Imaam Al-mahdee Is Appointed Like A Prophet

[Al-MuHammadee 374]

(salam)

NB: I posted this on another forum some time in the past.

It is the usual claim of the Ahl al-Sunnah that the appointment of Khaleefahs is in the hands of the Ummah. To them, Allaah never interferes in issues concerning the Khilaafah. Whomsoever the people vote for (like in modern democracies) or that is appointed by the last Khaleefah, or who conquers the Islaamic state by force of arms, is His choice too! The various Sunnee methods of appointing Khaleefahs have produced none but drunkards and war criminals. But, the Ahl al-Sunnah do not bulge. To them, it is Allaah's Wisdom that it is they who should appoint their own Khaleefahs, or that the previous Khaleefah should appoint the next, or that a rebel leader should be able to seize power and become the legitimate Khaleefah after toppling the reigning Khaleefah!

So unfortunately for them, they can never trace their heretical doctrine about Imaamah to any part of the Qur'aan or authentic Sunnah! None of their 'ulamaa has ever attempted to justify their various "accepted" modes of appointment of the Khaleefah through the Book of Allaah and the reliable Sunnah. They are all fully aware of the complete lack of proofs for their positions.

But, they are confronted with the coming of Imaam al-Mahdee (as).

Will the honourable Imaam (as) be appointed by the masses in popular elections?

Or, will he chosen by Allaah in the same way that He chose His prophets (the Shee'ah argument)?

Shaykh al-Albaanee in his al-SaHeeHah, vol. 4, p. 38, # 1529 records that the Messenger of Allaah said (pbuh):

لتملأن الأرض جورا و ظلما , فإذا ملئت جورا و ظلما , بعث الله رجلا مني , اسمه اسمي , فيملؤها قسطا و عدلا , كما ملئت جورا و ظلما

The earth will be filled completely with evil deeds and injustice. When it is fully filled with evil deeds and injustice, ALLAAH WILL APPOINT A MAN FROM ME, his name will be the same as my name, and he will re-fill it completely with equity and justice, just as it was previously filled completely with evil deeds and injustice.

Al-Albanee grades the Hadeeth as SaHeeH.

So, it is Allaah who appoints Imaam al-Mahdee (as)?

Interestingly, the word used for the manner of appointment of Imaam al-Mahdee (as) is the SAME used for the appointment of the prophets (as) in the Qur'aan. For instance, Allaah states (2:213):

كَانَ النَّاسُ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً فَبَعَثَ اللَّهُ النَّبِيِّينَ مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَ

Humanity was one Ummah. Then Allaah APPOINTED prophets to give glad tidings and to warn.

The Book of Allaah also states (16:36):

وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولًا أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ ۖ

And verily, We have APPOINTED among every Ummah a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allaah (Alone), and avoid the Taaghoot.

It is obvious now that Imaam al-Mahdee (as) is appointed in the same manner as the prophets and messengers (as), with the exception that he is only an Imaam, a Khaleefah. This reality tells us that Khaleefahs, prophets and messengers are appointed in the same manner by the same Allaah!

I wonder where the Ahl al-Sunnah will hide after this.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Al-MuHammadee

[Al-MuHammadee 374]

I made this post over three months ago. It is strange (is it?) that NONE from the Ahl al-Sunnah has attempted even a feeble reply to it! ‘Ajeeb!!!

[Kismet110 447]

How do you expect them to respond bro? That Allah (JJH) appointed the Prophet (SAW) and will appoint Imam Mahdi (ajtf) but everything in between is a free for all? That their glorious ummah has been led by charlatans, usurpers, murderers and worse since the passing of Our Prophet (SAW) but this is (mazhalah) part of Allah's (JJH) plan?

They are intellectually, morally and objectively finished however two (important) things sustain them from complete extinction; weight of (historic) numbers and petro-dollar funding to spread the creed of Muawiyah far and wide.

ALI

[MysticKnight 118]

A further argument can be that through Quran, when God wants to guide people through a person, it's through a super exalted servants. Messengers were said to be sent so humans rise up with justice, does it make sense that the final leader whom is raised by God that will cause this goal on a world scale is not of this calibre?

[Auqab 149]

Excellent post brother.

[Just the truth 117]

Imam Mahdi is appointed and there us no doubt about it but rest of imams were not appointed by Allah.

Reasons.

1. If ur Imamate is equivalent to nabuwwat u know like u say mirror image dn y would Allah sent a prophet (ISA) to finish off the dajjal if ur imam is equivalent to prophet then why can't he finish off dajjal why ISA a.s has to do it.

2. Your imams are not appointed from Allah otherwise why did Shia go to imam zayd ibn Ali then abandon him when he refused to curse Sunni caliphs.

3. If an imam is appointed dn there's only 2 ways the masses can know HADITH or imam claims so

4. If ur answer is Hadith then obviously imam zayd ibn Ali name will not be there, if his names not their then why swear allegiance to him and then only abandon him once he refused to curse caliphs.

