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

Doing Ijtihad

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Well, you know very well who the First Thief was. Don't you? He usurped the caliphate and massacred the tribe of Malik b. Nuwayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, in order to perfect his theft. May Allah curse him and his lovers.

I guess believing in the 12th has given you a vivid imagination. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, igotquestions said:

Yes they usurped the caliphate from the Imams who have control over the atoms of the universe. 

Control over the atoms of the universe is an addition that is disputable yet it is a fact that your deities come closer to your description of our Imams as they appointed theirselves as lords and masters over the believers and disbelievers.

Furthermore, the fact that they usurped the caliphate from Imam Ali a.s. doesn't change. Wether you believe he a.s. controlled the universe or was just a man, however, appointed by Muhammad s.a.w. as his Successor. 

Don't fool yourself.

Edited by Talut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Can you stop telling lies (even about yourself)? I doubt it. Could you quote where you said what you have written in red?

Quote
On 2/20/2016 at 8:35 PM, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Well, you still need to produce evidence for your claim of Shi'i consensus. Never mind. I am not going to accept your dream as evidence anyway. It would be much like Abu Hurayrah's narrations, after all.

you attacked me along with Abu Hurairrah (May Allah be pleased with him) in order to insult me. i replied to this by saying: 

Quote
On 2/20/2016 at 10:29 PM, Student_of_Deen said:

you would take my dreams very seriously, if only i had a black tyre from Najaf on my head. 

Is the truth evident now ? or are you still going to turn a blind eye on it because you got proven wrong yet another time ?

you have the audacity to attack Sayyinda Abu Hurrairah (May Allah be well pleased with him and in return i can`t even attacked the black tyres which are granted by the institute of Hawza ?

For Allah`s sake don`t be such an hypocrite brother Abu Fatimah. i wasn`t even going to say it but you kept offending me with cheap insults until i ran out of my patience. 

Edited by Student_of_Deen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, haideriam said:

:bismillah:

:salam:

 

What I don't understand is as to why Imam Ali(as) and Imam Hasan(as) are called rightly guided by my sunni brothers and yet the ones' who rebelled against them still get one reward.

 

:ws:

Not every Sunnis agrees whether they will get a reward or not but All Sunnis Unanimously agree that Mu`awiyah (ra) was in the wrong.

But the point here is according to you Shi`a brothers, the Infallible Imam surrendered his Caliphate to a Munafiq who wanted to destroy Islam. Naudhubillah. 

i`m asking you why did he do such a thing ? because if you claim to be right then the decision of Imam Hassan (ra) is directly responsible for why around 85-90% of the Muslim Ummah is Non-Shia today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Talut said:

He already had a gun (entire Al-Sham and a strong army) and was ready to kill with it as he already proved during the Caliphate of Imam Ali a.s.

The purpose was to make him put the gun down. 

Maybe you haven`t realized it yet but with every comment you are only getting yourself more and more trapped. 

let`s say for the sake of Argument that you are right about Ameer Mu`awiyah that he was ready to kill people and he already had a strong Army in Syria.

Now tell me in such a situation what was the Divinely guided Infallible Imam of the Muslimeen was supposed to do ? 

Was he supposed to fight those who were seeking the blood of innocent Muslims or was he supposed to hand them his own sword so that they can slaughter more innocents with it ?

13 hours ago, Talut said:

Yes! It shows that over and over again like is written in the Quran, the majority remains stupid although the truth is right before their eyes. 

There was no misguidance except manifestation of truth.

Your astonishment is only based on the fact that Muawiya is considered to be a righteous muslim and so you only will accept the scenario wherein Muawiya turns out to be like that. 

And then indeed you will never fully understand Imam's actions and his wisdom in all of this.

The fact is that Muawiya violated the treaty and that after being a witness of this nobody can say afterwards he didn't knew this or wasn't aware of this. 

Imam Hasan a.s. exposed him for eternity which if people use their 'aql can save them from going astray.

Look brother i`m asking you from the start of our conversation that if you are right then what was the need to expose Ameer Mu`awiyah in the first place ?

Was Allah unaware of the State of his heart ? Did the Prophet (Peace be upon him) handed the leadership of Medina into the hands of the Hypocrites in order to expose them ? Is Allah not aware of people`s hearts ? do you think he won`t expose the hypocrites in front of everyone on the day of judgment for eternity ?

let`s Suppose you know that you own a business in which you have several employees and you know for sure that one of your employees can steal your money if you gave him the chance. then what will you do if you found yourself in such a situation ?

