Verse 4:59 - Ulil Amr.

[Just the truth 117]

Just the truth, you accuse me of being wrong then you accuse me off tehreef. You behave as though you have been given the seal of approval and a certificate to enter heaven. Take a look at yourself, i mean take a good look at your posts. You put forward your thought, opinion and point of view but as soon as we start discussing and challenging it, you're all over the place. You start hopping on to something else, to derail the subject and to divert attention, to save your skin.

"Ulul Amre" means "worthy of authority". "Ulul" means "worthy" and "Amre" means "authority". "fee shay inn" means "on anything within this".

What i say, i definately stand by but i also discuss and debate it, with a positive attitude and in a pleasant manner, based on reality and facts, with sense and logic. YOU DON'T!

AMEEN one does not need the "seal of approval" to show how far gone and lost you actually are.

You still havnt shown me where it says "worthy" in that verse.

Secondly fee shayin means IN ANYTHING

The words WORTHY and WITHIN THIS is nothing but tehreef from you.

I'm sorry but that's the truth.

AMEEN I'm sorry things have turned out like this for you but you only have yourself to blame.

As for me being all over the place then I'm sure the people reading this thread will see that it is YOU Who is all over the place and you are also confused and that is why you have turned to tehreef.

AMEEN I think it's time for you to admit that you have lost due to your tehreef.

[Doubtfire 0]

Dear Brother, 

 

Can you guys please stop hatred posts.

 

We both believe in Almighty, his power and ability.

 

And why dont we let him decide of what we do, rather taking judgement to our hand and abuse each other ?

 

Im sure The Almighty is most kind hearted and wont do any un-justice to anyone. 

 

Let us be human and respect each other and believe in Almighty Allah.

 

I am sure, he will reward us.

[Ameen 511]

You want me to admit that i've lost??? So who's the referee then and where are the judges??? This has turned into a win or lose situation for you??? Have you become that desparate that, you have turned a discussion in to a game??? Take a look at your posts. You're really in love with yourself, aren't you???

You have accused Ali Khaminei of calling himself Ulul Amre but you haven't proved your claim till yet. You want proof from me but you shy away yourself. You want answers from me but you're hesitant yourself. What kind of a man are you??? Do you have no shame??? Or may be you have nothing left with in you??? All you've done is become arrogant and ignorant and you've started to accuse and abuse. You've become sarcastic and you've started to get and take things personal. These are the signs of a LOOSER!

Anyways, i don't want to get personal and turn like you. I don't want to adapt your techniques and tactics because i understand your survival game. When you've got nothing left then, start getting personal and divert attention to survive.

"Wa ulul amre minkum" means "And obey those who are worthy of authority among you" not "And obey those who are in authority among you". I've given you two verses to prove my claim.

One verse is from Surah Al Ambia and the other verse is from Surah Al Qasas. In both verses Allah has started off the same, "Wa ja'alna hum a'aima than" meaning "And we have made them leaders". But Allah has given different reasons for these people being in authority. Read the next part of the verses yourself. According to your version, both are in authority.

[Ameen 511]

But you have to admit and you have no choice but to admit that, only one is worthy of authority, not both. Yes, both are in authority but only one is worthy of authority.

According to your version, "And obey those who are in authority among you", one has to obey both. It doesn't matter who comes in to authority, how, why and when, you must obey them because that is the direct order. And if there are any terms and conditions, when it comes to obedience then, you have constantly failed to mention them.

You claim "Wa Ulul Amre"minkum means "And obeythose who are in authority among you". If this was true then, the verse would have been, "Wa fil amre minkim" meaning "And obey those who are IN AUTHORITY among you". "fil amre" would mean "in authority".

You know that you don't have much up there, this is why you start taking things personally. You talk about Ahle Sunnah??? You can't even decide and unite on Yazeed. Some say he was a Kafir

Where as others disagree. Some believe Karbalaa was religious and others believe it was political. Some believe Yazeed was a lanthi but others believe he was (ra). Either Yazeed went against Quran and Sunnah or he didn't. Your belief and faith is that, if Ulul Amre goes against Quran and Sunnah then, one can and must stand and confront the Ulul

Amre.

Conclusion, why on earth would Allah command you to obey someone, who could either guide according to Allah's authority or who can invite you to the fire of hell??? Use some sense and logic man or borrow some.

Next part of the verse, "And if you disagree on anything". Basically, according to your version, one can disagree and differ with the Ulul Amre, when ever they like and over what ever they like. One hell of an Ulu you have there.

And if you disagree and differ with the Ul Amre, when ever and over what ever you like, basically you can disagree and differ on anything and everything then, what do you do??? Just simply cick the Ulul Amre on one side and refer the matter back towards Allah and his Messenger (pbuh) because the Ulul Amre has no authority what so ever??????????

[Just the truth 117]

AMEEN stop acting desperate and tell me exactly where it says WORTHY and IN THIS?? In verse 4:59.

The rest of your reply is as useful as a fart in a windstorm.

You come on here acting all clever when you can't even translate or understand basic Arabic.

You're stuck in a corner regarding fee shayin.

FOR THE SAKE OF THE VIEWERS AMEEN THINKS THAT FEE SHAYIN MEANS:

Fee shayin according to AMEEN:

in anything WITHIN THIS

fee shayin according to me:

IN ANYTHING

fee means IN and shayin means ANYTHING.

You demand answers while doing tehreef!! You're some piece of work I tell ya

Edited October 2, 2013 by Just the truth

[Ameen 511]

Stop being abusive and start putting something constructive forward. Start answering because Ahle Sunnah's reputation is on the line. Don't let them down.

So according to the understanding and explanation of the Ul Amre verse by brother just the truth, the Ulul Amre sounds more like some kind of clown or joker, rather than an Ulu Amre.

[Just the truth 117]

Stop being abusive and start putting something constructive forward. Start answering because Ahle Sunnah's reputation is on the line. Don't let them down.

So according to the understanding and explanation of the Ul Amre verse by brother just the truth, the Ulul Amre sounds more like some kind of clown or joker, rather than an Ulu Amre.

Firstly I'm not bring abusive it is YOU who is doing tehreef and not me.

It is YOU who is abusing the quran so a few sarcastic comments from me shouldn't hurt you.

You say the reputation of AHLE sunnah is on the line when you yourself has failed shia because of YOUR tehreef.

Why on earth do I think that the ulil amr is a clown??

Also could you tell me who you think the ulil amre are and why they are the ulil amre?? Then we will get back to FEE SHAYIN

[TheIslamHistory 9]

Dear Brother, 

 

Can you guys please stop hatred posts.

 

We both believe in Almighty, his power and ability.

 

And why dont we let him decide of what we do, rather taking judgement to our hand and abuse each other ?

 

Im sure The Almighty is most kind hearted and wont do any un-justice to anyone. 

 

Let us be human and respect each other and believe in Almighty Allah.

 

I am sure, he will reward us.

 

 

There is no Hatred brother, Yes there are some words here and there, but we are only having a Dialogue. Nothing more. At the end of the day, we are Brothers in Religion and brothers in Humanity. Alhamdoellah.

Thank you for your concern.

(wasalam)

[Aabiss_Shakari 1,403]

Firstly I'm not bring abusive it is YOU who is doing tehreef and not me.

It is YOU who is abusing the quran so a few sarcastic comments from me shouldn't hurt you.

You say the reputation of AHLE sunnah is on the line when you yourself has failed shia because of YOUR tehreef.

Why on earth do I think that the ulil amr is a clown??

Also could you tell me who you think the ulil amre are and why they are the ulil amre?? Then we will get back to FEE SHAYIN

 

Who are they according to you? Yazeed, Muawvia etc?

[TheIslamHistory 9]

(bismillah)

 

Statement:
Brother ISLAMIC HISTORY if you in some way think that by you going round in circles deliberately, I'm going to get fed up and stop replying THEN YOU CAN DREAM ON. I will keep replying to you till the end UNTIL YOU START GIVING ME PROPER ANSWERS. It's actually very sad that I've given you precise verses regarding other usul's and shown you how precise they are and yet you havnt compared them to verse ulil amr and proven to me that ulil amr verse is precise as the other verses on the other usul's IF this verse is talking about an usul (imamat).
 
First of All my dear brother you cannot compare and contrast verses to your limited knowledge as assume other verses to be not precise, when you very well know that they are talking about, yet you choose to manipulate its meaning by claiming its not specific. Sadly you are the one Who is ignoring and changing the Dialogue from one side to another, yet you have failed to prove to me the concept of Shura as we see that Imamah exists throughout the whole time. Rudly you say I give you no proper answers, really? For the past month I have given you Evidence from the two most Authentic books of Ahlul-Sunnah and the 4 Sahihs. So why do you intend to ignore it? Do you prefer to ignore than acknowledge? my dear brother you have not prove anything at all to me, but you are merely using weak excuses to deny my Evidence that I laid right infront of your very eyes. Second of all, even if you claim that a verse is not precise, that does not mean it does not have a meaning, that does not mean Allah sent it down for no reason. That does not mean it has no Significance, that does not mean it was not sent for no person. What kind of Excuses are you holding on to? And yet the irony is that you have not proven you point at all. Allah (S.w.t) has sent each verse for a Particular reason and persons, and it is not up to you to decide whether it is or is not precise. Verse 5:55 is very Precise, only a blind person would deny its truth. We find in verse 5:55 Wali Means master, as I have shown you before on the previous page the different translations of Ahlul-Sunnah and explained to you why Master is the right term. Did you reply? No. You only made a false claim that with that I said it is still unspecific. And I wonder how long are you going to to use that silly reason to ignore what I have put in front you. You constantly Attack me by saying I have given no Answers, and yet you have not even been able to prove to me your version of the Imam Mahdi and the false concept of Shura, very Sad indeed, that you do not say, "Yes you are correct?, but you Turn away when you cannot reply. If you look back at our Previous Dialogue "Appointing a Successor" you Will find, that you keep changing you Stance. At first you say this and then you say that, and both of your ideas at the same time contradict each other entirely. Tell me now, if a verse is not Precise, does that mean it has not purpose? does that mean we leave it and say it means nothing? do we judge it by our Limited understanding? Tell me When did the prophet peace be upon him say that Abu bakr is the khalifa after me? Why do we have so much narrations that Imam Ali (a.s) is the Khalifa? and not Abu bakr? Tell me who attended the Prophets Funeral? Where was Abu bakr then? Where was his Loyalty to the prophet? I doubt you can answer me, as you never have been able to. Please do not claim that I have not answered you, when you have not answered one single one my Questions, not have you ever been able to admit to the narrations I mentioned from your books. I would like you to at least Admit that I was right on how the concept of Shura is wrong. Once you told me that Shura was wrong but the decision was right. What kind of False logic is this? Where is your thinking taking you? So how can a wrong Decision have a right result? Since when Was Shura preformed to determine the Guide of Mankind? since when did mankind of the right to play with the affairs of Allah? Since when Did Abu bakr, Umar, Uthman Show any respect to the daughter of the prophet? Why must you ignore your own literature? I ask you for one Proper Reasonable Answer where evidence is found. Yet you have given me non. Do you know the meaning of a Dialogue? it is a Conversation between two people bases on Rules and Guidelines, that are accepted by both persons. You have to be able to quote fro my Literature and I have to be bale to quote from you literature, so we are able to reach a Conclusion. And Look at how many of your books I have quote from and yet you deny them Blindly. Let mes Explain to you first what is Obedience to the prophet peace be upon him. We read in Surah al Hadeed "Oh you who believe, fear Allah and believe in his Prophet". The words "oh you who believe" illustrate that Allah is addressing the Muslims and in particular addressing the Companions of the Prophet during the time of the verse's revelation. Allah's command to the Companions to "believe in the Prophet" suggests that even during the Prophet's (s) lifetime there existed those who believed in Allah but did not possess a correct belief in the Prophet (s), hence necessitating the revelation of such a verse. Thus, as Muslims we cannot truly believe in Allah until we believe in the Prophet (s). Consequently if we have doubts in what the Prophet says and commands, then naturally our belief in the Prophet is flawed. Amongst the Muslims a major difference of opinion is with regards to the exact nature of belief in the Prophet (s). One school asserts that obedience to the Prophet is unconditional in all circumstances, whereas the other attests that obedience is only obligatory when the Prophet (s) is speaking within his capacity as a Prophet (s). This is a major difference and in effect goes to the very heart of disunity; yet a Muslim does not have true faith until he has correct belief in the Prophet (s). For this reason is it is essential to clarify the truth of this matter.  In fact, there exist no verses in the Qur'an that prove the second thesis that obedience to the Prophet (s) is conditional and limited only to certain circumstances. On the contrary, the Qur'an makes clear that obedience to Allah (swt) can only occur if one obeys the Prophet (s) unconditionally - since the Qur'an deliberately excludes mention of any particular conditions in which obedience is not obligatory. Rather, the Qur'an commands us to obey the Prophet, and does not restrict our obedience to only a particular area. Allah (s.w.t) is the absolute Judge, but sent Muhammad (s) to act on His behalf, so that humankind would seek guidance through the Last Messenger.
 
Clear Unconditional Obedience:
 
Surah al Maidah verse 92 "Obey Allah and Obey his Prophet and worry, and be warned that the Prophet's duty is only to deliver the message clearly" Surah Mujadilah verses 12-13 "Perform Salat (Prayer), give Zakat and Obey Allah and his Prophet"

 

Both these noble verses clarify the matter unambiguously. Allah commands the Muslims in the Qur'an to obey Allah - unconditionally - and furthermore to obey the Prophet - once more, unconditionally.

 

Duty only to convey the message clearly

 

Surah Nur verse 54 "Obey Allah and his Prophet and if you dispute, then on him is what is imposed on him, and on you is what is imposed on you; and if you obey him you are guided aright; and there is no duty on the Prophet save the clear delivery". 

 

Once more, the Qur'an establishes firmly that the duty of the Muslim is simply to obey the Prophet - no limitations have been mentioned as to the extent of this obedience; hence the obedience must be unconditional and without limitation. This verse also makes it clear that if one obeys the Prophet in this way, only then will one be rightly guided, and that the Prophet's duty is only to convey the message.

 

 

Surah Aal-e-Imran verse 32 Say, "Obey Allah and the Prophet, but if they turn back, then verily Allah does not love the disbeliveers"

 

 

Never dismiss the words of the Prophet (s)

 

Surah Anfal verse 20: “O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak).

Don't dispute in the presence of the Prophet (s)

 

Surah Anfal verse 46 "And obey Allah and His Messenger and do not quarrel…." All these verses prove that obedience to the Prophet (s) is utterly unconditional and on par with obedience to Allah (s.w.t); as far as the Qur'an is concerned there is no difference between the two. So much is the unconditional nature of this obedience stressed in the Qur'an, that Surah Aal-e-Imran clarifies that it is forbidden to turn back and ignore the Prophet's command: "if they turn back, then verily Allah does not love the disbelievers." Similarly, the Muslims are commanded never to turn away if they hear the Prophet speak - once more, this command is unconditional: “..and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)”. Finally the third verse under discussion commands the Muslims not to quarrel, and in context, not to quarrel over the Prophet's command: "And obey Allah and His Messenger and do not quarrel…." After Tawheed, is belief in Prophethood; a Muslim will never be capable of obeying Allah (s.wt.) until he obeys his Prophet (s). One who openly disobeys the Prophet (s), turns away from him despite hearing him, turns back from him, and quarrels before him over his command, is therefore committing haraam.

 

Obedience to the Prophet (s) means obedience to Allah (s.w.t)

 

Surah Nisa verse 80 "He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds)."

 

Again and again, Allah is stressing that obedience to the Prophet in all matters is identical to obedience to Allah. Evidently, if the Prophet (s) had two aspects to his life one in which he could make mistakes with regard to which the Muslims would not be compelled to follow him, then Allah (s.w.t) would have clearly clarified this matter in the Qur'an. However, instead, Allah states that obedience to the Prophet without any extra conditions is obedience to Allah. Allah would never have said the words in this verse if He had meant anything else.

 

No one can overrule anything that the Prophet (s) said

 

Surah AL-AHZAB, verse 36: “It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path”

 

Thus, whatever decision the Prophet makes, is from Allah and any attempt to change this by a Muslim shows that this person has gone astray from the Right Path.

 

It is Incumbent to get all disputes decided by the Prophet (s)

 

Surah Nisa verse 65 "But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction.” The words used here 'Thanaza" -dispute will have significance later

 

 

This goes even further than the previous verses by showing that a true believer must take the Prophet's judgement as the final word in every dispute or quarrel among the Muslims. Once more, the Qur'an has commanded us to take the Prophet's judgement as absolute and final in all disputes and disagreements; and those who do not do so have not believed. The same command of Allah is repeated in another verse: 

 

Surah Nisa verse 59 "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination."

 

 

Thus, those who believe in Allah and the Last Day will turn to Allah's Prophet if they dispute on anything. In context with the previous verse it is clear that the Qur'an makes no distinction between the Prophet's judgement and Allah's commands. Consequently, those who refuse to turn to the Prophet in all matters of dispute are verily those who have not truly believed in Allah and the Last Day.

 

Every decision of the Prophet (s) is binding upon us

 

Surah Hashr verse 7 "And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal." The Qur'an establishes finally the obligation of unconditional obedience to the Prophet: whatsoever the Prophet commands us and gives us, we must accept it and obey; whatsoever he commands us to abstain from, we must again obey.

 

Summary of the verses

 

In summary, these verses establish beyond doubt the following obligations with regard to the Prophet (s):

 

• Absolute obedience to the Prophet

• Obedience to Allah and the Prophet are one and the same

• Obedience is not limited and is unconditional

• Whatever the Prophet decides must be adhered to in all spheres

 

Now my brother  with these verses in mind let us turn to the famous sermon delivered by the Prophet (s) during the Hajj at Mount Arafat: "I am leaving you two weighty things, if you follow them you will never go astray, they are the Qur'an and my Ahlul'bayt". (1,2) The words here "Lum ta'zilo bah'dee" is an absolute guarantee that if one follows these two things, one will never go astray. The sermon was announced to the Companions, thus proving that even they were liable of going astray if they turned away from these two sources, since the Prophet was informing the Companions - and all Muslims who hear the message - that if they leave these two sources, they will go astray. For those Muslims who insist that sometimes the Prophet (s) would be speaking outside the capacity of his position of a Prophet (s) we should ask what about these words, were they words said in the capacity of an ordinary man or in the capacity of the Prophet (s)? Recalling the verses of obedience discussed above, it is clear that this very concept is in contradiction to the unambiguous verses of the Qur'an. Furthermore, the Prophet's own words here establish that he is clearly speaking in the capacity of a Prophet. This is clear from the words: "if you follow them you will never go astray", which demonstrate that the Prophet was speaking with regards to matters of religious guidance, protecting the people from going astray, and therefore delivering the message of Islam and the method of traversing the Straight Path of Islam. Consequently it is anyhow clear that obedience to this Prophetic command is absolutely obligatory.

 

1. Sahih Muslim, part 7, Kitab fada'il al-Sahabah [Maktabat wa Matba`at Muhammad `Ali Subayh wa Awladuhu: Cairo] pp. 122-123

 

2. (al-'Imam al-Hafiz Abu `Abd Allah al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, al-Mustadrak `ala al-Sahihayn [Dar al-Ma`rifah li al-Tiba`ah wa al-Nashr: Beirut), vol. iii, pp. 109-110).

 

Bearing all this in mind - particularly the verses of obedience - let us now turn to the tragic event that has divided Muslim thinking on the position of the Prophet (s) ever since it happened. This event is known as the "tragedy of Thursday" according to the description of Ibn Abbas, when the Prophet requested writing materials near the end of his life to give his last instructions to the Muslim Ummah, but was prevented from doing so by a group among the Companions.

 

 

The traditions (s) relating to the pen and paper episode

 

The Prophet (s) wanted to compose a will

 

We learn from the traditions that towards the end of his noble life, the Prophet's (s) condition was deteriorating. The majority opinion holds that the Prophet (s) left no will before his death, and made no attempt to do so. However, according to the Qur'an it is absolutely obligatory on all Muslims to leave a will. Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book:

 

"It is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind any goods that he makes a bequest for Parents and (the nearest kinsmen) in goodness, this is a duty upon the pious" (The Qur'an 2:180)). 

 

We may thus ask the question: Would the Prophet of Allah (s) of all Muslims - the one whose Sunnah we are obliged to follow - disregard an order stipulated in the Holy Qur'an?

 

 

The Holy Prophet (s) requests that writing materials be brought to him

 

This is what we read in Sahih al-Bukhari as narrated by Ibn 'Abbas: When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Prophet said: "Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray." 'Umar said: "The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Qur'an, so Allah's Book is sufficient for us." The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, "Come near so that Allah's Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray," while the others said what 'Umar said. When they made much noise and quarreled greatly in front of the Prophet, he said to them, "Go away and leave me." Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah's Apostle from writing a statement for them. 

 

Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume9 hadith number 468 and Volume 7 hadith 573

 

 

The instruction is refused

 

This is a highly significant event that occurred towards the end of the Prophet's life. The Prophet (s) wanted to write a document, which was so momentous that people would never go astray. Clearly, the Prophet's explicit words "you will never go astray", illustrate the critical nature of the Prophet's command and prove that what the Prophet intended to write related to the matter of delivering the message and religious guidance of the people. It is only logical to accept that at this critical stage when the Prophet (s) was near to the time when he would depart from this world, he took the opportunity to write his will as per the command of Allah in the Qur'an in which he could issue final instructions to the Muslim Ummah. However, one group led by Hadhrath Umar felt that this momentous order of the Prophet should be disregarded, while the other group stated that the Prophet's (s) order should be obeyed. We read a further account in Sahih al Bukhari as narrated by Sa'id Ibn Jubair, who heard Ibn 'Abbas say: 

 

"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 talking no sense (delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense). The Prophet replied, 'Leave me, for I am in a better state than what you are asking me.' 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 third order was something beneficial which either Ibn 'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot!.

 

-Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume9 hadith number 468 and Volume 4 hadith 393

 

 

Now my dear brother please tell me Does such behaviour constitute obedience?

 

Allamah Shahrastani seeks to try to defend the event as follows:

 

"As for the differences that arose among the Companions at the time of the Prophet's sickness and after his death, these are said to have been differences of personal judgement, ikhtilafat ijtihadhiya, and their aim was simply to maintain the rites of Shari'a and to establish religious practices". Al Mihal al Nahal, by Allamah Muhuummud b. Add'al Karim Shahrastani page17 - 18 English translation

 

 

To refute this, we should point out that ijtihad in Islaam can ONLY be exercised by a mujtahid when NO solution exits from the Qur'an and Sunnah. When the Qur'an states explicitly that obedience to the Prophet (s) is unconditional, what right did Hadhrath Umar have to act in this manner? Moreover how can the rites of Shari'a be upheld by disobeying the orders of the Law Giver? Does that make sense? The Qur'an states categorically it is incumbent to obey whatever the Prophet (s) says; it is tantamount to obeying Allah (s.w.t).

 

 

 

Interestingly the Wahaby scholar Abu Muntasir ibn Mohar Ali in his discussion of bidah makes this interesting comment:

,

,

There are many things in Islaam which we have been forbidden to do which if committed can wipe out many or all of our good deeds, and one of them is doing acts in disobedience to Allaah and His Messenger (s)...Which individual in the sanity of his mind will throw away what he has been acquiring by doing such deeds as cancels his good actions?...Allaah informs:>>O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and do not make your deeds baatil (null and void). (soorah Muhammad 47:33)" Understanding the evil of innovations: Bidah, by Abu Muntasir Mohar Ali page 9 

 

Whilst Ali's onslaught is on the practices of modern day Muslims, one should note that he concludes that indulging in an act of disobedience to the Prophet (s) is so serious that the wrongdoer risks losing all his good deeds. Is this same rule not just as applicable to those who were alive during the time the Prophet (s)? Clearly it must be more so, because whilst one can enter into debates over present day acts that constitute disobedience, acts of open disobedience in front of the Prophet (s) are just that disobedience. No matter how much advocates will state that the intention was good refusing to comply with an order is an act of disobedience.

 

 

There is a bizarre commentary in the footnote of above traditions in Sahih Muslim (1980 Edition Arabic version). It says: "The above incident shows the high virtue of Umar, since he knew that people might not follow what the Prophet would write, and as a result, people would go to hell because of their disobedience of the order of Prophet. So Umar prevented Prophet from writing, in order to save people from going to hell!".

 

We must remind ourselves of a simple fact in assessing the validity of this interpretation. The Last Messenger of Allah was no doubt Muhammad (s), and no one else. Thus, the issue of religious guidance and its methodology is known most by the Prophet himself and no one else; no Companion reaches the status of the Last Prophet whose commands are obligatory to follow and who of all people has the best knowledge of how to guide the people. That is why we are dependent on the Prophet for guidance, and that is why Allah commands us to obey the Prophet in all matters, and to take whatever the Prophet gives us; for if we disobey the Prophet we disobey Allah, and deprive ourselves of guidance. For this reason, anyone who disobeys the Prophet's explicit religious command has clearly violated the clear command of the Qur'an to obey the Prophet unconditionally and without question.

 

In this light, the absurdity of the commentator's interpretation is obvious: Hadhrath Umar, hearing the explicit command of the Prophet to give him some material to write something related to matters of religious guidance, openly disobeyed the Prophet's clear order and additionally told the other people in the room to also disobey the Prophet in this crucial matter. Those who followed Hadhrath Umar's command were thus also disobeying the Prophet, and thereby disobeying Allah [s.w.t]. Yet according to the commentator, this act of complete disobedience by Hadhrath Umar, which was followed by many other Companions, was supposed to save them from damnation. Why? According to the commentator, because Hadhrath Umar thought that the people would disobey the Prophet's instructions if they were written down, he intervened to stop the Prophet from writing down these crucial orders which would prevent the entire Ummah from going astray.

 

 

The fact is, however, that Hadhrath Umar's very act which was supposed to prevent the people from disobeying the Prophet's written instructions, itself constituted a refusal to obey the Prophet's verbal instructions despite Allah's command to obey the Prophet (s) unconditionally, to take what he gives, and to obey him when one hears him. Consequently, Hadhrath Umar's intervention was already an act of disobedience in which he encouraged everyone to similarly disobey the Prophet (s) despite Allah's command. By thus disobeying the Prophet (s) was he not already exposing himself and everyone else to the risk of Allah's anger? We must thus ask ourselves the question, for the sake of clarity, and remembering the fallibility of the Companions: Is this the type of obedience to the Prophet (s) that the Qur'an outlines? The Prophet asks to write final instructions before his death, and evidently these instructions were to be his last will and testament, to prevent the Muslim Ummah from going astray. He commands in the capacity of the Seal of the Prophets and Allah's Messenger: 'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you after which you will never go astray.' What is our obligation as Muslims here at this crucial time in particular? No doubt, to hear and obey, for as the Qur'an says in Surah al Maidah verse 92 "Obey Allah and Obey his Prophet and worry, and be warned that the Prophet's duty is only to deliver the message clearly";

 

 

 

-Surah Anfal verse 20: O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)."

 

-Surah Anfal verse 46 "And obey Allah and His Messenger and do not quarrel…."

 

 

-Surah Hashr verse 7: "And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it)….".

 

But what is the reaction of the Companions to the Prophet's apparent attempt to write his will, and to guide the Ummah? Bukhari reports from Ibn Abbas: '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 talking no sense (delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense). Indeed, not only did they disobey the Prophet and quarrel with each other in front of him in contradiction to the clear command of Allah to obey the Prophet and not to turn away from him, they even spoke down to the Seal of Prophets: "What is wrong with him?" Consider how the group completely disregarded the Prophet's very simple and clear command. What exactly confused the Companions so much that it caused them to begin quarrelling with one another and speak in a derogatory manner about the Noble Messenger of Allah, when he only said to them: "Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray"? Is it not obvious that the Prophet was acting upon the command of Allah to write a will? And that is not all; this group of Companions went so far in disobeying the Prophet that they accused him of delirium: 'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is talking no sense (delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense).

 

 

 

This is the Prophet of Allah of whom the Qur'an states: Surah AL-AHZAB, verse 36: “It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.”

