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  
Mortadakerim

Abu Hanifa

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest Abdullah
9 hours ago, Faruk said:

First of all,

These ahaadith are already discussed about for centuries and diffirently interpreted by many.

There is no need to recycle this.

The point is that the matter of this hadith wasn't about the caliphate.

So try again.

Still no proof from generally accepted ahaadith that he (عليه السلام) openly and explicitly claimed that the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) usurped the imamate.

How many scholars spoke out against YH?

Fadlallah contributed a lot to Muslim ummah and Lebanon in general.

He is venerated by entire nations.

Rather Yasser Habib is a strange and lonely duck.

Yasser Habib isn’t worthy of even a speckle of dust beneath Fadlallah’s feet. All YH has done is cause fitnah and animosity amongst Muslims. Whereas, Fadlallah has not only united the Muslims but all of Lebanon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2019 at 4:57 AM, Simon the Canaanite said:

It’s not a statement from the Imam, but it’s a statement from the origin of dispute, Omar

A statement from Umar (رضي الله عنه) means nothing.

I want a statement from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) himself as his consent is decisive for legitimacy of rulership.

I.want an open, explicit and public statement from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which is generally accepted by all sects wherein he (عليه السلام) condemns the rulership of Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه).

Just like the open condemnation of Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) and his open opposition towards the rulership of Yazid.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2019 at 3:44 PM, Faruk said:

A statement from Umar (رضي الله عنه) means nothing.

I am glad you said that it means nothing. Because then, your sect would perish into nothingness.

On 7/31/2019 at 3:44 PM, Faruk said:

I want a statement from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) himself as his consent is decisive for legitimacy of rulership.

I’ve already shown you multiple times, how he condemned and denounced them.

On 7/31/2019 at 3:44 PM, Faruk said:

I.want an open, explicit and public statement from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which is generally accepted by all sects wherein he (عليه السلام) condemns the rulership of Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه).

Sinful, treacherous, dishonest liars, that is.

On 7/31/2019 at 3:44 PM, Faruk said:

Just like the open condemnation of Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) and his open opposition towards the rulership of Yazid.

“And who else seeks this matter other than us?”

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2019 at 5:14 AM, Simon the Canaanite said:

None. Even Ḵḫāmenei didn’t mention him by name, while on the other hand, Fāḍhlallah was mentioned by name, and many great mārajʾi issued statements condemning him.

Salam YH is not an important person that Imam Khamenei mentions his name as he just generally to Wahhabists sheikhs   but he labeled him & all of his cult as " British shi'ism" as smae as " American Sunni (wahhabi) " & called them  two edge of one scissor against Islam 

 

On 7/30/2019 at 5:14 AM, Simon the Canaanite said:

Ijaza of the head of the Seminary of Isfahan, ʿal-Sāyyid Ḥāssan ʿal-Fāqih ʿal-Imāmi.

he had similar views as shirazis but I can't find any similar Ijaza for anyone else except what you claimed although he had good relation with Imam Khameni that he send condolsence for his death  

http://Farsi.al-Shia.org/حضرت-آيت-الله-سيد-حسن-فقیه-امامي-ره/

On 7/30/2019 at 5:14 AM, Simon the Canaanite said:

The ijaza of ʿal-Sāyyid Moḥāmmad Ali ʿal-Ṭābaṭabāʾī

so they are  qualify to verify YH  , it's the first time that only you show these Ijaza's that maybe fake Ijaza's anyway even both Ijaza's were real these two persons just allow him to naarte hadiths that is a common Ijaza that every Shia scholar receives after finishing his basic studies & doesn't mean that he can do wahtever what he wants .

On 7/30/2019 at 5:14 AM, Simon the Canaanite said:

The ijaza of ʿal-Sāyyid Moḥāmmad Ali ʿal-Ṭābaṭabāʾī.

I just found three Tabataba'I that all of them don't match with your claim the closest one died at first year of revolution around 1979 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Ali_Qazi_Tabatabaei

the other one even hardly matches with Sadiq Shiarzi 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirza_Sayyed_Mohammad_Tabatabai

& third one that is alive is a young scholar that can't give that Ijaza

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/سید_محمدحسین_طباطبایی_(علم‌الهدی)

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I am glad you said that it means nothing. Because then, your sect would perish into nothingness.

Is the consent of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) nothing?

6 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

I’ve already shown you multiple times, how he condemned and denounced them.

That was not even my question.

My question was:

I.want an open, explicit and public statement from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which is generallyaccepted by all sects wherein he (عليه السلام) condemns the rulership of Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه).

And the criteria are:

- Was it uttered by Imam Ali himself (عليه السلام)?

- Did he (عليه السلام) do it openly?

