TwelverShia.net Forum

Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #220 on: November 17, 2018, 02:21:39 PM »
Wait a minute!  You introduced Treaty of Hudaibiyah to the discussion.  Since you are passing judgment on Umar (ra) for "disobeying" the Prophet (saw), why can't you comment about the same "disobedience" shown by Imam Ali (ra) while drafting the Treaty of Hudaibiyah?

To summarize, you are commenting on Hadith of Pen and Paper while you also pointed to Treaty of Hudaibiyah (in a failed attempt to whitewash Imam Hassan making peace with Muawiya and giving him the Caliphate).  I don't see why you cannot clarify the "disobedience" of Imam Ali (ra) during the drafting of Treaty of Hudaibiyah when it was you who directed us to it.

"Wait a minute!  You introduced Treaty of Hudaibiyah to the discussion.  Since you are passing judgment on Umar (ra) for "disobeying" the Prophet (saw), why can't you comment about the same "disobedience" shown by Imam Ali (ra) while drafting the Treaty of Hudaibiyah?"

I'm not passing judgement on Umar, what Umar did is absolutely and exactly crystal clear. You're protecting and defending the man through and means of counter arguments. Discuss the matter of Umar and come to a conclusion then by all means discuss the other. What would you have done instead of Umar? The same thing OUT OF LOVE 😊 Come on, put the confrontational stance based on arrogance aside and be honest with yourself.

"in a failed attempt to whitewash Imam Hassan making peace with Muawiya and giving him the Caliphate)"

And don't need a whitewash. What Hassan did was courages. The life and honour of the general public was at stake. Muawiyah didn't care. If this is what strong leadership is according to you then Abubakr Al Baghdadi is in the footsteps of Muawiya. He's doing the same thing.

"I don't see why you cannot clarify the "disobedience" of Imam Ali (ra) during the drafting of Treaty of Hudaibiyah when it was you who directed us to it"

We're aren't just talking about disobedience but also prevention. Don't worry, put the matter of Ali forward fully and completely and I'll discuss that. I have no problem like you guys.

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #221 on: November 17, 2018, 03:04:06 PM »
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was dying, there were men in the house among whom was ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Come, let me write for you a document after which you will not go astray.” ‘Umar said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is overcome with pain, and you have the Qur’an; the Book of Allah is sufficient for us. The people in the house disagreed, and they argued. Some of them said: Come close and let the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) write for you a document after which you will not go astray. Others agreed with what ‘Umar said. When their debating and argument in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) became too much, the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Get up and leave.”

‘Ubayd-Allah said: Ibn ‘Abbaas used to say: What a calamity it was when the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was prevented from writing that document for them because of their disagreement and arguing.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6932) and Muslim (1637)

So can we argue with this that what ever the Prophet s.a.w wanted to write, the reason for it was so that the companions do not go astray, so since it wasn't written therefore the companions went astray?

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #222 on: November 17, 2018, 04:02:37 PM »
For the same reason "we" create websites to refute Christianity and Atheism, doesn't mean we don't think that they aren't intellectually bankrupt.

But I understand, 12ers concentrate all their efforts on "refuting Sunnism", so you don't realize there's a whole world of debates out there between liberals and conservatives, Muslims vs Christians, Theists vs Atheists and so on.  Since your whole world consists of hating Abu Bakr and me, you don't seem to be aware of this.  Have you heard about Muhammad Hijab and Adnan Rashid's latest dismembering of the Christians they debated?  Have you heard about Asrar Rashid debating the Atheist last week (haven't seen it so I can't comment)?  Notice, I chose these names because they also destroy 12er debaters.

"For the same reason "we" create websites to refute Christianity and Atheism, doesn't mean we don't think that they aren't intellectually bankrupt"

So we're intellectually bankrupt, OK. You represent the vast majority of the Muslim community globally and all the Muslim countries are governed by you, just about all. And intellectually you're at the top, so why is Islam and the Muslims getting a bad name and into all sorts of problems and mess internationally? 😊 It's your boys running around trying to bring back the Islamic Caliphate by means of violence and threatening behaviour and causing mayhem, carnage and bloodshed all over the world, so what's going so wrong and bad with you then? 😊

You speak about Christianity, Atheism and this, that and the other, tell me since you being vast majority of the Muslim Ummah what's going wrong with you that you need and are waiting for  Mahdi to be born who will get rid of cruelty and injustice and fill the world with fairness and justice? Where are you going wrong where other communities don't need and aren't waiting for a saviour? 😊

"But I understand, 12ers concentrate all their efforts on "refuting Sunnism"

You'll find its actually the other way around  😊

"Since your whole world consists of hating Abu Bakr and me"

I don't hate Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Muawiya, you or anyone else. I never said or meant I did. Just discussing facts😊

"Notice, I chose these names because they also destroy 12er debaters"

Yes I have heard and watched some footage. I'd love to see them here. They're more than welcome. What i want is a one to one and not what I'm getting and that is a whole pack jumping up and down from all corners and sides and with all sorts. 