Will you fire that employee or will you intentionally give him a chance to steal your money and bankrupt you only in order to prove to everyone that you knew he was a thief ?

In case if you chose the latter option then what answer will you give to your family once they will realize that now they will have to struggle in their lives with poverty. all because you wanted to expose that employee of yours so you intentionally let him commit that crime ? 

what answer will you give to them ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, igotquestions said:

Yes they usurped the caliphate from the Imams who have control over the atoms of the universe. 

good point, BaarakAllahu feek for the post. 

i think you should make it a question and start a separate thread for it In`sha Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Student_of_Deen said:

you have the audacity to attack Sayyinda Abu Hurrairah (May Allah be well pleased with him and in return i can`t even attacked the black tyres which are granted by the institute of Hawza ?

So, you have admitted again that you referred, and still refer, to the turban of the Prophet, the black turban, as the black tyre. And, it is really sickening that you did that, in defence of the Arch-Liar, Abu Hurayrah.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

But the point here is according to you Shi`a brothers, the Infallible Imam surrendered his Caliphate to a Munafiq who wanted to destroy Islam. Naudhubillah. 

i`m asking you why did he do such a thing ? because if you claim to be right then the decision of Imam Hassan (ra) is directly responsible for why around 85-90% of the Muslim Ummah is Non-Shia today.

 

42 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Look brother i`m asking you from the start of our conversation that if you are right then what was the need to expose Ameer Mu`awiyah in the first place ?

Unfortunately, that is what sometimes the Ahl al-Bayt are reduced to, to expose people.

When Fatima asked for her share of inheritance even though of course it was gifted, she knew they wouldn't give her anything. It was just to expose them.

When Ali participated in the Shura process even though he was divinely appointed, he knew they wouldn't give him anything. It was just to expose them.

When al Hassan handed over the leadership of the entire Ummah, even though he had fully the right to it, he knew the treaty would be violated, it was just to expose them.

A more important question as to why they did this, is where does the permissibility come from? Where does the permissibility come from to do things that are under normal circumstances not allowed, but allowed if you are exposing people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

So, you have admitted again that you referred, and still refer, to the turban of the Prophet, the black turban, as the black tyre. And, it is really sickening that you did that, in defence of the Arch-Liar, Abu Hurayrah.

I WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE TURBAN OF THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM), you have no proof whatsoever to back your endless false accusations on me. 

In case you are unable to understand my words then i forgive you and i pray that Allah forgives you and grants you wisdom, Ameen.

But if you understand what i mean but you are still falsely accusing me of such a grave accusation then May the curse of Allah be upon the liars and unjust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GreatChineseFall said:

Unfortunately, that is what sometimes the Ahl al-Bayt are reduced to, to expose people.

When Fatima asked for her share of inheritance even though of course it was gifted, she knew they wouldn't give her anything. It was just to expose them.

When Ali participated in the Shura process even though he was divinely appointed, he knew they wouldn't give him anything. It was just to expose them.

When al Hassan handed over the leadership of the entire Ummah, even though he had fully the right to it, he knew the treaty would be violated, it was just to expose them.

A more important question as to why they did this, is where does the permissibility come from? Where does the permissibility come from to do things that are under normal circumstances not allowed, but allowed if you are exposing people?

i`m basically asking the same question to brother @Talut but as you can see what kind of reasoning he is presenting in the defense of his case. 

completely unbelievable and makes me wonder how can they claim to be the Shia of AhlulBayt after making such humongous & dangerous accusations on the AhlulBayt (May Allah be pleased with him). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Clearly you are taking your history from other sources which say opposite things from the mainstream history of Islam, so that case there is no scope for debate here because you will stick to your version of history and i will stick with the mainstream history of Islam.

i know there were some tribes in the Ridda Wars who accepted all aspects of Islam but they refused to pay Zakah. Not because they did not accepted the Caliphate of Abu bakr (ra), but because they did not wanted to pay Zakah at all. 

if their problem was only with the Caliph then why did they attacked Medina ? and more Importantly why did Imam Ali (ra) fought agaisnt them ? 

As for the khawarij then you need to learn about them. they did not just rebelled against Imam Ali (ra) and Naudhubillah considered him a Kaffir but they also killed some innocent Muslims because they had made the blood of other Muslims halal if they committed even minor sins. they killed a man (i forgot his name)  along with his pregnant wife and that is what outraged everyone in the camp of Imam Ali (ra). this is the reason why Imam Ali (ra) turned towards Nahrewan with an army in order to force the Khawarij to surrender or obliterate them so the people could be free from their Fitnah. 