- Was it directly related to the usurpation of imamate?

- And are these ahaadith generally accepted by at least all main sects in Islam?

Not one of your so-called proofs matched two if not one of these criteria.

 

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2019 at 6:14 PM, Faruk said:

A statement from Umar (رضي الله عنه) means nothing.

I want a statement from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) himself as his consent is decisive for legitimacy of rulership.

I.want an open, explicit and public statement from Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which is generally accepted by all sects wherein he (عليه السلام) condemns the rulership of Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and Umar (رضي الله عنه).

Just like the open condemnation of Imam Hussein (عليه السلام) and his open opposition towards the rulership of Yazid.

Salam it's available in Nahjul balagha that accepted by fair Sunni Scholars like as Adnan Ibrahim & Islamic researcher Hassan al-Maliki  that had salafi background but rjected many salafi belief that KSA accused him being Shia or Zaydi & senteced him to death that is already is in jail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Ibrahim

Sermon 3: By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah….

Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyah1

ومن خطبة له (عليه السلام) المعروفة بالشِّقْشِقِيَّة

وتشتمل على الشكوى من أمر الخلافة ثم ترجيح صبره عنها ثم مبايعة الناس له

Beware! By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)2 dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death).

https://www.al-Islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-Allah-son-Abu-quhafah

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

(the bold part talks about Umar )

and following part talks about Uthman 

One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah’s wealth5 like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

https://www.al-Islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-Allah-son-Abu-quhafah

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam it's available in Nahjul balagha that accepted by fair Sunni Scholars like as Adnan Ibrahim & Islamic researcher Hassan al-Maliki  that had salafi background but rjected many salafi belief that KSA accused him being Shia or Zaydi & senteced him to death that is already is in jail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Ibrahim

Sermon 3: By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah….

Known as the Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyah1

ومن خطبة له (عليه السلام) المعروفة بالشِّقْشِقِيَّة

وتشتمل على الشكوى من أمر الخلافة ثم ترجيح صبره عنها ثم مبايعة الناس له

Beware! By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)2 dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death).

https://www.al-Islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-Allah-son-Abu-quhafah

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

(the bold part talks about Umar )

and following part talks about Uthman 

One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah’s wealth5 like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

https://www.al-Islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-3-Allah-son-Abu-quhafah

 

 

Salam,

 

Yes I know Najhul Balagha brother but unfortunately there is no ijma about its autenticity in the Sunni realm.

Even in NB there are some statements made by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) about his definition and interpretation of caliphate and imamate that leave some doubts open if imamate was exactly interpreted and defined as is the case today.

I should however read it thoroughly by myself at least once.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


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

Yes I know Najhul Balagha brother but unfortunately there is no ijma about its autenticity in the Sunni realm.

it's really hard to find a Sunni scholar that recognizes any Shia book authencity , when the majority don't verify four Shia books so majority of them don't veify Nahjul Balagha too  but read it by your self & examine it with fair rational mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's really hard to find a Sunni scholar that recognizes any Shia book authencity , when the majority don't verify four Shia books so majority of them don't veify Nahjul Balagha too  but read it by your self & examine it with fair rational mind

Insha'Allah I will brother.

I actually believes that Nahjul Balagha comes closest to Sunni mainstream authenticity standards as it is even accepted by Zaidiyyah.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

it's really hard to find a Sunni scholar that recognizes any Shia book authencity , when the majority don't verify four Shia books so majority of them don't veify Nahjul Balagha too  but read it by your self & examine it with fair rational mind

What do you think about the Sharh of ibn Hadid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Faruk said:

What do you think about the Sharh of ibn Hadid?

it's a good work but affected by justification of three caliphs that weakens it's credibility .

Share this post


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

Salam it's available in Nahjul balagha that accepted by fair Sunni Scholars like as Adnan Ibrahim & Islamic researcher Hassan al-Maliki  that had salaf

Salam,

nahjul Balagha sermons are found in sources too, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2019 at 11:29 AM, Faruk said:

Yes I know Najhul Balagha brother but unfortunately there is no ijma about its autenticity in the Sunni realm.

Muḥāmmad Abduh, the Mufti of Egypt would beg to differ.

He wrote a commentary on the book, and in volume 1, page(s) 30-31.

In ʿal-Ḵḫuṭbā ʿal-Shiqshiqīyāh:

“By God, so-and-so (6) dressed himself with it and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill.

The floodwater flows down from me and the bird cannot fly up to me.”

In the sixth footnote (6), he comments: [“so-and-so”] is a pronoun that returns to the caliphate, and it is a metonym for the first caliph, Aʾbi Bākr.

nydmDQd.jpg

As for Ibn Aʾbi ʿal-Ḥādid; some apologists tried to say that he was Shiʾā so that they can run away from the scandals that he unveiled in his commentary.