Mythbuster1

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #223 on: November 17, 2018, 04:34:16 PM »
Gentlemen like I said before, and you have completely failed to acknowledge, ONE AT A TIME, ONE MATTER AT A TIME AND ONE STEP AT A TIME. It's just me up against many of you. It's like putting up and dealing with a pack of wolves. 😊

ARROGANT ........just YOU ran from my questions😂😂😂

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #224 on: November 17, 2018, 05:58:43 PM »
ARROGANT ........just YOU ran from my questions😂😂😂

And what questions were those? 😊 AND HOW MANY HAVE YOU EVER BOTHERED TO ANSWER 😆😆😆

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #225 on: November 17, 2018, 06:55:36 PM »
ARROGANT ........just YOU ran from my questions😂😂😂

NOPE. Just being civilised and reasonable. Do you see any one to one here?  Just me dealing with a pack. At least have some SHAME if you can't be HONEST 😊

muslim720

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #226 on: November 18, 2018, 03:22:42 AM »
I've read the link and here is the first matter;

'When Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) read the above letter of Muawiya, he gave a brief reply in one sentence'

:He is trying to tempt me about something which I would not hand over to him if I had an inclination towards it."

I wonder what Hassan meant by that.

You walked right into the trap.  If Imam Hassan (ra) had no inclination for the Caliphate, why are Shias today so inclined to writing the Caliphate in favor of the Imams (ra) starting with Imam Ali (ra)?  Imam Hassan (ra) seemed not to care about Caliphate.  Why can't you - for once - follow your second "infallible" Imam (ra)?  All you do is moan and groan about Saqifa.

Quote
TO GUARANTEE THE LIFE AND HONOUR OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC?

I am willing to concede that Muawiya did not uphold the life and honor of the general public.  That still does not disprove my main point; Caliphate was to be returned to Imam Hassan (ra), not his blood relatives.  Therefore, I see nothing wrong with Muawiya giving the Caliphate to his son because by then, Imam Hassan (ra) had died.

In your worldview, however, Imam Hassan (ra) knew the knowledge of the unseen and what was in Muawiya's heart (nothing but deception and deceit) and yet he entrusted him with the life and honor of the Ummah.  The "infallible" Imam (ra) pulled a fast-one on us, seems like!

Quote
What on earth is this? Is this how bad and ruthless Muawiya was that if he doesn't have and get his way the life and honour of the general public is at stake? Yes, absolutely. That's exactly the kind of character he was. Do you know now what was at stake here and who and what Hassan was dealing with and up against.

Fine, Muawiya was bad and ruthless.  Knowing this, why would your second "infallible" Imam (ra) entrust him with the Ummah?  And as per the conditions of the treaty, you cannot refute me on the correctness of Muawiya giving the Caliphate to his son and not to Imam Hussain (ra).  Once again, we are discussing the conditions of treaty in principle, not who was more righteous.
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

Abu Muhammad

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #227 on: November 18, 2018, 12:26:16 PM »
"He must have known what?"

Why did he say, "the book of Allah is sufficient for us" if he didn't no or have an idea of what was going to be written? He wasn't just a Companion but also a close relative of the Prophet s.a.w. And you think the Prophet s.a.w wouldn’t have said or mentioned and discussed anything about it previously? And you still continue to protect and defend him and his actions? What would you have done, OK OUT OF LOVE? 😊

Just because Umar said "the book of Allah is sufficient for us", Umar knew what was going to be written? Are you having "the knowledge of unseen" now knowing that Umar have an idea of what to be written? LOL.

Again, if what Prophet (saw) to write was about Ali as his successor and Umar was trying to stop it from being written, you have to admit that incident of Ghadir is never about Ali's appointment because nobody in their right frame of mind will say that Umar was trying to stop something that has become a public knowledge now.

"He must have known what?"
"Umar or even anybody else could do about it?"

They would have exactly done what Muawiya did. And that is they would have used their, influence, contacts, wealth and connections and resort to violence and threatening behaviour.

Another LOL. You are all over places. Dude, the question was what could Umar or anybody else do to something that already become a public knowledge according to Twelvers? Almost everybody already knew that Ali to succeed Prophet (saw) according to Twelvers.

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #228 on: November 19, 2018, 12:24:55 AM »
Just because Umar said "the book of Allah is sufficient for us", Umar knew what was going to be written? Are you having "the knowledge of unseen" now knowing that Umar have an idea of what to be written? LOL.

