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  
Aabiss_Shakari

It makes sense?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

"A" worked hard day and night for more than ten years to make a good glass factory. He contacted his family members and friends to help him spreading his business everywhere in the vicinity. He made every arrangement that he do not suffer from loss in the industry. As a result of continuous hard work of "A" his business spread everywhere in the country. At one point of time after thirty years of business he had to go out of country for forty days. He asked his son to take care of the factory during these forty days. He had been grooming his son "B" from "B's" childhood hence he had confident on him that he will take care of business during the small business visit of his father outside the country.

"A" returned after forty days and again started to look after his business. However after few years he decided to make a permanent branch of his business in UK and settle their permanently. His son was still in this country. His business was most prosperous than ever but "he did not handover his business to his son or made him guardian of the affairs of the factory and left the country for his new project".

Does it make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Aabiss_Shakari said:

 

they seem to have fled from the battlefield, brother.

I just cant think off the top of my head whose example they are following.

Share this post


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

Too bad there weren't any Olympics held back then.

1 hour ago, DigitalUmmah said:

I heard umar ran so fast, even his shadow was left behind

 Usain bolt would be thanking his stars that he's not there this century. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Aabiss_Shakari

If you discuss Fadak, Ghadeer etc with them, then they come flooding with verbal gynastics and quote after quote, paste after paste in order to defend their position and try to prove us wrong.

Pose a simple hypothesis to draw some answers from our brothers and they appear to be as silent as the morning mist. Why? It's possible that a simple analogy that you posed, running parrallel to our stance is more difficult to outwit without the use of terms, definitions, hadith and the like.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2016 at 7:17 PM, Aabiss_Shakari said:

I was hoping that @Bukhari8k brother will contribute here as well.

I would normally avoid a topic when i see it already being bombarded with silly posts. however i will try to contribute.

On 9/11/2016 at 0:52 AM, Aabiss_Shakari said:

"A" worked hard day and night for more than ten years to make a good glass factory. He contacted his family members and friends to help him spreading his business everywhere in the vicinity. He made every arrangement that he do not suffer from loss in the industry. As a result of continuous hard work of "A" his business spread everywhere in the country. At one point of time after thirty years of business he had to go out of country for forty days. He asked his son to take care of the factory during these forty days. He had been grooming his son "B" from "B's" childhood hence he had confident on him that he will take care of business during the small business visit of his father outside the country.

"A" returned after forty days and again started to look after his business. However after few years he decided to make a permanent branch of his business in UK and settle their permanently. His son was still in this country. His business was most prosperous than ever but "he did not handover his business to his son or made him guardian of the affairs of the factory and left the country for his new project".

Does it make sense?

Yes it can make sense... because May be after a few years  "A" did not have confidence in "B" anymore as "A" noticed some strange things about "B" e.g. lack of seriousness or personal/personality issues or health problems with "B".

Or may be "A" had another son or a daughter "C" who was all grown up by then and was showing more maturity and seriousness

Or May be "A" left the decision to Board members or may be "A" was not the sole owner of the company anymore

Or perhaps "B" himself wanted to pursue his own ideas of a career or wanted to make a name on his own

Or "A" still wanted to manage the affairs of the glass factory from UK

Or may be "A" who people thought was the owner of the business was himself actually an employee in the company and real owner or decision maker was someone else.

Well, there can be so many scenarios. It would be better if we knew how you are going to replace the following with real people of things in a real situation before i could try to solve the rest of the problem: 

A = 

B = 

Glass Factory/Business =

New Project =

@Pangea = 

Edited by Bukhari8k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll blow me down, I really thought the Paralympics ended last week but it appears the Olympic flame is still burning strong at Mr Bukhari's yard. 

Nice execution of the double pike and triple somersault in the typical response one can expect. 

Bit of bake- off thrown in too. One is presented with some simple ingredients to make a bread and in the the right hands, a bit of kneeding here a bit of stretching there and we art pyres wanted with a focaccia! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pangea said:

We'll blow me down, I really thought the Paralympics ended last week but it appears the Olympic flame is still burning strong at Mr Bukhari's yard. 

Nice execution of the double pike and triple somersault in the typical response one can expect. 