And in reality, he was a Muʾtāzili and was praised by many of your scholars. (See this).

Many Shiʾā scholars wrote polemics against his commentary, one of which is:

Sālasil ʿal-Ḥādid fi Tāqyīeed ʿIbn Aʾbi ʿal-Ḥādid, by ʿal-Shāyḵḫ Yūsuf ʿal-Bāḥrani.

Edited by Abu Nur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In ʿal-Imāmah wal-Siyāsah, volume 1, page 28, by ʿIbn Qutāybah ʿal-Dīnāwarī.

That Imam Ali said to Aʾbu Bākr: “I am Abdullāh, and the brother of his Messenger,” so, it was said to him: pledge allegiance to Aʾbu Bākr.

He said: “I deserve this matter more than you, I don’t pledge allegiance to you, and you are more entitled to pledge allegiance to me!”

eQQJyqA.jpg

In Ansāb ʿal-Ashrāf, volume 2, page 274, by ʿal-Bālaḏhuri.

Narrated ʿal-Madāʾini, from Jʾafar bin Suleiman ʿal-Ḍhābʾui, from Aʾbi Amr ʿal-Jāwūni, 

that Salman said: “Kirdāḏh wā-Nakirdāḏh,” which means: you did, and you didn’t -

had they pledged allegiance to Ali, they would’ve eaten from above, and below their feet. (As a metonym for benevolence).

“You did, and you didn’t,” is an indication here to the pledge of allegiance that occurred in Ḡhādir Ḵḫumm,

when Aʾbu Bākr and Omar told Imam Ali: “Bravo! bravo, O’ son of Aʾbi Ṭālib, you’ve become our māwla, and the māwla of all Muslims.”

(See: ʿal-Ḥāwi lil-fātawi, volume 1, page 79, by ʿal-Suyūṭi).

Meaning, that they did - make - their pledge of allegiance, but they broke it later.

And this phrase also indicates to their disbelief after the death of the Prophet.

VZvm6W0.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In ʿal-mustādrak ala ʿal-ṣāḥiḥāyn, volume 3, page 148, ḥādith (4668).

The Prophet said: “It was revealed through revelation to me in regards to Ali, three things:

That he is the Master of Muslims, the Imam of the pious, and the Qāʾid ʿal-Ḡhurr ʿal-Muḥājjalin.”

Grading: ṣāḥiḥ.

Logically speaking, how can the Master of Muslims be preceded by someone?!

Untitled-9.thumb.png.5ad0d9fc586d04659d978be652cd837b.png

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

In ʿal-Imāmah wal-Siyāsah, volume 1, page 28, by ʿIbn Qutāybah ʿal-Dīnāwarī.

That Imam Ali said to Aʾbu Bākr: “I am Abdullāh, and the brother of his Messenger,” so, it was said to him: pledge allegiance to Aʾbu Bākr.

He said: “I deserve this matter more than you, I don’t pledge allegiance to you, and you are more entitled to pledge allegiance to me!”

eQQJyqA.jpg

In Ansāb ʿal-Ashrāf, volume 2, page 274, by ʿal-Bālaḏhuri.

Narrated ʿal-Madāʾini, from Jʾafar bin Suleiman ʿal-Ḍhābʾui, from Aʾbi Amr ʿal-Jāwūni, 

that Salman said: “Kirdāḏh wā-Nakirdāḏh,” which means: you did, and you didn’t -

had they pledged allegiance to Ali, they would’ve eaten from above, and below their feet. (As a metonym for benevolence).

“You did, and you didn’t,” is an indication here to the pledge of allegiance that occurred in Ḡhādir Ḵḫumm,

when Aʾbu Bākr and Omar told Imam Ali: “Bravo! bravo, O’ son of Aʾbi Ṭālib, you’ve become our māwla, and the māwla of all Muslims.”

(See: ʿal-Ḥāwi lil-fātawi, volume 1, page 79, by ʿal-Suyūṭi).

Meaning, that they did - make - their pledge of allegiance, but they broke it later.

And this phrase also indicates to their disbelief after the death of the Prophet.

VZvm6W0.jpg

Still Imam Ali (عليه السلام) let them reign without resisting them which is a silent agreement to their rulership.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Still Imam Ali (عليه السلام) let them reign without resisting them which is a silent agreement of their rulership.

The Prophet was also silent about the reign of the polytheists over Mecca in the Treaty of Ḥudāybiyyah.

According to you, this is a silent agreement of their rulership.

Or are you trying to say that the Prophets, Daniel and Ezekiel agreed to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar because they were silent?

