Search the Community

salam alaikum I don't have the answers to these questions, yet I'm nonetheless curious about them (I didn’t come up with these questions). 1. “Ali (عليه السلام) never used ghadeer as an argument against others/sahaba” 2. “Why didn’t he go and say remeber o hypocrites u have given me a bay’a at ghadeer, so now repent to Allah and follow me. Is there proof of any sahabas Taking the meaning of mawla at ghadeer khum as master. “ 3. “Why didn’t Ali (عليه السلام) go out to abu bakr to ask for his rulership and didn’t call people to it, like fatimah (عليه السلام) did when she went to abu bakr but also went to give speeches and to the mosque to gain followers, while Ali (عليه السلام) didn’t do anything. Is fadak more important than imamah??” 4. Does the fact that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) inherited knowledge from the prophet (SAWW) imply that he has the same level of knowledge as the prophet (SAWW)? And how did the imams (عليه السلام) get their knowledge? Were they taught everything? Did they read? 5. Why don’t we takfir individuals for beliefs of tahreef of the Quran? 6. Quran 2:154 do not say, “They are dead.” No, they are alive, although you do not perceive it” My question is, since those who die the way Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) aren't dead, dose that mean the Shaheeds wives can’t get remarried? 7. Why did Imam Ali AS watch the three caliphates before him make so many bidahs and not restore the sunnah during his caliphate?

. Addressing Sunnis please : Is caliphate a pilar of sunni doctrine ? If not, why that urge to elect a leader after death of Prophet (sawas) If so, what of today's Islam without a khilafa?

On a very serious note, Sunni brothers really need to check the works Im posting in the comments below. These works identify SUFYANI I, predict the rise of SUFYANI II in this decade and more importantly notify the already over first coming of DAJJAL and warn against the more dangerous second coming of DAJJAL masquerading as Mahdi, ALL FROM SUNNI PROPHECIES ONLY. More than just theories, most of the matter in these works consists of almost ascertained facts, fulfilled prophecies and prophecies very close to being fulfilled.

Text of sermon 3 or sermon shaqshaqiyah of nahjul balagha is here https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-allah-son-abu-quhafah Sources of this Sermon Allama Baqir Majlisi in his historical work Bihar ul Anwar narrated all the versions of this Khutbah Shaqshaqiyah from all primary shia hadith books along with some other reports in the chapter named: باب شكاية أمير المؤمنين صلوات الله عليه عمن تقدمه من المتغلبين الغاصبين "Chapter of Ameer al mumineen's PBUH Complaints about those who preceded him from the oppressors who took his right" Online Source to this chapter from Bihar ul Anwar: http://ablibrary.net/فارسی/کتابها/7645_بحار الأنوار(29)/صفحه_545 Authenticity of this sermon from Shia Scholar and Researcher of Bihar ul Anwar Shaikh Asif Muhsini. Asif Muhsini in his "Mashara'at Bihar Al Anwar", said: اورد فيه المصنف ( 69 ) شاهداً من الاحاديث والروايات ، والمذكورة برقم (17) معتبرة سنداً فقط لا غير ] [ مشرعة بحار الانوار / محمد اصف محسني ج 2 ص 34 ] "the Musannif(Al Majlisi) has placed in this chapter 69 narrations, only that narration which is number (17) has an acceptable chain of narrators" [Mashra'at bihar al Anwar 2/34] So the only reliable narration out of all 69 narrations in the chapter is 17. Which in fact is not sermon of shaqshaqiyah. Check from online source of Bihar ul Anwar Here Below is the scan of what Shaikh Asif Muhsini said in his "Mashara'at Bihar Al Anwar". Some more thoughts on this fabricated sermon. Jazak Alah khairan.

@Mahdavist @Haji 2003 I would love for you to please moderate the Debate. I offered @Nightclaw a debate about the succession to Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and he accepted. It will be a 1v1. My position is that Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Ali (عليه السلام) is his successor of every believer after him and he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) also that he is the master of whoever he is a master of. Therefore he should've been the real Caliph.

Anyone offer to Debate me on this topic and I will. The rules will stay like my debate. @Cherub786 @Maulana

Read the Reddit comments to understand what the thread was about, since the post has since been deleted. ....................................................................................... I'm so tired of the utterly nonsensical and VERY COMMON Sunni notion of 'I am happy to seek unity with Shias as long as they don't curse/insult/abuse any Sahaba, and especially NOT Aisha, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman. Firstly, any Shia claim regarding the sahabi that happens to go against the Sunni narrative is considered insulting. Secondly, and more importantly, is that the same notion is true for Shias... You are insulting the Ahlul Bayt by not accepting them as divinely appointed leaders of Allah, and infallible individuals, and perfect preservers of the religion of Islam, and a high means of seeking closeness to Allah (intercession). Not only are you insulting revered Shia figures by not following them, you are commiting MAJOR shirk by giving a false attribute to Allah, by saying that Allah has not always appointed an infallible leader on this Earth, and that there currently isn't an infallible leader. Furthermore, the real kicker is that plenty of revered Shia figures, such as Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه), are considered kuffar by Sunnis. Is this not insulting? So, how can we Shias unite with Sunnis based on their own fallacious logic? Shias are the minority, and Sunnis are the majority. It makes Sunnis think that they are Orthodox and that they have to unite with Heterodox for political and humanitarian reasons, and that Shias must make [ridiculous] compromises. Shias are far more receptive to the unity message, because we actually understand Sunni Islam, and can see the commonalities. We understand that we can't make Sunnis compromise on their beliefs. Simply by being the minority within Islam, by nature we Shias already understand Sunni beliefs, whereas Sunnis have a basic strawman understanding of Shia beliefs... which is natural, considering that they are the majority. Anyways, the point of my post is the following: Let's compile a list of revered Shia figures that are not given their proper status by Sunnis, according to Shia Islam... with an explanation given. ...This is to show that we Shias and Sunnis can unite, but we cannot unite upon revered figures and imamah. ...This will also serve as a way of showing Sunnis that this argument of theirs makes no sense. Another important question we may ask is "What about commonly revered figures like Imam Ali (عليه السلام) who is given different status in both sects? Can we unite upon Imam Ali (عليه السلام)?" ...a common Sunni criticism of political unity is that "Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه) is given an improper status in Shia religion because they call upon him... tawassul (intercession) of the 'dead' is Shirk! So there is absolutely no room for unity since we can't even agree on the status of the sahabi" [yes, I am aware that the Imams (عليه السلام) are still alive, but Sunnis don't believe this...] I would love to hear your thoughts. Wassalam. JazakAllah Khair. Fi sabilillah.

