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
guest050817

Why Rasullulah s.a.w said it at Ghadeer not Hajj?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salamunalaykum brothers and sisters,

InshAllah after my exams, i'll make another more thorough thread on this issue.

But one objection levelled against us by sunni brothers is, why did Rasullulah s.a.w not reaffirm and proclaim the appointment of Ali a.s during Hajj, why at Ghadeer, when caravans would or may have split apart, to say, go back to yemen and other parts?

Here are my thoughts:

1. The people who decided the matters of Khilafah were the Muharijeen and the Ansaar - were they not?

2. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, as well as the people of the Ansaar who went to Saqifah, were primarily the ones who decided the next set of elections, in addition to Muawiyah.

3. Therefore, it would make absolutely perfect sense for Rasullulah s.a.w to directly address the very groups central to the issue of Khilafah and leadership, at a time and place where the message would not get lost admist the sermon at arafah among everyone, at a time where it would be singled out specifically and people would distinctly remember the event of Ghadeer and exactly what Rasullulah s.a.w. had done.

 

When Abu bakr became Caliph, did they form a Shurah with the elders or leaders of the other tribes outside of Makkah/Medina? When Umar became Caliph, did this occur? When Uthman became Caliph, did this Occur? No is the answer to these questions. The groups central to deciding these matters were people among the ansaar, and the emigrants!

The people who were addressed at Ghadeer were the very same community who among them felt they had the greatest right, perhaps out of ego, to leadership after Rasullulah s.a.w

The people from the other cities and towns, the mass of them had converted to Islam in large groups towards the very end of the life of Rasullulah s.a.w. They could not have had as close a claim to being the caliph as those who emigrated or had been with Rasullulah s.a.w for longer.

Despite this, we shia's do believe Rasullulah s.a.w still had tens of thousands bordering near a hundred thousand or around that figure of sahaba present, and called those who lagged forward, and waited for those still behind.

Furthermore, if Rasullulah s.a.w had merely stopped to let Khalid and those who had spoken ill of Ali a.s or disputed of him know that Ali should be their friend, not their enemy, why do we see Rasullah s.a.w, at Ghadeer give an entirely pertinent sermon? Why is the sermon sounding like the absolute ultimatum?

Why does he not explain there had been disputes, and for muslims to be brothers of one another, and for people to love and not hold enmity to Ali a.s ?

However, what we see is something entirely different, it is as if Rasullulah s.a.w is making a public will - a last and final declaration

Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (S) stood to give us a speech beside a pond which is known as Khum (Ghadir Khum) which is located between Mecca and Medina. Then he praised Allah and reminded Him, and then said: "O’ people! Behold! It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. Behold! I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance...The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times)."

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of the companions, section of the virtues of ‘Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v 4, p1873, Tradition #36.

 

If the whole stopping at Ghadeer, in the scorching heat, was just some way of solving a dispute between a group of sahaba who had a grudge against Ali a.s, why is the agenda completely different here?

It is after this where Rasullulah s.a.w then declares Ali a.s the mawla of every believer.

There is nothing about a dispute. Nothing about muslims needing to love each other and know Ali a.s is in the right on the issue. No mention of the war booty rift, or the slave girl issue. Nothing whatsoever. The Agenda is completely different.

 

This is my understanding. Whatever i have said is right is from Allah swt, and the mistakes are purely my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question...if the 12 Caliphs/Imams hadith refers to the line of Ithna Ashari Imams, how come the Prophet (S) stated the word Mawla at Ghadeer (supposedly to indicate a line of 11 more Imams to follow during) as opposed to Imam/Caliph if infact it was referring to those Imams? 

Wouldn't it be more fitting if the hadith stated there would be 12 Mawla's from Quraysh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many hadith of the prophets mentioning the names of those 12 imams from the progeny of the prophet saww. 

At Ghadeer the prophet openly announced the beginning of that system by mentioning the First leader of that chain as mawala / master of believers llike the prophet himself who is also mawala / master of the believers.

Imam / mawala / master should be obeyed thats what the message at the ghaderr.

 

 

Edited by skamran110

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wa alaykum salam,

A reasonable attempt is made at explaining things instead of saying that Ghadeer was a departing point for everyone. But here are some of the issues that I think need to be addressed:

On 25-5-2016 at 1:34 AM, Tawheed313 said:

1. The people who decided the matters of Khilafah were the Muharijeen and the Ansaar - were they not?

Not as per shia understanding and this is important for the rest of your argument.

On 25-5-2016 at 1:34 AM, Tawheed313 said:

2. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, as well as the people of the Ansaar who went to Saqifah, were primarily the ones who decided the next set of elections, in addition to Muawiyah.

Not really relevant but just as a side note, dont know what you mean by Uthman and Muawiyah but they were not present at Saqifah.

On 25-5-2016 at 1:34 AM, Tawheed313 said:

3. Therefore, it would make absolutely perfect sense for Rasullah s.a.w to directly address the very groups central to the issue of Khilafah and leadership, at a time and place where the message would not get lost admist the sermon at arafah among everyone, at a time where it would be singled out specifically and people would distinctly remember the event of Ghadeer and exactly what Rasullah s.a.w. had done.

Fair point, but here is why that argument is invalid. First of all, why not twice? He could have said it at Hajj and emphasized it once more at Ghadeer, I mean it's not like it takes a lot of effort and would definitely make things more clear.

Second of all, as I said, as per shia understanding the Muhajireen and the Ansar did not have a say in the matter of Khilafah at all. And you can't use the sunni understanding to make the shia understanding more reasonable or sensible, because the sunni understanding is explicitly denied by the shia understanding. As a matter of fact, it wasn't even up to Ali or the Prophet, it was directly from Allah.

