's attention away from Shiaism. My dear, we have been facing propaganda from day one.

Lol Ibn Saba the creator of divine Imamate theory bless him don’t disown the guy you know he is your GUIDE😂😂😂

Yea you face propaganda don’t make me laugh your people are the trouble causers within the umma the enemy within you join with kafirs and then cry that you have been persecuted 😂😂😂😂😂 go tell it to the ones who follow Ibn Saba.

Crusades
Mongols
Safavids
Iraq war
And now you switch sides to help Russian criminal putin in Syria

Stop with your false propaganda and join the ummah in fighting beck even the imams got sick of your fake words and cowardice that imam Hassan ra had to give the reign to Hazarat Ameer Muawiyah radhiallahuanhum 👍

[iceman]

Lol Ibn Saba the creator of divine Imamate theory bless him don’t disown the guy you know he is your GUIDE😂😂😂

Yea you face propaganda don’t make me laugh your people are the trouble causers within the umma the enemy within you join with kafirs and then cry that you have been persecuted 😂😂😂😂😂 go tell it to the ones who follow Ibn Saba.

Crusades
Mongols
Safavids
Iraq war
And now you switch sides to help Russian criminal putin in Syria

Stop with your false propaganda and join the ummah in fighting beck even the imams got sick of your fake words and cowardice that imam Hassan ra had to give the reign to Hazarat Ameer Muawiyah radhiallahuanhum 👍

First of all the new ex Shia mentioned that we are only about 7 to 11%, so that means such a small minority is so strong and powerful that it gave the vast majority a run for their money.

And here is the list of our achievements I would say since we are so kindly accused of them.

Shias killed or were behind the killing of Umar and Usman and probably Ali as well
Shias caused Jamal and Safeen because the ones who actually fought Ali were too simple and straightforward to realise it. They couldn't think for themselves 😊

Shias betrayed Hassan that he unfortunately had to hand over Caliphate to Muawiya, as though it was his personal property 😊 Shias betrayed Muslim Ibne Aqeel and probably killed him as well. Ubaidullah Ibne Ziyaad must have been a Shia 😀

Shias betrayed Hussain and probably killed him as well. That means Shimr, Hurmala, Kholi, Haseen etc must have been Shias 😊 Probably Yazeed was Shia too 😁 Ibne Saba and his followers were really some clever, far sighted and minded people that they got so much done by being a minority.

Shias killers of Sahaba (Caliphs) or behind their killings, got Sahaba to fight against each other, betrayed members of Ahle Bayth and even killed them or were behind the killings. Shias became murtad, Malik bin Nuwayrah was probably also a Shia 😂 Do you think I left anything behind 😄 Would you like to contribute anything 😆

I wonder what the Ummah, the vast majority of the Ummah (Sunnis) were doing.😀

[Mythbuster1]

First of all the new ex Shia mentioned that we are only about 7 to 11%, so that means such a small minority is so strong and powerful that it gave the vast majority a run for their money.

And here is the list of our achievements I would say since we are so kindly accused of them.

Shias killed or were behind the killing of Umar and Usman and probably Ali as well
Shias caused Jamal and Safeen because the ones who actually fought Ali were too simple and straightforward to realise it. They couldn't think for themselves 😊

Shias betrayed Hassan that he unfortunately had to hand over Caliphate to Muawiya, as though it was his personal property 😊 Shias betrayed Muslim Ibne Aqeel and probably killed him as well. Ubaidullah Ibne Ziyaad must have been a Shia 😀

Shias betrayed Hussain and probably killed him as well. That means Shimr, Hurmala, Kholi, Haseen etc must have been Shias 😊 Probably Yazeed was Shia too 😁 Ibne Saba and his followers were really some clever, far sighted and minded people that they got so much done by being a minority.

