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
Sign in to follow this  
peace seeker

Did The Prophet (S) Appoint A Successor?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The Prophet (saw) didn't appoint any successor. 

 

If you think that, then also agree The Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also did not appoint Abu Bakr. My point is not to argue on this topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh you really blew us away with that comment!

 

i love how you took apart all the arguments above and proved them wrong one-by-one ... NOT  :lol:

 

and being equivalent of Aaron to Moses, also is like ZERO evidence right?

 

this is funny!  :!!!:


The Prophet (saw) didn't appoint any successor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He then declared: "He of whom I am the master (mawla), of him 'Ali is also the master (mawla). O God, be the friend of him who is his friend, and be the enemy of him who is his enemy."

Immediately after the Prophet (s) finished his speech, the following verse of the Qur'an was revealed:

Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favor upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion. (Qur'an 5:3)

 

 

Edited by Abul Hussain Hassani

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to sunni thinking, the Prophet SAW knew he was going to die, hence the last sermon, and then left the ummah with no leadership? Is that your view?

 

 

Obviously that is very unlikely to the point of unbelievable. What do you make of hadith such as these :

 

Volume 4, Book 51, Number 4 :

Narrated by Al-Aswad

In the presence of ‘Aisha some people mentioned that the Prophet had appointed ‘Ali by will as his successor. ‘Aisha said, “When did he appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed while in that state, and I could not even perceive that he had died, so when did he appoint him by will?”

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 393 : Narrated by Said bin Jubair

That he heard Ibn ‘Abbas saying, “Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After that Ibn ‘Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I asked Ibn ‘Abbas, “What is (about) Thursday?” He said, “When the condition (i.e. health) of
Allah
’s Apostle deteriorated, he said, ‘Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.’The people differed in their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, They said, ‘What is wrong with him? Do you think he is delirious? Ask him (to understand). The Prophet replied, ‘Leave me as I am in a better state than what you are asking me to do.’ Then the Prophet ordered them to do three things saying, ‘Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.’ ” The sub-narrator added, “The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn ‘Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot.’

 Volume 9, Book 89, Number 329 : Narrated by Jabir bin Samura

I heard the Prophet saying, “There will be twelve Muslim rulers (who will rule all the Islamic world).” He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said, “All of them (those rulers) will be from Quraish.”

A side note : interesting how the memory seems to wobble when it comes to these issues, I have not seen any other hadith in bukhari where the narrator claims forgetfulness / poor hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Narrated Ubaida: Ali said (to the people of 'Iraq), "Judge as you used to judge, for I hate differences (and I do my best ) till the people unite as one group, or I die as my companions have died." And narrated Sad that the Prophet said to 'Ali, "Will you not be pleased from this that you are to me like Aaron was to Moses?"
Sa'd reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying to 'Ali: Aren't you satisfied with being unto me what Aaron was unto Moses?
Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Traditions 5.56, 5.700
Sahih Muslim, Arabic, v4, pp 1870-71
Sunan Ibn Majah, p12
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p174
al-Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 15-16
Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, p309

 

Peace be on Musa and Haroun.

Quran [37:120]

 

http://www26.brinkster.com/sdolshah1/amam.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but of course imam ali did assert his rights, it's just that the shias of ali were the ones most keen on recording it.

 

omar and co were keen on threatening anybody against them

 

 

8.817: 

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: 

 the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr was nothing but a prompt sudden action which got established afterwards.' `Umar became angry and then said,

'Allah willing, I will stand before the people tonight and warn them against those people who want to deprive the others of their rights (the question of rulership). 

 

who is being threatened in anger here? who is "them"?

 

.. and no doubt after the death of the Prophet we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. 'Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us, while the emigrants gathered with Abu Bakr

1 - Ansar

2 - Imam Ali and Sayida Fatimah

3 - others as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Yes. 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't prove anything. Some unknown people thought like that and Sayyida Aisha, Omol-Mominin (ra) corrected them. 

 

 

 

 

Did Jafar bin Muhammad [rah] rule the Islamic world? Was Muhammad bin Ali [rah] a ruler? and were the rest rulers?