Aslam-o-Alaikum. I am a Shia Muslim. I incidentally came upon this article , which I am going to post below, and it arose certain contradictions in my mind. Can anyone critically analyse this article and put an end to my concerns; it would be a great help? Thanks. Why Secularism Is Compatible with the Quran and Sunnah — And an ‘Islamic State’ Is Not Introduction Extremist Islamic groups such as ISIS, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda and the al-Nusra Front in Syria, have transformed the holy Quran into a manifesto for war, terrorism and bloodshed. These groups use the most modern weaponry and technology, and their crimes have created worldwide concerns. Their goal is to return the Islamic world to the medieval age. At the same time, the corrupt dictatorial Arab regimes in the Middle East, particularly the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf, have transformed the democratic Arab Spring into a sectarian war between the Shiites and Sunnis, in order to prevent democracy from taking roots in their own nations. Simultaneous with such developments, a Western-made “industry” called Islamophobianot only presents the Holy Quran as the manifesto of fundamentalist warmongers (that claim to represent Islam) and their rigid interpretation of its teachings, it also reduces Islam to its skewed “interpretations.” This reductionist approach has been popular among the Orientalists. The approach also claims that formation of an Islamic government is a necessary condition for a society to be Islamic. As I will argue in this essay, these claims are false. Islam and secularism are completely compatible. What I call “secular Islam” is thus the best antidote for Islamic terrorism. “Secular Islam” means that the collection of beliefs, moral values and teachings which comprise Islam do not confer on Muslims a mission to form a government or state. The idea of establishing an Islamic state based on the Quran and the Sunnah is incorrect, as neither presents a model for such a state. Definitions: The State, Secularism And Islam In his book, Philosophical Investigations, the Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein states that words have no meaning other than their “applications.” Thus, to prevent any confusion, we must first define what we mean by the key concepts that are employed here. The state is an organized structure that is impersonal, has well-defined boundaries, rules a specific population and has the exclusive right to use legitimate violence. Paul Dragos Aligica, a senior research fellow at George Mason University, puts it this way: The term secularism has been defined in three distinct ways. One is atheism. Karl Marx, French sociologist Emile Durkheim and German sociologist and philosopher Max Weber believed that, through functional differentiation, scientific knowledge and de-mystification, the world moves toward atheism and disbelieving in God. Their view has, of course, turned out to be false. Secularism has also been believed to meanlimiting religion to the private domain. This is impossible, because religion is not like special clothes that we can set aside as soon as we leave home. Such eminent sociologists as Robert Bellah, Charles Taylor, Jürgen Habermas and José Casanova believe that the presence of religion in the public domain is useful and desirable. But explaining and justifying any claim in the public domain must be done by resorting to reasoning, not religious texts and holy people. The third meaning of secularism, and the one that we use in this article, is separation of church and state, or religion from government — not atheism or elimination of religion from the public discourse. By Islam we mean its text (the Holy Quran) and the Sunnah (the speeches and conduct of Prophet Muhammad, although some Shiites such as the Twelvers also consider the Sunnah of their 12 Imams as well). Although Islam has firm positions regarding justice and oppression, it does not have any model for an “Islamic State.” It is left to Muslims to run their societies based on their collective wisdom and consultation. A secular Muslim is thus someone who not only believes in the separation of religion from the state, but also believes that such a separation is compatible with Islam. “A secular Muslim is thus someone who not only believes in the separation of religion from the state, but also believes that such a separation is compatible with Islam.” Based on the Quran, the Sunnah, and religious texts, my argument is that a union between Islam and secularism is possible and justifiable. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Quranic teachings and the Sunnah in order to justify their “Islamic State” are not credible if one actually examines these texts. Medieval Times Vs. The Modern Era [Mod Note: Images were removed as too large and unnecessary.] One important fact is often overlooked. In medieval times, especially in the 7th century in the Arabian Peninsula, state/government, as we recognize them today, did not exist. Societies of those eras were tribal, sparsely populated and simple. There was tribal authority, but it was due to patronage and family relations, not the existence of a government which, as we understand it today, did not exist. The processes of social division of labor, work and its bureaucratization, and consolidation of power give rise to an organized, non-personal entity called government that possesses specific boundaries, population, etc. In his book, Coercion, Capital and European States, A.D .990-1990, Charles Tilly states that up until the 10th century “nothing like a centralized national state existed anywhere in Europe.” Similarly, Bernard Lewis in his What Went Wrong argues that in the medieval times governments did not have borders but civilian centers. The British political theorist David Held and many sociologists have supported such assertions about formation of government. Perry Anderson, the British historian also believes that the phenomenon of modern governments or states began in the 16th century. “In medieval times, especially in the 7th century in the Arabian Peninsula, state/government, as we recognize them today, did not exist. Societies of those eras were tribal, sparsely populated and simple.” In his book Theories of the State, Andrew Vincent argues that government is a relatively recent phenomenon that goes back only to the 16th century. If Europe did not have governments up until the 16th century, how can one expect Medina — the town in the Arabian Peninsula with a small population in which Prophet Muhammad lived — to have had a government? The Arabian Peninsula did not have a government for the same reason that it did not have representative democracy, and respect for human rights and feminism — because the people had not yet founded them. The Quran And Islamic State Another important, but overlooked point is that in the Prophet Muhammad era (the 7th century) there was no such thing as a “society.” What existed was ummah, a community of Muslim masses. As German sociologist and philosopher Ferdinand Tönnies put it, the medieval “societies” must be considered as “Gemeinschaft“ (German word for community), to be distinguished from modern societies that are called “Gesellschaft“ (German word for society).The audience of the Prophet and the Quran were the believers that made up the ummah. The jurisprudence or Sharia were also for theummah and not for the modern societies or era. Society is the invention of the modern era. Prophet Muhammad led the people in a simple tribal framework. The era was a tribal one with a small population, not the type of modern societies we have now. Hence, there is no teaching in the Quran on how to form an Islamic government after the death of the Prophet. Even if there are verses in the Quran, they would all be subject to various interpretations. The Quran is explicit in not specifying any successor to the Prophet. In his book, al-Osmanieh, Muslim scholar Haroon Abdolsalaam Mohammad Jahiz says that “We have scrutinized the Quran, from beginning to end, and there is no verse or incontrovertibly explicit passage, and not even a verse to be found which may be construed upon reflection as proving the view on the Imamat” [succession of the Prophet’s progeny as Shiites believe]. The Quran orders the Prophet to address the collective problems of the people through consultation with them: “Consult them in the affairs” (al-e-Imran 159). Interpreting this verse of Quran in his book, Tafsir Kashaf, Abolghasem Mahmoud-ibn Khwarizmi Zamakhshari, also known as Jar Allah Zamakhashri Mo’tazeli, the medieval Iranian Muslim scholar, states that the consulting that the Quran ordered includes everything except those affairs that are related to God’s revelations to the Prophet. In Tafsir-e Mafaatih ol-Ghayb (also known as Tafsir al-Kabir, or the Great Commentary), Iranian Muslim scholar and philosopher Imam Fakhruddin Razi (1149-1210) proposes that although the Prophet was wiser than all the people, the world always has many problems, and it is quite possible that in many cases the people know better. He then quoted the Prophet himself: “You know your life’s affairs and I know your religious affairs.” Zamakhshari also quotes the Prophet saying, “Those who consult with and seek advice from others find the best path.” And, the Quran says, “They [the believers] employ consultations among themselves” (ash-Shura 38). What Does The Sunnah Say? After the Prophet passed away, his followers chose, through the elite, Abu Bakr As-Siddiqas their ruler, which is why the Sunnis believe that electing the ruler must be done by the elite . Muslim scholar Qazi Abduljabbar Mo’tazeli (who lived about a thousand years ago), said, “The elite, as the people who signed on the Imamat, consult other Muslims” (al-Moqni) and, “Make sure that everyone has been consented upon.” The Twelver Shiites believe that, through the Prophet, God chose Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, to succeed him. He is the Shiites’ first Imam, and they believe that his children Hassan and Hussein and their descendants were the next eleven Imams who were all sinless and had divine power. Throughout history such claims have been rejected by a majority of Muslims. The Quran states explicitly that God sent the prophets so that the people would not have any arguments against Him [regarding lack of knowledge]. In other words, the people need only the prophets and their own wisdom. The Quran states, “Messengers [Prophets] were as bearers of glad tidings [for the believers] as well as warners [for the disbelievers] in order that mankind should not have argument against Allah after sending the messengers” (Surat An-Nisa’). If after sending the prophets the people had still needed other arguments, the Quran would have emphasized that God sent boththe prophets and the Shiites’ Imams, so as the people could not have had any argument against Him [for lack of knowledge], but the Quran has mentioned only the prophets (Surahs Taha (verse 134) and al-Israa (15)). What Does ‘Authentic’ Shi’ism Say? The current Shiite-Sunni confrontation has nothing to do with what the close companions and supporters of the Prophet did. The rift was born much later. Ali, the Shiites’ first Imam and the Sunnis’ fourth Caliph after the Prophet, praised the three Caliphs before him, who are revered by the Sunnis. He also attributed his own rule and those of the other three Caliphs to the people’s selection and consent, not God or the Prophet. Thus, the issue of electing a ruler is addressed by the people, not by God or the Prophet. To prove their claim regarding Ali, Shiites invoke what the Prophet said, “Whoever considers me as the master, should do the same with Ali,” during the Ghadeer Khumm. The Sunni claim that the Prophet did not mean “master,” but meant, “Whoever likes and respects me, should do the same with Ali,” where the Prophet supposedly announced to the people that his son-in-law would be his successor, and all those who believed in him should also believe in Imam Ali. But, one cannot find any credible historical document or evidence that Imam Ali himself invoked Ghadeer Khumm in order to justify his rule. In Nahj al-Balagha, the most famous collection of sermons, letters, and narrations attributed to him, Imam Ali attributes the legitimacy of the rules of the three Caliphs before him, namely, Abu Bakr, Umar ibn Khattab, and Uthman ibn Affan, to allegiance of the people with them. In other words, he confirms what the Sunnis claim about the successors to the Prophet. He states in (Nahj al-Balagha, letter 6): A person who was supposedly appointed by God could not have spoken in that manner because, otherwise, he would have disobeyed God. Ali also states (ibid. sermon 205, p. 239): If God had appointed Ali as the caliph, he would have been neither reluctant nor would he have made any reference to people electing him to be his ruler. Did Prophet Muhammad ever tell the people that they had selected him? No, he did not. If God and Prophet Muhammad had chosen Imam Ali, there would have been