If ur answer is imam claims then as you know imam zayd ibn Ali did claim to be imam that's why Shia swore allegiance to him,

As he claimed Imamate and so did his brother imam baqir then how do you know who was legitimate imam?

If imam baqir was real imam then why swear allegiance to him and ONLY abondoned him once ge refused to curse Sunni caliphs.

[Al-MuHammadee 374]

Imam Mahdi is appointed and there us no doubt about it but rest of imams were not appointed by Allah

Good. We finally got a Sunnee talking. Fine! So, Imaam al-Mahdee (as) is appointed, but the other Imaams (as) are not! Now, what do you say about this verse (24:55):

وَعَدَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا مِنْكُمْ وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كَمَا اسْتَخْلَفَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ

Allaah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them khaleefahs in the earth as He made khaleefahs those before them.

Allaah promises to appoint khaleefahs IN THIS UMMAH in the same manner that He appointed Aadam (as) and Daawood (as). Look what Ibn Katheer has stated under that verse:

هذا وعد من الله تعالى لرسوله صلوات الله وسلامه عليه بأنه سيجعل أمته خلفاء الأرض، أي: أئمة الناس، والولاة عليهم

This promise from Allaah the Most High to His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, is that He will soon make his Ummah the Khaleefahs of the earth, meaning the Imaams of mankind, and their rulers.

Imaam al-Baydaawee also states:

لَيَسْتَخْلِفَنَّهُمْ فِي ٱلأَرْضِ ليجعلنهم خلفاء متصرفين في الأرض تصرف الملوك في مماليكهم،

{That He will make them Khaleefahs in the earth}, that he will make them Khaleefahs who will rule in the earth in the same way that kings rule in their kingdom.

Both Ibn Katheer and al-Baydaawee however give the impression that the ENTIRE Ummah will be made khaleefahs and Imaams of the earth by Allaah. That, of course, makes no sense. Only some of the Ummah can be Imaams and Khaleefahs of the earth. Even the verse itself limits itself only to the righteous believers in this Ummah. And, of course, it is not all of them. It is only for a number of them - twelve, according to a mutawaatir hadeeth.

Imaam al-Qurtubee on his own says:

نزلت في أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما

It was revealed about Aboo Bakr and 'Umar, may Allaah be pleased with them both.

Meanhwile, Imaam al-Shawkaanee also states under that verse:

ليجعلنهم فيها خلفاء يتصرفون فيها تصرف الملوك في مملوكاتهم، وقد أبعد من قال: إنها مختصة بالخلفاء الأربعة، أو بالمهاجرين، أو بأن المراد بالأرض أرض مكة، وقد عرفت أن الاعتبار بعموم اللفظ لا بخصوص السبب، وظاهر قوله: { كَمَا ٱسْتَخْلَفَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ } كل من استخلفه الله في أرضه، فلا يخصّ ذلك ببني إسرائيل ولا أمة من الأمم دون غيرها

To appoint them Khaleefahs in it (the earth) to rule it as kings rule in their kingdoms. Whosoever says that the verse is restricted to the Four Khaleefahs, or to the Muhaajiroon, or that the earth (in the verse) is Makkah (only), has strayed far! I have known that the wording is general, and is not restricted to any means. And, the apparent meaning of {as He appointed khaleefahs those before them} is all those WHOM ALLAAH APPOINTED AS KHALEEFAHS IN HIS EARTH, and this is not restricted to Banoo Israaeel or any Ummah without the other.

Of course, we disagree over exactly who those Khaleefahs appointed by Allaah are. But, the basic idea flows: that Allaah promised to appoint in this Ummah Khaleefahs as He appointed Aadam (as) and Daawood (as).

You think He is fulfilling this promise only for Imaam al-Mahdee (as)???

Edited July 12, 2012 by Al-MuHammadee

[Rasul 1,302]

Lol - Sunni logic is hilarious!

[Just the truth 117]

Yours obviously more stupid and naive than I actually thought I dont need to read that verse properly you do.

Ok firstly what does imam/caliphate mean:

Leader someone who is followed an example. Just like prophet was leader/imam and an example;

What Allah is saying there is if you read it properly is that I will make all of them imams/caliphs examples and you know us Muslims are examples on earth which are looked at by unbelievers.

[Ibrahim786 28]

(salam)

NB: I posted this on another forum some time in the past.

It is the usual claim of the Ahl al-Sunnah that the appointment of Khaleefahs is in the hands of the Ummah. To them, Allaah never interferes in issues concerning the Khilaafah. Whomsoever the people vote for (like in modern democracies) or that is appointed by the last Khaleefah, or who conquers the Islaamic state by force of arms, is His choice too! The various Sunnee methods of appointing Khaleefahs have produced none but drunkards and war criminals. But, the Ahl al-Sunnah do not bulge. To them, it is Allaah's Wisdom that it is they who should appoint their own Khaleefahs, or that the previous Khaleefah should appoint the next, or that a rebel leader should be able to seize power and become the legitimate Khaleefah after toppling the reigning Khaleefah!