Third, even if we were to accept that they had a say in the matter, you confuse two things. The right to have a say in the matter and the right to be informed. The Prophet didnt stop people and consulted them and asked them who should be the next Imam and then declared who the next Imam would be. He simply informed them of something. So either it is as the shia's say, that the Prophet didnt consult anyone and simply declared the next Imam or it is as the sunni's say that the Prophet reacted to something and informed them of their expected attitude towards Ali.

In either case, this argument fails and in the case of the shia understanding the question then still remains, why at Ghadeer and not at Hajj because the right to be informed is with respect to everybody. Was it later officially spread or did the Prophet simply rely on the news to spread itsself?

On 25-5-2016 at 1:34 AM, Tawheed313 said:

The people who were addressed at Ghadeer were the very same community who among them felt they had the greatest right, perhaps out of ego, to leadership after Rasullah s.a.w

The people from the other cities and towns, the mass of them had converted to Islam in large groups towards the very end of the life of Rasullah s.a.w. They could not have had as close a claim to being the caliph as those who emigrated or had been with Rasullah s.a.w for longer.

Despite this, we shia's do believe Rasullah s.a.w still had tens of thousands bordering near a hundred thousand or around that figure of sahaba present, and called those who lagged forward, and waited for those still behind.

Ok, so here it's more like you are claiming that they didnt have a right but that they might feel they have a right so the Prophet explained them before any confusion might arise. This is an important difference and in this case, we know historically that many tribes apostated after the Prophet by completely turning away seeking to rule themselves or joining false Prophets to rule others including Madina. These people were unlikely to have been present at Ghadeer, because they were not Muhajireen and Ansar.

Secondly, there is a very reasonable way of looking at this, if the goal of the Prophet was to remove any confusion and the people numbering more than a hunderd thousand en masse, didnt do as he commanded only moments after his death, what is the most reasonable thing to assume? That almost all of them didnt care, that they deliberately pretended not to understand or that they didnt understand? To add to that, wasnt the verse of purification a proof for Ali's infallibility? If the people were that stupid or that deliberality evil that they dont logically understand that an infallible leader instead of a fallible person should follow the Prophet, dont you think a transfer of authority needs a little bit more of preparation? The Prophet preached practically ALL DAY long, ALL YEAR long non-stop, how many times was Ali brought up in a sermon? These people still thought they had a claim after hadith al Manzila and hadith al Kisa, do you really think that the Prophet thought that this would be enough to remove any confusion?

On 25-5-2016 at 1:34 AM, Tawheed313 said:

Furthermore, if Rasullah s.a.w had merely stopped to let Khalid and those who had spoken ill of Ali a.s or disputed of him know that Ali should be their friend, not their enemy, why do we see Rasullah s.a.w, at Ghadeer give an entirely pertinent sermon? Why is the sermon sounding like the absolute ultimatum?

Why does he not explain there had been disputes, and for muslims to be brothers of one another, and for people to love and not hold enimity to Ali a.s ?

However, what we see is something entirely different, it is as if Rasullah s.a.w is making a public will - a last and final declaration

Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (S) stood to give us a speech beside a pond which is known as Khum (Ghadir Khum) which is located between Mecca and Medina. Then he praised Allah and reminded Him, and then said: "O’ people! Behold! It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. Behold! I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance...The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times)."

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of the companions, section of the virtues of ‘Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v 4, p1873, Tradition #36.

 

If the whole stopping at Ghadeer, in the scorching heat, was just some way of solving a dispute between a group of sahaba who had a grudge against Ali a.s, why is the agenda completely different here?

It is after this where Rasullah s.a.w then declares Ali a.s the mawla of every believer.

There is nothing about a dispute. Nothing about muslims needing to love each other and know Ali a.s is in the right on the issue. No mention of the war booty rift, or the slave girl issue. Nothing whatsoever. The Agenda is completely different.

Let us look at some facts, we can still disagree about why he did it, but if you claim that he called people who went forward back, doesnt it at least show that the Prophet was showing reactionary behaviour and not pre-planned behaviour? If it was pre-planned, does it really make sense to let caravans pass and then call them back? And if he reacte to something, what was it that he reacted to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2016 at 0:36 PM, GreatChineseFall said:

Wa alaykum salam,

A reasonable attempt is made at explaining things instead of saying that Ghadeer was a departing point for everyone. But here are some of the issues that I think need to be addressed:

Not as per shia understanding and this is important for the rest of your argument.

Not really relevant but just as a side note, dont know what you mean by Uthman and Muawiyah but they were not present at Saqifah.

Fair point, but here is why that argument is invalid. First of all, why not twice? He could have said it at Hajj and emphasized it once more at Ghadeer, I mean it's not like it takes a lot of effort and would definitely make things more clear.

Second of all, as I said, as per shia understanding the Muhajireen and the Ansar did not have a say in the matter of Khilafah at all. And you can't use the sunni understanding to make the shia understanding more reasonable or sensible, because the sunni understanding is explicitly denied by the shia understanding. As a matter of fact, it wasn't even up to Ali or the Prophet, it was directly from Allah.

Third, even if we were to accept that they had a say in the matter, you confuse two things. The right to have a say in the matter and the right to be informed. The Prophet didnt stop people and consulted them and asked them who should be the next Imam and then declared who the next Imam would be. He simply informed them of something. So either it is as the shia's say, that the Prophet didnt consult anyone and simply declared the next Imam or it is as the sunni's say that the Prophet reacted to something and informed them of their expected attitude towards Ali.

In either case, this argument fails and in the case of the shia understanding the question then still remains, why at Ghadeer and not at Hajj because the right to be informed is with respect to everybody. Was it later officially spread or did the Prophet simply rely on the news to spread itsself?

Ok, so here it's more like you are claiming that they didnt have a right but that they might feel they have a right so the Prophet explained them before any confusion might arise. This is an important difference and in this case, we know historically that many tribes apostated after the Prophet by completely turning away seeking to rule themselves or joining false Prophets to rule others including Madina. These people were unlikely to have been present at Ghadeer, because they were not Muhajireen and Ansar.

