Why double standard?

[Abu Jasim Al-Salafi]

I wish I could reply to all your allegations, but your horrible name disgusts me, still can't get over this awful name you chose on this forum.

Disgusting.

[Hani]

The Prophet saw departed without appointing a successor, this is a fact backed by Mutawatir narratives. The Prophet saw never said its not allowed to appoint, but he emphasyzed on the importance of consultation. Abu Bakr had the choice of either appointing or leaving the matter to them. The believers asked him to make a decision and they told him they'd accept whomever he chose, that's why there were no disputes when he picked Umar. Umar was unsure whether he should choose or not, after consultation he decided to nominate six men. Uthman was killed before anything could happen. Ali accepted to be a leader after they insisted as long as he got general acceptance in the Masjid like the three before him did. Ali decided to leave the people without appointing a successor, he refused to appoint anybody even after they insisted.

Nahj ul Balaghah is a weak chainless story book. Ali thought Abu Bakr was worthy in more than one authentic narration.

The part of Abu Bakr sermon is a part you misunderstood since you're a weirdo.

You also misunderstood Umars words and Umar also said "if it weren't for Muadh then Umar would have perished."

As opposed to what you said Ali was not chosen by everyone. The people of Syria all refused him. A lot of Sahabah did not select him or offer Bayah or obedience. Zubayr and Talhah were forced to give Bayah. All in all, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman had a lot more acceptance.

As for Abu Bakr, some of the Ansar refused to elect anyone other than their own leader Saad. The Mouhajiroun convinced the Ansar to select Abu Bakr and so they all chose him. Only banu Hashim refused to select Abu Bakr at first but then they corrected their mistake and returned to goodness. Umar was accepted by all unanimously and so was Uthman, everyone gave them Bayah.

As for the prophet saw appointing deputies during his life, it's different than appointing a successor after his death. Two different scenarios.

[Rationalist]

So prophet developed n made progress thus he let people choose (which is totally false and lie) then abu bakr ruled and people were backtracked and no longer could decide thus he willed for umar.

How can it be a lie when  Ali never told people that he was appointed at Ghadir? He never claimed he was appointed at Ghadir.

Ali (as) never considered either of them to be suitable for caliphate as made clear in sermon 3 of nahjul balagah.

But he also did not become a Calipah through the process of divine appointed. The same people gave them bayah after gave Ali the bayah to become Calipah. Also, Najh Al Balagha does not say anything about Ghadir or the divine appointment of 12 Calipahs.

Then abu bakr himself confessed he is deviated and tricked by shaitan so people shud correct him.

Didn't Iblis trick Adam (as) who Allah (swt) appointed as Calipah?

I mean what kind of person did people appoint who could not guide himself let alone guide an entire ummah.

The Rafidah could not even make even on of the 12 Imams into Imams. Even the 12th Imam disappeared due to their lack of support.

Umar himself was ignorant and could not solve most of the problems thus said O Allah do not put me under situation where Abul Hasan is not there or If not for Ali umar would have perished meaning made mistakes n ended in Hell.

There are cases where Shaykh Mufid could not solve problems and the 12th imam supposedly appeared and helped him.

Only person who was chosen by everyone was Ali (as).

But that was not through the belief that he is divinely appointed. It was through bayah as a ruler.

Sunnis have no answer but to play with words whereas prophet (saws) never left Medina unless he chose someone as his (saws) deputy even if he (saws) was going for few days and here sunnis claim that when he (saws) was leaving for forever left the ummah without appointing anyone. Come on use some logic and brain.

That's because we don't believe anyone who divinely appointed after the Prophet (pbuh). Even 12ers they no proof that the 12 Imams were appointed as rulers of the ummah. They go as far as cursing other descendants of Fatima (sa) who claimed the Imamate.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Ali (as) never considered either of them to be suitable for caliphate as made clear in sermon 3 of nahjul balagah.

This is actually what the irony is, the sermon 3 of Nahjul Balagha was narrated by a Khawariji as per Shia scholars,  and he was declared weak by Shia scholars. But still the Rafidah accept this crap which isn't reliable even from their standards, which proves that they are the people of desire. They don't have any standards, what suits their desires they take it, what doesn't they reject it. On the other hand Ahlus-sunnah have authentic reports from Ali(RA) who praised Abu Bakr(RA) and Umar(RA) and their Caliphate.