Ameer Mu`awiyah on the other hand did none of those things. 

the point is far from being clear because it is wrong. 

i did not say what Ameer Mu`awiyah did was OK, i didn`t say that anywhere. it was a mistake and i`m saying it from the start. 

but he didn`t wanted to fight Imam Ali (ra) but if you claim he did then tell me why did the 2 armies remained on Siffin for over 3 months before the fighting actually started ?

and BTW it is known for a fact that the fighting was started by some Iraqi men who were under the command of Malik Al Ashtar. i leave it up to you to figure out who those men were because of whom the fighting between the 2 armies started. 

 

1. Not every tribe attacked Medina, Imam Ali AS did not fight every tribe, in fact I could not find any evidence that he fought in any campaign during the first 3 caliphs. Please can you show us with sources why you think otherwise?

2. So your saying that because khawarij killed Muslims and the rebelled they are bad? So when Muawiya's forces killed more Muslims than all previous battles the ummah ever fought put together, what does that make them?

Really you are stuck. You want to get Aisha, Muawiya, Talha , Zubyer etc out of the mess, but you cant. Either khawarij and the ridda wars were right or they are wrong, if they were wrong, then your people are also very much in the wrong. There is no way out, and you haven't been able to resolve this dilemma, and neither could your top scholars from the past 1400+ years.

Instead of just being dishonest, why dont you at least say, you dont know why etc. Have some self respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Student_of_Deen said:

I WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE TURBAN OF THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM), you have no proof whatsoever to back your endless false accusations on me. 

In case you are unable to understand my words then i forgive you and i pray that Allah forgives you and grants you wisdom, Ameen.

But if you understand what i mean but you are still falsely accusing me of such a grave accusation then May the curse of Allah be upon the liars and unjust. 

But you were attacking the black turban, knowing very well that the Prophet wore a black turban. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

But you were attacking the black turban, knowing very well that the Prophet wore a black turban. Right?

I was Specifically referring to the Turbans Authenticated by the scholarship of Hawza Institute.  I WAS NOT MAKING AN ATTACK ON TURBAN IN GENERAL. why is it so hard for you to understand Abu Fatimah ? tell me who is having comprehension problem now ?

let me help you understand what i meant with the help of an example In`sha Allah. 

Suppose you went to Medina and you bought a slice of bread but it wasn`t fresh so you said the Bread made in this bakery is awful.

IN NO WAY IT MEANS YOU ARE INSULTING BREAD AS A FOOD AND ESPECIALLY NOT THE BREAD WHICH THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) USED TO EAT DURING HIS LIFETIME. 

Please don`t comment back regarding this matter until you fully understand what i`m trying to say because i`m tired of explaining to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

I was Specifically referring to the Turbans Authenticated by the scholarship of Hawza Institute.  I WAS NOT MAKING AN ATTACK ON TURBAN IN GENERAL. why is it so hard for you to understand Abu Fatimah ? tell me who is having comprehension problem now ?

Muslim: I have four wives.

Student_of_Deen: How can you do that? You are an uncivilized fellow. How can you reasonably have four wives?

Muslim: But, I am only copying the Sunnah of the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, who also practised polygamy! So, are you saying the Prophet was uncivilized?

Student_of_Deen: I did not mention the Prophet! Stop your lies! I only condemned you for practising polygamy. I never condemned the Prophet.

Muslim: Well, the Prophet too practised polygamy! When you condemn those who copy him in what he used to do, then you have condemned him too. If you mock my polygamy, then you have mocked the Prophet's polygamy.

Student_of_Deen: Curse of Allah be upon the liars! When did I mention the Prophet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Muslim: I have four wives.

Student_of_Deen: How can you do that? You are an uncivilized fellow. How can you reasonably have four wives?

Muslim: But, I am only copying the Sunnah of the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, who also practised polygamy! So, are you saying the Prophet was uncivilized?

Student_of_Deen: I did not mention the Prophet! Stop your lies! I only condemned you for practising polygamy. I never condemned the Prophet.

Muslim: Well, the Prophet too practised polygamy! When you condemn those who copy him in what he used to do, then you have condemned him too. If you mock my polygamy, then you have mocked the Prophet's polygamy.

Student_of_Deen: Curse of Allah be upon the liars! When did I mention the Prophet?

i tried my best but you still failed to understand the difference between the two cases. But i`m glad you realized you made a mistake by accusing me of doing something which i didn`t do.