no room for his reluctance. Ali talks about people’s huge wave of support for him and his reluctance to accept it (ibid. sermons 135 and 137): How was it possible that God and the Prophet had chosen Ali, but even after people had turned to him, he tried to turn them down, saying (ibid. sermon 93, p. 85): Imam Ali accepted Umar as his son-in-law, allowing him to marry his daughter, Umm Kulthum. He named his children after the caliphs before him and called them “Abu Bakr ibn Ali,” “Umar ibn Ali,” and “Uthman ibn Ali.” If they had violated his God-given rights and rules, Ali would not have behaved that way. He said, “Abu Bakr assumed leadership with goodwill and reigned with justice,” and, “Umar undertook the charge of leadership, was well-behaved and auspicious and pious.” He considered the rules of Abu Bakr and Umar as “good and just” and said, “Their deeds were laudable and they ruled over theUmmah justly.” Ali believed that election of Abu Bakr and Umar were “worthy choices” (History of Al-Tabari, volume 3, p. 550): Regarding Umar, Ali said (Nahj al-Balagha, sermon 228, p. 262): If Imam Ali had been chosen by God and the Prophet as the successor, and Abu Bakr and Umar had violated God’s and the Prophet’s will and had usurped his rights, would he had spoken about them like the above? The historic Ghadeer Khumm event took place a few months before the Prophet passed away. How was it possible that the Prophet’s best and closest supporters, whom the Quran has repeatedly praised, violated his explicit and clear order regarding Ali as his successor? And, if they had, would Ali have judged them so positively? When the dissidents staged an uprising against Uthman and surrendered his home, they asked Imam Ali to speak to him as their envoy. He went to Uthman and told him (ibid., sermon 164, pp. 167 and 168): Thus, Imam Ali considered Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman as legitimate, not usurpers. Uthman was being toppled, and was not in a position of power that would compel the Imam to praise him and, most importantly, appoint his beloved sons, Hassan and Hussein, as Uthman’s protectors. In Nahj al-Balagha he presents himself as someone who liked Uthman. He wrote that A’isha [the Prophet’s wife], Talha and Zubair [two prominent companions of the Prophet] were the main provocateurs against Uthman, adding that people were satisfied with his election [as Uthman’s successor] (ibid., letter 1, p. 271): Ali’s rationale is that of one who had been elected by the people (expressed through the pledge of allegiance by the tribal leaders), not someone chosen by God. He states (ibid., letter 7, p. 275): In letter 28 of Nahj al-Balagha (pp. 292 and 293) to Muawiyah, the second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty, Ali explains to him why he is qualified to rule the Muslims. He mentions his obedience to God and the fact that he is a relative of the Prophet, saying, “No one was closer to the Prophet than me.” But, he never claims that he had been appointed by the Prophet as his successor. Clearly, if that had had happened, Imam Ali would not have forgotten it. In the same letter he emphasized that when the uprising against Uthman began, he did everything he could to help Uthman. In sermon 67 (ibid., p. 52), Ali supports the arguments of Muhajirun against the Ansar, but still emphasizes that he was the closest person to the Prophet. In his letter to Talha and Zubair, Ali’s entire argument is that he was elected by the people, not by God and the Prophet (ibid., letter 54, pp. 341 and 342): We see that, (a) Ali makes no mentions of having been appointed by the Prophet as his successor; (b) he speaks about declaring allegiance by free will; (c) he does not condemn non-allegiance to him, by swearing to it and then breaking it, and (d) if he had been chosen by God to rule, there would have been no need for any argument. Note: Ali was elected by the people, but the Shiites generally believe that he was chosen by God, and that is the part that this article is critiquing. The Umayyad And Abbasid Dynasties So far, we resorted to religious texts, such as the Quran and Nahj al-Balagha, and we critiqued and rejected the notion of a divine and Islamic government. But, one can also critique the notion of an “Islamic government” from a historical perspective. Some have referred to the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties as the “Islamic empires,” but what does that mean? Ibn Khaldun, renowned Muslim historian, has described the process of transformation of the caliphate to monarchy. At the end of chapter 25 of his book, the Muqaddamih: an Introduction to History, he considers religion as the steward of “people’s otherworldly affairs...Whereas political laws govern the expediencies of this world.” Such a definition and distinction is necessarily a kind of secularism, particularly because Ibn Khaldun speaks about “religious politics” as opposed to “secular politics.” In chapter 26 of his book he reasons that running the collective lives of the human being is possible without religion and prophets, and has also been experienced. In chapter 30 of his book, Ibn Khaldun critiques the Shiites’ claim that the imamat is one of the principal pillars of Islam and states that governance is “a public expediency that has been left to the views of the people.” Chapter 28 of his book is entirely about the transformation of caliphate to monarchy. Ibn Khaldun writes that while the four original caliphs considered religion in their rules, the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties transformed the caliphate to “absolute monarchy” and were after enriching themselves, conquering the world, concentrating more powers in their hands and lasciviousness. Ibn Khaldun did not mean that the two dynasties formed Islamic governments, rather he was comparing them with the kings of his own era. “Ibn Khaldun considered religion as the steward of ‘people’s otherworldly affairs, whereas political laws govern the expediencies of this world.’” The Shiites, Khawarij and Mu’tazila viewed the Umayyad as corrupt, usurpatory, and apostate. As Duncan Black McDonald states in his book, Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence and Constitutional Theory, even the “Murjites — a group of early Muslims that believed that only God has the authority to judge who is a true Muslim and who is not — did not deny the corrupt nature of the Umayyad kings, but they also believed that because the people had pledged their allegiance to the Umayyad, obeying them was a religious duty; only apostasy would necessitate uprising against them. In his book, al-Milal wa al-Nihal, the influential Iranian historian of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdul Karim Shahrestani writes that, “The Suleimanieh branch of Zeidieh, the Mu’tazila, [both Shiite groups] and the followers of hadith and Sunnah believe that it is not necessary for the Imam [ruler] to be a religious scholar, “because emaamat is not a religious affair that we need in order to understand God and His unitary nature. It would suffice for him to have access to religious scholars that can address his religious issues. What is necessary for him is having strong thoughts and correct insight into analyzing what is happening.” As already mentioned, Ibn Khaldun analyzed the process of transformation of the caliphate to absolute monarchy. In his book, Arab Political Reason, Mohammed Abed al-Jabri, the Moroccan critic and professor of philosophy and Islamic thoughts (1936-2010) explains clearly that the basis for selecting the four caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali was tribal interests, not beliefs, whereas Islam’s message is having faith in God and rejection of tribalism. Thus, Abed al-Jabi also did not consider the rules of the caliphs as Islamic government. He also showed that right after the death of the Prophet the tribal wars, which had stopped during the Prophet, began again. The tribes were used as a criterion for choosing the ruler, as well as tribal discriminating against others. That is who Ali was isolated. God Is Not A Head Of State The concept of electing a ruler by the elite has been expanded in the modern era. Just as everyone can cast a vote in Western societies, Muslims in Islamic countries (although the people of the Arab nations of the Persian Gulf do not yet have such a right) have gradually gained the right to vote. Thus, what does it mean to run a nation by an Islamic government? Running a nation requires four ingredients: The first is management, which consists of knowledge and skills. Knowledge is the result of natural and experimental sciences. Skills come about as a result of practice. None of these has anything to do with religion and Islam. The second is planning, which is done by knowledge and science. No religion, including Islam, has anything to offer to its adherents about planning. The third is societal and moral values. Although all religions, including Islam, support moral precepts, they are in fact independent of religion and do not rely on it. Muslim scholars refer to values as the “rational autonomies.” Good and bad, just and unjust, and other values provide an independent base for assessing all the actions and reactions by the people. Justice is not religious; it is religion that must be just. Peace is not a religious affair; it is religion that must defend peace. Freedom (of thought, expression and behavior) is not religious; religion must recognize freedom. Development is not a religious affair; it is religion that must defend development. Being a good human being is not a religious teaching; although religions also recognize the dignity of the people. If a religion does not respect the people, it will not receive respect from them. The fourth is the Fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence] or Sharia. The only aspect of any religion, including Islam, which has anything to do with managing a society, is its jurisprudence, which in modern society is referred to as the laws. But, they are not necessarily religious or Islamic for the following reasons: (a) they include laws concerning worship and provisions that have nothing to do with religion and have nothing to do with running a society; (b) 99 percent of non-worshiping laws are of ratifying type, i.e. they are the product of the culture and lore of the people of the Arabian Peninsula before the Prophet. The mission of the Prophet was not to destroy the infrastructure of the society, including its culture. He modified many of the existing laws and then ratified them. They had evolved among the Arab people before and during the Prophet’s era, not by God or Muhammad. Just as the Prophet ratified the traditions and common laws of his time, Muslims of the modern era also ratify the current traditions and common laws for running a nation, namely, democracy, respect for human rights, and pluralism. Neither the Prophet ratifying the common laws of his time, nor modern Muslims doing the same about the current common laws and traditions make them Islamic. (c) Religious jurisprudence is not the law; claiming otherwise is unjustified. “The Prophet modified many of the existing laws and then ratified them. They had evolved among the Arab people before and during the Prophet’s era, not by God or Muhammad.” Based on all these arguments above, I am confident to state that “Islamic government” is not an acceptable idea, because Islam lacks the aforementioned four main resources and ingredients for an Islamic government. Thus, for example, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and ISIS cannot be considered as Islamic governments. This is not because, for example, they are not democratic states, but because Islam itself does not have any prescription for a government. Thus, secularism is completely compatible with Islam and Muslims. In other words, “Islam is secular,” as it has never presented any model for governance, and has left it to the Muslims to run their societies based on their collective wisdom and consultation. Muslims are, of course, free to espouse what they believe in the society, but to make their beliefs the laws of the land, there is no way other than collective consent of the people. Making abortion, homosexuality, capital punishment, etc., legal or illegal is a function of the collective discussion and wisdom and cannot be ruled in or out by invoking the Quran or the Sunnah, even if there is an explicit law in Islam for such issues. Thus, if, for example, Muslims are opposed to abortion, they must explain their rational and moral reasons and convince the public. [Mod Note: The title of the topic was too long so it was shortened. Images were too large and removed as unnecessary.] [Mod Note: It is not good etiquette to copy and paste the whole article. Please quote the part(s) of the article you want to discuss and then provide a link to the original article in case anyone wants to read all of it.] Original article: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/secularism-islam-islamic-state_b_6426300.html