Oh yes, were you saying that Lot and Noah agreed to what their wives were doing by being silent?

Slightly inverted logic.

These were calamities that the Prophets and their successors had to go through; and without taking these calamities, they would not have reached the heights.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

The Prophet was also silent about the reign of the polytheists over Mecca in the Treaty of Ḥudāybiyyah.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never made a treaty with the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه).

If you are in possession of such accounts feel free to share them.

36 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Or are you trying to say that the Prophets, Daniel and Ezekiel agreed to the rule of Nebuchadnezzar because they were silent?

These Prophets are not mentioned in generally accepted Islamic sources so hardly anything is known about them except from the Bible.

We do not take from non-Islamic sources unless it is confirmed by the Book of Allah.

What they did or did not do according to the Bible is no criterium.

36 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Oh yes, were you saying that Lot and Noah agreed to what their wives were doing by being silent?

Nowhere in the Qur'an is it said they (عليه السلام) were silent.

Again a desperate assumption.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

The Prophet was also silent about the reign of the polytheists over Mecca in the Treaty of Ḥudāybiyyah.

According to you, this is a silent agreement of their rulership.

You agreed that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was silent about their rulership.

It's an Islamic principle that an individual or a people only will be punished after clear warning(s).

Therefore his silence set them free from punishment as his silence kept a space open for multiple interpretations.

A supposed underground movement or hidden intention makes it only more problematic as this is not the prophetic procedure transmitted from Qur'an.

So the imamate concept is rather a matter of consent than exclusive rulership and this interpretation reconciliates and does no harm to ahaadith emphasizing the superiority of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) nor the historical accounts about his accepting rulership of the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه).

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Then why did you made the analogy¿

Let me say it again.

Imam Ali condemned Aʾbu Bākr and Omar publicly in our aḥādith, and yours.

But also according to your aḥādith, the Prophet was silent about the polytheists’ rule of Mecca in the Treaty of Ḥudāybiyyah.

The analogy here is that even if one was silent, it doesn’t mean that he agrees... I don’t know where you got this idea, because it’s quite ridiculous, to say the least.

And also, I am done talking to you, because I’ve already shown how Imam Ali condemned, insulted and expressed that he was more entitled to rule than them, but you’re just ignoring that.

And I am starting to see signs of ʿinād, and it’s a waste of time talking to a muʾānid.

You haven’t replied to a single ḥādith that I posted.

The ḥādith of Ṣāḥih Muslim where the Imam believes them to be sinful, dishonest, treacherous liars, is enough for me to reject them. 

Now, I don’t know how that can translate as “silence” to you, but if so, then there’s definitely something wrong there. Because it’s clear condemnation.

Maʾā ʿal-Salāama.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

And I am starting to see signs of ʿinād, and it’s a waste of time talking to a muʾānid.

Behave yourself.

56 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

The analogy here is that even if one was silent, it doesn’t mean that he agrees... I don’t know where you got this idea, because it’s quite ridiculous, to say the least.

As I said already.

This is not the prophetic methodology prescribed in the Qur'an with the exception of a treaty ofcourse.

56 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

And also, I am done talking to you, because I’ve already shown how Imam Ali condemned, insulted and expressed that h

None of your ahaadith matched with the criteria I mentioned.

Quote

He was more entitled to rule than them, but you’re just ignoring that.

I nowhere ignored that. I just do not have your interpretation of imamate. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) allowed the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) to rule with his consent and this was decisive for the legitimacy of their rulership.

 

 

Conclusions:

1) Your scholars do not deem a rejector of your interpretation of imamate a kafir

And

2) The attitude of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) leaves the matter to be open for diffirent interpretations of imamate and even the option of caliphate.

In contrast to the attitude of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) towards Yazid which was a clear-cut, explicit, public, unambiguous and whole hearted rejection of the rulership of the latter on all fronts.

 

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Faruk said:

Behave yourself

I behave myself? You just called my beliefs fairy tales.

8 hours ago, Faruk said:

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) allowed the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) to rule with his consent and this was decisive for the legitimacy of their rulership.

According to who? You?

8 hours ago, Faruk said:

1) Your scholars do not deem a rejector of your interpretation of imamate a kafir

They do deem him a disbeliever, in fact.

8 hours ago, Faruk said:

2) The attitude of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) leaves the matter to be open for diffirent interpretations of imamate and even the option of caliphate.

According to you, or to who, exactly?

Well, as per your scholar, Ibn Qutāybah ʿal-Dīnāwarī, Imam Ali said:

“I deserve this matter more than you, I don’t pledge allegiance to you, and you are more entitled to pledge allegiance to me!”

And in Manāqib Ibn ʿal-Māḡhazili, page 45, ḥādith (68).