Again, if what Prophet (saw) to write was about Ali as his successor and Umar was trying to stop it from being written, you have to admit that incident of Ghadir is never about Ali's appointment because nobody in their right frame of mind will say that Umar was trying to stop something that has become a public knowledge now.

Another LOL. You are all over places. Dude, the question was what could Umar or anybody else do to something that already become a public knowledge according to Twelvers? Almost everybody already knew that Ali to succeed Prophet (saw) according to Twelvers.

You are going in absolute circles here in a desperate attempt to protect and defend Umar. I can see the desperation in your posts. What would you have done if you were instead of Umar? Rush to get a pen and paper or start looking for excuses and cause diversion?

The Prophet s.a.w wasn't able to right anything due to the fuss Umar and his clan caused. This means the companions went astray after the demise of the Prophet s.a.w.  Therefore Saqifa was the beginning of going astray.

Umar would have done exactly what Muawiya did. He would have threatened the life and honour of the general public just like Muawiya if he didn't get his way. The threats were already made to the Ansar at Saqifa if they went ahead and a leader was chosen from them.

Ali became the legitimate leader of the Muslims by becoming the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims but did Muawiya accept? 😊 NOOOOOOOOO

Get over it and start to accept reality. Put your bitterness to an end and put yourself at ease 😊
« Last Edit: November 19, 2018, 12:30:03 AM by iceman »

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #229 on: November 19, 2018, 12:52:28 AM »
You walked right into the trap.  If Imam Hassan (ra) had no inclination for the Caliphate, why are Shias today so inclined to writing the Caliphate in favor of the Imams (ra) starting with Imam Ali (ra)?  Imam Hassan (ra) seemed not to care about Caliphate.  Why can't you - for once - follow your second "infallible" Imam (ra)?  All you do is moan and groan about Saqifa.

I am willing to concede that Muawiya did not uphold the life and honor of the general public.  That still does not disprove my main point; Caliphate was to be returned to Imam Hassan (ra), not his blood relatives.  Therefore, I see nothing wrong with Muawiya giving the Caliphate to his son because by then, Imam Hassan (ra) had died.

In your worldview, however, Imam Hassan (ra) knew the knowledge of the unseen and what was in Muawiya's heart (nothing but deception and deceit) and yet he entrusted him with the life and honor of the Ummah.  The "infallible" Imam (ra) pulled a fast-one on us, seems like!

Fine, Muawiya was bad and ruthless.  Knowing this, why would your second "infallible" Imam (ra) entrust him with the Ummah?  And as per the conditions of the treaty, you cannot refute me on the correctness of Muawiya giving the Caliphate to his son and not to Imam Hussain (ra).  Once again, we are discussing the conditions of treaty in principle, not who was more righteous.

No infact I destroy traps. None of the Imams were interested in the man made Caliphate. They were chosen to guide and govern the Muslims just as Allah chose Messengers to guide and govern. If people aren't interested then Allah doesn't care either and lets them get on with it just as the Muslims. And look at the state and affairs of the Muslims uptil today. They're in an absolute mess. This mess began and started from Saqifa. And it wasn't long before Muslims started to kill Muslims (Ref: Jamal, Safeen etc).

First of all you need to recognise and accept that Muawiya opposed the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims, so that should make him a complete and absolute outcast according to the Ahle Sunnah. Because he opposed the legitimate ruler. If this was Abu Bakr or Umar instead of Ali then Muawiya would have been considered a murtad by you lot just like Malik bin Nuwayrah 😊

You see nothing wrong in Muawiya giving Caliphate to his son? Are you serious. Is Caliphate something you give? Where the hell has SHURA gone all of a sudden? This is why I consider Ahle Sunah as a belief full of twist and turns. And Hassan didn’t die. Nope, he was murdered. And this only benefited Muawiya and his cause and no one else.


muslim720

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #230 on: November 19, 2018, 03:17:44 AM »
No infact I destroy traps. None of the Imams were interested in the man made Caliphate.

Then why did Imam Ali (ra) go door-to-door begging for support so he could free the Caliphate from the hands of Abu Bakr (ra)?  Why did Imam Hussain (ra) go to revolt?

Quote
They were chosen to guide and govern the Muslims just as Allah chose Messengers to guide and govern. If people aren't interested then Allah doesn't care either and lets them get on with it just as the Muslims.

And look at the state and affairs of the Muslims uptil today. They're in an absolute mess. This mess began and started from Saqifa. And it wasn't long before Muslims started to kill Muslims (Ref: Jamal, Safeen etc).

You are offering irreconcilable dichotomous positions here.  On one hand, you state that Imams (ra) undertake their responsibilities with or without governance.  Then, you lay blame on Saqifa where Caliphate was handed to those who are not infallible.  So, in essence, you are claiming that Imams (ra) can function with or without the Caliphate and then you blame Saqifa (where Caliphate was given to Abu Bakr) as the basis for the mess.  Well, how could the Imams (ra) not navigate the Ummah out of the mess?  After all, that was their only job!