 

 

 

The verses are quite explicit:

 

1. No one is permitted to change a decision made by the Prophet (S)

2. He (s) is the referral point in all disputes

 

Interestingly in his commentary of the above verse (35:36) the famous Ahlul Sunnah scholar, Shah Ismail Shaheed states: "…when any dispute arises, regarding religious matters or worldly affairs or concerning rites, rituals and customs…each having his own claim of right and wrong-one should accept the judgement of the Holy Prophet (Peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) whether it is to one's likeness or not. It is only then the claim of being a believer may be accepted as true. And one who does not consider the Holy Prophet (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) as the real Judge and arbiter and differs from his judgement and evades his rulings, he is bound to go astray and lose his faith. Such a person is a transgressor and an unbeliever. He calls himself to be a Muslim only in name; he is in no way liable to be included among the believers of the Messenger of Islam and his Ummah" Taqwiyat ul Iman by Shah Ismail Shaheed, English translation by Idara-e-Islamiat,  page 103 

 

Why such insolence to such a simple and important request? What was so extraordinary about the Prophet's (s) command, which would merit such a response? The Noble Messenger of Allah (s) only commanded his Companions to bring him writing materials, so that he could write down final instructions to clarify for them the way to remain on the Right Path - he did not ask for a mountain to be brought to him. And since this was the time when the Prophet's death was nearing, it was no doubt a most appropriate point at which to write a will in accordance with the command of Allah in the Qur'an; thus there was absolutely nothing peculiar about the Prophet's request, rather anyone would have expected the Prophet to write his last will and instructions for the Muslim Ummah at such a time. Yet amazingly this group of Companions led by Hadhrath Umar violated their obligation to obey the Prophet's religious command. Moreover, they even began to quarrel and dispute with one another in the midst of the Holy Prophet (s), speaking over his voice, an act which leads to all one's good deeds being revoked, because Allah (swt) say in his Glorious Book: 

 

Oh you who believe, don't raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet, don't speak loud unto him, as you speak among yourselves otherwise all your good deeds will be null and void" (Surah Hujuraat Verse 2)

 

Not only did this group fail to receive that precious will, which was a guarantee that they wouldn’t go astray, for themselves, but they deprived the entire Muslim Ummah to follow till the day of judgement, of it.

 

 

The Holy Prophet (s) was accused of speaking deliriously?

 

The Prophet was clearly not asking something out of the ordinary - just a pen and paper. Yet we read that some of the companions intervened and said the Prophet was talking no sense! The phrase 'no sense' is in itself extremely insulting, particularly since it was directed to someone as great as the Prophet (s) the greatest man of all time. Unfortunately, the English translators have in fact tried to tone down the actual language used by the Companions. The words they used in response to the Prophet's order were 'this man is speaking yahjur'; the word actually means 'incoherent speech - nonsense'. In that there is no doubt, Yahjur comes from the root word "hajara". According to Hans Wehr's "

 

A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic edited by J. Milton Cowan" Hans Wehr's "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic"6 edited by J. Milton Cowan 3rd edition - Publishers Ithaca, New York" - page 1019

 

 

Hajara means "To emigrate; to give up; to abandon; TO TALK NONSENSE"

 

 

In addition to the general definitions of emigrate the Arabic dictionary "Al Munjhadh" also defines hajara as: "incoherent speech, nonsense" "Al Munjhadh" published by Dar al Ishat - page 1409 In other words, the Companions actually accused the Messenger of Allah of being in a state of delirium. In the English translation of Tabari, the translator has remained faithful to the Arabic text. He narrates from Ibn Abbas:

,

"The Messenger of God said bring me a tablet (lawh) and an inkpot (dawat), so that I can write for you a document, after which you will not go astray". 

 

Some people said that the Messenger of God was talking deliriously". The History of Tabari, Volume 9 translated by Ismail. page 175

 

 

Brother Was the Holy Prophet (s) delirious as was alleged?

 

If we consult the Longman Pitman Office Dictionary AZ office Guide delirious/delirium is defined in the following way:

 

"Confusion, frenzy, disordered speech, hallucinations etc occurring as a (temporary) mental disturbance". The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary (second edition) defines delirious as being: "Affected with delirium, temporarily or apparently mad". Is there any evidence that the Prophet (s) was inhibiting such symptoms? There is no evidence to support such a contention. On the contrary, that the Prophet (s) issued his command in relation to the issue of religious guidance proves unequivocally that he was speaking in his capacity as a Prophet of Allah - accordingly disobedience to this order was disobedience to Allah and the order was based on Divine Wisdom. Yet faced with a situation where the conduct of some of the Companions is called into question, the preferred approach has been to question the Prophet (s)'s sanity! S. Moinul Haq is a case in point. In his translation of Tabaqat by Ibn Sa'd after several narration's, of the calamity of Thursday we find these comments in the footnotes:

 

"This Hadith has given rise to controversy, particularly with reference to Umar's action and stopping the people from bringing anything for the writing of a document or mandate by the Prophet, may Allah bless him, immediately before his death. The Shia hold the view that the Prophet may Allah bless him, wanted to dictate a will in favor of the succession of Ali while most of the other scholars think that Umar was right because the Prophet, may Allah bless him, was having delirious fits on account of his severe illness, it appears that there was considerable strength in view taken by Umar, who rightly pointed out that the Din (message of Allah) had been completed and this was confirmed by the Qur'anic revelation". 

 

Kitab Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, Volume 2, page 305 English translation by S. Moinul Haque, Kitab Bhavan Publishers, 

 

 

We find it extremely difficult to even entertain the thought that the Prophet (s) was having fits of delirium. We have already proven through verses of the Qur'an that obedience to Rasulullah (s) is unconditional and is on par with obeying Allah (swt). This clearly would not be the case if Rasulullah (s) were capable of erring in issuing orders and making judgements. In addition to this let us not forget the clear guarantee by Allah (swt) in Surah Najm verses 1-4: "By the Star when it sets, Your comrade does not err nor is deceived; He does not speak out of his own desire. He speaks nothing bur revelation" 

 

 

The verse testifies to Rasulullah's infallibility. He was protected from misguidance. it states clearly that he speaks nothing but revelation; anything he says is inspired from Allah (swt). The moment we suggest otherwise namely that Rasulullah (s) can make mistakes and obedience to him is conditional since like any other human he is subject to weaknesses such as incoherency due to sickness, then all the words / orders of Rasulullah (s) can be thrown in to doubt, when can we be sure which of his words were inspired by Allah (swt)? 

 

Even if we agree with this for the sake of argument, then the logical implication is that any action/word of the Prophet (s) could have been construed as delirium and disobeyed, this explanation does not accord with the actual facts. For example, if the Prophet was delirious and thus his commands were nonsensical, why is it that when the Prophet (s) ordered the companions to leave the room when they disobeyed his request for writing materials, the Companions chose very strangely not to question the wisdom of the Prophet's (s) next request, and obediently complied with it? It is indeed extremely odd that a group among the Companions led by Hadhrath Umar accused the Prophet of delirium and speaking no sense when he requested writing materials to record his last will and instructions; but immediately after when the same Prophet angrily orders them to leave the room, they treat the order as a sensible command issued by someone who is not delirious at all! Thus, instead of remaining in the room and claiming that the Prophet is delirious, they obediently leave. After all, if they sincerely believed that the Prophet (s) was not in his senses, they would have similarly refused this command and pointed out that they shall not leave the Prophet since he is delirious and talking nonsense; but the fact is they were quite happy to follow the second order of the same person who was supposed to be out of his senses! Do our readers not find this somewhat odd? When people are seriously ill with a fever for example, they will often speak unclear, because they have become overcome with pain - but one does not have to be a Medical Doctor to conclude that there is a difference between words said in fever and words said normally. If for example you have a loved one who is seriously ill, he has a fever, but he asks for a glass of water, you will immediately understand that he is not speaking deliriously and that he wants water; accordingly you should comply with his order. If on the other hand he asks for a car to be brought to him, you will immediately know that the order is something out of the ordinary and is being made by someone who is speaking incoherently due to the fact the fever has affected his mind, and you will not comply with his request. Now coming back to this tragic event we ask: 

 

'Was the order to provide the Prophet with writing materials to write his last will and instructions for the Muslim Ummah so incomprehensibly extraordinary and delivered with such incoherence, that a group of Companions were justified in refusing that order and accusing the Prophet (s) of talking no sense, nay, of being delirious?'

 

Can the objective mind honestly defend the actions of the Companions on this occasion? If they were so convinced that the Prophet (s) was delirious then why did they not allow the Prophet (s) to at least write the document? Having done so and looked at its contents could they not then have assessed whether/or not the contents were those of a rational man? Furthermore, is it not strange that the other group of people in the room insisted that they should all comply with the Prophet's command, thus illustrating that in fact the Last Messenger was speaking quite coherently, and that he was indeed in his senses? Let us remind ourselves that this was, in fact, a most appropriate time for the Prophet (s) - who was nearing the end of his noble life - to request writing materials to issue last instructions in the form of a will. May we remind the reader of the following injunction of the Qur'an:

 

"It is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind any goods that he makes a bequest for Parents and (the nearest kinsmen) in goodness, this is a duty upon the pious" (The Qur'an 2:180)).

 

Would the Last Messenger of Allah himself (s) ignore or violate a clear injunction of the Qur'an? Why was a group among the Companions so intent on preventing the Prophet from writing his will? Why were they so eager to stop him from putting down in writing last instructions to the Muslim Ummah to finally clarify for them a matter that would prevent them from going astray? Is it not amazing that such an important request of the Prophet was refused him?

 

 

 

So now brother tell me how can a Khalifa become a Khalifa when he disobeyed the prophet peace be upon him before he passed away? tell me? how? Give one reasonable Answer if you can.

Statement:
I've shown you where it says follow sunnah. What is wrong with you?? I don't understand why you're so against following sunnah, just to prove something on verse 13:7. Tell me one thing if you can refer to your imams through their teachings then why not same for prophet (S)?  Anyway here's the part below where it says refer to sunnah: Now do you understand. The orders of the prophet (s) are his SUNNAH/HADITH.  Now tell me if ali a.s was the guide and not the prophet (s) then why did imam ali a.s tell Malik al ashtar r.a to refer to the sayings of the prophet (s).

 

Brother you misunderstood what I am trying to say, My point is not whether the word Sunnah is there or not. I very well know what Imam Ali (a.s) meant. My question is, is obeying Ali (a.s) not part of the Sunnah or not? is obeying Ahlulbayt peace be upon them not compulsory or not? The prophet peace be upon him Clearly said, "If you hold on to them they will never go astray", Does that mean anything to you? do you not understand they are being equaled to the Book of Allah? Tell me is Abu bakr, umar, uthman, Are worthy of such a position? if not, then why aren't Ahlulbayt peace be upon them the Khalifas to you? No doubt the Sunnah is obeying the prophet Peace be upon him, but Umar disobeyed the prophet peace be upon him before he past away. That is a fact you cannot ignore. He went against The Sunnah. I know that we must Follow the Hadith, but you have not followed the ones I gave you from your own books, so Aren't you going against The Sunnah by ignoring What I have laying infront of you? brother think Logically you have not proven anything so far, I find nothing Comprehensive in your replies at the moment as I encountered them in the previous Dialogue "Appointing a Successor".    




Statement: 

1.prove it 2. SO WHAT 3. How?? 4. So what 5. If they're authentic then they're authentic if they're not then they're not. Have you ever read merits of ali a.s in our books?? Or do you turn a blind eye to this.

 

 

First of All the Hadiths I gave you are Authentic, and you have not being able to reject a single one. Your Only excuses so far is Denial and that it does not make sense to you, or the Typical Excuses its not in the Quran. Not very surprising of you. I have been mentioned the Merits of Imam Ali (a.s) through this entire time, but you constantly said: I do not accept it, because the foundation of is not in the Quran, Which I proved you wrong in Previous posts. 

 

Concerning the two Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim ( the points I put forward )

 

These two collections are of such paramount importance to the ahl al-sunna wa'l-Jama'a that they have become, for Muslims in general, the two principal references and primary sources in every religious research work. It has become difficult for some to report the absurd [traditions], contradictions and objectionable [things] they discover, so they accept them reluctantly. They do not reveal them to their people, either out of fear of them or fear for them. In their souls is instilled respect and veneration of these two books, when, in fact, al-Bukhari and Muslim never dreamt even for a day that they would get the veneration from the scholars or the general public.

If we begin to criticize and relate some refutations against them, this is only done so as to exonerate our Prophet (S.A.W.) and to remove any scar on his infallibility. If some companions are not spared from this criticism and refutation and become targets of it, then surely al-Bukhari and Muslim are not better than those who were close to the bearer of the message.

 

 

I recall having to endure stern objections so much so that I was accused of disbelief and having gone out of religion when I criticized al-Bukhari for his narration of the hadith of Moses slapping the angel of death and gouging out his eyes. It was said to me: "Who are you to criticize al-Bukhari?" There arose around me so much noise and commotion as if I had criticized a verse from Allah's book.

 

 

In reality, if a researcher were to free himself from the yoke of blind imitation and abject fanaticism, he would find in al-Bukhari and Muslim strange and astonishing things which reflect absolutely the outlook of the Bedouin Arab whose thinking is still stagnant, believing in some tales and legends. His thinking leans towards everything that is strange. This itself is not a fault, and we do not accuse him of mental deficiency for his early era was not the time of electronic technology, nor of television, the telephone or rocket.

 

 

However, we also do not desire that this be associated with the bearer of the message (S.A.W.), for in this there is a huge and vast difference. He is the one whom Allah sent amongst the illiterate to recite to them His verses, to purify and to teach them the book and wisdom since he is the seal of the Prophets and Apostles, Allah bestowed him with the knowledge that came before and that which was to come.

 

 

We have to draw to the respected reader's attention that not everything in al-Bukhari is attributed to the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) Al-Bukhari has related hadith of the Prophet (S.A.W.), then attached the views of some companions. The reader assumes that the view or tradition is from the Prophet when, in fact, it is not his. Let me cite an example:

 

 

In "The book of Stratagems", in "The Chapter on Marriage", volume 8, page 62, al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih: "From Abu Hurayra that the Prophet (S.A.W.) said: 'The virgin is not to be married off until her permission is sought, and the non-virgin until she has been consulted'. It was said: 'O Prophet of Allah, how do we know of her permission?' He replied: 'If she stays silent'. Some of the people said: 'If the virgin's permission has not been sought, and she is not married, and a man her deceives by producing two false witnesses [to testify] that he has married her with her consent, and the Qadi rules on the validity of the marriage, then, although the man knows that the testimony is false, there is no harm if he consummates it for it is now a valid marriage'".

 

Examine the narration of al-Bukhari (after the hadith of the Prophet (S.A.W.)) "and some people said". Why [do we need] the speech of some people (and they are unknown) that marriage by false testimony is legal? The reader assumes that is the view of the Prophet, which is not true.

 

 

Another example, in "The Book of The Beginning of Creation", in "The Chapter on the Merits of the Muhajirun and their superiority" volume 4, p. 203 al-Bukhari reports in his Sahih from 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar ® who said: "During the time of the Prophet (S.A.W.), we never took anyone to be equal to Abu Bakr, then after him 'Umar, then 'Uthman and after that we left the companions of the Prophet without according anyone superiority over the others". That is the view of 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar and no one is responsible for it except himself. Otherwise, how could 'Ali b. Abi Talib, who was the best of men after the Prophet of Allah, not be accorded any preference and 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar regarded him as the same as the other men? As a result, you find that 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar refused to give the pledge to the Commander of the Faithful and their master; one who did not take 'Ali as his master, is not a believer.

 

 

'Ali is the one of whom the Prophet said: "'Ali is with the truth and the truth is with 'Ali". Instead, we find him (Ibn 'Umar) pledging allegiance to the enemy of Allah, His Prophet and the believers, al-Hajjaj b. Yusuf, the corrupt and immoral one. We do not wish to return to such topics, but we desire to make it clear to the reader the character of al-Bukhari and those of his type. He reports this hadith in the chapter on the merits of the Muhajirun, as if he is covertly implying to the readers that this is the Prophet's (S.A.W.) view, whereas it is the view of 'Abd Allah b. 'Umar who declared Imam 'Ali to be an enemy.

 

 

We will prove to the discerning reader the position of al-Bukhari on everything concerning 'Ali b. Abi Talib and how he tried his utmost to hide his merits and disseminate any faults attributed to him.

 

 

Al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih in "The Book of the Beginning of Creation" in "The Chapter of al-Humaydi informed us": "Muhammad b. Kathir informed us that Sufyan informed him that Jami' b. Abi Rashid informed him that Abu Ya'la was informed by Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya, who said: 'I said to my father: 'Who is the best of men after the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.)?' He said: 'Abu Bakr'. I said: 'Then who?' He said: 'Then 'Umar'. I was afraid now that he would say 'Uthman so I said: 'Then you'. He said: 'I am nothing but a man amongst the Muslims'".

 

They attributed this hadith to Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya, the son of Imam 'Ali b. Abi Talib. It is similar to that reported previously from Ibn 'Umar. The conclusion in the end is one; Ibn al-Hanafiyya feared that his father would say 'Uthman is the third [best person] but instead his father said: "I am nothing but a man from amongst the Muslims"; this means then that 'Uthman is better than him for there is none amongst the ahl al-sunna who says that 'Uthman is simply a man amongst the Muslims. Instead they say, as noted, that the best of men is Abu Bakr, then 'Umar, then 'Uthman and then we leave the rest of the companions of the Prophet (P) without giving preference to any of them, and all men after them are equal.

 

Are you not surprised at these traditions which al-Bukhari narrates? All lead to one goal, i.e., the denial of any merit to 'Ali b. Abi Talib. Is it not to be understood from this that al-Bukhari used to write everything which pleased the Banu Umayyads and the Banu 'Abbas and all the rulers who undertook to denigrate the ahl al-bayt? These are cogent arguments for whoever wishes to find the truth.

 

Al-Bukhari and Muslim relate anything which lauds Abu Bakr and 'Umar?

 

In volume four, page 149, al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih in "The Book of The Beginning of Creation" and in "The Chapter [entitled] 'Al-Yaman informed us'" which Muslim also reported in his Sahih, in "The Book on the Merits of the Companions" in "The Chapter On the Merits of Abu Bakr, the Truthful ®": from Abu Hurayra, who said: "The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) prayed the morning prayer then faced the people and said: 'Once a man was leading a cow, rode on it and beat it whereupon it said: 'We were not created for this. We were created for tilling [the land]'. The people said: 'Glory be to Allah! A cow speaking?' He said: 'I believe in this, Abu Bakr and 'Umar also do'. They were not present. 'And once there was a man amongst his flocks, a wolf raided them and took a sheep. So the man pursued him until he came close to rescuing it. The wolf said: 'You are rescuing it from me and who will rescue it on the day of hunting when there will be no shepherd for it, but me?' The people said: 'Glory be to Allah, a wolf speaking?' He said: 'I believe in this, Abu Bakr and 'Umar also do'. The two were not present".

 

This hadith is manifestly difficult [to accept], it is amongst the forged traditions on the merits of the two Caliphs. If not, how come the people belied it even though they were the companions of the Prophet of Allah (P)? What he told them he had to say twice: "I believe in this, Abu Bakr and 'Umar and I do". Then observe how the reporter reaffirms the absence of Abu Bakr and 'Umar on both occasions. These "merits" are laughable and have no meaning. But the people are like those engrossed by hashish. The forgers, when they cannot find an event or important occurrence to mention the two, create images of such merits. Most of these are dreams, imaginations or interpretations. They are not based on historical, logical or scientific proofs.

 

 

Al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih in "The Book of The Merits of the Companions of the Prophet (S.A.W.)", in "The Chapter on the Saying of the Prophet 'Were I to take a sincere friend....'" as did Muslim in his Sahih in "The Book of The Merits of the Companions", in "The Chapter on the Merits of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq ®" the following hadith: "From 'Amr b. al-'As that the Prophet sent him to the army of al-Salasil. So I ('Amr) came to him and said: 'Who is the most beloved of people to you?' He said: ''A'isha'. I said: 'Amongst the men?' He said: 'Her father'. I said: 'Then who?' he said: ''Umar b. al-Khattab, for he is a man'".

 

 

This hadith was fabricated by forgers who realized that history has recorded that in the year 8 A.H. (i.e., two years before the death of the Prophet (S.A.W.)), the Prophet sent an army in which were Abu Bakr and 'Umar under the command of 'Amr b. al-'As to the battle of al-Salasil. To deny the claim of anyone who might advocate the superiority of 'Amr b. al-'As over Abu Bakr and 'Umar, you see them fabricating this hadith and attributing this to 'Amr himself to affirm the superiority of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. They also involved 'A'isha to dispel any doubts on the one hand, and so that they could ascribe to her absolute superiority on the other.

 

 

As a result, you find that Imam al-Nawawi, in his explanation of Sahih Muslim, saying: "This is a clear statement regarding the overwhelming excellences of Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'A'isha ®. In it is clear proof for the ahl al-sunna on the superiority of Abu Bakr, then 'Umar over all the companions".

 

This is like the rest of the absurd traditions which the swindlers did not hesitate to fabricate even attributing them to 'Ali b. Abi Talib himself; thereby negating, in their view, the argument of the Shi'as who claim the superiority of 'Ali b. Abi Talib over all the companions on the one hand, and to delude the Muslims into thinking that 'Ali was not oppressed and that he did not complain to Abu Bakr and 'Umar, on the other.

 

 

Al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih in "The Book of The Merits of the companions of the Prophet (P)" in "The Chapter on The Virtues of 'Umar b. al-Khattab Abu Hafsa", Muslim also narrated it in "The Book of The Merits of the Companions", in "The Chapter on the Merits of 'Umar" ® thus: from 'Ali, from Ibn 'Abbas who said: "The body of 'Umar was put on his deathbed, the people gathered around him and invoked (Allah) and prayed for him before the body was taken away, and I was amongst them. Suddenly I felt somebody taking hold of my shoulder, it was 'Ali. He invoked Allah's mercy for 'Umar and said: 'You have not left behind you a person whose deeds I like to imitate and meet Allah with more than I like your deeds. By Allah! I always thought that Allah would keep you with your two companions, for very often I used to hear the Prophet saying: 'I, Abu Bakr and 'Umar went [somewhere] I, Abu Bakr and 'Umar entered [somewhere], and I, Abu Bakr and 'Umar went out'".

 

 

This is a clear fabrication which smells of politics which played a role in distancing Fatima al-Zahra and causing her not to be buried near her father even though she was the first to join him. The narrator omitted to add here after his statement: "I went, Abu Bakr, 'Umar and I" and "I entered, Abu Bakr, 'Umar and I" and "I emerged, Abu Bakr, 'Umar and I" and I will be buried, I , Abu Bakr, 'Umar". Don't those, who argue by such spurious traditions which are refuted by history and reality, not hesitate [to fabricate]? The books of the Muslims are replete with oppression against 'Ali and Fatima al-Zahra due to what Abu Bakr and 'Umar did during their lifetime. Then reflect on the narration; you will observe the narrator presenting 'Ali as if he is a stranger coming to observe the funeral of a stranger and finds the people crowding around him and supplicating and praying for him. Whereupon he takes the shoulder of Ibn 'Abbas as if he wishes to whisper in his ear those words and then wishes to go away. It would be assumed that 'Ali would be in the forefront leading the people in prayers and not leaving 'Umar until he was placed in the ground. The people during the Umayyad dynasty used to vie with one another in fabricating hadith as ordered by "the Commander of the Faithful" Mu'awiya who wanted to elevate the status of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, in contrast to the merits of 'Ali b. Abi Talib. The hadiths of the excellences are ridiculously laughable and contradictory in some cases, depending on the wishes of the narrator. Among these were al-Taymi who would never prefer anyone over Abu Bakr and amongst them was al-'Adwi who never preferred anyone over 'Umar. The Umayyads were fascinated by the personality of Ibn al-Khattab, for he was bold infront of the Prophet and employed harsh words without exercising caution against anything and feared nothing. They often praised him and fabricated traditions which made him superior to Abu Bakr.

Here, O reader, are some examples:

 

Muslim in his Sahih, in "The Book of the Merits of the Companions", in "The Chapter on the Merits of 'Umar" ®, as well as al-Bukhari in his Sahih, in "The Book of Faith", in "The Chapter of the Superiority of the Believers in the Performance of Deeds", from Abu Said al-Khudri: "The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) said: 'When I was sleeping I saw some people presented to me, they wore shirts, some of which reached up to the breast, some were shorter than that. And then 'Umar b. al-Khattab was presented to me and he was wearing a shirt which was dragging [behind]'. They said: 'How do you interpret that O Messenger of Allah?' He said: 'Religion'".

 

If the interpretation of the Prophet (S.A.W.) for this dream was religion, then 'Umar b. al-Khattab is better than everyone because, their religion hardly reached their breasts and didn't go past their hearts. 'Umar, however, was filled with religion from his head to the bottom of his feet and more than that for he was dragging it behind him as a shirt is dragged. Where is Abu Bakr, the Truthful one, whose faith is better than that of the entireumma?

 

Likewise, al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih, in "The Book of Knowledge" in "The Chapter on the Superiority of Knowledge" while Muslim narrated it in "The Book of Merits of the Companions", in "The Chapter on the Merits of 'Umar":

 

From Ibn 'Umar, who said: "I heard the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) say: 'While I was sleeping, I was given a jug of milk from which I drank until I observed its wetness coming through my nails. I gave the remainder to 'Umar b. al-Khattab'. The people said: 'How did you interpret that O Prophet of Allah?' He said: 'Knowledge'".

 

I say, are those who know equal to those who do not know? If Ibn al-Khattab was superior to the entire umma or all the people in religion and among them was Abu Bakr; then this narration manifestly shows his elevation over them in knowledge too, for he was the most knowledgeable of men after the Prophet (P). There remains here another virtue, which people compete with each other to acquire. It is amongst those praiseworthy traits that Allah and his Prophet love and all mankind love and strive for it, i.e., bravery. It was necessary for the narrators to invent hadiths in favour of Abu Hafs - and they most surely did it!

 

Al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih, in "The Book of the Merits of the Companions of the Prophet" in "The Chapter on The Prophet's (P) saying 'If I were to take a sincere friend'", and Muslim reported in his Sahih, in "The Book of The Merits of the Companions", in "The Chapter on the Merits of 'Umar": From Abu Hurayra who said: "I heard the Prophet (S.A.W.) saying: 'While I was sleeping, I saw myself at a well, on it there was a bucket. I drew water from it as much as Allah wished. Then Ibn Abi Quhafa (Abu Bakr) took the bucket from me and brought out one or two buckets (of water) and there was weakness in his drawing it. May Allah forgive him for his weakness. Then the bucket turned into a very big one and Ibn Al-Khattab took it over and I had never seen such a mighty person amongst the people as 'Umar in drawing water till the people drank to their satisfaction and watered their camels that knelt down there'".

 

If religion is the centre of faith and Islam, piety and closeness to Allah, Glory be to Him, then 'Umar seized it until he dragged it behind him. The people did not receive their share except what reached their breasts, whilst the rest of their bodies were naked. Knowledge was restricted to 'Umar b. al-Khattab, he didn't leave anything for the rest of the people due to the grace of the Prophet (S.A.W.) since he drank all that he (the Prophet) gave him. He didn't think of his friend Abu Bakr al-Siddiq - (no doubt, it is the knowledge which 'Umar used in changing the rulings of Allah after the Prophet (P) died. His ijtihad was by the grace of that knowledge).

 

 

Strength and courage were also the traits of Ibn al-Khattab after the weakness which overcame his companion, Abu Bakr and this is correct, for did Abu Bakr not say to 'Umar once: "I told you that you are stronger in this matter than I am, but you overruled me". May Allah forgive Abu Bakr for his weakness and his preceding him to the Caliphate. The supporters of 'Umar from the Banu 'Adi and the Banu Umayya did not see any hope or benefits, or spoils of war, or conquests as they saw during his time.

 

All of these were the virtues of 'Umar in this world. Obviously, it was necessary for them to guarantee him [a place in] heaven in the hereafter also, with a higher and superior status than his companion Abu Bakr and they did that [also].

 

In "The Book on the Beginning of Creation", in "The Chapter on the Description of Heaven and that it was Created", al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih a [hadith] which Muslim [also] related in his collection in "The Book on the Virtues of the Companions", in "The Chapter on the Virtues of 'Umar": "On the authority of Abu Hurayra ®, who said: 'We were with the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) when he said: 'While I was sleeping, I saw myself in paradise, and there was a lady performing the ablutions next to a castle. I asked: 'To whom does this castle belong?' They said: 'To 'Umar b. al-Khattab'. I then recalled his jealousy so I quickly retreated'. 'Umar wept and said: 'Would I be jealous against you O Prophet of Allah?'"

 

 

Dear brother, I think you will notice the [peculiar] systematic arrangement of these false traditions. I have underlined in each one of them a single expression [that is] common to all the narrations pertaining to the merits of 'Umar b. al-Khattab, i.e., the saying of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) (Allah forbid of course) "While I was sleeping". You will always find it in every report. "While I was sleeping, I saw people appearing before me; While I was sleeping I was given a cup of milk...; While I was sleeping I saw myself at a well...; While I was sleeping I saw myself in paradise..". Perhaps the reporter of the hadith used to have many dreams or was in a confused state of mind, interpreting and inventing hadiths and attributing them to the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.). How many lies were attributed to him while he was in their midst? So how about after his death, when the umma had deviated, fought each other and had become sects and factions, each party happy with what it had?

 

 

There remains one thing, however, which the historians as well as those companions who were 'Umar's supporters have recorded, i.e., the character which distinguished 'Umar - his harshness, crudeness and severity over the people as well as his violent nature. The people do not love one whose nature is such. Allah says:

 

"Were you to be harsh and hard of heart, the people would certainly go away from you" (3:159).