 

 

It does prove a lot, these were not just "people", but companions! they were going around saying Ali Ibn Talib AS was appointed the successor in the Prophet's SAW will. When we look at the will, there are 3 points, 2 are known, one seems to have been "forgotten" in sunni sources. Did we have anyone who thought Abu Bakr had been appointed by the Prophet SAW as you sarcastically claim? No, so even from your own books, the claim is not made.

 

What we have is basically an argument in a hut, threats are made, voices are raised, a man is killed, and out of that mess, they take power. They did not even claim it was the Prophet's SAW will, or a command from Allah, it was merely a fight that they happened to win.

 

As for the Imams AS, yes in my opinion they were rulers of the Islamic world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is possibly the most shameful for most supposed muslims of the time, and especially the 3 & co. is that they did not attend the washing, burial and funeral prayer of the prophet. oh my God !!! that by itself is such a tragedy.

 

i mean, how can one think that there is anything more important than attending that little funeral?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

 

beyond shameful actually, i am still under shock


i'm sorry for being sarcastic about "little", because i am sure it wasn't little at all. there were definitely many many many angels attending it, but very few humans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is possibly the most shameful for most supposed muslims of the time, and especially the 3 & co. is that they did not attend the washing, burial and funeral prayer of the prophet. oh my God !!! that by itself is such a tragedy.

 

i mean, how can one think that there is anything more important than attending that little funeral?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

 

beyond shameful actually, i am still under shock

 

Which 3 didn't attend the funeral? I am curious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

abu bakr omar and uthman, if i remember correctly

 

they were too busy with more important issues of making deals on who will become ruler other than ali 


before the prophet was buried even.

 

imagine them saying: "should we go to the funeral?", and then somebody saying "naaah, let's decide quickly who will take the power and force everybody to accept" ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

abu bakr omar and uthman, if i remember correctly

 

they were too busy with more important issues of making deals on who will become ruler other than ali 

before the prophet was buried even.

 

imagine them saying: "should we go to the funeral?", and then somebody saying "naaah, let's decide quickly who will take the power and force everybody to accept" ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're welcome brother ..

 

well there are some sunis who deny this and say that they attended, while there are some who say they didn't attend because they had to make sure the ummah doesn't fall apart. ( i collected most of suni sources that mention the funeral situation )

 

____________

 

 

Abu Bakr came from his house at As-Sunh on a horse. He dismounted and entered the (Prophet’s) Mosque, but did not speak to the people till he entered upon Aisha and went straight to Allah’s Apostle who was covered with Hibra cloth (i.e. a kind of Yemeni cloth). He then uncovered the Prophet’s face and bowed over him and kissed him and wept, saying, “Let my father and mother be sacrificed for you…”

(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 733)

 

 

Abu Bakr kissed the Prophet after his death.

(Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 734)

 

 

It is related by Umar that as they were seated in the Prophet’s house, a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: “O Son of Khattab (i.e. Umar), pray step out for a moment.” Umar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occurred: the Ansar were gathering in force at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, and–as the situation was grave–it was necessary that he (Umar) should go and look into the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a (civil) war. On this, Umar said to Abu Bakr: “Let us go.”

(Al Faruq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1, p.87)

 

 

“A person’s family and relatives are the ones responsible for arranging his burial.”

(Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol. 2, Page 102)

 

 

Now Ali ibn Abi Talib was working busily preparing the Apostle (for burial), so Umar sent a message to Abu Bakr (instead)…

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.10, p.3)

 

 

(They) left Ali and others (close relatives) to make arrangements for the burial of the Prophet.

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, p.274)

 

 

Amir asked: “When was the oath of allegiance given to Abu Bakr?”

“The very day the Messenger of Allah died,” he (Saeed) replied. “People disliked to be left even part of the day without being organized into a community (jama’ah).”

(The History of al-Tabari, Vol.1, p.195)

 

http://answersforshiafriend.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/saqifah-a-sunni-view/

 

 

It is related by Umar that as they were seated in the Prophet’s house, a man cried out all of a sudden from outside: “O Son of Khattab (i.e. Umar), pray step out for a moment.” Umar told him to leave them alone and go away as they were busy in making arrangements for the burial of the Prophet. The man replied that an incident had occurred: the Ansar were gathering in force at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, and–as the situation was grave–it was necessary that he (Umar) should go and look into the matter lest the Ansar should do something which would lead to a (civil) war. On this, Umar said to Abu Bakr: “Let us go.”

