270 replies to this topic

[MysticKnight]

Let's think about something here.

Musa was appointed as a Prophet. He lead his community and had total authority over them. Then followed him in succession were Prophets. Now what happened in Bani-Israel, is that rulers also ruled them, whom were not Prophets and some definitely were not good people. I meant rule in the sense, people took them as rulers, not that they actually had legitimate authority.

Now there were Prophets like Zakariya, Yahya, and Isa whom although were true kings per verse of Talut, were faced with worldly rulers....

Now an honest question, whom succeeded Dawood's authorative position...Yahya or the King that killed him?

If the King that killed him didn't succeed him, then the position of worldly authority is irrelevant to the issue of succession towards a Prophet.

Now let's take the argument further. Suppose kings came after the king that killed Yahya and were good people, and ruled justly. Does that make them successors of Musa?

The reason what I'm stating this, is that it's clear, that per Quran, the successors of Prophets, those whom inherited them, were people whom held the Authority of God over the people and Guided the people.

God is always a TRUE King, therefore, if he appoints someone, then they are true kings as well.

However, it doesn't follow if you were a good ruler, that you held the position of the authority of a Prophet. No there is no logical connection between the two.

A True sucessor would be one whom takes on the position of Guidance and Authority of God.

Therefore, in light if this, can it be really said that Abu Baker, and Umar, and Uthman succeeded the Prophet and were of the 12 Successors?

[Just the truth]

Abu bakr was successor and he was good ruler nothing compared to them kings dat u referred to who killed unjustly, so what's your point, this thread won't prove nothing it will just go back to the same old argument you saying Abu bakr was bad and we saying no he wasn't.

[Al-MuHammadee]

 Just the truth, on 12 July 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

Abu bakr was successor and he was good ruler nothing compared to them kings dat u referred to who killed unjustly, so what's your point, this thread won't prove nothing it will just go back to the same old argument you saying Abu bakr was bad and we saying no he wasn't.

Apparently, the arguments in the OP are above your intellectual capacity.

In simple words, he is asking you: do you have ANY evidence that it was Allaah that specifically appointed Aboo Bakr as His khaleefah over the Muslims or not?

If no, then he was nothing but a thief. Simple as that.

[Just the truth]

 Al-MuHammadee, on 14 July 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

Apparently, the arguments in the OP are above your intellectual capacity.

In simple words, he is asking you: do you have ANY evidence that it was Allaah that specifically appointed Aboo Bakr as His khaleefah over the
Muslims or not?

If no, then he was nothing but a thief. Simple as that.

Listen you hot headed [EDITED] calm down with the attitude every post you have left you've shown how aggressive your behaviour is, what's wrong have you just got back from beating your head because I think YOU need to pack in matham as you can see it's killing too many of your brain cells.

Question to you is can you prove imamaat from Quran without using any back door tactics? As it is a asul ad din I'm sure Allah has CLEARLY written it somewhere. as Allah says we have made this Quran easy to understand.

Bring forward your evidence!!!

Allah never appointed Abu bakr but can you prove allappointed Ali?????

Edited by Haji 2003, 14 July 2012 - 02:12 PM.

[singham]

@mysticknight
holy prophet was last divine person  and no one is his divine successor  this is the one of the core beliefs of sunnism ,zaidism and ibadhiism. even if u say that there must be always a divine successor "to guide" the ummah  then, who is divine person of this time?

[Just the truth]

 singham, on 14 July 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

@mysticknight
holy prophet was last divine person  and no one is his divine successor  this is the one of the core beliefs of sunnism ,zaidism and ibadhiism. even if u say that there must be always a divine
successor "to guide" the ummah  then, who is divine person of this time?

Very good question bro, as you can see even in Iran they use democracy to choose next supreme leader just like us Sunnis.

Why doesn't their imam come and guide/help them???

[MysticKnight]

 singham, on 14 July 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

@mysticknight
holy prophet was last divine person  and no one is his divine successor  this is the one of the core beliefs of sunnism ,zaidism and ibadhiism.

