Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Is Imam Ali Infallible? Evidence From The Quran

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

(salam)

Åä ÇáÍãÏ ááå äÍãÏå æäÓÊÚíäå æäÓÊÛÝÑå¡ æäÚæÐ ÈÇááå ãä ÔÑæÑ ÃäÝÓäÇ æãä ÓíÆÇÊ ÃÚãÇáäÇ¡ ãä íåÏå Çááå ÝáÇ ãÖá áå æãä íÖáá ÝáÇ åÇÏí áå æÃÔåÏ Ãä áÇ Åáå ÅáÇ Çááå æÍÏå áÇ ÔÑíß áå æÃÔåÏ Ãä ãÍãÏ ÚÈÏå æÑÓæáå¡ Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÚáì Âáå æÕÍÈå ÃÌãÚíä¡ æÓáã ÊÓáíãÇ ßËíÑÇð

I would like to start by saying that Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are NOT 100% authentic. This is a dangerous claim made by some ignorant Sunnis.

According to Sunnis, the Shia hadith literature is filled with fabricated hadiths and this is the reason why they are not used in intellectual debates. Unlike the Sunni literature, which is considered a vast branch of Islamic sciences. The Sunni hadith science is always backed by `Ilm ar-rijal (Science of Narrators) in which the hadith narrators are personally studied and scholars can reach a decsion to claim that a Hadith is Sahih or not, according to the credibility of the narrators. As well as Shia use continuously Sunni hadiths to try back their case, such as the Ghadeer Hadith and others. Unfortunately the hadiths are misinterpreted and sometimes cut in half.

So now, I will show you the refutation to the claim that Imam Ali and other Ahlulbayt members were infallible from the Holy Quran, and by using a verse Shia use commonly to defend their case.

"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result." 4:59

Sheikh Adnan Ibrahim will explain it to you in just 2 minutes. Please watch. There is English subtitles.

How do you answer back to this point ??

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

This is a quite clear verse, and I do not follow his logic at all. What is he trying to say? If we quarrel about anything it means that Imam Ali (as) is fallible? What a nonsensical idea!

Had Imam Ali (as) been fallible, then his enemies would be bringing in examples of his behaviour where he sinned, rather than trying mental gymnastics with Quran verses. But since they cannot point to any incident in his life which would negate his infallibility, they're fishing in muddy waters and trying to play with the low IQ of the Sunni masses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a quite clear verse, and I do not follow his logic at all. What is he trying to say? If we quarrel about anything it means that Imam Ali (as) is fallible? What a nonsensical idea!

Had Imam Ali (as) been fallible, then his enemies would be bringing in examples of his behaviour where he sinned, rather than trying mental gymnastics with Quran verses. But since they cannot point to any incident in his life which would negate his infallibility, they're fishing in muddy waters and trying to play with the low IQ of the Sunni masses.

It seems that you did not understand what the Sheikh was trying to say.

If you look at the verse like this:

"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you..."

It clearly says that we should obey the above (highlighted in red above).

Then:

"... if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, ..."

We can understand that if we disagree, differ, conflict, argue, quarrel... ÊäÇÒÚÊã

However, IF we disagree, differ, conflict, argue, quarrel with those in authority among us

We should refer it to Allah and the Messenger

My point is:

IF Imam Ali was infallible and this verse is meant to address him and the rest of the Imams.

Why did not it say refer it to Allah and the Messenger and those in authority among us ???? To acknowledge that we should always get back to the Imams for accurate and divine information.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators

^

Yeh nice try.

"If you quarrel about anything" is being addressed to "O you who believe" who are mean't to obey "Allah, the Messenger and those in authority amongst you". As for the part, "refer it to Allah and Messenger", that's because the religion and shariyat is that of the Messenger. Our Imams, though Infallible, followed it as well and always guided people to the religion/shariyat of the Messenger P.b.u.H.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

"O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end."

The scholar in the video is interpreting the "you" in the italicized portion of the verse as referring to those in authority. If those in authority quarrel about anything among themselves, then we have a problem. You're first going to have prove that his interpretation of the latter part of the aya is correct, via Arabic grammar and most importantly, ahaadeeth. And THEN you are going to have to prove that those vested with authority ever quarreled about anything among themselves. Then that individual's argument can be brought forth. Other than that, he really is grasping at straws to even make this claim.

However, should the "you" in the aya be referring to the 'Umma quarreling with those vested with authority, how does that POSSIBLY lay a blame on the authority's infallibility? I hope this wasn't your argument.

My point is:

IF Imam Ali was infallible and this verse is meant to address him and the rest of the Imams.

Why did not it say refer it to Allah and the Messenger and those in authority among us ???? To acknowledge that we should always get back to the Imams for accurate and divine information.

Historical fact between Shi'a and Sunni universally agree the disputes, and more importantly, wars occurred over the decision of who should be the authority among us. There was clearly, no absolute consensus; in this respect, if a person who did not give bay'a to and/or did not believe in the assigned 'Imaam by Allaah (swt) he/she would have to refer to the other authorities which put the former in their place, i.e., Allaah (swt) and His Messenger (pbuh). Essentially this is defending the A'imma (as) from the accusations placed by the bigots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

One ayah that comes to mind to prove the wilayat of Ali ibn Abi Talib [as] is Surah 5 Verse 55

Sorry just wanted to add some Sahih Sunni Hadith that confirm this is about Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib (as) :

  1. Tafsir Al Kabir, by Ahmed Ibn Mohammad Al Tha'labi, under 5:55
  2. Tafsir Al Kabir, by Ibn Jarir Al Tabari, Volume 6 page 186, 288-289
  3. Tafsir Jami'i Al Qur'an Al Hukam, by Mohammad Ibn Ahmed Qurtubi, Volume 6 page 219
  4. Tafsir Al Khazin, Volume 2 page 68
  5. Tafsir Al Durr Al Manthur, by Al Suyuti, Volume 2 page 293-294
  6. Tafsir Al Khashaf, by Al Zamakhshari, Voume 1 page 505, 649, Egyptian edition 1373
  7. Asbab Al Nazool, by Jalal Ad Deen Al Suyuti, Volume 1 page 73, Egyptian edition 1382 (Narrated on authority of Ibn Abbas)
  8. Asbab Al Nazool, by Al Wahidi
  9. Shahr Al Tijrid, by Allamah Qushji
  10. Ahkam Al Qur'an, by Al Jassas, Volume 2 page 542-543
  11. Musnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Volume 5 page 38
  12. Kanz Al Ummal, by Al Muttaqi Al Hindi, Volume 6 page 391
  13. Al Awsat, by Al Tabarani (Narrated on authority of Ammar Ibn Yassir
  14. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Volume 2 page 113-114, Beirut edition 1986
  15. Al Riyad Al Nadira, Volume 2 page 302
  16. Tafsir Al Manar, Volume 6 page 366
  17. Ibn Mardawayh (On narration of Ibn Abbas)
  18. Majma Al Zawa'id, Volume 7 page 17

All those are Sunni authentic sources too :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

Åä ÇáÍãÏ ááå äÍãÏå æäÓÊÚíäå æäÓÊÛÝÑå¡ æäÚæÐ ÈÇááå ãä ÔÑæÑ ÃäÝÓäÇ æãä ÓíÆÇÊ ÃÚãÇáäÇ¡ ãä íåÏå Çááå ÝáÇ ãÖá áå æãä íÖáá ÝáÇ åÇÏí áå æÃÔåÏ Ãä áÇ Åáå ÅáÇ Çááå æÍÏå áÇ ÔÑíß áå æÃÔåÏ Ãä ãÍãÏ ÚÈÏå æÑÓæáå¡ Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÚáì Âáå æÕÍÈå ÃÌãÚíä¡ æÓáã ÊÓáíãÇ ßËíÑÇð

I would like to start by saying that Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are NOT 100% authentic. This is a dangerous claim made by some ignorant Sunnis.

According to Sunnis, the Shia hadith literature is filled with fabricated hadiths and this is the reason why they are not used in intellectual debates. Unlike the Sunni literature, which is considered a vast branch of Islamic sciences. The Sunni hadith science is always backed by `Ilm ar-rijal (Science of Narrators) in which the hadith narrators are personally studied and scholars can reach a decsion to claim that a Hadith is Sahih or not, according to the credibility of the narrators. As well as Shia use continuously Sunni hadiths to try back their case, such as the Ghadeer Hadith and others. Unfortunately the hadiths are misinterpreted and sometimes cut in half.

So now, I will show you the refutation to the claim that Imam Ali and other Ahlulbayt members were infallible from the Holy Quran, and by using a verse Shia use commonly to defend their case.

"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result." 4:59

Sheikh Adnan Ibrahim will explain it to you in just 2 minutes. Please watch. There is English subtitles.

How do you answer back to this point ??

Assalaamo-Alaikum dear brother.

A very interesting question or challenge should I say. With all due respect towards the Sheikh, if he had seriously studied the Ayath and what’s relevant to it, then he wouldn’t have issued a challenge in the first place. It’s simple and straight forward, so lets get on with it.

Lets examine the Ayath bit by bit, “ Obey Allah “ Ok! What next??? “ And obey the Messenger “ Ok! Is that it??? NO! It goes on, “ Also those who are worthy of being in authority amongst you”. This is the actual translation and meaning of [Wa-Ulul-Amre-Minkum].

Firstly what you have mentioned is “ Those who are in authority amongst you “. This is not the right translation and meaning because people are different and they can come into authority through various means, with all kinds of intentions and thoughts.

Secondly once you are in power and hold authority things can change, by one going back on what they have said and promised, by not fulfilling their commitments and responsibilities. Power and authority can really bring about a negative change in one.

Thirdly why would Allah want us to obey, alongside him and his Messenger, someone who is a subject to [Rijs]??? Someone who is a subject to right as well as wrong, good as well as bad, true as well as false, a subject to sin etc.

Fourthly we have a sequence here that obey Allah who is infallible, then obey his Messenger who also is infallible, then obey those who are worthy of being in authority amongst you, who also should be infallible to complete the sequence.

Fifth the first two parties, Allah and his Messenger, are infallible then the third party not being infallible doesn’t make any sense. Why would Allah what us to obey a party, which isn’t infallible, alongside him and his Messenger who are infallible???

Sixth the next bit, “ And if you differ on anything “ Differ on anything regarding what??? This Ayath is connected to the previous one, that if you differ on anything, regarding those who are worthy of being in authority amongst you.

If you differ on anything regarding this [The Ulul Amre ], who are they??? If you have suspicion or are in doubt over anything regarding the Ulul Amre, then what??? Now comes the next bit “, Then refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger “.

They are who can erase your suspicion and get rid of your doubt, regarding who the Ulul Amre are. Who really are the ones who are worthy of being in authority amongst us. Amre means authority and Ulul means worthy.

If Allah had said “ Wa-Amre-Minkum “, then this would mean “ and those who are in authority amongst you “, but Allah has said “ Wa-Ulul-Amre-Minkim “, meaning “ And those who are worthy of being in authority amongst you “.

Wassalaam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It seems that you did not understand what the Sheikh was trying to say.

If you look at the verse like this:

"O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you..."

It clearly says that we should obey the above (highlighted in red above).