Bit of bake- off thrown in too. One is presented with some simple ingredients to make a bread and in the the right hands, a bit of kneeding here a bit of stretching there and we art pyres wanted with a focaccia! 

you don't want me to solve the riddle do you? atleast we found out Pangea = comedian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2016 at 5:01 AM, Aabiss_Shakari said:

I wonder my learned Sunni brothers make long posts discussing about Quran and Hadiths but when I ask few liner simple questions they do not try to reply me in simple manner. Please tell me it makes sense or not?

We make long posts regarding Qur'anic injunctions and Hadiths - thank you for noticing that by the way - because those two are binding upon us.

Anything outside those two sources (your little anecdote for example) or any concept that have no foundation in those two sources (associating infallibility with those who were fallible and Imamat in of itself) have no motive but to restrict a person to a situation that (to you) seems to be in your favor or gives you the upper hand.

Your anecdote is so ridiculous that destroying it is far easier than understanding (or answering) it.

Islam is no factory.  While a factory might need a guardian, Islam is a perfect religion the highest source of authority in which (the Qur'an) is guaranteed to be preserved by the Most Powerful (swt).  So why the need for a successor?

Also, the Prophet (saw) was no businessman.  He (saw) was entrusted with a noble task and he (saw) came through with flying colors leaving no room for any improvement for anyone else.  The very fact that you believe that it is a necessity for the Prophet (saw) to have had a successor (that too, Divinely Appointed) screams of your lack of confidence in the Prophet (saw) and insinuates that you believe that he (saw) did not complete the task, therefore, requiring another 12 "infallibles" (ra) to further implement and completely cement what he (saw) set in motion.

Lastly, to answer those who are infatuated with running away from battlefields and undo your anecdote, where is the benefit for the businessman in him entrusting his own son with the business and his son entrusting his son (businessman's grandson) and his grandson entrusting it to his son all the way down to the businessman's 13th descendant only to find that that descendant ran away from his (Divinely Ordained) responsibility of running the "factory" and go into occultation?

We were talking about how fast Umar (ra) ran and while this cannot be proven, we know whose name to write under the "Longest Run in the History of Mankind" column.  Over 1000 years and he is still on the run.  Talk of undying stamina.  Can anyone brag about running a marathon?  We have an ongoing run that has lasted over 1000 years.

Here is a simple scenario for you:

1.  Obscure thought comes to your mind.

2.  Convinced you might corner us with it, you log in to type out the entire post.

3.  With a big smile on your face, previewing what you have written so far, you look for the "Submit Reply" button.

4.  Save yourself the hassle and look for the "Sign Out" button instead and go to sleep!

 

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The very fact that you believe that it is a necessity for the Prophet (saw) to have had a successor (that too, Divinely Appointed) screams of your lack of confidence in the Prophet (saw)."

Its not the prophet pbuh we lack confidence in, it's those you deem to be rightly guided afterwards we find questionable. If a successor wasn't a necessity and everything was hunky dory then why the need for the Rashidun and just leave everyone to their own devices since all was perfect and everything suitably preserved. 

Share this post


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

Its not the prophet pbuh we lack confidence in, it's those you deem to be rightly guided afterwards we find questionable. If a successor wasn't a necessity and everything was hunky dory then why the need for the Rashidun and just leave everyone to their own devices since all was perfect and everything suitably preserved. 

Our concept of having Rightly-Guided Caliphs is very different than your concept of Imamat.  

For starters, we do not see the Caliphs, even the Rightly-Guided Ones (ra), to be infallible nor are they superior to any of the Prophets (asws).  They aren't even superior to angels.

Also, we also do not consider them to be Divinely Appointed.

Finally, the necessity to elect a leader was a necessity of time (given how the Ansar had gathered to elect a leader...you know the whole story) not a necessity within the religion.  For Shias, it is a necessity within the religion (though proof for it cannot be furnished) for Muslims to have a guide at all times.  Then we run into periods, like the last 1000+ years, when the guide is no where to be found.

Anyways, when we consider those factors - the need for infallible, Divinely Appointed Guides who are superior to all Prophets (asws) except Muhammad (saw) - it is easy to see your lack of confidence in the Prophet (saw).

 

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as salam alaykum. 

Honestly brother Aabism useless thread. 