So unfortunately for them, they can never trace their heretical doctrine about Imaamah to any part of the Qur'aan or authentic Sunnah! None of their 'ulamaa has ever attempted to justify their various "accepted" modes of appointment of the Khaleefah through the Book of Allaah and the reliable Sunnah. They are all fully aware of the complete lack of proofs for their positions.

But, they are confronted with the coming of Imaam al-Mahdee (as).

Will the honourable Imaam (as) be appointed by the masses in popular elections?

Or, will he chosen by Allaah in the same way that He chose His prophets (the Shee'ah argument)?

Shaykh al-Albaanee in his al-SaHeeHah, vol. 4, p. 38, # 1529 records that the Messenger of Allaah said (pbuh):

لتملأن الأرض جورا و ظلما , فإذا ملئت جورا و ظلما , بعث الله رجلا مني , اسمه اسمي , فيملؤها قسطا و عدلا , كما ملئت جورا و ظلما

The earth will be filled completely with evil deeds and injustice. When it is fully filled with evil deeds and injustice, ALLAAH WILL APPOINT A MAN FROM ME, his name will be the same as my name, and he will re-fill it completely with equity and justice, just as it was previously filled completely with evil deeds and injustice.

Al-Albanee grades the Hadeeth as SaHeeH.

So, it is Allaah who appoints Imaam al-Mahdee (as)?

Interestingly, the word used for the manner of appointment of Imaam al-Mahdee (as) is the SAME used for the appointment of the prophets (as) in the Qur'aan. For instance, Allaah states (2:213):

كَانَ النَّاسُ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً فَبَعَثَ اللَّهُ النَّبِيِّينَ مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِينَ

Humanity was one Ummah. Then Allaah APPOINTED prophets to give glad tidings and to warn.

The Book of Allaah also states (16:36):

وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولًا أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ ۖ

And verily, We have APPOINTED among every Ummah a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allaah (Alone), and avoid the Taaghoot.

It is obvious now that Imaam al-Mahdee (as) is appointed in the same manner as the prophets and messengers (as), with the exception that he is only an Imaam, a Khaleefah. This reality tells us that Khaleefahs, prophets and messengers are appointed in the same manner by the same Allaah!

I wonder where the Ahl al-Sunnah will hide after this.

IAlthough imam al mahdi will be a special person and his khilafah will be like the khulafa rasihdeen, imam al mahdi will not be a prophet nor a shia-type imam - he will have no wahi, nor will he amend the quran and sunnah nor as far as I am aware will he be contacted by gibrael as. I think again that you are miinterpreting the hadith. Infact the sunni version is that the pious will recognise in the haram sharif during the hajj season and initiall he will refuse their support and prunouncements but eventually accept their support and prunouncements - this was not the case with the prophets !!!

Also the shia version of imam mahdi is from hussain ra whereas the sunnis believe that he will be from either hussain ra or hassan ra.

[Al-MuHammadee 374]

Yours obviously more stupid and naive than I actually thought I dont need to read that verse properly you do.

This post above is in itself very stupid and very naive!

Ok firstly what does imam/caliphate mean:

Leader someone who is followed an example. Just like prophet was leader/imam and an example;

How is this stupid post related to the discussion? Well, FYI, this thread is about whether Allaah appoints the khaleefahs or whether the people elect them. I have presented evidences from the Qur'aan and Sunnah that it is Allaah Who appoints Khaleefahs. You are yet to bring anything useful to the table.

What Allah is saying there is if you read it properly is that I will make all of them imams/caliphs examples and you know us Muslims are examples on earth which are looked at by unbelievers.

You mean "examples" like this?

or this?

IAlthough imam al mahdi will be a special person and his khilafah will be like the khulafa rasihdeen, imam al mahdi will not be a prophet nor a shia-type imam - he will have no wahi, nor will he amend the quran and sunnah nor as far as I am aware will he be contacted by gibrael as. I think again that you are miinterpreting the hadith. Infact the sunni version is that the pious will recognise in the haram sharif during the hajj season and initiall he will refuse their support and prunouncements but eventually accept their support and prunouncements - this was not the case with the prophets !!!

This post is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the question whether Allaah appoints Khaleefahs or the people. Can you point out where that "misinterpretation" lies?

The hadeeth clearly mentions that Imaam al-Mahdee (as) is appointed by Allaah. Are you saying it is the people that will elect him? Where is your proof for that? And what are you people waiting for? Why don't you elect your own Imaam al-Mahdee (as) now? Why are you waiting for someone appointed by Allaah?

Also, your post contains some false insinuations. We NEVER claim that Imaams (as) are prophets, and we never say Imaams (as) change the Book and Sunnah. In fact, it is the oppoiste way round. According to your false religion, when 'Eesaa (as) returns, he will abolish some verses of the Qur'aan! Read this:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts."

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425

Of course, the Jizya is legislated in the Qur'aan!!!

Also the shia version of imam mahdi is from hussain ra whereas the sunnis believe that he will be from either hussain ra or hassan ra.