Then:

"... if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, ..."

We can understand that if we disagree, differ, conflict, argue, quarrel... ÊäÇÒÚÊã

However, IF we disagree, differ, conflict, argue, quarrel with those in authority among us

We should refer it to Allah and the Messenger

My point is:

IF Imam Ali was infallible and this verse is meant to address him and the rest of the Imams.

Why did not it say refer it to Allah and the Messenger and those in authority among us ???? To acknowledge that we should always get back to the Imams for accurate and divine information.

Let me just quote what you have said " How ever if we disagree, differ, conflict, argue, quarrel with those in authority among us ", why would you do this when Allah has clearly said " OBEY those who are in authority amongst you "??? Obey them just as you obey Allah and his Messenger. If you disagree, differ, conflict, argue and quarel with those who are in authority amongst you, then you have disobeyed Allah and his Messenger, because Allah is asking you to obey them just as you obey him and his Messenger. You have gone completely off track and entirely into a different direction, regarding this Ayath and what is relevant to it. This is exactly what happens when you misunderstand something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalaamo-Alaikum dear brother.

A very interesting question or challenge should I say. With all due respect towards the Sheikh, if he had seriously studied the Ayath and what’s relevant to it, then he wouldn’t have issued a challenge in the first place. It’s simple and straight forward, so lets get on with it.

Lets examine the Ayath bit by bit, “ Obey Allah “ Ok! What next??? “ And obey the Messenger “ Ok! Is that it??? NO! It goes on, “ Also those who are worthy of being in authority amongst you”. This is the actual translation and meaning of [Wa-Ulul-Amre-Minkum].

Firstly what you have mentioned is “ Those who are in authority amongst you “. This is not the right translation and meaning because people are different and they can come into authority through various means, with all kinds of intentions and thoughts.

Secondly once you are in power and hold authority things can change, by one going back on what they have said and promised, by not fulfilling their commitments and responsibilities. Power and authority can really bring about a negative change in one.

Thirdly why would Allah want us to obey, alongside him and his Messenger, someone who is a subject to [Rijs]??? Someone who is a subject to right as well as wrong, good as well as bad, true as well as false, a subject to sin etc.

Fourthly we have a sequence here that obey Allah who is infallible, then obey his Messenger who also is infallible, then obey those who are worthy of being in authority amongst you, who also should be infallible to complete the sequence.

Fifth the first two parties, Allah and his Messenger, are infallible then the third party not being infallible doesn’t make any sense. Why would Allah what us to obey a party, which isn’t infallible, alongside him and his Messenger who are infallible???

Sixth the next bit, “ And if you differ on anything “ Differ on anything regarding what??? This Ayath is connected to the previous one, that if you differ on anything, regarding those who are worthy of being in authority amongst you.

If you differ on anything regarding this [The Ulul Amre ], who are they??? If you have suspicion or are in doubt over anything regarding the Ulul Amre, then what??? Now comes the next bit “, Then refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger “.

They are who can erase your suspicion and get rid of your doubt, regarding who the Ulul Amre are. Who really are the ones who are worthy of being in authority amongst us. Amre means authority and Ulul means worthy.

If Allah had said “ Wa-Amre-Minkum “, then this would mean “ and those who are in authority amongst you “, but Allah has said “ Wa-Ulul-Amre-Minkim “, meaning “ And those who are worthy of being in authority amongst you “.

Wassalaam.

(salam)

Dear Brother, your reply is by far the best as you seem to understand what I have said. I will reply your proposed points.

1) The right translation for Oly Alamr is 'those who have power invested in them'. Meaning those who have received the legitimacy. And at the beginning of the verse, the speech is directed towards the Believers [O you who have believed...].

2) I agree that the way to reach power is important [And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend.] 42:38. As for what happened in Saqifah, the Muhajeroon were overtaken by surprise to know that the Ansar were meeting to choose a Khalipha, and they rushed to the Saqifah, it was not a conspiracy to steal the position. I know Imam Ali (as) was not there, I think it was a strategic mistake of the Sahaba, but as I said before, they were taken by surprise and they agreed to give bayat to Abu Bakr (ra).

3) We believe that people are infallible, including Imams. And we are supposed to obey the leaders as long as they follow the Quran and Sunnah. That is why Allah (SWT) said: [... And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, ...] 4:59 . The speech is directed to [you]? As I said before, it is towards the believers. And Allah (SWT) assumed that a disagreement will occur, and still said to refer to Allah (SWT) and the Prophet (SAAAS) only, because if 'those who have power invested in them' are infallible, we should then refer to them directly. However it is not mentioned in the verse.

4) Also, you have said that why Allah (SWT) would want us to follow someone who is subject to Rijs. I reply here that Shia's assumed the infallibility just by the Purification verse 33:33, however this verse is subjected towards Ahl Al Kisa only (The Prophet (SAAAS), Imam Ali (as), Fatema (as), and Hasan (as) and Hussien (as)).

Assume that I accept the infallibility of those, how do you expect me to assume that 9 other Imams are also purified in the same way, and knowing that they are from Hussien's (as) lineage?

At this point, there is verse nor no Sahih Hadith that justifes the infallibility of 9 other Imams.

5) Because we are only supposed to follow the leaders and obey them when they are following the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. Other than that, we should not.

6) And if we differ on anything, it is very clear that is it an unlimited statement, not just the Oly Alamr. And assuming we differ on them, we should follow the Quran in [... and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves...] 42:38

7+8+9) I think your translation of Oly is wrong. I have checked it in an Arabic Dictionary (ãÚÌã) and it is rougly translated to THOSE, and I can give an example of Oly from the Quran, and check how the word is translated. It is mentioned several times.

[so when the [time of] promise came for the first of them, We sent against you servants of Ours - those of great military might, and they probed [even] into the homes, and it was a promise fulfilled.] 17:5

And Allah (SWT) knows best.

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

Dear Brother, your reply is by far the best as you seem to understand what I have said. I will reply your proposed points.

1) The right translation for Oly Alamr is 'those who have power invested in them'. Meaning those who have received the legitimacy. And at the beginning of the verse, the speech is directed towards the Believers [O you who have believed...].

2) I agree that the way to reach power is important [And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend.] 42:38. As for what happened in Saqifah, the Muhajeroon were overtaken by surprise to know that the Ansar were meeting to choose a Khalipha, and they rushed to the Saqifah, it was not a conspiracy to steal the position. I know Imam Ali (as) was not there, I think it was a strategic mistake of the Sahaba, but as I said before, they were taken by surprise and they agreed to give bayat to Abu Bakr (ra).

3) We believe that people are infallible, including Imams. And we are supposed to obey the leaders as long as they follow the Quran and Sunnah. That is why Allah (SWT) said: [... And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, ...] 4:59 . The speech is directed to [you]? As I said before, it is towards the believers. And Allah (SWT) assumed that a disagreement will occur, and still said to refer to Allah (SWT) and the Prophet (SAAAS) only, because if 'those who have power invested in them' are infallible, we should then refer to them directly. However it is not mentioned in the verse.

4) Also, you have said that why Allah (SWT) would want us to follow someone who is subject to Rijs. I reply here that Shia's assumed the infallibility just by the Purification verse 33:33, however this verse is subjected towards Ahl Al Kisa only (The Prophet (SAAAS), Imam Ali (as), Fatema (as), and Hasan (as) and Hussien (as)).

Assume that I accept the infallibility of those, how do you expect me to assume that 9 other Imams are also purified in the same way, and knowing that they are from Hussien's (as) lineage?

At this point, there is verse nor no Sahih Hadith that justifes the infallibility of 9 other Imams.

5) Because we are only supposed to follow the leaders and obey them when they are following the Holy Quran and the Sunnah. Other than that, we should not.

6) And if we differ on anything, it is very clear that is it an unlimited statement, not just the Oly Alamr. And assuming we differ on them, we should follow the Quran in [... and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves...] 42:38

7+8+9) I think your translation of Oly is wrong. I have checked it in an Arabic Dictionary (ãÚÌã) and it is rougly translated to THOSE, and I can give an example of Oly from the Quran, and check how the word is translated. It is mentioned several times.

[so when the [time of] promise came for the first of them, We sent against you servants of Ours - those of great military might, and they probed [even] into the homes, and it was a promise fulfilled.] 17:5

And Allah (SWT) knows best.

(wasalam)

Assalaamo-Alaikum dear brother. Thank you for your response. Lets stick with your version for a minute. " Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, also those who are in authority amongst you ". Why didn't Allah say directly that " Obey those who are in authority amongst you " ??? Why did Allah start off from himself and then mentioned his Messenger, when the obedience towards these two is already proven and is a must in Islam???

Because Allah wanted to put the seriousness and importance in his message, which is " Obey those who are in authority amongst you ". This is why Allah started off from himself, then went on to his Messenger and then mentioned his message of what he wants and expects from us and that is to " Obey those who are in authority amongst us ".

It is crystal clear by what Allah has said and the way he chose to say it and the sequence he has put forward that to " Obey those who are in authority amongst us " is just as valuable and important as to " Obey Allah and his Messenger ". Otherwise Allah could have chosen to say it straight forward that " Obey those who are in authority amongst you " but the method and sequence he used to say tells us a different thing, that this obedience is just as valuable and imortant as the other two.

Now if Allah has said " Obey those who are in authority amongst you ", then it would be absolutely ridiculous to differ, with those who are in authority amongst us, at all levels since this would come into disobedience and a direct violation of Allah's command.

To be continued!

Wassalaam!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã æ ÑÍãÉ Çááå æ ÈÑßÇÊå - Peace be upon you as well as Allah's Mercy and Blessings...

æ áÕáÇÉ æ ÇáÓáÇã Úáì ÎíÑ ÎáÞ Çááå æ ÍÈíÈ ÞáæÈäÇ¡ ÇáÑÓæá ãÍãÏ¡ æ Âáå ÇáØíÈíä ÇáØÇåÑíä - And may the Prayers and Peace be upon the Best of Allah's Creations, the beloved of our hearts, the Messenger Muhammad as well as his Generous and Pure Family...

æ áÚäÉ Çááå ÇáÏÇÆãÉ Úáì ÃÚÏÇÁåã æ ÙÇáãíåã æ ÇáÊÇÈÚíä Úáì Ðáß ãä ÇáÃæáíä Åáì ÇáÂÎÑíä - And may the permanent curse of Allah be upon their enemies and their oppressors and those who follow the trend from the first ones to the last ones...

ÚÙã Çááå ÃÌÑäÇ æ ÃÌÑßã ÈãÕÇÈäÇ ÈÐßÑÉ ÔåÇÏÉ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä æ ÓíÏ ÇáæÕííä ÇáÅãÇã Úáí ÅÈä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã - May Allah increase our good deeds and yours by our loss for the remembrance of the martyrdom of Prince of the Believers, the Master of the Successors, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib peace be upon him...

Is it me that only think that Adnan Ibrahim thought that the Shia believe the Imams get revelations?

The only person who set up the islamic legislation is the Messenger Muhammad -pbuh&hf-... And the Infallible Imams -pbut- are just infallible in applying the same legislation, aka the legislation of their master, the Messenger -saaws-...