Quote
First of all you need to recognise and accept that Muawiya opposed the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims, so that should make him a complete and absolute outcast according to the Ahle Sunnah.

I accept this, for argument's sake.  Now answer my upcoming question.  You dodged it twice!

Quote
You see nothing wrong in Muawiya giving Caliphate to his son? Are you serious. Is Caliphate something you give? Where the hell has SHURA gone all of a sudden? This is why I consider Ahle Sunah as a belief full of twist and turns. And Hassan didn’t die. Nope, he was murdered. And this only benefited Muawiya and his cause and no one else.

As I said, in principle, the peace treaty was not violated.  The treaty stated that Muawiya would return the Caliphate to Imam Hassan (ra).  Imam Hassan died (murdered or natural death) before Muawiya so Muawiya was not restricted by the treaty terms any more.  I agree that there should have been shura but Imam Hussain (ra) could have been a possible candidate, not the absolute candidate.  Furthermore, shura is not accepted by you so you should not be worried about its violation.  Please answer why Muawiya violated the treaty when it specifically said that Caliphate would go to Imam Hassan (ra) after Muawiya.
"Our coward ran from those in authority" - Iceman (admitting the truth regarding his 12th Imam)

Cherub786

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #231 on: November 19, 2018, 08:03:48 PM »
Mr. Iceman when do you plan on answering my questions?
Refer to reply #212 if you have missed them
Forbidden_Link

Khaled

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #232 on: November 19, 2018, 08:07:26 PM »
So we're intellectually bankrupt, OK.

Agree, what you are about to say not only shows that, but it also shows you are morally bankrupt as well...

Quote
You represent the vast majority of the Muslim community globally

True...

Quote
and all the Muslim countries are governed by you, just about all.

No true, in fact, the only "Islamic" country around today is Iran.  The rest are openly secular, or hide behind the guise of religion to suppress the masses, as is in the case of the Gulf Countries.  The closest thing we had in the past 150 years or so has been Mursi, and we all know what happened with him.  If you want me to accept Erdogan then I guess I will for the sake of argument.
 
Quote
And intellectually you're at the top,

Not only that, but we in fact the only people representing Islam at all, intellectually, academically, practically, politically, etc.

Quote
so why is Islam and the Muslims getting a bad name


Most commentators would blame a little something called Islamophobia.  The same time of fear mongering and hatred that you cast over 1.5 billion Muslims as we can see in what you are about to say...

Quote
and into all sorts of problems and mess internationally? 😊 It's your boys running around trying to bring back the Islamic Caliphate by means of violence and threatening behaviour and causing mayhem, carnage and bloodshed all over the world, so what's going so wrong and bad with you then? 😊

Umm.. who is "my boys"?  I consider the Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you as I've told you time and time again.  Rather, I free myself of all of the UNISLAMIC and oppressive groups, whether they are Dawaish or any one else.  Do you do the same with Bashar alAssad?  Is your support of that tyrant giving Islam a good name?  Do you think that Iran has a good reputation with the rest of the world?  Honestly, everything you write is so counterproductive to your point that I'm not ever sure you think anything you write through.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/11/global-views-of-iran-overwhelmingly-negative/

Quote
You speak about Christianity, Atheism and this, that and the other, tell me since you being vast majority of the Muslim Ummah what's going wrong with you that you need and are waiting for  Mahdi to be born who will get rid of cruelty and injustice and fill the world with fairness and justice? Where are you going wrong where other communities don't need and aren't waiting for a saviour? 😊

What now?  I am not waiting for the Mahdi.  I am relying on Allah سبحانه وتعالى.  I don't even think the belief in the Mahdi is from the foundations of the deen, or the foundations of Ahl as-Sunnah.  This is probably your most absurd point to date.

Quote
"But I understand, 12ers concentrate all their efforts on "refuting Sunnism"

You'll find its actually the other way around  😊

"Since your whole world consists of hating Abu Bakr and me"

I don't hate Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Muawiya, you or anyone else. I never said or meant I did. Just discussing facts😊

"Notice, I chose these names because they also destroy 12er debaters"

Yes I have heard and watched some footage. I'd love to see them here. They're more than welcome. What i want is a one to one and not what I'm getting and that is a whole pack jumping up and down from all corners and sides and with all sorts.