This is perhaps your most ignorant post yet. Imaam al-Mahdee (as) is a descendant of BOTH Imaam al-Hasan (as) and Imaam al-Husayn (as), according to us.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Al-MuHammadee

[Just the truth 117]

So AL MUHAMMADEE u wnt to show a picture of terrorist attacks which till this day are still a theory as to who committed that atrocity and you want to show "Sunni terrorists" in iraq well have you ever heard of the Shia death squads in Iraq?

[Al-MuHammadee 374]

@ just the lies,

You are missing the point of those pictures. You claim that Sunnees are EXEMPLARS to the world, and that all of humanity must copy Sunnees. That, you claim, is the meaning of that Verse of Khilaafah, which I quoted from the Qur‘aan. But, of course, Sunnees are not exemplars AT ALL! They are TERRORISTS. They carry out terrorist attacks against Shee‘ahs as well as non-Muslims. Sunnees even went as far as to BOMB THE GRAVES of two of the Ahl al-Bayt imaams (as)!!! They bomb and kill every single day, murdering innocent civilians, simply for not worshipping ‘Umar with them. All these facts show that your interpretation of that verse is a CLEAR LIE upon Allaah!

Yes, there have been some cases of terrorism by ignorant Shee‘ahs. However, the difference between us is that WHILE TERRORISM IS ACTUALLY A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF YOUR ‘AQEEDAH, IT HAS NO ROOTS IN OURS. So, it is your knowledgeable, committed ones that commit terrorism and it is only the ignorants among us that do the same thing.

So, to be honest: where do YOU intend to bomb next? Oh, I forgot, you are on a public forum!

[Just the truth 117]

WHAT MUHAMMADEE are you from this planet firstly terrorism has nothing to do with our akeedah, secondly Shia who bomb are ignorant and Sunni are following their akeedah lol lol lol grow a brain P brain

[Al-MuHammadee 374]

@ just the lies,

I used to be a Salafee. In fact, I have spent most of my life in Sunnism. So, I know all your ‘aqeedahs INSIDE OUT! I do not want this thread to derail. But, by Allaah, TERRORISM IS FIRMLY ROOTED IN THE TEACHINGS AND ‘AQEEDAH OF SUNNISM.

And, if you have nothing more useful to add to this thread, please leave it.

[Just the truth 117]

Lol just because a few clerics preach hate you can't brush us all under the same carpet, what's the difference between you and groups like the EDL you really think people like EDL etc look at whether you're a Sunni Shia salami etc no they just see you as a Muslim and brush you all under the same carpet.

Now my question to you is what's the difference between you and EDL?

[Dagga 20]

Yes, there have been some cases of terrorism by ignorant Shee‘ahs. However, the difference between us is that WHILE TERRORISM IS ACTUALLY A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF YOUR ‘AQEEDAH, IT HAS NO ROOTS IN OURS. So, it is your knowledgeable, committed ones that commit terrorism and it is only the ignorants among us that do the same thing.

So, to be honest: where do YOU intend to bomb next? Oh, I forgot, you are on a public forum!

Your mentality is actually so disturbing and STUPID. When Americans call us Terrorists do they say Sunnis are terrorists or Muslims are terrorists? You may think we are terrorists but fair enough, atleast the disgusting backstabbing trait does not run in our bloods, how amusing you claim to love ahlul bayt and the death of Hussein R.A is on your hands this is the reason why Shias are cutting their heads open, whipping themselves senseless and walking on fire?!>

I used to be a Salafee. In fact, I have spent most of my life in Sunnism. So, I know all your ‘aqeedahs INSIDE OUT! I do not want this thread to derail. But, by Allaah, TERRORISM IS FIRMLY ROOTED IN THE TEACHINGS AND ‘AQEEDAH OF SUNNISM.

The fact that you think Salafis are Sunni is sad in itself.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Dagga

[Just the truth 117]

Shia are murderers of imam zayd ibn Ali and imam Hussein, so what if today Shia CLAIM to love ahle bayt big deal you still cant get away from the fact that Shia have blood on their hands.

[Rasul 1,302]

Shia are murderers of imam zayd ibn Ali and imam Hussein, so what if today Shia CLAIM to love ahle bayt big deal you still cant get away from the fact that Shia have blood on their hands.

lol it seems you are too stupid! - Is Yezid (la) Shia or Sunni!? He is Sunni! And Ameeral Momeenen for Sunnis!

The fact that you think Salafis are Sunni is sad in itself.

'Salafis are Sunnis' and they are from Ahli Sunnah Wal Jammah

They take religion from 'Bukhari Muslim Nasai Tirmidhi etc'

[Rasul 1,302]

how amusing you claim to love ahlul bayt and the death of Hussein R.A is on your hands this is the reason why Shias are cutting their heads open, whipping themselves senseless and walking on fire?!>

ÃãÇ ÞÊáí ÇáÍÓíä ÝÇäå ÎÑÌ Úáí ÇãÇã æ ÃãÉ ãÌÊãÚÉ æ ßÊÈ Åáí ÇáÇãÇã íÃãÑäí ÈÞÊáå ÝÇä ßÇä Ðáß ÎØà ßÇä áÇÒãÇ áíÒíÏ.