 

 

Those who were fascinated by 'Umar turned the tables over and made his shortcomings and vices into virtues and merits. They resorted to the invention of hadith by extremely foolish, stupid and insane means [to tarnish] the nobility of the Prophet - whereas Allah, Glory be to Him, has born testimony that he was neither rude nor harsh. Rather, he was of an affable nature. "Due to Allah's mercy, you are lenient with them, and indeed, you are of the most exalted character, kind and merciful with the believers and a mercy to all the universe". Let us listen to these fools [to see] what they say regarding him.

 

In "The Book of the Beginning of Creation" in "The Chapter on the Description of Satan and his forces", al-Bukhari reported a hadith in his Sahih that was [also] narrated by Muslim in "The Book on the Merits of the Companions", in "The Chapter on the Merits of 'Umar", from Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas, who said: "'Umar sought permission to visit the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) while the latter was talking to some Qurayshi women. They were crowding him and raising their voices. When 'Umar sought permission, they stood up hastening to put on their veils. The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) gave him permission [to enter], and began to laugh. 'Umar said: "Did Allah cause you to laugh so much, O Prophet of Allah?" He replied: 'I was surprised at these [women] who were with me. When they heard your voice, they grabbed their veils'. 'Umar said: 'But it is more proper they fear you, O Prophet of Allah'. Then he said: 'O enemies of yourselves. Do you fear me and not the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.)?' They replied: 'Yes, you are harsher and more severe than the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.)'. The Prophet of Allah said: 'By He in whose hand is my soul! Satan will never meet you travelling on a road except that he will seek a path [different] from yours'".

 

 

Grave indeed are the words that come out of their mouths, they utter nothing but lies. Look at the repulsive [nature of the] narration, and how the women were afraid of 'Umar and not afraid of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.). They raised their voices above the Prophet's (P), did not respect him, nor wear their veils properly in his presence. At the mere sound of 'Umar's voice, they kept quite and hastened to put on their veils. I am surprised, by Allah, at these fools who are not satisfied by all these [traditions], but now clearly state that he was of harsh and stern nature. As 'Umar was harsher and sterner than the Apostle of Allah (P) these [become] meritorious attributes. If they are virtues belonging to the Prophet then 'Umar is superior to him. If they are blemishes, how can the Muslims, with al-Bukhari and Muslim at the helm, accept these traditions?

 

 

They were not satisfied by all this; they made Satan play and rejoice in the presence of the Prophet (P), not fearing him. No doubt it was Satan who incited the women so that they raised their voices and abandoned their veils. Satan, however, fled and sought another path by the mere entry of 'Umar in the house of the Prophet.

 

Do you see, O concerned Muslim, how they value the Prophet (S.A.W.)? How they say whatever they are aware or unaware of, that 'Umar is better than him? This is exactly what is happening today. When they speak of the Prophet of Allah, they enumerate his alleged mistakes and justify [them] by stating that he was mortal, not infallible, and that 'Umar often corrected his mistakes. They [also allege] that the Qur'an was revealed to support 'Umar on several occasions. They cite as proof Sura 'Abasa, the pollination of the date palms, and [the incident of] the prisoners of war at Badr and other instances. However, if you tell them that 'Umar erred in denying the share of those whose hearts were to be placated, or in forbidding the two mut'as, or in giving preference in the allocation of prescribed shares, you'll see them becoming furious and their eyes turning red. They will accuse you of going out of [the fold of] religion. It will be said to you: "Who are you, O so and so, that you can criticise our master 'Umar, the differentiator, one who differentiates between truth and falsehood?" You will have no choice but to submit, you cannot attempt to speak with them again otherwise you will come to harm.

 

 

 

Al-Bukhari forges hadith to preserve the honour of 'Umar b. al-Khattab?

 

 

If a researcher studies the traditions of al-Bukhari, he will not understand many of them. Some appear defective or broken; he relates the same hadith with the same chains of narrators, but on every occasion, he cites different phrases in different chapters. All of this was due to his intense love for 'Umar b. al-Khattab. Perhaps this is what attracted the ahl al-sunna to him and made them prefer it above all other books, even though Muslim is more accurate and his work is arranged according to chapters. Due to this and because he diminishes [the importance of] the virtues of 'Ali b. Abu Talib, al-Bukhari's work is deemed by them to be the most authentic book after the book of God. Al-Bukhari worked with a bias, that of disrupting a hadith and abridging it if it disparages the personality of 'Umar. He used the same method with the traditions which mention the merits of 'Ali b. Abi Talib. We will produce some examples of these presently, God willing.

 

 

Some examples of the interpolation of traditions containing realities which expose 'Umar b. al-Khattab

 

 

In "The Book of Menstruation", in "The Chapter on Tayammum", Muslim, in his Sahih, reported: "A man came to 'Umar and said: 'I have become ritually impure and cannot find water'. 'Umar said: 'Do not pray'. Whereupon 'Ammar said: 'Do you not recall, O Commander of the Faithful, that you and I were on a campaign and we both became ritually impure and couldn't find water. As for you, you did not pray. But I rolled [myself] in the dust and then prayed. The Prophet (S.A.W.) then said: 'It would have sufficed for you to have struck the ground with your hands and then blown upon them, then wiped your face and hands with them'. 'Umar responded: 'Fear Allah, O 'Ammar'. He said: 'If you so desire, I shall not mention [this hadith]'". This narration has been related by Abu Dawud in his Sunan, Ahmad b. Hanbal in his Musnad, al-Nas'ai in his Sunan, and al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Maja too.

 

 

Al-Bukhari betrayed the trust given [in the] transmission of hadith. To protect the stature of 'Umar, he distorted the hadith for it did not please him [to see] that the people should know about the ignorance of the Caliph in basic Islamic laws. Here is the report as it is transmitted in al-Bukhari. In the book "Of Tayammum", in the chapter on "One who does Tayammum, can he blow [on his hands]" al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih: "A man came to 'Umar b. al-Khattab and said: 'I am ritually impure (junub) and I have not found any water'. 'Ammar b. Yasir said to 'Umar b. al-Khattab: 'Do you not recall that we were on a journey, you and I.....'".

 

 

The text, as you will have observed, has been edited by al-Bukhari. 'Umar said: "Do not pray" has been omitted for this is embarrassing. No doubt, al-Bukhari edited and expurgated it so that the people may not know the rulings of 'Umar which he formulated during the life of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) and that his judgements opposed the text of the Qur'an and sunna. [He also did not want the people to know] that 'Umar maintained this opinion even after he became the Commander of the Faithful. He began to spread his view amongst the Muslims. Ibn Hajar said: "This is a famous opinion of 'Umar". The proof that he used to strongly advocate his view is 'Ammar's address to him: "If you so desire, I shall not mention [this hadith]". So read and wonder!

 

 

2. Al-Hakim al-Nisapuri, in his al-Mustadrak, in volume 2, p. 514, reported [the hadith] which al-Dhahabi authenticated in his Talkhis: "From Anas b. Malik who said: ''Umar b. al-Khattab recited on the pulpit Allah's words: 'And we grow grain and grapes and herbs and the olives and date palms and dense gardens and fruits and herbage'. He said: 'We know all of this, but what is herbage (al-ab)?' Then he said: 'This, by Allah, is a problem, there is no blame upon you if you don't know what is "herbage". Follow what His guidance has made clear for you in His book and act upon it. As for that which you do not know, eat it in [the name] of your Lord'".

This narration has been transmitted by most of the commentators in their books and commentaries on the Sura "'abasa". Among them are al-Suyuti in al-Dar al-Manthur, and al-Zamakhshari in al-Kashshaf, and Ibn Kathir in his commentary, also al-Razi in his tafsir and al-Khazan in his commentary.

 

 

However, al-Bukhari, as is his normal practice, deleted the hadith and never mentioned it so that the people would not realize the ignorance of the Caliph regarding the meaning of "al-ab". Instead, he related the hadith as follows:

 

Al-Bukhari in his Sahih, narrated in "The Book of Holding Fast to the Qur'an and the Sunna" in "The Chapter on what is Detested in [asking] many Questions, and overburdening [oneself] with what does not concern him, and Allah the most Exalted's words: 'Do not ask about things which, if they are made known to you, would trouble you'". [On the authority of] Anas b. Malik: "We were with 'Umar and he said: 'We were forbidden from overburdening [ourselves]'". So this is how al-Bukhari deals with every hadith in which he smells [any trace of] denigration of 'Umar. How can a reader understand from this curtailed hadith the truth about things, for it conceals 'Umar's ignorance of the meaning of al-ab as it simply states that 'Umar said: "We have been forbidden to overburden [ourselves]?"

3. Ibn Maja, in his Sunan, volume 2, p. 227, al-Hakim in volume 2, p. 59 of his Mustadrak, Abu Dawud in volume 2, p. 402 of his Sunan, al-Bayhaqi in volume 6, p. 64 of his Sunan, Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari, and other reporters relate from Ibn 'Abbas, that he said: "A mad woman who had committed adultery was brought to 'Umar. He sought counsel from the people regarding her, and then ordered that she be stoned. 'Ali b. Abu Talib passed by her and asked: 'What is the matter with her?' The people said: 'She is a mad woman of such and such a tribe and has committed adultery, and 'Umar has ordered that she be stoned'. He said: 'Take her back'; then he went to him and said: 'Do you not know that the pen has been lifted from the mad person until he is sane, from the one asleep until he awakes, and from the child until he attains puberty?'

 

'Umar freed her and said: 'Had it not been for 'Ali, Umar would have perished'". (Ibn al-Jawzi in his al-Tadhkira, p.75). But al-Bukhari was confused by this narration. How could he inform the people of 'Umar's ignorance regarding the penalties legislated in Allah's book, and which the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had explained? How could one assume the position of the head of the Caliphate if his condition was such? Furthermore, how could al-Bukhari narrate this narration, when it contains the merits of 'Ali b. Abu Talib who had resorted to teaching them what they did not know? Moreover, [how could he mention] 'Umar's admission "Had it not been for 'Ali, 'Umar would perished". Let us see how al-Bukhari distorted and tampered with the hadith.

 

Al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih, in "The Book of the Disbelievers and Apostates Against whom War is Waged", in "The Chapter on the Lunatic (male and female) are not to be Stoned", al-Bukhari reported without mentioning any chain of transmitters: "'Ali said to 'Umar: 'Do you not know that the pen is raised from the mad person until he attains sanity, from the child until he attains maturity, and from the one sleeping until he wakes up?'"

 

 

Here is a living example of al-Bukhari's treatment of hadith, and how he abridges a hadith if it disgraces 'Umar. He also tampers with the tradition if there is a merit or virtue of Imam 'Ali [mentioned] which he cannot reject.

 

 

4. In "The Book of Penalties", in "The Chapter on the Penalty of one who consumes Intoxicants", Muslim reported in his Sahih on the authority of Anas b. Malik who reported that a man who had drunk alcohol was brought to the Prophet (S.A.W.). He ordered that he be whipped 40 lashes with two palm leaves. He (Anas) said: "Abu Bakr did likewise. When 'Umar was Caliph he sought the advise of the people and 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Awf said: 'The most lenient punishment is 80 strokes', so 'Umar ordered this".

Al-Bukhari, as is his usual practise, did not wish to reveal 'Umar's ignorance of rulings on penalties and how he sought the people's advice on a well-known penalty, which the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had acted upon, and which Abu Bakr after him had also practised.

 

 

Al-Bukhari, in his Sahih, in "The Book of Penalties", in "The Chapter on what was Related regarding the Whipping of one who Consumes Intoxicants" reported on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Prophet (S.A.W.) ordered a penalty for [consuming] intoxicants, the whipping by date palm leaves, or shoes and Abu Bakr whipped 40 lashes.

 

 

 

5. The hadith scholars and historians have recorded the sickness and death of the Prophet (S.A.W.), and how he asked to write for them a letter so that they would never go astray after him; this [episode] has been called the calamity of Thursday, 'Umar b. al-Khattab opposed it saying that the Prophet of Allah was hallucinating (God forbid).

 

 

Al-Bukhari, in his Sahih, in "The Book of Jihad", in "The Chapter on is Mediation to be sought from the Ahl al-Dhimma (the people of the book under Muslim protection) and how to deal with Them" in "The Book of Bequests" in "The Chapter on Exemption from he who does not have anything to Bequeath from". It is reported from Ibn 'Abbas that he said: "Thursday! What a Thursday"! Then he wept until the pebbles were wet with his tears. He said: "On Thursday, the Prophet's pain became more severe. He said: 'Bring a letter, so that I may write for you an epistle [due to which] you will never go astray'. They argued amongst themselves, it was not fitting that they argue in the Prophet's presence. They said: 'The Prophet of Allah is hallucinating'. He said: 'Leave me alone. [The situation] I am in is better than what you invite me to'. He bequeathed three [things] on his death: (1) Remove the polytheists from the Arab peninsula (2) To permit the delegations what I used to permit (3) I forgot the third".

 

 

Yes! This is the calamity of Thursday wherein 'Umar played a heroic role, he opposed the Prophet (S.A.W.), prevented him from writing, using those vile words which contradict the book of Allah, i.e., when he said the Prophet was hallucinating. Al-Bukhari and Muslim transmitted it here with the proper words which 'Umar uttered, and did not change it as long as the name of 'Umar was not mentioned. The attribution of this vile saying to an unknown person did not harm [him].

 

 

However, when the name of 'Umar came up in the narration which mentions that he is the one who uttered [the words], it became difficult for al-Bukhari and Muslim to leave it as it was; for it disparages the Caliph and showed his real naked truth, uncovering the scope of his boldness with the position of the Prophet of Allah (P) and that he used to oppose him during his life in most matters. Muslim and al-Bukhari and those like them, knew that these words alone were enough to influence the feelings of every Muslim - even the ahl al-sunna - against the Caliph, so they resorted to tampering with it. For this is their well known occupation in such matters. They therefore changed the word "hallucinate" to "overcome with pain" [so as] to do away with the evil expression. The following is what Muslim and al-Bukhari related regarding the same catastrophic incident:

 

"On the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who said: 'When death approached the Prophet of Allah, there were some men in [his] home, among them 'Umar b. al-Khattab. The Prophet said: 'Bring me paper so that I may write for you [so that] you will not go astray after it'. 'Umar said: 'The Prophet has been overcome by pain, you have the Qur'an, the book of Allah is sufficient for us'. The members of the household differed and argued. Among them were those who said: 'Bring it so that the Prophet may write for you a letter [due to which] you will never go astray'. There were those who said as 'Umar said. When the vain talk and differences intensified in the Prophet's presence, he said to them: 'Go away'! 'Abd Allah b. Mas'ud said: 'And Ibn 'Abbas used to say: 'Indeed the catastrophe of all catastrophes was what occurred between the Prophet of Allah's [wanting to] write for them that letter and their dissension and wrangling'".

 

 

Although Muslim took [the narration] from his teacher al-Bukhari, we say to al-Bukhari no matter how much you edited the words, and no matter how much you attempted to hide the facts, what you have reported is sufficient and a proof against you and your master 'Umar. Because the words "hallucinate" (and its meaning is delusion) or "overcome by pain" lead to the same conclusion; for he who researches carefully will observe that even today, people say "Poor fellow! He was overcome by fever until he became delirious".

Especially if we add his words "You have the Qur'an, and the book of God is sufficient for us"; this means that the period of [dependence on] the Prophet (P) had ended and his existence had become the same as his non-existence.

We dare any scholar who has conscience to study carefully this occurrence only without any precommitments or hindrances; you will find him becoming furious with the Caliph who prevented the community from [attaining] guidance, and was the immediate cause for its straying.

 

 

Why should we be afraid of speaking the truth as long as it is in the defence of the Prophet of Allah (P), and consequently the Qur'an and the complete Islamic view? Allah said: "Do not fear people but fear me! And do not trade my signs for a small price. Whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, these are the disbelievers" (5:44). Why then do some scholars, even in this age of knowledge and enlightenment, try to cover the truth by inventing far-fetched interpretations which are devoid of any credibility? This is what the scholar Muhammad Fu'ad 'Abd al-Baqi conjured up in his commentary of the book "Al lu'lu' wa'l-Marjan fi ma ittafaqa 'alayhi al-Shaykhan when he mentions the hadith of the calamity of Thursday.

 

 

He said, commenting on the incident: "Bring me a paper", i.e., bring me the instruments of writing such as a pen and ink pot, or he meant by paper what could be used for writing on, such as paper or shoulder blades (of animals). It appears the letter he wanted [to write] was for the designation of Abu Bakr for the Caliphate. However, when they disputed and his sickness increased, he changed his mind, relying instead upon having nominated him to lead the prayer. (Then he started to explain the meaning of hallucinate). He said: "Hallucinate: Ibn Battal says it means to be confused. Ibn al-Tin says it means being delirious. But this is not in keeping with his exalted status. Perhaps it means that the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W) is leaving you, from the word "al-hajar" which is the opposite of [the word] "connection" as had been divinely inspired to him. Therefore he said in "The Highest companion", Ibn al-Athir said: 'It (the statement) is in an interrogative mode and the alif denoting the question was omitted, therefore, [the sentence means] 'Has his talk become delirious because of his sickness?'"

 

 

This is the best that can be said about it. The term should not be taken in the form of a statement. [if it is then] it will become either corrupt or hallucination. The one who uttered [the words] was 'Umar, so it cannot be imagined [he meant that]".

 

 

 

We, in response, O great, noble scholar, say to you that conjecture cannot avail against the truth. It is sufficient for us that you admit that he who uttered this evil talk was 'Umar. Who informed you that the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) wanted to write about the Caliphate of Abu Bakr? Would 'Umar have gone against this? He was the one who constructed the pillars of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and had coerced the people into it harshly and violently, even to the point where he threatened to burn the house of al-Zahra. Is there anyone besides you, O great, noble scholar, who advocates this explanation?

 

 

What is known to both the past and contemporary scholars is that 'Ali b. Abi Talib was designated for the Caliphate by the Prophet (P) even if they did not accept the [clear] declaration for it. It is sufficient for you [to note] what al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih, in "The Book of Testament" in volume 3 p. 186. He said: "They mentioned to 'A'isha that 'Ali ® was the executor of the will. She said: 'When did he appoint him as his executor? I was supporting him on my chest, and he asked for a wash basin. I [made him] lean on my lap, I did not [even] realize that he had passed away, so when did he appoint him?'"

 

 

Al-Bukhari reported this hadith because in it is 'A'isha's denial of the successorship, and this pleases al-Bukhari. We say that those who mentioned to 'A'isha that the Prophet of Allah had appointed 'Ali were truthful, for 'A'isha did not refute them and did not herself deny the successorship but rather asked as one having no knowledge: "When was he appointed?" We respond by saying that he was designated in the presence of those noble companions and in her absence. There is no doubt that those companions told her when he was appointed, but the ruling authorities forbade the mention of such proofs, in the same way as they proscribed the mention of the third testament and forgot it. Politics undertook to suppress this truth even though 'Umar himself related how he prevented the Prophet of Allah (P) from writing his bequest because of his knowledge that it specifically concerned the Caliphate of 'Ali. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid reported the conversation that took place between 'Umar b. al-Khattab and 'Abd Allah b. 'Abbas in which 'Umar said while questioning Ibn 'Abbas: "Is there anything in 'Ali's soul for the Caliphate?" Ibn 'Abbas said: "Yes". 'Umar said: "The Prophet of Allah wanted, during his illness, to clearly mention his name, but I prevented him from that, out of love and care for Islam".

Why do you, O great scholar, run away from the reality? Instead of exposing the truth, after the period of oppression passed with the Banu Umayyads and Banu 'Abbasids, here you are adding to that oppression by covering and hiding, and preventing others from reaching and attaining the truth. If what you said was done with good intention, then I ask Allah, Glory be to Him, to guide you and to open your perception.

 

 

6. Al-Bukhari also did many things so as to change, tamper or mix up the Prophet's hadiths which he perceived had any [form of] disparagement or denigration of the statures of Abu Bakr and 'Umar in them. We see him in a famous historical incident wherein the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) uttered a hadith that did not please Imam al-Bukhari, so he completely obliterated it, for it elevated the position of 'Ali at Abu Bakr's expense.

 

 

The scholars of the sunna such as al-Tirmidhi in his Sahih, al-Hakim in his al-Mustadrak, Ahmad b. Hanbal in his Musnad, Imam al-Nas'ai in his al-Khasa'is, al-Tabari in his Tafsir, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in al-Dar al-Manthur, Ibn al-Athir in his History, and the author of Kanz al-'Ummal, and al-Zamakhshari in al-Kashshaf and numerous other scholars have reported in their Sahihs and Musnad works the following:

 

 

"The Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.) sent Abu Bakr ® and ordered him to proclaim these words (i.e.. Allah and His Prophet are exonerated....); then he sent 'Ali ® and ordered him instead to proclaim it. So 'Ali ®, on the days of tashriq (the 12th, 13th and 14th day of any month), stood up and proclaimed: 'Indeed Allah and his Messenger are exonerated of the polytheists. So go about in the land for four months, and after this year, no polytheist will be permitted to make the pilgrimage, or circumambulate the Ka'ba in a naked state'. Abu Bakr ® returned and said: 'O Prophet of Allah was there something revealed concerning me?' He said: 'No! But Gabriel came to me and said: 'None shall do this for you but yourself or a man [related] to you'".

 

 

Al-Bukhari, as is his usual custom, related the hadith in his well known abridged way. He reported in "The book of Tafsir of the Qur'an" in "The Chapter [entitled] 'So go about in the land for four months'": "Humayd b. 'Abd al-Rahman informed me that Abu Hurayra ® said: 'Abu Bakr sent me on that hajj with the proclaimers on the day of sacrifice to proclaim at Mina that after that year no polytheist could perform the pilgrimage nor circumambulate the Ka'ba whilst naked'. Humayd b. 'Abd al-Rahman said: 'Then the Prophet of Allah followed it up with 'Ali b. Abi Talib and ordered him to proclaim the verses of al-bara'a (exoneration)'. Abu Hurayra said: ''Ali proclaimed with us on the day of sacrifice for the people at Mina about al-bara'a, and that after that year, no polytheist would perform the hajj, nor circumambulate the Ka'ba while naked'".

 

 

See, my dear brother?, how the act of distortion of the hadith and events was perfected to suit the goals and factional desires? Is there any similarity between what al-Bukhari related on this issue and what the other hadith scholars and commentators from the ahl al-sunna reported on this matter?

 

 

Al-Bukhari makes Abu Bakr the one who sent Abu Hurayra and the proclaimers to announce at Mina that no polytheist could perform the hajj after that year nor could they circumambulate the Ka'ba in a naked state. Then comes the narration of Humayd b. 'Abd al-Rahman that the Prophet of Allah followed it up with 'Ali b. Abi Talib and ordered him to proclaim the verses of renunciation. Then comes the speech of Abu Hurayra once again, that 'Ali participated with them in the proclamation on the day of sacrifice that no polytheist could perform the hajj or circumambulate in a naked state henceforth.

 

 

 

In this way, al-Bukhari negated the excellences of 'Ali b. Abi Talib, in that he was the one whom the Prophet of Allah chose to proclaim the verses of al-bara'a after Gabriel had come to him and commanded him, on Allah's behalf, to remove Abu Bakr from this undertaking, saying to him: "None shall do this for you but yourself or a man from you". It was difficult for al-Bukhari [to relate] Abu Bakr's removal by a revelation from Allah and to prefer 'Ali b. Abi Talib over him. This is what al-Bukhari would never ever be pleased with, so he edited the hadith and distorted it as he did with other narrations.

 

 

How can the researcher not be aware of this distortion, this forgery, and this betrayal of academic trust especially when he reads that Abu Hurayra says: "Abu Bakr sent me for the hajj with the proclaimers whom he sent on the day of sacrifice"! Was Abu Bakr in charge of affairs, even in the time of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.)? How did the one who was sent became the sender, [he became] one who selects the proclaimers among the companions?

 

 

Pay careful attention to the style of al-Bukhari how he changed everything around so that 'Ali b. Abi Talib, who was sent by the Prophet (P) to undertake a task for which no one but he was qualified, became the participator along with Abu Hurayra and the rest of the proclaimers; without any mention of the removal of Abu Bakr, nor of his returning to the Prophet in tears (as is reported in some narrations), nor any mention of the Prophet's words: "Gabriel came to me and said: 'None shall do this for you except yourself or a man (related) to you'".

 

 

For this hadith is tantamount to a badge of honour that the Prophet (S.A.W.) accorded to his cousin and his successor 'Ali b. Abi Talib and to his community. Furthermore, it clearly states that this was in accordance with what Gabriel had brought, according to the Prophet's narration. After this, there is no scope for interpreters like al-Bukhari [to claim] that it was the personal opinion of Muhammad (P) who was like any other man, liable to commit error like others. It would have been better for al-Bukhari to discard and abandon this narration completely from his enumeration [of traditions] as he discarded other [hadiths].

 

 

 

You see him reporting in his Sahih, in "The Book of Treaty", in "The Chapter on how it is written that this is how so and so has reconciled - the saying of the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.) to 'Ali b. Abi Talib: 'You are from me, and I am from you'" during the argument of 'Ali, Ja'far and Zayd over the children of Hamza in which Ibn Maja, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nas'ai, Imam Ahmad and the author of Kanz al-'Ummal all reported that the Messenger of Allah said: "Ali is from me and I am from 'Ali, and none can deliver [it] on my behalf except myself and Ali". He said it at the farewell pilgrimage, but al-Bukhari refused to report it.

 

 

7. I add to that Imam Muslim reported in his Sahih, in "The Book of Faith", in "The Book of Proof that love of the Ansar and 'Ali is a sign of belief, and that Hatred of them is amongst the Signs of Hypocrisy". 'Ali said: "By he who split the grain and created the soul, it is according to the covenant of the illiterate Prophet (S.A.W.) to me, that none but a believer will love me, and none but a hypocrite shall hate me".

 

 

The hadith scholars, and authors of the Sunans have confirmed the saying of the Prophet (S.A.W.) to 'Ali: "None shall love you except a believer, and none shall hate you except a hypocrite". This has been reported by al-Tirmidhi in his Sahih, al-Nas'ai in his Sunan, the Musnad of Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Bayhaqi in his Sunan, al-Tabari in "al-Dhakha'ir al-Aqba", Ibn Hajar in "Lisan al-Mizan". Al-Bukhari however, in spite of having confirmed the authenticity of this hadith, which Muslim also reported, and [despite the fact that] all the transmitters in the chain were verified as reliable, did not relate the hadith because he reflected and realised that the Muslims would perceive the hypocrisy of many companions who were close to the Prophet (P).

 

 

Due to this sign, which was clarified by he who did not say anything from his own desires, rather, from the revelation sent unto him, the hadith shows the great superiority of 'Ali alone over the rest of mankind as, because of him, truth can be separated from falsehood, and faith distinguished from hypocrisy. For he is Allah's greatest sign and His greatest proof to this umma and he is a test through which Allah examines the umma of Muhammad (S.A.W.) after it's Prophet. Hypocrisy is of the inner secrets which no one knows except He who knows the deception of the eyes and what the hearts hide. None knows it except one who knows the unseen, for Allah, Glory be to Him, [out of His] grace and mercy to this umma, established signs for it [so that] those who are destroyed are destroyed after clear signs [come to them] and those who are saved are saved after clear signs [come to them].

 

 

I would like to point out an example of al-Bukhari's cunningness and shrewdness in this respect. I personally believe that the past [figures] amongst the ahl al-sunna preferred and promoted him for this specialty through which he is distinguished above others. He tried his best [to ensure] the hadiths did not contradict the madhab he chose and embraced.

 

 

He reported in his Sahih, in "The Book of Gifts, its Merits, and the encouragement to Give", in "The Chapter on the Gift of a Man to his Wife, and a Wife to her Husband": He said: "'Ubayd Allah b. 'Abd Allah informed me that 'A'isha ® said: 'When the Apostle of Allah became bedridden, and his illness increased, he sought the permission of his wives to be nursed in my home. They allowed it. He went out assisted by two men, with his feet dragging on the ground. He was between al-'Abbas and another man'. 'Ubayd Allah said: 'I related what 'A'isha said to Ibn 'Abbas, and he said to me: 'Do you know who was the other man that 'A'isha did not mention?' I said: 'No'. He said: 'He was 'Ali b. Abi Talib'".

 

 

Ibn Sa'd reported this hadith exactly [as above] in his Tabaqat, by an authentic chain, in volume 2, p. 29. Similarly, the author of al-Sira al-Halabiyya and other authors of the Sunan works also reported that "Certainly, 'A'isha was not happy to hear good things [ascribed] to him".