This is the point exactly. That Abu Baker in Sunnism cannot be a successor, very much like a non-divinely appointed ruler in Bani-Israel would not be a successor of Musa. The contradiction however is there are hadiths that Succession will remain in Quraysh or that there will be 12 Successors or that Prophets use to succeed each other in Bani-Israel but this Umma will have no Prophets, but will have successors whom will increase in number.

In other words the hadiths say there will be successors, while, Abu Baker, Umar, Uthman cannot be considered successors, even if they were righteous rulers.

[Al-MuHammadee]

@ just the lies,

Well, I use the eye-for-eye debate style. If you are respectful, I will respect you. If you are disrespectful, I will disrespect you. If you mock, I will mock you. Got it? That is only to make you taste your own poison.

That said, in our religion, we follow the Qur‘aan and the Ahl al-Bayt TOGETHER. This is in line with Hadeeth al-Thaqalayn. Guidance depends upon following them TOGETHER, and NEVER leaving out either of them. So, if you want our evidence that Imaam ‘Alee was appointed by allaah, I will give you good ones from our books AND FROM YOURS.

But, can you do the same about Aboo Bakr from your books? NEVER!!!

[Abu Lulu]

Aba Bakr [EDITED] was never appointed. how for crying out loud would Allah appoint someone who was born by incest?

Edited by Haji 2003, 14 July 2012 - 02:14 PM.
no public cursing allowed on certain personalities

[Rasul]

Ahli Sunnah Wal Democracy lol

[haideriam]

 singham, on 14 July 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

holy prophet was last divine person and no one is his divine successor; this is the one of the core beliefs of sunnism ,zaidism and ibadhiism. even if u say that there must be always a divine successor to guide the ummah then, who is divine person of this time?

"

did you even bother to think before you wrote that out.
do the MUSLIMS not believe in the divine appointment of Imam Mehdi(AS)
please do not share wrong sunni beliefs

[Khadim uz Zahra]

 Just the truth, on 14 July 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Very good question bro, as you can see even in Iran they use democracy to choose next supreme leader just like us Sunnis.

Why doesn't their imam come and guide/help them???

Because Iran is not selecting an Imam, they are choosing their next RULER. Sure, it's a theocracy but that doesn't mean that the leader is an Imam or Prophet.

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra, 14 July 2012 - 04:32 PM.

[Dagga]

@ Just the truth

Think of it this way, Imamate is an usool o deen, SO IMPORTANT that it has to be put up there with Tawheed & Prophethood,yet we never ever find any references to succession of the Prophet SAW in the Quran.

If you gave an arabic speaking and understanding english man (completely unbiased) the Quran and asked him to go through it and bring out what a Muslim needs to believe in, is there any chance he will come up with Imamate? I don't think so.

[MysticKnight]

 Dagga, on 14 July 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Think of it this way, Imamate is an usool o deen, SO IMPORTANT that it has to be put up there with Tawheed & Prophethood,yet we never ever find any references to succession of the Prophet SAW in the Quran.

Everyone reads the Quran with a bias. "...and verily God with respect to his servants is aware seeing. Then we inherited the book to those whom we chosen of our servants, so of them is whom is unjust to himself, and of them is whom is upon a middle path, and of them is whom races ahead in goodness..." (in Suratal Fatir)

To someone growing up as a Shiite, he will see this verse, and think, wait a minute is the verse stating there are chosen ones along side Mohammad?  A person growing up as Sunni, will think no it can't be, since there are no chosen ones after Mohammad.

As for how the word "Astafa" is used, there is 11 other verses that use the word in various forms and all are painting the image of exalted above other servants, chosen above others, as in special servants. There is a verse that states "Peace be upon the servants he has chosen".

If you look at the Talut verse, then you can deduce these people in fact have authority over rest, due to being chosen above others.

Therefore - as a Shiite - this verse was a clear proof to me. However, now that I'm not Shia or Muslim for that matter, I can sympathize with Sunnis seeing this an exception.

Shias are not really ones to expect others to take verses as they seem, when look at what they do with the Khums verse.

The fact is people can't read Quran without bias.

[Rasul]

 Dagga, on 14 July 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

@ Just the truth

Think of it this way, Imamate is an usool o deen, SO IMPORTANT that it has to be put up there with Tawheed & Prophethood,yet we never ever find any references to succession of the Prophet SAW in the Quran.