That the Prophet said: “He who disputed with Ali over the caliphate is a kafir.”

Alḥāmdulillah that there is such a ḥādith in your sources.

So, tell me now. Who is the kafir?

Also, in Ḵḫāsaʾis ʿal-Imam Ali, page 417, by ʿal-Nasāʾi.

That the Prophet said to Imam Ali: “And you are my ḵḫālifa, in every believer after me.”

ali-caliph-nisai2.thumb.gif.81101ce775ee886de2be533db581b9e6.gif

So, we understand that he who took the caliphate from Imam Ali is what...? I will let you answer.

And by the way, the Prophet said: “in every believer after me,” think a little bit about that.

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

According to who? You?

History is clear about that.

42 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

They do deem him a disbeliever, in fact

So al-Sistani is not a scholar?

42 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

According to you, or to who, exactly?

Well, as per your scholar, Ibn Qutāybah ʿal-Dīnāwarī, Imam Ali said:

“I deserve this matter more than you, I don’t pledge allegiance to you, and you are more entitled to pledge allegiance to me!”

Dude,

These words mean nothing as they contradict his attitude and deeds as transmitted by the historical accounts.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) obeyed the Shaykhayn (رضي الله عنه) lot of times.

He (عليه السلام) even ordered al-sibtayn (عليه السلام) to protect the house of Uthman (رضي الله عنه) when threathened.

This is in total contradiction to someone who does not pledge allegiance or thinks he has the right to be obeyed instead.

He (عليه السلام) co-operated fully and only accepted leadership by election like his predecessors. He didn't took nor opposed when it came to rulership and this, dude, is a characteristic of a true leader and Imam.

He (عليه السلام) obeyed the will of the jamaat unlike Muawiya who crowned hiz son Yazid a prince.

This is the diffirence between Muawiya and Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه),

Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) situation and Imam Hussein's (عليه السلام). situation.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

And in Manāqib Ibn ʿal-Māḡhazili, page 45, ḥādith (68).

That the Prophet said: “He who disputed with Ali over the caliphate is a kafir.”

Alḥāmdulillah that there is such a ḥādith in your sources.

So, tell me now. Who is the kafir?

Also, in Ḵḫāsaʾis ʿal-Imam Ali, page 417, by ʿal-Nasāʾi.

That the Prophet said to Imam Ali: “And you are my ḵḫālifa, in every believer after me.”

Then follow him (عليه السلام) and obey who he (عليه السلام) obeyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Faruk said:

History is clear about that.

What history? The one narrated by the nāwaṣib? I don’t take that.

35 minutes ago, Faruk said:

So al-Sistani is not a scholar?

Where did he say that they were not disbelievers? If you mean the saying that’s attributed to him, “Don’t say that they’re our brothers; rather, they are ourselves,”

then, first of all, it was attributed and isn’t verified from his offices. And even if he said it, it could clearly go in the sense of periphrasis, as in:

don’t say that they are our brothers, but they are ourselves - as in, we are the real Sunnis.

35 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Dude,

These words mean nothing as they contradict his attitude and deeds as transmitted by the historical accounts.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) obeyed the Shaykhayn lot of times.

He (عليه السلام) even ordered al-sibtayn (عليه السلام) to protect the hpuse of Uthman when threathened.

This is in total contradiction to someone who does not pledge allegiance or thinks he has the right to be obeyed instead.

He (عليه السلام) co-operated fully and only accepted leadership by election like his predecessors.

First of all, these accounts you’re giving, like obeying them or protecting the house of your third caliph are all narrated from your sources, not ours.

Secondly, how can his words, “mean nothing,” do you even realize what you’re saying? You have three choices here.

You either choose to say that he was contradictory - which according to your scholars, will take you out of the fold of this religion, for insulting a “companion” -

or you can say that these traditions are weak when they are very authentic.

And you can face the truth, and believe that he regarded them as sinful, dishonest, treacherous liars.

Choose wisely. 

Also, I don’t want you to ignore this tradition, so talk about it.

In Manāqib Ibn ʿal-Māḡhazili, page 45, ḥādith (68).

That the Prophet said: “He who disputed with Ali over the caliphate is a kafir.”

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Faruk said:

This is in total contradiction to someone who does not pledge allegiance or thinks he has the right to be obeyed instead.

He (عليه السلام) co-operated fully and only accepted leadership by election like his predecessors. He didn't took nor opposed when it came to rulership and this, dude, is a characteristic of a true leader and Imam.

He (عليه السلام) obeyed the will of the jamaat unlike Muawiya who crowned hiz son Yazid a prince.

This is the diffirence between Muawiya and Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه),

Imam Ali's (عليه السلام) situation and Imam Hussein's (عليه السلام). situation.