Salaam brothers and sisters, With the advent of Muharram, no doubt we are all busy commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) - each of us in our own way. At the same time, the enemies of Allah, The Prophet (saw), the Imams (as) and the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are also preparing to attack us – each of them in their own way. We have all witnessed their attacks on azadari and its various rituals and on the concept of Imamate. While we may have our differences on how to mourn Hussain and serve Hussain, no non-Shia has a right to tell us how we should commemorate the martyrdom of Hussain (as) or how we should mourn Hussain (as). Azadari is at the forefront in this battle of Haqq vs. Batil. They want to destroy azadari today, so they can destroy Imamate tomorrow. They want to destroy Imamate tomorrow, so they can destroy Prophethood the day after. Their last attack will be on Tauheed (Oneness of Allah) itself. The biggest example of this can been seen in Karbala itself. Imam Hussain (as) said, “One like me can never do bayah (allegiance) of one like Yazeed”. One of the many differences between them was that Yazeed was Caliph and Hussain (as) was Imam. This was the ultimate battle between caliphate and Imamate. Yazeed didn’t just attack Hussain - caliphate attacked Imamate; caliphate attacked “Aliyun Waliallah”. After caliphate thought it had defeated imamate, it turned towards Medina. Yazeed didn’t just attack Medina – caliphate attacked Prophethood; caliphate attacked “Muhammadur rasoolallah”. After caliphate thought it had defeated Prophethood, it turned towards Mecca. Yazeed didn’t just attack Mecca, caliphate attacked Tauheed; caliphate attacked “La Ilah Illallah”. Then caliphate sat back to enjoy fruits of its apparent victory. Little did caliphate know that: وَإِذْ يَمْكُرُ بِكَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا لِيُثْبِتُوكَ أَوْ يَقْتُلُوكَ أَوْ يُخْرِجُوكَ ۚ وَيَمْكُرُونَ وَيَمْكُرُ اللَّهُ ۖ وَاللَّهُ خَيْرُ الْمَاكِرِينَ {30} [Shakir 8:30] And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan; and Allah is the best of planners. It started off as a chant by a few hundred azadar, then a few thousand azadar, then a few million azadar to now over 250+ million azadar chanting “Ya Lisarat Ul Hussain” (Vengeance for the blood of Hussain) and “Labaik Ya Hussain” (we are at your service O Hussain). As long as there are azadar and azadari, there will always be Aliyun Waliallah. As long as there is Aliyun Waliallah, there will always be Muhammadur Rasoolallah As long as there is Muhammadur Rasoolallah, there will always be La Ilah Illallah