Secondly, there is a very reasonable way of looking at this, if the goal of the Prophet was to remove any confusion and the people numbering more than a hunderd thousand en masse, didnt do as he commanded only moments after his death, what is the most reasonable thing to assume? That almost all of them didnt care, that they deliberately pretended not to understand or that they didnt understand? To add to that, wasnt the verse of purification a proof for Ali's infallibility? If the people were that stupid or that deliberality evil that they dont logically understand that an infallible leader instead of a fallible person should follow the Prophet, dont you think a transfer of authority needs a little bit more of preparation? The Prophet preached practically ALL DAY long, ALL YEAR long non-stop, how many times was Ali brought up in a sermon? These people still thought they had a claim after hadith al Manzila and hadith al Kisa, do you really think that the Prophet thought that this would be enough to remove any confusion?

Let us look at some facts, we can still disagree about why he did it, but if you claim that he called people who went forward back, doesnt it at least show that the Prophet was showing reactionary behaviour and not pre-planned behaviour? If it was pre-planned, does it really make sense to let caravans pass and then call them back? And if he reacte to something, what was it that he reacted to?

He was the Prophet. He could announce anything anywhere he saw fit unless of course you are saying he made yet another mistake.

Hajj or Ghadeer either one - it definitely was not Saqifah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The holy prophet (s) can choose whenever and wherever he delivers any message and it will become binding upon the believers to accept whole-heartedly any orders.. We must not have any problems with this. The jews were like this and therefore we must happily accept whatever and whnever the holy prophet (s) gave us. Also another point is that the holy prophet did deliver a important message during hajj that sunnis try to hide. Here was the message:

Al-Albani says in Silisilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah 4/355 No. 1761:

عن جابر بن عبد الله الأنصاري رضوان الله تعالى عليه أنه قال : ( رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في حجته يوم عرفة وهو على ناقته القصواء يخطب فسمعته يقول يا أيها الناس إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي )

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari: I saw the Messenger of Allah during his Hajj on the day of Arafah, and he was seated on his camel, al­Qaswa', and was delivering a sermon: 'O people, I am leaving among you that which if you hold on to you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my itrah, my Ahl al-Bayt."

Al-Albani has declared it sahih. Do I need to comment any further?

Edited by goldenhawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes we get into hadiths too much that we forget the Holy Quran:

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

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

Edited by BornShia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usman tried to hide the Ayah of Wilaya on Imam Ali, by compiling the Holy Quran in NON-CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. Not only the Suras are not in chronological order, but the Ayahs within the Suras are not in chronological order too.

At Hajj and on the way to Ghadeer Khumn, the following ayah was revealed:

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

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

Thus, Rasool Allah had no choice and was commanded the above. And, after the following:

لَسْتُ أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم؟ قالوا بلى يارسول الله. قال: من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه. اللهم وال من والاه و عاد من عاداه

And, after the Ghadeer event the following verse was revealed:

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

This day I have completed for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.

 

Edited by BornShia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2016 at 9:34 AM, Tawheed313 said:

If the whole stopping at Ghadeer, in the scorching heat, was just some way of solving a dispute between a group of sahaba who had a grudge against Ali a.s, why is the agenda completely different here?

It is after this where Rasullah s.a.w then declares Ali a.s the mawla of every believer.

There is nothing about a dispute. Nothing about muslims needing to love each other and know Ali a.s is in the right on the issue. No mention of the war booty rift, or the slave girl issue. Nothing whatsoever. The Agenda is completely different.

 

 

 

This is my understanding. Whatever i have said is right is from Allah swt, and the mistakes are purely my own.

Salam, i am currently am in a debate with a sunni over this issue on social media, and they did provide a hadith from their own books that proves that to them, the whole Ghadeer al Khumm issue arised because of certain companions having a grudge for Ali. I will quote you what the sunni wrote to me yesterday: 

" Bukhari volume 5, Book 59 Number 637:
Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent ‘Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and ‘Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?” When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.”
In other narrations (al-tirmithi and ahmed), in addition to the above, the prophet said: “O buraida man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah”
So Ali took one of the slaves named Waseefa as his slave and then after having sexual act with her, he was taking a bath. Buraida (rah) became angry. He thought why would Ali take one of the slaves for himself. So he mentioned this to the prophet(peace be upon him).
Al-bayhaqi narrates from Abu sa’eed that Ali prevented them from riding the camels of the sadaqa that they acquired. He then made a person to be their leader and went to the prophet(peace be upon him). When Ali came back, he found that their leader gave them permission to ride the camels. When Ali saw that, he became angry and he blamed the leader. (In another narration, it mentions that they were new clothes that Ali prevented them from wearing but they wear them despite his orders). Abu sa’eed said that when we went back to madina, we mentioned to the prophet the harshness that we have seen from Ali. The prophet said: Stop O saad ibn Malik: O By Allah I have known that he is done good for the sake of Allah. (Ibn Katheer says that this hadeeth is <jayed> on the conditions of Al-Nasaie)
Ibn Katheer said that the people in the army started to talk about Ali (rah) because he prevented them from riding the camels and took back the new clothes that they acquired. Because of that, after the prophet ( peace be upon him ) was done with the Hajj and while returning back to Madina, he stopped to explain to the people how some of the qualities of Ali and stress the closeness of Ali to him and the importance of loving Ali. He did so to remove what was in many of the hearts of some of the people against Ali.
That’s why the prophet ( peace be upon him ) delayed talking about this topic until they were close to Madina and he didn’t talk about it in Makkah during the Hajj. On the day of Arafa, the prophet ( peace be upon him ) spoke to the people and and he never mentioned this topic at all. After he finished his sermon, he said “Did I convey the message” and the people said “Yes” then he said “O Allah be my witness”.
Why did he delay the topic till after Hajj? Because this topic is only of concern to the people of Madina because those who talked about Ali were from Madina as they were the ones who went with Ali to the battle. He talked about it in a place called ghadeer khumm in a place called Ju’fa, which is near Madina on the way from Makkah."