Ubayd-Allah ibn Ziyad “I killed Al-Hussain due to the reason that he revolted against our Imam, (Yazeed) and the very Imam sent me the message to kill Al-Hussain. Now if the murder of Hussain is a sin then Yazeed is responsible for it”

Sunni References:

Al-Akhbar Al-Tawaal, Pg. # 278 - 279

[Just the truth 117]

RASUL you're actually sooooo stupid that I actually find you very amusing.

Just because Shia never directly killed him that does not in anyway exonerate them from playing a big part in the martyrdom of imam Hussein.

Ok since you've got the mentality of a two year old ul explain it to you in a language you understand best.

Do you know imam husseein yeeehh well he was sent soooo many letters from kufa where people were saying we want to swear allegiance to you and not yazid, then after that imam Hussein sent his cousin Muslim bin aqeel to see if what they wrote in their letters was true, then Muslim bin aqeel sent message back to imam Hussein saying yes imam come to kufa 1000's are swearing allegiance to you bur after writing this letter Shia changed their mind and deserted Muslim bin aqeel but then Muslim bin aqeel was captured and had no chance of writing or sending message to imam Hussein who was already near kufa and then after that power you know what happened.

Now you tell me would imam Hussein have come to kufa if it wernt for the letters, just because Shia never put the knife in him does not mean they never martyred him!!!!

How is imam Hussein your third imam when you never even swore allegiance to him???

Hope it's gone through your thick skull now!!!

Also power why don't you also try and exonerate Shia who deserted imam zayd ibn Ali just realised you never commented on him?????

[gajarkahalva 213]

Just the lies...you are so thick man. You do realise the Shia that wer referred to back in the day of Imam Hussain a.s. are not the same as whom the "shias" are referred to as today. They were actually sunnis as they all supported the caliphate of bakr, umar, uthman.

[Rasul 1,302]

Do you know imam husseein yeeehh well he was sent soooo many letters from kufa where people were saying we want to swear allegiance to you and not yazid, then after that imam Hussein sent his cousin Muslim bin aqeel to see if what they wrote in their letters was true, then Muslim bin aqeel sent message back to imam Hussein saying yes imam come to kufa 1000's are swearing allegiance to you bur after writing this letter Shia changed their mind and deserted Muslim bin aqeel

Those who deserted 'Mulim bin Ageel' were not Shia Rafidah. -They were 'Political Shia' which means 'one type of Sunnis' with their own 'Sub Leaders'

Are you so stupid - that you think 'Shia Rafidah' were not impresoned and oppresed in Kufa - were Yazid had his goverment? Are you so Stupid?

but then Muslim bin aqeel was captured and had no chance of writing or sending message to imam Hussein who was already near kufa and then after that power you know what happened.

Oh you are so Stupid! 'Karbala is not 'near' of Kufa'

Now you tell me would imam Hussein have come to kufa if it wernt for the letters,

Imam Hussain (as) had no choice to stay in Medina/Mecka he was under pressure to give 'Bayah to Yezid' or he would be killed!

just because Shia never put the knife in him does not mean they never martyred him!!!!

Your logic is funny!

How is imam Hussein your third imam when you never even swore allegiance to him???

There is no need in swearing to him allegiance 'Materially'

Hey... idiot - How is Umar your Khalifa when you never even swore allegiance to him???

why don't you also try and exonerate Shia who deserted imam zayd ibn Ali just realised you never commented on him?????

Another Sunni myth

Edited July 13, 2012 by Rasul

[Shia_Debater 2,975]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Three types of "Shi`a"

One is the kind whom were on the side of Imam Hussain [as] due to the fact that they loved him and wanted to be on the right path etc.

The other is the kind who were only his "Shi`a" because it was in their benefit, e.g. they would have revolted against yazeed because of some benefit for themselves not out of love for Imam Hussain [as] or for wanting to be on the right path etc. This can be easily seen due to the fact that they could be bought with money, showing that they weren't real "Shi`a" of Imam Hussain [as]

The third is being a "Shi`a" of someone [follower] but not of Imam Hussain [as] e.g. Shi`a of Yazeed = followers of Yazeed. The word Shi`a does not automatically mean a follower of Ahlul Bayt [as] it just means follower.

Out of those who were in Kufa there are two possibities

1- They weren't real Shi`a and they only supported Imam Hussain [as] was due to the fact that it was in their interests and once they were bribed or their interests changed they decided not to follow Imam Hussain [as] anymore [hence not even being real Shi`a]

2- They were killed, or imprisoned before they could join Imam Hussain [as] - for more info on this point watch this lecture [this is part one, if you can't find parts 2, 3 and 4 please let me know]

Dagga & Just the truth - if you sincerely want to find the truth, then you would watch the lecture and see the points presented about point number 2 that I made in this topic - however if you aren't here to educate yourself, rather you are here to force your views or 'guide us' then this is my first and last comment towards you both.