After you couldn't provide proof for faith in 12 Imams from Quran, Sunnah. You guys switched yourself to such meanless comparisions. 

Prophet of Islam (saws) didn't leave behind himself one son like owner of your glass factory, he left lots of faithful students. 

Hz Ali didn't claim for himself any additional knowledge. 

In “Nahjul balagha” (sermon 163) you can read that when people went to Amir al-mu’minin in a deputation and complained to him through what they had to say against `Uthman, and requested him to speak to him on their behalf and to admonish him for their sake, he went to see him and said:

by Allah, I do not know what to say to you. I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you. You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have heard. You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were not more close by acting in accordance to truth than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold.

This speech contains some major refutations to modern shia faith.

1) Words of commander of faithful:

I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you.

These words are great proof for fact that Ali wasn’t more knowledgeable than Uthman! Because he said: I know nothing which you do not know. It is so obvious, that translators of this speech to English have to corrupt it by inserting phrase (in this matter),between I know nothing and which you do not know.

2) From text is also clear that in the view of sayidina Ali, sheykhan were acting in accordance to haq! And they didn’t surpass Uthman in that!

Of course shias as usual would claim that this was taqqiyah and etc. But who cares about their words?

3) Also in this speech is clear proof that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t teach anything to Ali, what he didn’t teach to others! And that in his words: nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you

4) It’s clear that all those lunatics, that lied and deceived people, when they claim that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t have daughter except Fatima! Because Ali here pointed to marriages of Uthman, which married twice on the daughters of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).

Share this post


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

as salam alaykum. 

Honestly brother Aabism useless thread. 

After you couldn't provide proof for faith in 12 Imams from Quran, Sunnah. You guys switched yourself to such meanless comparisions. 

Prophet of Islam (saws) didn't leave behind himself one son like owner of your glass factory, he left lots of faithful students. 

Hz Ali didn't claim for himself any additional knowledge. 

In “Nahjul balagha” (sermon 163) you can read that when people went to Amir al-mu’minin in a deputation and complained to him through what they had to say against `Uthman, and requested him to speak to him on their behalf and to admonish him for their sake, he went to see him and said:

by Allah, I do not know what to say to you. I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you. You have seen as we have seen and you have heard as we have heard. You sat in the company of the Prophet of Allah as we did. (Abu Bakr) Ibn Abi Quhafah and (`Umar) ibn al-Khattab were not more close by acting in accordance to truth than you, since you are nearer than both of them to the Prophet of Allah through kinship, and you also hold relationship to him by marriage which they do not hold.

This speech contains some major refutations to modern shia faith.

1) Words of commander of faithful:

I know nothing which you do not know, nor can I lead you to any matter of which you are not aware. You certainly know what we know, we have not come to know anything before you which we could tell you; nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you.

These words are great proof for fact that Ali wasn’t more knowledgeable than Uthman! Because he said: I know nothing which you do not know. It is so obvious, that translators of this speech to English have to corrupt it by inserting phrase (in this matter),between I know nothing and which you do not know.

2) From text is also clear that in the view of sayidina Ali, sheykhan were acting in accordance to haq! And they didn’t surpass Uthman in that!

Of course shias as usual would claim that this was taqqiyah and etc. But who cares about their words?

3) Also in this speech is clear proof that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t teach anything to Ali, what he didn’t teach to others! And that in his words: nor did we learn anything in secret which we should convey to you

4) It’s clear that all those lunatics, that lied and deceived people, when they claim that prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam) didn’t have daughter except Fatima! Because Ali here pointed to marriages of Uthman, which married twice on the daughters of prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam).

I am just calling for logic and reasoning. If not leaving a successor was Sunnah of Prophet (pbuh) then Why Abu Bakar nominated Umer as his successor?

Why Umer made a committee of six persons (in addition to six Abdullah bin Umer had casting vote yes Abdullah bin Umer who did not observe baiyat of Ali (a.s) when he was made the forth caliph. It speaks volume why he was given casting vote)?

Why Aysha told Umer when he was injured "Will you leave this herd of cattle (people) without a shepherd" when Umer had decided not to leave a successor. Did Prophet (pbuh) not know even this small thing?