 

 

Al-Bukhari, however, omitted this sentence through which it becomes clear that 'A'isha hated 'Ali, and that she could not mention his name. Yet in what he has reported there is sufficient and clear proof for anyone who is cognizant of the implications of [the usage of] words. Is it hidden to any researcher who reads history the special hatred the mother of the believers had towards her master and protector 'Ali b. Abi Talib even to the point where, when the news of his death reached her, she prostrated out of thanks to Allah? In any case, may Allah have mercy upon the mother of the believers and forgive her out of honour to her husband. We do not seek to limit the scope of Allah's mercy which encompasses everything. However, we do wish that those wars, discords and calamities had not occurred for they caused our fragmentation, dissolvement of our unity and the destruction of our spirit to the extent that today we are prey for the hungry ones; the object for the colonialists and we are the victims of tyrants. There is no power, nor strength but in Allah, the Highest, the most Powerful.

 

 

 

 

 

It is extremely regretful that Imam al-Bukhari chose his path and travelled his way amidst the schools of the Caliphs which were established by the ruling authorities or those schools chose al-Bukhari and others like him. They (the schools) constructed from them support, pillars and symbols to consolidate their power and to propagate their schools and market their views which became, during the Caliphates of the Umayyads and 'Abbasids, a circulating market and a profitable commodity for all scholars who competed and fought to assist the Caliphate by all forms of fabrications and interpolations which were in concordance with the prevalent politics. All this was done to gain the honour and rewards from the rulers. In doing so, they sold their hereafter for this world, their commerce was not profitable, on the day of judgement they will regret and will be among the losers.

 

 

People are people and time is time; and you see today the same method, the same politics. How many a great scholar has been placed under house arrest and the people do not [even] know him. How many ignorant [scholars] have mounted the pulpit to deliver sermons, to be the Imams of the congregations, to judge the fate of the Muslims? This is because he is of the close ones who obtained the pleasure and support of the authorities. Otherwise tell me, by your Lord, how can al-Bukhari's averseness towards the Prophet's household be explained, [those from whom] Allah has removed all filth and purified them completely? How do you explain al-Bukhari's animosity towards the rightly guided Imams, some of whom were his contemporaries and lived in his time?

He related nothing from them except spurious things to denigrate their elevated nobility and to blemish their proven infallibility which was confirmed by the Qur'an and sunna. We will provide examples on this.

 

 

 

Then, al-Bukhari turned towards the Nasibis (those who hate the ahl al-bayt) and the Khawarij who waged war against the ahl al-bayt and killed them. You see him narrating from Mu'awiya, 'Amr b. al-'As, Abu Hurayra, Marwan b. al-Hakam, from Muqatal b. Sulayman who was known as a swindler, from Imran b. Hatan, the enemy of the Commander of the Faithful and the enemy of the ahl al-bayt, the poet of the Khawarij, and their orator who used to sing the praises of Ibn Muljam Muradi for his killing of 'Ali b. Abi Talib.

Al-Bukhari used to cite as proofs [for arguments] the hadiths of the Khawarij, the Murji'a, the Mujassima (corporealists), and some unknown [persons] whose existence history has not [even] been recorded.

 

 

In his Sahih, in addition to lies and forgery [inserted] from transmitters noted for these [traits], he has narrated some foolish and repulsive traditions. An example of this is what he related in his Sahih in "The Book of Marriage", in "The Chapter Who is Lawful and who is Unlawful amongst the Women" and Allah's verses "Your mothers are unlawful unto you.." to the end of the verse. At the end of the chapter he said about Allah's words: "And permitted for you is all else other than those". Ikrima said on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas: "If a man commits adultery with his wife's sister, his wife is not forbidden for him. And it has been related from Yahya al-Kindi on the authority of al-Sha'bi and from Abu Ja'far, if someone fondles a little boy and has intercourse with him, then he cannot marry his mother".

 

 

The commentator of al-Bukhari has commented in the footnotes: "It is more in keeping with the status of scholars to disdain from writing or speaking such speech".

 

 

Al-Bukhari has also reported in his Sahih in "The Book of the Commentary of the Qur'an", in "The Chapter on Your women are a tilth unto You" on the authority of Nafi' who said: "When Ibn 'Umar ® read the Qur'an, he used to not speak until he had finished. So I went to him one day and he read Sura al-Baqara until he stopped at a spot, and he said: 'Do you know concerning what it has been revealed?' I said: 'No'. He said: 'Concerning so and so..'. Then he continued".

 

 

 

And from Nafi' from Ibn 'Umar: "So approach your tilth from wherever you wish", he said: 'He approaches her in ...'" The commentator added: "His words ... by the deletion of the preposition, it is, in fact, an adverb, i.e. [signifying] the anus". It is said: "The author omitted this due to it's repugnance, this is [how it appears] in the commentary".

 

 

 

One day, I was at the University of Sorbonne in Paris, speaking about the etiquettes of the Prophet (S.A.W.), his exalted character which the Qur'an spoke about and that the Prophet (P) was famous for [the traits] even before the call to prophecy, for they called him "The truthful, trustworthy". The lecture lasted for about an hour. During the lecture, I explained that the Prophet did not initiate wars, he did not abuse human rights during the course of his life, nor [did he] impose his religion by force and coercion as some Orientalists have claimed.

 

 

During the discussion, in which a group of lecturers, doctors specialised in Islam and in Muslim history, most of whom were Orientalists, were present, I emerged victorious to some extent over the adversaries who had raised some doubts. However, one of them, an Arab Christian of old age (I believe he was Lebanese), objected in a malicious and clever way, and he almost turned my victory into a shameful defeat.

 

 

This doctor said in pure Arabic that what I had mentioned in the lecture was filled with exaggeration, especially concerning the infallibility of the Prophet since the Muslims themselves do not agree upon that. Indeed, even Muhammad himself would not agree to that. For he said on innumerable occasions that he is mortal, permitted to err. The Muslims have recorded numerous mistakes which we have no need to describe here while the Muslim authentic and reliable books bear witness to it. Then he said: "As regards to the wars specifically, all the audience of the lecture have to do is to refer to history. In fact, it is sufficient to read the books of the expeditions which Muhammad undertook during his lifetime. And then the rightly guided Caliphs continued these after his death until they arrived at Poitier, a city in Western France. In every battle, they imposed their new religion on the people by coercion and the power of the sword".

 

 

The listeners accepted his words with applause and supported his speech. I attempted my best to convince them that what the Christian doctor had said was untrue, even if they had been recorded in the books of the Muslims. A great laughter arose in the hall deriding and mocking at me.

 

 

The Christian doctor interjected again to state that what he had related was not from any questionable books, but was from the Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim. I retorted that these books were deemed authentic by theahl al-sunna but that the Shi'as do not accord any weight to them, and that I was from them. He said: "We care not for the views of the Shi'a who are regarded as disbelievers by the majority of the Muslims. The Sunni Muslims are ten times more numerous than the Shi'as, they do not pay any heed to the views of the Shi'as". He added, saying: "If you Muslims understood each other and convinced each other of the infallibility of your Prophet, perhaps then you would be able to convince us" (He said this in a laughing, mocking manner).

 

 

 

He then turned towards me again and said: "And as regards the praiseworthy traits, I ask you to convince the listeners how come Muhammad, who had reached fifty four years of age, married 'A'isha who was only six years old?"

 

 

The mocking and laughter arose again and the people raised their necks to see what my reply would be. I tried my best to explain to them that marriage among the Arabs was performed in two stages - the first stage was the agreement and affirmation of the marriage, and the second stage was the living together and consummation. The Prophet (S.A.W.) had married A'isha when she was six, but that he did not sleep with her until she was nine. I pointed out that this is what al-Bukhari says in case my opponent tried to argue with me by citing what was in it.

 

 

 

I personally doubt the authenticity of the report as the people in those days were not an established city community, and did not record the dates of birth or death. And even if we are to assume the validity of the narration, then 'A'isha attained puberty in her ninth year - for how many Russian and Romanian girls have we seen on the TV. screens today performing gymnastics, their bodies fully developed, and you are amazed when their ages are announced that they are not even eleven years old. No doubt the Prophet (S.A.W.) did not consummate his marriage until she had reached puberty and began to have a monthly period. Islam does not state that maturity [is attained] at reaching eighteen years as is the rule in France; instead, Islam considers maturity by the appearance of the menstrual cycle in women, and by the secretion of sperms in a male. And all of us know today that among the males are those who produce sperms even from the age of ten and that among the females are those who menstruate from an early age, sometimes when they are not even ten.

 

 

At this point, a lady got up and said: "On the assumption that what you have said is true - and it is scientifically possible - how can we accept the marriage of an old man advanced in his twilight years with a girl who was still in her first stage of life?"

 

 

I said: "Muhammad was the Prophet of Allah and would not do anything unless it was revealed from Allah. There is no doubt that there is wisdom in everything that Allah does even if I am personally not aware of that wisdom".

 

The Christian doctor said: "But the Muslims have taken that as an established practice. How many little girls have been married off by their fathers forcibly to men equal in age to him (the father). Regrettably, this phenomenon has remained even to our present day". I seized this opportunity to say: "As a result of this, I left the madhab of the Sunnis and followed that of the Shi'as, for it gives the woman the right to marry herself to whomsoever she pleases, not to [one] whom her guardian forces upon her". He said: "Let us leave aside the matter of Sunnis and Shi'as and return to the subject of Muhammad's marriage to 'A'isha". He turned to the listeners saying with blatant mockery: "Muhammad was a Prophet and over fifty, and married to a small girl not cognizant at all of marriage. Al-Bukhari tells us that she was in her husband's house playing with dolls. This confirms the innocence of her infancy. Is this the exalted character through which the Prophet was distinguished?"

 

 

 

I attempted again to convince the listeners that al-Bukhari was not a proof [to be cited] against the Prophet (S.A.W.) but without success. For this Lebanese Christian had played on their minds as he wished. There was nothing for me to do but stop the debate, pointing out that we were not talking on the same wavelength. For they sought to argue with me based on al-Bukhari, when I did not believe in everything he reported.

 

 

I emerged angry at the Muslims who had provided these people and the enemies of Islam and Muhammad (P) with an effective weapon which they used to fight against us, and at the head of these was al-Bukhari. I returned to my home that day, sad; and began to read through Sahih al-Bukhari to find out what he mentioned about the merits of 'A'isha and her condition when lo! I had to say: "All praise is due to Allah who opened my eyes, otherwise, I would have remained perplexed regarding the personality of the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.) and perhaps doubt regarding him would have entered my mind, God forbid".

 

 

It is absolutely necessary that I relate some of the narrations that I came across during the debate so that it may be clear to the reader that the critics do not [criticize] emptily, but rather, have based their views on our ownSihah and have used them against us. In "The Book of the Beginning of Creation", in "The Chapter on the Marriage of the Prophet to 'A'isha, and his arrival in Medina and his taking up residence with Her" al-Bukhari related: "From 'A'isha ® who said: 'The Prophet married me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Banu al-Harith b. Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on, my hair grew (again) and my mother, Umm Ruman, came to me while I was playing on a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said: 'Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and good luck'. Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, at that time I was a girl of nine years of age'".

 

I leave for you, brother, to reflect upon such narrations. Similarly, al-Bukhari reported in "The Book of Manners", in "The Chapter of Being Happy with the People": From 'A'isha ® who said: "I used to play with some dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and I had some companions who played with me. When the Prophet of Allah entered, they would stop themselves [from playing], but he would instruct them to come to me, and they used to come play with me".

 

 

The commentator said: "Playing with dolls, means the images (of living things) which are called dolls: and "yusaribihinna ilayya, i.e., instruct and send them to me". When you read narrations such as these in Sahih al-Bukhari, does there remain any objection to the criticisms of the Orientalists, if you are objective?

 

Tell me, by your lord! When you read the words of 'A'isha to the Prophet of Allah: "I do not perceive your Lord except that he hastens [to fulfill] your desires" does there remain in your mind any respect and veneration for a woman such as this, who doubts the Prophet's purity? Does that not make you feel that her behaviour is that of an adolescent who is immature?

 

 

After this, can the enemies of Islam be rebuked, those who pose the [question of] the love of Muhammad for women, and that he was desiring [women]? If they read in al-Bukhari that Allah used to hasten [to fulfill] his desires, and they also read in al-Bukhari that he used to sleep with eleven wives in a single hour, and that he had the strength of thirty men, [can they be blamed]?

 

 

The blame is on those Muslims who accepted these legends and accepted them as being correct; in fact, they considered it like the Qur'an, which is not open to doubt. But these [Muslims] have been controlled in everything - even in their creed and there is no choice for them in anything. These books have been imposed on them from the earliest rulers. Let us relate now traditions from al-Bukhari that denigrate the ahl al-bayt.

 

In "The Book of Campaigns", in "The Chapter on the Witnessing by the Angels at Badr" volume 5 p.16, al-Bukhari reported: "From 'Ali b. al-Husayn, that al-Husayn b. 'Ali informed him that 'Ali said: 'I got a she-camel in my share of the war booty on the day [of the battle] of Badr, and the Prophet had given me a she-camel from the khumus. When I intended to marry Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Apostle, I had an appointment with a goldsmith from the tribe of Bani Qaynuqa' to go with me to bring idhkhir (i.e. grass of pleasant smell) and sell it to the goldsmiths and spend its price on my wedding party. I was collecting for my she-camels equipment of saddles, sacks and ropes while my two she-camels were kneeling down beside the room of an Ansari man. I returned after collecting whatever I collected to see the humps of my two she-camels cut off and their flanks cut open and some portion of their livers was taken out. When I saw that state of my two she-camels, I could not help weeping. I asked: 'Who has done this?' The people replied: 'Hamza b. 'Abd al-Muttalib who is staying with some Ansari drunks in this house'. I went away till I reached the Prophet, and Zayd b. Haritha was with him. The Prophet noticed on my face the effect of what I had suffered, he asked: 'What is wrong with you?' I replied: 'O Allah's Apostle! I have never seen such a day as today. Hamza attacked my two she-camels, cut off their humps, and ripped open their flanks, and he is sitting there in a house in the company of some drunks'. The Prophet then asked for his covering sheet, put it on, and set out walking followed by me and Zayd b. Haritha till he came to the house where Hamza was. He asked permission to enter, they allowed him and they were drunk. Allah's Apostle started rebuking Hamza for what he had done, but Hamza was drunk and his eyes were red. Hamza looked at Allah's Apostle and then he raised his eyes, looking at his knees, then he raised up his eyes looking at his umbilicus, and again he raised up his eyes and looked at his face. Hamza then said: 'Aren't you but the slaves of my father?' Allah's Apostle realized that he was drunk, so he retreated, and we went out with him'".

 

 

Reflect, dear brother , upon this transmission which is filled with lies and false charges, defaming the leader of the martyrs for he is the pride of the ahl al-bayt. How many times did Imam 'Ali (A.S.) take pride in him in his poems saying: "And Hamza, the chief of the martyrs, is my uncle" and how often the Prophet took pride in him to the point that when he was killed, he was greatly saddened and he wept intensely for him and named him "the leader of the martyrs?"

 

 

Hamza was the uncle of the Prophet (S.A.W.) through whom Allah had strengthened Islam. When some of the weak Muslims used to worship Allah in secrecy, he took his famous stand against the Quraysh and helped his nephew, declaring his Islam to the assembly of the Quraysh, not fearing anyone.

 

 

Hamza had emigrated before the Prophet and prepared for his nephew's coming on the famous day. Hamza was, with his nephew 'Ali, the hero of Badr and Uhud. Al-Bukhari himself related in his Sahih in "The Book ofTafsir of the Qur'an", in "The Chapter of these are two opponents who disputed with their Lord" volume 5, p. 242: "[Narrated] from 'Ali b. Abi Talib ® who said: 'I am the first of those who will kneel infront of the Merciful one for accounting on the day of judgement'". Qays said that it is in their regard that "These were two opponents who disputed about their Lord" was revealed. He said: "They are the ones who fought on the day of Badr: 'Ali and Hamza and 'Ubayda, and Shaiba b. Rabi'a and 'Utba b. Rabi'a, and al-Walid b. 'Utba".

 

 

Al-Bukhari is pleased to relate such blemishes that destroy the pride of the ahl al-bayt, and the chain of falsifiers who concocted such narrations is long. Al-Bukhari said: "Abdan told us that 'Abd Allah informed him from Yunus, and Ahmad b. Salih told us that Anbasatu informed him from Yunus from al-Zuhri who reported from 'Ali b. al-Husayn. There are seven persons from whom al-Bukhari reports before the chain reaches 'Ali b. al-Husayn, i.e., Zayn al-'Abidin, and the leader of those who prostrate. Is it proper that Zayn al-'Abidin should relate such lies, to the effect that the leader of the martyrs drank intoxicants after his accepting Islam, after his emigration, and shortly before his martyrdom for, according to the narration, 'Ali b. Abi Talib was preparing the feast for his wedding with Fatima (A.S.) with whom he cohabited in 2 A.H. The Prophet (S.A.W.) had given 'Ali his share from the booty the day of Badr. Now, is it proper for the chief of martyrs that he should have a prostitute singer singing to him and asking him to slaughter the two camels and that he did this without any concern?

 

 

Is it proper for the leader of the martyrs to eat forbidden meat without the [prescribed] slaughter, to cut open the hips and take the livers? Is it proper for the Prophet of Allah (P) to go and seek permission to see Hamza in that setting wherein there were intoxicants and immoral [things]? And for him to enter that place?

 

 

Does it behoove the leader of the martyrs to be red eyed and insult the Messenger (P): "You are nothing but slaves of my father?" Is it proper that the Apostle of Allah retreat back without any remonstration or rebuke when it is known about him that he used to get angry for Allah's sake?

 

 

I am absolutely convinced that this narration, were it (for argument's sake only, of course) to mention Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman, or Mu'awiya instead of Hamza, al-Bukhari would not have reported it due to its disgraceful [nature]. Had he reported it, he would have edited and expurgated it as was his practice. But what could be done, since al-Bukhari did not love those who refused to accept the school of the Caliphs? Even after the incident of Kerbala and their murdering all of them, none remained with the exception of 'Ali b. al-Husayn, to whom they falsely attributed the narration.

 

 

Why did al-Bukhari not relate any fiqh from the ahl al-bayt nor [anything] of their knowledge, traits, asceticism, nor their virtues which have filled books and which are abundantly [found] in the collection of the ahl al-sunna before [they are found] in the collection of the Shi'as?

 

 

Let us look at another narration he recorded, slandering the ahl al-bayt, the apex in essence, since all the transmitters, among them al-Bukhari, could not find in 'Ali b. Abi Talib a single defect, nor could they record throughout his entire life a single lie, and did not know of a single wrong doing. If there was [even] one, they would have filled the earth with clamour and laments. Instead, they resorted to fabricating a hadith alleging that 'Ali would take the prayers lightly.

 

 

In "The Book of Eclipse" in "The Chapter on the Encouraging by the Prophet (S.A.W.) of the Night Prayer and the Prophet's (S.A.W.) knocking [on the door of] Fatima and 'Ali (A.S.) at Night for Prayer", al-Bukhari reported in volume 2, p. 43 of his Sahih: Abu'l-Yaman said to us that Shu'ayb reported from al-Zuhri who said: "'Ali b. al-Husayn informed me that al-Husayn b. 'Ali informed him that 'Ali b. Abi Talib informed him that the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) knocked on the door of Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet (S.A.W.) one night and said: 'Do you not pray?' I said: 'O Apostle of Allah, our souls are in the hands of Allah. When he wishes to awaken us, He does so'. He went away when we said this without replying anything to me. Then I heard him when he turned away, striking his thigh saying: 'Surely man argues in most things'".

 

 

 

Fear Allah, O Bukhari! This is 'Ali b. Abi Talib we are discussing, the historians record that he would observe the night prayer growling, (in the battle of Siffin) having spread a mat and praying between the lines of battle while the archers and arrows fell around him, yet he was not frightened nor did he discontinue his night prayer.

 

 

'Ali b. Abi Talib was the one who explained to the people the principles of fate and divine decree and he enjoined upon human beings the responsibility of their [own] actions. Do you perceive him, in this narration, to be a fatalist believing in predestination and arguing based on this with the Prophet of Allah [using] the words: "Our souls are in the hands of Allah, if He wishes to awaken us, we do" meaning that if Allah wanted us to pray, we would have prayed. This is 'Ali, love for him is [a sign of] faith, and hatred for him is [a sign of] hypocrisy. Yet you describe him to be the most argumentative of creatures in most things? This is a disgraceful lie which even Ibn Muljim, the murderer of the Imam, or Mu'awiya, who used to order the people to curse him, will not agree with. It is a cheap lie but you were tagging along many behind [you] since, by this, you pleased the rulers of your time and the enemies of the ahl al-bayt. They raised your stature in this transitory world, but you have angered your Lord by this stand against the Commander of the Faithful, the leader of those with distinctive marks of paradise, the one who will divide [people] between heaven and hell for he will stand on the day of judgement on the heights and everyone will be known by his marks and he will say to the Fire: "This one is for me, and that one is for you".

 

 

I don't know if your book on the day of judgement will be like your book of today which is adorned, [classified] in volumes, embellished so as to be the most magnificent adornment which a book can be known for. Certainly it was difficult for al-Bukhari to show that his master 'Umar b. al-Khattab did not observe the obligatory prayer when there was no water and that he espoused this view even in his Caliphate and said: "As for me, I do not pray" thereby challenging the Qur'an and the sunna. So al-Bukhari searched among the Satans and the falsifiers and they concocted for him this hadith which accuses the Commander of the Faithful, 'Ali b. Abi Talib, that he was lazy and did not pray the supererogatory night prayer. Assuming his tradition is authentic, there is no blame nor any sin nor wrong doing on 'Ali for it concerns the optional prayers, for which one receives rewards for performing but is not punished for not doing it. There can be no comparison between the action of 'Umar in leaving the obligatory prayer and 'Ali's leaving the optional prayers, if the narration is correct. But there is no way this tradition can be correct, even if it was reported in al-Bukhari's Sahih.

 

Al-Bukhari is regarded by the ahl al-sunna as being authentic, and the ahl al-sunna are the ones who supported the school of the Caliphate which was built on Umayyad and 'Abbasid politics. A researcher knows this fact, which is no longer a secret to anyone. The ahl al-sunna wa'l-Jama'a, in following of the politics of the rulers who persisted on enmity and fighting the ahl al-bayt and anyone who befriended and followed them, became, without their knowledge, the enemies of the ahl al-bayt and their Shi'as as they befriended their enemies and were inimical to their friends. As a result, they raised the status of al-Bukhari to the degree of the highest honour. You therefore do not find with them any legacy of the ahl al-bayt nor any sayings of the twelve Imams mentioned not even from the door of the city of knowledge, he who was in relation to the Prophet (S.A.W.) as Aaron was to Moses, that of a Prophet of his Lord.

 

 

The question that needs to be posed to the ahl al-sunna is: "In comparison to the other hadith scholars, what is it that al-Bukhari  preserved that [made him] attain this excellence for you?" I believe that the only answer to this question is that al-Bukhari:

 

 

1. Changed the hadith that touched on the honour of [some] companions, especially Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and Mu'awiya. This is what Mu'awiya and the rulers after him wanted.

 

2. Propagated the hadith that spoke against the infallibility of the Prophet of Allah (P), and portrayed him as an ordinary person subject to error. This is what the rulers wished at all times.

 

3. He reported false hadith in praise of the three Caliphs and he preferred them over 'Ali b. Abi Talib. This is precisely what Mu'awiya wanted, to obliterate the mention of 'Ali's name, according to his [own] claim.

4. He related spurious hadith that denigrated the honour of the ahl al-bayt.

 

5. He related other hadith that supported fatalism, corporealism, fate and destiny regarding the Caliphate. These were what the Umayyads and 'Abbasids propagated so as to determine the fate of the community.

 

6. He related spurious hadith which resembled myths and fairy tales to scare the umma and cause confusion. This is what the rulers wanted in al-Bukhari's time.

To cite an example; here, O reader, is a narration:-

 

Al-Bukhari reported in "The Book of The Beginning of Creation" in "The Chapter of the Days of Ignorance", volume 4, p. 238: Al-Bukhari said: "Nu'aym b. Hammad informed me that Hushaym b. al-Husayn heard from Amr' b. Maymun, who said: 'I saw in the days of ignorance a monkey which had fornicated. [Other] monkeys gathered around her to stone her and I also stoned her along with them'".

 

We say to al-Bukhari: "Perhaps Allah, Glory be to Him, out of mercy to the apes, abrogated the ruling of stoning which He had made obligatory upon them after their expulsion from heaven, and made fornication permissible for them during Islam after it was initially forbidden in the days of ignorance. As a result, no Muslim has ever claimed that he attended or took part in the stoning of a monkey since the prophethood of Muhammad (S.A.W.) up to our present time".

 

Dear brother..

After these tales, and others like this are abundant in al-Bukhari's [work], can the researchers, the scholars, free thinkers remain silent and not speak out?

 

 

Some will say: "Why this attack on al-Bukhari alone? There are in other hadith books more numerous [traditions] than in this [book]. This is correct, but we have analysed al-Bukhari's work critically because this book has attained fame beyond comprehension; so much so that it has become like a holy book for the scholars of the ahl al-sunna, as if no falsehood comes from the front nor from behind it. For everything in it is [deemed to be] true, not subject to any doubt. The fountain of this illusion and sanctity originated from the sultans and the kings, especially during the 'Abbasid dynasty, when the Persians took over the rulership in every part of the state and amongst them were ministers, advisers, doctors, and astronomers. Abu Faras said of that:

 

"Convey this message to the Banu 'Abbasid. They should not claim the ownership of this kingdom Because the real kings are the non-Arabs, What glorious qualities have remained in your houses Because in it, the aliens are ruling and managing you"

 

The Persians strove their utmost, and used all their resources until the book of al-Bukhari occupied the highest position after the noble Qur'an and Abu Hanifa became the greatest Imam, above the other three Imams.

 

 

Had it not been for the Persian fear of Arab national agitation during the 'Abbasid caliphate, they would have raised al-Bukhari higher than the Qur'an itself, and they would have elevated Abu Hanifa above the Prophet (S.A.W.), who knows?

 

 

I have read from some of them their attempts in this regard. They have said clearly that the hadith adjudicates the Qur'an, they mean the hadith of al-Bukhari of course. Similarly, they say that if the hadith of the Prophet (S.A.W.) is at variance with the views and personal judgements of Abu Hanifa, it is necessary to give precedence to the judgements of Abu Hanifa. They justify [this by saying] that the hadith may have several meanings. This is if the hadith is of established authenticity; if however, there is doubt regarding its veracity, then there is no problem.

 

 

The Islamic community has grown and increased gradually but its affairs have always been controlled, its fate directed by kings and sultans, by the foreigners, the Persians, the Mamlukes, the slaves, the Moghuls, the Turks, the French, the English, Italians, and Portugese colonialists.

 

 

Most scholars have persisted behind the rulers and sought to please them by issuing rulings and by flattering them, coveting their wealth and glory. They have always worked along the principle of "divide and rule". They did not allow ijtihad to anyone, nor to open that door which the rulers closed at the beginning of the second century, relying on the discord and war which occurred between the ahl al-sunna - which is the majority that represented the governing body, and the Shi'a who were the neglected minority representing, in their (rulers) view, a dangerous opponent that had to be destroyed. The 'ulama' of the ahl al-sunna have busied themselves in the political games and plots, in criticizing and labelling the Shi'as as infidels, refuting their proofs by [using] all types of arguments and debates; so much so that thousands of books have been written, and thousands of innocent people have been killed for no other reason but because of their friendship to the progeny of the Prophet (S.A.W.), and because of their rejection of those who ruled over the umma by power and force.

 

 

Here we are today in the age of freedom, in the age of enlightenment, as they call it, a period of knowledge and competition of nations to conquer outer space and to control the earth. [Yet] any scholar who stands up and frees himself from the fetters of zeal and blind imitation and writes anything which smells of the following of the ahl al-bayt, they become furious and spend their efforts vilifying and labelling him as an infidel and [trying to] disgrace him. Not because of anything except that he has opposed what has been written by them. But if he was to write a book praising al-Bukhari and glorifying him, he would be seen as the most erudite of the learned, and they would heap honour and praise on him from

 

every side, people whose prayer and fasting do not prevent them from flattery and falsity would bow at his doorstep.

When you think of all the factors which have led most of [Allah's] servants to deviate, and the reasons which have resulted in leading most of the people astray, the noble Qur'an informs you of its hidden secret during the conversation between the Lord of Honour and Majesty and the accursed devil.

 

 

He (the Lord) said: "What prevented you from prostrating when I ordered you to do so?" He (Satan ) said: "I am better than him. You created me from fire and him from clay".

 

 

He said: "Go down from it, You cannot be arrogant here [in the garden] so begone! You are amongst the meanest of creatures".

He said: "Give me a respite until the day when they are resurrected".

He said: "You are amongst those who are given a respite".

He said: "As You have expelled me, I will lay in wait for them in your straight path, then I shall come from the front and from behind, from their right and left, and you will find most of them ungrateful to You". He said: "Get out abased and expelled! If any of them follows you, I shall fill the hell with all of you" (7:12-18).

