Qadri_01

You didn't understand. Whether he apostated or not is different matter.

Walaikum assalam

Then something must have happened

The guy you are refuting is a shia. So the points regarding sayyiduna umar bin kharaab radiallahu anhu doesn't work on him.

Exactly. And on what basis.

There is one version which says 12 amir. That is not from a solitary chain too. It clarifies the meaning of wilayah in the hadith.

Exactly. What happened?

You mean there is no proof in shi'i sources about the order of verses, then maybe you are correct, but in sunni islam, there is a consensus that the order of verses are from allah. There are few authentic narrations regarding this. Those tons of narrations are either extremely weak or fabricated. And even if it is true, it still doesn't prove that he is the imam. Rather it will prove our interpretation. Ali basically acted as a supporter or an ally by giving his ring to the beggar. When you give a ring or something to a needy, you become his supporter not his master. 1. Dumb question 2. Also a dumb question.

The verse he is talking about is not 9:100. And he is not talking about whether purification in this verse is different than purification in that verse. He is saying purification doesn't mean infallibility. As far as adalah sahabah. Then it is a quranic reality that all companions(not the hypocrites and apostates since they don't fit in the sunni definition of sahabah, so ubaydullah bin jahsh isn't a sahabi in sunni terminology) are in jannah. And it is thousand times stronger than the belief of imamah and ismah of imams. Sunnis can prove their creed solely from quran. All they need their ahadith is for establishing who those sahabah are and the sahaba sunnis consider virtuous did not apostated. While shia needs their ahadith to establish the concept of 12 imams after the prophet. Huge difference. You cannot prove imamah from quran not you an prove purification means infalliblity.

I can take those people as leaders because I don't believe they killed the prophet's household.

This point goes against you not us. Your twelfth imam doesn't benifit anyone in this ummah in terms of political or religious matters. A religious community with a leader who is absent, doesn't benifit in terms of political and religious matters is same as a religious community with no leader. Also, he don't have any excuse in doing so. There is no proof of this. Sunni caliphate system gave us people like abu bakr and umar whose leadership qualities are even attested by the kuffar. As far as ummayads and others, then even though they have bad deeds, they still benifitted islam in many ways. Islam spread around the globe and what not. What does your imamah give. Nothing. That's why you are left with wilayah family which is basically sunni caliphate. Shia knew that their version of imamah just sounds good instead of benifitting the ummah.

That doesn't solve the problem. You still have to accept that uthman was a great man in the eyes of the prophet in his time. That single handedly debunks that he was a hypocrite or any of that sort. Whether he became apostate or not is a different matter.

No khalas. It's your homemade rule that prophet need to appoint abu bakr and umar in order for them to be caliphs. All those ahadith are weak, fabricated, or vague. None of them proves explicitely that ali is the caliph after the prophet.

Hope you change your mind

The whole "fadikiyyah" Sermon is fabricated