(Al-Farooq, by Allamah Shibli Numani, Vol 1, p.87)

 

 

 

The task of washing the body being over, the Companions were divided over the place of burial. Abu Bakr then said: “I have heard the Messenger of Allah that every Prophet is to be buried on the spot where he has breathed his last.” The Prophet’s bedding was accordingly removed from the place and a grave was dug for him at the same spot. The grave being completed, the people came to perform the funeral prayer in groups one after another. The women came in after the men and after them the chidlren, all of whom prayed over him. Nobody acted as an Imam for the funeral prayers of the Prophet.

 

On receiving the sad news of the Prophet’s illness and then of his final departure (to the Afterlife), Usamah bin Zayd and his men moved back to Al-Medinah and the military standard was placed upright at the door of the Prophet’s room. The funeral prayer was performed in the room of Aisha, where his burial was to take place. Obviously, it was impossible for the men, women, and children of the entire city to perform the prayer together. Moreover, the prayer was not to be led by an Imam. Thus it was natural that all took some time in performing the prayers in separate small batches in the small room. The Prophet passed away on Monday and was buried the next day, on Tuesday.

 

(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.246-247)

 

 

 

Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Battah in al-Ibaanah al-Kubra by him and others. End quote from Minhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (1/26-27). 

 

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died on 12thRabee’ al-Awwal 11 AH, after the sun had passed its zenith, and he was buried on the Tuesday night, after all the people of Madeenah had offered the funeral prayer for him, as Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: Some people came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left; then others came in and said takbeer and offered the (funeral) prayer and said du’aa’, then they left, until all the people had come in. Narrated by al-Tirmidhi in al-Shamaa’il (p. 338) 

 

__________________

 

 

so notice that none of the narrations in suni sources mention that they prayed. they just mention that supposedly they passed by and then left during the "preparations" of the burial. (because they were worried )

 

_________________

 

 

because we were afraid that if we left the people, they might give the Pledge of allegiance after us to one of their men, in which case we would have given them our consent for something against our real wish, or would have opposed them and caused great trouble.

(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817)

 

__________________

 

 

and it is very peculiar that such an important event is not documented in books like bukhari and muslim. (other than a quick kiss without greeting anybody in the room, supposedly)

 

anyway, 

eventually the truth will prevail in sha Allah

Edited by peace seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's say the Prophet did appoint a successor but the successor couldn't establish his position the way Prophet established his.

The same Arabs recognised the Prophet. It's very much unlikely that they would not recognise his alleged successor called Ali.

 

Now there are two possibilities:

 

1. The Arabs committed a sin (by majority) by not recognising Ali as the Prophet's successor with an exception of a couple of shias and their handful supporters.

2. The claim that Ali was the Prophet's successor is wrong for the following reasons:

 

(a) Those who allege the Arabs for rejecting Ali's successorship are not trustworthy; they are shias and their own collected reports.

(b) Ali did not fight wars for his successorship after the Prophet the way he fought for power after the first three caliphs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imam Ali didn't fight for power

 

 

( B) Ali did not fight wars for his successorship after the Prophet the way he fought for power after the first three caliphs.

 

Imam Ali never fought for power. He fought for Allah swt

 

truly Princes of Believers are slaves of Allah and do everything for Allah, while hypocrites do things for power and riches and bling bling

 

true believers don't care much about this life. they do everything in this life for the next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We follow Ali bin abi Talib (ra) and he never claimed to be the successor of the Prophet (saw). 

 

 

We read in Man La Yehdrhu al-Faqih, by Seduq, Volume 4 page 420:

عن محمد بن علي ماجيلويه رضي الله عنه عن أبيه عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد عن الهيثم بن عبد الله النهدي عن الحسين بن علوان عن عمرو بن ثابت عن سعد بن طريف، عن الأصبغ بن نباتة قال: قال أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) في بعض خطبه: ” أيها الناس اسمعوا قولي واعقلوه عنى فان الفراق قريب، أنا إمام البرية، ووصى خير الخليقة، وزوج سيدة نساء الأمة، وأبو العترة الطاهرة والأئمة الهادية، أنا أخو رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) وصيه ووليه ووزيره وصاحبه وصفيه، وحبيبه وخليله، أنا أمير المؤمنين وقائد الغر المحجلين وسيد الوصيين، حربي حرب الله، وسلمى سلم الله، وطاعتي طاعة الله، وولايتي ولاية الله، وشيعتي أولياء الله، وأنصاري أنصار الله، والذي خلقني ولم أك شيئا لقد علم المستحفظون من أصحاب محمد (صلى الله عليه وآله) ان الناكثين والقاسطين والمارقين ملعونون على لسان النبي الأمي وقد خاب من افترى “