Believing Prophet (pbuh) did not nominate/left a successor means Islam is imperfect because it leaves no rules for successorship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2016 at 2:52 PM, Aabiss_Shakari said:

"A" worked hard day and night for more than ten years to make a good glass factory. He contacted his family members and friends to help him spreading his business everywhere in the vicinity. He made every arrangement that he do not suffer from loss in the industry. As a result of continuous hard work of "A" his business spread everywhere in the country. At one point of time after thirty years of business he had to go out of country for forty days. He asked his son to take care of the factory during these forty days. He had been grooming his son "B" from "B's" childhood hence he had confident on him that he will take care of business during the small business visit of his father outside the country.

"A" returned after forty days and again started to look after his business. However after few years he decided to make a permanent branch of his business in UK and settle their permanently. His son was still in this country. His business was most prosperous than ever but "he did not handover his business to his son or made him guardian of the affairs of the factory and left the country for his new project".

Does it make sense?

Do you think God's religion is a petty family business?

 

Tell this to Khomayni who never publicly appointed an heir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

Do you think God's religion is a petty family business?

 

Tell this to Khomayni who never publicly appointed an heir.

Allah choose Ibrahim (a.s) family as linage of Prophethood. You know better than Allah? Sending Allah's message is kinda family business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

Do you think God's religion is a petty family business?

 

Tell this to Khomayni who never publicly appointed an heir.

What about Hazrat Moosa's (a.s.) prayer for his brother Haroon (a.s.) to be his heir and vicegerent. You will call that also a family business? 

Leave Ayatullah Khomeini or khamenai to one side they are not infallibles and not part of 12 Imams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Aabiss_Shakari said:

Allah choose Ibrahim (a.s) family as linage of Prophethood. You know better than Allah? Sending Allah's message is kinda family business?

That's Allah's decision then, but other Prophets as you know were not succeeded by family members. So NO it isn't a family business as you say. It's not necessary for it to carry over to our case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lover of Ahlulbait (ams) said:

What about Hazrat Moosa's (a.s.) prayer for his brother Haroon (a.s.) to be his heir and vicegerent. You will call that also a family business? 

Leave Ayatullah Khomeini or khamenai to one side they are not infallibles and not part of 12 Imams. 

It's not because Haroun (as) was simply his brother, it's because he knew he was pious and qualified and more outspoken. That was very convenient for Musa (as).

Musa (as) was succeeded by Yusha` (as), not his direct family.

 

Remember, I don't deny that Prophets (as) sometimes succeed eachother in this fashion, but it wasn't a family business for them and they wouldn't mind when non-family members succeed.

Edited by `Umar bin `Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, `Umar bin `Ali said:

That's Allah's decision then, but other Prophets as you know were not succeeded by family members. So NO it isn't a family business as you say. It's not necessary for it to carry over to our case.

Then why uthman brought his relatives to every position during his reign? Umayyads? Abbasids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, celestial said:

Then why uthman brought his relatives to every position during his reign? Umayyads? Abbasids?

Salam alaikum.

One of the most popular charges against Uthman is claim that he use to appoint his close relatives to the government positions.

In the time of Uthman’s ruling there were approximately 47 governors in the different places of Islamic caliphate. 

And ONLY EIGHT from them were his close relatives.

1) Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan.

2) Said ibn al-As.

3) al-Walid ibn Uqba.

4) Abdullah ibn Ammar ibn Kurayz.

5) Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abu Sarkh

6) Abdullah ibn Samurah.

7) Ali ibn Ade

8.) Marwan ibn al-Hakam.

These governors didn’t rule in the same time. For example Uthman take al-Walid  from his place and appointed Said ibn al-As instead of him. Close to his death time, Uthman discarded Said as well.  When Uthman died only 3 governors from banu umeyah were ruling. Muawiya, Abdullah ibn Sad and Abdullah ibn Amir.

Also it’s necessary to note, that Muawiyah wasn’t appointed by Uthman, he was governor from the time of Umar.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilarious, twelver shia's are one of the last to speak about what makes sense and challenge sunni's about that. Why dont you concern yourself with your own predicament first?