BTW if you wanted to accuse me of being wrong then you could have used a better example. why use such a bad example in your desperate attempt to prove me wrong that Naudhubillah as if i attack the Sharia of Allah ? why not use an example which doesn`t makes me the main villain of the story ? 

However, the bad news for you is that even this example of yours speaks in the defense of my stance while it proves your own case wrong, like always. Alhamdulilah! 

a person can be criticized for having four wives IF he doesn`t fulfills their rights upon him.

it doesn`t mean i`m criticizing the Sharia of Allah Instead i`m criticizing that man for MISUSING THE SHARIA OF Allah IN ORDER TO TAKE FULL BENEFITS OF HIS RIGHTS WHILE DEPRIVING OTHERS OF THEIR RIGHTS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

 

Unfortunately, that is what sometimes the Ahl al-Bayt are reduced to, to expose people.

When Fatima asked for her share of inheritance even though of course it was gifted, she knew they wouldn't give her anything. It was just to expose them.

When Ali participated in the Shura process even though he was divinely appointed, he knew they wouldn't give him anything. It was just to expose them.

When al Hassan handed over the leadership of the entire Ummah, even though he had fully the right to it, he knew the treaty would be violated, it was just to expose them.

And were they right?

 

Edited by Talut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Maybe you haven`t realized it yet but with every comment you are only getting yourself more and more trapped. 

The trap is that you cannot reconcile your claim that Muawiya deserved the Caliphate yet he violated the conditions of the Hasan-Muawiya treaty.

'Till then your questions as well as your anwsers are baseless. 

Edited by Talut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Look brother i`m asking you from the start of our conversation that if you are right then what was the need to expose Ameer Mu`awiyah in the first place ?

And what did I told you?

11 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Was Allah unaware of the State of his heart ? Did the Prophet (Peace be upon him) handed the leadership of Medina into the hands of the Hypocrites in order to expose them ? Is Allah not aware of people`s hearts ? do you think he won`t expose the hypocrites in front of everyone on the day of judgment for eternity ?

Where did I said that Allah was unaware of the state of his heart? The people were unaware of the state of his heart and as many of them were wandering after the chaos left from the former caliphates the violation of the treaty was a clear proof that he wasn't upon the truth. 

 

Edited by Talut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

let`s say for the sake of Argument that you are right about Mu`awiyah that he was ready to kill people and he already had a strong Army in Syria.

Now tell me in such a situation what was the Divinely guided Infallible Imam of the Muslimeen was supposed to do ? 

Was he supposed to fight those who were seeking the blood of innocent Muslims or was he supposed to hand them his own sword so that they can slaughter more innocents with it ?


Imam Hasan a.s. was right on all fronts. He a.s. avoided mass-slaughtering and he a.s. showed the world who Muawiya was. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Not every Sunnis agrees whether they will get a reward or not but All Sunnis Unanimously agree that Mu`awiyah (ra) was in the wrong.

But the point here is according to you Shi`a brothers, the Infallible Imam surrendered his Caliphate to a Munafiq who wanted to destroy Islam. Naudhubillah. 

i`m asking you why did he do such a thing ? because if you claim to be right then the decision of Imam Hassan (ra) is directly responsible for why around 85-90% of the Muslim Ummah is Non-Shia today.

Do you realize the dilemma you place yourself in by saying that the RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH made a mistake and the one who fights the RIGHTLY GUIDED has done so under the umbrella of Ijtehad  and is not a Rebel(baghi). It would be better for your consistency to get rid of the RIGHTLY GUIDED concept, because only by getting rid of this concept do you stand a chance of saving Muawiya. Otherwise all those who fight a RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH have no chance of redemption unless they have sought forgiveness.

Edited by haideriam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, haideriam said:

Do you realize the dilemma you place yourself in by saying that the RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH made a mistake and the one who fights the RIGHTLY GUIDED has done so under the umbrella of Ijtehad  and is not a Rebel(baghi). 

Show me where have i said that so i can correct my mistake In`sha Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Talut said:

The trap is that you cannot reconcile your claim that Muawiya deserved the Caliphate yet he violated the conditions of the Hasan-Muawiya treaty.

'Till then your questions as well as your anwsers are baseless. 

if he did not deserved the Caliphate then why did the Divinely guided Infallible Imam gave him the Caliphate ?

10 hours ago, Talut said:

And what did I told you?

In simple words you told me the Imam wanted to expose him for eternity.