Shias killers of Sahaba (Caliphs) or behind their killings, got Sahaba to fight against each other, betrayed members of Ahle Bayth and even killed them or were behind the killings. Shias became murtad, Malik bin Nuwayrah was probably also a Shia 😂 Do you think I left anything behind 😄 Would you like to contribute anything 😆

I wonder what the Ummah, the vast majority of the Ummah (Sunnis) were doing.😀

The vast majority never gave sides or were scared (Sunnis) we were busy sending dawah to the world we ruled over the Romans the byzantines and your ancestors the Persians😊

It was the Shiites at home like women, they were fighting the Muslims within while the Sunnis were out fighting like lions to spread the deen😉

What have shiites achieved for islam? What dawah can they do if ones like you cannot prove their main usool Imamate? You are a sly minority and will stay the same thanks to Allah Almighty alhamdulillah👍

You were the killers of the imam yes as well as cowards who left the imams and wouldn’t fight it’s KNOWN history mate, Shiites are well known cowards it’s engraved in history😊

[Ijtaba]

Of course you are responsible for what Shaykh Saduq believes. The reason is your proofs are supposedly guidance and I am accountalble for it on the day of judgement. Now that Shaykh Saduq didnt even agree to it why should I listen to you? What you are saying is not even a concensus among your own sect. So again why should I even accept your proof? Unless you are ready to say Shaykh Saduq entered jahilyah for not believing in the 'gaiyba' of Prophet Isa.

Poor reasoning... Shaykh Saduq is not hujjah on me. For me only Infallibles (Prophets & Imams) are Hujjah.

Show me where Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w) & Aimmah (a.s) mentioned about Nabi coming after Nabi Isa (a.s) from my books as well as the authenticity of those reports.

[Ijtaba]

I did read it carefully. The point I am trying to make is the ummah has room for differing. The Quran does not specify that Prophet Isa (as) is the second last Prophet. Muslims can believe a few Prophets came after. They can also go with the general view.

Give me evidence and not just your opinions.

Again, ibn Kathir in his tafsir refuted your baseless argument.

Link: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796&Itemid=60#1

...In the Sahih collected by Al-Bukhari, Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I, among all people, have the most right to the son of Maryam, for there was no Prophet between Him and I.) This Hadith refutes the opinion of Al-Quda`i and others, that there was a Prophet after `Isa called Khalid bin Sinan. Allah sent Muhammad after a period of time during which there was no Prophet, clear path, or unchanged religions. Idol worshipping, fire worshipping and cross worshipping flourished during this time. Therefore, the bounty of sending Muhammad was the perfect bounty at a time when he was needed the most. Evil had filled the earth by then, and tyranny and ignorance had touched all the servants, except a few of those who remained loyal to the true teachings of previous Prophets, such as some Jewish rabbis, Christian priests and Sabian monks.

Bring valid strong authentic evidence of Prophet(s) coming after Nabi Isa (a.s) and not your opinions and assumptions.

[Ijtaba]

I do not believe in Imamah (the way Shias believe in it) so your question is invalid (whether I believe Imamah ended with Prophethood or continued after it).  This is a strawman!

What I believe is that Ibrahim (asws) was made an Imam over mankind as our role model which is why we are asked in the Qur'an to follow his religion.  Our Hajj rituals, for example, are replete of deeds that commemorate Ibrahim (asws) or replicate what he did.

So according to you what did it mean when Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) asked ALLAH (SWT) to make Imams from his descendants?

My question to you is this: if Imamah was to stay with the 12 "infallible" Shi'i Imams (ra), why are we asked in the Qur'an to supplicate to Allah (swt) to make Imams from among us?  If Allah (swt) appoints Imams, as per the Shi'i narrative, why are we then reciting this du'a?

"And those who pray, 'Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous.' " (Surah Al-Furqan verse 74)

Transliteration: Wa Al-Ladhīna Yaqūlūna Rabbanā Hab Lanā Min 'Azwājinā Wa Dhurrīyātinā Qurrata 'A`yunin Wa Aj`alnā Lilmuttaqīna 'Imāmāan

Imam means Leader or one who is to be obeyed.

What I understand from this du'a is that we pray to ALLAH (SWT) to make us Righteous... and to become Righteous we pray to ALLAH (SWT) to give us a Leader who would lead us towards righteousness.

You asked who was the righteous Caliph from between Ibn Zubayr, Yazeed, I don't know who else!  So I directed your attention to a hadith you quoted yourself.  In it, the Prophet (saw) clearly says that the one to whom allegiance was pledged first has superiority.  Pledged, not forced to pledge, by the way!

I did not ask about righteous Caliph but rightful/legitimate caliph.

If a caliph is pledged allegiance forcefully, is he still a legitimate caliph?