Asbagh bin Nabata said: ‘The commander of believers in one of his sermons said: ‘O people listen to my speech and understand it because death is near. I am the Imam of people, I am the Wasi of the best creature ever (prophet), I am the husband of the best woman of this nation, I am the father of the pure Itra and Imams of guidance, I am the brother of Allah’s Apostle, I am his Wasi and his Wali and his Wazir and his companion, and his friend and his dearest one and his Khalil. I am the commander of believers and the leader of honored ones and the master of guardians, my war is Allah’s war, my peace is Allah’s peace, obeying me is obeying Allah, my custody is Allah’s custody, my followers are friends of Allah, my followers are the followers of Allah…..”  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

te prophet took imam alis hand in ghadir, he said man konto moula fahaza alion moula, ammar ibn yaser says ooo ammar after me if the whole world went on a way and ali on another you go were ever ali goes, bc ali is hagh and hagh is with ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

O Messenger, Proclaim what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don't do it, you have not delivered His Message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people

(Qur'an: Chapter 5, Verse 67)

 

 

 

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

I have some questions regarding the context of this verse. If it was revealed to the prophet on behalf of Imam Ali's appointment as a leader in Ghadir, then why do the previous and proceeding verses talk about the Jews and Christians? Shouldn't those verses specifically talk about what took place in Ghadir khum instead?

 

Here are the verses which includes verse 5:67

 

And the Jews say, "The hand of Allah is chained." Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it. And they strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters.[5:64]

 

 

And if only the People of the Scripture had believed and feared Allah , We would have removed from them their misdeeds and admitted them to Gardens of Pleasure.[5:65]

 

And if only they upheld [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed [provision] from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate community, but many of them - evil is that which they do.[5:66]

 

O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.[5:67]

 

Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.[5:68]

 

Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammad] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.[5:69]

 

We had already taken the covenant of the Children of Israel and had sent to them messengers. Whenever there came to them a messenger with what their souls did not desire, a party [of messengers] they denied, and another party they killed.[5:70]

 

 

Hopefully someone can clarify this.

 

(wasalam)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

I have some questions regarding the context of this verse. If it was revealed to the prophet on behalf of Imam Ali's appointment as a leader in Ghadir, then why do the previous and proceeding verses talk about the Jews and Christians? Shouldn't those verses specifically talk about what took place in Ghadir khum instead?

 

Here are the verses which includes verse 5:67

 

 

 

Hopefully someone can clarify this.

 

(wasalam)

 

(bismillah)

 

The way that the quran is compiled is not in chronological order regarding in time. Meaning it isnt organized from the first verse revealed and the next and so on. The reason for this is simple. What is the quran? It is a book of moral guidance. Morality is not subject to time. Morality is fixed from the day of Adam to today. Also, what was the first verse revealed by Allah to the prophet? "Read.." Why read, because it is a form of knowledge and understanding. This shows the importance of our aql and how we should use it. Therefore Allah has not made religion like a cheat sheet where everything is simply put and given. It is part of our purpose in live, to seek the truth and strive. This is why you will see verses placed in random places, with no order, sometimes, just like "read.." is all the way near the end. Also, lets not forget, all though the quran is the book of Allah, we have the prophet as well, our sunnah. We put the two hand and hand to make the evidence stronger. So just because ghadir is randomly put, doesnt even affect the validity of the verse, and we have hadiths to back it up. This is one argument that makes sense, to me at least.

 

 

Oh Tabatabai explains the importance of the verses before and after it. Check this out first: http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/tafsir/5-67/

This article explains it another way, quite well actually, and you can check it out iA

http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa5381

 

Hope I helped inshAllah..

 

(wasalam)

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

I have some questions regarding the context of this verse. If it was revealed to the prophet on behalf of Imam Ali's appointment as a leader in Ghadir, then why do the previous and proceeding verses talk about the Jews and Christians? Shouldn't those verses specifically talk about what took place in Ghadir khum instead?