 

 

"O Children of Adam! Do not let Satan corrupt you as he led to the expulsion of your parents from paradise, stripping them of their clothes to show them their nakedness. Surely he (Satan) and his tribe sees you from whence you perceive them not. We have made Satans the friends for those who do not believe. If they commit an immoral [deed] they say we found our fathers doing it and Allah has ordered us to do it! Say to them: 'Certainly Allah never orders wrongdoing! Do you say of Allah what you do not know?' Say: 'My Lord has ordered me [to practise] justice and to fix your attention (to Him) at every place of prostration and to supplicate to Him in sincerity for, as He has brought you into being, so unto Him will you return. Some He has guided right, others have deserved to go astray, for they have taken Satans as their friends instead of Allah, they think that they are rightly guided'" (7:26-30).

 

 

I therefore say to all my Muslim brothers in general: "Curse the Satan and do not grant him any means of [approaching] you. Come together for an academic discussion which the Qur'an and the authentic sunna establish. Let us agree upon a common word between us and you that we will not use as proof except what is proven to be authentic to both you and us. We will leave aside what we differ on. Did the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) not say "My umma will not unite in (committing) a mistake?" Truth and what is right lies in what we, Sunnis and Shi'as, agree upon. Falsehood lies in what we differ in. If we erect this pillar, only purity, agreement and joy would envelope us, we would be reunited, the help of Allah and victory would come. From the earth and the skies blessings would rain upon us. For the time has come, and we do not have any more time to wait, before that day in which there is no barter and no transaction is allowed. We are all - Sunnis and Shi'as - awaiting the coming of our Imam al-Mahdi (A.S.) for our books are replete with the tidings of his coming. Is this not sufficient proof of the oneness of our path? For the Shi'as are nothing but your brothers, and the ahl al-bayt are not exclusive to them. For Muhammad (P) and the members of his household are the Imams of all Muslims. We, Sunnis and Shi'as, are in agreement on the veracity of the hadith of the two weighty things, and the saying of the Prophet (S.A.W.): "I have left with you something which, if you stick to, you will never go astray; Allah's book and my household".

 

 

And the Mahdi is from his progeny. Is this not another proof? Now the time of tyranny and oppression during which no one was as oppressed as the ahl al-bayt, the progeny of the Prophet (S.A.W.) were, has passed. They were cursed from the pulpits, killed, their women and children taken prisoners - all this within the sight and earshot of all the Muslims.

 

(1) The Wives are not from Ahlulbayt (s).
(2) The Sahabah are not From Ahlylbayt (s). 
(3) I have proved to you from Bukhari and Muslim the Identity of Ahlulbayt (s).
(4) please give a Hadith to prove your point and yet you are still making false assumptions.

 

 

 

Statement:
1. We will get to this very soon

 

Why do you ignore my Proof? Whats your problem Brother? From "Appointing a Successor" Till today you deny this? 

 

Statement:
2. So what

 

I quote from your last statement:

 

 

 

AHLE BAYT senior sahaba prophets wives.

 

Was this a Justified sentence?

 

 

 

 

Statement:
3. No you havnt. Our beliefs regarding AHLE BAYT are very very very different but our views regarding AHLE KISA are the same. So no you have not proved a thing

 

Yes I have, Please stop ignoring my proof: I quote once more again from the previous Dialogue from "Appointing a Successor":

 

 

Okay now my dear brother I shall mention it from your books in the following: both Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Tirmidhi as well as many others confirm the Shi'ite point of view explained above. In Sahih Muslim, there is a chapter named "Chapter of Virtues of the Companions". Inside this chapter, there is a section called "Section of the Virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet". There exists ONLY ONE tradition in this section, and this tradition has no reference to the wives of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). The tradition is known as "The Tradition of Cloak/Mantle" (Hadith al-Kisaa), and is as follows:

   Narrated Aisha:

One day the Prophet (PBUH&HF) came out afternoon wearing a black cloak (upper garment or gown; long coat), then al-Hasan Ibn Ali came and the Prophet accommodated him under the cloak, then al-Husain came and entered the cloak, then Fatimah came and the Prophet entered her under the cloak, then Ali came and the Prophet entered him to the cloak as well. Then the Prophet recited: "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification (the last sentence of Verse 33:33)."
 
Sunni reference:

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (PBUH&HF), 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1883, Tradition #61.

One can see that the author of Sahih Muslim confirms that:

•  
• Imam Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain are the Ahlul-Bayt,
• The purification sentence in Quran (the last sentence of Verse 33:33) was revealed for the virtue of the above-mentioned individuals, and NOT for the wives of the Prophet (PBUH&HF).

Muslim (the Author) did not put any other tradition in this section (section of the virtues of Ahlul-Bayt). If the author of Sahih Muslimbelieved that the wives of the Prophet were included in Ahlul-Bayt, he would have quoted some traditions about them in this section.
 
It is interesting to see that Aisha, the wife of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) is the narrator of the above tradition, and she herself is testifying that Ahlul- Bayt are the above-mentioned individuals (i.e., Imam Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, may the blessing of Allah be upon them all).
 
Another version of the "Tradition of Cloak" is written in Sahih al-Tirmidhi, which is narrated in the authority of Umar Ibn Abi Salama, the son of Umm Salama (another wife of Prophet), which is as follows:
 
The verse "Verily Allah intends to ... (33:33)" was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH&HF) in the house of Umm Salama. Upon that, the Prophet gathered Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain, and covered them with a cloak, and he also covered Ali who was behind him. Then the Prophet said: "O' Allah! These are the Members of my House (Ahlul-Bayt). Keep them away from every impurity and purify them with a perfect purification." Umm Salama (the wife of Prophet) asked: "Am I also included among them O Apostle of Allah?" the Prophet replied: "You remain in your position and you are toward a good ending."
 
Sunni reference: Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 351,663
       

 

As we see, al-Tirmidhi also confirms that Imam Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain are the Ahlul-Bayt, and the purification sentence in Quran (the last sentence of Verse 33:33) was revealed for the virtue of the above-mentioned individuals, and NOT for the wives of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). Also it is apparent from above authentic tradition that the Prophet himself excluded his wives from Ahlul-Bayt. If Umm Salama  (ra) was among Ahlul-Bayt, why didn't the Prophet answer her positively? Why didn't he enter her into the cloak? Why did the Prophet tell her that she remains in her own position? If the Prophet (PBUH&HF) would consider Umm Salama among Ahlul-Bayt, he would surely have entered her to the cloak and would have prayed for her perfect purity as well.

 

It is also worth mentioning that the Prophet (PBUH&HF) did NOT say: "These are among the Members of my House". He rather said: "These are THE Members of my House" since there was no other member of Ahlul-Bayt who was alive at the time of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). Also notice that Umm Salama  (ra) who is the virtuous wife of the Prophet is the narrator of the tradition to his son and gives the testimony that who Ahlul-Bayt are.

In the tradition of al-Hakim the wording the last question and answer is as follows:

 

 

Umm Salama said: "O Prophet of Allah! Am I not one of the members of your family?" The Holy Prophet replied: "You have a good future but only these are the members of my family. O Lord! The members of my family are more deserving."

 

Sunni reference: al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p416

 

Also the wording reported by al-Suyuti and Ibn al-Athir is as follows:

 

 

Umm Salama said to the Holy Prophet: "Am I also one of them?" He replied: "No. You have your own special position and your future is good."

 

Sunni reference:

 

• Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v2, p289
• Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, p198

Also al-Tabari quotes Umm Salama saying:

 

 

I said, "O Prophet of Allah! Am I not also one of your Ahlul-Bayt?" I swear by the Almighty that the Holy Prophet did NOT grant me any distinction and said: "You have a good future."

 

Sunni reference: Tafsir al-Tabari, v22, p7 under the commentary of verse 33:33

 

Beside Sahih Muslim and Sahih al-Tirmidhi from which we quoted the Tradition of Cloak on the authority of Aisha and Umm Salama respectively, below are more Sunni references of the Tradition of Cloak who reported both versions of the traditions:

 

(3) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, pp 323,292,298; v1, pp 330-331; v3, p252; v4, p107 from Abu Sa'id al-Khudri

(4) Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p578, Tradition #978

(5) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p416 (two traditions) from Ibn Abi Salama, v3, pp 146-148 (five traditions), pp 158,172

(6) al-Khasa'is, by an-Nisa'i, pp 4,8

(7) al-Sunan, by al-Bayhaqi, narrated from Aisha and Umm Salama

(8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih), v1, part 2, p69

(9) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v2, p700 (Istanbul), from Aisha

(10) Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Suyuti, v5, pp 198,605 from Aisha and Umm Salama

(11) Tafsir Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, v22, pp 5-8 (from Aisha and Abu Sa'id al-Khudri), pp 6,8 (from Ibn Abi Salama) (10 traditions)

(12) Tafsir al-Qurtubi, under the commentary of verse 33:33 from Umm Salama

(13) Tafsir Ibn Kathir, v3, p485 (Complete version) from Aisha and Umar Ibn Abi Salama

(14) Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12; v4, p79 narrated from Ibn Abi Salama

(15) Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch. 11, sec. 1, p221 from Umm Salama

(16) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb Baghdadi, v10, narrated from Ibn Abi Salama

(17) Tafsir al-Kashshaf, by al-Zamakhshari, v1, p193 narrated from Aisha

(18) Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v1, pp 332-336 (seven traditions)

(19) Dhakha'ir al-Uqba, by Muhibb al-Tabari, pp21-26, from Abu Sa'id Khudri

(20) Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p166 (by several transmitters)

Here is another authentic variation of "The Tradition of Cloak" which is related to Safiyya who was another wife of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). Ja'far Ibn Abi Talib narrated:

 

When the Messenger of Allah noticed that a blessing from Allah was to descent, he told Safiyya (one of his wives): "Call for me! Call for me!" Safiyya said: "Call who, O the Messenger of Allah?" He said: "Call for me my Ahlul-Bayt who are Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan, and al-Husain." Thus we sent for them and they came to him. Then the Prophet (PBUH&HF) spread his cloak over them, and raised his hand (toward sky) saying: "O Allah! These are my family (Aalee), so bless Muhammad and the family (Aal) of Muhammad." And Allah, to whom belong Might and Majesty, revealed: "Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a thorough purification (Quran, the last sentence of Verse 33:33)".

 

Sunni references:

• al-Mustadrak by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of Companions, v3, p148. The author then wrote: "This tradition is authentic (Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim)."
• Talkhis of al-Mustadrak, by al-Dhahabi, v3, p148
• Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn al-Athir, v3, p33

Although since the majority of traditions on this issue show that the last sentence of the verse 33:33 was revealed in the house of Umm Salama (as quoted earlier), the above tradition implies that it might have been revealed in the house of Safiyya. Based on the opinion of the Sunni scholars including Ibn Hajar, it is quite possible that the verse was revealed more than once. In each occasion, the Prophet repeated his action in front of different wives so that they all realize who his Ahlul-Bayt are.

 

The testimony of three wives of the Prophet (Aisha, Umm Salama, and Safiyya) leaves us no room but to believe that the Ahlul-Bayt at the time of the Prophet were no more than five individuals: Prophet Muhammad, Lady Fatimah, Imam Ali, al-Hasan, and al-Husain (Peace be upon them all).

 

 

 

Statement:
4. Hadith on what??

To justify what you have said:

 

 

AHLE BAYT senior sahaba prophets wives.

 

Statement:
....and how you going to prove me wrong??

 

Perhaps Provide us with a Hadith Where Abu Bakr is Superior to Imam Ali (a.s) Or proof that he is the Khalifa, and we will happily take a Deep Analyzes into the narration. 
 

 

Statement:
where on earth in that verse does it say that the ulil amr are "given authority by Allah"?? STOP ADDING YOUR OWN BITS IN.

 

(1) Allah is Giving the Command that they should be obeyed. Therefore Who All Tells you to obey, it is he who has put them in that position. 

(2) Can you please tell me how fallible people can appoint those in Authority? Does that mean what ever the Society chooses a leader we have to obey him? does that Apply to the today world? does that mean we have to obey every Ruler? If Allah is telling us to to obey them?

(3) therefore this is Invalid. Those who are given Authority are given by Allah. Appointed by The messenger.    




Statement:
THIS IS TRUE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVNT PROVEN TO ME THAT PROPHETS A.S CANT MAKE MINOR MISTAKES.

 

Brother, Can you please list down the prophets Who have made a mistake during their prophethood? So I can give Inform you.



Statement:
THEN HOW ON EARTH ARE SUNNIS MUSLIMS

 

(1) I don't know how this answer is related to what I said, but to be a Muslim you only say the two Shahadatain.
(2) Following the Prophets Orders that is another thing.




Statement:

Allah witnesses that there is NO DEITY except Him, and [so do] the ANGELS and those of knowledge - [that He is] maintaining [creation] in justice. There is NO DEITY EXCEPT HIM, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.
Now tell me do I need to go to hadith to understand anything?? 

 

(1) according to you this would be unspecific, because can you please explain to me who are those of Knowledge?

  
 

 

Statement:
Surah 35:1
[All] praise is [due] to Allah , Creator of the heavens and the earth, [who] made the ANGELS MESSENGERS having wings, two or three or four. He increases in creation what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent.


(1) According to you this would be unspecific, Because can you please tell are all the angels Messengers? 
(2) and Messengers of What? To the prophets? If to the prophets, then does that mean Gabrial peace be upon him is not the only messenger between God and the prophets? 
 

 

Statement:
Now tell me regarding verse ulil amr why do we need to go to hadith to find out exactly what Allah ( swt) is telling us?? 

 

(1) Does that mean, that we do not need the sayings of the prophet peace be upon him to find our what Allah is telling us? So does that mean we have Knowledge of the book? 

 

Statement:
ITS SIMPLE, THE VERSE OF ULIL AMR IS NOT PRECISE ENOUGH TO CALL IT A VERSE THAT CAN POINT OUT AN USUL.

 

(1) First of All, This is not the only verse Concerning the Concept of Imamah. I mentioned a Bunch more on page 19/18-17, please read.

(2) So you claim that the verse is not precise, so does that mean it has not Significance? (Na'ozoBillah).

(3) Who are you to judge whether it is Precise or not? Would you like to Quote from our Tafsir books that it is nor precise to prove your claim?

 

 
Statement:
If this verse was precisely telling us about your imams then sunni would be kafir NO DOUBT.  NOW STOP DODGING MY QUESTION AND TELL ME IF VERSE 4:59 IS PRECISELY TELING US ABOUT YOUR IMAMS THEN HOW ON EARTH ARE SUNNI MUSLIMS??? DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT IGNORE THIS I WANT A STRAIGHT UP ANSWER TELL ME IF I DENIED ANY OTHER FOUNDATION OF ISLAM WOULD I REMAIN MUSLIM??  SO THEN WHY ARE WE SUNNIS CONSIDERED MUSLIMS IF THERE ARE PRECISE VERSES IN QURAN (according to shia) TELLING US TO OBEY YOUR IMAMS?? 

 

(1) A Muslim Is one whom says the Two Shahadatain.
(2) No, because Sunnis believe in the Concept of Imamah. as according to their belief the Four Khalifas.
(3) The issue we depart at is the Identity of the Khalifa.
(4) Stop making claims without Authentic proof please.
(5) There is a Difference between Foundations and Principles (Usul), Ignoring one Principle does make one a Kafir, as the Foundation of becoming a Muslim is to say there is not God but God and Prophet Muhammad is his messenger.

(6) Sunnies do believe in the Concept of Imamah/Khilafa as they believe in the four Caliphs.

 

    

Statement:
"Refutation for that hadith"??  It's a shia hadith so why do I need to refute it since it's not hujjah on me.

 

 

Brother, How much do read of my Responses? Do you intentionally ignore them? From page 1 to this page I have mentioned Narrations from your books. When I provide a Hadith that is Authentic, you till this day have never refuted any. 
 

 

Statement:
Firstly verse 4:59 and 4:83 were not sent together. So how can you try to link them is beyond me.

 

(1) So Does that mean the Uli al amr in verse 4:59 are not the same as Uli al amr in verse 4:83?
(2) If so can you please tell me the Difference?
(3) So what if they are not sent together? The prophet Peace be upon him did not come with the Whole Quran at once, and yet people preformed what they prophet peace be upon him commanded them to do

 

 

Statement:
Secondly, the differing was not with the ulil amr so this is why we were told to refer to ulil amr AND prophet

 

(1) your statement here is illogical. Just because they (the people) are not Differing in Uli al amr that does not mean they cannot refer to them.

(2) Does that mean we exclude Ahlulbayt peace upon them? and Hold on/Go back to the Book of Allah?

(3) We refer to the prophet Peace be upon him, if we do not know of Something, and Uli al amr are chosen by Allah. Appointed by the prophet peace be upon him, and they have the knowledge of the prophet (s). So if we wanted to know who they are, we must refer to the Prophet and the Book of Allah. 

Statement:
Also it says clearly in that blessed verse refer to messenger AND ulil amr. Now since you don't believe we can actually refer to prophet (s) But we have to refer to ulil amr instead THIS VERSE DOES NOT HELP YOU.

 

(1) can you please stop lying? Who says I don't believe we should refer to the prophet peace be upon him? Can you please quote me where I said this?

Statement:

 

So you CANNOT use verse 5:55 to prove 4:59 and you CANNOT use 4:59 to prove 5:55 if these verses are your precise verses.


"al-Muhkamat" (translated here as decisive) is derived from the root word h - k - m; THIS ROOT IMPLIES THAT A THING IS SO PROTECTED that nothing can PERVERT or BREAK it or INTERFERE with it. Some infinitive verbs made from it are al-ihkam (to make precise, to confirm, to strengthen), at-tahkim = to arbitrate) and al-hukm (to judge); some other words are al-hikmah (perfect knowledge, wisdom) and al-hakamah (bit of a horse's bridle). All these meanings have the elements of PROTECTION and PRECISENESS in them. Some people say that the root-word gives the meaning of protection and reformation.

al-Ihkam of the verses means MAKING THEM SO PRECISE that no AMBIGUITY remains therein, contrary to "al-mutashdbihat" (ambiguous) ones.

 

 

(1) Why Will you not continue reading the Tafsir? Why must you Contradict your self brother?

 

 

 

Likewise, Allah says: Allah has revealed the best discourse, a Book mutashabihan, conforming (in its various parts) oft-repeated... (39:23). Here the whole Book has been called mutashabihan (conforming); so we know that in this verse it means something other than mutashabihat (ambiguous), mentioned in the verse under discussion, in which only a part of the Book is given this name. The decisive, unambiguous verses have been called. "ummu1-kitab" (translated here as the "basis of the Book"). "al-Umm" literally means a thing to which another thing returns; in which it takes refuge. That is why the mother is called al-umm.

The decisive and unambiguous verses have been given this title because the ambiguous verses return to them. One part of the Book (i.e., the ambiguous verses) returns to the other part, (i.e., to the unambiguous ones). The possessive case "the basis of the Book" does not imply that this basis is something different from the Book, as is the case, for example, in "the mother of the children" - the mother is different from the children. Rather it denotes a portion or part, as in the phrase, "women of the nation" women are a part of the nation; in the same way the basis of the Book is a part or portion of the Book. The Book contains some verses that are the basis of the other verses. "Basis" is singular; it shows that there is no difference in the unambiguous decisive verses; all are united and well-connected.

 

 

 

 

But at-tashabuh mentioned in the verse under discussion means something different. The verse contrasts such verses with the decisive ones that are the basis of the Book, and then goes on to say that those in whose heart there is perversity follow such verses seeking to mislead people and to give them their own interpretation. This context makes it clear that the adjective mutashabihat, refers here to ambiguous verse whose connotation cannot be decided by the hearer just by hearing; his mind remains un­decided between one meaning and the other; this continues until he refers to the decisive verses and only then is able to fix the true connotation and semantic value of the ambiguous one. At this stage, the ambiguous verse too becomes decisive and unam­biguous but with the aid of decisive verse; while the decisive verse is decisive by itself.

 

Statement:
SO NOW TELL ME THE WORDS USED IN 5:55 ARE NOT PRECISE SO HOW CAN THE VERSE BE PRECISE. ALSO THE THE INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING REFERRING TO DO NOT PRECISELY TELL US TO REFER TO ULUL AMR.

 

(1) I ask you again so does that mean we do not obey Ahlulbayt (s)? Do we not Hold on to them? Do we Exclude them and just hold on to the book of Allah? 

(2) If the prophet Peace be upon past away does he not leave a Khalfia after him who will Represent him?

(3) Verse 5;55 is very Precise, Unless you have trouble accepting That Imam Ali (a.s) is your master, Which then you would be Going against Ibn Kathirs knowledge when he Corrected the Hadith of " I have left Two Khalifas are me", Unless you also claim you are more knowledgeable then your scholars? 

Statement:

THE UNSPECIFIC VERSES RETURN TO THE PRECISE ONES AND NOT PRECISE VERSES TURNING TO ANY OTHER VERSE.

 

From the same Tafsir of Tabtabaei:

 

 

Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe: ar-Raghib has said in hisMufradatu'l-Quran: "al-wilayah" and "at-tawallah" denote that two or more things are so positioned as nothing extraneous comes between them. Metaphorically it is used to indicate proximity in place, or affinity, or friendship, and in help, or in belief al-wilayah is help, and/or management of affairs. It has been said that al-walayah and al-wilayah both are one like al-dalalah and al-dilalah and it really means management of affairs; and al-waliyy add al-mawladenote this meaning, and both are used as nomen agentis, i.e. guardian/manager; and as nomen patientis, i.e. one whose affairs are managed. A believer is calledwaliyy of Allah, but nowhere is he referred to as mawlaof Allah; while Allah is called waliyy of the believers, as well as their mawla.

 

Further he says: "They say, tawalli when used without any preposition, gives the meaning of wilayah, indicating that it is related to the nearest objective; they say, 'I turned my ears/eyes/face to so and so. Allah says: ...so We shall surely turn thee to a qiblah which thou shall be pleased with; turn then thy face towards the Sacred Mosque; and wherever you are, turn your faces towards it,.... (2:144); but when it is followed by preposition min (from) clearly or implied, it means turning away and leaving the proximity."

Apparently, man perceived the proximity (pointed to bywilayah first of all physically in bodies and their places and times; then it was borrowed for immaterial nearness, opposite to the abovementioned idea. We know that primitive man began his perceptive journey with the material things perceived through the five senses and was involved with them long before thinking about rational propositions and immaterial ideas and their related things.

When wilayah - a special proximity - is affected in spiritual/ immaterial affairs, it follows that Analyst has a right and an authority over the mawla, which others do not have (except through him). All such managerial aspects that may be delegated to another will automatically be taken over by the waliyy e.g. thewaliyy of a deceased person. The estate, which the deceased used to manage by right of ownership, his heir, has the right to manage it by wilayah of inheritance. Likewise, the guardian of a minor manages that minor's financial affairs by wilayah of guardianship; and the helper manages the affairs of the helped one strengthening him in his defense; and Allah is the Guardian (waliyy) of His servants and manages their affairs in this world and the hereafter ? there is no guardian except Him. So Allah is the Guardian of the believers, inasmuch as He manages the affairs of their religion through guiding, calling, and helping them and so on. And the Prophet is the Guardian of the believers inasmuch as he has the authority to decide between them, for them and against them through legislation and judgment. Likewise, the hakim (ruler, judge) is the guardian of the people over whom he rules within his jurisdiction. The same is the case with other examples ofwilayah, like that of emancipation, covenant, protection, neighborhood and divorce; similarly, thewilayah of a cousin, of love and of a designated successor, and so on.

Also, His word: they shall turn (their) backs to you (33:15), i.e. they shall turn their backs towards the war and ignore its demands.

And His word: you turned back (5:92), i.e. you turned away from accepting it; you faced its opposite direction by turning away from it.

In short, looking at wilayah in its different usages, we get the meaning of a sort of proximity that gives its subject some authority of management and possession of planning.

Looking at the context of the verse under discussion: "Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe", we find that the meaning of wilayah(guardianship) for all the guardians is the same, because "Allah, His Messenger and the believers", have all been ascribed to one word: "your Guardian", and clearly guardianship of each has the same meaning. This is also supported by the clause at the end of the second verse: then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant, as it indicates or clearly shows that all the guardians are the party of Allah, because they are under His Guardianship; thus the guardianship of the Messenger and of those who believe sprout from the root of Allah's Guardianship.

Allah has ascribed to Himself the following aspects ofwilayah:

 

So this Verse is Precise about Wiliyah in the means of Managing the Affairs of the Muslims. 

When then continue reading my dear brother... (Since your Quoting from Tabtaba'i)

 

 

al-Wilayatu ‘t-Takwimiyyah (The Authority Over Creation): Through this authority He manages everything and disposes the creatures' affairs as He pleases and in whatever way He pleases. He says: Or have they taken guardians besides Him? But Allah is the Guardian.... (42:9);... you have not besides Him any guardian or any intercessor; will you not then mind? (32:4);... Thou art my guardian in this world and the hereafter;... (12: 10 1);... he has no guardian after Him;_ . (42:44). The same is the implication of the verses: ...and We are nearer to Him than his life vein. (50:16);... and know that Allah intervenes between man and his heart, ...(8:24).

Possibly related to it is the wilayah of help, which Allah ascribes to Himself. That is because Allah is the Protector of those who believe, and because the unbelievers shall have no protector for them (47:11);... then surely Allah it is Who is his Guardian, ...(66:4); and the same connotation is seen in the verse: ...and helping the believers is ever incumbent on Us (30:47).

al-Wilayatu 't-Tashri’iyyah (The Authority Over Legislation): Allah has ascribed to Himself this wilayahwhich concerns the believers' religious affairs: Legislation of the laws, guidance, advice, help and so on. He says: Allah is the Guardian of those who believe; He brings them out of the darkness into light, ...(2:257);... and Allah is the Guardian of the believers (3:68); and Allah is the Guardian of the pious... (45:19) The same is the theme of the verse: And it is not for a believing man nor for a believing woman to have any choice in their affairs when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying (3 3:3 6).

This is what Allah has described related to His wilayah, and it concerns the authority over creation and authority over legislation andYou may also call them the real wilayah and the wilayah from a subjective point of view.

Then Allah has mentioned for His Prophet (s.a.w.) thewilayah which is reserved for him, and it is al-Wilayatut-Tashri’iyyah: The Prophet (s.a.w.) has the right and authority to legislate the laws, call people to it, train theummah accordingly, rule over them and decide in their affairs. Allah says: The Prophet has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves.... (33:6). The same is the connotation of the verses: Surely We have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught you;... (4:105);... and most surely you guide to the right path (42:52);... a Messenger from among themselves, who recites to them His communications and purifies them, and teaches them the Book and the Wisdom.... (62:2);... that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them .... (16:44);... obey Allah and obey the Messenger... (4:59); And it is not for a believing man nor for a believing woman to have any choice in their affairs when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter;... (33:36); And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you;... (5:49). It has been mentioned that Allah has not ascribed to the Prophet the wilayah of help for the ummah.

In short, the Prophet (s.a.w.) has the wilayah over theummah, inasmuch as he leads them to Allah, rules over them, judges and decides in all their affairs. It is incumbent on them to obey him unconditionally. In this way, his wilayah springs from Allah's wilayah, in the meaning of the authority of legislation. In other words, the Prophet (s.a.w.) has precedence over them as they are bound to obey him, because his obedience is Allah's obedience. Thus, his wil4ah is the wilayah of Allah, as some previously quoted verses prove, for example: ...obey Allah and obey the Messenger... (4:59); And it is not for a believing man, nor for a believing woman to have any choice in their affairs when Alldh and His Messenger have decided a matter;... (33:36), apart from other such verses.

It is this meaning of wilayah as ascribed to Allah and His Messenger, which is bestowed on the believers in the verse under discussion, when it says: "Only Allah is your Guardian and His Messenger and those who believe." You have seen that the context proves that it is only onewilayah, and it belongs to Allah directly and to the Messenger and to those who believe indirectly by permission of Allah. Had the wilayah ascribed to Allah in this verse, been different from that ascribed to those who believe, it was more appropriate, in order to avoid any confusion, to bring another word of wilayah before mentioning "those who believe", as Allah has done in similar situations. For example, He says: Say: "A hearer of good for you (who) believes in Allah and believes the faithful..." (9:6 1). The word: "believes", has been repeated because its connotations in the two clauses are different. A similar style was used in the verse: ...obey Allah and obey the Messenger... (4:59), as was explained in volume 8 (Eng.) of this book.

Moreover, the word: "Your Guardian", is singular and is ascribed to, "those who believe", i.e. plural. According to the exegetes, it is because wilayah here has a single meaning, and it directly belongs to Allah and as for the Messenger and the believers, it is indirectly, through Allah.

It is clear from above that the restriction in "Only" aims at confining the wilayah to those mentioned in the verse. It removes the possible misunderstanding that it might cover those who are mentioned and also the others. There is another possibility that this restriction negates the wilayah of all persons other than those mentioned therein.