Abu Bakr (ra) did not appoint Umar (ra) haphazardly.  He consulted the major Sahaba (ra) so there was consultation before Umar (ra) was suggested as the successor.  No one opposed and after pledging allegiance to him, Umar (ra) became the second Caliph.

Even if I accept your view... Umar was still nominated and not elected by Shura because Abu Bakr consulted and then nominated.

According to Ahlul Sunnah, Prophet (s.a.w.w) preferred, liked and even expressed his desire of Abu Bakr to become his (s.a.w.w) Caliph but yet he (s.a.w.w) did not nominate Abu Bakr and left the matter for his (s.a.w.w) Ummah to decide about the caliphate. So why did Abu Bakr not follow the Sunnah of Prophet (s.a.w.w) and left the matters in the hands of Ummah to decide about the caliphate?

Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) also didn't fight against Imam Ali (ra).  He didn't fight Muawiyah either.  He was what you would call an "isolationist".  In this report, he is urging his family and friends not to withdraw the bayah.  That does not mean he was supportive of Yazeed.  This might be hard for you to stomach but people at the time when Yazeed was declared Caliph did not know that his army would kill Imam Hussain (ra).  There were many people who accepted him as their leader.  Ibn Umar (ra) was only preventing his friends and family to compound upon the mistake of pledging allegiance to Yazeed by withdrawing it.

According to Abdullah ibn Umar... Yazid was legitimate Caliph as he was pledged allegiance according to Sunnah. Choosing a person as a ruler through legal and rightful process and a legitimate ruler going against the laws (& rules) of his country during his rulership are two different things. I am not talking about Yazid's rule but I am talking about him being nominated as Caliph by his father.

My question is... if Yazid was nominated by Muawiyah and pledged allegiance by people according to Sunnah then why did Imam Hussain (a.s) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr refuse to pledge allegiance to Yazid? Did Imam Hussain (a.s) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr wanted to create division in the Ummah by not pledging allegiance to legitimate Caliph? I remember Abu Bakr's words when he was pledged allegiance by the people but Imam Hussain (a.s) father and Abdullah ibn Zubayr's father had yet not pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr so Abu Bakr said to Imam Ali (a.s) and Zubayr that did they want to create division by not pledging allegiance to him. So in response both Imam Ali (a.s) and Zubayr pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. So why did their sons (Imam Hussain ibn Ali and Abdullah ibn Zubayr) not pledge allegiance to the Caliph (Yazid) who was pledged allegiance according to Sunnah?

[muslim720]

So according to you what did it mean when Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) asked ALLAH (SWT) to make Imams from his descendants?

It has the least to do with our discussion.  The point is that the verse, in no shape or form, substantiates Imamah (in the Shi'i sense).  Not just Ibrahim (asws), even we make du'a to be made Imams.  Similarly, Ibrahim (asws) asked for the same for his offspring.  What is interesting is that while you claim that these descendants who received Imamah were your 12 Imams (ra) - perhaps exclusively or among many others - the Qur'an does not even name them.  And they are supposed to be higher than all Prophets (asws) save one!

Imam means Leader or one who is to be obeyed.

What I understand from this du'a is that we pray to ALLAH (SWT) to make us Righteous... and to become Righteous we pray to ALLAH (SWT) to give us a Leader who would lead us towards righteousness.

So why do you choose to apply a different definition to Ibrahim (asws) and what is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah?  By your definition, if you are consistent, Allah (swt) declared Ibrahim's (asws) righteousness to all of mankind and made him a leader.  In fact, the Qur'an supports this opinion because it commands us to follow the religion of Ibrahim (asws).

If a caliph is pledged allegiance forcefully, is he still a legitimate caliph?

You have some serious reading issues.  Read my statement again: "Pledged, not forced to pledge, by the way!"

Even if I accept your view... Umar was still nominated and not elected by Shura because Abu Bakr consulted and then nominated.

According to Ahlul Sunnah, Prophet (s.a.w.w) preferred, liked and even expressed his desire of Abu Bakr to become his (s.a.w.w) Caliph but yet he (s.a.w.w) did not nominate Abu Bakr and left the matter for his (s.a.w.w) Ummah to decide about the caliphate. So why did Abu Bakr not follow the Sunnah of Prophet (s.a.w.w) and left the matters in the hands of Ummah to decide about the caliphate?