It’s very funny that you’re trying to prove your point by bringing Muawiya in because Muawiya was appointed as the governor of the Levant by Omar.

And Omar was silent about him, and you obviously regard Muawiya as an accursed figure - as it seems, for appointing Yazid - so, if we take the knot from the beginning to start, we will realize that Omar is also cursed, according to your understanding, that is.

So, thanks for reminding me of that.

And by the way, in ʿal-Muṣānnaf of Ibn Abʾi Shāyba, volume 5, page 80, ḥādith (23882).

It’s narrated that Omar’s favorite beverage was wine.

u85npe07212dea5xle12.thumb.jpg.b64ed78ac832c8fe9b69e1b786307bf7.jpg

Not to mention that he ran away from battles, as seen below.

559959_536640973043166_484731287_n.jpg.a13a055b666e1202bb2383465580a4bc.jpg

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

What history? The one narrated by the nāwaṣib? I don’t take that.

No the historical facts accepted by both sects.

The disagreements are not in what happened but rather in the interpretations of the happenings (hidden intentions, why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did so, etc.).

36 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

Where did he say that they were not disbelievers?

By Sayyid ‘Ali Sistani

Question:

As-Salāmu ‘alaykum wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuh.

An independent [television] channel has repeatedly claimed that Sayyid Sistani (may Allāh protect him) has given the fatwa of kufr (infidelity) for one who does not believe in Imamate [of the Ahlul Bayt], and among such people are the Sunni brethren. This is based on what has been quoted from Al-Abḥāthu ’l-‘Aqā’idiyyah website which is under the patronage of the respected Sayyid as claimed in the beginning of the “al-Hiwār aṣ-Sarīḥ” program of the channel.

What is your response on their specific claims since they are repeating that almost every day since the beginning of the present month of Ramadhan [1431].

With thanks.

Answer:
In the name of Allāh, the Beneficent, the Merciful
As-Salāmu ‘alaykum wa raḥmatullāhi wa barakātuh.

The respected Sayyid Sistāni in the manual of his fatwas, Minhāju ’-Saliīn, vol. 1 (1st edition) p. 138 has clearly stated that a kāfir(infidel) is one who

1. does not have a religion

2. or follows a religion other than Islam

3. or follows Islam but rejects what is known as an essential part of the Islamic faith (I.e., what has come from the Prophet [(عليه السلام).]) in a way that his rejection leads to belying the Prophet ((عليه السلام).) in what he has conveyed from Almighty Allāh.

By considering the fact that most of our brethren from Ahlus Sunnat wal Jamā‘at who deny the Imamate of the Twelve Imams ((عليه السلام).) believe that Imamate is not part of [the faith] that was brought by the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).), therefore their rejection does not harm their Islam based on the view of the respected Sayyid.

This is [also] clear from his other fatwas such as:

1. His verdict on obligation of doing the funeral prayer on a Muslim even if he is of a different sect (madhhab). (Minhãju ’ṣ-Ṣãliḥīn, vol. 1, p. 106)

2. And his verdict on validity of a Shī‘a lady marrying a Muslim from other madhhab.(Minhãju ’ṣ-Ṣãliḥīn, vol. 3, p. 70)

3. And his verdict that the Muslims can inherit from one another even if they differ in their madhhab, principals and beliefs. (Minhãju ’ṣ-Ṣãliḥīn, vol. 3, p. 323)

In short, whoever is aware of the fatwas of the respected Sayyid knows that he considers the general Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamā‘at as Muslims whose lives are to be preserved, whose properties are sacrosanct, and all rules specific to Muslims would apply on them…
May Allãh grant you success. Was-salaamu ‘alaykum wa raḥmatullãhi wa barakãtuh.

12 Holy Ramadhan 1431 AH
[Seal of the Office of As-Sayyid as-Sistãni, an-Najaf al-Ashraf]

***

36 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

First of all, these accounts your giving, like obeying them or protecting the house of your third caliph are all narrated from your sources, not ours.

Yes they are.

The Shura ordered by Umar (رضي الله عنه) for example is a.general accepted fact.

Don't lie about that.

Just as the protection of the house of Uthman (رضي الله عنه) by al-Sibtayn and even confirmed by scholars as Wilferd Madelung in one of his books about the succession.

27 minutes ago, Simon the Canaanite said:

It’s very funny that you’re trying to prove your point by bringing Muawiya in because Muawiya was appointed as the governor of the Levant by Omar.

And Omar was silent about him, and you obviously regard Muawiya as an accursed figure - as it seems, for appointing Yazid - so, if we take the knot from the beginning to start, we will realize that Omar is also cursed, according to your understanding, that is.