If you gave an arabic speaking and understanding english man (completely unbiased) the Quran and asked him to go through it and bring out what a Muslim needs to believe in, is there any chance he will come up with Imamate? I don't think so.

Wow you are truly an shameless liar!

[Just the truth]

DAGGA

I know bro I've already tried that theory with a Hindu friend of mine it took him 7 months to read full translation then after that i asked if he found anything regarding the concept of imamaat , well he was as puzzled as me?
He is now looking into Islam but also looking into various sects, he's not yet come to a decision but he said his research into Shia islam has ended as he said he was left puzzled. He is now looking into salafis and Sufis. Mind you he did say that out of all the Shia zaydism looks like the easiest one to understand.

[Just the truth]

RESPONSE TO AL MUHAMMADEE

Firstly I want to apologise for all my previous offensive comments and I would like a fresh start. From now on I will not insult anyone nor will I use harsh comments including sarcasm as they don't get anyone anywhere, hope you could do the same

In sunnism we believe Allah leaves picking a caliph to a shura. The only reason Allah will send imam Mahdi is because at the time of imam Mahdi the ummah will be in total confusion and their will be many many sects, no one can unite us because we all have our own own leaders, so it only makes sense that Allah will send a man who can unite us all. Talking on a personal level I do not think that the sahabis would have chosen anyone other than Ali as caliph if that's what prophet said it very clearly to them regarding ali caliphate, that to me makes much more sense but everyone has a right to his/her opinion. As for guidance from the ahle bayt well imam abu hanifa and imam malik both studied under ahle bayt imam so we also have took knowledge from ahle Bayt and we respect the ahle bayt but I believe Shia have exaggerated their love beyond all boundaries. 

[Al-MuHammadee]

@ just the truth,

As long as you remain respectful, I will respect you. I believe that is fair to both of us, and to shiachat users.

Brother, do you accept that Allaah appointed Imaam ‘Alee the wazeer (second-in-command) of the Prophet during his lifetime? You know why I am asking this. Whoever is appointed a wazeer (also spelled vizier) is the heir apparent, crown prince and designated successor to whosoever is in authority. So, did Allaah appointed Imaam ‘Alee the wazeer of the Prophet or not?

Please, I want a simple answer. Thanks.

[Dagga]

Yeah to be honest Zaydis make the most sense out of Shias and they havent deviated too much.

[Just the truth]

Yes imam Ali was wazeer to prophet during his life time there is no doubt about this, but brother it's not that simple there is soo many other things that need to be discussed in order to understand this topic, I'm not trying to derail the thread/topic but I'm going to point out a few things which convince me that Imamate is not part of Islam, but everyone has his/her own opinion. If any brother/sister feels as though I'm derailing thread then I'm happy to open a new thread regarding the points which I'm going to state below.

1. Ali swore allegiance to Abu bakr after 6 months why would he if Imamate is usul ad din is he not risking his own faith their by doing something unislamic. The only issue Ali had with Abu bakr was regarding fadak not caliphate as Ali had no greed for imamaat.

2. It is a well known fact Ali used to advise Umar on Islam, why would Ali advise an apostate regarding how to rule Muslim community.

3. Ali took part in shura when third caliph was made caliph, why would Ali take part in something unislamic when according to Shia belief imamaat is core belief of Islam, he also swore allegiance to uthman. Amat bin yasir and another companion (can't remember exactly which 1 were waiting outside and Wer e desperate for Ali to become caliph, why didn't they boycott this unislamic event.

4. Salmon al Farsi and amar bin yasir were both governors for Umar, why would Umar make people who don't like him governors.
The main answer I get from Shia regarding above is they did it to spread Islam. Which Islam Sunni or Shia, dud Umar sit back and let them spread Shia Islam (obviously not). 

5. Salman al Farsi was governor of a city in Persia (present say Iran) now we need to look back in history and see when did Shiism become prevalent in Iran.(during Safavid empire read up on this and all other above points).