 

Here are the verses which includes verse 5:67

 

And the Jews say, "The hand of Allah is chained." Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both His hands are extended; He spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it. And they strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters.[5:64]

 

 

And if only the People of the Scripture had believed and feared Allah , We would have removed from them their misdeeds and admitted them to Gardens of Pleasure.[5:65]

 

And if only they upheld [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed [provision] from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate community, but many of them - evil is that which they do.[5:66]

 

O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.[5:67]

 

Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord." And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.[5:68]

 

Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammad] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.[5:69]

 

We had already taken the covenant of the Children of Israel and had sent to them messengers. Whenever there came to them a messenger with what their souls did not desire, a party [of messengers] they denied, and another party they killed.[5:70]

 

 

Hopefully someone can clarify this.

 

(wasalam)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Salam!

 

The sahih hadith interpreting the reveals to us that the specific verse was about Imam Ali (A) and Ghadeer Khum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Thanks for giving in your input, and my Allah(swt) reward you for your sincerity, but nevertheless, I am going to have to strongly disagree with the points you have stated and I will explain why. 

 

(bismillah)

 

The way that the quran is compiled is not in chronological order regarding in time. Meaning it isnt organized from the first verse revealed and the next and so on. The reason for this is simple. What is the quran? It is a book of moral guidance. Morality is not subject to time. Morality is fixed from the day of Adam to today. Also, what was the first verse revealed by Allah to the prophet? "Read.." Why read, because it is a form of knowledge and understanding. This shows the importance of our aql and how we should use it. Therefore Allah has not made religion like a cheat sheet where everything is simply put and given. It is part of our purpose in live, to seek the truth and strive. This is why you will see verses placed in random places, with no order, sometimes, just like "read.." is all the way near the end. Also, lets not forget, all though the quran is the book of Allah, we have the prophet as well, our sunnah. We put the two hand and hand to make the evidence stronger. So just because ghadir is randomly put, doesnt even affect the validity of the verse, and we have hadiths to back it up. This is one argument that makes sense, to me at least.

 

 

Oh Tabatabai explains the importance of the verses before and after it. Check this out first: http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/tafsir/5-67/

This article explains it another way, quite well actually, and you can check it out iA

http://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa5381

 

Hope I helped inshAllah..

 

(wasalam)

 

Yes the Quran we have today is not in chronological order in terms of the Suras being organized based on the time they were revealed. In other words, the first Surat in the Quran Surat Al-Fatiha, is not the first Surat that was revealed to the prophet, and Surat Al-Khlisas, being the last in the Quran, is not the last verse that was revealed to the prophet. However, the Ayas in each Surat are in the chronological order that the prophet organized them to be in. For you to state that they are not is in another way saying that some Ayas of the Quran are put in the wrong place between other Ayas that have no relation to it, which indirectly constitutes to Tahreef bil Tarteeb or Tampering of the verses of the Quran. 

 

You said:

 

 

Therefore Allah has not made religion like a cheat sheet where everything is simply put and given. It is part of our purpose in live, to seek the truth and strive. 

 

I strongly disagree with this statement as it clearly contradicts this noble verse. 

 

"And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember; then is there anyone that will receive admonition?" [Noble Quran 54:17]

 

With that being said, I find it illogical of how the Quran can be easily understood if some of the verses are misplaced or not where they should belong. Surely God does not want to confuse us. This leads me to be skeptical about the classical Shia scholarship that once believed that the Quran was tampered or some of the Suras like "Surat Al-Wilayat" had went missing due to the compilations of the "evil" Sahaba. This belief again contradicts the sayings of Allah(swt) where he clearly stated that he will protect the Quran from any tampering like what happened to the Bible and Torah. 

 

"We have without doubt, sent down the message and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption.)" [Noble Quran 15:9]

 

With that being said ,regarding verse 5:67, when reading the verses that are before it and after in chronological order, you can logically derive that the Aya is specifically warning the prophet about the Jews and the Nasarah. In fact, almost the entire chapter(Surat Al-Maidah) discusses the Jews and the Christians and how they disobeyed the commandments of Allah that were sent down to them in the past. Moreover,  In the beginning of the Surat, the laws of Allah(swt) and how important they should be followed are discussed. Then the Surat discusses the consequences of disobeying these laws and Allah(swt) uses the Christians and Jews as an example on how they disobeyed and addresses the prophet the he will protect him from them when he brings them a new message from Allah(swt) again in verse 5:67.