Please do let me know whether you are here to sincerely find the truth or just want to try and 'guide us' so I know where I stand

Edited July 13, 2012 by Shia_Debater

[Ibrahim786 28]

RASUL you're actually sooooo stupid that I actually find you very amusing.

Just because Shia never directly killed him that does not in anyway exonerate them from playing a big part in the martyrdom of imam Hussein.

Ok since you've got the mentality of a two year old ul explain it to you in a language you understand best.

Do you know imam husseein yeeehh well he was sent soooo many letters from kufa where people were saying we want to swear allegiance to you and not yazid, then after that imam Hussein sent his cousin Muslim bin aqeel to see if what they wrote in their letters was true, then Muslim bin aqeel sent message back to imam Hussein saying yes imam come to kufa 1000's are swearing allegiance to you bur after writing this letter Shia changed their mind and deserted Muslim bin aqeel but then Muslim bin aqeel was captured and had no chance of writing or sending message to imam Hussein who was already near kufa and then after that power you know what happened.

Now you tell me would imam Hussein have come to kufa if it wernt for the letters, just because Shia never put the knife in him does not mean they never martyred him!!!!

How is imam Hussein your third imam when you never even swore allegiance to him???

Hope it's gone through your thick skull now!!!

Also power why don't you also try and exonerate Shia who deserted imam zayd ibn Ali just realised you never commented on him?????

not strtictly true my respected brother.........the person who killed hussain ra was shimr bin dhil jaushin who a shiane ali and actually fought for ali ra in siffeen against muawiyah ra. Infact I have heard that the auntie of shimr was married to ali ra. Also ubaydullah bin ziyad's father i.e. ziyad was on the side of ali ra in siffeen even against his own brother and there is another guy whose name I keep on forgetting who killed hussain ra who was shiani ali.

the kufans had a bigger part in the killing of hussain ra than yazid did - not to excuse yazid's role.

[Shia_Debater 2,975]

(bismillah)

(salam)

not strtictly true my respected brother.........the person who killed hussain ra was shimr bin dhil jaushin who a shiane ali and actually fought for ali ra in siffeen against muawiyah

It doesn't matter whether shimr [la] was on the side of Imam Ali [as] in any earlier war or not, are you telling me that once someone is on the right path they will always remain on it?

shimr [la] killing the son of Imam Ali [as] clearly shows he was not a Shi`a of Ali [as]

Infact I have heard that the auntie of shimr was married to ali ra.

So what?

Also ubaydullah bin ziyad's father i.e. ziyad was on the side of ali ra in siffeen even against his own brother

I don't know whether this is true or not but again so what? What does family relations have to do with this?

and there is another guy whose name I keep on forgetting who killed hussain ra who was shiani ali.

Well then clearly if he killed Imam Hussain [as] he wasn't a Shi`a of Imam Ali [as]. You make no sense.

the kufans had a bigger part in the killing of hussain ra than yazid did - not to excuse yazid's role.

That makes no sense - Imam Hussain [as] was going to get killed by yazeed [la] whether he went to Kufa or not, however the people of Kufa said they are with him and either (1) turned against him due to personal gains thus they aren't real Shi`a or (2) were killed +/ imprisoned - watch this

Ibrahim 786 - if you sincerely want to find the truth, then you would watch the lecture and see the points presented about point number 2 that I made here () - however if you aren't here to educate yourself, rather you are here to force your views or 'guide us' then this is my first and last comment towards you.

Please do let me know whether you are here to sincerely find the truth or just want to try and 'guide us' so I know where I stand

Edited July 13, 2012 by Shia_Debater

[Rasul 1,302]

Shimr (la) was Sunni and from Ahli Sunnah Wal Jammah

روى أبوبكر بن عياش ، عن أبي إسحاق قال : كان شمر يصلى معنا ، ثم يقول : اللهم إنك تعلم إني شريف فإغفر لي ، قلت : كيف يغفر الله لك ، وقد أعنت على قتل إبن رسول الله (ص) ؟ ، قال : ويحك ! فكيف نصنع ؟ إن أمراءنا هؤلاء أمرونا بأمر فلم نخالفهم ، ولو خالفناهم كنا شراً من هذه الحمر السقاة ، قلت : إن هذا لعذر قبيح ، فإنما الطاعة في المعروف.

Aboo Isaac said: Shimr used to pray with us and say: ‘O God, you know that I am a righteous man thus forgive me’. I said (Aboo Ish'aq): ‘How shall Allah forgive you when you participated in killing the son of Allah's messenger (saw)?’ He replied: ‘Woe to you! What should I have done? Our rulers ordered us to do so, we therefore did not disobey them, if we disobeyed them we would be worse than these animals’. I said: ‘This is an awful excuse, verily obedience is only in relation to good things’.

Sunni References:

Mizan al-I'tidal, Vol 3. Pg. 385, Person # 3747

[Just the truth 117]

Good point about all kufans not being Shia but also were political Shia now that point makes much more sense.