Yes the Imams are Infallible by following the word of Allah almighty, and the Sunnah of the Messenger -pbuh&hf-, so the Imams -pbut- are repeating the same words of the Messenger -saaws- if you prefer so regarding whatever subject it is... So whatever disaggreement that is put forward is to be refered to Allah almighty and his Messenger -pbuh&hf-...

Þæá æ ÝÚá ÇáÅãÇã ÇáãÚÕæã (Ú) åæ äÝÓ Þæá æ ÝÚá ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ) ãËá ÓäÏ ÕÍíÍ ÅÐÇ ÊÝÖá

The words and actions of the Infallible Imam -pbuh- is the same words and actions of the Messenger -pbuh&hf-, or like having an authentic chain of hadith if you prefer

Is it me or was it so easy to be answered?

I've got other observations to the Opening Poster... If you apply this verse to Umar, would you think he would refer to Allah almighty and his Messenger -pbuh&hf-?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPbBDBpUcX8

I guess Umar was doing his best to spread the hadiths and the sunnah of the Messenger -pbuh&hf-... Errr... let me get that phrase right...

æ Úáíßã ÇáÓáÇã æ ÑÍãÉ Çááå æ ÈÑßÇÊå - And upon you be Peace as well as Allah's Mercy and Blessings...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

Asalaam alaikum.

Infallibility of the Prophets is verified according to the Holy Quran since they were meant to be the guides for the people, if the Imams of the Shia were meant to be the guides like the Prophets as they (shia) claim, then don't you think the infallibility of the Imams would have been clearly laid down?

Well If the Imamat is not clear but rather vague then I guess the results would be same for the issue of infallibility.

Has one one got clear evidences from the Quran or Hadeeths about the issue of infallibility of the Shia Imams?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Asalaam alaikum.

Infallibility of the Prophets is verified according to the Holy Quran since they were meant to be the guides for the people, if the Imams of the Shia were meant to be the guides like the Prophets as they (shia) claim, then don't you think the infallibility of the Imams would have been clearly laid down?

Well If the Imamat is not clear but rather vague then I guess the results would be same for the issue of infallibility.

Has one one got clear evidences from the Quran or Hadeeths about the issue of infallibility of the Shia Imams?

Assalaamo-Alaikum. The points you have raised have been put forward and discussed in great detail many times over. There are many threads on this site, which you can check out, that give a clear explanation about your points. Point 1, The infallibility of the Imaams has been clearly laid down, but if some people find it difficult to understand and hard to digest, then that is a different matter. Point 2, Imaamath is absolutely crystal clear and has got nothing to do with being rather vague. Point 3, There is absolutely and definately crystal clear evidence from Quran and Hadiths, regarding Imaamath and infallibility. Check out the threads!

Wassalaam!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

^

Yeh nice try.

"If you quarrel about anything" is being addressed to "O you who believe" who are mean't to obey "Allah, the Messenger and those in authority amongst you". As for the part, "refer it to Allah and Messenger", that's because the religion and shariyat is that of the Messenger. Our Imams, though Infallible, followed it as well and always guided people to the religion/shariyat of the Messenger P.b.u.H.

Not a nice try.

After the Messenger of Allah, deen was changed by evil companions, you forgot that?

Hadiths were fabricated by Omaiyads, remember?

Now Sunnah is not in its 'real form', so you have to look at Imam Ali and the rest for guidance?? Right?

But here's a contradiction, as usual!!

Quran says if you disagree on something, don't go to Imam Ali (Ulil Amr??) instead refer to Allah and His Messenger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Not a nice try.

After the Messenger of Allah, deen was changed by evil companions, you forgot that?

Hadiths were fabricated by Omaiyads, remember?

Now Sunnah is not in its 'real form', so you have to look at Imam Ali and the rest for guidance?? Right?

But here's a contradiction, as usual!!

Quran says if you disagree on something, don't go to Imam Ali (Ulil Amr??) instead refer to Allah and His Messenger.

lol brother, firstly don't bother calling the Umayyads companions, they weren't. And we have the skills, and the system, and the science to see which types of Hadith are Sahih and which are Dha'eef. And what's the point of going to the Ulil Amr Minkum, if the Sunnis don't accept him, we can only refer to Allah (Or his Kitab, the Qur'an), or the Prophet (And his Sunnah and life) to answer the disagreements between us..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

lol brother, firstly don't bother calling the Umayyads companions, they weren't. And we have the skills, and the system, and the science to see which types of Hadith are Sahih and which are Dha'eef. And what's the point of going to the Ulil Amr Minkum, if the Sunnis don't accept him, we can only refer to Allah (Or his Kitab, the Qur'an), or the Prophet (And his Sunnah and life) to answer the disagreements between us..

But your man-made system to check which hadiths are sahih and which are daeef is not an infallible system. Why don't you ask your infallible imams to tell what is sahih and what is not? Why rely on fallible scholars?

Bro, actually the verse above says when you differ then consult Quran and the Messenger. It doesn't ask to refer to the Ulil Amr (Imam or whatever). So the shia imams according to this verse are not infallible. If they were infallible, Quran would include them to the list of those to be referred in case of disagreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

But your man-made system to check which hadiths are sahih and which are daeef is not an infallible system. Why don't you ask your infallible imams to tell what is sahih and what is not? Why rely on fallible scholars?

Bro, actually the verse above says when you differ then consult Quran and the Messenger. It doesn't ask to refer to the Ulil Amr (Imam or whatever). So the shia imams according to this verse are not infallible. If they were infallible, Quran would include them to the list of those to be referred in case of disagreement.

When you differ??? Differ in what and differ with who??? Care to elaborate??? For argumental reasons lets stick with your version, that Shia Imaams are not infallible for the reason you have given, then what about " Obey those who are in authority amongst you "??? Those people who did not obey the ones who were in authority, what is your opinion and verdict on them, disregarding Allah's command???? Since you keep yapping on about just one thing, how about moving on to the next??? Care to elaborate??? Or are we too afraid of getting into an open discussion????

Edited by Ameen
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

ÇáÓáÇã Úáíßã æ ÑÍãÉ Çááå æ ÈÑßÇÊå - Peace be upon you as well as Allah's Mercy and Blessings...

æ áÕáÇÉ æ ÇáÓáÇã Úáì ÎíÑ ÎáÞ Çááå æ ÍÈíÈ ÞáæÈäÇ¡ ÇáÑÓæá ãÍãÏ¡ æ Âáå ÇáØíÈíä ÇáØÇåÑíä - And may the Prayers and Peace be upon the Best of Allah's Creations, the beloved of our hearts, the Messenger Muhammad as well as his Generous and Pure Family...

æ áÚäÉ Çááå ÇáÏÇÆãÉ Úáì ÃÚÏÇÁåã æ ÙÇáãíåã æ ÇáÊÇÈÚíä Úáì Ðáß ãä ÇáÃæáíä Åáì ÇáÂÎÑíä - And may the permanent curse of Allah be upon their enemies and their oppressors and those who follow the trend from the first ones to the last ones...

ÚÙã Çááå ÃÌÑäÇ æ ÃÌÑßã ÈãÕÇÈäÇ ÈÐßÑÉ ÔåÇÏÉ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä æ ÓíÏ ÇáæÕííä ÇáÅãÇã Úáí ÅÈä ÃÈí ØÇáÈ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã - May Allah increase our good deeds and yours by our loss for the remembrance of the martyrdom of Prince of the Believers, the Master of the Successors, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib peace be upon him...

Not a nice try.

After the Messenger of Allah, deen was changed by evil companions, you forgot that?

Yeah, Umar changed the sunnah of the Messenger -pbuh&hf- be introducing bidaas... Even your beloved Nasireddine al-Albani (died 1420 AH) says so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgt-SQxLfM4

Was Umar giving his best about transmitting and taking care and applying the Sunnah of our Messenger -pbuh&hf- or was he saying "stick to the quran only"? The answer below according to sunni scholars: al-Bukhari (died 256 AH), Ibn Abdil-Barr (died 463 AH) and Ibn Kathir (died 774 AH)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPbBDBpUcX8

Does an innovator such as him deserve to be called Farooq? By Allah he does not... Another adjective of Imam Ali -puh- that was deviated by Banu Umayya to suit Umar i guess...

Now Sunnah is not in its 'real form', so you have to look at Imam Ali and the rest for guidance?? Right?

But here's a contradiction, as usual!!

Quran says if you disagree on something, don't go to Imam Ali (Ulil Amr??) instead refer to Allah and His Messenger.

Erm because if you want to refer to Allah almighty, and his Messenger -pbuh&hf-, you refer to Imam Ali -puh- because Imam Ali -puh- will judge according to Allah almighty and his Messenger -pbuh&hf- as Imam Ali -puh- is the best Quranic and Tradition Reference after the Messenger...

So unless you deliberately ignoring my posts (2nd time i write that down) there is no contradiction: Imam Ali -puh- represents Allah almighty (quran) and his Messenger -pbuh&hf- (sunnah) in it's best form after the Messenger -pbuh&hf- himself...

æ Úáíßã ÇáÓáÇã æ ÑÍãÉ Çááå æ ÈÑßÇÊå - And upon you be Peace as well as Allah's Mercy and Blessings...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

When you differ??? Differ in what and differ with who??? Care to elaborate??? For argumental reasons lets stick with your version, that Shia Imaams are not infallible for the reason you have given, then what about " Obey those who are in authority amongst you "??? Those people who did not obey the ones who were in authority, what is your opinion and verdict on them, disregarding Allah's command???? Since you keep yapping on about just one thing, how about moving on to the next??? Care to elaborate??? Or are we too afraid of getting into an open discussion????

If you want my opinion then I do not at all believe that Shia imams ever have had any authority over people, except Saiyidina Ali radiyallahu anhu when he was the fourth khalifah, but unfortunately his authority couldn't be established fully because of the turmoil and civil war.

But since shias use this verse a lot to 'prove' their 12 imams have authority over Muslims; the scholar in this video (Shaykh Adnan I think) has used his argument really beautifull to refute any such ideas. And I agree with him by 100% on it. Because according to the verse if people differ on anything. For example Mutah is halal or not, for example there are any infallible imams or not, you must refer to Quran and the Messenger of Allah. Only (1) Allah and (2) the Messenger of Allah have the solution to the problems of humanity. No imams or ulil amr can guide people in case of disagreement. And since Allah doesn't consider ulil amr (or the supposed shia imams) to be referred to in case of disagreement of people, the ulil amr (imams) of shias are not infallible.

And lastly and very importantly, if for a second I say the shia imams are the ulil amr as pointed out in this verse, then people are already differing from each other; shias, sunnis, and loads of other sects, all of which call themselves Muslims..and if we want to settle our disputes and decide the differences, we can't find the so called Imam Mahdi, the Ulil Amr. All we see are marjas and ayatullas wearing big turbans and claiming to be communicating with the Imam Mahdi..

because if you want to refer to Allah almighty, and his Messenger -pbuh&hf-, you refer to Imam Ali -puh- because Imam Ali -puh- will judge according to Allah almighty and his Messenger -pbuh&hf- as Imam Ali -puh- is the best Quranic and Tradition Reference after the Messenger...