[Hadrami]

I mean what kind of person did people appoint who could not guide himself let alone guide an entire ummah.

Looking at how Islam & Muslim were in his time, that was the shortest and yet one of the greatest time for this ummah. Can we say the same in regards to the longest running unicorn leader who is useless even for himself, if he does exist

[Solomon]

I asked that in the context of not appointing his successor, these silly answers show that you have got no rational answer.  It's well known fact that Abu Bakr(RA) was one of the most humble Sahaba who walked on earth.

lol,silly answer ahem ahem!

No, Prophet(SAWS) did not "ORDER" for election. Read Islamic History from the books of momineen(Ahlus-sunnah) since you have no idea about the correct history.

So such election is invented one if it's not the sunnah??

[muslim720]

I will just leave this here.  Nahjul Balagha, letter 6:

"Verily, the people who paid allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have paid allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them.  So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it.  And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar.  So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah.  If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people.  If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers.  And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him."

[Qalander Rafidhi]

I will just leave this here.  Nahjul Balagha, letter 6:

"Verily, the people who paid allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have paid allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them.  So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it.  And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar.  So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah.  If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people.  If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers.  And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him."

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-allah-son-abu-quhafah

[muslim720]

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-allah-son-abu-quhafah

JazakAllah khair!  However, this is another one of those sermons without an authentic chain.  The entire collection is without sanad.  Nonetheless, it is interesting to see how the same man in the same book is alleged to have said one thing only to turn around and say another a few pages later.

As far as I am concerned, Imam Ali [ra] was far too superior than to deliver a wailing sermon over an authoritative position, or "right", that was snatched from him for if there was one man who knew his right and how to claim that right, it was him.  If his son could stand up to Yazeed [la], he could have stood up to Abu Bakr [ra], Umar [ra] and Uthman [ra].  There is a reason why he did not. 

Is it possible that at some point he thought that he should have been nominated the Caliph (before the first three)?  Absolutely!  Angels are infallible and even they were taken back when Adam [as] was appointed the Caliph on earth.  But when Allah [swt] explained to them, they dropped the matter.  Imam Ali [ra], according to majority of Muslims, was fallible so it is quite understandable if he wanted the Caliphate.  However, there is a difference between wanting something and feeling Divinely entitled to it.

Those who believe in Allah's Will have put this matter to rest except the Shia.  Similarly, all angels accepted the Will of Allah [swt] - when He appointed Adam [as] as His Vicegerent on earth - except Iblees.  Do not imitate Iblees by being adamant that Caliphate or leadership belonged to Imam Ali [ra] by way of Divine Ordainment.

[Hani]

I will just leave this here.  Nahjul Balagha, letter 6:

"Verily, the people who paid allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have paid allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them.  So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it.  And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar.  So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah.  If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people.  If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers.  And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him."

http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-allah-son-abu-quhafah

Okay so if we combine the contents of the passage that the brother posted from Nahj-ul-Balagha and combine it with the sermon you quoted. We conclude that `Ali thought he had a right and believed he's more worthy but didn't believe he was divinely appointed nor that the matter of leadership is a divine one rather it's through Shurah and is decided by the Mouhajiroun and the Ansar.

Great.

[Ibn Yahya]

You seem unable to understand that we don't say the Prophet couldn't name a successor. We say he just didn't. Simple as that and free of hypocrisy. Just historical fact.

One of the most stupidest thing i have ever heard. Prophet (saws) the last prophet of Allah dies but does not appoints anyone as his successor while leaving behind millions without a guide whereas any sane and able minded person who leaves behind one of smallest of business or empire appoints his successor before dying. You people even think??

Why not? He made it very clear on many occassions that the Muslims should choose between Abu Bakr and 'Umar and please millions? Arabia at the time probably had a million at the most in population.

By the way he knew there would be a successor amongst the ansar and Muhajireen who are blessed according to Qur'an 9:100. Maybe you just can't grasp the idea of being trusted to make your own decisions since you need to follow a Marja'

[Hani]

Not only that, the Prophet (saw) knew exactly who would succeed him, Allah revealed to him many matters of the unseen and future events, he knew who his successor would be, he knew his nation wouldn't perish, he knew etc... Does the owner of a business know the future of his business through revelation? How can you compare a Prophet to a businessman!?

