26 replies to this topic

[the-truth123]

Salam,

I came across this article and, while I understand that it's from sunnis trying to expose shiism, I found that they make some seemingly compelling arguments to oppose the shia concept of appointment at ghadeer.

Here's the site.

Two of the main arguments are briefly as follows:

• If the Holy Prophet was appointing Ali as his successor then he could have announced it during the farewell hajj speech instead of doing it on the journey back to Madina in the midst of far fewer followers. Surely the Prophet would want everyone to know of an issue as important as the appointment of his successor so why didn't he do it in the presence of everyone during hajj.

• While keeping in view the background of this narration [as has been reported at great length on the site] we find that the meaning of mawla did not in any way signify succession as the Prophet was just trying to clear Ali's name as people had begun slandering him.

The rest is just explanations and evidence of their stance.

So how do we then respond to these claims?

[Babruk Aijaz]

Watch it out i am gonna them answer.

Web not found?!!!!  plz Paste the url

Edited by Babruk Aijaz, 11 July 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[Ugly Jinn]

the-truth123, on 11 July 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Two of the main arguments are briefly as follows:

• If the Holy Prophet was appointing Ali as his successor then he could have announced it during the farewell hajj speech instead of doing it on the journey back to Madina in the midst of far fewer followers. Surely the Prophet would want everyone to know of an issue as important as the appointment of his successor so why didn't he do it in the presence of everyone during hajj.

• While keeping in view the background of this narration [as has been reported at great length on the site] we find that the meaning of mawla did not in any way signify succession as the Prophet was just trying to clear Ali's name as people had begun slandering him.

Too add:

• If Imam Ali was was a divine agent, was the divine successor, was a fundamental component of Islam, and alive while the Prophet was revealing the Quran over decades, why wasn't this mentioned in the Quran. Not even his name was mentioned, let alone that there will me divine agents after the Prophet to protect/enforce the Quran.

As important and vital as this issue is from a Shia's perspective but not being in the Quran is a huge drawback.

[Lanatin]

Ugly Jinn, on 11 July 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Too add:

• If Imam Ali was was a divine agent, was the divine successor, was a fundamental component of Islam, and alive while the Prophet was revealing the Quran over decades, why wasn't this mentioned in the Quran. Not even his name was mentioned, let alone that there will me divine agents after the Prophet to protect/enforce the Quran.

As important and vital as this issue is from a Shia's perspective but not being in the Quran is a huge drawback.

The same could be said for the 3 caliphs, all authentic tafsirs from the sunnis and us shia showcase many a verse being revealed with regards to Ali's merits.

[Abu Lulu]

Ugly Jinn, on 11 July 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Too add:

• If Imam Ali was was a divine agent, was the divine successor, was a fundamental component of Islam, and alive while the Prophet was revealing the Quran over decades, why wasn't this mentioned in the Quran. Not even his name was mentioned, let alone that there will me divine agents after the Prophet to protect/enforce the Quran.

As important and vital as this issue is from a Shia's perspective but not being in the Quran is a huge drawback.

if you have the patience

[Rasul]

'Hadith' are also revelation from Allah

(I swear) by the star when it sets, your companion is neither astray nor is deceived; Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) desire. It is naught but revelation that is revealed (to him).

(al-Najm 53:1-4)

Edited by Rasul, 11 July 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Just the truth]

Quick question:

This was a very important announcement so it should be right dat everyone had to hear it to make sure no one would differ after prophet.

Right firstly it should have been said in hajj if it was sooooo important where everyone could have heard it.

You saying that all those who lived south of khumm came all da way up north to heat that and went back home, why would prophet trouble them to come in that heat when he could have easily have said it in Mecca (hajj).

As for that verse "o prophet say which has been revealed to you etc etc...., please stop READ verses before that n c hu and what Allah is talking about

[Goku]

the-truth123, on 11 July 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Salam,

I came across this article and, while I understand that it's from sunnis trying to expose shiism, I found that they make some seemingly compelling arguments to oppose the shia concept of appointment at ghadeer.

Here's the site.

Two of the main arguments are briefly as follows:

• If the Holy Prophet was appointing Ali as his successor then he could have announced it during the farewell hajj speech instead of doing it on the journey back to Madina in the midst of far fewer followers. Surely the Prophet would want everyone to know of an issue as important as the appointment of his successor so why didn't he do it in the presence of everyone during hajj.