Where is Imam Ali? If I go to see him, all I find a multitude of people in Najaf where he's resting in his shrine. Though many people say they are not sure if it's really Imam Ali's shrine. They say Imam Ali's body disappeared after his death and no one knows where it is.

And I'm not going to trust a Persian wearing a high turban and claiming to be a marja or wilayat al faqih, because he's not infallible, and he's not trustworthy at all.

Edited by Sonador
Link to post
Share on other sites
"'obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you]' 4:59

Firstly.. Is Ali God?

Secondly.. Is Ali the prophet?

Then in which category does Ali fall in?

They agree and say he is Khalifa and the Imam

Beautiful

Allah said: "O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger"

....

Where does the disagreement occur?? With the Prophet??"

The Prophet (pbuh) said that Ali (as) will be his successor and the Sunnis disagreed with him when they said Abu Bakr is the successor. The very notion that Abu Bakr was the Calipha was the disagreement. Is this guy dense?

The Most Noble Messenger (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå‎) appointed 'Ali (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) to guard the city on his behalf, and he ordered that he should remain in Madinah until he returned, administering the affairs of the Muslims. When the Hypocrites realized that their treacherous plans had been divulged, they began spreading idle rumors in the hope of weakening 'Ali's position. They hinted that the Prophet (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå‎) was angry with 'Ali (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) and that it was for this reason that he had not been permitted to accompany him on a major military expedition.

'Ali (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) was greatly troubled and saddened by the circulation of these rumors, and he hastened to the presence of the Prophet (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå‎) who had already left Madinah. He told him what had happened, and with a single historic sentence he clarified the special position of 'Ali (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) once and for all:

"Are you not content that your relation to me shall be like the relation of Harun to Musa, excepting only that there shall be no prophet after me?"

At the end of this hadith there is a sentence that many Sunni scholars have recorded in their books:

"It is not fitting that I should depart without your being my deputy and successor."

al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak, Vol. III, p. 63

al-Nasa'i, al-Khasa'is, p. 63

al-Hamawini, Fara'id al-simtayn, Vol. I, p. 328

al-Dhahabi, Talkhis al-Mustadrak, Vol. III, p. 132

Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, Vol. I, p. 331

al-Khwarazmi, al-Manaqib, p. 72

al-Ganji, Kifayat al-Talib, p. 116

Ibn Asakir, al-Tarikh al-Kabir, Vol. I, p. 203

al-Biladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. II, p. 106

Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, Vol. VII, p. 338

al-'Asqalani, al-Isabah, Vol. II, p.509.

For those of who who are unaware, the Prophet Harun (as) was the brother and successor of the Prophet Musa (as). Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) in successorship had every right over the Ummah the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had except prophethood (i.e. to communicate the direct words of Allah in first-person).

It has been 100% authenticated in the Sunnah that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said that he will leave the world with the Quran and Ahlul Bayt, and that the 'Quran and Sunnah' narration has been proven to be unauthentic.

SAHIH MUSLIM

Book 031, Number 5920:

...O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household.

http://www.cmje.org/...lim/031-smt.php

NOTE:

"my sunna" hadith IS NOT WEAK. For it to be WEAK (dhaeef) it needs to have people in the chain of narration who 'forget easily' or 'have a bad memory.' A weak hadith - there is still chance that it is true. But the "my sunna" hadith has FABRICATORS in the chain! People who would openly make lies about the Sahaba and the ProphetÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå. So it is not only WEAK, but its is WORSE ---> FABRICATED (mawdhoo').

Sahih Bukhari:

Narrated Jabir bin Samura: I heard Muhammad say "There will be twelve Muslim rulers." He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said "All of them (those rulers) will be from Quraish."

Book 89:329

Sahih Muslim is the second most authentic collection of hadiths in the Sunnah

Sahih Muslim:

Narrated Jabir bin Samura: I heard Muhammad say "The (Islamic) religion will continue until the Hour (day of resurrection), having twelve Caliphs for you, all of them will be from Quraysh."

Book 20:4477-4483

And there are more than 20 similar narrations

Sunan al-Tirmidhi:

The Prophet said: "There will be after me twelve rulers, all of them from Quraysh."

Hadith 2149 (numbering of al-Alamiyyah)

Sunan Abu Dawood:

The Prophet said: "This religion remains standing until there are twelve vicegerents over you, all of them agreeable to the nation, all of them from Quraysh."

Book 36:4266

A Jewish man named Na'thal, went to the Prophet and among the questions he asked who would succeed him. The Prophet said, specifying them, "After me, 'Ali ibn Abi Talib and then my two sons, Hasan and Husayn and after Husayn, nine Imams will follow from his children." "The Jewish man said, 'Name them.' "The Prophet said, "When Husayn leaves this world, his son, 'Ali, and after him, his child Muhammad and after Muhammad, his son Ja'far and after Ja'far, his son Musa and after Musa, his son 'Ali and after 'Ali, Muhammad. After Muhammad, his child, 'Ali and after 'Ali, Hasan and after Hasan, his child Muhammad al-Mahdi. These are the twelve Imams."

Yanabi' al-Muwadat, p. 431

"This religion shall always be upright till there are twelve from Quraish. When they are no more, the earth will be destroyed (swallowed) with all its inhabitants"

Kanz al-Ummaal, vol 12, pg 34, Tr. No. 3386

- Kash al-Astaar, part 1, pg 99 narrating from al-Ebaanah

- E'laam al-Waraa pg 384

- Muqtazab al-Asar, pg 3-4

- Manaaqeb of ibn Shar Aashob, vol 1, pg 290

- Behaar al-Anwaar vol 36, pg 267, Chap 41, Tr. No. 87

- Al-Insaaf, pg 361

"Surely this religion will always overcome its opponents and no enemy or deserter can ever harm it till there are twelve caliphs from my nation in it. All of them will be from Quraish"

Musnad-e-Ahmad, vol 5, pg 87

Nowehere in Sunnism are there 12 Muslim rulers, all of them from Quraysh.

The 'Four Rightly Guided' Rashidun Caliphs were four, there were more than 30 Ummayad Caliphs, Nearly 40 Abbasid Caliphs, and many Sunni Caliphs are not even from Quraysh!

The only 12 Muslim rulers, all from Quraysh, are the 12 Shia Imams.

Edited by AliHussainFaraji
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ali Hussain Faraji, you have no idea what this thread is about.

Can you read? The entire basis of the video makes absolutely no sense. The disagreement he said never happened was about who the Khalifa was, and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) cleary says it was Ali (as) followed by the 11 Imams. Get it? That's why I posted all that evidence clearly stating the Khalifa was Ali ibn Abi Talib (as).

Surah Al-Ahzaab cleary states the Ahlul Bayt were perfected, which he agrees with, so this guy is speaking gibberish for two minutes making no actual point and then blurting out 'See! I proved he's not infallible' when he didn't actually do anything and is contradicted by the Quran and Sunnah.

  • Hussain Ibn Sabrah asked Zaid Ibn Arqam, "Who are the members of His household? Aren't His wives part of the members of his family?" Thereupon Zaid said, "His wives are members of his family [in a general sense], but (Islamically), the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of zakat is forbidden." Hussain asked, "Who are they?". Upon which Zaid said, "Ali and the offspring of Ali, Aqil and the offspring of Aqil, the offspring of Jaffer, and the offspring of Abbas." Hussain said "These are those for whom the acceptance of zakat is forbidden?" Zaid replied, "Yes."

Sahih Muslim #31.5920-2.

According to Sahih Muslim, Zaid then expanded on this hadith and stated this:

  • Hussain Then asked: "Aren't the wives (Of the Prophet) included amongst the members of the household?" He said, "No, by Allah, a woman lives with a man [as his wife] for a certain period; he then divorces her, and she goes back to her parents and her people. The members of his household include his own self, and his kith, and kin, for whom the acceptance of zakat is prohibited."

Sahih Muslim #31.5923

Now to get the exact hadith on who is being referred to in this verse of the Qur'an, again we look at the hadith which are both deemed Sahih by Sunnis and Shiites, and are accepted. To this let me give you the sources of the Hadith (As recorded in the Sunni books, not the Shiite sources), because I don't want write them all out.

  • Sahih Muslim #31.5955
  • Sunan Tirmidhi #3787, #3205
  • Tafsir Al Durr Al Manthoor, under 33:33
  • Tafsir Tabari again under 33:33
  • Tafsir Ibn Katheer, Another reference by Al Durr Al Manthur under said verse, Tafsir Ibn Atiyyah, Tafsir Thalabi, all under 33:33

Bottom line: Ali (as) was, in fact, infallible and the rightful successor of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

But your man-made system to check which hadiths are sahih and which are daeef is not an infallible system. Why don't you ask your infallible imams to tell what is sahih and what is not? Why rely on fallible scholars?

Bro, actually the verse above says when you differ then consult Quran and the Messenger. It doesn't ask to refer to the Ulil Amr (Imam or whatever). So the shia imams according to this verse are not infallible. If they were infallible, Quran would include them to the list of those to be referred in case of disagreement.

Why are you asking stupid questions lol? Why don't I ask my Imams to tell us whether a Hadith is Sahih or not, two reasons:

  1. We have a pretty reliable system to filter out Sahih Hadith from Dha'eef.
  2. It isn't their jobs to tell us this..

Think for a second, if they were on this list, the Ulil Amr, was on this list, would we be able to refer to them, when you do not recognize them. Qur'an it's self is telling us that there is no point on trying to refer to the Imams because they are not accepted by the Sunnis. And are you trying to say the Qur'an contradicts it's self. Because in 33:33, it's established that they are Ma'soom. Or in the Qur'an when Shaitan tells us he will make them all go astray, except a select few whom he can't touch, is that clear "bro".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Why don't I ask my Imams to tell us whether a Hadith is Sahih or not, two reasons:

  • We have a pretty reliable system to filter out Sahih Hadith from Dha'eef.
  • It isn't their jobs to tell us this..

Pretty reliable system made by persians who are not your infallible imams?

Then what is the job of your imams exactly? Hiding from the masses for over 1200 years??

Think for a second, if they were on this list, the Ulil Amr, was on this list, would we be able to refer to them, when you do not recognize them. Qur'an it's self is telling us that there is no point on trying to refer to the Imams because they are not accepted by the Sunnis. And are you trying to say the Qur'an contradicts it's self. Because in 33:33, it's established that they are Ma'soom. Or in the Qur'an when Shaitan tells us he will make them all go astray, except a select few whom he can't touch, is that clear "bro".

First, 33:33 is not about your imams, the verse doesn't say 'Ulil Amr', it talks about 'Ahl-al-Bayt' and according to Quran Ahl-al-Bayt are wives of the Prophet of Islam s.a.w. Saiyidina Ali's family is an extension of Ahl-al-Bayt through a hadith, and not Quran.

If Quran already told people that Ali is your imam and his children are your imams, then everything would be crystal clear. Or at least Imam Mahdi shouldn't have disappeared and kept his shias helpless and miserable for 1200 years. If even Imam Mahdi of shias were around, then sunnis wouldn't have any excuse to get away from it. Now you get it?