6. Ali married Abu bakr wife did she regard her x husband apostate because Ali would never marry an apostate.

7. Ali bought up muhammad ibn ani bakr like his own son and he was one of his most faithful followers and he loved Ali very much. The question here is did Ali say to him your dad was an apostate and he just agreed with him?

8. Ali gave his daughter to Omar umm kulthum bint Ali they had a son and a daughter son name was zayd ibn Umar and was referred as (son of the two caliphs) Ali and Umar. I've heard Shia argument that Ali did it under force, but how can we degrade Ali soo much that he would give his daughter to an apostate astagfirullah.

9. Why did amar bin yasir take part in jihad waged by Umar (I think it was conquest of Persia where amar bin yasir was badly wounded I think his ear was cut off or something read it along time ago either he was wounded badly or he lost a limb I'm sure it was his ear).

10. 

[ShababAlMahdi]

 Just the truth, on 15 July 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Yes imam Ali was wazeer to prophet during his life time there is no doubt about this, but brother it's not that simple there is soo many other things that need to be discussed in order to understand this topic, I'm not trying to derail the thread/topic but I'm going to point out a few things which convince me that Imamate is not part of Islam, but everyone has his/her own opinion. If any brother/sister feels as though I'm derailing thread then I'm happy to open a new thread regarding the points which I'm going to state below.

1. Ali swore allegiance to Abu bakr after 6 months why would he if Imamate is usul ad din is he not risking his own faith their by doing something unislamic. The only issue Ali had with Abu bakr was regarding fadak not caliphate as Ali had no greed for imamaat.

2. It is a well known fact Ali used to advise Umar on Islam, why would Ali advise an apostate regarding how to rule Muslim community.

3. Ali took part in shura when third caliph was made caliph, why would Ali take part in something unislamic when according to Shia belief imamaat is core belief of Islam, he also swore allegiance to uthman. Amat bin yasir and another companion (can't remember exactly which 1 were waiting outside and Wer e desperate for Ali to become caliph, why didn't they boycott this unislamic event.

4. Salmon al Farsi and amar bin yasir were both governors for Umar, why would Umar make people who don't like him governors.
The main answer I get from Shia regarding above is they did it to spread Islam. Which Islam Sunni or Shia, dud Umar sit back and let them spread Shia Islam (obviously not).

5. Salman al Farsi was governor of a city in Persia (present say Iran) now we need to look back in history and see when did Shiism become prevalent in Iran.(during Safavid empire read up on this and all other above points).

6. Ali married Abu bakr wife did she regard her x husband apostate because Ali would never marry an apostate.

7. Ali bought up muhammad ibn ani bakr like his own son and he was one of his most faithful followers and he loved Ali very much. The question here is did Ali say to him your dad was an apostate and he just agreed with him?

8. Ali gave his daughter to Omar umm kulthum bint Ali they had a son and a daughter son name was zayd ibn Umar and was referred as (son of the two caliphs) Ali and Umar. I've heard Shia argument that Ali did it under force, but how can we degrade Ali soo much that he would give his daughter to an apostate astagfirullah.

9. Why did amar bin yasir take part in jihad waged by Umar (I think it was conquest of Persia where amar bin yasir was badly wounded I think his ear was cut off or something read it along time ago either he was wounded badly or he lost a limb I'm sure it was his ear).

10.

Thank you for your question, inshAllah I will do my best to reply.

1. Firstly, Imamate and Caliphate are two seperate things, as Caliphate is only political, while Imamate is political and spiritual. Brother as you know, Fatima Zahra only lived 6 months after her father, the Prophet of God (s). In the remainder of her whole life she was angry with both of the first two caliphs, and RasulAllah had said He who angers Fatima angers me, and he who angers me Angers Allah. There has been futile retaliation to say that hadith was revealed when Ali ibn Abi Talib tried proposing for Abu Jahl's daughter, and this has been academically shattered, if you'd like in the next comment I can prove it. So Fatima, the daughter of RasulAllah never gave allegience to Abu Bakr. As for what you've said, it is true 6 months later Imam Ali gave allegience, but let's tell the whole story shall we. Imam Ali himself says in Nahjul Balagha in the 28th letter, he says "I refused accept the caliphate to the First caliph I was dragged out of my house like a camel, with a rope around my neck and every kind of humiliation and cruelty was levelled against me" After this torture he finally "gave his allegience" if you can even call it that. Also since you bring up Fadak, Umar ibn Khattab told Abu Bakr not to give Fatima Fadak back, because if he did they would come back and win the rightful position of her husband back.