So, thanks for reminding me of that.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) accepted the rule of Umar (رضي الله عنه) as he (عليه السلام) obeyed him (رضي الله عنه) several times so Imam Ali (عليه السلام) indirectly gave his consent as well.

You should rather remind yourself of the transfer of imamate from Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) to Muawiya.

If you condemn the appointment of Muawiya by Umar (رضي الله عنه) then you should condemn the transfer by Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) to Muawiya as well but as this is firmly established in history you will come up with all kind of arguments which I understand.

But do not use double standards when it comes to Umar (رضي الله عنه).

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


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

No the historical facts accepted by both sects.

The disagreements are not in what happened but rather in the interpretations of the happenings (hidden intentions, why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did so, etc.).

Many scholars don’t believe that he pledged allegiance, one of which is ʿal-Shāyḵḫ ʿal-Mufid, and I follow him.

11 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Yes they are.

The Shura ordered by Umar (رضي الله عنه) for example is a.general accepted fact.

We’re talking about the pledge of allegiance here.

11 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Don't lie abput that.

Behave yourself.

11 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Just as the protection of the house of Uthman (رضي الله عنه) by al-Sibtayn and even confirmed by scholars as Wilferd Madelung in one of his books about the succession.

This fabricated story is narrated in your sources, and we don’t believe in it. And apparently, Wilferd Madelung is Shi’ite now?

11 minutes ago, Faruk said:

And the most funny thing about it is that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) accepted the rule of Umar (رضي الله عنه) as he (عليه السلام) obeyed him (رضي الله عنه) several times so Imam Ali a. indirectly gave his consent as well.

Give me proof that he obeyed them.

11 minutes ago, Faruk said:

You rather do not forget the transfer of imamate from Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) to Muawiya.

That’s something else completely. In our sources, when the treaty (hint: ḥudāybiyyah) was made between them, Muawiya stood up on the pulpit as an orator and said:

“O’ people, ʿal-Ḥāsan didn’t see himself entitled of the caliphate, and he saw me,” so immediately the Imam cut him off and said:

“Muawiya claimed that I didn’t see myself entitled for the caliphate and that he saw himself - and Muawiya lied, we are more entitled in the Book of Allah [...]”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate will never end this way. So, let me remind you.

In Ṣāḥih Muslim, page(s) 839-840, ḥādith (1758).

Narrated Abdullah bin Muḥāmad bin Asmāʾ al-Ḍhubāʾi, from Jūwāiriyah, from Mālik, from ʿal-Zuhrī, from Mālik bin ʿAws, that he said [in a long ḥādith]:

Omar bin ʿal-Ḵḫāṭtab sent for me and I came to him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): Mālik, some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute it among them. I said: I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this job. He said: Mālik, take it (and do what you have been told). At this moment (his man-servant) Yārfaʾ came in and said: Commander of the Faithful, what do you say about Uthmān, Abd al-Rāḥman bin ʿAwf, Zubāir and Sāʾd (who have come to seek an audience with you)? He said: Yes, and permitted them. so they entered. Then he (Yarfaʾ) came again and said: What do you say about ʿAli and Abbas (who are present at the door)? He said: Yes, and permitted them to enter. Abbas said: Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar. The people (who were present) also said: Yes. Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and have mercy on them. Mālik bin ʿAws said: I could well imagine that they had sent them in advance for this purpose (by ʿAli and Abbas). Omar said: Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah, by whose order the heavens and the Earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah said: “We (Prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity?” They said: Yes. Then he turned to Abbas and ʿAli and said: I adjure you both by Allah, by whose order the heavens and Earth are sustained, don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah said: “We (Prophets) do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity?” They (too) said: Yes. (Then) Omar said: Allah, the Glorious and Exalted, had done to His Messenger a special favor: that He has not done to anyone else except him. He quoted the Qurʾānic verse: “What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the properties) of the people of the township is for Allah and His Messenger.” The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous verse or not. Omar continued: The Messenger of Allah distributed among you the properties abandoned by Bānū ʿal Nāḍhir. By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way) this property was left over. The Messenger of Allah would meet from its income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in the Bāit ul-Māl. (Continuing further) he said: I adjure you by Allah, by whose order the heavens and the Earth are sustained. Do you know this? They said: Yes. Then he adjured Abbas and ʿAll as he had adjured the other persons and asked: Do you both know this? They said: Yes. He said: When the Messenger of Allah passed away, Aʾbu Bākr said: “I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah.” Both of you came to demand your shares from the property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your nephew, and he (referring to ʿAli) demanded a share on behalf of his wife from the property of her father. Aʾbu Bākr said: The Messenger of Allah had said: “We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity.” So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. When Aʾbu Bākr passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of Allah and Aʾbu Bākr, you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true, virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger of Allah used it. So both of you got it. He said: Wasn’t it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have (again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you. No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the arrival of the doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on this condition, return it to me.