Salamun alaykum. Supposing that Holy Prophet (pbuh) did not appoint any one to be his successor, then why Abubakr is his legitimate successor? What is the criterion? Consensus of all people or consensus of the inhabitants of Medina or consensus of prominent figures or what? Just scholarly and friendly discussion. So respectful comments (from both Shias and Sunnis) are appreciated.

Details and truth about such historical event is mentioned in THIS DOCUMENT with all references.

These events happened after ghadir e khum during the last days of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w in this world. Are these narrations authentic as per shia standard? 1. Abbas bin Abd al-Muttalib spoke to Amir Al-Muminin (Ali bin Abi Talib) during the illness of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so that he asks the Prophet, who will be in charge of affairs after him, and that if it is for us (Ahl al-Bayt) he should reveal it; and if it is for some other people, he entrust it to us. The leader of the faithful (Ali) said, we went to the Messenger of Allah when his illness became serious and we said O Messenger of Allah, choose a successor for us, He said. “No, I fear that you will be divided regarding him, as the children of Israel became divided over Harun, but if Allah knows any goodness in you, He will choose for you (a leader). Source: Murtada: Al-Shafi, vol-4, p. 149 and vol. 3 p. 295. 2. Imam Ja'far bin Muhammad Sadiq: ‘When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was on his death bed, he called Abbas and Amir al-Muminin, and then he said to Abbas “O the uncle of Muhammad … you will take the heritage of Muhammad, pay back his debts and repulse his enemy”. He replied him saying, "O Messenger of Allah, let my father and mother be your ransom, I am an old man with many dependants and little wealth, who can bear the like of your responsibilities?” He lowered his head for a while and then he said again, “O Abbas, will you take the heritage of Muhammad, repulse his enemy and pay back his loans?” He replied as before… He then said “Definitely, I will give it to the one who will take it and all the responsibilities associated with it.” Then he said: “O Ali! O brother of Muhammad, will you repulse the enemy of Muhammad, pay back his loans and take hold of his heritage? He said, “Yes, let my father and mother be your ransom”. ‘Such is Ali, my beloved friend’. Source: Kulayni: Al-Kafi, vol 1 p. 236 from Muhammad bin Hussain and Ali bin Muhammad from Sahl bin Ziyad from Muhammad bin Walid, al- Sirafi from Iban bin Uthman from Abu Abdullah.

abu bakr "as-siddiq" - elected via a secret shura in saqifah in 632 CE - 99% of the ummah did not participate or even have knowledge of the "election" - legitimate method of establishing the khilafa according to sunnis abu bakr al-baghadi - elected via a secret shura in syria in 2014 CE - 99% of the ummah did not participate or even have knowledge of the "election" - illegitimate method of establishing the khilafa according to sunnis why the discrepancy?