2. Imam Ali would advise any who came to ask him, he would say Ask me! Ask me! Before you lose me. Jews and Christians would come and ask him questions of their religious book, and mathematics questions, you think the second caliph who doesn't know politics wouldn't ask? He even admits on numerous occassions "Were it not for Ali, Umar would surely have perished!" He was slow to take revenge on an injury, and quick to forgive. Do not ever mistake this for weakness, this is a rare quality found in a humble man of God. Also you may want to read Fatima Zahra's "Khutba Fadak" and Imam Ali's "Shaqshaqiya" and see how they talk about the events.

3. On the deathbed of Umar ibn Khattab he appointed six people to choose the next caliph over them, and he said if you do not participate you will be given the death penalty. This fact is confirmed as it was re-iterated when Mamun Rashid the Abbasid caliph wanted to force Imam Ali Ridha to be his heir apparent. Again Imam Ali is forced so if a deed is done out of compulsion then the person doing it has not done something haram, for example when Ammar bin Yasir was tortured to the point where he renounced Islam, but RasulAllah (s) said this was okay, or for example when the Quran says if you are under compulsion or you have nothing else to eat and all you have is pig, you can eat pig. Also I thought "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256) so why are they forcing Imam Ali all these times? Are these the actions of a righteous caliph of God's religion?

4.&5.  I have never heard of either of these things, please provide sources (Shia sources if you don't mind, I've learned the hard way not to trust Sunni sources)

6. I noticed by the way you worded #2 and #6 that you think we Shias think Abu Bakr and Umar were apostates (they left the religion). Our 6th and 7th Imams were both asked about the first two caliphs and they tell us they never brought Imaan in the first place, and it becomes evident once we analyze their biographies and actions. Secondly, Asma bint Umays was not at fault, her husband was, and there is no harm in marrying her. There is another good woman married to a corrupt man in the Quran perhaps you've heard of her: Asiyah the wife of Pharoah.

7. Yes Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr was the adopted son of Imam Ali , and his biological father was Abu Bakr. Of course Imam Ali was going to follow the Quranic injunction of "Compulsion is not allowed in religion" (2:256) Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr chose Imam Ali out of his own free will. Fun fact: Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr has a son named Qasim who has a daughter named Umm Farwah who just so happens to be the mother of the sixth Imam, Jafar Sadiq . Question for you: In the battle of the camel, why would Aisha the wife of the Prophet wage war against the caliph of her time? This is kufr. Even her own brother, Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr fought against her. If you also believe that Muawiyah (LA) was also a rightful caliph, then how do you reconcile that one caliph is fighting another caliph, in Nahrawan and Siffin? Two caliphs of the same religion are fighting each other? And both are rightly guided? That's going to be some Jannah we're going to I'm telling you..

8. This too is a point which has been fornicated. It was to try and make it seem like Umar and Imam Ali . This never happened.

9. I haven't actually heard of this, but for now my answer is this: Ammar is a good man, but he isn't an infallible Prophet or Imam. Those people can be scrutinized this minutely since they do not do anything except what Allah tells them to. There may be some reason he did it, Allahu Aalim, on this topic I do not know what the history is.

Inshallah that answered your questions. Wasalam

[Al-MuHammadee]

 Just the truth, on 15 July 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Yes imam Ali was wazeer to prophet during his life time there is no doubt about this

This is the only RELEVANT part of your post. And, thanks so much for not denying an obvious truth. I can see that your participation on this forum is now beginning to have meaning. Imaam 'Alee was appointed by Allaah as the wazeer of the Prophet Muhammad . Alhamdulillaah for accepting that.

Imaam Muslim in his Saheeh, vol. 4, p. 212 records that the Prophet said to Imaam 'Alee :

أنت مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلا أنه لا نبي بعدي

You ('Alee) are of the same status to me as Haaroon was to Moosaa except that there is no prophet after me.