BUT this shows that Ali r.a had both political and religious Shia behind himso I can safely say that those same political Shia (Sunnis) were also fighting along his side in siffin? Right well then that nullifies the fact that ammar bin yasir would be martyred by opposing group (Sunnis) (don't forget Shia use this as argument that they are right and we are wrong) I'm not saying Hadith doesn't exist of course it does but then this Hadith does not prove Shia are right as their were Sunnis fighting also on Ali side.

This then brings us back to letter 57/58/59 of nahj ul balagah where Ali says both parties believed in same canons of faith.

I then come to this conclusion that the religious Shia of that time did not believe in Imamat as to be an asul ad din BUT did believe that imam Ali was rightful successor, just like zaydis do.

Now question here is if Imamat was not usul ad din at that time why is it usul ad din now?

[Shia_Debater 2,975]

(bismillah)

(salam)

Good point about all kufans not being Shia but also were political Shia now that point makes much more sense.

Not sure if you are addressing me but in case you are I will reply to this message

BUT this shows that Ali r.a had both political and religious Shia behind himso I can safely say that those same political Shia (Sunnis) were also fighting along his side in siffin? Right well then that nullifies the fact that ammar bin yasir would be martyred by opposing group (Sunnis) (don't forget Shia use this as argument that they are right and we are wrong) I'm not saying Hadith doesn't exist of course it does but then this Hadith does not prove Shia are right as their were Sunnis fighting also on Ali side.

Ammar bin Yassir [ra] was martyred by Mu`awiya - I dont see how it matters who was on the side of Imam Ali [as]

This then brings us back to letter 57/58/59 of nahj ul balagah where Ali says both parties believed in same canons of faith.

Can you present the chain of narrators and authenticity of those letters? [and can a Shi`a who knows `Ilm ar-Rijaal etc. verify the authenticity of those letters e.g. is it dha`eef, saheeh, hasan etc.?]

I then come to this conclusion that the religious Shia of that time did not believe in Imamat as to be an asul ad din BUT did believe that imam Ali was rightful successor, just like zaydis do.

This was based on your post about the Nahjul Balagha letters so please respond to the question above

Now question here is if Imamat was not usul ad din at that time why is it usul ad din now?

Again same question as above

Edited July 13, 2012 by Shia_Debater

[Rasul 1,302]

BUT this shows that Ali r.a had both political and religious Shia behind himso I can safely say that those same political Shia (Sunnis) were also fighting along his side in siffin? Right well then that nullifies the fact that ammar bin yasir would be martyred by opposing group (Sunnis) (don't forget Shia use this as argument that they are right and we are wrong)

Shia have never said that Sunnis were on the side of Muawiya (la) rather we say that Sunnis were also on the side of Ali (as) and they are called 'Political Shia'

Opposing group ( Army of Muawiya (la) is not 'Sunnis' but they are Nasibis - Hypocrites etc.

IThis then brings us back to letter 57/58/59 of nahj ul balagah where Ali says both parties believed in same canons of faith.

What Ali (as) meant is that 'both Armys' - belived in - Allah and Messengership of Muhammad (pbuh) if you dont belive in Imamat - then you are still Muslim while you are alive - but when you die you die like in Jahillia

I then come to this conclusion that the religious Shia of that time did not believe in Imamat as to be an asul ad din BUT did believe that imam Ali was rightful successor, just like zaydis do. Now question here is if Imamat was not usul ad din at that time why is it usul ad din now?

it is 'Political Shias' that did not belive in Imamat and not 'Shia Rafidah'

• 'Shia Rafidah' - Shia that were from begining - and belived in Imamat
  
• 'Political Shias' (Sunnis) that did not belive in Imamat - some of them become Zaidi Shia
  

[Al-MuHammadee 374]

(salam)

I think I have to add that MOST of Nahj al-Balaghah is VERY weak. So, whoever is quoting from it has to first prove that the specific report he is quoting has a reliable chain. Otherwise, he is wasting his time. Kitaab al-Kaafee has a higher status among us than Nahj al-Balaaghah. Yet, we do not just accept any report from it without its rijal reliability or tawaattur having first been established.

[Just the truth 117]

This response is to both SHIA DEBATER and RASUL

1. The only reason I mentioned ammar bin yasir Hadith was because I always get Shia online and my friends referring to this Hadith to prove they are right we are wrong

2. As for presenting chain of narrations why should I find chain of narrators it's your book, if it's not authentic then how do you know which part is and isn't authentic can you find chain of naarator for which part you claim authentic?

3. As for what RASUL said regarding what Ali meant then yes I agree he mentioned Allah and prophet but he also said CANONS OF FAITH, Imamat is usul ad din foundation of ones belief how can one call himself a Muslim if his foundations are not right? What happens to a building without it's foundations it collapses/gets destroyed same as ones belief. Imamat is more important than salah but if I reject salah am I still a Muslim? Being lazy 2 pray salah is not kufr but rejecting it is if imaat is more important then how can I still be muslim if I don't believe in it? (that's if it's a part of Islam) shahadah is usul ad din same as imamaaat why am I a Muslim for rejecting one but believing in the other?