What emphasizes the fact that Shura (consultation) was the constitutional system that Imam Amir Muminin Ali bin Abi Talib abided by; and that he had no knowledge of vertical hereditary leadership of the Ahl al-Bayt, is his participation in the Shura process after the death of Caliph Umar bin Khattab, and his arguments before the members of the Shura on his virtues and his role in the service of Islam; so also the fact that he did not point to the issue of the text or his appointment as Khalifah after the Prophet. If the Hadith of Ghadir has any of this import, the Imam would have refered to it, and he would have won the day with what is greater and stronger than mentioning his virtues. Imam Ali believed in the system of consultation and it’s being first and foremost the right of the Immigrants and the Helpers (Muhajirin and Ansar). Due to this he refused to accede to the call of rebels-after the murder of Caliph Uthman, who invited him to assume power, and he said to them “This is not of your powers, this is for the Muhajirin and Ansar, anyone they chose as a leader will be a leader”. When the Immigrants and the Helpers came to him and said, “Stretch your hand, we would give you our oath of allegiance”, he withdrew from them. They repeated as the first, and he also withdrew again, and they repeated that for the third time then he said “Leave me and look for another person and know that, if I responded to you, I will do with you what I know…. and if you leave me alone, I am just like one of you, I would be the most obedient and loyal to anyone you choose to conduct your affairs for me to be a vizier is better for you than to be a leader” He walked to Talhah and Zubair and put it across to them and said:” If anyone of you wishes , I will give him my oath of allegiance” They both said “ No … the people accept you more (than any other man). At the end he said to them “If you insist, my oath of allegiance “bayah” must not be secret, and it will not be taken till after the acceptance of the (general) Muslim populace, so I will go out to the Masjid (mosque) anyone who wishes to give his oath of allegiance to me let him do it”. Tabari, vol. 3 p. 450 Therefore, if the theory of a “text” and appointment is established and well- known to the Muslims, it would not be permissible for Imam (Ali) to reject the revolters, and then wait for the word of the Immigrants and Helpers (Muhajirin & Ansar), as it will also not be permissible for him to say “ to be a vizier is better for you than to be a leader”. It will also not be right for him to put the leadership (Khilafah) before Talhah and Al-Zubair, and he will not need to wait for the oath of allegiance from the general Muslims. There is another narration from the work of Sulaym bin Qays al-Hilali that discloses the belief of Imam Ali in Shura, and the right of the Ummah to elect its leader. He said in one of his letters, “What is obligatory in the laws of Allah and Islam is that the Muslims, of if their leader dies or is killed, they should not perform any act nor innovate something, nor move in order to do something new, unless they choose for themselves a chaste leader, who is learned, scrupulous, and well-versed in the legal and traditional matters”. Kitab Sulaym bin Qays Al-Hilali, p. 182, Majlisi: Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 8 p. 555 When Talhah and Al-Zubair dissented, he pleaded for his case on the basis of their oath of allegiance to him, saying: “You gave me your oath of allegiance and now you breached it.” He did not point to the issue of a text from the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him). All that he said to Al-Zubair which made him to desist from fighting him, was his reminding him of the statement of the Prophet (S.A.W) that, “You will fight him, while being a transgressor!” Imam Ali also said to Mu'awiyah who rebelled against him …My allegiance in Madinah is binding on you in Sham (Syria), because the people who swore their oath of allegiance to me, where the same people who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, so the one present has no other alternative to choose, nor has the absent the right to reject, Definitely Shura is the right of Muhajirin and Ansar, when they agree on a person, and called him the leader (of the Ummah), therein lies the pleasure of Allah..’ So, Shura is the basis of leadership in the right of Imam Ali, and this was in the absence of the theory of (a text and. (divine) appointment or selection), Which was not referred to by the Imam in any instance. Imam Ali views himself, undoubtedly, as an ordinary person i.e one who is not infallible, and he demanded from the Shiites to other Muslims to view him in that sense. History has preserved for us a wonder of his many wonders which is transmitted by Kulayni in al-Kafi, where he says: “I am in myself not above mistake, and I am not contented that my actions are free of it, except that Allah suffices me of myself, with what He bestows onto me’. Kulayni: Rawdah al-Kafi, pp. 292-293 Majlisi: Bihar vol. 74. p. 309 The belief of Imam Ali in Shura (Consultation) as a constitution for the Muslims, became very clear in the process of the Caliphate of Imam Hassan when the Muslims came to him after the strike of Abdul Rahman bin Muljan on him, and requested him to appoint his son Hassan after him (as the leader), for he said “No, we did go to the Prophet of Allah and said,” Appoint (for us a leader), and he said” No, I fear that you will be divided on his affairs, as Harun, but if Allah finds any good in your hearts, he will choose for you’ They requested him to point to someone, but he did not . They then said to him,” If we lost you, we will not lose giving our oath of allegiance to Hassan. He said, “I do not command, nor prevent you, you can discern better”. Murtada: Al-Shafi, vol. 3 p. 295, Tathbit Dala'il al-Nubuwwah, vol.1 p. 212 Hafiz Abu Bakr Ibn Abi al-Dunya (208-281AH) has mentioned in the book titled “The Murder of Imam, the Commander of the Faithful, from Abdul Rahman bin Jundub from his father who said “I said “ O! Commander of the faithful, if we lose you (if you die) and we will not lose, we will give our oath of allegiance to Hassan. He said, “I will not command you (to do that) nor prevent you”. I repeated what I said and he replied in the same way. Tathbit Dala'il al-Nubuwwah, p. 43 Sheikh Hassan bin Sulaiman has mentioned in 'Mukhtasar Basair al-Darajat’ from Sulaym bin Qays al- Hilali, who said “I heard Ali saying, while in the company of his two sons and Abdullah bin Ja’far and some of his close associates (supporters) ‘ Leave people with what they have chosen for themselves, and maintain your silence. Majlisi: Bihar Vol. 7 chapter on “Tradition attributed to Sulaym, not available in his book.” Imam Ali the leader of the faithful has given his will to Imam Hassan and his other children, but he never mention the issue of leadership and the Caliphate, His will was spiritual, ethical and personal, or as, Sheikh Mufid has said in Al-Irshad, the will was for Hassan regarding his family, children and companions, his responsibility and his charity’. Mufid: Al-Irshad, p. 187