What do you think our response to this is Brother?? 

Wa salam

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2016 at 3:34 AM, Tawheed313 said:

Salamunalaykum brothers and sisters,

InshAllah after my exams, i'll make another more thorough thread on this issue.

But one objection levelled against us by sunni brothers is, why did Rasullah s.a.w not reaffirm and proclaim the appointment of Ali a.s during Hajj, why at Ghadeer, when caravans would or may have split apart, to say, go back to yemen and other parts?

Here are my thoughts:

1. The people who decided the matters of Khilafah were the Muharijeen and the Ansaar - were they not?

2. Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, as well as the people of the Ansaar who went to Saqifah, were primarily the ones who decided the next set of elections, in addition to Muawiyah.

3. Therefore, it would make absolutely perfect sense for Rasullah s.a.w to directly address the very groups central to the issue of Khilafah and leadership, at a time and place where the message would not get lost admist the sermon at arafah among everyone, at a time where it would be singled out specifically and people would distinctly remember the event of Ghadeer and exactly what Rasullah s.a.w. had done.

 

When Abu bakr became Caliph, did they form a Shurah with the elders or leaders of the other tribes outside of Makkah/Medina? When Umar became Caliph, did this occur? When Uthman became Caliph, did this Occur? No is the answer to these questions. The groups central to deciding these matters were people among the ansaar, and the emigrants!

The people who were addressed at Ghadeer were the very same community who among them felt they had the greatest right, perhaps out of ego, to leadership after Rasullah s.a.w

The people from the other cities and towns, the mass of them had converted to Islam in large groups towards the very end of the life of Rasullah s.a.w. They could not have had as close a claim to being the caliph as those who emigrated or had been with Rasullah s.a.w for longer.

Despite this, we shia's do believe Rasullah s.a.w still had tens of thousands bordering near a hundred thousand or around that figure of sahaba present, and called those who lagged forward, and waited for those still behind.

Furthermore, if Rasullah s.a.w had merely stopped to let Khalid and those who had spoken ill of Ali a.s or disputed of him know that Ali should be their friend, not their enemy, why do we see Rasullah s.a.w, at Ghadeer give an entirely pertinent sermon? Why is the sermon sounding like the absolute ultimatum?

Why does he not explain there had been disputes, and for muslims to be brothers of one another, and for people to love and not hold enimity to Ali a.s ?

However, what we see is something entirely different, it is as if Rasullah s.a.w is making a public will - a last and final declaration

Someday (after his last pilgrimage) the Messenger of Allah (S) stood to give us a speech beside a pond which is known as Khum (Ghadir Khum) which is located between Mecca and Medina. Then he praised Allah and reminded Him, and then said: "O’ people! Behold! It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. Behold! I am leaving for you two precious things. First of them is the book of Allah in which there is light and guidance...The other one is my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. I remind you in the name of Allah about my Ahlul-Bayt. (three times)."

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of the companions, section of the virtues of ‘Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v 4, p1873, Tradition #36.

 

If the whole stopping at Ghadeer, in the scorching heat, was just some way of solving a dispute between a group of sahaba who had a grudge against Ali a.s, why is the agenda completely different here?

It is after this where Rasullah s.a.w then declares Ali a.s the mawla of every believer.

There is nothing about a dispute. Nothing about muslims needing to love each other and know Ali a.s is in the right on the issue. No mention of the war booty rift, or the slave girl issue. Nothing whatsoever. The Agenda is completely different.

 

 

 

This is my understanding. Whatever i have said is right is from Allah swt, and the mistakes are purely my own.

What boggle my mind that you have given your thoughts and quoted hadiths, hadiths, hadiths ....

But you failed to quote the Holy Quran. You failed to quote the Holy Quran that the Prophet was commanded after the Hajj on his way to home before he reached Ghadeer Khumn.

There are Sunni Wahhabis who are into hadiths, hadiths, hadiths ......

AND, there are Shia Wahhabis who are into hadiths, hadiths, hadiths ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, one of the reasons it wasn't done at Hajj is that Allah commanded the Prophet what he said in Hajj is was sufficient and the Prophet to reemphasizes the Wilayah of IMAM ALI again, again, again ......

Edited by BornShia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are debating in English and concentrating on Mawla, rather than Awla. When you add, "Mim" to Awla then you make a noun Mawla. It is basically, Arabic language.

Also, we are concentrating on Sahih Sitta rather than Holy Quran.

What did the Prophet say:

ألَسْتُ أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم؟ قالوا بلى يارسول الله. قال: من كنت 

مولاه فعلي مولاه. اللهم وال من والاه و عاد من عاداه.

Look at the first five words, where the Prophets is questioning the Muslims and tying his words to Holy Quran.

He asks, ألَسْتُ أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم؟

I am not Awla over Moumineen from themselves?

033.006 النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ وَأُولُو الأرْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلَى بِبَعْضٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُهَاجِرِينَ إِلا أَنْ تَفْعَلُوا إِلَى أَوْلِيَائِكُمْ مَعْرُوفًا كَانَ ذَلِكَ فِي الْكِتَابِ مَسْطُورًا

See the first five words of the above ayah. It says, the same thing, but instead of Prophet using "I", here in the ayah it says, "The Prophet is Awla over Moumineen from themselves."

Then look at the next 4 words of the Ghadeer Khumn, where the the people answered, قالوا بلى يارسول الله

"They said, Yes Rasool Allah".