LOL, the rest of this post is you contradicting yourself.  Are we the ones on top of the Muslim world intellectually and refuting atheists and Christians, or are we only concentrating all of our efforts on the 12ers?  Honestly, you can't possibly live in such a bubble that you think the Muslim world puts even 5% of its effort in refuting 12ers.  Look at how little traffic this and other anti-12er criticism gets.  One video of Muhammad Hijab whooping David White gets WAY more attention than the entire Anti-Majos or Sunni Defense channel...
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

Khaled

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #233 on: November 21, 2018, 09:12:25 PM »
@iceman

Since you've gone into occultation as usual, I wanted to add this recent quote I read to show you the difference between the mainstream Muslim belief and the 12er belief regarding the Mahdi.  Notice how, at the end of the day, or reliance is on Allah, not on the Mahdi, or any one else for that matter:

Quote
Dr. Ahmad Taha said:

ولو سلّمنا بفرضية أن المهدي وحده هو من يستطيع حل المشكلات، فيقيناً لن يحل المشكلات وينتصر بطريقة سحرية غامضة الأسباب، ولن يظهر المهدي إلا عندما تكون هناك الأمة التي يقاتل ويحارب بها، فهو لن يحارب وحده، وسيمضي في الطريق الذي سلكه كل الأنبياء والرسل، وستجري عليه سنن الله في الكون كما تجري على كل البشر.

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Mahdi is the only one who could solve our problems, he will most certainly not solve our problems and lead us to victory through some magically obscure means. The Mahdi will not appear until there is an Ummah at his disposal ready to wage war and fight with him. He will not wage war on his own. He will take the path which all the prophets and messengers took and the natural laws of the universe will apply to him as they do to all human beings.
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #234 on: November 23, 2018, 04:26:47 PM »
@iceman

Since you've gone into occultation as usual, I wanted to add this recent quote I read to show you the difference between the mainstream Muslim belief and the 12er belief regarding the Mahdi.  Notice how, at the end of the day, or reliance is on Allah, not on the Mahdi, or any one else for that matter:

"Since you've gone into occultation as usual"

Be it taunts or tantrums, absurd attitude or insulting remarks, I'm use to this from your side. 😊 No sweat here, carry on as usual. Well what can I say, if you're going to continue as MR RIGHT and MR TRUTH and with such attitude and beahaviour then it's not much of discussion then, is it?

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #235 on: November 23, 2018, 05:36:51 PM »
Agree, what you are about to say not only shows that, but it also shows you are morally bankrupt as well...

True...

No true, in fact, the only "Islamic" country around today is Iran.  The rest are openly secular, or hide behind the guise of religion to suppress the masses, as is in the case of the Gulf Countries.  The closest thing we had in the past 150 years or so has been Mursi, and we all know what happened with him.  If you want me to accept Erdogan then I guess I will for the sake of argument.
 
Not only that, but we in fact the only people representing Islam at all, intellectually, academically, practically, politically, etc.
 

Most commentators would blame a little something called Islamophobia.  The same time of fear mongering and hatred that you cast over 1.5 billion Muslims as we can see in what you are about to say...

Umm.. who is "my boys"?  I consider the Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you as I've told you time and time again.  Rather, I free myself of all of the UNISLAMIC and oppressive groups, whether they are Dawaish or any one else.  Do you do the same with Bashar alAssad?  Is your support of that tyrant giving Islam a good name?  Do you think that Iran has a good reputation with the rest of the world?  Honestly, everything you write is so counterproductive to your point that I'm not ever sure you think anything you write through.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/11/global-views-of-iran-overwhelmingly-negative/

What now?  I am not waiting for the Mahdi.  I am relying on Allah سبحانه وتعالى.  I don't even think the belief in the Mahdi is from the foundations of the deen, or the foundations of Ahl as-Sunnah.  This is probably your most absurd point to date.

LOL, the rest of this post is you contradicting yourself.  Are we the ones on top of the Muslim world intellectually and refuting atheists and Christians, or are we only concentrating all of our efforts on the 12ers?  Honestly, you can't possibly live in such a bubble that you think the Muslim world puts even 5% of its effort in refuting 12ers.  Look at how little traffic this and other anti-12er criticism gets.  One video of Muhammad Hijab whooping David White gets WAY more attention than the entire Anti-Majos or Sunni Defense channel...

Agree, what you are about to say not only shows that, but it also shows you are morally bankrupt as well..."

😊 Well if that was the case then this would be a very easy and simple matter. And it isn't because if it was then why the hell are your kind spending so much money, time, effort and commitment in dealing with us and our ideology.  ☺

And you're struggling with it. You are so desperate that you have to assemble into a pack to deal with just only one of us. You can't have a one to one or come one at a time, you question but refuse to answer, you only comment on what suits you and then we have twist and turns. What I mean by 'you' is the pack.