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Assalam o Alaikum, Wa Rehmatullah, Wa Barakatuhu. GHADIR? CALIPHATE OR FRIENDLY LOVING RELATIONSHIP? قال الله تعالى في الآية 6 من سورة الأحزاب : (النَّبيُّ أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم) قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنَا أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ (Bukhari, Muslim, Trimizi, Abu Dawud, Nasai & others) Same words Prophet s.a.w.w repeated in Ghadir, before saying Man kuntu Maula'hu. أحمد في مسنده 19302 حدثنا حُسين بن محمد وأبو نعيم، المعنى، قالا: حدثنا فِطْرٌ، عن أبي الطُّفيل قال:جمع عليٌّ رضي الله عنه الناسَ في الرَّحْبة، ثم قال لهم: أنْشُدُ اللهَ كلَّ امرىءٍ مسلمٍ سَمِعَ رسولَ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يوم غَديرِ خُمٍّ ما سمع، لَمَّا قام، فقام ثلاثون من الناس، وقال أبو نعيم: فقام ناسٌ كثير، فشهدوا حين أخذه بيده، فقال للناس: "أتَعْلَمُونَ أنِّي أوْلَى بالمؤمنينَ مِنْ أنْفُسِهِمْ؟" قالوا: نعم يا رسولَ الله. قال: "مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلاهُ، فَهذَا مولاهُ، اللّهُمَّ وَالِ مَنْ وَالاهُ وَعَادِ مَنْ عادَاهُ" قال: فخرجتُ وكأنَّ في نفسي شيئاً، فلَقِيتُ زيدَ بنَ أرقم، فقلتُ له: إني سمعتُ علياً رضي الله عنه يقول كذا وكذا. قال: فما تُنكر؟ قد سمعتُ رسولَ الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول ذلك له. First Prophet s.a.w.w asked a question that: "Do I not have more rights over your lives than yourselves? All answered: Yes Then Prophet s.a.w.w said: Of whomever I am Mawla, Ali is his Mawla. And Immediately after this Prophet s.a.w.w said: O Allah, befriend whosoever befriends him and be the enemy of whosever is hostile to him. Meaning, Mu'walat (love) and Mu'adat (enmity). Not caliphate or leadership. If it had been for caliphate then Prophet s.a.w.w would have said more explicit & unambiguous words like "O Allah love those who FOLLOW him or OBEY him, and be the enemy of those who don't FOLLOW him or DISOBEY him". The version of ghadir where it is said, Prophet s.a.w.w gave sermon of Ghadir to appoint Imam Ali a.s as caliph/successor after him, as per orders of Allah i.e Maida 67, is a clear fabrication. In Maida 67 protection was given By Allah to His Prophet s.a.w.w against the disbelievers/kafirs. [Maida 67] O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people. At ghadir were there any kuffar (disbelievers)? Who also performed hajj along with Prophet s.a.w.w? In fact, it was not the first time when Prophet s.a.w.w had declared those words about Imam Ali a.s. He s.a.w.w had also stated the same many days before the ghadir to one of his companion, when he expressed his anger about Ali in front of Prophet s.a.w.w. أحمد في مسنده 22945 حدثنا الفضلُ بن دُكَينٍ، حدثنا ابن أَبي غَنِيَّةَ، عن الحَكَم، عن سعيد بن جُبَير، عن ابن عباس عن بُرَيدةَ، قال: غَزَوتُ مع عليٍّ اليمنَ، فرأَيتُ منه جَفْوةً، فلما قَدِمْتُ على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ذَكَرْتُ عليّاً، فتَنَقَّصتُه، فرأَيتُ وجهَ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يَتغيَّرُ، فقال: "يا بُرَيدةُ، أَلستُ أَوْلى بالمُؤمنِينَ من أَنفُسِهم؟" قلت: بلى يا رسول الله. قال: "من كنتُ مَوْلاه، فعليٌّ مَوْلاه". Shaykh Mufid reported in Kitab al-Irshad pp.111-112 Buraida reported: "I wanted the earth to split open for me so that I could be swallowed into it. Then I said: I seek refuge in Allah from the anger of Allah and the anger of the Apostle of Allah. Apostle of Allah, forgive me. I will never hate Ali and I will only speak good of him." The Prophet forgave him. Even Imam Ali a.s himself did not understood anything about caliphate/leadership. Narrated `Abdullah bin `Abbas: Ali bin Abu Talib came out of the house of Allah's Messenger during his fatal illness. The people asked, "O Abu Hasan (i.e. `Ali)! How is the health of Allah's Messenger this morning?" `Ali replied, "He has recovered with the Grace of Allah." `Abbas bin `Abdul Muttalib held him by the hand and said to him, "In three days you, by Allah, will be ruled (by somebody else ), And by Allah, I feel that Allah's Apostle will die from this ailment of his, for I know how the faces of the offspring of `Abdul Muttalib look at the time of their death. So let us go to Allah's Messenger and ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If it is given to us we will know as to it, and if it is given to somebody else, we will inform him so that he may tell the new ruler to take care of us." `Ali said, "By Allah, if we asked Allah's Apostle for it (i.e. the Caliphate) and he denied it us, the people will never give it to us after that. And by Allah, I will not ask Allah's Messenger for it." [Sahih al-Bukhari 4447] Imam Shafai r.a words about ghadir. Same Imam Shafai who is famous for his words "If love for Muhammads ‘aal’ (family) is Rafdh (heresy). Then Jinn and Men bear witness I am a Rafidhi (heretic)." Being a Rafidhi he also had not considered ghadir in meaning of caliphate. What is meant by that is the concept of love for the sake of Islam, as Allah says:{that is because Allah is the Mawla of those who believe, and the disbelievers have no Mawla (Qur’an 47: 11)}. So the hadith does not say that ‘Ali should be the caliph after the death of the Messenger of Allah, it indicates that ‘Ali is one of the close friends of Allah, to whom love and support is due for the sake of Allah. [Haqbat min al-tareekh P-187] Jazak Allah Khairan

If by word mawla at ghadir means leader/caliph/imam then Ali a.s is not your Mawla. According to twelver shia Imamate concept, Prophet s.a.w.w had appointed Ali a.s mawla (leader/caliph/suucessor/imam) after him at ghadir. And there are twelve such mawla (leaders/caliphs/suucessors/imams) after Prophet s.a.w.w till the day of qiyamah. And every person has to recognize Mawla/Imam of his time. Isra 71 says: One day We shall call together all human beings with their respective Imams. Based on these principles, Ali a.s was mawla i.e leader/Imam/caliph only for people of his time. Ali a.s, the first of the Twelve Imams, died in the year 40. His son Hassan a.s died nine years later, in 49. If Ali a.s is the Imam for the people of his time, Hassan a.s is left with only those people who were born during his nine years. All the other people of his time who were alive during his father's time will form part of his father's group, and not his. The tenure of the 3rd Imam lasted for 22 years; the 4th for 34 years; the 5th for 19 years; the 6th for 34 years; the 7th for 35 years; the 8th for 20 years; the 9th for 17 years; the 10th for 34 years; and the 11th for only 6 years. And with the 12th Imam, we have a tenure of Imamah that has been running for over 1200 years. The group that will supposedly be called by the name of the 11th Imam, for example, will only include people that were born during his Imamah that ran from 254 up to 260, rest of all till qiyamah will be called by the name of 12th Imam. Therefore since 260AH till today and till the qiyamah, 12th Imam was, is and will be the Mawla (leader/caliph) for all people (as per twelver shia concept). They all will be called and idetified by his name on qiyamah not by the name of Ali a.s. He was mawla (leader/imam) only till 40AH and for people of his time only.

Small pictorial representation of how the reign of Caliphs corresponded with the imamate period of our Imams. Please let me know if there are errors so I can fix. This is by no means 100% accurate just an approximation.