 

Nevertheless, assuming that the Aya(5:67) is not in it's correct place, then one must ponder on which other verses of the Quran it should have been with. In other words, if indeed it was on behalf of the appointment of Imam Ali(as) on Ghadir khum, then there must be other verses that it was originally placed with that discusses the event just as how Allah(swt) discussed the Jews and the Christians in Surat Al-Maidah. However, the reality is, there are no verses in the Noble Quran which specifically and literally discuss Ghadir Khum in which the Aya(5:67) , can be assumed to belong with, if it was misplaced. Unfortunately that's where the classical Shia scholarship went as far as saying that the Quran underwent  major Tahreef; where Suras and Ayas that discuss the Wilyah of Imam Ali and the later Imams have been removed.   

 

These are my thoughts for now.

 

And Allah(swt) knows best...

 

(wasalam)

Edited by PureTruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

(wasalam)

 

Brother, Allamah Tabatabai eloquently proves that the verse does not belong to the verses before and after it...

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother, Allamah Tabatabai eloquently proves that the verse does not belong to the verses before and after it...

 

Brother. I know what Tabatabai and the rest of the Shia scholarships say. All that I'm trying to say is that once you analyze things from a completely unbiased and objective standpoint, what they all say specifically in regards to the Quran is illogical. The Sunni position on this issue as far as I see it  now is quite stronger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother. I know what Tabatabai and the rest of the Shia scholarships say. All that I'm trying to say is that once you analyze things from a completely unbiased and objective standpoint, what they all say specifically in regards to the Quran is illogical. The Sunni position on this issue as far as I see it  now is quite stronger. 

 

Im sorry but so far what you have explained is just your opinion over God's, and it has no validity, in other words, it doesnt even weaken the verse . Since when did the quran become subjective? Since when did Allah's system become subjective? Since when did Allah teach us by time? it is utter nonsense. Your also literally disregarding even the basis of the Arabic language, because if you read Tabatabai's work on this verse, you would see the verses significance in its position. None the less, your subject to your opinion.

 

"

The meaning of the verse itself is clear. It contains an order in the form of threat to the Messenger (s.a.w.) to convey the message, and promises to protect him from the people. If we ponder on the verse looking at the position it has been placed in, and look at the verses preceding and following it, you will see them exposing the condition of the People of the Book and admonishing and condemning them for their various transgressions, their crossing the limit and indulging in things prohibited by Allah and their rejection of divine communications. For example, the preceding verse says: And if they had kept up the Tawrat and the Injil and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet;... ; and the following one says: Say: "0 People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon until you keep up the Tawrat and the Injil and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; "...

Then ponder on the verse itself and see how its clauses are inter linked together. Now, you will be astonished, (and realize that this verse is not connected with the preceding or following verses).

Had this verse been connected to the preceding and following verses which deal with the People of the Book, it would have meant that the Prophet (s.a.w.) was ordered in extremely harsh words to deliver what Allah had revealed regarding the People of the Book; and the context would show that: what has been revealed to you from your Lord refers to what he was told to convey in the immediately following verse: Say: "0 People of the Book! You have no ground to stand upon until you keep up the Tawrat and the Injil and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; "...

But the context of the verse itself rejects this interpretation. The clause: and Allah will protect you from the people, shows that the revealed order which the Prophet (s.a.w.) is urged to convey is a very important one; the delivery of which would put the life of the Prophet (s.a.w.) in peril or would cause the divine religion to fail in its aim. But the Jews or the Christians did not have such a power during the days of the Prophet (s.a.w.) as to put his life in danger to such an extent as to justify holding back or delaying its conveyance, until Allah gives him a promise to protect him from the people if he conveys the revealed order. Even in the early days of the Prophet's hijrah to Medina the People of the Book were not in a position to put his life in danger, although the Jews were fiercely opposed to him and their active opposition ultimately led to the battle of Khaybar, etc."

 

....and you can read more from my link above.

Edited by PureEthics

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...