 

Please brother before making a claim that a verse is unspecific, Please Quote from the very same Tafsir your Quoting from, before Contradicting your self again. In a debate a Statement of ones belief must be be proven right from the opposition from his Literature, which he accepts, and when you quote from their texts make sure it the sane text does not Contradict what you have put Forward. 

Statement:

Will you stop misinterpreting verses PLEASE. This verse is talking about the quranic verses and NOT every single word the prophet (S) spoke was a revelation so STOP LYING. Ok, so you tell me, if the prophet asked his wives to cook him food or wash his clothes etc etc.. Were these words a revelation?? NO. SO STOP LYING.

 

Brother do you not know the Difference between Commanding on Religious issue and the Commanding on mere Livehood issues? The prophet pece be upon does not say something which is of Ignorance (istghfarallah) and When he said there will be Twelve Khalfias to the end of times, that means Allah is telling you, he is revealing to you, there will be Twelve Khalifas to the end of times. How on earth am I lying? the verse is very clear, do you not read? he is a Revelation to us, and the prophet peace be upon him says something, about a verse it is a Revelation of what the verse means. So you conclusion between Specific and Unspecific is Invalid. 
   


Statement:
Read the link I've given you regarding surah 3:7.

 

I have read it. But you did not Answer the Question? My Question was:

 

 

 

No you have not. Again please define more me in your Understanding, According to the English Language what is the Difference between Specific and Precise Thank you.

 

;

 

 

Statement:

Read the link I've given you regarding verse 3:7

Brother Why wont you admit? you either Answer my Question or Admit I am correct: 

 

 

 

Please Answer the Question Directly: The Successors of Prophet Jesus (s), Solomon (s), Moses (s) Where not mentioned by name, but my other terms and same with Imam Ali (s) he was mentioned by Action and not by exact terms. Can you please give me One Hadith where the prophet (s) says if a verse is not Specific, Ignore what I say and Just use the verse? (N'aozobillah)

 

 

:

 

 

 

Statement:

Brother it seems even you shia can't make your minds up regarding the meaning of wali. 

If you go to this link:

http://www.al-islam....chapter3/5.html

 

 

Brother Why are you like this? if you cannot Answer something just Admit it its not hard.

Again I quote my Question for you:

 

 

 

 

First of Allah Did not Mention the names of the Previous Imams of the Ummah, for example for have the Successor of prophet Solomon Who he was not mentioned by name, but was refer to the One "Who has the knowledge of the book", or for example the "Haware'en" Of prophet Jesus (s) Allah did not mention them by name, Also the 12 Khalifas of Israel Who Allah Appointed them, He did not mention them by name, So we Return to verse 5:55 Where All Literate Muslims know that Only Imam Ali (s) gave his Ring While Ruku, and in the verse We are ordered to obey him. 

 

:

 

Concerning the site (http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter3/5.html), you must be Ignorant the Article is talking about the Sunni view, and its giving a Refutation to it.....?? brother you really need to watch what your Quoting from? your Constantly Contradicting your self:

;

 

Statement:

Brother are you seriously telling me that your ayatollahs do not call themselves wali al umr al muslimeen??

 

(1) when are you going to stop listing to the Extremist? For the last time, No, they do not call them selves that. Would you like to Quote from our books where one of our Ayatollahs said such a ting?

Concerning Letter 6 Nahjul Balagha:

 

The First is the Imam Ali (a.s) Used this as a Hujja on Muwiyahia Concerning the Ba'aya for Imam Ali (a.s) as he Disproved of it, and this was during the war of Suffin. And Remember All of this was done to prevent it in the First Place. So in fact this does not prove that Shura was a Correct Method or that it was the right way.  

 

For Arabic readers ( To understand Why I mean..)

 وأما النص الذي يقول: ((فانه قد بايعني القوم...الخ))، فهو كتاب كان قد بعثه الإمام (ع) إلى معاوية وتحدث فيه وفق قاعدة الالزام، وهي القاعدة التي تستعمل في مقام الاحتجاج على الخصوم وإلزامهم بما ألزموا به أنفسهم من قبل..

بمعنى: إن كان معاوية يرى صحة الذين سبقوا الإمام (ع) بأن المسلمين قد بايعوهم، فما يكون لمعاوية بعد هذا إلا الانصياع للأمر الذي ألزم به نفسه ويبايع للإمام (ع) لأنه قد بايع الإمام (ع) القوم الذين بايعوا السابقين عليه، والا يكون حال معاوية ممن يتبع هواه وليس له أساس يستند عليه فيما يقول أو يفعل.
وهذا الكلام الصادر عن الإمام (ع) قد جرى وفق مقتضى الحال، وهي القاعدة البلاغية التي تلزم بالاتيان للمنكر بكل الوسائل الممكنة للإثبات، وقاعدة الالزام هنا هي أحدى الوسائل النافعة في المقام، بل وجدنا من يذكر هذا الإلزام بصريح العبارة عنه(ع). فقد روى الخطيب الخوارزمي الحنفي في كتابه (المناقب ص202) قائلاً: ومن كتب أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب (ع)، قبل نهضته إلى صفين، إلى معاوية، لأخذ الحجة عليه: أما بعد.. فإنه لزمتك بيعتي بالمدينة وأنت بالشام، لأنه بايعني القوم الذين...الخ.
وكذا قوله: ((إنما الشورى للمهاجرين والانصار...)) لا يتصور أحد أن هذا خلاف ما يعتقده (ع) أو تعتقده شيعته عن الخلافة بأنها تتم بالنص الالهي دون الشورى، وإنما كلامه (ع) قد ورد هنا وفق القاعدة التي أشرنا إليها قبل قليل. فكأن كلامه (ع) هنا هو: ان كنت يا معاوية لا ترى الخلافة بالنص الالهي، وإنها تتم عندك بالاختيار واجتماع أهل الحل والعقد، فأمرها لا يعدو المهاجرين والأنصار، فهم أهل الشورى، وها هم قد بايعوني كما بايعوا أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان من قبل، فما كان لك يا معاوية أن ترد هذه البيعة أو تحتال عليها بأي حال.
وأما قوله (ع): ((فإن اجتمعوا على رجل وسمّوه إماماً، كان ذلك لله رضا..)) فهو يشتمل على دلالة لطيفة، وهو أقرب للتعريض منه بالإقرار. فمن المعلوم أنه (ع) قد ناهض الخلفاء الثلاثة الذين سبقوه جمع كبير من المهاجرين والأنصار، كما هو الثابت تاريخياً في هذه القضية (انظر تاريخ الطبري 2: 445، وتاريخ ابن الأثير 2: 325، وتاريخ ابن كثير 5: 265).
ويشير (ع) إلى أنه الوحيد الذي اجتمع عليه المهاجرون والأنصار بأغلبية غالبة في المدينة، وقد قال (ع) يصف هذه الحالة في خطبة له: (( فما راعني إلا والناس كعرف الضبع إليَّ ينثالون عليَّ من كل جانب حتى لقد وطئ الحسنان، وشقَّ عطفاي، ومجتمعين حولي كربيضة الغنم)) (نهج البلاغة 1: 36).
ويقول في نص آخر: ((وبسطتم يدي فكففتها، ومددتموها فقبضتها، ثم تداككتم عليَّ تداك الإبل الهيم على حياضها يوم ورودها، حتى انقطعت النعل وسقط الرداء ووطئ الضعيف، وبلغ من سرور الناس ببيعتهم إياي أن ابتهج بها الصغير، وهدج إليها الكبير، وتحامل نحوها العليل، وحسرت إليها الكعاب)) (نهج البلاغة 2: 222).
قال أبو جعفر الاسكافي المعتزلي ـ المتوفى سنة 220هـ ـ في كتابه (المعيار والموازنة ص50): ((فلما قتل عثمان تداك الناس على علي بن أبي طالب بالرغبة والطلب له بعد أن أتوا مسجد رسول الله(ص) وحضر المهاجرون والأنصار واجمع رأيهم على علي بن أبي طالب بالاجماع منهم أنه أولى بها من غيره ، وأنه لا نظير له في زمانه، فقاموا إليه حتى استخرجوه من منزله، وقالوا له: أبسط يدك نبايعك. فقبضها ومدّوها، ولمّا رأى تداكهم عليه واجتماعهم، قال: لا أبايعكم إلا في مسجد النبي(ص) ظاهراً، فإن كرهني قوم لم أبايع، فأتى المسجد وخرج الناس إلى المسجد، ونادى مناديه.
فيروى عن ابن عباس أنّه قال: إنّي والله لمتخوّف أن يتكلم بعض السفهاء، أو من قتل عليّ أباه أو أخاه في مغازي رسول الله (ص)، فيقول: لا حاجة لنا بعلي بن أبي طالب، فيمتنع عن البيعة.
قال: فلم يتكلم أحد إلا بالتسليم والرضا)). (انتهى).
فكما ترى أن البيعة الوحيدة التي اجتمع عليها المهاجرون والأنصار بأغلبية غالبة كانت بيعته (ع) فهي الوحيدة التي لله فيها رضى ـ بحسب هذا النص الذي جئت به من (نهج البلاغة) ـ وهو الوحيد من الخلفاء الذي كان يسمى (إماماً).فتدبر.

;

 

 

 

And Concerning you claiming we cannot link the verse Together, the Above Will Contradict what you have just claimed.

(wasalam)
 

[Just the truth 117]

Assalamu alaykum

My dearest ISLAMIC HISTORY all you've done throughout this reply is dodged most points made by me and deliberately diverted this discussion towards other hadith.

Why is that so??

Have you not read verse 3:7

It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] PRECISE - they are the FOUNDATION of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . And those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.

ALONG WITH THAT LINK I GAVE YOU:

al-Muhkamat" (translated here as decisive) is derived from the root word h - k - m; THIS ROOT IMPLIES THAT A THING IS SO PROTECTED that nothing can PERVERT or BREAK it or INTERFERE with it. Some infinitive verbs made from it are al-ihkam (to make precise, to confirm, to strengthen), at-tahkim = to arbitrate) and al-hukm (to judge); some other words are al-hikmah (perfect knowledge, wisdom) and al-hakamah (bit of a horse's bridle). All these meanings have the elements of PROTECTION and PRECISENESS in them. Some people say that the root-word gives the meaning of protection and reformation.

al-Ihkam of the verses means MAKING THEM SO PRECISE that no AMBIGUITY remains therein, contrary to "al-mutashdbihat" (ambiguous) ones.

http://www.shiasource.com/al-mizan/tafsir/3-7-9/

I see you've written this:

"Second of all, even if you claim that a verse is not precise, that does not mean it does not have a meaning, that does not mean Allah sent it down for no reason"

MY ANSWER

OF COURSE THERE IS A REASON FOR NON PRECISE VERSES, but the reason for non precise verses is NOT to describe an usul.

YOU SAID

Allah (S.w.t) has sent each verse for a Particular reason and persons, and it is not up to you to decide whether it is or is not precise. Verse 5:55 is very Precise, only a blind person would deny its truth. We find in verse 5:55 Wali Means master, as I have shown you before on the previous page the different translations of Ahlul-Sunnah and explained to you why Master is the right term. Did you reply? No.

MY ANSWER

Who are you trying to impress?? I'm curious!! You think because my previous reply is on the previous page people will not read it??

I spoke about verse 5:55 yet you've ..... Not responded but instead come here calling ME blind.

YOU SAID

You constantly Attack me by saying I have given no Answers, and yet you have not even been able to prove to me your version of the Imam Mahdi and the false concept of Shura

MY ANSWER

1. Yea... Great one. The day you prove to me that your imams are the only ones that belong to AHLE BAYT via verse 33:33 then we will talk.

YOU SAID

Tell me now, if a verse is not Precise, does that mean it has not purpose? does that mean we leave it and say it means nothing?

MY ANSWER

When have I ever said we should leave the unspecific verses??

Also like I've said a million times you cannot use unspecific verses to prove an usul.

Also stop trying to divert the topic . If you can't find a precise verse then that's your bad luck and not mine.

YOU SAID

I would like you to at least Admit that I was right on how the concept of Shura is wrong

MY ANSWER

Why is shura wrong?? Until you can't prove Allah (swt) appointed imams for this ummah then we did what Iran is doing today because they lack an appointed to lead them.

YOU SAID

Once you told me that Shura was wrong but the decision was right.

MY ANSWER

Or maybe you misread what I wrote.

We were talking about sakifah and I said THE METHOD OF SAQIFAH WAS WRONG BUT THE DECISION OF ABU BAKR WAS RIGHT. I never once said shura was wrong.

THE ISLAMIC HISTORY why on earth are you giving me verse after verse after verse regarding obedience to the prophet (pbuh)??

By bringing me verses of unconditional obedience to prophet (pbuh) you're only shooting yourself in the foot.

Like I said to you in my previous reply

If the the messenger (pbuh) and ulil amr both have the right to obedience then wouldn't it be correct and fair that verses of condemnation on believers if they disobey ulil amr.

YOU SAID

Now my brother with these verses in mind let us turn to the famous sermon delivered by the Prophet (s) during the Hajj at Mount Arafat: I am leaving you two weighty things, if you follow them you will never go astray, they are the Qur'an and my Ahlul'bayt".

MY ANSWER

1. Prove your imams are the only AHLE BAYT

2. This cannot be talking about Imamate because bibi fatimah r.a was also part of the AHLE BAYT.

PEN AND PAPER HADITH

See how you're diverting the topic at hand you're running to hadith after hadith after hadith

...BUT I will still talk about this hadith so you don't accuse me of "dodging your questions".

YOU SAID

"It is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind any GOODS that he makes a bequest for Parents and (the nearest kinsmen) in goodness, this is a duty upon the pious" (The Qur'an 2:180)).

MY ANSWER

STOP playing with quranic verses as though they're agame of Lego or summat.

This surah which you have kindly pointed out is talking about material goods.

So what if umar r.a never gave the own and paper??

Tell me what is your propelem with this hadith??

Is it....

1. Umar r.a disobeyed the prophet (pbuh)

Or....

2. That the prophet (pbuh) was not able to write (according to shia) the leadership of ali a.s

Also you've bought the below hadith as your "evidence" against me:

"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 talking no sense (delirious)? Ask him (to see if he is talking no sense). The Prophet replied, 'Leave me, for I am in a better state than what you are asking me.' 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 third order was something beneficial which either Ibn 'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot!.

MY ANSWER

So the prophet (pbuh) instead of stressing about the most important thing (according to shia) leadership of ali a.s told them to:

'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 third order was something beneficial which either Ibn 'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot!.

So the first order was turn out the pagans second was to give gifts and the third either ibn Abbas r.a never mentioned or the sahaba forgot.

So I'm sorry but the prophet (pbuh) gave them orders after that to do three things and non of them were that ali a.s was infallible imam.

The rest of your copy and paste is nothing but trying to condemn sahaba r.a and as usual has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The verse regarding angels is specific because Allah (swt) is talking specifically about angels they are the ones who are being talked about and not the deeply rooted in knowlesge

Also your Imamate and our caliphate are not the same so don't compare oranges to apples.

You believe your imams are appointed by Allah (swt) and we do not believe this so I will ask you again.

If the Imamate if ali a.s is precisely mentioned in quran then how are SUNNIS Muslims for rejecting it.

I WILL ANSWER YOU REGARDING VERSE 3:7.

WHEN I SAY PRECISE I MEAN AT THE VERY LEADT YHE VERSE SHOULD TELL US WHAT OR WHO Allah(swt) IS TALKING ABOUT.

LIKE IN THE VERSE OF ANGELS WE KNOW Allah (swt) IS TALKING ABOUT ANGELS AND LIKEEISE WITH ALL OTHER VERSES.

YOU SAID

Concerning the site (http://www.al-islam....chapter3/5.html), you must be Ignorant the Article is talking about the Sunni view, and its giving a Refutation to it.....?? brother you really need to watch what your Quoting from? your Constantly Contradicting your self:

MY ANSWER

Maybe YOU should read a bit more before replying because that link starts with shia view THEN AFTER that goes on to point out references from sunni books (like as though we deny the verse was for ali a.s)

Here have a little read at it again and you'll see the first "view" and references are shia.

YOU SAID

when are you going to stop listing to the Extremist? For the last time, No, they do not call them selves that. Would you like to Quote from our books where one of our Ayatollahs said such a ting?

MY ANSWER

http://youpuncturedtheark.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/wali-amr-ul-muslimin-khamenei.jpg

Maybe you should do a bit more research as to what us happening in your own house before accusing me of "listening to extremist"

Nahj ul balagah letter 6.

Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per APPROVAL and PLEASURE OF Allah.

MY ANSWER

Maybe you should try opening up your heart a little bit more.

As for linking the verses number 1 I'm not an Arab so translate that.

Number two.

Re read what it says in the link for 3:7 open up your heart a little bit

The rest of your reply actually your whole aqidah and this reply crumble with verse 33:33.

[Ameen 511]

What is being said here is "obey the Messenger (pbuh)". Also Allah says "what the Prophet says and does accept it. What he gives you, take it and what he forbids, refrain from it. Now Hazrath Umar (ra) made alot of fuss, when the Prophet (pbuh) asked for the pen and paper and severely advised against it. This definately comes under disobedience and i will leave brother just the truth to further comment on this, with justice and fairness, which really isn't his thing!

[Just the truth 117]

What is being said here is "obey the Messenger (pbuh)". Also Allah says "what the Prophet says and does accept it. What he gives you, take it and what he forbids, refrain from it. Now Hazrath Umar (ra) made alot of fuss, when the Prophet (pbuh) asked for the pen and paper and severely advised against it. This definately comes under disobedience and i will leave brother just the truth to further comment on this, with justice and fairness, which really isn't his thing!

AMEEN give over.. Seriously brother you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Just because ISLAMIC history has bought the pen and paper hadith you're trying to use it when if you read above I've answered it in my reply.

You accuse hazrath umar r.a of making a "fuss" when you yourself are guilty of tehreef!!!

You have no room to speak ill of anybody

Edited October 3, 2013 by Just the truth

[TheIslamHistory 9]

a

Statement:

My dearest ISLAMIC HISTORY all you've done throughout this reply is dodged most points made by me and deliberately diverted this discussion towards other hadith Why is that so??

 

Brother, you did not even Answer my Questions? Why are you making False accusations, Care to tell me or Quote from y Reply how have I So called "deliberately diverted" The Discussion? Can you please explain? your the one who is Leaving my Questions behind, any person who reads this Will be able to claim so. 

 

Statement:

OF COURSE THERE IS A REASON FOR NON PRECISE VERSES, but the reason for non precise verses is NOT to describe an usul.

 

(1) Who said so? Can you please quote from a Shia Literature?
(2) This is not the only verse, there are many verses I mentioned in page 17/18? Where are they now? Why aren't you Objecting to them?

 

 

Statement:

Who are you trying to impress?? I'm curious!! You think because my previous reply is on the previous page people will not read it?? I spoke about verse 5:55 yet you've ..... Not responded but instead come here calling ME blind.

 

(1) Your Reply to my Detailed Reply was merely "This is Unspecific", you did not even Object what I laid infront of you.
(2) In Addition I gave you a Reply at the previous post "Who are the Blind". Can you tell me Why When Abu bakr Says Wali it means Successor?
(3) Please Quote what I said to Support what false Claim to Accuse me of Dear.

 

statement:

1. Yea... Great one. The day you prove to me that your imams are the only ones that belong to AHLE BAYT via verse 33:33 then we will talk.

 

(1) I wonder if you ever read:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-8  Post (188#)

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-6 Post (148#)
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-5 Post (110#)

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016357-believing-in-the-mahdi-af-is-obligatory/ ( made for you since "Appointing a Successor" )
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016809-sunni-hadith-for-names-of-12-caliphs/page-3 (page 2,3 and 4)

 

 

Statement:

When have I ever said we should leave the unspecific verses??

 

You Claimed they are not of Importance as to the Specific.

 

Statement:

Also like I've said a million times you cannot use unspecific verses to prove an usul. 

 

(1) Evidence? Shia text? 
(2) What about the verses on page 17/18? This is not the only verse? Why are you sticking to one verse?
(3) Ironically you have not proven your point? Not from the Evident aspect, nor from the Logical aspect.

 

 

Statement:

Also stop trying to divert the topic . If you can't find a precise verse then that's your bad luck and not mine.

 

How am I changing the topic? When you have not even Objected the verses with actual proof? I simply Give Proof Then ask. 
You rather put a side and stick to what you said a few pages ago?
 

Statement:

Why is shura wrong?? Until you can't prove Allah ì appointed imams for this ummah then we did what Iran is doing today because they lack an appointed to lead them.

 

(1) When will you learn? I explained to you the Difference between Wilayat al Faqih and Wilayat Uli al amr. Where we are talking about the Imam of Mankind. 

(2) Why are you spamming? you bring this Over and Over? Where is your poof? Quote from any book of sayed Ali Al Khamenei were he said I am Uli al amr? Go ahead.

statement:

Or maybe you misread what I wrote.  We were talking about sakifah and I said THE METHOD OF SAQIFAH WAS WRONG BUT THE DECISION OF ABU BAKR WAS RIGHT. I never once said shura was wrong.
 

(1) Abu bakr is not the Khalifa of the Ummah, It was Imam Ali (a.s) I have proved this from Hadiths you could not Reject.
(2) There is no Proof of Shura whatsoever.
(3) Who Ordered them to go do shura? Who gave them the right to lead the Ummah?
(4) How can a wrong method have a Right good Outcome? 

 

Statement:

THE ISLAMIC HISTORY why on earth are you giving me verse after verse after verse regarding obedience to the prophet (s)??

 

(1) If you even read, you will now how Umar and Abu bakr Disobeyed the prophet.
(2) Knowing that is Obedience to the prophet is Obeying the Book of Allah and His Ahlulbayt peace be upon them all.
 

 

Statement:

By bringing me verses of unconditional obedience to prophet (s) you're only shooting yourself in the foot.

 

(1)  A very Failed Metaphor there.
(2) You only read the Title?, Please Continue reading the whole Paragraph. Its simple.

 

 

Statement:

If the the messenger (s) and ulil amr both have the right to obedience then wouldn't it be correct and fair that verses of condemnation on believers if they disobey ulil amr.

 

yes, Disobeying Uli al amr is Disobeying the The prophet Peace be upon him:

I quote again:
 

 

 

your Again trying to Justify one verse to other verses. My dear brother, But how do you Disobey Allah? if Allah gives you a Direct order to Obey The Uli al amr (eg. Imam Ali (s)) Then everyone Who fought Imam Ali (S) has Disobeyed Allah, and When the prophet (s) said I have left in you two things, Hold on to them and you will never go astray 1) The book of Allah and 2) his Ahlulbayt then if you disobey one of them you have disobeyed the prophet (s), and by Disobeying them you have also Disobeyed the Commandments mentioned in the Nobel Quran.

 

 

  Also to support my stance on the Hadith that I pointed out from Mustadrak al Hakim, volume 3, page 128,

 

“Whoever obeys ‘Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys ‘Ali disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah”

 

 

 

 

-This Hadith is Authentic (Sahih)

 

 

____________


Statement:

Prove your imams are the only AHLE BAYT.

 

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-8  Post (188#)

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-6 Post (148#)
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-5 Post (110#)

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016357-believing-in-the-mahdi-af-is-obligatory/ ( made for you since "Appointing a Successor" ) 
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016809-sunni-hadith-for-names-of-12-caliphs/page-3 (page 2,3 and 4)

 

 

Statement:
This cannot be talking about Imamate because bibi fatimah r.a was also part of the AHLE BAYT.

 

(1) The The prophet peace be upon him is telling us Who We should obey.
(2) And whats your point? Fatima't Al Zahraa Peace be upon her is Infallible.
(3) The prophet peace be upon him said this When he lifted Imam Ali's (a.s) Hand on the day of Ghadeer khum.
(4) ghadeer Khum is the Day Imam Ali (a.s) was appointed a Successor.

(5) The prophet peace be upon him said this Many times and in Different Styles. And After this is the "Khalifa" =

 

In Musanad Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 
By Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 
Verified and Investigated (commentated)

by Hamza Ahmad Al-Zain, Volume 16, page 28

 

He Said: Narrated by Zaid ibn Thabit, He said, The prophet  (saws) said: "I am leaving with you two Khalifas (successors), The book of Allah Rope between the heavens and the earth and my Offspring, My Ahlulbayt. They Will not separate until they meet me at the pond (of Kawthar," 

 

The Chain of Narrators, Hadith 21470, "The Chain is Hassan (good)"

 

here is the proof:

 

   
 

 

____________________________


 
 

 

Sahih of "Al-Jami" Al Sagheer"

For the Scholar Al-Albani, the 1st Volume, page 482

Hadith 2457,  

The prophet     (pbuh) said: "I am leaving for you two Khalifas (successors), The Book of Allah, rope between the heavens and earth,  and my Offspring, My Ahlulbayt. They Will not separate until they meet me at the pond (of Kawthar," 

 

Al- Albani says: " It is a SAHIH (perfect)."

Proof:

 

 

 

 

Ithaf Al Khiyara Al-Mahara",

For the Imam Al-Haafiz Shahaab Ul-Deen Al-Buseeri

Introduced by Sheikh Dr, Ahmad Ma'bad, member of Council of Education in
Imam Muhammad bin Su'ood University, Revised (and reassured) by "dar Al-Mishkat" for Research.
Supervised by Abu Tameem Yassir Ibn Ibrahim, Volume 7, First edition, 1999, Al-Riyadah, Saudi Arabia.

Page 210: In the Door of " In the prophet's quote: 'Whoever I am his mater, Ali is his master.":

 

Narrated By Imam Ali: "The prophet     (pbuh) was there under the tree in (ghadeer) Khum. Then he came out 

and took Ali's Hand and said: 'Don't you testify that Allah is your Lord? they said: 'yes', Then he said: "don't you testify that Allah and his messenger have more right over you, than your own selves, and that Allah and his messenger are your masters?", They said: 'yes'. Then he said: 'whoever God and myself are his masters, then He (Ali) is his mater. And I left in you that which if you take and Abide by, you would Never go astray,  God's book and My Ahlulbayt."

 

Narrated by Ishaaq, with a SAHIH (perfect) chain of narration

and said by Imam Al Booseeri, 'and the hadith of Ghadeer was directed by Al-Nisai'i.'

 

Proof:

 

 

 

 

 

Al-Jami'i Al-Kabeer" - Sunan Al Tirmidhi,

From Imam Al-Hafidh, revised by Shuaib al-Arnaoot,

Book (part) 6, page 235, Hadith 4120:

 

Narrated by Jabir Ibn Abdullah: " I Saw the prophet     (pbuh) in pilgrimage as he was on his camel

speaking. So I heard him Say: 'O people, I have left with you that which if you abide by, you will never go astray, God's Book (Quran) and My (holy) Family (Ahlulbayt)." 

 

We look at the footnotes:
 

Al-Arnaoot's view: This hadith is SAHIH (perfect)

Al-Arnaoot says: AL-Sindi in the explanation of "my Ahlulbayt": it was as if

the prophet (pbih) made them (family) equal in importance even to His position. 

'Just as in his     (pbuh) life, it was Him and the Quran, AFTER HIS LIFE, it was his FAMILY (Ahlulbayt) and

the Quran."

Poof:

 

 

 

 

Al - Sunnah : By Imam Abi Bakr Ahmad ibn Abi As'aim (287 AH)

Investigated by Dr Al Jawabra, Professor of Hadeeth at  Imam Muhammad Ibn Su'ood, University

Al- Sumai'y Institution  , Volume 2 page 799

 

The Messenger of Allah     (pbuh) said: "Ali your position to me, is like Harun to Mosa, Expect  

that there will be no prophet after me. and that you are Caliph ​of Every believer After me."
 

In Addition, the Hadith before that on the same page, Hadith 1221:

 

The propher   (pbuh) said: "Ali is from me, and I am from Ali, and he is the WALI of every believer after me."

 

HADITH SAHIH AND THE SANAD IS SANAD MUSLIM.

In the commentary: Underneath it:
 

"The Chain of Narrators is Good, and Narrators are the narrators of the TWO SHEIKHS."


Proof:

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

Statement:

STOP playing with quranic verses as though they're agame of Lego or summat. 

 

So when someone is Proving something he is Playing logo? you really need to work on your Metaphors.

 

Statement:
This surah which you have kindly pointed out is talking about material goods. 

 

Its talking When Death is Approaching you, and One should Write A will When Leaving what he has Behind. Which Umar Stopped The prophet peace be upon him to do. And that Will was Clearly for Ali. Why ells would he stop him? 

Statement:
So what if umar r.a never gave the own and paper??

 

Nope. It Stopped The prophet peace be upon him from Writing his own Will.
 

 

 

 

Statement:

Also your Imamate and our caliphate are not the same so don't compare oranges to apples.

 

Indeed. Since you believe in Shura which has not Existence throughout the History of Prophets, While Successorship Does.
​Fascinating! no?  