The common denominator, which always evades Shias, is that consultation took place in both cases and Imam Ali (ra) collaborated with both Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra).  If you know better than Imam Ali (ra), you have a case.  Otherwise, you've nothing!

According to Abdullah ibn Umar... Yazid was legitimate Caliph as he was pledged allegiance according to Sunnah.

Not true but even if we assume that you are upon something, Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) was one individual.  He is not infallible.

My question is... if Yazid was nominated by Muawiyah and pledged allegiance by people according to Sunnah then why did Imam Hussain (a.s) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr refuse to pledge allegiance to Yazid? Did Imam Hussain (a.s) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr wanted to create division in the Ummah by not pledging allegiance to legitimate Caliph? I remember Abu Bakr's words when he was pledged allegiance by the people but Imam Hussain (a.s) father and Abdullah ibn Zubayr's father had yet not pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr so Abu Bakr said to Imam Ali (a.s) and Zubayr that did they want to create division by not pledging allegiance to him. So in response both Imam Ali (a.s) and Zubayr pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. So why did their sons (Imam Hussain ibn Ali and Abdullah ibn Zubayr) not pledge allegiance to the Caliph (Yazid) who was pledged allegiance according to Sunnah?

Do your research on it!  I don't have all the answers, to be honest.  Even if I did, which I don't, this is a nice Shi'i tactic.  Imagine I answered all your questions.  Would you reflect on them?  No!  You'd come back with another 3 or more questions for every answer I provide.

[Rationalist]

Give me evidence and not just your opinions.

Again, ibn Kathir in his tafsir refuted your baseless argument.

Link: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=796&Itemid=60#1

Bring valid strong authentic evidence of Prophet(s) coming after Nabi Isa (a.s) and not your opinions and assumptions.

Already replied to this 2 times. Abu Huraira is not binding on me. So again the refutation is not a refutation against the ummah. In fact its ironic how you are using Abu Huraira. He is rejected by shia sects and Mutazilla.

Let me repeat myself. If you want to prove me wrong than the proof should be based on what the ummah believes.

For example majority of the 12er Shia believes Fatima is the only daughter. I can bring against proof that its not the case. Does this mean those 12er Shia who say there is 4 daugthers are dying in jahililyah?

 

[Ijtaba]

Already replied to this 2 times. Abu Huraira is not binding on me. So again the refutation is not a refutation against the ummah. In fact its ironic how you are using Abu Huraira. He is rejected by shia sects and Mutazilla.

To refute you I have to bring evidences from your books and not mine because its obvious you would reject evidences brought by my books.

Are you rejecting the hadiths because of Abu Hurayrah or due to hadiths being unauthentic?

Let me repeat myself. If you want to prove me wrong than the proof should be based on what the ummah believes.

So according to you, what does Ummah believe in? Because I brought evidences from authentic books of Ahlul Sunnah and Tafsir of ibn Kathir.

For example majority of the 12er Shia believes Fatima is the only daughter. I can bring against proof that its not the case. Does this mean those 12er Shia who say there is 4 daugthers are dying in jahililyah?

This is not related to topic we are discussing. Create another thread to discuss this issue.

[Ijtaba]

It has the least to do with our discussion.  The point is that the verse, in no shape or form, substantiates Imamah (in the Shi'i sense).  Not just Ibrahim (asws), even we make du'a to be made Imams.  Similarly, Ibrahim (asws) asked for the same for his offspring.  What is interesting is that while you claim that these descendants who received Imamah were your 12 Imams (ra) - perhaps exclusively or among many others - the Qur'an does not even name them.  And they are supposed to be higher than all Prophets (asws) save one!

- Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) made du'a to make Imams (a.s) from his (a.s) offspring and ALLAH (SWT) accepted his (a.s) du'a and made Imams (a.s) from his offspring.

- More than billion Muslims have been praying more than 1,400 years the du'a to make them Imams of Muttaqeen... Can you tell me have ALLAH (SWT) accepted their du'a of making them Imams of Muttaqeen? If yes then name those Imams of Muttaqeen.

So why do you choose to apply a different definition to Ibrahim (asws) and what is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah?  By your definition, if you are consistent, Allah (swt) declared Ibrahim's (asws) righteousness to all of mankind and made him a leader.  In fact, the Qur'an supports this opinion because it commands us to follow the religion of Ibrahim (asws).