Then the Prophet says, whoever I am Awla, Ali is Awla.

But in Proper Classical Arabic, you will add, "Min" in front of Awla and make it Mawla.

Thus, no need to go into hadiths, hadiths, hadiths, or the word Mawla has many, many meanings.

The Prophet tied his word to Holy Quran to above verse 33:6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2016 at 11:23 PM, shiaman14 said:

He was the Prophet. He could announce anything anywhere he saw fit unless of course you are saying he made yet another mistake.

Hajj or Ghadeer either one - it definitely was not Saqifah

Strawman, please read more carefully.
First of all, if I ask you why do you wear a blue jacket you can provide an explanation or say "For no reason". Later on we can talk about if an explanation is required or should be given or not but first things first, because asking such a question doesn't automatically mean an answer is required. But this question and this thread is for those who wish to share their explanation. So if you say an explanation isn't required do you mean that there is no explanation? If not and you have one please share it and if you think there isn't one please say so and don't go off-tangent about what is required and what isn't required.
 
Second of all, I could say the same holds for you:

Quote

He was the Prophet. He could NOT announce anything anywhere AS he saw fit unless of course you are saying he made yet another mistake."

So if it can't be established that he announced a successor, will you wholeheartedly accept that or will you come with your logic and your desires about how the Prophet MUST have had announced something?

On 6/4/2016 at 8:59 PM, goldenhawk said:

The holy prophet (s) can choose whenever and wherever he delivers any message and it will become binding upon the believers to accept whole-heartedly any orders.. We must not have any problems with this. The jews were like this and therefore we must happily accept whatever and whnever the holy prophet (s) gave us.

Thank you for your comment but the same holds for you. If you have no explanation or don't know simply say so first, and again turn things around a little bit and ask yourself if you can remain consistent:

Quote

The holy prophet (s) can choose whenever and wherever he DOESN'T deliver any message and it will become binding upon the believers to accept whole-heartedly any LACK OF orders.. We must not have any problems with this. The jews were like this and therefore we must happily accept whatever and whnever the holy prophet (s) gave u s

So if it can't be established that he announced a successor, will you wholeheartedly accept that or will you come with about how logic dictates that the Prophet MUST have had announced something?

On 6/4/2016 at 8:59 PM, goldenhawk said:

Al-Albani says in Silisilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah 4/355 No. 1761:

عن جابر بن عبد الله الأنصاري رضوان الله تعالى عليه أنه قال : ( رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في حجته يوم عرفة وهو على ناقته القصواء يخطب فسمعته يقول يا أيها الناس إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي )

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari: I saw the Messenger of Allah during his Hajj on the day of Arafah, and he was seated on his camel, al­Qaswa', and was delivering a sermon: 'O people, I am leaving among you that which if you hold on to you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my itrah, my Ahl al-Bayt."

Al-Albani has declared it sahih. Do I need to comment any further?

Although in favor of the shia argument, it's slightly off-topic as we were discussing the explicit appointment of a successor or are you saying that this was the appointment? I can't accept this because Fatima undoubtedly is included here in the people spoken about and she was never given authority nor did anyone from any sect, past or present, understood it as such. Do you agree for example with this shia narration that has been deemed authentic and says:

Quote

 حدثنا محمد بن زياد بن جعفر الهمداني رضي الله عنه قال حدثنا علي بن إبراهيم بن هاشم عن أبيه عن محمد بن أبي عمير عن غياث بن إبراهيم عن الصادق جعفر بن محمد عن أبيه محمد بن علي عن أبيه علي بن الحسين عن أبيه الحسين بن علي )عليه السلام( قال سئل أمير المؤمنين )عليه السلام( عن معنى قول رسول الله (صلى الله عليه و آله) إني مخلف فيكم الثقلين كتاب الله و عترتي من العترة فقال أنا و الحسن و الحسين و الأئمة التسعة من ولد الحسين تاسعهم مهديهم و قائمهم لا يفارقون كتاب الله و لا يفارقهم حتى يردوا على رسول الله ص حوضه

Sheikh Sadooq (r.a) said Ahmed ibn Ziyad ibn Ja’far Al-Hamdani narrated from Alee ibn Ibraheem narrated from his father from Muhammad ibn Abi Umayr from Qayath Ibn Ibraheem from Al-Sadiq Ja’far ibn Muhammad (a.s) from his father Muhammad ibn Alee from his father Alee ibn Al-Hussain (a.s) from his father Al-Hussain (a.s) said: Amir al-Momineen Alee (a.s) was asked about the saying of the Prophet (saw): “I am leaving among you the two weighty things, the book of Allah and my Itrah(family).” He was asked who are the Itrah(family)? He replied: “Me, Al-Hassan, Al-Hussain and the nine imams from the progeny of Imam Hussain (a.s) the ninth one is the Mahdi and the Qa’im they do not separate the book of Allah neither is it separate from them until they meet the Prophet (saw) at lake-fount (Kawthar).” [Shia book: Hadeeth Al-Thaqalain Wa’ Maqamat Ahlulbayt. Pg. # 120.]

Do you agree with the narration that Fatima is NOT part of 'itrah Ahl al Bayt? And if no or if the narration is contextual, how can the narration you shared talk about authority?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/18/2016 at 7:31 AM, BornShia said:

We are debating in English and concentrating on Mawla, rather than Awla. When you add, "Mim" to Awla then you make a noun Mawla. It is basically, Arabic language.

Also, we are concentrating on Sahih Sitta rather than Holy Quran.

What did the Prophet say:

ألَسْتُ أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم؟ قالوا بلى يارسول الله. قال: من كنت 

مولاه فعلي مولاه. اللهم وال من والاه و عاد من عاداه.

Look at the first five words, where the Prophets is questioning the Muslims and tying his words to Holy Quran.