"Umm.. who is "my boys"?  I consider the Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you as I've told you time and time again"

Your focus is 100% on us. I've never seen any thread on them based on crticisism and condemnation from any of you. 😊 Care to start a thread on them when you have some free time from chasing us around all over the place 😀

"Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you"

We don't use means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have our demands met and cause bloodshed and mayhem to bring about the Islamic Caliphate 😀

The only deviants are you and them. The only difference is that you do it verbally and they do it practically 😀 You do it with verbal abuse and they do it with physical abuse 😀 Otherwise you are of the same kind and nature. You share same ideology but differ in how you do it.

"Do you do the same with Bashar alAssad?  Is your support of that tyrant giving Islam a good name?

I'm in no support of any tyrant or any leader who uses heavy handed tactics on the people and public, since the death of the Prophet s.a.w and onwards. Would you share the same thought? 😊

And you speak about Iran, since the Islamic revolution in Iran, can you be honest and truthful that the international community has been fair and just with Iran, its economy and its people? Iran has been isolated and intimidated from day one not just by the western community but also by the Muslim community for it being majority Shia governed 😊

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #236 on: November 24, 2018, 10:40:26 PM »
Agree, what you are about to say not only shows that, but it also shows you are morally bankrupt as well...

True...

No true, in fact, the only "Islamic" country around today is Iran.  The rest are openly secular, or hide behind the guise of religion to suppress the masses, as is in the case of the Gulf Countries.  The closest thing we had in the past 150 years or so has been Mursi, and we all know what happened with him.  If you want me to accept Erdogan then I guess I will for the sake of argument.
 
Not only that, but we in fact the only people representing Islam at all, intellectually, academically, practically, politically, etc.
 

Most commentators would blame a little something called Islamophobia.  The same time of fear mongering and hatred that you cast over 1.5 billion Muslims as we can see in what you are about to say...

Umm.. who is "my boys"?  I consider the Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you as I've told you time and time again.  Rather, I free myself of all of the UNISLAMIC and oppressive groups, whether they are Dawaish or any one else.  Do you do the same with Bashar alAssad?  Is your support of that tyrant giving Islam a good name?  Do you think that Iran has a good reputation with the rest of the world?  Honestly, everything you write is so counterproductive to your point that I'm not ever sure you think anything you write through.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/11/global-views-of-iran-overwhelmingly-negative/

What now?  I am not waiting for the Mahdi.  I am relying on Allah سبحانه وتعالى.  I don't even think the belief in the Mahdi is from the foundations of the deen, or the foundations of Ahl as-Sunnah.  This is probably your most absurd point to date.

LOL, the rest of this post is you contradicting yourself.  Are we the ones on top of the Muslim world intellectually and refuting atheists and Christians, or are we only concentrating all of our efforts on the 12ers?  Honestly, you can't possibly live in such a bubble that you think the Muslim world puts even 5% of its effort in refuting 12ers.  Look at how little traffic this and other anti-12er criticism gets.  One video of Muhammad Hijab whooping David White gets WAY more attention than the entire Anti-Majos or Sunni Defense channel...

"LOL, the rest of this post is you contradicting yourself.  Are we the ones on top of the Muslim world intellectually and refuting atheists and Christians, or are we only concentrating all of our efforts on the 12ers?  Honestly, you can't possibly live in such a bubble that you think the Muslim world puts even 5% of its effort in refuting 12ers.  Look at how little traffic this and other anti-12er criticism gets.  One video of Muhammad Hijab whooping David White gets WAY more attention than the entire Anti-Majos or Sunni Defense channel..."

Vast majority of you, be it the Saudis or other Arabs or non Arabs, are spending so much time, effort and money to try and stop Shiaism from spreading. Take a look at this site and there are many other sites as such. We also have various groups, organisations and institutions working against Shiaism. Read history and see the propaganda against Shias from day one. It's been a constant struggle for anti Shias from the very start.

And you keep boasting about Saqifa, I've said this before that only the heads of the Ansar gathered in Saqifa to SELECT THEIR OWN LEADER. I wonder why. And only three Muhajir quietly and secretly rushed to Saqifa to stop them. Why didn't they allow them (Ansar) to select a leader and rally around and support them.😊   

Saqifa wasn't a public gathering or assembly, it wasn't a public event where all parties concerned or all heads of Muslim tribes and areas, all important and concerned individuals and personalities gathered/assembled to choose and select a leader, to name and appoint the successor to Muhammad s.a.w 😊

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #237 on: November 24, 2018, 11:26:54 PM »
Does this mean you accept the authority of the Khalifat ul Muslimeen, I mean the institution which was created from Saqifa?

Do you accept the authority of this institution despite it not being divinely appointed?

If you say no, then how was it valid for sayyidina Hasan RA to have this office? Do you recognize the authority of sayyidina Hasan RA as the fifth caliph?

If you say yes, then you have contradicted your own principle that any office which is not divinely appointed is invalid.
You will also have to recognize the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates (Abu Bakr's, Umar's and Uthman's رضى الله عنهم).