 Q7Fpmc5.jpg

What you’re building on is ramshackle in itself, because how can one pledge allegiance to a person he sees as a sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar? 

Edited by Simon the Canaanite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 1:50 PM, Faruk said:

How?

By doing what?

All these claims dude.

He (عليه السلام) did not spoke out against them and did not took the sword against them.

He (عليه السلام) did not condemn the Ridda wars nor did he (عليه السلام) defend his 'followers'.

Yet you still do not seem to realize that all the texts you quoted do not fit into history.

 You can drop a whole Shia library here but the fact remains that the Shaykhayn had Imam Ali's consent.

 It's like quoting books supporting the Flat-Earth theory while everyone knows how the world really turns.

The problem is how you're considering history. History is necessarily filtered through the biases of historians and a reflection of their thinking as well as those who influenced them. In the middle ages it was necessarily linked to politics and sectarianism. If we consider the totality of what Sunni historians endorse as correct history and ignore all the individual pieces of evidence that show there was a power struggle, seizure of power, consolidation through threads and coercion, and a principled stance by some in response to this, then naturally it seems weird. But when you actually consider the totality of Islamic history, what actually has managed to be reported in various sources, what early Muslims were thinking (so memory of history), and qara'in asides from just reports, like how reports were being reacted to, then you get a picture that perhaps this construction of history is feeble and unrealistic.

It is strange, for example, that Imam Ali resisted giving bay'ah for 90 days (if I recall correctly), had an argument for his leadership rivaling Abu Bakr's, there seems to have been some violent event that thereafter he gave an allegiance and there remained reports among the followers of Ali that there was an attack on his house that lead to the death of his wife (this was expressed in the materials they transmitted, the poetry they wrote, and their recollection of history). There were also counter attempts by discredited historians of rival sectarian persuasions to show that Imam Ali actually was very quick to give allegiance (coming out of his house clothed improperly because he was in such a rush) showing that there was a perception that such a long gap between Abu Bakr seizing power and the allegiance of Imam Ali as problematic. Beyond that, the later zu3ama' of Aal Muhammad (our Imams) had narrated anti-Rashidun ahadith, their followers had practices of cursing them habitually and religiously, the Shia wrote works attempting to show the problems of the traditional narrative, and Shia as early as those current to Karbala were speaking against the Khulafa. Something is clearly rotten in the state of Denmark but we're convincing ourselves that these people who went to war with each other all loved one another. To say the traditional Sunni conception of history as all the sahaba loving one another and getting along with one another is silly is an understatement. The "traditional" narrative (read: the narrative endorsed by Sunnism) needs to be discarded.

But aside from issues in recollection and transmission, there's a fundamental epistemic problem in Sunni hadith and historical science. Those narrators who will report contrary to the traditional accounts will be discredited and those who were anti-Alid were given credibility. I recommend you read this thread which is a translation and exposition (the author and Farid had a debate regarding it) on a work by Sh. Muhammad al-Sanad:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 7:00 PM, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

Something is clearly rotten in the state of Denmark but we're convincing ourselves that these people who went to war with each other all loved one another.

Both Sunni and Shia historians agree that there wasn't any fighting between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and the first three caliphs (رضي الله عنه).

The fights between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his opponents that took place later on were 1) of a defensive character and 2) were only about his election by the jamat according to the norms and standards of caliphacy which he (عليه السلام) accepted and took its responsibility.

This makes the concept of imamate questionable and leaves space for other interpretations of imamate.

As I said over and over again. Imamate is rather a matter of consent than  explicit rulership as rulership was transferable in the case of the first three caliphs (رضي الله عنه) and Muawiya.

Yet its legitimacy depended on the consent of the Imams which was at the expense of Yazid.

 

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Both Sunni and Shia historians agree that there was any fighting of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and the furst three caliphs (رضي الله عنه).

The fights that took place between Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his opponents were 1) of a defensive character and 2) were only about his election by the jamat according to the norms and standards of caliphacy which he (عليه السلام) accepted and took its responsibility.

Perhaps you read the rest of of what I've written as well. That the Sahaba went to war with each other, killed one another, and fought with one another is indicative of something contrary to an accepted narrative. The problem of succession isn't simply escaped with dismissing the reports as "Shii reports contrary to what scholars generally transmit". There's a narrative issue that we aren't addressing, the system has been designed to ensure the transmission of Sunni theology and the discrediting of rival reports. All the while we can clearly understand from the evidence there was a problem with succession and early Muslims were aware of it, no matter how we might try to reconcile that now.

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...