He asks, ألَسْتُ أولى بالمؤمنين من أنفسهم؟

I am not Awla over Moumineen from themselves?

033.006 النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَى بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ وَأُولُو الأرْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلَى بِبَعْضٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُهَاجِرِينَ إِلا أَنْ تَفْعَلُوا إِلَى أَوْلِيَائِكُمْ مَعْرُوفًا كَانَ ذَلِكَ فِي الْكِتَابِ مَسْطُورًا

See the first five words of the above ayah. It says, the same thing, but instead of Prophet using "I", here in the ayah it says, "The Prophet is Awla over Moumineen from themselves."

Thanks, the similarity between the quoted verse and the sentence before "man kuntu maulah fa aliyun maulah" is indeed striking, so let's see what we can derive from this. This is the complete verse:

Quote

"النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ ۖ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ ۗ وَأُولُو الْأَرْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلَىٰ بِبَعْضٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُهَاجِرِينَ إِلَّا أَن تَفْعَلُوا إِلَىٰ أَوْلِيَائِكُم مَّعْرُوفًا ۚ كَانَ ذَٰلِكَ فِي الْكِتَابِ مَسْطُورًا
[33:6 Sahih International]
The Prophet is more worthy of the believers than themselves, and his wives are [in the position of] their mothers. And those of [blood] relationship are more entitled [to inheritance] in the decree of Allah than the [other] believers and the emigrants, except that you may do to your close associates a kindness [through bequest]. That was in the Book inscribed.

An Nabiyu awlaa bil Mu'mineena min anfusihim, wa azwaajuhu Ummahaatuhum wa Ulul Arhaami ba'duhum awlaa bi ba'd fee Kitaabi Allahi min al Mu'mineena wal Muhajireen ilaa Awliyaa'ikum ma'rufaa, dhalika fi al Kitabi mastura"

 

What does this verse actually say, and we can forget about the translation as obviously the translator tries to include his Sunni bias about inheritance apparently. So first it says "An Nabiyu awlaa bil Mu'mineena min anfusihim" ie "The Prophet has a greater claim/is more worthy/is more entitled (to obedience, authority, loyality, love, respect, inheritance etc.)  from the Believers than themselves" So a shia might say the claim is with regards to everything and there is no reason why it should be limited to love and/or respect only. Ok, I'll come back to that, then it says "wa azwaajuhu Ummahaatuhum" ie "and his wives are their mothers". This is for another thread, I guess.

Then it says "wa Ulul Arhaami ba'duhum awlaa bi ba'd fee Kitaabi Allahi min al Mu'mineena wal Muhajireen" ie "and those of relationship have a greater claim/are more worthy/closer/more entitled (to ???) to others in the Book of Allah than the Believers and the Muhajireen". The interesting thing now is, what are those of relations actually entitled to? The sunni translator alludes to inheritance, but what do shia narrations say:

1. We read in Shaykh Saduq's Kamal ad-Din wa Tamam an-Ni'ma:

Quote

And from him, from Muhammad Bin Muhammad Bin Aasim Al-Kulayni, from Muhammad Bin Yaqoub, from Al-Qasim Al-A’ala, from Ismail Bin Ali Al-Qazwiny, from Ali Bin Ismail, from Aasim Bin Hameed Al-Hanaat, from Muhammad Bin Qays, from Sabit Al-Sumaly, Ali asws Bin Al- Husayn asws, from his asws father asws, from Ali asws Bin Abu Talib asws having said: ‘It was with regards to us asws that  this  Verse  was  Revealed [33:6]  and  the possessors of relationships  some of them are closer to others in the Book of Allah,  and  it  was  regarding  us asws that  this  Verse  was  Revealed [43:28]  And  He Made  it  a  Word  to  continue  in  his  progeny. And  the  Imamate  will  be  in  the progeny of Al-Husayn asws up to the Day of Judgement.And  for  Al-Qaim asws from us asws there will be two occultations, one of which would be longer than the other. As for the first one, so it is six days, or six months, or six years. And as for the other, so its term would be prolonged to the extent that most of the ones who are speaking about it would turn back from it. So no one would be steadfast upon it except for the one  with  strong  conviction,  and  healthy  understanding,  and  does  not  find  within himself  any  objection  to  what  we asws have  decided,  and  submits  to  us asws,  the People asws of the Household’.

2. We further read in Kitab al Kafi:

Quote

Muhammad Bin Yaqoub, from Muhammad Bin Yahya, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad Bin Isa, from his father, from Abdullah Bin Al-Mugheira, from Ibn Muskaan, from Abdul Raheem Bin Rawh Al-Quseyr, (It has been narrated) from Abu Ja’far asws regarding  the  Words  of  Allah azwj Mighty and Majestic [33:6] The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers; and the possessors of elationships some of them are closer to others in the Book of Allah, so for whom was it Revealed?’ So he asws said:  ‘It  was  revealed  regarding  (Al Amr) the  Command.  This  Verse  flows  in  the sons asws of  Al-Husayn asws from  after  him asws.  Thus,  we asws are  the  closer  to  the Command, and with Rasool-Allah saww, than the Believers, and the Emigrants and the Helpers’. So I said, ‘Is there any share in it for the sons of Ja’far as?’ He asws said: ‘No’. I said, ‘Is there any share in it for the sons of Al-Abbas?’ He asws said: ‘No’. I counted to him asws the children of Abdul Muttalib as, for each of which he asws said: ‘No’. And I forgot the sons of Al-Hassan asws. So I came up to him asws after that and said to him asws, ‘Is there any share in it for the sons of Al-Hassan asws?’ So he asws said: ‘No, by Allah azwj– O Abdul Raheem – there is no share in it for a Mohammedan (Muslim) apart from for us asws’

3. Again Al Kafi:

Quote

And from him, from Ali Bin Ibrahim, from Muhammad Bin Isa, from Yunus, from Al-Husayn Bin Suweyr Bin Abu Fakhta, who reports:‘Abu Abdullah asws has  said: ‘The Imamate will not return in two brothers after Al-Hassan asws and   Al-Husayn asws,   ever.   But   rather,   it   flows   from   Ali asws Bin   Al-Husayn asws just   as   Allah azwj the   High   Says [33:6]   and   the   possessors   of relationships some of them are closer to others in the Book of Allah, from the Believers  and  the  Emigrants,  so  it  will  not  occur,  after  Ali asws Bin  Al-Husayn asws except to be in the posterities, and progeny of the progeny’.