ALLAH (SWT) declared Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) righteousness to all mankind when HE (SWT) sent him (a.s) as a Prophet... and Prophet is a leader of his Ummah. So why was a Prophet who is already a leader in his Ummah made an Imam? 

You have some serious reading issues.  Read my statement again: "Pledged, not forced to pledge, by the way!"

In near future I will create another thread which would be about concept of caliphate in Ahlul Sunnah in detail.

The common denominator, which always evades Shias, is that consultation took place in both cases and Imam Ali (ra) collaborated with both Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra).  If you know better than Imam Ali (ra), you have a case.  Otherwise, you've nothing!

What would you say about the hadith in which Umar says not to repeat the way in which Abu Bakr was elected as Caliph as Umar said that it was merely an unexpected incident and GOD saved from its evil? Why was consultation during Abu Bakr's election an unexpected incident which was not to be repeated again?

Not true but even if we assume that you are upon something, Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) was one individual.  He is not infallible.

What do you mean by, "Not true?" Are there evidences that Yazid wasn't pledged allegiance according to Shariah? If yes then I would like to see your evidences.

Abdullah ibn Umar is one individual and not infallible - Agreed.

But would Abdullah ibn Umar lie on ALLAH (SWT) and HIS (SWT) Prophet (s.a.w.w)? I doubt. I say this because Sahabas according to Ahlul Sunnah would never say regarding a person who had not been pledged allegiance rightfully that he had been pledged allegiance according to Shariah.

[Rationalist]

To refute you I have to bring evidences from your books and not mine because its obvious you would reject evidences brought by my books.

I presented a hadith from your books on Khalid bin Sinan and you ended up asking me about its authencity? If you don't even know what is authentic in your books then what the point of opening Sunni books? Please learn about the different views on all schools of thought.

Are you rejecting the hadiths because of Abu Hurayrah or due to hadiths being unauthentic?

Its because its Abu Huraria.

So according to you, what does Ummah believe in? Because I brought evidences from authentic books of Ahlul Sunnah and Tafsir of ibn Kathir.

It just one school of thought. His views are not binding of other school such as the Hanafis.
As for the ummah its Quran and we have to agree on the Mukhamath verses. The mutashibath is open for different views. Also Mutawatir hadith are binding on the ummah.
 

This is not related to topic we are discussing. Create another thread to discuss this issue.

Not interested. I was just giving an example of different views in your sect. You should take some lessons from iceman who is more knowledable than you on the different views in the 12er Shia sect and how they are all legit within the school.

[muslim720]

- Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) made du'a to make Imams (a.s) from his (a.s) offspring and ALLAH (SWT) accepted his (a.s) du'a and made Imams (a.s) from his offspring.

Who were these Imams?

- More than billion Muslims have been praying more than 1,400 years the du'a to make them Imams of Muttaqeen... Can you tell me have ALLAH (SWT) accepted their du'a of making them Imams of Muttaqeen? If yes then name those Imams of Muttaqeen.

Are you saying that Allah (swt) taught us a du'a which He won't accept?  These Imams could be anyone.  Islamic history is replete with awliya and those who were pious.  The issue arises when a certain portion of the Islamic ummah gives a specific definition to the term Imam....individuals like yourself!  Since you believe Imamah is determined by Allah (swt) and no other Imam exists other than your 12th Imam - possibly being the last one in the line of Imams - why then did Allah (swt) teach us such a du'a?

This du'a is invalid in Shiaism thereby making this verse invalid and inapplicable.  Just one example of a core Shi'i belief (Imamah) contradicting the Qur'an.

ALLAH (SWT) declared Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) righteousness to all mankind when HE (SWT) sent him (a.s) as a Prophet... and Prophet is a leader of his Ummah. So why was a Prophet who is already a leader in his Ummah made an Imam? 

Remember what I said about responding and getting more questions in response?  Ibrahim (asws) was a leader in his ummah and Allah (swt) declared him a leader to all mankind. 

Allah (swt) tells the Holy Prophet (saw) the following: "So We have taught thee the inspired (Message), 'Follow the ways of Abraham the True in Faith, and he joined not gods with God.' "

Is there any other prophet whom Muslims, even the Holy Prophet (saw), had to follow?  That should answer your question.  Unless you prefer to question by feigning ignorance.