• While keeping in view the background of this narration [as has been reported at great length on the site] we find that the meaning of mawla did not in any way signify succession as the Prophet was just trying to clear Ali's name as people had begun slandering him.

The rest is just explanations and evidence of their stance.

So how do we then respond to these claims?

Over 100,000 people were present at the announcement. Dozens upon dozens of people narrated it as a hadeeth. Also, Muhammad (saw) appointed Ali many times before Ghadeer, it just that Ghadeer had the largest audience.

What about when Muhammad (saw) invited his uncles to the diner to announce Islam and invite them and asked who of them wanted to be his successor and only Ali replied and Muhammad said that Ali (while Ali was younger than 10 I believe) would be his successor. This is even recorded in Sunni hadeeths as saheeh.

[Rasul]

Just the truth, on 11 July 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

This was a very important announcement so it should be right dat everyone had to hear it to make sure no one would differ after prophet.

Right firstly it should have been said in hajj if it was sooooo important where everyone could have heard it.

Att Ghadir Khumm presented ca 100 000 - 120 000 Sahaba

Your 'logic' fails again

[Ugly Jinn]

La, on 11 July 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

The same could be said for the 3 caliphs,

Yep. They are not considered divine, nor appointed successors, nor part of the Articles of Faith, hence them not being named in the Quran is a non-issue. But Shias consider Imam Ali a fundamental part of the religion, part of Usool ad Deen, yet not there either.

Al-Muntadhar, on 11 July 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

if you have the patience

I don't because I'm sure it's nothing new. You can highlight his points.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 12 July 2012 - 12:35 AM.

[abbas110]

^if Abu Bakr did not consider his authority to be emanating from the divine will then what made him declare those who denied his authority as apostates and consider their blood to be legitimate?

Edited by abbas110, 12 July 2012 - 02:17 AM.

[Just the truth]

Abu bakr r.a never called them apostates because they refused his caliphate but their blood became legitimate when they refused to pay zakat.

If Abu bakr r.a fought them only because they never accepted his caliphate then why didn't he kill Ali r.a. What do you think Ali r.a would have done if people refused to pay zakat during his caliphate.

Answer is simple they were considered apostates due to neglecting pillar of Islam (zakah)

[Kismet110]

So you don't think halting a 100,000 people after an  emotionally and physically tiring hajj in the middle of nowhere on a very hot day (and at the hottest time of the day) then making a pulpit out of rocks & camel saddles and ordering those who had passed to return and those behind to come forward to hear his speech would a memorable event?

You must have an amazingly exciting and varied lifestyle.

ALI

[abbas110]

Just the truth, on 12 July 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

Abu bakr r.a never called them apostates because they refused his caliphate but their blood became legitimate when they refused to pay zakat.

If Abu bakr r.a fought them only because they never accepted his caliphate then why didn't he kill Ali r.a. What do you think Ali r.a would have done if people refused to pay zakat during his caliphate.

Answer is simple they were considered apostates due to neglecting pillar of Islam (zakah)

Subhan Allah, so you think people like Malik bin Nuwayrah denied the commandment of Zakat or denied recognizing Abu Bakr's right to demand it as rightful successor of the Prophet SAWW?

Btw, for your record, Prophet SAWW nor Imam Ali killed people for refusing to pay Zakat. There is no force in the Islam of Prophet and his Ahlul Bayt.

Edited by abbas110, 12 July 2012 - 05:38 AM.

[Just the truth]

ABBAS 110 you obviously don't have enough knowledge to know what you're talking about regarding Malik.

He signed a pact with self proclaimed prophet sajjah so obviously Abu bakr believed he was also a rebel But in order to prove his loyalty to madinah he collected and sent zakat to madinah.

As for khalid bin walid killing him I've made it crystal clear above that khalid thought he was rebel apostate and made a genuine mistake.

Also if Umar was only interested in power then why did he demand that khalid bin walid be dismissed and stone to death?

Abu bakr excused khalid bin walid because he knew that he had made a genuine mistake

It's funny how Shia demand the killing of khalid bin walid for making a genuine mistake but refuse to believe that those who refuse to pay tax should be left alone.

As for ahle bayt regarding zakah then what you're trying to say is that if people refused to pray salah ahle bayt would just leave them?

Shahadah salah zakah saum hajj refusing any is equivalent to apostasy and you know what's the punishment for apostasy!