[Qalander Rafidhi]

Okay so if we combine the contents of the passage that the brother posted from Nahj-ul-Balagha and combine it with the sermon you quoted. We conclude that `Ali thought he had a right and believed he's more worthy but didn't believe he was divinely appointed nor that the matter of leadership is a divine one rather it's through Shurah and is decided by the Mouhajiroun and the Ansar.

Great.

Also note that he did believe himself to ve superior to Abu Bakr, otherwise there wouldn't have been this claim. You can scrap the hadith where muhammad ibn al hanafiyya (ra) is being told that Ali (as) believed himself to be lower than those two ( i.e Abu Bakr and Umar ). If he didn't believe that he was superior, then on what basis did he say that he had more right to it, or Bani Hashim in general ?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Also note that he did believe himself to ve superior to Abu Bakr, otherwise there wouldn't have been this claim. You can scrap the hadith where muhammad ibn al hanafiyya (ra) is being told that Ali (as) believed himself to be lower than those two ( i.e Abu Bakr and Umar ).

Brother its a MUTAWATTIR hadeeth that Ali(RA) believed Abu bakr(RA) and Umar(RA) to be superior than him. So comparing this with a weak sermon of Nahjul Balagha(as per shia standards) and asking to scrap a Mutawattir hadeeth is a Joke.

If he didn't believe that he was superior, then on what basis did he say that he had more right to it, or Bani Hashim in general ?

Superiority is never the ONLY criteria to appoint a Ruler. We have the examples of Rulers under whose rulership there were Prophets. Or in other words, there was Prophet present but still Allah appointed a normal man a Ruler or King over people.

[Solomon]

It is historically recorded that Abu Bakr only chose `Umar because the people asked him to pick a leader and insisted on him.

So brother,now those very people had let the sunnah of prophet(s) to go away and asked abu bakr to choose caliph  after knowing it is sunnah of prophet to form a council and then elect?

[Hani]

Also note that he did believe himself to ve superior to Abu Bakr, otherwise there wouldn't have been this claim. You can scrap the hadith where muhammad ibn al hanafiyya (ra) is being told that Ali (as) believed himself to be lower than those two ( i.e Abu Bakr and Umar ). If he didn't believe that he was superior, then on what basis did he say that he had more right to it, or Bani Hashim in general ?

Oh easy question, I can reconcile all of that for you.

He didn't believe he was divinely chosen as per his sermon. He also believed he had more claim to the position of successor since he's a blood relative of the Prophet (saw) even though he admits Abu Bakr is better than him yet he feels leadership is his right through blood relation and closeness to the Messenger (saw).

[Hani]

It is historically recorded that Abu Bakr only chose `Umar because the people asked him to pick a leader and insisted on him.

So brother,now those very people had let the sunnah of prophet(s) to go away and asked abu bakr to choose caliph  after knowing it is sunnah of prophet to form a council and then elect?

The Prophet (saw) left us the choice of how a leader  is chosen as long as it's by mutual consultation. So no, they didn't leave the Sunnah.

[Solomon]

The Prophet (saw) left us the choice of how a leader  is chosen as long as it's by mutual consultation. So no, they didn't leave the Sunnah.

So is it self invented by some on basis of their derivation if this is neither sunnah nor order of prophet(s)??

[Hani]

The Prophet (saw) left us the choice of how a leader  is chosen as long as it's by mutual consultation. So no, they didn't leave the Sunnah.

So is it self invented by some on basis of their derivation if this is neither sunnah nor order of prophet(s)??

Appointing or not appointing a leader is not a matter of religion so we may say it's an innovation or not. The Sunnah is the consultation between the Mouhajiroun and the Ansar.

If a leader decides to not appoint his successor, he can do that and tell his followers: "After I pass away, let the pious among you and those known for their merit and virtue in Islam, let them consult in the matter and choose a man pleasing to them and to Allah."

If a leader decides to appoint his successor, he must ask the people if they shall accept his final decision. If they agree then he has to call the people of piety, wisdom and good opinion among them and he has to ask them one by one whom they think is best suited. Then he picks based on this.

This leader must then act based on the Qur'an and Sunnah.

[Solomon]

If a leader decides to not appoint his successor, he can do that and tell his followers: "After I pass away, let the pious among you and those known for their merit and virtue in Islam, let them consult in the matter and choose a man pleasing to them and to Allah."

Have prophet(s) said this?