Statement:

My dearest ISLAMIC HISTORY all you've done throughout this reply is dodged most points made by me and deliberately diverted this discussion towards other hadith Why is that so??

 

Brother, you did not even Answer my Questions? Why are you making False accusations, Care to tell me or Quote from y Reply how have I So called "deliberately diverted" The Discussion? Can you please explain? your the one who is Leaving my Questions behind, any person who reads this Will be able to claim so. 

 

Statement:

OF COURSE THERE IS A REASON FOR NON PRECISE VERSES, but the reason for non precise verses is NOT to describe an usul.

 

(1) Who said so? Can you please quote from a Shia Literature?
(2) This is not the only verse, there are many verses I mentioned in page 17/18? Where are they now? Why aren't you Objecting to them?

 

 

Statement:

Who are you trying to impress?? I'm curious!! You think because my previous reply is on the previous page people will not read it?? I spoke about verse 5:55 yet you've ..... Not responded but instead come here calling ME blind.

 

(1) Your Reply to my Detailed Reply was merely "This is Unspecific", you did not even Object what I laid infront of you.
(2) In Addition I gave you a Reply at the previous post "Who are the Blind". Can you tell me Why When Abu bakr Says Wali it means Successor?
(3) Please Quote what I said to Support what false Claim to Accuse me of Dear.

 

statement:

1. Yea... Great one. The day you prove to me that your imams are the only ones that belong to AHLE BAYT via verse 33:33 then we will talk.

 

(1) I wonder if you ever read:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-8  Post (188#)

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-6 Post (148#)
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-5 Post (110#)

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016357-believing-in-the-mahdi-af-is-obligatory/ ( made for you since "Appointing a Successor" )
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016809-sunni-hadith-for-names-of-12-caliphs/page-3 (page 2,3 and 4)

 

 

Statement:

When have I ever said we should leave the unspecific verses??

 

You Claimed they are not of Importance as to the Specific.

 

Statement:

Also like I've said a million times you cannot use unspecific verses to prove an usul. 

 

(1) Evidence? Shia text? 
(2) What about the verses on page 17/18? This is not the only verse? Why are you sticking to one verse?
(3) Ironically you have not proven your point? Not from the Evident aspect, nor from the Logical aspect.

 

 

Statement:

Also stop trying to divert the topic . If you can't find a precise verse then that's your bad luck and not mine.

 

How am I changing the topic? When you have not even Objected the verses with actual proof? I simply Give Proof Then ask. 
You rather put a side and stick to what you said a few pages ago?
 

Statement:

Why is shura wrong?? Until you can't prove Allah ì appointed imams for this ummah then we did what Iran is doing today because they lack an appointed to lead them.

 

(1) When will you learn? I explained to you the Difference between Wilayat al Faqih and Wilayat Uli al amr. Where we are talking about the Imam of Mankind. 

(2) Why are you spamming? you bring this Over and Over? Where is your poof? Quote from any book of sayed Ali Al Khamenei were he said I am Uli al amr? Go ahead.

statement:

Or maybe you misread what I wrote.  We were talking about sakifah and I said THE METHOD OF SAQIFAH WAS WRONG BUT THE DECISION OF ABU BAKR WAS RIGHT. I never once said shura was wrong.
 

(1) Abu bakr is not the Khalifa of the Ummah, It was Imam Ali (a.s) I have proved this from Hadiths you could not Reject.
(2) There is no Proof of Shura whatsoever.
(3) Who Ordered them to go do shura? Who gave them the right to lead the Ummah?
(4) How can a wrong method have a Right good Outcome? 

 

Statement:

THE ISLAMIC HISTORY why on earth are you giving me verse after verse after verse regarding obedience to the prophet (s)??

 

(1) If you even read, you will now how Umar and Abu bakr Disobeyed the prophet.
(2) Knowing that is Obedience to the prophet is Obeying the Book of Allah and His Ahlulbayt peace be upon them all.
 

 

Statement:

By bringing me verses of unconditional obedience to prophet (s) you're only shooting yourself in the foot.

 

(1)  A very Failed Metaphor there.
(2) You only read the Title?, Please Continue reading the whole Paragraph. Its simple.

 

 

Statement:

If the the messenger (s) and ulil amr both have the right to obedience then wouldn't it be correct and fair that verses of condemnation on believers if they disobey ulil amr.

 

yes, Disobeying Uli al amr is Disobeying the The prophet Peace be upon him:

I quote again:
 

 

 

your Again trying to Justify one verse to other verses. My dear brother, But how do you Disobey Allah? if Allah gives you a Direct order to Obey The Uli al amr (eg. Imam Ali (s)) Then everyone Who fought Imam Ali (S) has Disobeyed Allah, and When the prophet (s) said I have left in you two things, Hold on to them and you will never go astray 1) The book of Allah and 2) his Ahlulbayt then if you disobey one of them you have disobeyed the prophet (s), and by Disobeying them you have also Disobeyed the Commandments mentioned in the Nobel Quran.

 

 

  Also to support my stance on the Hadith that I pointed out from Mustadrak al Hakim, volume 3, page 128,

 

“Whoever obeys ‘Ali, obeys me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys ‘Ali disobeys me, whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah”

 

 

 

 

-This Hadith is Authentic (Sahih)

 

 

____________


Statement:

Prove your imams are the only AHLE BAYT.

 

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-8  Post (188#)

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-6 Post (148#)
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-5 Post (110#)

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016357-believing-in-the-mahdi-af-is-obligatory/ ( made for you since "Appointing a Successor" ) 
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016809-sunni-hadith-for-names-of-12-caliphs/page-3 (page 2,3 and 4)

 

 

Statement:
This cannot be talking about Imamate because bibi fatimah r.a was also part of the AHLE BAYT.

 

(1) The The prophet peace be upon him is telling us Who We should obey.
(2) And whats your point? Fatima't Al Zahraa Peace be upon her is Infallible.
(3) The prophet peace be upon him said this When he lifted Imam Ali's (a.s) Hand on the day of Ghadeer khum.
(4) ghadeer Khum is the Day Imam Ali (a.s) was appointed a Successor.

(5) The prophet peace be upon him said this Many times and in Different Styles. And After this is the "Khalifa" =

 

In Musanad Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 
By Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 
Verified and Investigated (commentated)

by Hamza Ahmad Al-Zain, Volume 16, page 28

 

He Said: Narrated by Zaid ibn Thabit, He said, The prophet  (saws) said: "I am leaving with you two Khalifas (successors), The book of Allah Rope between the heavens and the earth and my Offspring, My Ahlulbayt. They Will not separate until they meet me at the pond (of Kawthar," 

 

The Chain of Narrators, Hadith 21470, "The Chain is Hassan (good)"

 

here is the proof:

 

   
 

 

____________________________


 
 

 

Sahih of "Al-Jami" Al Sagheer"

For the Scholar Al-Albani, the 1st Volume, page 482

Hadith 2457,  

The prophet      (pbuh) said: "I am leaving for you two Khalifas (successors), The Book of Allah, rope between the heavens and earth,  and my Offspring, My Ahlulbayt. They Will not separate until they meet me at the pond (of Kawthar," 

 

Al- Albani says: " It is a SAHIH (perfect)."

Proof:

 

 

 

 

Ithaf Al Khiyara Al-Mahara",

For the Imam Al-Haafiz Shahaab Ul-Deen Al-Buseeri

Introduced by Sheikh Dr, Ahmad Ma'bad, member of Council of Education in
Imam Muhammad bin Su'ood University, Revised (and reassured) by "dar Al-Mishkat" for Research.
Supervised by Abu Tameem Yassir Ibn Ibrahim, Volume 7, First edition, 1999, Al-Riyadah, Saudi Arabia.

Page 210: In the Door of " In the prophet's quote: 'Whoever I am his mater, Ali is his master.":

 

Narrated By Imam Ali: "The prophet      (pbuh) was there under the tree in (ghadeer) Khum. Then he came out 

and took Ali's Hand and said: 'Don't you testify that Allah is your Lord? they said: 'yes', Then he said: "don't you testify that Allah and his messenger have more right over you, than your own selves, and that Allah and his messenger are your masters?", They said: 'yes'. Then he said: 'whoever God and myself are his masters, then He (Ali) is his mater. And I left in you that which if you take and Abide by, you would Never go astray,  God's book and My Ahlulbayt."

 

Narrated by Ishaaq, with a SAHIH (perfect) chain of narration

and said by Imam Al Booseeri, 'and the hadith of Ghadeer was directed by Al-Nisai'i.'

 

Proof:

 

 

 

 

 

Al-Jami'i Al-Kabeer" - Sunan Al Tirmidhi,

From Imam Al-Hafidh, revised by Shuaib al-Arnaoot,

Book (part) 6, page 235, Hadith 4120:

 

Narrated by Jabir Ibn Abdullah: " I Saw the prophet      (pbuh) in pilgrimage as he was on his camel

speaking. So I heard him Say: 'O people, I have left with you that which if you abide by, you will never go astray, God's Book (Quran) and My (holy) Family (Ahlulbayt)." 

 

We look at the footnotes:
 

Al-Arnaoot's view: This hadith is SAHIH (perfect)

Al-Arnaoot says: AL-Sindi in the explanation of "my Ahlulbayt": it was as if

the prophet (pbih) made them (family) equal in importance even to His position. 

'Just as in his      (pbuh) life, it was Him and the Quran, AFTER HIS LIFE, it was his FAMILY (Ahlulbayt) and

the Quran."

Poof:

 

 

 

 

Al - Sunnah : By Imam Abi Bakr Ahmad ibn Abi As'aim (287 AH)

Investigated by Dr Al Jawabra, Professor of Hadeeth at  Imam Muhammad Ibn Su'ood, University

Al- Sumai'y Institution  , Volume 2 page 799

 

The Messenger of Allah      (pbuh) said: "Ali your position to me, is like Harun to Mosa, Expect  

that there will be no prophet after me. and that you are Caliph ​of Every believer After me."
 

In Addition, the Hadith before that on the same page, Hadith 1221:

 

The propher    (pbuh) said: "Ali is from me, and I am from Ali, and he is the WALI of every believer after me."

 

HADITH SAHIH AND THE SANAD IS SANAD MUSLIM.

In the commentary: Underneath it:
 

"The Chain of Narrators is Good, and Narrators are the narrators of the TWO SHEIKHS."


Proof:

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

Statement:

STOP playing with quranic verses as though they're agame of Lego or summat. 

 

So when someone is Proving something he is Playing logo? you really need to work on your Metaphors.

 

Statement:
This surah which you have kindly pointed out is talking about material goods. 

 

Its talking When Death is Approaching you, and One should Write A will When Leaving what he has Behind. Which Umar Stopped The prophet peace be upon him to do. And that Will was Clearly for Ali. Why ells would he stop him? 

Statement:
So what if umar r.a never gave the own and paper??

 

Nope. It Stopped The prophet peace be upon him from Writing his own Will.
 

 

 

 

 

Statement:

Also your Imamate and our caliphate are not the same so don't compare oranges to apples.

 

Indeed. Since you believe in Shura which has not Existence throughout the History of Prophets, While Successorship Does.
​Fascinating! no?  

Edited October 3, 2013 by TheIslamHistory

[Ameen 511]

You have no room to speak ill of anybody??? Look who's talking. I didn't speak ill of anyone but put reality and facts forward, which you've found hard to digest, with an ouch! Hazrath Umar (ra) wasn't just disobedient towards the Prophet (pbuh) here but on many other occasions too. It's about reality and facts, it's about justice and fairness, it's about being truthful and honest with yourself, which you are exactly not.

[TheIslamHistory 9]

Statement:

So the first order was turn out the pagans second was to give gifts and the third either ibn Abbas r.a never mentioned or the sahaba forgot.
So I'm sorry but the prophet (s) gave them orders after that to do three things and non of them were that ali a.s was infallible imam.

 

(1) read what I mentioned in the start of the Response of this issue genius. 

(2) Read the Hadiths at the beginning to see what I was trying to Link them to.
(3) The prophet Peace be upon him Wanted to Write the Will Of Imam Ali (a.s) as Khalfiat. So why ells would Umar stop the prophet?

(4) You have never said anything on Ghadeer Khum. We are Waiting.

 

[Ameen 511]

He's not going to answer any of your questions or comment on any of your points because he hasn't got what it takes. He is not going to discuss and debate, with a positive attitude and a pleasant manner. There is nothing constructive for him to put forward. He knows he has reached a dead end, after all that running around in circles.

[TheIslamHistory 9]

Statement:

Maybe you should do a bit more research as to what us happening in your own house before accusing me of "listening to extremist"

 

I only see the book Cover? Sorry? Where is the poof? Funny how you people hate the man Who is trying to bring us closer to Sunni and Shia unity.
very Strange of Folks like you.

Statement:

Maybe you should try opening up your heart a little bit more.

 

I advise you to use your logic more.
 

Statement:
As for linking the verses number 1 I'm not an Arab so translate that.

 

(1) Can't you read? I said for the Arabic Readers. Read the English Paragraph.
​If your no satisfied I will type you an Essay. 

Statement:
Re read what it says in the link for 3:7 open up your heart a little bit

 

I did and I replied. And You have not made one Objection to my Statements.
 

 

Statement:
The rest of your reply actually your whole aqidah and this reply crumble with verse 33:33. 

 

Perhaps Try to be Polite before Insulting My Aqidah.
Second of All your Only making Silly Insults. But where is your proof?

•  

 

•  

[Just the truth 117]

1. You diverted by bringing hadith of pen and paper and verse of inheritance

2. Come again?? What do you want me to prove from shia literature??

3. The sooner you get used to the fact that there is no verse in the quran where Allah (swt) says he will send imams the better it will be for you.

By the way which verses prove imamat??

4. Abu bakr said he was wali AFTER he became caliph. So it only makes sense that wali here means leader.

5. You shia say your imams are AHLE BAYT because they were born infallible whereas verse says Allah INTENDS to PURIFY.

Also ISLAMIC history you said ayatollahs don't call themselves "wali al amr" and I've proven to you otherwise, so what's the problem??

Edited October 3, 2013 by Just the truth

[Ameen 511]

Brother just the truth, what is your belief and faith really about??? Double standards??? Hypocritical element??? Two faced??? Random belief??? Two sided??? one leg here and the other there??? Twist and turns??? Hide and seek???? Running around in circles???

[Just the truth 117]

Brother just the truth, what is your belief and faith really about??? Double standards??? Hypocritical element??? Two faced??? Random belief??? Two sided??? one leg here and the other there??? Twist and turns??? Hide and seek???? Running around in circles???

.... And what's yours?? TEHREEF??

Edited October 3, 2013 by Just the truth

[TheIslamHistory 9]

Statement:

You diverted by bringing hadith of pen and paper and verse of inheritance 

 

How is linking an Indecent to your beliefs to Justify my point of view a Divert?

 

 
Statement:
2. Come again?? What do you want me to prove from shia literature??

 

What statement are you replying to?

Statement:
3. The sooner you get used to the fact that there is no verse in the quran where Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì says he will send imams the better it will be for you.

 

(1) So the previous Prophets peace be upon them did not have successors? Do you read?
(2) So when Allah says I will make on this earth a Khalifa, does that mean Only for one time? one place?

 

 

 

Statement:
By the way which verses prove imamat??

 

Page 17/18 ( last three replies)

 

 

Statement
4. Abu bakr said he was wali AFTER he became caliph. So it only makes sense that wali here means leader.

 

ABu bakr said? So he made him self Khalifa? Mashalla...And when the prophet Goes out infront of the Whole Crowd and Holds Imam Ali's Hand an says Wali it means Friendship??? mashalla......genius...

 

Statement:
5. You shia say your imams are AHLE BAYT because they were born infallible whereas verse says Allah INTENDS to PURIFY.

So Are you saying Allah Never Purified them? So he cannot do what he Intends to so? Instghfarllah?
 

Statement:
Also ISLAMIC history you said ayatollahs don't call themselves "wali al amr" and I've proven to you otherwise, so what's the problem?? 

 

I only see the Book cover where is the rest? And on the books it says Wali al amr? how does that prove he is telling everyone The Whole Islamic ummah he is Wali al amr? We are talking about the Islamic Ummah, and not the people Who follow him as Marja. There is a huge Difference. I asked for proof where is Officially goes out and says I am the wali al amr of All muslims...???

 

By the way the site you go to I see is very Extreme Towards Shia. So is that your Number one Resource? Not very Literate really.

Edited October 3, 2013 by TheIslamHistory

[Just the truth 117]

1. You shouldn't need hadith to prove imamah.

Hadith of pen and paper means nothing regarding imama

2. You said you wanted me to prove something from shia literature. What was it??

3. The caliphs appointed by Allah (swt) were prophets a.s

4. YOU SAID

Page 17/18 ( last three replies)

MY ANSWER

On which thread

5.how can the prophet ( pbuh) appoint ali a.s and say he is appointed when there is no such verse in the quran where Allah (swt) says he will appoint imams.

6. your aqidah says your imams were born infallible but all I'm asking is why would Allah (swt) say he intends to purify them?? Why arnt you answering me directly.

7. If you read the book cover properly it says the name of the ayatollah.

He's not going to answer any of your questions or comment on any of your points because he hasn't got what it takes. He is not going to discuss and debate, with a positive attitude and a pleasant manner. There is nothing constructive for him to put forward. He knows he has reached a dead end, after all that running around in circles.

AMEEN you've got some nerve I'll give you that. Personally I thought you would have faded away by now but even after doing tehreef you're lingering around!!

You have done nothing but tehreef so what are you talking about

[Ameen 511]

Tehreef??? You're very quick and fast to accuse but lazy and slow to prove. Where is your proof??? I can easily accuse you of the same thing. You said "Obey those who are in authority among you", which words mean "those" and especially "in"???So far you're all talk and no action, all say but no do and all words but no practical. Come on mate, get a grip on yourself and show us what you're really about. So far NOTHING.

Let me answer your questions, by which you are running around in circles. Yes, you do not need Hadiths to prove imaamath. It is directly in the Quran that, Imaamath is from Allah and many verses have been put forward to prove this.

[TheIslamHistory 9]

Due to the Technical error on my previous Reply I must repeat it Once more:
 

 

Statement:

My dearest ISLAMIC HISTORY all you've done throughout this reply is dodged most points made by me and deliberately diverted this discussion towards other hadith.

 

Really? Why escape my Questions? is it hard to Admit brother? I guess it depends on how you look at the debate, whether " I must reply, or I am Defeated" or whether " I must Reach a Conclusion" Your False claim has no proof. Why would you claim I am the one diverting the topic? When you have never Answered one single Question regarding Imamah? brother No need for exaggerations. There is nothing wrong is bringing proof from other topics to justify my point of view to judge yours. Unless you have a Different Definition of the word "debate"? If you do, please sure.    

Statement:

OF COURSE THERE IS A REASON FOR NON PRECISE VERSES, but the reason for non precise verses is NOT to describe an usul.

 

(1) Who said so? Can you please quote from a Shia Literature?
(2) This is not the only verse, there are many verses I mentioned in page 17/18? Where are they now? Why aren't you Objecting to them?

 

 

Statement:

Who are you trying to impress?? I'm curious!! You think because my previous reply is on the previous page people will not read it?? I spoke about verse 5:55 yet you've ..... Not responded but instead come here calling ME blind.

 

(1) Your Reply to my Detailed Reply was merely "This is Unspecific", you did not even Object what I laid infront of you.
(2) In Addition I gave you a Reply at the previous post "Who are the Blind". Can you tell me Why When Abu bakr Says Wali it means Successor?
(3) Please Quote what I said to Support what false Claim to Accuse me of Dear.

 

statement:

1. Yea... Great one. The day you prove to me that your imams are the only ones that belong to AHLE BAYT via verse 33:33 then we will talk.

 

 

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-8  (post 188#) - No refutation to the hadiths Given so far.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-5  (post 108#) - No refutation to the Hadiths Given so far.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-9  (post 201, 203, 204, 206, 207#) -No Refutations on the Hadiths Given...)

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016357-believing-in-the-mahdi-af-is-obligatory/  (This was post was made for you long time ago ) Yet I received no Replies.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016809-sunni-hadith-for-names-of-12-caliphs/  ( page 2,3 and 4 ) -No Refutation to the Hadiths given so far.

and more as I cannot Locate them All.   

 

 

Statement:
When have I ever said we should leave the unspecific verses??

 

You claimed since a verse is Unspecific, it could not be Understood Completely. Therefore Leaving it at that status.


Statement:
Also like I've said a million times you cannot use unspecific verses to prove an usul. 

 

Who said so? Why? Can you please Quote from Shia text? Where it says You cannot? Perhaps First prove to me Properly from Our Literature that the verse you claim is Unspecific and not according to your assumptions. 


Statement:
Also stop trying to divert the topic . If you can't find a precise verse then that's your bad luck and not mine.

 

(1) as said: Please when making a Claim about a certain verse please quote from our Literature to prove your point. Unless you claim to be a Scholar and you have your own Tafsir? 

(2) As Previously Said:

 

 

Really? Why escape my Questions? is it hard to Admit brother? I guess it depends on how you look at the debate, whether " I must reply, or I am Defeated" or whether " I must Reach a Conclusion" Your False claim has no proof. Why would you claim I am the one diverting the topic? When you have never Answered one single Question regarding Imamah? brother No need for exaggerations. There is nothing wrong is bringing proof from other topics to justify my point of view to judge yours. Unless you have a Different Definition of the word "debate"? If you do, please sure.    

 

Statement:
Why is shura wrong?? Until you can't prove Allah  appointed imams for this ummah then we did what Iran is doing today because they lack an appointed to lead them.

 

You are Mixing Democracy with Appoint-ment. This cannot be Logical as we Are Discussing the Concept of Imamah of this Whole Islamic Ummah and not the Democracy of one country my dear brother. Imamah has Existed from the Beginning of Adam (a.s). We find Prophet Moses, Jesus, had successors and Prophet ibrahim was made an Imam after being a prophet. When Allah says He is putting a Khalifa On earth, does that mean only for one time? one place? While we find Shura has not existence in the History of the prophets. No matter what nation it is, it does not have the right to choose the Guide who will guide them. This is Allah Choice. Only he Can appoint the Guide. The Irony you accept Shura and yet it has no Historical or Evident proof. While Imamah is There many times in the Quran and has many times been mentioned for certain prophets. And As I explained and refuted your Refutation for the Hadith of "For every nation there is a Warner and a guide, and Ali is the Guide".

And I quote for you once more:
 

 

 

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-8  (post 188#) - No refutation to the hadiths Given so far.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-5  (post 108#) - No refutation to the Hadiths Given so far.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-9  (post 201, 203, 204, 206, 207#) -No Refutations on the Hadiths Given...)

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016357-believing-in-the-mahdi-af-is-obligatory/  (This was post was made for you long time ago ) Yet I received no Replies.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016809-sunni-hadith-for-names-of-12-caliphs/  ( page 2,3 and 4 ) -No Refutation to the Hadiths given so far.

and more as I cannot Locate them All.   

Statement:
We were talking about sakifah and I said THE METHOD OF SAQIFAH WAS WRONG BUT THE DECISION OF ABU BAKR WAS RIGHT. I never once said shura was wrong.

 

In this Line you are Contradicting your self: The Method of Saqifa is Shura, Which is Wrong and then you say its right? Can you please make up your mind. Second of All you cannot have an Incorrect method and come up with a Positive Result. Third of All Who told them to go and do shura? Did the prophet peace be upon him give them the Instructions to do so? yet you have no proof o this concept to be Commanded by Allah and the prophet peace be upon him.



Statement:
THE ISLAMIC HISTORY why on earth are you giving me verse after verse after verse regarding obedience to the prophet (s)?? By bringing me verses of unconditional obedience to prophet (s) you're only shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Genius read the the Explanation under the verse before you judge. Why do you not read what I lay out infront of you? Do you merely assume anything from us is Incorrect? And Your Metaphor Fails. 

 


Statement:
If the the messenger  and ulil amr both have the right to obedience then wouldn't it be correct and fair that verses of condemnation on believers if they disobey ulil amr.

 

And like I said Earlier: 

 

 

 

your Again trying to Justify one verse to other verses. My dear brother, But how do you Disobey Allah? if Allah gives you a Direct order to Obey The Uli al amr (eg. Imam Ali (s)) Then everyone Who fought Imam Ali (S) has Disobeyed Allah, and When the prophet (s) said I have left in you two things, Hold on to them and you will never go astray 1) The book of Allah and 2) his Ahlulbayt then if you disobey one of them you have disobeyed the prophet (s), and by Disobeying them you have also Disobeyed the Commandments mentioned in the Nobel Quran.

Statement:
Prove your imams are the only AHLE BAYT

 

I quote:

 

 

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-8  (post 188#) - No refutation to the hadiths Given so far.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-5  (post 108#) - No refutation to the Hadiths Given so far.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235015738-did-the-prophet-s-appoint-a-successor/page-9  (post 201, 203, 204, 206, 207#) -No Refutations on the Hadiths Given...)

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016357-believing-in-the-mahdi-af-is-obligatory/  (This was post was made for you long time ago ) Yet I received no Replies.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/235016809-sunni-hadith-for-names-of-12-caliphs/  ( page 2,3 and 4 ) -No Refutation to the Hadiths given so far.

and more as I cannot Locate them All.   

 

Statement:
This cannot be talking about Imamate because bibi fatimah r.a was also part of the AHLE BAYT.

 

And? So how does that Justify your view? Yes she if of course a part of Ahlulbayt. And Remember the prophet peace be upon him Said the Hadith During the Day of Ghadree khum. And Lets not forget the prophet peace be upon him said this Hadith in many Different Styles and previously wwe have mentioned the Style of "Khalifa" as we read:
 

In Musanad Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 
By Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 
Verified and Investigated (commentated)

by Hamza Ahmad Al-Zain, Volume 16, page 28

 

He Said: Narrated by Zaid ibn Thabit, He said, The prophet   (pbuh) said: "I am leaving with you two Khalifas (successors), The book of Allah Rope between the heavens and the earth and my Offspring, My Ahlulbayt. They Will not separate until they meet me at the pond (of Kawthar," 

 

The Chain of Narrators, Hadith 21470, "The Chain is Hassan (good)"

 

____________________________________________________________

Sahih of "Al-Jami" Al Sagheer"

For the Scholar Al-Albani, the 1st Volume, page 482

Hadith 2457,  

The prophet   (pbuh) said: "I am leaving for you two Khalifas (successors), The Book of Allah, rope between the heavens and earth,  and my Offspring, My Ahlulbayt. They Will not separate until they meet me at the pond (of Kawthar," 

 

Al- Albani says: " It is a SAHIH (perfect)."

_______________________________________________

Now you would probably ask me, What is so special about this phrase?

Well, Firstly, its common with the first phrase in the case of quoting "They Will no separate until they med at the pond (Kawthar). So this is now a foundation that's approved one hundred percent. However, in this particular phrase, there is a bonus feature: "I am leaving with you two Khalifas (successors)!"

 

Go back to grammar, to the dictionaries, to the words of the scholars and Hadiths and find what does "Khalifa" mean. Is there any meaning other than succeed Leadership after me?

 

Specially that the prophet   (pbuh) says "I am leaving IN YOU this successor.

 

So my dear friend, the claim that the prophet   (pbuh) did not give a Khalifaa (leadership) to anyone is Refuted by these Sahih Hadiths, That "I am leaving with (or In) you Two Khalifas (successors)."

 

And now this Also if a Hujjat on you because Allah Subhanaho Wa Talalla, says:
"Whenever you have a Quarrel, Return to God and His Prophet's sayings." (Quran 4:59)

 

and he Also Says:
"Take whatever the prophet comes you with, and whatever he forbids, stay away from." (Quran 59:7)

 

by why? Well the answer is simple, its because  Allah Also says:

"he Does not speak out of his own intuition, but rather a revelation from God." (quran 53:4-5)

 

So I referred back to the prophet's sayings because his sayings are revelations. he said:

"I am leaving in you two Khalifas (successors)."

 

I swear, if one was indeed fair in his research, at least this would be a reason to search Further.!

To see where the truth is, what else do you want the prophet to say to prove Imam Ali's Successorship?

 

ALL these phrases were used: "Wilaya (masterhood), Wali (master), Khalifa (successor)", 
All these phrases were used numerous times....brothers, you say the first two Caliphs deserved their position,

But the prophet here says otherwise!, So, dear brothers, this should be a good reason to search and revise.

____________________________________________________________________________

 

So, the second version of the hadith as I mentioned, differs from the first in one sense and is common with it in another.

The First phrase (Thaqalayn) is SAHIH and so in the second phrase (KHLIFA).

 

Now the third phrase which was Written in:

Ithaf Al Khiyara Al-Mahara",

For the Imam Al-Haafiz Shahaab Ul-Deen Al-Buseeri

Introduced by Sheikh Dr, Ahmad Ma'bad, member of Council of Education in
Imam Muhammad bin Su'ood University, Revised (and reassured) by "dar Al-Mishkat" for Research.
Supervised by Abu Tameem Yassir Ibn Ibrahim, Volume 7, First edition, 1999, Al-Riyadah, Saudi Arabia.