Assalam O Alaikum Wa Rehmatullah Wa Barakatuhu, This verse is the basis of the whole religious, cultural and political system of Islam and is the first and foremost article of the constitution of an Islamic State. يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ۖ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا O believers! Obey Allah, obey the Rasool and those charged with authority among you. Should you have a dispute in anything, refer it to Allah and His Rasool, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. This course of action will be better and more suitable. [4:59] It lays down permanently the following fundamental principles: (1) In the Islamic system, Allah is the real Authority who must be obeyed. A Muslim is first of all the servant of Allah; all his other capacities come after this. Therefore, a Muslim as an individual and the Muslims as a community owe their first loyalty to Allah and they must subordinate all other loyalties to this. Allegiance and obedience to anyone else shall be acknowledged only if these are not opposed to the allegiance and obedience to Allah but are subordinate to it. All other allegiances that are opposed to this basic allegiance shall be broken asunder. The Holy Prophet has explained the same thing in a Tradition: "There is no obedience to any of His creatures in what involves disobedience to the Creator." (2) The second fundamental principle of the Islamic system is allegiance and obedience to the Holy Prophet. This obedience is not inherent in Prophethood but is only practical shape of obedience to Allah. A Messenger is to be obeyed because he is the authentic means through which we can receive Commandments and instructions from Allah. Hence, we can obey Allah only by obeying His Messenger, for no other way of obedience is genuine. As a corollary of this, the breach of allegiance to the Messenger shall be a rebellion against the Sovereign, Whom he represents. A Tradition explains the same thing thus: "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah." The same thing has also been explicitly stated in v. 80 of this Surah. (3) After the first and the second allegiance, and subordinate to these, the Muslims owe allegiance to those invested with authority from among themselves. The Arabic word ulil-amr is very comprehensive, which comprises all those persons who are in any way at the helm of the affairs of the Muslims-religious scholars, thinkers, political leaders, administrators, judges of law courts, tribal chiefs and the like. In short, all those, who are in any way invested with authority from among the Muslims, are to be obeyed, and it is not right to disturb the peace of the community life of the Muslims by entering into conflict with them, provided that (a) they are from among the Muslims, and (b) they are obedient to Allah and His Messenger. These two conditions are a pre-requisite for obedience to them, and these have been explicitly laid down in the verse and have also been fully explained by the Holy Prophet. In support of this some Traditions are cited below: (a) "It is obligatory on a Muslim to listen to and obey orders of those invested with authority, whether he likes it or dislikes it, provided that it is not sinful. However, if he is ordered to do a sinful thing, he should neither listen to the rulers nor obey their orders." (Bukhari, Muslim). (b) "Obedience to anyone in a sinful thing is forbidden. Obedience is obligatory only in what is right." (Bukhari, Muslim). (c) The Holy Prophet said, "There will be rulers over you who will practice right things as well as wrong things: (In such a case) whoever protests against the wrong things, shall be absolved from the responsibility and whoever dislikes the wrong things, also shall escape (punishment). But whoever approves of and follows them, shall incur punishment." The Companions asked, "Should we not then fight against such rulers?" The Holy Prophet answered, "No, as long as they offer the Salat." (Muslim) That is, if they discard the Salat, it will be a clear proof of their disobedience to Allah and His Messenger. Then it will be right to rise against them (d) The Holy Prophet said, "Your worst rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you, whom you curse and who curse you." The Companions asked, "O Messenger of God, should we not rise against such rulers?" The Holy Prophet answered, "No, as long as they establish the Salat among you." (Muslim) In this Tradition, the condition about the Salat laid down in the preceding one, has been made more explicit. One might have inferred from (c) that if they offered the Salat in their individual capacities, no rising should be organized against them. But Tradition (d) explicitly lays down that the condition for obedience to those in authority is the establishment of the system of Salat by them in the Muslim Community. The rulers should not only themselves offer the Salat regularly, but they should also establish the Salat in the system of government run by them. This is the minimum condition that ' makes a government Islamic in principle. If a government lacks this, it will mean that such a government has discarded Islam, and the Muslims will be justified in overthrowing it. This same thing has also been stated in another Tradition thus: "The Holy Prophet took a covenant from us regarding certain things. One of these was that we would not engage in a dispute with those invested with authority unless we saw in them clear signs of disbelief, which may provide us with a cogent reason to present before Allah." (Bukhari, Muslim) (4) The fourth thing that has been laid down as an absolute and permanent principle is that the Commandments of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger are the fundamentals of law and final authority in the Islamic system. Hence, if a dispute arises about any matter between the Muslims or between the rulers and the ruled, they should turn to the Qur'an and the Sunnah for a decision and they should all submit to the decision. Thus, the essential element in the Islamic system that distinguishes it from un-Islamic systems is to acknowledge the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger as the final authority and to turn to these and to submit to their decisions in all problems of life. Any system void of this is most surely an un lslamic system. Some people doubt the soundness of this principle. They say that it fails in practical life for the simple reason that there are many aspects of life (e.g., Local Self department. Railway department, Postal department, etc. etc.,) for which there are no rules and regulations at all in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. How then can they find the solution of the problems they meet with in such aspects of life as concern such departments? This doubt arises because they do not, understand the fundamental principles of Islam. Islam allows freedom of action in all those things about which the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger are silent. What distinguishes a Muslim from a non-Muslim is that the latter claims absolute freedom but the former considers himself to be the servant of Allah and uses only that amount of freedom which Islam allows him. The non-Muslim judges all matters in accordance with the rules and regulations made by himself and does not believe that he stands in need of Divine Guidance. In contrast to him, the Muslim, first of all, turns to Allah and His Messenger for guidance about everything and abides by their decision. But if he does not find any commandment therein about a certain thing, only then he is free to act in a manner he considers to be right. The very fact that the Law is silent about a certain thing, is a proof that it allows freedom of action in that particular matter. In the first part of this verse, the Quran enunciates the four fundamental principles of the Islamic Constitution, and in the second part teaches the wisdom that underlies them. The Muslims have been enjoined to follow the four fundamental principles if they are true believers; otherwise their profession of Islam will become doubtful. Then they have been taught to build their system of life on these because therein also lies their well-being; for this alone can keep them on the right path in this world and lead them to a happy life in the Hereafter. Jazak Allah Khairan.

be civilized with your answers .

Salam We all agree that who ever does not know the Imam of his time dies a death of Jahiliya (ignorance). What do our Sunni brothers think about Fatima (as)? She didn't accept Abo Bakr as her Imam, what is her position?

(bismillah) (salam) Peace N

Ali didnt know/understand that he was appointed by the Prophet s.a.w at Ghadeer khum as the successor, but the Shias do. May be the Shias are smarter than Ali :P Sahih Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 74, Hadith 282: Narrated by Ibn Abbas: `Ali bin Abi Talib came out of the house of the Prophet () during his fatal ailment. The people asked (`Ali), "O Abu Hasan! How is the health of Allah's Messenger () this morning?" `Ali said, "This morning he is better, with the grace of Allah." Al-`Abbas held `Ali by the hand and said, "Don't you see him (about to die)? By Allah, within three days you will be the slave of the stick (i.e., under the command of another ruler). By Allah, I think that Allah's Messenger () will die from his present ailment, for I know the signs of death on the faces of the offspring of `Abdul Muttalib. So let us go to Allah's Messenger () to ask him who will take over the Caliphate. If the authority is given to us, we will know it, and if it is given to somebody else we will request him to recommend us to him. " `Ali said, "By Allah! If we ask Allah's Messenger () for the rulership and he refuses, then the people will never give it to us. Besides, I will never ask Allah's Messenger for it." With regards to the hadith prophesying the coming of the 12 Caliphs from the Quraish, it is a PROOF that the 12 Imams of the shias are not what the Prophet meant in his Prophecy because only 2 of the 12 imams became Caliphs, and one of them Al Hassan r.a. gave the Caliphate to Muawiyah r.a. So I think that the Shias here are not reading history properly.

Salam everyone :) I would like to share with u my thoughts about "Khulafaa Rashidun" which I explained in video.Thank u for watching and leaving comments. عليكم بسنتي وسنة الخلفاء الراشدين

(bismillah) Explaining why Imam Ali (A.S) accepted the Caliphate after the death of the third Caliph, Imam Ali (A.S) says: Behold, by Him who split the grain [to grow] and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument, and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed, I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as the first. Then you would have seen that, in my view, this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat. (Nahj al-Balaghah, Sermon 3)

Voila... الشيخ الأزهري أحمد كريمة - الخلافة لآل البيت<--