In near future I will create another thread which would be about concept of caliphate in Ahlul Sunnah in detail.

To aid you in the process, please bear in mind that Caliphate (according to us) is not mandated in the Qur'an or Sunnah.  However, shura was with Muhajir and Ansar, as attested to by Imam Ali (ra) in Nahjul Balagha.  And the leadership of the first four Caliphs (ra) were in accordance to it.

What would you say about the hadith in which Umar says not to repeat the way in which Abu Bakr was elected as Caliph as Umar said that it was merely an unexpected incident and GOD saved from its evil? Why was consultation during Abu Bakr's election an unexpected incident which was not to be repeated again?

Have you read the entire narration?  Eesa, the black intellectual Shia, used that hadith at Speakers Corner against brother Farid and got owned.  To summarize the lengthy narration, Umar (ra) found out that people would pledge allegiance haphazardly to anyone they wanted (after him) while citing the quick election of Abu Bakr (ra).  In other words, the ummah would have differed on as many people as there were Muslims (each one giving bayyah to whoever they pleased).

Umar (ra), as the leader of the Muslims, reprimanded them and informed them that while Abu Bakr (ra) was elected in a haste, it was done with the consent of everyone present.  So he was addressing the misconception of those who thought that they could pledge allegiance to anyone without mutual consultation.

And as I said above, no matter which way you explain it, at the end of the day Imam Ali (ra) accepted the Caliphates of Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and Uthman (ra)!

What do you mean by, "Not true?" Are there evidences that Yazid wasn't pledged allegiance according to Shariah? If yes then I would like to see your evidences.

"Not true" as in what you ascribed to Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) is not true.

But would Abdullah ibn Umar lie on ALLAH (SWT) and HIS (SWT) Prophet (s.a.w.w)?

Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) was acknowledging the fact that people gave bayyah to Yazeed in accordance to "the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle".  That does not make his caliphate legitimate or ibn Umar (ra) a supporter of Yazeed.  You could have a transaction between two groups or parties, one honest and the other dishonest.  The one honestly conducting his or her affairs is not endorsing the dishonesty of the other.  It could just be that the honest one is ignorant of the latter's dishonesty.

[iceman]

وَ إِذِ ابْتَلى إِبْراهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِماتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ قالَ إِنِّي جاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِماماً قالَ وَ مِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي قالَ لا يَنالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ

“And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with commands, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam for mankind. (Ibrahim) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders)? He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”. (2:124)

It is clear that Abraham was made an Imam BY HIS LORD, not by the people but BY HIS LORD. This is what we need to take into account that Imamah does exist and only Allah makes Imams.

Another thing we need to bring into account is that Imamah doesn't end here but it continues. What did Abraham say after he was made an Imam?

"Ibrahim) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders?"

And what did Allah say in return?

"He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”.

This proves that Imamah continued.

[muslim720]

وَ إِذِ ابْتَلى إِبْراهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِماتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ قالَ إِنِّي جاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِماماً قالَ وَ مِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي قالَ لا يَنالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ

“And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with commands, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam for mankind. (Ibrahim) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders)? He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”. (2:124)

It is clear that Abraham was made an Imam BY HIS LORD, not by the people but BY HIS LORD. This is what we need to take into account that Imamah does exist and only Allah makes Imams.

Another thing we need to bring into account is that Imamah doesn't end here but it continues. What did Abraham say after he was made an Imam?

"Ibrahim) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders?"

And what did Allah say in return?

"He said, my covenant does not include the unjust”.

This proves that Imamah continued.

If we accept the Shi'i narrative then:

1.  The prerequisite for becoming an Imam is Prophethood.  After all, Ibrahim (asws) was "promoted" to being an Imam after he was a Prophet and he overcame all the trials and tribulations.  None of your Imams (ra) were Prophets so it does not apply to your Imams (ra).

2.  Imam Ali (ra) considered the shura of Muhajireen and Ansar to be valid.  He even referred to the ones before him as "Imams".  All in Nahjul Balagha!

3.  The names of the Imams (ra) should have been clearly mentioned in the Qur'an (if Imamah continued) just as Ibrahim (asws), and his appointment as Imam, was mentioned.

4.  Ibrahim (asws), just like the Holy Prophet (saw), being an Imam and a Prophet, is higher than all your Imams (ra).