[abbas110]

Your facts are erraneous even if you go by what the Sunni books say. Oh well, I am not going to waste mt rime on this. You should research this more own your own. Wasalam.

Edited by abbas110, 12 July 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[Haydar Husayn]

Quote

the Holy Prophet was appointing Ali as his successor then he could have announced it during the farewell hajj speech instead of doing it on the journey back to Madina in the midst of far fewer followers. Surely the Prophet would want everyone to know of an issue as important as the appointment of his successor so why didn't he do it in the presence of everyone during hajj.

The Prophet (pbuh)doesn't decide when to make such announcements, Allah (swt) does. If the verse

O Apostle! deliver what bas been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people. [5:67, Shakir]

was revealed before the announcement, then clearly it couldn't have been made prior to that.

[Just the truth]

My brothe ABBAS 110 please stay and explain to me please Sunni version since I'm clueless I don't know what I'm talking about (according to you) isn't it your job to tell people the clear truth?

As for the verse HAYDAR please my brother read verses BEFORE and AFTER after this verse and see who and what Allah is talking about

Also if you've even bothered reading the verse till the end then then you'll see Allah is clearly referring to unbelievers (Jews,Christians pagans etc).

Do Shia just pull verses out out of the Quran and use them as they please because that's the impression I'm starting to get, first Allah is talking about Jews Christians then all of a sudden appointment of Ali dn back to unbelievers WOW that makes soooo much sense

[Haydar Husayn]

Just the truth, on 12 July 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

As for the verse HAYDAR please my brother read verses BEFORE and AFTER after this verse and see who and what Allah is talking about

66. And if they had kept up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do

67. O Apostle! deliver what bas been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people.

68. Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people.

I don't really see the connection, and even according to Sunni traditions, it was revealed in Mecca, in a context that had nothing to do with Jews and Christians. Read Ibn Kathir's tafsir:

Quote

Allah addresses His servant and Messenger Muhammad by the title `Messenger' and commands him to convey all that He has sent him, a command that the Prophet has fulfilled in the best manner. Al-Bukhari recorded that `A'ishah said, "Whoever says to you that Muhammad hid any part of what Allah revealed to him, then he is uttering a lie. Allah said,
﴿يَـأَيُّهَا الرَّسُولُ بَلِّغْ مَآ أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ مِن رَّبِّكَ﴾
(O Messenger! Convey what has been sent down to you from your Lord.)'' Al-Bukhari collected the short form of this story here, but mentioned the full narration in another part of his book. Muslim in the Book of Iman, At-Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa'i in the Book of Tafsir of their Sunans also collected this Hadith. In is recorded in the Two Sahihs that `A'ishah said, "If Muhammad hid anything from the Qur'an, he would have hidden this Ayah,
﴿وَتُخْفِى فِى نِفْسِكَ مَا اللَّهُ مُبْدِيهِ وَتَخْشَى النَّاسَ وَاللَّهُ أَحَقُّ أَن تَخْشَـهُ﴾
(But you did hide in yourself that which Allah will make manifest, you did fear the people while Allah had a better right that you should fear Him.)'' Al-Bukhari recorded that Az-Zuhri said, "From Allah comes the Message, for the Messenger is its deliverance and for us is submission to it.'' The Ummah of Muhammad has testified that he has delivered the Message and fulfilled the trust, when he asked them during the biggest gathering in his speech during the Farewell Hajj. At that time, there were over forty thousand of his Companions. Muslim recorded that Jabir bin `Abdullah said that the Messenger of Allah said in his speech on that day,
«أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّكُمْ مَسْؤُولُونَ عَنِّي، فَمَا أَنْتُمْ قَائِلُونَ؟»
(O people! You shall be asked about me, so what are you going to reply) They said, "We bear witness that you have conveyed (the Message), fulfilled (the trust) and offered sincere advice.'' The Prophet kept raising his finger towards the sky and then pointing at them, saying,
«اللَّهُمَّ هَلْ بَلَّغْتُ؟ اللَّهُمَّ هَلْ بَلَّغْتُ؟»
(O Allah! Did I convey O Allah! Did I convey) Allah's statement,
﴿وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ﴾
(And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.) meaning: If you do not convey to the people what I sent to you, then you have not conveyed My Message. Meaning, the Prophet knows the consequences of this failure. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas commented on the Ayah,
﴿وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُ﴾
(And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message.) "It means, if you hide only one Ayah that was revealed to you from your Lord, then you have not conveyed His Message.''

http://www.qtafsir.c...d=755&Itemid=60

Edited by Haydar Husayn, 12 July 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[Just the truth]

Firstly hayder Allah talks about Jews before and after this verse and then in that verse says revealed what has been sent to you ie Quran 
Yet you still can't see the connection  are you on this planet?