Imaam 'Alee was therefore EVERYTHING that Haaroon was to Moosaa , except that unlike Haaroon he was not a prophet. Jayyid!

According to the Qur'aan [25:35], Haaroon was the wazeer of Moosaa :

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ وَجَعَلْنَا مَعَهُ أَخَاهُ هَارُونَ وَزِيرًا

And We had certainly given Moosaa the Scripture and appointed with him his brother Haaroon as a wazeer.

The word wazeer literally means the one who carries a burden with another. In other word, there is a burden for someone which he is carrying. Whosoever also carries this same burden with him is called his wazeer. During Moosaa's time, he had a huge burden of ruling and guiding the Ummah on his neck. But Haaroon was carrying this burden with him. During Muhammad's time, he had the same burden. Luckily, Imaam 'Alee was also carrying this burden with him. It is for this reason that some translators translate wazeer as "assistant" or "helper" or "minister". It is about a co-bearer of the burden.

In fact, the word wazeer as being used in its various nominal and verbal forms in Qur'aan 6:31, 6:164, 6:25, 17:15, 20:87, 20:100, 35:18, 39:7, 47:4, 53:38 and 94:2.

I do not want to use this fact as evidence of Imaam 'Alee's infallibility at this time, since that will derail the thread. But, it is clear from this that once the Prophet died, all the responsibilities and authorities NATURALLY fell upon the shoulders of Imaam 'Alee. If Haaroon too had outlived Moosaa, he would have naturally become the khaleefah of the latter, due to his status as his wazeer.

This is my argument, and evidence (for now) that Allaah appointed Imaam 'Alee as the khaleefah of the Prophet, even during the latter's lifetime. If you have any rebuttals, please present it.

Thanks.

Edited by Al-MuHammadee, 16 July 2012 - 07:40 AM.

[Just the truth]

Brother al MUHAMMADEE 

The fact that Shia say Ali had more right to caliphate than anyone else  is not a problem even at the slightest because many great sahabis also believed this so this in itself is not the main problem between Sunni or Shia.

The problem starts when Shia accuse them of becoming apostates.

On what grounds did they become apostates?

If it's regarding imamaat then I am also an apostate (according to Shia) but when I put forward this argument forward Shia say to me you're not an apostate you're only risking your hereafter you may be forgiven or punished for refusing imamaat.

Now this is the part where I get really confused because usul ad din is the foundation of ones belief, if your foundation is not right then the building (salah zakah saum hajj) which you build on your foundation will collapse ie; you're destroyed. 

Now this is such a big thing why has everything else which is smaller than usul ad din (salah zakah saum hajj) been CLEARLY mentioned but for imamaat we have to use back door tactics (even then I'm left confused).

[A true Sunni]

 Just the truth, on 15 July 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

RESPONSE TO AL MUHAMMADEE

Firstly I want to apologise for all my previous offensive comments and I would like a fresh start. From now on I will not insult anyone nor will I use harsh comments including sarcasm as they don't get anyone anywhere, hope you could do the same

In sunnism we believe Allah leaves picking a caliph to a shura. The only reason Allah will send imam Mahdi is because at the time of imam Mahdi the ummah will be in total confusion and their will be many many sects, no one can unite us because we all have our own own leaders, so it only makes sense that Allah will send a man who can unite us all. Talking on a personal level I do not think that the sahabis would have chosen anyone other than Ali as caliph if that's what prophet said it very clearly to them regarding ali caliphate, that to me makes much more sense but everyone has a right to his/her opinion. As for guidance from the ahle bayt well imam abu hanifa and imam malik both studied under ahle bayt imam so we also have took knowledge from ahle Bayt and we respect the ahle bayt but I believe Shia have exaggerated their love beyond all boundaries.

LOL you just demonstrated that in your heart you believe in Shia theology. Reread what you said and ponder on it

[Just the truth]

 A true Sunni, on 16 July 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

LOL you just demonstrated that in your heart you believe in Shia theology. Reread what you said and ponder on it

How did you work that out and in my heart I'm 100percent sunni without a doubt.