Anyway the verse in question says in case of disagreement you should consult Allah (Quran) and His Messenger (Sunnah of Muhammad s.a.w)..and not any Ulil Amr.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Pretty reliable system made by persians who are not your infallible imams?

Then what is the job of your imams exactly? Hiding from the masses for over 1200 years??

First, 33:33 is not about your imams, the verse doesn't say 'Ulil Amr', it talks about 'Ahl-al-Bayt' and according to Quran Ahl-al-Bayt are wives of the Prophet of Islam s.a.w. Saiyidina Ali's family is an extension of Ahl-al-Bayt through a hadith, and not Quran.

If Quran already told people that Ali is your imam and his children are your imams, then everything would be crystal clear. Or at least Imam Mahdi shouldn't have disappeared and kept his shias helpless and miserable for 1200 years. If even Imam Mahdi of shias were around, then sunnis wouldn't have any excuse to get away from it. Now you get it?

Anyway the verse in question says in case of disagreement you should consult Allah (Quran) and His Messenger (Sunnah of Muhammad s.a.w)..and not any Ulil Amr.

I'm assuming you have something against the Persians, I assume you developed this bias, and really bad argument, from the thread about killing Sayyida Fatima (sa) and the video with that incredible scholar. Nevertheless Ilm Rijaal, is a real reliable science, and has proven to work a lot.

And when you talk about the Imams (Alaihis Salaam) show some damn respect, these aren't normal humans, these are the family of the Prophet (pbuh) we are commanded to love them, so show some respect. And they (Alaihis Salaam) were the inheritors of the Prophet (pbuh) they were the Khalifs after him, whether you want to accept them (Alahis Salaam) or not is another thing. They (Alaihis Salaam) protected the religion, like I explained earlier. So I see your main problem is with Imam Mahdi (as) for his Ghaybat. He (as) is the final Imam, and he (as) has remained alive by the grace of Allah, the same way Isa (as) , Ilyaas (as) and Khidhr (as) have.

Scroll down to my post, the second one (Post #27), to see who is being addressed in 33:33.

The Qur'an clearly established the authority of Imam Ali (as) , again look no further than the Prophetic narrations, if you want still dispute:

>The Prophet's (pbuh) saying to Imam Ali (as) "You are the khalifah of every believer after me" through an authentic chain.

It was narrated in the book of the sunnah of Abu Isam on pages 519-520 through a relaible chain reaching to Ibn al-Abbas that he heard the Prophet (pbuh) saying to Imam Ali (as) " Your (Ali) position to me is like the position of Harun to Musa, except that you are not a prophet, it is not beneficail for me to leave with exception of you being the khalifah of every believer after" al-Albani declares the above isnaad of the above hadith as Hasan (relaible) and says all the narrators in the chain are relaible, he also quote al-Thahabi and al-Hakem declaring the isnaad of the hadith as Sahih.

>The Prophet said to Imam Ali "You are to me like how harun was to musa except that you are not a prophet, it is not proper that i shall depart except by you being the khalifa of every beliver after me"

al-Albani, alhakim and althahabi all said :this hadith is sahih (authentic)

Refrence: Kitab alsunnah ibn abi issam, commentary by Allamah al-Albani, pages 519-250, hadith # 1188

ËäÇ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáãËäì ¡ ÍÏËäÇ íÍíì Èä ÍãÇÏ ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÚæÇäÉ ¡ Úä íÍíì Èä Óáíã ÃÈí ÈáÌ ¡ Úä ÚãÑæ Èä ãíãæä ¡ Úä ÅÈä ÚÈÇÓ ¡ ÞÇá : ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ) áÚáí : ÃäÊ ãäí ÈãäÒáÉ åÇÑæä ãä ãæÓì ¡ ÅáÇ Ãäß áÓÊ äÈíÇ ¡ Åäå áÇ íäÈÛí Ãä ÃÐåÈ ÅáÇ æÃäÊ ÎáíÝÊí Ýí ßá ãÄãä ãä ÈÚÏí .

>Narrated by Imran Ibn Hasyn:

"The Prophet (pbuh) said: Ali is from me and i am from ali and he is the master of every believer after me"

Al Tirmithi said :this hadith is Hasan (relaible)

Refrence: Sunan altirmithi, Hadith #3645

- ÍÏËäÇ ÞÊíÈÉ ÍÏËäÇ ÌÚÝÑ Èä ÓáíãÇä ÇáÖÈÚí Úä íÒíÏ ÇáÑÔß Úä ãØÑÝ Èä ÚÈÏ Çááå Úä ÚãÑÇä Èä ÍÕíä ÞÇá ÑÓæá Çááå (Õ) Åä ÚáíÇ ãäí æÃäÇ ãäå æåæ æáí ßá ãÄãä ÈÚÏí

Okay I've clearly addressed this last point, I'm not repeating myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I'm assuming you have something against the Persians, I assume you developed this bias, and really bad argument, from the thread about killing Sayyida Fatima (sa) and the video with that incredible scholar. Nevertheless Ilm Rijaal, is a real reliable science, and has proven to work a lot.

I have something against those persians who accuse the companions of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w of doing the wrong deeds. And I believe this is because of the enmity of those racist persians towards Arab Muslims who conquered and defeated Persia under the command of Saiyidina Umar Farooq radiyallahu anhu.

Your ilm or rijaal is not reliable. Your hadith work is also not reliable.

And when you talk about the Imams (Alaihis Salaam) show some damn respect, these aren't normal humans, these are the family of the Prophet (pbuh) we are commanded to love them, so show some respect.

You guys have double standards. When it comes to the wives of Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, you are like see the Nuh's wife, see the Lut's wife..but if a sunni refutes your claims and ideas you are like show some respect to our imams, they are the family of Prophet. Well, wives of the Prophet s.a.w are also his family.

And if Nuh alayhis salam had a kafir wife then he had a kafir son too. Don't forget.

And they (Alaihis Salaam) were the inheritors of the Prophet (pbuh) they were the Khalifs after him, whether you want to accept them (Alahis Salaam) or not is another thing.

They were Prophet's inheritors in books only. Not in the real physical world that exists.

They (Alaihis Salaam) protected the religion, like I explained earlier.

How could they protect the religion when they themselves were killed? Your last imam disappeared 1200 years ago because he couldn't protect his life, and you say they protected the religion? For 1200 years who has been protecting your religion???

So I see your main problem is with Imam Mahdi (as) for his Ghaybat. He (as) is the final Imam, and he (as) has remained alive by the grace of Allah, the same way Isa (as) , Ilyaas (as) and Khidhr (as) have.

The so called ghaybat is a mystery which is known to only persian shias. Why should I believe them? Why trust your persian scholars about an imam who disappeared 1200 years ago?

The Qur'an clearly established the authority of Imam Ali (as) , again look no further than the Prophetic narrations, if you want still dispute:

>The Prophet's (pbuh) saying to Imam Ali (as) "You are the khalifah of every believer after me" through an authentic chain.

It was narrated in the book of the sunnah of Abu Isam on pages 519-520 through a relaible chain reaching to Ibn al-Abbas that he heard the Prophet (pbuh) saying to Imam Ali (as) " Your (Ali) position to me is like the position of Harun to Musa, except that you are not a prophet, it is not beneficail for me to leave with exception of you being the khalifah of every believer after" al-Albani declares the above isnaad of the above hadith as Hasan (relaible) and says all the narrators in the chain are relaible, he also quote al-Thahabi and al-Hakem declaring the isnaad of the hadith as Sahih.

As I said before, the imamah of your imams is established by 'claims' (hadiths) that can be fabricated and made up. Shias know and sunnis know that many many hadiths have been concocted. Then why to believe a confusing narration to prove your imamat while we have sahih (authentic) narrations and above all Quran, the book of Allah that proves there are no infallible imams after Muhammad s.a.w?

>The Prophet said to Imam Ali "You are to me like how harun was to musa except that you are not a prophet, it is not proper that i shall depart except by you being the khalifa of every beliver after me"

Since Harun a.s couldn't rule people, Ali r.a also couldn't rule people after Muhammad s.a.w.

>Narrated by Imran Ibn Hasyn:

"The Prophet (pbuh) said: Ali is from me and i am from ali and he is the master of every believer after me"

Now decide again, what Ali r.a is? Is he imam or khalifah of maula?

The above hadith doesn't say Ali is imam or khalifah. Let's accept this one and make Ali r.a our maula and that's it. Khallas!

Edited by Sonador
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If you want my opinion then I do not at all believe that Shia imams ever have had any authority over people, except Saiyidina Ali radiyallahu anhu when he was the fourth khalifah, but unfortunately his authority couldn't be established fully because of the turmoil and civil war.

But since shias use this verse a lot to 'prove' their 12 imams have authority over Muslims; the scholar in this video (Shaykh Adnan I think) has used his argument really beautifull to refute any such ideas. And I agree with him by 100% on it. Because according to the verse if people differ on anything. For example Mutah is halal or not, for example there are any infallible imams or not, you must refer to Quran and the Messenger of Allah. Only (1) Allah and (2) the Messenger of Allah have the solution to the problems of humanity. No imams or ulil amr can guide people in case of disagreement. And since Allah doesn't consider ulil amr (or the supposed shia imams) to be referred to in case of disagreement of people, the ulil amr (imams) of shias are not infallible.

And lastly and very importantly, if for a second I say the shia imams are the ulil amr as pointed out in this verse, then people are already differing from each other; shias, sunnis, and loads of other sects, all of which call themselves Muslims..and if we want to settle our disputes and decide the differences, we can't find the so called Imam Mahdi, the Ulil Amr. All we see are marjas and ayatullas wearing big turbans and claiming to be communicating with the Imam Mahdi..

Where is Imam Ali? If I go to see him, all I find a multitude of people in Najaf where he's resting in his shrine. Though many people say they are not sure if it's really Imam Ali's shrine. They say Imam Ali's body disappeared after his death and no one knows where it is.

And I'm not going to trust a Persian wearing a high turban and claiming to be a marja or wilayat al faqih, because he's not infallible, and he's not trustworthy at all.

You didn't answer my question, instead you dicided to mention other things, which are irrelevant to what I had asked you. Let me say this again, Allah has said " Obey those who are in authority amongst you ", lets leave the Shias out of this, now tell me what is your version ??? Firstly who were and are the Ulul-Amre, that Allah has made obebience towards them compulsory??? Secondly why would Allah say " Obey those who are in authority amongst you " then go on saying " If you differ on anything with the Ulul-Amre, then refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger " ??? Is this what you make of the Ayaath??? Firstly obey the Ulul-Amre and then if you differ with them??? You have two opposite things here either you obey or you disobey, to obey is to side with the Ulul-Amre and to disobey is to differ with them. Now which is it.

You claim that Hazrath Ali's [as] authority couldn't be established, WHY??? He was and is named as the fourth RIGHTLY GUIDED Khalif of the Muslims and is amongst Khulafaa-e-Rashedeen and Haq Char Yaar, so why is his authority not established??? Just to avoid getting into a discussion you come up with silly and baseless statements. Was Hazrath Ali [as] in authority amongst the people or not??? We all very well know he was! Now Allah has said " Obey those who are in authority amongst you ", so those who didn't obey Hazrath Ali [as], infact they went further on and rebelled against him, which means they have obviously broken Allah's command.