10 hours ago, Talut said:

Where did I said that Allah was unaware of the state of his heart? The people were unaware of the state of his heart and as many of them were wandering after the chaos left from the former caliphates the violation of the treaty was a clear proof that he wasn't upon the truth. 

you didn`t said Allah was unaware of the state of his heart. it`s a question i`m asking you. 

So you are saying that Imam Hassan (ra) handed him the Caliphate so he can expose Ameer Mu`awiyah in the eyes of the People ? what benefit did it served exactly ? can you explain how did this move benefited the Muslim Ummah ?

9 hours ago, Talut said:


Imam Hasan a.s. was right on all fronts. He a.s. avoided mass-slaughtering and he a.s. showed the world who Muawiya was. 

He was in the front for the first time during his own rule and he handed the Caliphate to Ameer Mu`awiyah. 

Tell me is avoiding Mass slaughter in a battle better at the cost of 85-90% of the Muslim Ummah`s Imaan ?

besides there was no way Ameer Mu`awiyah could have defeated the army of Imam Hassan (ra) because the help of Allah was with Imam Hassan (ra) right ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

Show me where have i said that so i can correct my mistake In`sha Allah.

so now instead of understanding the jist and the whole of the argument you have started to split hair....I had thought you did not want endless debate and wanted to learn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

if he did not deserved the Caliphate then why did the Divinely guided Infallible Imam gave him the Caliphate ?

Already answered in many ways.

He gave him the Caliphate under the conditions of the treaty and thereby avoided bloodshed. 

Two of the conditions were that the Shi'a would be safe and that he would hand over the Caliphate to Imam Hasan a.s. or Imam Husain a.s.

An Imam puts the safety of his people above his own interests first. That's the diffirence between our Imams and your caliphs.

The polytheists didn't deserve the Custody of the Holy Sanctuary either but it served a greater benefit.

 

 

3 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

In simple words you told me the Imam wanted to expose him for eternity.

A little correction. Muawiya was actually exposing himself. Imam Hasan a.s. only acted upon the truth while the one who violates the treaty is the perpetrator. Not he who set the conditions.

The question is what do we do now we know who and what he is?

Why do you still honour him?

 

 

3 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

So you are saying that Imam Hassan (ra) handed him the Caliphate so he can expose Ameer Mu`awiyah in the eyes of the People ? what benefit did it served exactly ? can you explain how did this move benefited the Muslim Ummah ?


Already answered in many ways. 

In the replies to the quotes above you can find all your answers.
 

 

3 hours ago, Student_of_Deen said:

He was in the front for the first time during his own rule and he handed the Caliphate to Ameer Mu`awiyah. 

Tell me is avoiding Mass slaughter in a battle better at the cost of 85-90% of the Muslim Ummah`s Imaan ?

In what way was it at the cost of the Iman of the Ummah. If you only had read carefully and thought it over instead of just trying to push your opinion through the screen all the time you'd have noticed that there were Shi'a (followers of Imam Ali a.s.) and of Muawiya. There actually wasn't one Ummah anymore with thanks to your Muawiya. 

 In what way could this decision be at the cost of Iman?

The foundations of religion were already layed down.

What was Imam Hasan a.s. to do? Bribe people like Muawiya did?

It was actually a more political move than a religious one because in the case of the last nothing changed. 

It was just a way to guarantee for the safety of the Shi'a.

The simmilartity in this one with the peace treaty with the polytheist was actuallt that a Shi'a/Muslim would be save so if someone from Muawiya's/Polyheist camp wants to become a Shi'a/Muslim he'd be protected by the treaty and vice versa ofcourse.
 

Quote

besides there was no way Mu`awiyah could have defeated the army of Imam Hassan (ra) because the help of Allah was with Imam Hassan (ra) right ? 

It wasn't about Imam Hasan a.s. but because of the men in his army. Many just hated Muawiya, others weren't reliable while on the other hand. The followers of Muawiya made their choice as well. 

Your error is that you put all responsibility on the Imam while the guidance has to be followed and not ignored which is a choice and an error of those making the choice wether it is an indiviual or the mass.

Edited by Talut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2016 at 10:04 AM, Talut said:

And were they right?

I don't think you see the problem. The head of FIFA might have been exposed early too if someone prostituted himself. That doesn't mean it's allowed. Where does the permissibility come from first? Since when is it allowed to do these things just to expose people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, GreatChineseFall said:

I don't think you see the problem. The head of FIFA might have been exposed early too if someone prostituted himself. That doesn't mean it's allowed. Where does the permissibility come from first? Since when is it allowed to do these things just to expose people?