"A" establishes one of the most succesfull glass factories of all time. He appoints a successor and hands it over to "B" who later on hands it over to "C", and so on up until the twelfth successor of "A", "M"."M" however decides to go on a long vacation only a few minutes after having been installed. It is promised that he will still manage the company from his place of vacation by the use of internet and all the camera's installed in the factory. He however never contacts his employees personally but only send messages from time to time anonymously. As the company is left with no manager, other competitors see the oppurtunity and take most of the market share of the glass factory. At the same time, the company suffers from bad management, strikes and financial fraud. The people are however assures that this is not the end of the company and he promises to come back soon. The problem is the employees themselves who are not sincere enough and do not care about the company. It is promised that he will set things straight after most insincere employees have left the company who are only after money and 313 trustworthy and capable employees are left.

This has been going on for over a 1000 years while at the same time, "M" has never been seen by any of his employees, save the ones who claimed to be present when he was installed, he has never trained any employee to do anything, he has never presided over any meeting, he has never held a speech to any group of employees and still Time Magazine chooses him every year as the Best Manager of the Year. Does this make sense to anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Abu_Rumaysah said:

Salam alaikum.

One of the most popular charges against Uthman is claim that he use to appoint his close relatives to the government positions.

In the time of Uthman’s ruling there were approximately 47 governors in the different places of Islamic caliphate. 

And ONLY EIGHT from them were his close relatives.

1) Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan.

2) Said ibn al-As.

3) al-Walid ibn Uqba.

4) Abdullah ibn Ammar ibn Kurayz.

5) Abdullah ibn Sad ibn Abu Sarkh

6) Abdullah ibn Samurah.

7) Ali ibn Ade

8.) Marwan ibn al-Hakam.

These governors didn’t rule in the same time. For example Uthman take al-Walid  from his place and appointed Said ibn al-As instead of him. Close to his death time, Uthman discarded Said as well.  When Uthman died only 3 governors from banu umeyah were ruling. Muawiya, Abdullah ibn Sad and Abdullah ibn Amir.

Also it’s necessary to note, that Muawiyah wasn’t appointed by Uthman, he was governor from the time of Umar.

 

Go fool the arrogant ones. Uthman gave multiple governance positions to some of these, and these were most important governance positions. And he gave several other positions to his relatives besides from governorship.

Uthman spent the baitul maal of muslims for his and his relatives' own luxury. That's one of the reasons why people went into rage and -rightfully- murdered the tyrant.

Edited by celestial

Share this post


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

People why are you so agressive? If you don't want to see arguments of opposite side, better not to visit debate/disput forums. 

Uthman was killed due to opening the door of treasures for his own tribe Banu Ummayah. Was Usman justified in calling back Marwan bin Hikm and Hikm bin Aas and marrying his daughter with Marwan bin Hikm? Was not Hikm bin Aas and his son Marwan bin Hikm were punished for transportation for life by Prophet (pbuh)? Was this order not against the Sunnah? Who was Uthman to call them back when prophet (pbuh) had punished them? Only because Marwan and his father were from his tribe Banu Ummayah.

Share this post


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

Why Abu Bakar nominated Umer as his successor?

Why Umer made a committee of six persons

- A leader is to be elected through shura.  Abu Bakr (ra) was elected by consultation.  Thereafter, Abu Bakr (ra) consulted the senior Companions (ra) and he nominated Umar (ra) as his successor.  Then, Umar (ra), before his death, was asked by people to name a successor.  A committee of six individuals was formed and they discussed among themselves.  After two days of discussion and listening to the opinions of Muslims in Madina, the committee named Uthman (ra) as the third caliph.

In all of this, there is one common element: consultation.

Edited by onereligion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2016 at 2:12 PM, GreatChineseFall said:

Hilarious, twelver shia's are one of the last to speak about what makes sense and challenge sunni's about that. Why dont you concern yourself with your own predicament first?

"A" establishes one of the most succesfull glass factories of all time. He appoints a successor and hands it over to "B" who later on hands it over to "C", and so on up until the twelfth successor of "A", "M"."M" however decides to go on a long vacation only a few minutes after having been installed. It is promised that he will still manage the company from his place of vacation by the use of internet and all the camera's installed in the factory. He however never contacts his employees personally but only send messages from time to time anonymously. As the company is left with no manager, other competitors see the oppurtunity and take most of the market share of the glass factory. At the same time, the company suffers from bad management, strikes and financial fraud. The people are however assures that this is not the end of the company and he promises to come back soon. The problem is the employees themselves who are not sincere enough and do not care about the company. It is promised that he will set things straight after most insincere employees have left the company who are only after money and 313 trustworthy and capable employees are left.