This is a clear violation of Allah's commandment, which clearly would make you an absolute sinner if not a Kafir. If you don't want to accept a particular belief, for example; the Shia, then don't but do not hesitate to move on and explain your version. Your kind come out and criticise the Shia on their faith and belief with your reasons, well pal that's fine if that's the way you think, because of freedom of speech and the right to express your point of view about the other, but why go silent after that??? Why hesitate from there on??? Tell me what you think!

DON'T BE AFRAID TO DISCUSS YOUR FAITH!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You didn't answer my question, instead you dicided to mention other things, which are irrelevant to what I had asked you. Let me say this again, Allah has said " Obey those who are in authority amongst you ", lets leave the Shias out of this, now tell me what is your version ??? Firstly who were and are the Ulul-Amre, that Allah has made obebience towards them compulsory??? Secondly why would Allah say " Obey those who are in authority amongst you " then go on saying " If you differ on anything with the Ulul-Amre, then refer the matter to Allah and his Messenger " ??? Is this what you make of the Ayaath??? Firstly obey the Ulul-Amre and then if you differ with them??? You have two opposite things here either you obey or you disobey, to obey is to side with the Ulul-Amre and to disobey is to differ with them. Now which is it.

Ulil Amr is the khalifah of Muslims, as Abu Bakr r.a, Umar r.a were after Prophet s.a.w. We are supposed to obey the Ulil Amr when they command us according to Quran and Sunnah. We are not bound to obey them if it's against Quran and Sunnah. The same is said about parents; we must obey them except when they command us to go against Allah.

Now a days unfortunately we don't have any khilafah and so there are no Ulil Amr of Muslims in most of the countries. But if a Muslim ruler is pious and he doesn't go against Quran and Sunnah then it is obligatory upon people to obey him.

But since a khalifah or a ruler is a human being; they can make mistakes or go wrong, so in that case we have to refer to Quran and Sunnah.

You claim that Hazrath Ali's [as] authority couldn't be established, WHY??? He was and is named as the fourth RIGHTLY GUIDED Khalif of the Muslims and is amongst Khulafaa-e-Rashedeen and Haq Char Yaar, so why is his authority not established??? Just to avoid getting into a discussion you come up with silly and baseless statements. Was Hazrath Ali [as] in authority amongst the people or not??? We all very well know he was! Now Allah has said " Obey those who are in authority amongst you ", so those who didn't obey Hazrath Ali [as], infact they went further on and rebelled against him, which means they have obviously broken Allah's command.

Since the killers of the 3rd khalifah couldn't be apprehended by Saiyidina Ali r.a, civil war erupted and so Ali r.a's khilafah couldn't be established fully.

This is a clear violation of Allah's commandment, which clearly would make you an absolute sinner if not a Kafir. If you don't want to accept a particular belief, for example; the Shia, then don't but do not hesitate to move on and explain your version. Your kind come out and criticise the Shia on their faith and belief with your reasons, well pal that's fine if that's the way you think, because of freedom of speech and the right to express your point of view about the other, but why go silent after that??? Why hesitate from there on??? Tell me what you think!

DON'T BE AFRAID TO DISCUSS YOUR FAITH!

If I don't reply to everyone's post, it doesn't mean I can't reply to them. I don't do things that I don't feel like. It depends upon my mood. But I'm sorry if I ignored your post before. I didn't do it intentionally. Just missed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I have something against those persians who accuse the companions of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w of doing the wrong deeds. And I believe this is because of the enmity of those racist persians towards Arab Muslims who conquered and defeated Persia under the command of Saiyidina Umar Farooq radiyallahu anhu.

Your ilm or rijaal is not reliable. Your hadith work is also not reliable.

You guys have double standards. When it comes to the wives of Prophet sallAllahu alayhe wasallam, you are like see the Nuh's wife, see the Lut's wife..but if a sunni refutes your claims and ideas you are like show some respect to our imams, they are the family of Prophet. Well, wives of the Prophet s.a.w are also his family.

And if Nuh alayhis salam had a kafir wife then he had a kafir son too. Don't forget.

They were Prophet's inheritors in books only. Not in the real physical world that exists.

How could they protect the religion when they themselves were killed? Your last imam disappeared 1200 years ago because he couldn't protect his life, and you say they protected the religion? For 1200 years who has been protecting your religion???

The so called ghaybat is a mystery which is known to only persian shias. Why should I believe them? Why trust your persian scholars about an imam who disappeared 1200 years ago?

As I said before, the imamah of your imams is established by 'claims' (hadiths) that can be fabricated and made up. Shias know and sunnis know that many many hadiths have been concocted. Then why to believe a confusing narration to prove your imamat while we have sahih (authentic) narrations and above all Quran, the book of Allah that proves there are no infallible imams after Muhammad s.a.w?

Since Harun a.s couldn't rule people, Ali r.a also couldn't rule people after Muhammad s.a.w.

Now decide again, what Ali r.a is? Is he imam or khalifah of maula?

The above hadith doesn't say Ali is imam or khalifah. Let's accept this one and make Ali r.a our maula and that's it. Khallas!

In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful

Alright, to start with your beef with the Persians and their "accusations" against Umar. Hadith right, they come from recorded sources of history, you are under the belief that the "Racist Persians with enmity to their Arab Conquerors". I don't know how much evidence it takes to convince the person who shuts his eyes, plugs his ears, and starts speaking nonsense to drown you out. But this is a true narration, no doubt it happened, no matter how much Sunnis want to deny it, it still happened, here is

proving this event has happened.

And these respected Sunnis (The followers of your Umar) agree that this event happened, read the following testimonies, and I won't even go to Al Imamah Was Silasah, I will go to other sources:

  1. Al Balathiri: Al-Balathiri mentioned that Abu Bakr sent for Imam Ali to pay homage to him but Imam Ali (a.s.) refused to pay homage. Therefore, Umar came with a wick. Fatima (a.s.) met him at the door and said to him, ‘Shall you set fire to my door?’
    He said, ‘Yes, and this is stronger than what your father had brought.
    ’Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 1 p. 586
  2. Al Tabari: He mentioned: “Umar came to Ali’s house wherein there were Talha, az-Zubayr, and some men from the Muhajireen, and said to them, ‘By Allah, I will burn (the house) over you or you come out to the homage.’ Az-Zubayr went out drawing his sword, but he stumbled and fell to the ground and the sword fell from his hand. They (Umar and his fellows) jumped on and took him.”
    Tareekh at-Tabari, vol. 3 p. 198
  3. Ibn Abi Rabbih: He said: “Those who did not pay homage to Abu Bakr were Ali, al-Abbas, az-Zubayr, and Sa’d bin Ubada. As for Ali, al-Abbas, and az-Zabayr, they remained in Fatima’s house until Abu Bakr sent to them Umar bin al-Khattab to make them get out of Fatima’s house. He said to him, ‘If they refuse, you should fight them.’ Umar came with a torch intending to set fire to the house. Fatima (a.s.) met him and said, ‘O ibn al-Khattab, have you come to burn our house?’ He said, ‘Yes, or you enter into what the nation has entered into.
    ’Al-Iqd al-Fareed, vol. 5 p.12.
  4. Ibn Abil Hadid: He said, ‘Umar came to Fatima’s house with some men from the Ansar and a few from the Muhajireen and said, ‘I swear by Whom in Whose hand Umar’s soul is, either you come out for the homage or I will burn the house over you.’
    Sharh Nahjal Balagha by Ibn Abil Hadeed, vol. 1 p. 124.
  5. Ash Shahristani: Ash-Shahristani mentioned from an-Nidham that Umar was shouing: ‘Set fire to her (Fatima) house with all those in it.’ There were no but Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn inside the house.
    Al-Milal wen-Nihal, vol. 1 p. 56

  6. Kahala: Umar Redha Kahhala said, “Abu Bakr found that some men had defaulted his homage like al-Abbas, az-Zubayr, and Sa’d bin Ubada. They were with Ali bin Abi Talib in Fatima’s house. Abu Bakr sent to them Umar bin al-Khattab who called out to them while they were inside Fatima’s house. They refused to come out. Umar ordered firewood to be brought. He said, ‘I swear by Whom in Whose hand Umar’s soul is, either you come out (for the homage) or I will set fire to it (the house) over all those in it.’
    It was said to him, ‘O Abu Hafs, Fatima is there.’
    He said, ‘Even though!’”
    A’lam an-Nisa’, vol. 4 p. 114

Right, now see the Sunni narrations of the acts of aggression against Sayyida Fatima (as)

  1. Shahristani: Ash-Shahristani narrated from Ibrahim bin Sayyar that Umar beat Fatima until she aborted her fetus. He was shouting, ‘Set fire to her house with whomever in it!’
    Al-Milal wen-Nihal, vol. 1 p. 57
  2. Ibn Hajar: Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said in the biography of Ahmed bin Muhammad bin as-Sariy bin Yahya bin Darim Abu Bakr al-Kufi, ‘Muhammad bin Ahmed al-Kufi was reliable most of his life…Once, I visited him while there was a man narrating to him: ‘Umar kicked Fatima until she aborted (her fetus) Muhsin.’
    Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 1 p. 268
  3. Al Mas'oodi: He said, ‘They pressed the principal of women against the door until she miscarried Muhsin.’
    Ithbat al-Wasiyya, p. 143.
  4. At Thalabi: He mentioned a tradition narrated from Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Hammad al-Kufi…that he said, ‘One day, I visited him while there was some man narrating to him that Umar kicked Fatima until she miscarried Muhsin.’
    Mizan al-I’tidal, vol. 1 p. 139.
  5. Ibn Qutayba: Ibn Qutayba said, ‘Muhsin was aborted after the pressure of Qunfudh al-Adawi.’
    Manaqib Aal Abi Talib, vol. 3 p. 133.
  6. As Safadi: He said that Umar beat Fatima’s abdomen on the day of the homage until she miscarried al-Muhsin.
    Al-Wafi bil-Wafiyyaat, vol. 5 p. 347
  7. He said, ‘The cause of her (Fatima) death was that Qunfudh, the mawla of the man (Abu Bakr), thrust her with the iron part of the sheath of his sword by his (Umar) order and she miscarried Muhsin, and because of that she became badly ill.’
    Al-Wafi bil-Wafiyyaat, vol. 5 p. 347.

All Sunnis, followers of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, you want to say your own scholars too were "Racist Persians"?

Oh, and our Hadith are not reliable, and our works? This is your works...And another example. And before you accuse me of using false or weak Hadith, I'm not an idiot, I check their reliability before using them..