Why would Allah be talking about or to Jews then in between mention a verse related to Ali? What has that verse got to do with Jews? 

2. Also this verse came down and prophet conveyed message at farewell pilgrimage.

3. Once the prophet conveyed message everyone went home and prophet then stopped at khumm and then said whoever I am mawla of Ali is his mawla 

4. Did verse come at Mecca or at khumm

If at Makkah then prophet conveyed message at farewell pilgrimage and he never said whose mawla I am Ali is his mawla at Mecca 

If at khumm then this verse is relevant to your argument

Now you tell me where was this verse revealed?

[Ugly Jinn]

abbas110, on 12 July 2012 - 02:17 AM, said:

^if Abu Bakr did not consider his authority to be emanating from the divine will then what made him declare those who denied his authority as apostates and consider their blood to be legitimate?

This topics isn't about Abu Bakr. Everytime there is a Shia question people tend to deflect it and start talking about Sunnis. Whether Abu Bakr was good or bad is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The thread starter didn't mention anything about Abu Bakr.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 12 July 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[the-truth123]

Thanks for the wealth of replies, I'm not sure why the website cannot be opened but it seems to be censored?

I was wondering then if there are authentic narrations within the sunni school which prove that the verse 5:67 was revealed at ghadir in reference to the Holy Prophet's appointment of Ali..

[elite]

the-truth123, on 11 July 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Salam,

I came across this article and, while I understand that it's from sunnis trying to expose shiism, I found that they make some seemingly compelling arguments to oppose the shia concept of appointment at ghadeer.

Here's the site.

Two of the main arguments are briefly as follows:

• If the Holy Prophet was appointing Ali as his successor then he could have announced it during the farewell hajj speech instead of doing it on the journey back to Madina in the midst of far fewer followers. Surely the Prophet would want everyone to know of an issue as important as the appointment of his successor so why didn't he do it in the presence of everyone during hajj.

• While keeping in view the background of this narration [as has been reported at great length on the site] we find that the meaning of mawla did not in any way signify succession as the Prophet was just trying to clear Ali's name as people had begun slandering him.

The rest is just explanations and evidence of their stance.

So how do we then respond to these claims?

I think  for the sunnies following words of the Abdur Rahman bin Auf are sufficient for their first argument

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: I used to teach (the Qur'an to) some people of the Muhajirln (emigrants), among whom there was 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf. While I was in his house at Mina, and he was with 'Umar bin Al-Khattab during 'Umar's last Hajj, Abdur-Rahman came to me and said, "Would that you had seen the man who came today to the Chief of the Believers ('Umar), saying, 'O Chief of the Believers! What do you think about so-and-so who says, 'If 'Umar should die, I will give the pledge of allegiance to such-and-such person, as by Allah, the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.' 'Umar became angry and then said, 'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership)." 'Abdur-Rahman said, "I said, 'O Chief of the believers! Do not do that, for the season of Hajj gathers the riff-raff and the rubble, and it will be they who will gather around you when you stand to address the people. And I am afraid that you will get up and say something, and some people will spread your statement and may not say what you have actually said and may not understand its meaning, and may interpret it incorrectly, so you should wait till you reach Medina, as it is the place of emigration and the place of Prophet's Traditions, and there you can come in touch with the learned and noble people, and tell them your ideas with confidence; and the learned people will understand your statement and put it in its proper place.' On that, 'Umar said, 'By Allah! Allah willing, I will do this in the first speech I will deliver before the people in Medina."  

  Sahih Al Bukhari (Book #82, Hadith #817)

[the-truth123]

Salam,

Thank you all for the replies!

So it seems that our argument hinges on the fact that the revelation of 5:67 happened in reference to Imam Ali's [as] appointment, however what authentic proof is there for that statement which all muslims can agree upon?

I found this thread which seeks to refute our usual claims, how do we respond?

[muslimunity1]

Aslamalaykum,

Where is brother Al Muhammadee gone?