This has been going on for over a 1000 years while at the same time, "M" has never been seen by any of his employees, save the ones who claimed to be present when he was installed, he has never trained any employee to do anything, he has never presided over any meeting, he has never held a speech to any group of employees and still Time Magazine chooses him every year as the Best Manager of the Year. Does this make sense to anyone?

You made me remember the history of Pharoh. The Pharoh was not expecting any Masseha for Bani Israel. But Bani Israel kept waiting and their survivor came. Have you the same view about Hazrat Khizar a.s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2016 at 7:09 AM, onereligion said:

We make long posts regarding Qur'anic injunctions and Hadiths - thank you for noticing that by the way - because those two are binding upon us.

Anything outside those two sources (your little anecdote for example) or any concept that have no foundation in those two sources (associating infallibility with those who were fallible and Imamat in of itself) have no motive but to restrict a person to a situation that (to you) seems to be in your favor or gives you the upper hand.

Your anecdote is so ridiculous that destroying it is far easier than understanding (or answering) it.

Islam is no factory.  While a factory might need a guardian, Islam is a perfect religion the highest source of authority in which (the Qur'an) is guaranteed to be preserved by the Most Powerful (swt).  So why the need for a successor?

Also, the Prophet (saw) was no businessman.  He (saw) was entrusted with a noble task and he (saw) came through with flying colors leaving no room for any improvement for anyone else.  The very fact that you believe that it is a necessity for the Prophet (saw) to have had a successor (that too, Divinely Appointed) screams of your lack of confidence in the Prophet (saw) and insinuates that you believe that he (saw) did not complete the task, therefore, requiring another 12 "infallibles" (ra) to further implement and completely cement what he (saw) set in motion.

Lastly, to answer those who are infatuated with running away from battlefields and undo your anecdote, where is the benefit for the businessman in him entrusting his own son with the business and his son entrusting his son (businessman's grandson) and his grandson entrusting it to his son all the way down to the businessman's 13th descendant only to find that that descendant ran away from his (Divinely Ordained) responsibility of running the "factory" and go into occultation?

We were talking about how fast Umar (ra) ran and while this cannot be proven, we know whose name to write under the "Longest Run in the History of Mankind" column.  Over 1000 years and he is still on the run.  Talk of undying stamina.  Can anyone brag about running a marathon?  We have an ongoing run that has lasted over 1000 years.

Here is a simple scenario for you:

1.  Obscure thought comes to your mind.

2.  Convinced you might corner us with it, you log in to type out the entire post.

3.  With a big smile on your face, previewing what you have written so far, you look for the "Submit Reply" button.

4.  Save yourself the hassle and look for the "Sign Out" button instead and go to sleep!

 

It is always interesting to find support from the arguments put forward by the others. Who said that you present "true" spirit of Quran and Sunnah? We have straight line to follow which appeals logic and sense. That line is so..

1. Prophet (pbuh) went to Hujatul Wida.

2. When he (pbuh) was returning from Hajj at the point of Ghadeer e Khum "Quran 5:67" was revealed directing the prophet (pbuh) to declare/announce what is revealed to him. Allah promised that Allah will keep safe the prophet (pbuh) from mischief of mischief makers (Allah knows everything). Prophet (pbuh) knew about it very well that there had been conspiracies against Imam Ali a.s.

3. Prophet (pbuh) declared Imam Ali (a.s) as "Wali" (Guardian)/Imam/Caliph after him (pbuh).

So where you followed Quran and Sunnah?

Now coming to the point of analogy. For you this analogy is ridiculous. Since when analogy has been illegal/unlawful for you? Major portion of Fiqh Hanafi is derived from analogy. Analogy is on the other hand haram in Imami school of thought. Hanafis are lovers of analogy. So be logical and tell me how even a small shop can be left without guardian? Yes you can lock the shop for safety but Islam/hidayat/guidance was never locked. Or it?

 

 

 

 

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...