Okay, now you think that there is a double standard, I'm basing myself off of the Qur'an, not my own opinions. So you think "After winning something" I institute a double. Qur'an condemns two of the wives of the Prophet. I love some of the wives, Umm Salamah (ra) , Khadijat Al Kubra (as) , but there are wives who have messed up royally, and I do not love them for that. For the Ahlul Bayt, you're told to love them, they are taken to the Prophet to the important mission of Mubahila, They are purified through a thorough purification and rijs is kept away from them. The Prophet told us to hold fast to two weighty things, and two Khalifs (There are over 30 narrations of the weighty thing hadith, not just one), one being the Qur'an, and one being the Ahlul Bayt. The Prophet said they are from me in Hadith Al Kisa'a (Which is also narrated in Sunni books). These are not ordinary people, and then the 9 Imams come from them, as the Prophet says in Hadith Kisa'a, Fatima Wa Banuha it doesn't say Abnaha, it says Banuha, as in lineage. And there is the Hadith of the 12 successors, and no Hadith says it better than this one:

A Jew named al-A`tal came to the Prophet and said, "Muhammad! I wish to ask you about certain things which I have been keeping to myself; so, if you answer them, I shall declare my acceptance of Islam before you." The Prophet said, "Ask me, O father of Imarah!" So he asked him about many things till he was satisfied and admitted that the Prophet was right. Then he said, "Tell me about your wasi (successor): who is he? No prophet can ever be without a wasi; our prophet Moses had appointed Yusha` [Joshua] son of Noon as his successor." He said, "My wasi is Ali ibn Abu Talib followed by my grandsons al-Hasan and al-Husayn followed by nine men from the loins of al-Husayn." He said, "Then name them for me, O Muhammad!" The Prophet said, "Once al-Husayn departs, he will be succeeded by his son Ali; when Ali departs, his son Muhammad will succeed him. When Muhammad departs, his son Ja`far will succeed him. When Ja`far departs, he will be succeeded by his son Musa. When Musa departs, his son Ali will succeed him. When Ali departs, his son Muhammad will succeed him. When Muhammad departs, his son Ali will succeed him. When Ali departs, his son al-Hasan will succeed him, and when al-Hasan departs, al-Hujjah Muhammad al-Mahdi will succeed him. These are the twelve ones." That Jew, therefore, embraced Islam and praised Allah for having guided him.

Shaykh Sulayman Qanduzi al-Hanafi, book Yanabi' al-Mawaddah, p. 523.

So these are no ordinary people, show some respect.

They were meant to be the Khalifs, it was their right, but the right was stolen, like I stated in the other thread where you just shut up and haven't responded. Your thieves stole their right.

The Prophet pbuh to the muslim hold on to the Quruan and Ahlul albayt a.s

It was narrated in a sunni book called jami' al-saghir by al-Albani on page 482 through an authentic chain to the prophet pbuh that he stated " I am leaving behind me two khalifas (leaders), as long as you hold on to them you will never go astray the Qur'an and the Ahlul al-bayt a.s, and they shall never separate till they meet me at the pond (at the day of judgement) "

al-Albani said this hadith is sahih (authentic)

And we have the Hadith of Thaqalayn, which has been narrated many many times, in many situations. And it is plentiful found in the books of the Sunni, the link will show you.

They were the Khalifs, but had their right robbed from them.

What kind of sick person taunts the Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet (pbuh) and mocks them for dying for Islam? As I stated in the other thread where you suddenly became silent, the Imams (as) would dedicate their lives to saving it, and being guides for their people. Imam Ali (as) remained patient and silent, however still working for Islam, after his right was robbed from him (as) . Imam Hasan (as) had to sacrifice the Khilafat, and give it to Mu'awiya, at the treaty of Hasan, for the betterment, and for the continuation of the Shi'a school, and for the sake of Islam in whole. Or whether it was Imam Hussain (as) who had to be starved, and made thirsty for three days, witness his family and companions be mercilessly killed, from the 80 year old Muslim, to the 6 month old Abdullah, until it was time for him to be beheaded also, so that Islam does not fall into the illegitimate hands of Yazid. Or it was Imam Ali Zain Al Abideen being transported in chains at the beginning of his Imamate, having to be whipped and humiliated, so that the people wake up and realize what's happening. Or the reform of Imam Baqir and Imam Sadiq, and out Jaffariya fiqh being written down there in the midst of so many Madhabs appearing. And this continues. Imam Mahdi had to go to Ghaybat because the time called for it, if he were to be killed, then the Imamate would end. If your God will protect Isa, to save his life and bring him to Ghaybat, if your Lord will save Idris to save his life in Ghaybat, if your Lord will save the life of Ilyas by taking him to Ghaybat, if your Lord will save the life of Khidhr and take him to Ghaybat, and if your Lord took Mohammad (pbuh) temporarily in Ghaybat on the night of Mi'raj, as he left the house, and he covered the 40 assassins with a cloth so his Prophet could pass in peace. And for 1200 years, at the beginning we had our four representatives of the Imam (as) after they died, the Ghaybat As Sughra ended, and Ghaybat Al Kubra starts, he oversees this deen, but we have now the scholars to protect this deen, we have our high Ulema. And in his final letter he tells us that if we want him, he's there for us, he hasn't abandoned this deen.

Alright, don't believe our Imams on the birth of the Imams, listen to your own:

1. Muhammad b. Talha Shafi'i writes: "Abu al-Qasim Muhammad b. Hasan was born in the year 258 AH/873 CE in Samarra. His father's name was Hasan Khalis. Among the titles [of this last Imam] are: Hujjat, Khalaf Salih (the righteous offspring) and Muntazar (the awaited one)." Following this statement he has related several traditions on the subject of the Mahdi, with the concluding statement: "These hadith-reports confirm the existence of Imam Hasan 'Askari's son, who is in concealment and will appear later."

Matalib al-su'al (1287 AH edition), p. 89.

2. Muhammad b. Yusuf, following his entry on the death of Imam Hasan 'Askari, writes: "He did not have any child beside Muhammad. It is said that he is the same as the Awaited Imam (imam muntazar).

Kifayat al-talib, p. 312.

3. Ibn Sabbagh Maliki writes: "Section Twelve on the Life of Abu al-Qasim Muhammad, Hujjat, Khalaf Salih, the son of Abu Muhammad Hasan Khalis: He is the twelfth Imam of the Shi'a." Then he has recorded the history of the Imam and has related the traditions about the Mahdi.

Fusul al-muhimma (Second edition), p. 273 and 286.

4. Yusuf b. Qazughli, after writing his account of the life of Imam Hasan 'Askari, writes: "His son's name is Muhammad, and his patronymic is Abu 'Abd Allah and Abu al-Qasim. He is the Proof of God's existence, the Master of the Age, the Qa'im, and the Muntazar. The Imamate has come to an end with him." Then he reports traditions about the Mahdi.

Tadhkirat khawass al-umma, p. 363.

5. Shablanji in the book entitled Nur al-absar, writes: "Muhammad is the son of Hasan 'Askari. His mother was a slave girl by the name of Narjis or Sayqal or Sawsan. His patronymic is Abu al-Qasim. The Twelver Shi'ites know him as: Hujjat, Mahdi, Khalaf Salih, Qa'im, Muntazar, and Master of the Age."

Nur al-absar (Cairo edition), p. 342.

6. Ibn Hajar, in his al-Sawa'iq al-muharriqa, following the biography of Imam Hasan 'Askari writes: "He has not left a son besides Abu al-Qasim, who is known as Muhammad and Hujjat. That boy was five years old when his father died."

al-Sawa'iq al-muharriqa, p. 206.

7. Muhammad b. 'Ali Hamawi writes: "Abu al-Qasim Muhammad Muntazar was born in the year 259 AH/874 CE in Samarra."

Ta'rikh mansuri

8.Ibn Khallikan relates in his biographical dictionary Wafayat al-a'yan: "Abu al-Qasim Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-'Askari is the twelfth Imam of the Imamiyya, that is the Twelver Shi'ites. The Shi'ites believe that he is the one who is the awaited Qa'im and the Mahdi."

Wafayat al-a'yan (1284 AH edition), Vol. 2, p. 24.

9. In Rawdat al-safa Mir Khwand writes: "Muhammad was the son of Hasan. His patronymic is Abu al-Qasim. The Imamiyya acknowledge that he is the Hujjat, the Qa'im, and the Mahdi."

10. Sha'rani writes in his al-Yawaqit wa al-jawahir: "Mahdi is the son of Imam Hasan 'Askari. He was born on the fifteenth night of Sha'ban, 255 AH. He is alive and will remain so until he will emerge with Jesus. Now it is 957 AH. He is, thus, 703 years old."

al-Yawaqit wa al-jawahir (1351 AH edition), Vol. 2, p. 143.

11. Sha'rani, quoting Ibn 'Arabi's Futuhat makiyya, section 366, writes: "When the earth will be filled with tyranny and injustice the Mahdi will rise and will fill the earth with justice and equity. He will be among the descendants of the Prophet and from the line of Fatima. His grandfather will be Husayn, and his father will be Hasan 'Askari, the son of 'Ali Naqi, the son of Muhammad Taqi, the son of 'Ali Rida, the son of Musa Kazim, the son of Ja'far Sadiq, the son of Muhammad Baqir, the son of Zayn al-'Abidin, the son of Husayn b. 'Ali b. Abi Talib."

Ibid., p. 143.

12. Khwaja Parsa in his book Fasl al-khitab writes: "Muhammad, the son of Hasan 'Askari, was born on fifteenth night of Sha'ban, 255 AH/870 CE. His mother's name was Narjis. His father died when he was five years of age. From that time until now he is in occultation. He is the awaited Imam of the Shi'a. His existence is well established among his companions, trusted associates and family. God will prolong his age as He has done in the case of Elijah and Eliash."

Yanabi' al-mawadda, Vo. 2, p. 126.

13. Abu al-Falah Hanbali in his Shadharat al-dhahab and Dhahabi in al-'Ibar fi khabar min ghabar write: "Muhammad is the son of Hasan 'Askari, the son of 'Ali Hadi, the son of Jawad, the son of 'Ali Rida, the son of Musa Kazim, the son of Ja'far Sadiq, 'Alawi, Husayni. His patronymic is Abu al-Qasim and the Shi'a know him as Khalaf Salih, Hujjat, Mahdi, Muntazar, and the Master of the Age (Sahib al-zaman)."

Shadharat al-dhahab (Beirut edition), Vol. 2, p. 141

as well as in al-'Ibar fi khabar min ghabar (Kuwait edition), Vol. 2, p. 31

14. Muhammad Amin Baghdadi in the book entitled: Saba'ik al-dhahab writes: "Muhammad, who is also known as Mahdi, was five years old at the time of his father's death."

Saba'ik al-dhahab, p. 78.

Yes obviously we know a lot of the Hadith in the "Sahih Sitta" are bad, that's why we're not retarded and just quote hadith, we check them first for authenticity. Alright, so if you dispute with the Hadith, let's go straight to the Qur'an. 2:124:

æóÅöÐö ÇÈúÊóáóìٰ ÅöÈúÑóÇåöíãó ÑóÈõøåõ ÈößóáöãóÇÊò ÝóÃóÊóãóøåõäóø ۖ ÞóÇáó Åöäöøí ÌóÇÚöáõßó áöáäóøÇÓö ÅöãóÇãðÇ ۖ ÞóÇáó æóãöä ÐõÑöøíóøÊöí ۖ ÞóÇáó áóÇ íóäóÇáõ ÚóåúÏöí ÇáÙóøÇáöãöíäó

And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.