Page 210: In the Door of " In the prophet's quote: 'Whoever I am his mater, Ali is his master.":

 

Narrated By Imam Ali: "The prophet   (pbuh) was there under the tree in (ghadeer) Khum. Then he came out 

and took Ali's Hand and said: 'Don't you testify that Allah is your Lord? they said: 'yes', Then he said: "don't you testify that Allah and his messenger have more right over you, than your own selves, and that Allah and his messenger are your masters?", They said: 'yes'. Then he said: 'whoever God and myself are his masters, then He (Ali) is his mater. And I left in you that which if you take and Abide by, you would Never go astray,  God's book and My Ahlulbayt."

 

Narrated by Ishaaq, with a SAHIH (perfect) chain of narration

and said by Imam Al Booseeri, 'and the hadith of Ghadeer was directed by Al-Nisai'i.'

_____

I honestly don't know how here in this case "wilaya" would mean "love"...as some Sunni's claim. 
The "Wilayah" (guardianship/mastership) of God and his messenger is for Ali, not just the prophet   (pbuh)!!,
brothers listen to me, This phrase is indeed  great and wondrous phrase (in its meaning and Weight)!

For God's sake pay attention, contemplate and reflect!!:

Again: he said:  said: 'whoever God and myself are his masters, then He (Ali) is his mater."

Please, ask yourselves and think. Is the "Wilayah (mastership) of God upon us (creation) just to love and support him?" Is it just love really? which makes claim that its means "whoever loves me, shoud love Ali.."???? NO!, and a million times NO....Indeed if this was said in the praise of any other person (sahaba), it would not have been taken lightly!...but when its come to Ali   (as)...ohh no......how very shameful indeed.

 

These phrases and quotes are enough for the whole world, I tell you, but, its just because its in honour of Ali, you find the Ummayyads and those who support them, stand against this. (istaghfralla) what can I say? I'm speechless. lets continue on....The second source is that has been written in:

"Al-Jami'i Al-Kabeer" - Sunan Al Tirmidhi,

From Imam Al-Hafidh, revised by Shuaib al-Arnaoot,

Book (part) 6, page 235:

 

Narrated by Jabir Ibn Abdullah: " I Saw the prophet   (pbuh) in pilgrimage as he was on his camel

speaking. So I heard him Say: 'O people, I have left with you that which if you abide by, you will never go astray, God's Book (Quran) and My (holy) Family (Ahlulbayt)." 

 

We look at the footnotes:
 

Al-Arnaoot's view: This hadith is SAHIH (perfect)

Al-Arnaoot says: AL-Sindi in the explanation of "my Ahlulbayt": it was as if

the prophet (pbih) made them (family) equal in importance even to His position. 

'Just as in his   (pbuh) life, it was Him and the Quran, AFTER HIS LIFE, it was his FAMILY (Ahlulbayt) and

the Quran."

 

________________

I swear By God, what does "Official khilafa" mean if THIS was not its meaning?????

The Hadith wants to say that in my (prophet) time it was I and the QURAN, but after me,

It's MY FAMILY and the QURAN!" 

 

Don't say to me, the Quran and the companions (sahaba)...

Yes we respect the Companions of the Holy prophet in the scales of the Quran and Hadith.

Yes, we do accept the narration from them if the chain was strong..

But, the Hujja, if they DISAGREE with Ahlulbayt, then return to the 2 successors: The Quran and Hus Holy family.

 

Just like in the time of the holy prophet   (pbuh) if the companions say something that disagrees with the prophet, Who would

you agree with?

 

What does the Quran say????

"If you disagree in something, then return to God and his prophet." (Quran 4:95) in his LIFETIME.

 

So what does the Phrase says? In the Hadith I mentioned? what? it says: After his   (pbuh) death,
return to God and the HOLY FAMILY (Ahlulbayt).

 

These indeed are the fruits of this beautiful Hadith which will REMAIN until the day of reckoning, God Wills!

 

______________________________

 

 

Statement:
This surah which you have kindly pointed out is talking about material goods. 

 

​This is When Death Approaches a person and he should write his Will before he passes away. yet we say that Umar Prevented The prophet peace be upon him to do so. 
 

Statement:
So what if umar r.a never gave the own and paper??

 

(1) he Did not give, He "PREVENTED" the prophet peace be upon him to write his own Will. 
(2) You now have a Khalifa who Disobeyed the prophet peace be upon him at his last minutes.



Statement:
So the first order was turn out the pagans second was to give gifts and the third either ibn Abbas r.a never mentioned or the sahaba forgot.

 

And that is where we put a Question Mark genius. What was the last Will? and yet umar prevented the prophet peace be upon him. Surely it was for a Reason Umar knew what the prophet pace be upon him wanted to write. And Please you cannot take that out of context if you read further you will know what point I am trying to get to. Its simply really.
 

 

 

Statement:
So I'm sorry but the prophet (s) gave them orders after that to do three things and non of them were that ali a.s was infallible imam.

 

First of all as we proved that Umar did prevent the prophet peace be upon him from his last will. This shows the prophet was not even given a Chance. and Also do you not read further? :

 

 

 

This is what we read in Sahih al-Bukhari as narrated by Ibn 'Abbas: When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the house, and among them was 'Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Prophet said: "Come near let me write for you a writing after which you will never go astray." 'Umar said: "The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Qur'an, so Allah's Book is sufficient for us." The people in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, "Come near so that Allah's Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray," while the others said what 'Umar said. When they made much noise and quarreled greatly in front of the Prophet, he said to them, "Go away and leave me." Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was a great disaster that their quarrel and noise prevented Allah's Apostle from writing a statement for them. 

 

 

 

At least a proper reply brother.


 

 

Statement:
The rest of your copy and paste is nothing but trying to condemn sahaba r.a and as usual has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

(1) I never said anything about the sahabah in General.
(2) Not all the Sahabah are of Good person.
(3) Don't give me that same excuses. 
(4) This has much to do with your concept of Shura, and how Imamah Prevails Over it.

 

 

Statement:
The verse regarding angels is specific because Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì is talking specifically about angels they are the ones who are being talked about and not the deeply rooted in knowlesge

 

First of all according to you, a verse Cannot be Specific if ambiguity exists within the verse. And therefore since you cannot explain to me the Identity of those In knowledge. You cannot claim this verse is Specific. I could Say verse 4:59 For example is Precise because it talks about the prophet exactly. But then you have Uli al amr, so this is the same with this verse ( those of Knowledge)  

 

Statement:
Also your Imamate and our caliphate are not the same so don't compare oranges to apples.

 

First of all we both Believe there should be a Successor after the prophet peace be upon him, but our departing point is the method and Person (Who is the Successor)

second, Please No need for metaphors which make no sense in this Argument. 

 

 

Statement:
You believe your imams are appointed by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì and we do not believe this so I will ask you again.

 

So who has the right to Appoint the Guide for the Ummah?  Allah? or the Sahabah? 

 

Statement:
If the Imamate if ali a.s is precisely mentioned in quran then how are SUNNIS Muslims for rejecting it.

 

To be a Muslim you only need to say the Shahadatain. Unless you can tackle me wrong from my Literature. Which you can't.
 

Statement:
WHEN I SAY PRECISE I MEAN AT THE VERY LEADT YHE VERSE SHOULD TELL US WHAT OR WHO Allah(swt) IS TALKING ABOUT.

 

Even a Precise verse needs the prophet peace be upon him to say why and Whom it came down upon. And I am sure Allah knows what he is talking about in all his verses.

 

Statement:
LIKE IN THE VERSE OF ANGELS WE KNOW Allah  IS TALKING ABOUT ANGELS AND LIKEEISE WITH ALL OTHER VERSES.

 

Answered Above. Why do you repeat the same statement?



Statement:
Maybe YOU should read a bit more before replying because that link starts with shia view THEN AFTER that goes on to point out references from sunni books (like as though we deny the verse was for ali a.s) Here have a little read at it again and you'll see the first "view" and references are shia.

 

Genius, Where is the Contradiction your pointing at? it says: unanimous which means Fully in agreement.
 

 

 

[TheIslamHistory 9]

_________________________________________________________Continuing on with that you said @JUSTHETRUTH.

 

 

Statement:

You shouldn't need hadith to prove imamah.

(1) Imamah is mentioned for many prophets Before Muhammad peace upon him.
(2) The prophet peace be upon him said that Imam Ali (a.s) is the guide.
(3) So does that mean we do not need the sayings of the prophet peace be upon him to understand the verse fully? 

 

Statement:

Hadith of pen and paper means nothing regarding imama

 

​(1) In Contradicts the method and the Result of Shura. Please Continue reading the Analyzes.  

 

Statement:
You said you wanted me to prove something from shia literature. What was it??

 

Please quote the statement you are referring to.

 

 

Statement:
The caliphs appointed by Allah  were prophets a.s

 

Fantastic, and now your trying to justify you point of view from the language point of view. First of all so when the prophets Jesus, Moses, Solomon appointed a Successor, are they all under the Word "khalifa", how will we be able to Distinguish between them? DO we say they are all Khalifas? Are they all prophets?

 

In the Arabic language there is a Big difference between Khalifa & Nuwbuawa.  

 

Statements:
On which thread ,5.how can the prophet ( pbuh) appoint ali a.s and say he is appointed when there is no such verse in the quran where Allah says he will appoint imams.

 

 

 

1) And remember when your Lord said to the angels, 'Verily, I am going to place [for mankind] a successor (khalifah) on the earth.' (2:30)

 

(2) O David! Verily We have placed you as a successor (khalifah) on the earth, so judge between men with truth and justice, and follow not your desires, for they will mislead you from the path of Allah. (38:26) 

 

(3) And remember when the Lord of Abraham tried him with certain commands which he fulfilled. Allah said to him, 'Verily I am going to make you a leader (imam) for mankind.' Abraham said, 'And (what about) my offspring?' Allah said, 'My providence (does not) includes the wrongdoers.' (2:124)
    

And I would like to Categorize the following to make my stance clear:
 

Seven Categories of Verses of Allah’s Government in the Quran

 

(1) The Verses of Kingdom:

 

Say, 'O Allah! Possessor of the Kingdom! You give the Kingdom to whom You will, and You take the Kingdom from whom You will.' (3:26)

 

Say, 'I seek refuge with Allah, the Lord of Mankind, the King of Mankind, the God of Mankind..." (, 114:1-3)

 

To Allah belongs the domain of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and to Him will all return. (5:18)

____________________________

 

(2) The Verses of Government:

 

The decision (hukm) is only for Allah. He declares the truth, and He is the best of judges. (6:57)

 

Surely, His is the judgment, and He is the swiftest in taking account. (6:62)

 

And in whatsoever you differ, the decision thereof is with Allah. He is the ruling judge. (42:10)

 

(3) The Verses of Command:

 

Say, 'Indeed, the command ('amr) belongs entirely to Allah.' (3:154)

 

Surely, His is the creation and the command. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of Mankind. (7:54)

 

But the decision of all things is certainly with Allah. (13:31)

 

It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any opinion in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in plain error. (33:36)

 

(4) The Verses of Guardianship:

 

Verily, your guardian (wali) is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers—those who perform the prayers and give zakat(alms) while bowing down (ruku). (5:55)

 

Commentators unanimously agree that this particular verse refers to Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib who gave his ring to a beggar while in the state of bowing (ruku) in the course of his prayer.

 

The only saying of the faithful believers, when they are called to Allah and His Messenger to judge between them, is that they say, 'We hear and we obey,' and such are the prosperous ones. (24:51)

 

We sent no messenger but to be obeyed by Allah's leave. (4:64)

 

By your Lord, they can have no faith until they make you (Prophet Muhammad) a judge in all disputes between them and find in themselves no resistance against your decision and accept it with full submission. (4:65)

 

(5) The Verses of Following:

 

Say (Prophet Muhammad) to mankind, 'If you really love Allah, then follow me. Allah will love you and forgive you your sins, and Allah is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful.' (3:31)

 

Say (Prophet Muhammad), 'Follow that which has been sent down to you from your Lord, and follow not any guardian other than that.'(7:3)

 

(6) The Verse of Choosing: 

 

And your Lord creates whatsoever He wills and chooses. No choice have they in any matter. Glorified be Allah, and Exalted above all that they associate as partners with Him. (28:68)
 

(7) The Verse of Judgment:

 

And Allah judges with truth, while those whom they invoke besides Him cannot judge anything. Certainly Allah is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing. (40:20)

 

6. your aqidah says your imams were born infallible but all I'm asking is why would Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì say he intends to purify them?? Why arnt you answering me directly.

 

The prophet peace be upon him is of Ahlulbayt, so it is Impossible that you claim the prophet peace be upon him is fallible. And since he is of Ahlulbayt (a.s) They call cannot be Simply Turned Infallible at the moment of the Kisa. as the prophet peace be upon him is Born Sinless. you are the one who is not Answering me:

(1) When Allah Intends to do something does that mean h Will not do it? he cannot? (Na'ozobillah)
(2) When Did Allah Purify them? 

[Ameen 511]

Allah has clearly said "Aqeemus Salah" meaning "say and uphold your prayers" but how, when and in what manner, you wont find any of this in the Quran because it has to do with Sunnah. Also Allah has said "A'tuz Zakah" meaning "pay the poor rate" but how, when and in what manner, you wont find this in the Quran either because it also has to do with the Sunnah.

[Just the truth 117]

Ok ISLAMIC history if I want to run through ALL your reply and answer all your points I can but what a waste of time because not one verse says Allah (swt) will send imams.

ANYWAY..

Answer this question if you really want to reach a CONCLUSION.

Be honest with yourself with the viewers and with me.

If IMAMAT is specifically mentioned in quran then how do you call sunni Muslims??

Don't reply with 300 pages of copy and paste just a quick and simple answer THAT MAKES SENSE.

I believe if you answer this honestly we can reach a conclusion.

Also you said that the "extremist" ie sunni websites, say shia ayatollahs call themselves wali al amr ul muslimeen and you said they don't I bought you proof so what's the problem?? it clearly says on that cover wali ul amr ul muslimeen ayatollah and then his name so what's your problem??

I also bought you evidence from al islam that the jurists are ulil amr and why shouldn't they be.. So what's your problem??

You deliberately dodge this.

You then say "bring me evidence from shia literature" to prove why we can't use unspecific verses to prove imamat.

What kind of question is that?? Why are you deliberately ignoring verse 3:7

Allah has clearly said "Aqeemus Salah" meaning "say and uphold your prayers" but how, when and in what manner, you wont find any of this in the Quran because it has to do with Sunnah. Also Allah has said "A'tuz Zakah" meaning "pay the poor rate" but how, when and in what manner, you wont find this in the Quran either because it also has to do with the Sunnah.

AMEEN stop wasting time and bring me a translation of the quran where it says "fee shayin" means ON ANYTHING IN THIS.

[TheIslamHistory 9]

Ok ISLAMIC history if I want to run through ALL your reply and answer all your points I can but what a waste of time because not one verse says Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì will send imams.

ANYWAY..

Answer this question if you really want to reach a CONCLUSION.

Be honest with yourself with the viewers and with me.

If IMAMAT is specifically mentioned in quran then how do you call sunni Muslims??

Don't reply with 300 pages of copy and paste just a quick and simple answer THAT MAKES SENSE.

I believe if you answer this honestly we can reach a conclusion.

Also you said that the "extremist" ie sunni websites, say shia ayatollahs call themselves wali al amr ul muslimeen and you said they don't I bought you proof so what's the problem?? it clearly says on that cover wali ul amr ul muslimeen ayatollah and then his name so what's your problem??

I also bought you evidence from al islam that the jurists are ulil amr and why shouldn't they be.. So what's your problem??

You deliberately dodge this.

You then say "bring me evidence from shia literature" to prove why we can't use unspecific verses to prove imamat.

What kind of question is that?? Why are you deliberately ignoring verse 3:7

AMEEN stop wasting time and bring me a translation of the quran where it says "fee shayin" means ON ANYTHING IN THIS.

 

 

(1) No you did not bring Proof that the Jurist is Uli al amr, you only Quoted from an Article which is not Claiming that the Jurist "IS" the Uli al amr.

(2) We are All Muslims as long as we say the Shahadatain. Who said that you are a Kafir if you do not accept Imamah? perhaps Quote from Our books? And Whats your problem? according to Sunnah you are a Kafir if you Disbelief in the Khilafat of Abu bakr, So where is the proof of this? and you on the other hand have not given me proof from our Jurist that One who does not believe in Imamah is A kafir?

(3) how am I ignoring verse 3:7? I Replied and then since you mentioned from our Tafsir, I quoted from the same Tafsir, where according to Al Tabatabai that verse 5:55 is Precise about Wilaya. and that verse 4:59 Talks about those who ae Divinely Appointed. So you Quoting that verse 3;7 to justify your point was Baseless. I had no objection to it in the first place. 

(4) Also Brother We both Believe that there "MUST" be a Successor after the prophet, yes or no? but we Depart at the Identity of the Successor.

(wasalam) 

[Ameen 511]

I'm not wasting time, you can't answer my questions or comment on my points. You just can't put up a constructive discussion.

Just as Allah has said about Salah and Zakah, Allah has also said about Imaamath. There are many verses and here is just one of them, which you have heard many times over, "If you die without recognising the Imaam of your generation, then you have died the death of an ignorant". Now this is crystal clear enough that, there was an Imaam for each, as well as this. Who where they??? This is where Sunnah comes into action, just as for Salah and Zakah.

Now what do you make of what Allah has said here, "Imaam of your generation"???

It is obvious that Imaamath is from Allah and there were and is an Imaam for each generation, which have been appointed by Allah. If you still want to carry on like this, with your ignorance and eventually die the death of an ignorant then, that is down to you.

[Just the truth 117]

(1) No you did not bring Proof that the Jurist is Uli al amr, you only Quoted from an Article which is not Claiming that the Jurist "IS" the Uli al amr.

(2) We are All Muslims as long as we say the Shahadatain. Who said that you are a Kafir if you do not accept Imamah? perhaps Quote from Our books? And Whats your problem? according to Sunnah you are a Kafir if you Disbelief in the Khilafat of Abu bakr, So where is the proof of this? and you on the other hand have not given me proof from our Jurist that One who does not believe in Imamah is A kafir?

(3) how am I ignoring verse 3:7? I Replied and then since you mentioned from our Tafsir, I quoted from the same Tafsir, where according to Al Tabatabai that verse 5:55 is Precise about Wilaya. and that verse 4:59 Talks about those who ae Divinely Appointed. So you Quoting that verse 3;7 to justify your point was Baseless. I had no objection to it in the first place.

(4) Also Brother We both Believe that there "MUST" be a Successor after the prophet, yes or no? but we Depart at the Identity of the Successor.

(wasalam)

Just as I thought, you're not interested in a conclusion but instead all you want is to force your point of view on everyone else.

1. That article is saying that in the absence of an infallible imam the jurists are in authority to look after the affairs of Muslims!! So if they're in charge of the affairs then what's the big hoo haa about?? They have authority over you because they are your jurists. So stop being plain ignorant and just admit it!!

2. This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard:

"We are All Muslims as long as we say the Shahadatain".

So in this case it's all good for a Muslim to deny any other usul or furu but just as long as we believe in shahadah!!

Also just because you found some website which says one who rejects abu bakr is kafir.. THIS MEANS NOTHING..

Believing in caliphate of abu bakr is NOT an usul but believing in your 12 imams is.

IF ANY MUSLIMS REJECTS ANY USUL HE IS OUTSIDE THE FOLD OF ISLAM. (Obviously you have to prove that usul) from quran using 3:7.

THIS IS WHY VERSE 3:7 SAYS THAT THE USULS ARE IN PRECISE VERSES. SO NOBODY WILL HAVE AN EXCUSE WHEN THEY WILL BE DOOMED FOREVER FOR REJECTING AN USUL.

3. Verse 4:59 and 5:55 are not precise enough to prove imamat.. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL.

1. I can interpretate the word wali to friend ally protector etc etc.

2. We are not told who the ulil amre are all it says is those in authority. Also we are not told to refer to the ulil amr if we differ, so what authority dies he have?? This only means that the differing is with the ulil amr.

To further prove my claim there are no verses in quran condemning us if we disobey ulil amr and it's only fair that there should have been if the ulil amr has the same authority as the prophet ( pbuh) ( according to shia).

Tell me was talut r.a infallible

4. So what if I believe that there must be a successor?? You believe he is appointed by Allah (swt) whereas I don't so I've according to you rejected a direct order from Allah (swt).

Also what is your problem I've shown you a book where an ayatollah says he's the wali alamr ul muslimeen so what's your problem.

You said your ayatollahs dont claim this position !! So what's your problem?? Can't you handle it

I'm not wasting time, you can't answer my questions or comment on my points. You just can't put up a constructive discussion.

Just as Allah has said about Salah and Zakah, Allah has also said about Imaamath. There are many verses and here is just one of them, which you have heard many times over, "If you die without recognising the Imaam of your generation, then you have died the death of an ignorant". Now this is crystal clear enough that, there was an Imaam for each, as well as this. Who where they??? This is where Sunnah comes into action, just as for Salah and Zakah.

Now what do you make of what Allah has said here, "Imaam of your generation"???

It is obvious that Imaamath is from Allah and there were and is an Imaam for each generation, which have been appointed by Allah. If you still want to carry on like this, with your ignorance and eventually die the death of an ignorant then, that is down to you.

Ameen before you start acting all " scholarly" bring a translation of the quran to prove fee shayin means IN ANYTHING IN THIS.

[Ameen 511]

I have made it clear to you that, "Fee shay inn" means " in anything within this". It's obvious that it has to be regarding something. "in anything" in what??? Within what??? About what??? Regarding what???? Answer, The message that has been given, "And if you disagree and differ in anything in, within, about or regarding this message, then refer the matter back towards Allah and his Messenger (pbuh)". You want me to prove this by giving you another example from the Quran, then what??? It's obvious that you're going to hop on to something else. When are you going to start answering, giving explanations, providing references and responding to comments and points, with a positive attitude and a pleasant manner??? You're still running around, so you can some how avoid, what is expected from you. You're not doing a great job defending the Ahle Sunnah.

[Just the truth 117]

I have made it clear to you that, "Fee shay inn" means " in anything within this". It's obvious that it has to be regarding something. "in anything" in what??? Within what??? About what??? Regarding what???? Answer, The message that has been given, "And if you disagree and differ in anything in, within, about or regarding this message, then refer the matter back towards Allah and his Messenger (pbuh)". You want me to prove this by giving you another example from the Quran, then what??? It's obvious that you're going to hop on to something else. When are you going to start answering, giving explanations, providing references and responding to comments and points, with a positive attitude and a pleasant manner??? You're still running around, so you can some how avoid, what is expected from you. You're not doing a great job defending the Ahle Sunnah.

Sorry friend but you've failed shia miserably. TRY bringing me a translation that says fee shayin means in anything WITHIN THIS then we'll see who runs in circles.

[TheIslamHistory 9]

(bismillah)

 

Statement:

1. That article is saying that in the absence of an infallible imam the jurists are in authority to look after the affairs of Muslims!! So if they're in charge of the affairs then what's the big hoo haa about?? They have authority over you because they are your jurists. So stop being plain ignorant and just admit it!! 

 

Brother? When you come with Evidence from our scholars for example I would be more than happy to take it, but this was a mere Article, and it was not claiming that it is, it was simply putting forward and option. Second of All I am not ignoring you. You are the one who has Skipped half of my Questions from previous post Genius. Third of All The jurist cannot be Uli al amr of this "Islamic Ummah", When I mean The Islamic Ummah I mean the Whole Of Muslims in this World. When we talk about verse 4:59, Allah we have to obey (Every Human being worldwide) And the prophet peace be upon him we have to obey (Every Human being World Wide ) and Uli al amr Which we have to obey (Every Human Being world Wide Must obey them). The Holy verse is not talking about a certain place or time, but it is talking about the Whole of time. So to have a Jurist as our Uli al lamr would be Invalid. Because did we need jurist at the time of the prophet?  

 

 

 

 

Statement:
So in this case it's all good for a Muslim to deny any other usul or furu but just as long as we believe in shahadah!!

 

No, but one who says the two shahadas And Works on the Furu & Arkan al deen he is a Muslim. The Usul of course he must believe in. Our Concept of Imamah is that there must be a Successor after the prophet. And of course all literate Muslims believe there should be a Successor after the prophet peace be upon him. But we Depart at the identity and that is up to you to choose. So please stop Making up non sense and claiming that I claim that your not a Muslim. Its very Silly. 

    

 

Statement:
Also just because you found some website which says one who rejects abu bakr is kafir.. THIS MEANS NOTHING..

 

Genius, I was not referring to the site, Did you read the sources of each narration/Statement by the scholar? It was with book reference. According to your scholars and some of your Tafsirs, that one who denies abu bakr as caliph is a Kafir.

 

 

Statement :
Believing in caliphate of abu bakr is NOT an usul but believing in your 12 imams is.

 

To the Sunnah you have to believe in Abu bakr as the Caliph. And what your problem? your trying so hard to claim that I claim that your not a Muslim.? When are you going to use your logic?  

 

 

 

Statement:
IF ANY MUSLIMS REJECTS ANY USUL HE IS OUTSIDE THE FOLD OF ISLAM. (Obviously you have to prove that usul) from quran using 3:7.

 

Who said that Usul al deen is only based on 3:7? And Who said if you reject any of them your not a Muslim? Where is your evidence of this statement?

 

 

Statement:
THIS IS WHY VERSE 3:7 SAYS THAT THE USULS ARE IN PRECISE VERSES. SO NOBODY WILL HAVE AN EXCUSE WHEN THEY WILL BE DOOMED FOREVER FOR REJECTING AN USUL.  Verse 4:59 and 5:55 are not precise enough to prove imamat.. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SKULL.

 

Sunshine, You haven't given me any proof that verse 5:55 and verse 4:59 is Unspecific yet. Not even from our own Tafsir. And in our Tafsir it says they are precise on Wilyat. So whats your Hujja?  

 

 

Statement:
1. I can interpretate the word wali to friend ally protector etc etc.

 

So does that mean any word in the Quran you have interpret it to your own meaning? your not a Scholar. And second of all you can contradict your self by bringing specific verses from the Quran and Claim that each word haas 3 to 10 meanings. I can do the same, since in the Arabic language each word has two, to 10 meanings. So your still not making any sense. 

 

 

Statement:
2. We are not told who the ulil amre are all it says is those in authority. Also we are not told to refer to the ulil amr if we differ, so what authority dies he have?? This only means that the differing is with the ulil amr. 

 

Brother, The differing is not in Uli am amr. Stop making up false assumption and at least support it with some proof. if the differing of the "people" was in uli al amr then why would it say "In everything" and why not "in Uli al amr" precisely? and who said we have to refer to them? But We have to refer to the prophet and and the book of Allah, and to refer to the prophet then we must refer to him through Ahulbayt peace be upon them. Unless your going to Ignorantly exclude Ahlulbayt and say only the Quran which then would make you the person who goes astray, since the prophet peace be upon him said, only on to my Ahlulbayt and the book of Allah. 

 

 

Statement:
To further prove my claim there are no verses in quran condemning us if we disobey ulil amr and it's only fair that there should have been if the ulil amr has the same authority as the prophet ( pbuh) ( according to shia).

 

So if I disobey Imam Ali (a.s) don't I disobey the prophet? And does that not mean Disobeying Allah? So tell me its okay to Disobey Ahlulabyt? yes or no?

 

 

Statement:
Tell me was talut r.a infallible

 

R.a? Which Talut are you talking about? The prophet? or some sahabah I don't know? since your saying R.a?
 

 

Statement:
4. So what if I believe that there must be a successor?? You believe he is appointed by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì whereas I don't so I've according to you rejected a direct order from Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì.

 

So you don't believe that Imam Ali is one of the Khalfias?

 

Statement:
Also what is your problem I've shown you a book where an ayatollah says he's the wali alamr ul muslimeen so what's your problem.  You said your ayatollahs dont claim this position !! So what's your problem?? Can't you handle it

 

I don't know why you ignore my Answers. Brother Uli al amr is for the people who take him as a Marja'a, so he is Wali al amr in there Jurisprudence but not in their Religion. Please give me a statement of his where he says I am wali al amr of All Muslims. I did not ignore it genius, but your ignoring my Statements Constantly.


(wasalam)

Sorry friend but you've failed shia miserably. TRY bringing me a translation that says fee shayin means in anything WITHIN THIS then we'll see who runs in circles.

 

You need to start Respecting others. have some manners Brother. Thank you.

[Ameen 511]

First you complained about "within this" and you wanted an example from the Quran and i gave you "Zalikal kithabo la raiba fee". To be continued!

Continued! Then you objected that "fee" in "la raiba fee" is at the end, where as "fee" in "fee shay inn" is before the end and you wanted an example, where "fee" is before the end and means "within". To be continued!