4. Last point by RASUL: well how can both armies believe in same canons of faith?

5. As for calling opposing army hypocrites then how can hypocrites be Muslims? Does this make any sense? Either they Muslims or they're munafiqeen 

Please can you tell me where Shia learn their deen obviously you're going to say  imams (may Allah be pleased with them all) but I mean which books to you read?

[Shia_Debater 2,975]

(bismillah)

(salam)

This response is to both SHIA DEBATER and RASUL

1. The only reason I mentioned ammar bin yasir Hadith was because I always get Shia online and my friends referring to this Hadith to prove they are right we are wrong

It may not prove sunnis are wrong, but it proves mu`awiya was wrong whom sunnis claim to be a pious person, so there definitely is something wrong with your beliefs

2. As for presenting chain of narrations why should I find chain of narrators it's your book, if it's not authentic then how do you know which part is and isn't authentic can you find chain of naarator for which part you claim authentic?

if you cant then if a shia sees this message and can bring the chain of narrations please do so as i cant

3. As for what RASUL said regarding what Ali meant then yes I agree he mentioned Allah and prophet but he also said CANONS OF FAITH, Imamat is usul ad din foundation of ones belief how can one call himself a Muslim if his foundations are not right? What happens to a building without it's foundations it collapses/gets destroyed same as ones belief. Imamat is more important than salah but if I reject salah am I still a Muslim? Being lazy 2 pray salah is not kufr but rejecting it is if imaat is more important then how can I still be muslim if I don't believe in it? (that's if it's a part of Islam) shahadah is usul ad din same as imamaaat why am I a Muslim for rejecting one but believing in the other?

4. Last point by RASUL: well how can both armies believe in same canons of faith?

these two are directed at rasul i will let him answer

5. As for calling opposing army hypocrites then how can hypocrites be Muslims? Does this make any sense? Either they Muslims or they're munafiqeen

Surah 63 Verse 1 [Translation by Ali Quli Qara'i]

When the hypocrites come to you they say, ‘We bear witness that you are indeed the apostle of Allah.’ Allah knows that you are indeed His Apostle, and Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are indeed liars.

Please can you tell me where Shia learn their deen obviously you're going to say imams (may Allah be pleased with them all) but I mean which books to you read?

We learn it from The Prophet (pbuh) + The Imams (as) - im not exactly sure which books id rather let a more knowledgeable member give definite comments though from what i know its the Qur'an and I think the main 4 books of hadith are al-Kafi, man la yahduru al faqeeh, tahdhib al-ahkaam and al-istibsar but there are many more books of hadith if im not mistaken but as I said im not knowledgeable so i could be wrong

Edited July 13, 2012 by Shia_Debater

[WilayaBlood 580]

Aslamalaykum,

The thread is being hijacked by the sunnis, who are derailing the topic from the the original OP by brother Al Muhammadee, so I suggest to my shia brothers, this is one of their tactics and don't fall for it.

[Just the truth 117]

RESPONE TO SHUA DEBATER.

Regarding mawiyah well you obviously don't know sunnism well enough.

1. He is NOT one of our rightly guided caliphs because of his revolt against Ali and hasan (read up on this). We acknowledge that he was not the best of chew greed but at the same time refuse to curse him.

2. If he were a hypocrite/non Muslim then why would imam hasan hand over caliphate him? If his intentions were to destroy Islam imam hasan would have never handed caliphate over and would have chosen to fall a martyr just like his brother imam Hussein. Remind me again why did imam Hussein not want to swear allegiance to yazid?

Yazid was an open sinner who wanted to destroy Islam but imam Hussein chose to fall a martyr (may Allah be pleased with his sacrifice) if mawiyah was also hypocrite then do you think imam hasan would have given caliphate to him or chose to fight him till the end?

If youre going to bring the argument of numbers then how many soldiers did imam Hussein have? 

There are a few possible outcomes here

1. Mawiyah was a hypocrite and imam hasan let a hypocrite rule Islamic community

2. Imam hasan knew mawiyah was a Muslim and all he was interested in was power but at the sane time had no intentions of trying to destroy Islam 

If he had intentions of destroying Islam would imam hasan not have revolted against him again or would imam Hussein have not revolted against him like he did with his son yazeed.

Mawiyah was power and wealth hungry but not a hypocrite if being power and wealth hungry is hypocrisy then we're all hypocrites.

As for that verse you referred to then my friend dont stop their carry on reading till third verse where Allah says outwardly they believe but inwardly they don't (so obviously theyre not Muslims) if you're using that verse in order to prove something then if you read my above answer that cannot be possibly referring to mawiyah

In point one I was supposed to wrote example but my phone is going bit crazy and wrote chew greed for some reason just thought I'd mention that bro

In point one I was supposed to wrote example but my phone is going bit crazy and wrote chew greed for some reason just thought I'd mention that bro