These people are actually exposing theirselves. Not the one or the ones who set up the conditions.

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Skanderbeg said:

Who did what?

People exposed themselves according to you, Saqifa, the burning of the door, the miscarriage, the taking away of the Caliphate, the not giving Fadak while it was a gift.

If that is correct and people already exposed themselves, why was it needed for the Ahl al-Bayt to expose them more while doing things that are not allowed under normal circumstances ( like asking for something on false grounds, participating in an ungodly process, handing leadership over to an unfit person)? And regardless, where does the permissibility come from?

Edited by GreatChineseFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:

People exposed themselves according to you, Saqifa, the burning of the door, the miscarriage, the taking away of the Caliphate, the not giving Fadak while it was a gift.

Not according to me but according to your sources, my sources and historical accounts.

 

Quote

 

If that is correct and people already exposed themselves, why was it needed for the Ahl al-Bayt to expose them more while doing things that are not allowed under normal circumstances ( like asking for something on false grounds, participating in an ungodly process, handing leadership over to an unfit person? And regardless, where does the permissibility come from?


- Asking for something on false grounds: Who refused Fatima a.s. to give her inheritance to her and was it her right to ask her inheritance?

- Participating in an ungodly process: Who made this proces ungodly? Why was it ungodly? Was it ungodly in itself or because of the conditions that were made?

- Handing over leadership over to an unfit person: Who was unfit? And whose fault was it that he was unfit?


The Ahl Al-Bayt a.s. just did what they had to do and they are not responsible for the deeds of the perpetrators.


 

Edited by Skanderbeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2016 at 1:22 PM, haideriam said:

so now instead of understanding the jist and the whole of the argument you have started to split hair....I had thought you did not want endless debate and wanted to learn. 

don`t turn away now brother, you accused me of saying that the Rightly Guided Caliph (i.e Imam Ali) made a mistake. 

i`m asking you to show me where i said that so i can correct my mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2016 at 2:11 PM, Talut said:

Already answered in many ways.

He gave him the Caliphate under the conditions of the treaty and thereby avoided bloodshed. 

Two of the conditions were that the Shi'a would be safe and that he would hand over the Caliphate to Imam Hasan a.s. or Imam Husain a.s.

An Imam puts the safety of his people above his own interests first. That's the diffirence between our Imams and your caliphs.

The polytheists didn't deserve the Custody of the Holy Sanctuary either but it served a greater benefit.

 

 

A little correction. Muawiya was actually exposing himself. Imam Hasan a.s. only acted upon the truth while the one who violates the treaty is the perpetrator. Not he who set the conditions.

The question is what do we do now we know who and what he is?

Why do you still honour him?

 

 


Already answered in many ways. 

In the replies to the quotes above you can find all your answers.
 

 

In what way was it at the cost of the Iman of the Ummah. If you only had read carefully and thought it over instead of just trying to push your opinion through the screen all the time you'd have noticed that there were Shi'a (followers of Imam Ali a.s.) and of Muawiya. There actually wasn't one Ummah anymore with thanks to your Muawiya. 

 In what way could this decision be at the cost of Iman?

The foundations of religion were already layed down.

What was Imam Hasan a.s. to do? Bribe people like Muawiya did?

It was actually a more political move than a religious one because in the case of the last nothing changed. 

It was just a way to guarantee for the safety of the Shi'a.

The simmilartity in this one with the peace treaty with the polytheist was actuallt that a Shi'a/Muslim would be save so if someone from Muawiya's/Polyheist camp wants to become a Shi'a/Muslim he'd be protected by the treaty and vice versa ofcourse.
 

It wasn't about Imam Hasan a.s. but because of the men in his army. Many just hated Muawiya, others weren't reliable while on the other hand. The followers of Muawiya made their choice as well. 

Your error is that you put all responsibility on the Imam while the guidance has to be followed and not ignored which is a choice and an error of those making the choice wether it is an indiviual or the mass.

your explanation falls flat on it`s face because you claim that Imam Hassan (ra) knew Mau`awiyah (ra) was going to break the treaty and kill people.

the question is why did he gave him the Caliphate then ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Skanderbeg said:

The Ahl Al-Bayt a.s. just did what they had to do and they are not responsible for the deeds of the perpetrators.

if you handed a machine gun in the hands of a Psychopath and set him free on a busy street then how is it not your fault ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...