4. Al Kafi:

Quote

And  from  him  (Kulayni),  from  Ali  Bin  Ibrahim,  from  Muhammad  Bin  Isa,  from  Yunus,  and  Ali  Bin Muhammad,  from  Sahl  Bin  Ziyad  Abu  Saeed,  from  Muhammad  Bin  Isa,  from  Yunus,  from  Ibn Muskaan, from Abu Baseer, ‘Abu Abdullah asws has said: ‘When Rasool-Allah saww passed away, Ali asws was closest of  the  people to (to  him  among) the  people,  due to  the abundance  of  what  (merits) Rasool- Allah saww had  preached  with  regards  to  him asws (Ali asws) and nominated him asws for the  people (as  an  Imam asws),  and  grabbed  him asws by  his asws hand.  So when  Ali asws (was  about  to)  pass away,  it  was  not (proper) for  him  to include Muhammad as the son  of  Ali asws,  nor  Al-Abbas asws the son  of  Ali asws,  nor  any  from his asws(other sons for leadership) and he asws did not act (to nominate them). So  Al-Hassan asws and  Al-Husayn asws said:  ‘Surely,  Allah azwj Blessed  and  High Revealed   regarding   us asws just   like   He azwj Revealed   regarding   you asws,   and Commanded   for   our asws obedience   just   as   He azwj Commanded   for   your asws obedience, and Rasool-Allah saww preached regarding us asws just as he saww preached regarding you asws, and the uncleanness (Ar Rijs) has been Kept away from us asws just as it has been Kept away from you asws’. So when Ali asws passed away, Al-Hassan asws was the closest to his asws greatness. So when  he asws fulfilled  it,  he asws did  not  have  the  leeway  that  he asws should  include his asws sons, and he asws did not do that. And Allah azwj Mighty and Majestic is Saying [33:6] and the possessors of relationships some of them are closer to others in the  Book  of  Allah,  So  He azwj Made  it  to  be  in  his asws son.  Al-Husayn asws said: ‘Allah azwj Blessed  and  High  has  Commanded  for  my asws obedience  just  as  He azwj Commanded  by  your asws obedience  and  the  obedience  to  your asws father asws,  and Rasool-Allah saww preached  regarding  me asws just  as  he saww preached  regarding you asws and regarding your asws father asws, and the uncleanness has been Kept away from me asws just as it has been Kept away from you asws and from your asws father asws’. So  when  it  (Imamate)  when  to  Al-Husayn asws,  there  was  not  leeway  from  any  one from  his asws family  that  he  should  claim  for  it,  just  as  he asws had  claimed  to  his asws brother asws,  and  his asws father asws,  if  he  wanted that  he  should  take  the  Matter  from him asws, and they did not do it. Then the matter (Imamate) became in Al-Husayn asws as  a  result,  so  the  explanation  of  this  Verse [33:6]  and  the  possessors  of relationships some of them are closer to others in the Book of Allahtook place. Then it came to be, from after Al-Husayn asws, to Ali Bin Al-Husayn asws. Then it came to be, from after Ali Bin Al-Husayn asws, to Muhammad Bin Ali asws’. And  he asws said: ‘The uncleanness (Ar Rijs)- it  is  the  doubt.  By  Allah azwj !  We asws do not doubt regarding our asws Lord azwj, ever’

5. From Tawil al Ayat az Zahira:

Quote

Muhammad Bin Al-Abbas,  from Al-Husayn  Bin  Aamir, from Muhammad Bin Al-Husayn, from Ahmad Bin Muhammad Ibn Abu Nasr, from Hamaad Bin Usmaan, from Abdul Raheem Bin Rawh Al-Quseyr, (It  has  been  narrated)  from  Abu  Abdullah asws when  he asws was  asked  about  the Words of Allah azwj Mighty and Majestic [33:6] and the possessors of relationships some of them are closer to others in the Book of Allah, from the Believers and the   Emigrants,   he asws said:  ‘It   was   Revealed   regarding   the   sons asws of   Al-Husayn asws’. I said, ‘May I be sacrificed for you asws, was it Revealed regarding the Obligations?’ He asws said: ‘No’. I said, ‘So, regarding the inheritance?’ So he asws said:‘No, it  was Revealed regarding the Command (Imamate)’.

6. Another from Tawil al Ayat:

Quote

And said as well, ‘Abdul Aziz Bin Yahy narrated to us, from Muhammad Bin Abdul  Rahman  Bin  Al-Fazal, from Ja’far Bin Al-Husayn Al-Kufy, from his father, from Muhammad Bin Zayd, A slave of Abu Ja’far asws who said, ‘I asked my Master asws, so I said, ‘(What about) the Words of the Mighty and Majestic [33:6] and the possessors of relationships some of them are closer to others in the Book of Allah, he asws said: ‘It is Ali asws Bin Abu Talib asws, and its Meaning is that he asws is a kin of Rasool-Allah saww, so he asws became closer by it, than the Believers and the Emigrants’.

7. Tafsir al Qummi:

Quote

(Ali Bin Ibrahim) said, ‘And His azwj Words [33:6] and the possessors of relationships some of them are closer to others in the Book of Allah, were Revealed regarding the Imamate’.