This is from the translation of Mohammad Habib Shakir, derive three things right there from the Ayat. Ibrahim got promoted to Imamate (So Imamate is higher than Nabuwat), Allah is the one who appoints Imams, and Allah does not allow the unjust to be Imams. Now the meaning of Imam is literally one who is in front of, or leader. That is out conception of Imamate, now don't get us wrong, the Imams were higher than all the Nabis, except the last one, because he was Sayyed Al Kaunain, Khatim Al Mursaleen, Habib Ilahil Alimeen, he was the Last and greatest Prophet, he was the highest.

Okay then you say that since Harun died and didn't rule his people, Imam Ali also couldn't. Okay first faulty logic there, because x happened in that situation, y will happened just like x. Anyways the obvious reply is if that Harun had outlived Musa, he would have been a Khalif. The Qur'an said that Harun would take the place of Musa, be his Khalif and Vazeer. And use logic for one second, would the Prophet say that, "Oh Ali, you are to me as Harun was to Musa, except that there is no Prophet after me, it is not proper I should depart except by you being the Khalifa after me, but you won't get to be because Harun died, so you don't get the right to be either." What kind of retarded logic is that. It was in Imam Ali's right. If you still dispute, then here.

Last point, Maula, Wali, and such hadith establish the authority of Imam Ali, the Hadith like Manzila, or this:

A Jew named al-A`tal came to the Prophet and said, "Muhammad! I wish to ask you about certain things which I have been keeping to myself; so, if you answer them, I shall declare my acceptance of Islam before you." The Prophet said, "Ask me, O father of Imarah!" So he asked him about many things till he was satisfied and admitted that the Prophet was right. Then he said, "Tell me about your wasi (successor): who is he? No prophet can ever be without a wasi; our prophet Moses had appointed Yusha` [Joshua] son of Noon as his successor." He said, "My wasi is Ali ibn Abu Talib followed by my grandsons al-Hasan and al-Husayn followed by nine men from the loins of al-Husayn." He said, "Then name them for me, O Muhammad!" The Prophet said, "Once al-Husayn departs, he will be succeeded by his son Ali; when Ali departs, his son Muhammad will succeed him. When Muhammad departs, his son Ja`far will succeed him. When Ja`far departs, he will be succeeded by his son Musa. When Musa departs, his son Ali will succeed him. When Ali departs, his son Muhammad will succeed him. When Muhammad departs, his son Ali will succeed him. When Ali departs, his son al-Hasan will succeed him, and when al-Hasan departs, al-Hujjah Muhammad al-Mahdi will succeed him. These are the twelve ones." That Jew, therefore, embraced Islam and praised Allah for having guided him.

Shaykh Sulayman Qanduzi al-Hanafi, book Yanabi' al-Mawaddah, p. 523.

establish his divine right.

Edited by AlAjalYaImam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Ulil Amr is the khalifah of Muslims, as Abu Bakr r.a, Umar r.a were after Prophet s.a.w. We are supposed to obey the Ulil Amr when they command us according to Quran and Sunnah. We are not bound to obey them if it's against Quran and Sunnah. The same is said about parents; we must obey them except when they command us to go against Allah.

Now a days unfortunately we don't have any khilafah and so there are no Ulil Amr of Muslims in most of the countries. But if a Muslim ruler is pious and he doesn't go against Quran and Sunnah then it is obligatory upon people to obey him.

But since a khalifah or a ruler is a human being; they can make mistakes or go wrong, so in that case we have to refer to Quran and Sunnah.

Since the killers of the 3rd khalifah couldn't be apprehended by Saiyidina Ali r.a, civil war erupted and so Ali r.a's khilafah couldn't be established fully.

If I don't reply to everyone's post, it doesn't mean I can't reply to them. I don't do things that I don't feel like. It depends upon my mood. But I'm sorry if I ignored your post before. I didn't do it intentionally. Just missed it.

You said " Ulul-Amre is the Khalifaa of Muslims " and the examples you gave are Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] and Hazrath Umar [ra]. What about Hazrath Usmaan [ra] and Hazrath Ali [as]??? Are these two not also Ulul-Amre??? Where does it say in the Quran, that you only should obey them if they follow the Quran and Sunnah??? How can one tell that the Ulul-Amre isn't following the Quran and Sunnah??? Or do we know more better than the one who is in authority amongst us and Allah has made obedience towards them compulsory??? How do we know better??? Allah has mentioned obedience towards them, Ulul-Amre, their [ita'ath] alondside him and his Messenger and made it compulsory. So where does your condition come in from???

Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] waged war on a group of companions and their community, just because they refused to pay Zakah on the first Khalifs terms. They wanted to continue to pay Zakah according to the terms and conditions put down by the Prophet [pbuh], which they had done for years. Was this war justified??? Was it according to the Quran and Sunnah??? Lets say for example if one refuses to pray, to fast or to pay Zakah altogether, full stop then does that make them a sinner and punishable by Allah or a Kafir and punishable by the Khalifaa??? Is it ok to wage war on such people according to such terms????

Was it compulsory on the fourth Khalif to apprehend the Killers of the third Khalif???? If he didn't then his status as Khalif is questionable. Who put down this condition??? Nobody! It's just an excuse which was used by individuals to rebell against the fourth Khalif and it is an excuse used by certain individuals nowa days to undermine the authority of the fourth Khalif. If the fourth Khalif couldn't apprehend the Killers of the third Khalif, then how does this undermine the authority of the fourth Khalif??? How can we assume that the fourth Khalif went against the Quran and Sunnah by this???

Does one even know the nature and full facts regarding Hazrath Usmaan's [ra] murder??? Who murdered him and why he was murdered??? What about the prime witness in this murder case, Naila [ Hazrath Usmaan's wife]??? Why isn't there any statement from her in the entire history books???? Why did she chose to remain silent about her husband's murder and murderers??? What is the fourth Khalif suppose to do, when the prime witness refuses to testify and wants the case closed due to personal reasons??? What right did anybody have, after this, to use this as an excuse and rebell against the fourth rightly guided Khalif??? Instead of building up strength and courage to criticise those who rebelled, we come up with the stupidity and go ahead with criticism for the fourth rightly guided Khalif. WHY???

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You said " Ulul-Amre is the Khalifaa of Muslims " and the examples you gave are Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] and Hazrath Umar [ra]. What about Hazrath Usmaan [ra] and Hazrath Ali [as]??? Are these two not also Ulul-Amre??? Where does it say in the Quran, that you only should obey them if they follow the Quran and Sunnah??? How can one tell that the Ulul-Amre isn't following the Quran and Sunnah??? Or do we know more better than the one who is in authority amongst us and Allah has made obedience towards them compulsory??? How do we know better??? Allah has mentioned obedience towards them, Ulul-Amre, their [ita'ath] alondside him and his Messenger and made it compulsory. So where does your condition come in from???

Not just Saiyidina Abu Bakr ra, Saiyidina Umar ra were our Ulil Amr but Saiyidina Uthman ra was also our Ulil Amr. These three khulafa are termed to as Khulafa-e-Thalatha (The three caliphs).

The case of Saiyidina Ali ra was different. He became khalifah during turmoil when rebellion against the khilafah of Islam had just begun. The rebels had joined Saiydina Ali ra for protection and that's where the problems started. People differed..civil war started. So the majority of the Sahabah of the Prophet s.a.w didn't support Ali or Muawiyah. They kept distance and remained neutral.

In other words the khilafah of Saiyidina Ali ra couldn't be established the way it was under the first three khulafa.

And Quran and Sunnah is not for Ulil Amr alone, it's for each and every Muslim. Gaining knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim man and woman. So people are able to decide when the Ulil Amr is right and when he's not. And by people I mean consensus of Ummah.

Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] waged war on a group of companions and their community, just because they refused to pay Zakah on the first Khalifs terms. They wanted to continue to pay Zakah according to the terms and conditions put down by the Prophet [pbuh], which they had done for years. Was this war justified??? Was it according to the Quran and Sunnah??? Lets say for example if one refuses to pray, to fast or to pay Zakah altogether, full stop then does that make them a sinner and punishable by Allah or a Kafir and punishable by the Khalifaa??? Is it ok to wage war on such people according to such terms????

Some people or tribe who were NOT companions of the Prophet of Islam. They had only embraced Islam because of the dawah of some companions. After the demise of the Prophet s.a.w they thought Islam had weakened and they could evade by not paying zakat. They rejected one of the basic pillars of Islam.

And Saiyidina Siddique-e-Akbar radiyallahu anhu waged a war against them according to the Quran and Sunnah. Because he was the closest companion of the Prophet of Islam and he understood Islam better than anyone else.

Other sahabah including Saiyidina Ali Murtada radiyallahu anhu also supported him on this decision.

Was it compulsory on the fourth Khalif to apprehend the Killers of the third Khalif???? If he didn't then his status as Khalif is questionable. Who put down this condition??? Nobody! It's just an excuse which was used by individuals to rebell against the fourth Khalif and it is an excuse used by certain individuals nowa days to undermine the authority of the fourth Khalif. If the fourth Khalif couldn't apprehend the Killers of the third Khalif, then how does this undermine the authority of the fourth Khalif??? How can we assume that the fourth Khalif went against the Quran and Sunnah by this???

Rebellion against the third khalifah was unique in the history of Islam by then. It was an attack on the Islamic Khilafah. It was an attack on the capital of Khilafah of Islam. There are stern commands against those who rebel against the Khalifah of Islam in the prescribed Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. Unfortunately, for some reasons Saiyidina Ali ra couldn't apprehend the rebels instead the rebels manipulated him.

1400 years ago, the contemporaries of Saiyidina Ali ra were not considered quite lower than him in status. Many thousands of the blessed companions were alive then. So it's possible some people might have suspected Ali ra behind this murder in order to capture power. That's why a sect called Kharijites appeared which ultimately killed Saiyidina Ali ra.

It was an age of fitnah (mischief). If Saiyidina Ali ra had been able to catch the culprits in the first place, lots of such tragedies wouldn't have taken place and he would remain the uncontroversial khalifah of the people of his time.

Does one even know the nature and full facts regarding Hazrath Usmaan's [ra] murder??? Who murdered him and why he was murdered??? What about the prime witness in this murder case, Naila [ Hazrath Usmaan's wife]??? Why isn't there any statement from her in the entire history books???? Why did she chose to remain silent about her husband's murder and murderers??? What is the fourth Khalif suppose to do, when the prime witness refuses to testify and wants the case closed due to personal reasons??? What right did anybody have, after this, to use this as an excuse and rebell against the fourth rightly guided Khalif??? Instead of building up strength and courage to criticise those who rebelled, we come up with the stupidity and go ahead with criticism for the fourth rightly guided Khalif. WHY???

It's very simple!

Since you couldn't curb the rebellion against the khilafah of Islam by catching the murderers of the third khalifah whom people recognized, even Saiyidina Ali ra recognized according to the agreed upon reports, you opened the door of rebellion against you too.

If the door of rebellion against the 3rd khalifah had been shut, it wouldn't have been opened for the 4th khalifah.

The wife of Saiyidina Uthman Ghani radiyallahu anhu was not just one witness to this crime. People knew had surrounded the house of the khalifah. People knew who killed him.

Edited by Sonador
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...