You have said that the office of Imamate is not in lieu of caliphate but something altogether separate from it.
If that is the case why are you concerned with Saqifa and why do you attack the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates?

I look forward to your answers.

Allow me to explain. Please pay attention and acknowledge.

"Does this mean you accept the authority of the Khalifat ul Muslimeen, I mean the institution which was created from Saqifa?"

You have two things here, 1, Religion (Deen). 2, World (Dunya). To break it down further you have religious authority, which is divine authority as well as authority chosen by election selection of the people. These are two different authorities.

For example Muhammad s.a.w was a Messenger and Prophet. He was divinely appointed. Why didn't the Muslims just accept and keep him as a religious guide and gather to elect and select a leader to run the world affairs? Ever thought of that? 

When it comes to Muhammad s.a.w he is the religious leader as well as looking after the affairs of the Muslims and the world. But after Muhammad s.a.w religion and religious authority is restricted to only Muhammad s.a.w and the Qur'an and we need to elect and select someone else to run the affairs of the Muslims and the world?

Point 2, obviously Muhammad s.a.w didn't name and appoint anyone to govern after him because either there was no need to or he just simply didn't bother. I wonder why.

After the demise of Muhammad s.a.w there was no public gathering or assembly to elect and select to name and appoint someone to govern. This is another argument for another day.

Now the answer to your question,

NO we do not accept the authority of "Caliphatul Muslimeen' as a religious authority because we believe in divine authority and a divine leader just like Muhammad s.a.w.

But we have to accept and consider that Muslims took a different turn and developed a man made and selected  authority of Caliphatul Muslimeen. In history whether one accepts or not likes or not the title and authority of Caliphatul Muslimeen was created and started.

iceman

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #238 on: November 25, 2018, 12:20:23 AM »
"If you say no, then how was it valid for sayyidina Hasan RA to have this office? Do you recognize the authority of sayyidina Hasan RA as the fifth caliph?"

First of all we need to understand what Imamah is. A messengers job is to deliver and spread the message. The Imams job is to protect and defend that message.

We need to acknowledge that the message wasn't under threat by Muawiya or his reign othewise Hassan's stance would have been different. The same thing is that what happened at Saqifa and how the coincidental and immature decision was made and forced upon people didn't threaten the message otherwise Ali's stance would have been different.

However the message was at threat during the reign of Yazeed that's why the people of Kufa wrote to Hussain and that is why Hussain's stance was different. It's about the message and not about the title and position of Caliphatul Muslimeen. But for Abu Bakr, Umar, Muawiya etc it was about the title and position of Caliphatul Muslimeen and not about the message.

YES we do recognise that Hassan was the 5th Caliph of the Muslims. That's what history says and tells you. According to history Yazeed was the 7th Caliph of the Muslims whether you like it or not.

"If you say yes, then you have contradicted your own principle that any office which is not divinely appointed is invalid."

NO I haven't. There is no contradiction when you have Deen and Duniya. Is there a contradiction when you say and mention Deen and Duniya? NO there isn't. There is also no contradiction when you mention religious authority and authority of the people.

"You will also have to recognize the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates (Abu Bakr's, Umar's and Uthman's رضى الله عنهم)."

😊 Ah, LEGITIMACY is totally a different thing. What is the meaning of legitimacy?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2018, 12:28:35 AM by iceman »

Cherub786

Re: Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?
« Reply #239 on: November 25, 2018, 04:30:19 AM »
@iceman
Ma sha Allah, you have at least answered my questions which was more than I was expecting. Briefly, I will say here that despite having answered the questions, your answers reveal how you are playing games and have departed from the position of your own Twelver madhhab:

Allow me to explain. Please pay attention and acknowledge.

"Does this mean you accept the authority of the Khalifat ul Muslimeen, I mean the institution which was created from Saqifa?"

You have two things here, 1, Religion (Deen). 2, World (Dunya). To break it down further you have religious authority, which is divine authority as well as authority chosen by election selection of the people. These are two different authorities.

This right here is the standard Sunni position. We recognize a distinction between religious and secular authority. Religious authority is wielded by Prophets alone, while secular authority may be exercised by figures that have no religious authority (i.e. the caliphs). A Prophet may also exercise secular authority but that is not always necessary.

Now you have departed from the Twelver madhhab which says that the exercising of all authority such as the government is the sole right of the Infallibles, meaning the Prophet and the 12 Imams. They make no distinction between religious and secular authority.

Otherwise, why do all the Shia object to the secular authority of sayyidina Abi Bakr RA as the Prophet's first caliph, when he only exercised secular authority and not religious authority, nor did he ever claim his authority is essentially religious?

Why could not the Shia be content with saying that their madhhab is that sayyidina Ali RA was the Imam in Religion and Abu Bakr RA the caliph in secular authority over the Ummah and that the latter was valid?