 

 


Are there any narrations that suggest something else?
1. From Kitab al Kafi:

Quote

And  from  him  (Kulayni),  from  Ali  Bin  Ibrahim,  from  his  father,  from  Ibn  Abu  Najran,  from  Aasim  Bin Hameed, from Muhammad Bin Qays, ‘Abu Ja’far asws has said: ‘Amir-ul-Momineen asws judged  regarding  a  maternal  aunt, who  had  come disputing  regarding  (inheritance)  a  slave  (had  claimed),  whose (master)  had  passed  away.  So  Amir-ul-Momineen asws recited  this  Verse [33:6]  and the possessors of relationships some of them are closer to others in the Book of Allah. So Amir-ul-Momineen asws handed over the inheritance to the maternal aunt, and did not give it to the slave’.

2. From Tahdhib al Ahkam from Shaykh at Tusi:

Quote

from Al-Husayn Bin Saeed, from Al-Nazar Bin Suweyd, from Abdullah Bin Sinan, ‘Abu Abdullah asws has said: ‘Ali asws and Uthman Bin Affan differed with regards to the man who had died, and there was no group which could inherit from him, and he had relatives  which  had  not  inherited  from  him.  So  Ali asws said: ‘The inheritance is for them.  Allah azwj Mighty  and  Majestic  is  Saying [33:6]  "and  the  possessors  of relationships  some  of  them  are  closer  to  others  in  the  Book  of  Allah",  and Uthman was saying, ‘Make it to be in the Public Treasury of the Muslims’.

3. Kitab al Kafi:

Quote

From Abu Baseer, that Abu Jafar asws said:‘The maternal uncle and aunt inherit if there is no one else with them as Allah azwj said: [33:6] and the possessors of relationships some of them are closer to others in the Book of Allah.’

4. Tafsir Al Ayyashi:

Quote

From Zurararah, from Abu Ja'far asws about the words of Allah: [33:6] "and  the  possessors  of relationships  some  of  them  are  closer  to  others  in  the  Book  of  Allah" ‘that some have a greater right with regards to inheritance because of being closer in relationship’


 


And these narrations are in concordance with the sunni interpretation as for example in Sunan Abi Dawud:

Quote

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
To those also, to whom your right hand was pledged, give their due portion. A man made an agreement with another man (in early days of Islam), and there was no relationship between the two; one of them inherited from the other. The following verse of Surat Al-Anfal abrogated it: "But kindred by blood have prior right against each other."

And coming back to the first part of this verse, this seems to be the context as well as we can read in Bukhari:

Quote

 Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "There is no believer but I, of all the people, I am the closest to him both in this world and in the Hereafter. Recite if you wish: 'The Prophet (ﷺ) is closer to the believers than their own selves.' (33.6) so if a believer (dies) leaves some property then his relatives will inherit that property; but if he is in debt or he leaves poor children, let those (creditors and children) come to me (that I may pay the debt and provide for the children), for them I am his sponsor(literally Maulah) (surely).


 

 

So in my opinion, you have three options:
- You either say that the context of the first part regarding the Prophet is very broad and with respect to everything including obedience etc. and the second part regarding Ulul Arhaam has a very specific context with respect to inheritance. Then the context of such a statement about being closer or having more right becomes ambiguous without any background.

- Or you say that both parts of the verse are with regards to inheritance, then how can you decide what Ghadir was about without clarifying information?

- Or you say that both parts are to be understood very broadly or even specifically about Imamate, then simply accept the clause given by the verse that says "ilaa Awliyaa'ukum ma'rufa" ie "except what you do out of kindness for your close associates" meaning that even for argument's sake Ali was more entitled to be obeyed if out of kindness they obey Abu Bakr or someone else, then this should not be seen as a problem as the exception has been allowed by the Qur'anic verse. By the way, how can this be the case anyway as Imamate is by Divine Command and people have no right whatsoever to give anything of that to anyone so this interpretation fails anyway. Isn't the numerous narrations about this verse being about Imamate weird then, doesn't it show a bias to understand anything pointing towards Imamate?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GreatChineseFall said:
On 6/4/2016 at 7:59 PM, goldenhawk said:

Al-Albani says in Silisilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah 4/355 No. 1761:

عن جابر بن عبد الله الأنصاري رضوان الله تعالى عليه أنه قال : ( رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في حجته يوم عرفة وهو على ناقته القصواء يخطب فسمعته يقول يا أيها الناس إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي )

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah al-Ansari: I saw the Messenger of Allah during his Hajj on the day of Arafah, and he was seated on his camel, al­Qaswa', and was delivering a sermon: 'O people, I am leaving among you that which if you hold on to you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my itrah, my Ahl al-Bayt."

Al-Albani has declared it sahih. Do I need to comment any further?

Although in favor of the shia argument, it's slightly off-topic as we were discussing the explicit appointment of a successor or are you saying that this was the appointment? I can't accept this because Fatima undoubtedly is included here in the people spoken about and she was never given authority nor did anyone from any sect, past or present, understood it as such.

Salam brother. Why can't you accept this? It meets all the sunni criteria according to your rijal system. If you can't accept this for another reason, then you are rejecting a sahih narration based on your aql (reasoning) which is good and I commend you for that. That's what the shia do if it goes against quran, established hadith or reason. 

Coming to your reason as to why you can't accept it because hazrat fatima (as) didn't have any authority? Well we know lady fatima (as) will never lead you astray and is definitely part of his ahlulbayt. She did have authority to an extent but total authority can only be given to male and not females. That's why all the prophets and leaders were male. That is why the prophet said (according to your sahih hadith) said that there will be 12 imams after him. No imam or leader can be male even if they are the best amongst people like hazrat fatima (as) or hazrat marium (as). Hope this makes sense and eid mubarak to you brother. 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...