When they invalidate the latter it means they do not recognize a distinction between religious and secular authority.

If you say that sayyidina Ali RA was indeed the Imam in Religion but he should have also been the caliph of secular authority because he was most qualified for the task and not because he had a religious divine authority to be the caliph of secular authority, then you have departed from the Twelver madhhab's position. The Twelvers say that sayyidina Ali RA had the divine authority to be the caliph of the Muslims, meaning rule them in the dunya not simply the Deen.

Quote
For example Muhammad s.a.w was a Messenger and Prophet. He was divinely appointed. Why didn't the Muslims just accept and keep him as a religious guide and gather to elect and select a leader to run the world affairs? Ever thought of that? 

What do you think the people of Medina did? Even the Jews of Medina accepted Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم as their ruler, chief and judge but in dunya not deen. In addition to being a Prophet of God, sayyidina Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was in a position of judge over Medina. That is why the Jews would come to him to settle their legal disputes and refer to him for judgment. They agreed to the Charter of Medina which was like a constitution describing the political setup of Medina. The Jews accepted him as a judge but not as a Prophet. He صلى الله عليه وسلم became the judge and ruler of Medina by the agreement of the people of that town, both Muslim (Ansar) and non-Muslim (Jewish clans).

In fact, at times the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم even delegated this secular authority of his to others. For example, the appointment of sayyidina Saad b. Muadh رضى الله عنه to act as judge in the matter of the treason of Bani Qurayza. Before giving his judgment, sayyidina Saad b. Muadh even confirmed that the Prophet too would be bound by his judgment, because it was a secular matter not a matter of Deen. When sayyidina Saad b. Muadh arrived, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم stood up and instructed the Ansar to stand up قُومُوا إِلَى سَيِّدِكُمْ "Stand up for your Master". This was to acknowledge Saad b. Muadh's secular authority.

Now how can a Prophet delegate religious authority to one of his companions, that too someone whom you don't consider to be Ma'sum? It was obviously the delegation of secular authority which is not divinely appointed.

Quote
When it comes to Muhammad s.a.w he is the religious leader as well as looking after the affairs of the Muslims and the world. But after Muhammad s.a.w religion and religious authority is restricted to only Muhammad s.a.w and the Qur'an and we need to elect and select someone else to run the affairs of the Muslims and the world?

Now I've answered this point. The secular authority of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was not divinely appointed. Even the Jews of Medina acknowledged his secular authority and treated him as a judge to settle their legal disputes. The people of Medina agreed to have him as their secular leader, he was not divinely appointed to that position.

Quote
Point 2, obviously Muhammad s.a.w didn't name and appoint anyone to govern after him because either there was no need to or he just simply didn't bother. I wonder why.

Just as the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم attained his position of judge and ruler over Medina by the agreement of her people, he expected his own Sahaba to consult and elect a leader among themselves, hence why he never designated any successor, though of course there are Hadith where he predicted who would succeed him and where he hinted at the fact that Abu Bakr RA should succeed him, hence why he appointed him to lead the prayers in his final illness.

Quote
Now the answer to your question,

NO we do not accept the authority of "Caliphatul Muslimeen' as a religious authority because we believe in divine authority and a divine leader just like Muhammad s.a.w.

Neither do we. We believe that religious authority has ceased in the person of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. You acknowledge that the institution of Khilafa is a secular institution and does not wield religious authority. The only thing is that you are acknowledging a parallel institution, which you consider divinely appointed, namely Imamate.

According to you, this divinely appointed institution can exist side by side with the secular caliphate. My question is do you consider the caliphate as a secular institution valid? If you say yes you have departed from the Twelver madhhab. If you say no, then you have to answer why historically your Imams (Ali, Hasan and Hussain رضى الله عنهم) did not revolt against the caliphate. You also have to answer why Ali and Hasan رضى الله عنهما accepted the office of caliphate, and why sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه subsequently resigned from that institution knowing full well it would then be occupied by Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه?

Quote
But we have to accept and consider that Muslims took a different turn and developed a man made and selected  authority of Caliphatul Muslimeen. In history whether one accepts or not likes or not the title and authority of Caliphatul Muslimeen was created and started.

The point is you say it is wrong and an error for the Muslims to have done this. By saying so, you automatically posit that this institution must be divinely appointed.
Forbidden_Link

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
2332 Views
Last post September 08, 2015, 02:39:11 AM
by Hadrami
24 Replies
5693 Views
Last post August 28, 2016, 03:02:45 AM
by Abu Muhammad
8 Replies
2242 Views
Last post June 15, 2017, 07:53:11 AM
by Noor-us-Sunnah
9 Replies
1948 Views
Last post September 11, 2017, 11:41:16 PM
by Hadrami