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

[DEBATE: Now open for comments] Succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

Rate this topic


Message added by Haji 2003

Thread is now open for comments

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63
 Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43
 Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 4,21
 al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371
 Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,118,119,152,330, v4, pp 281,368,370, 372,378, v5, pp 35,347,358,361,366,419 (from 40 chains of narrators)
 Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, pp 563,572
 Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p103 (from several transmitters)
 Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50
 Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthur, by al-Hafiz Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v3, p19
 Tarikh al-Khulafa, by al-Suyuti, pp 169,173
 al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v3, p213, v5, p208
 Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn Athir, v4, p114
 Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, pp 307-308
 Habib al-Siyar, by Mir Khand, v1, part 3, p144
 Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, p26
 al-Isabah, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v2, p509; v1, part1, p319, v2, part1, p57, v3, part1, p29, v4, part 1, pp 14,16,143
 Tabarani, who narrated from companions such as Ibn Umar, Malik Ibn al-Hawirath, Habashi Ibn Junadah, Jari, Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas, Anas Ibn Malik, Ibn Abbas, Amarah,Buraydah,...
 Tarikh, by al-Khatib Baghdadi, v8, p290
 Hilyatul Awliya’, by al-Hafiz Abu Nu’aym, v4, p23, v5, pp26-27
 al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, Chapter of word "ayn”(‘Ali), v2, p462
 Kanzul Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v6, pp 154,397
 al-Mirqat, v5, p568
 al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v2, p172
 Dhaka’ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p68
 Faydh al-Qadir, by al-Manawi, v6, p217

There is another problem with how you are citing references from books. You mentioning the volume and page number, but you are failing to mention the publisher and edition. Therefore, you have no adequately given any reference from the Hadith. Here you have simply copy and pasted this list of references from some website without actually bothering to check if the English translation of the Hadith you quoted is even present there. This shows me you did not do your homework or your own independent research, and that is going to be made painfully obvious as this debate progresses. I'm just giving you a friendly heads up

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 527
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Hadith is long so I won't quote the whole thing, Narrated `Aisha: Fatima the daughter of the Prophet (ﷺ) sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of wh

Ahsantum brother I agree with you.  For me it was good for the forum to have this alternative method of one-on-one debate. Both members were respectful and I also appreciate that the other m

Thank you for reminding everyone. Members who want to help them out can send a PM to @Ansur Shiat Ali or @Cherub786. 

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43

To demonstrate the academic fraud, let me just show you what is actually to be found in Sunan Ibn Majah. First off, the Hadith as you quoted it in English does not match the Hadith that is to be found in Sunan Ibn Majah. This is what you quoted in English: "The Messenger of Allah declared: "It seems the time approached when I shall be called away (by Allah) and I shall answer that call. I am leaving for you two precious things and if you adhere both of them, you will never go astray after me. They are the Book of Allah and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The two shall never separate from each other until they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise)." Then the Messenger of Allah continued: "Do I not have more right over the believers than what they have over themselves?”People cried and answered: "Yes, O’ Messenger of God.”Then Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) held up the hand of ‘Ali and said: "Whoever I am his leader (Mawla), ‘Ali is his leader (Mawla). O’ God, love those who love him, and be hostile to those who are hostile to him."

Now let me show you what is actually in Sunan Ibn Majah:

page156.thumb.png.791917cd947bc98f6e4aaca4139599c0.png

The first thing you have to notice is that the first part of the Hadith you quoted is completely absent from Sunan Ibn Majah. This is how I knew you did not actually go through each of the references you quoted to check if the Hadith you are quoting is actually there in totality. So I have caught this little bit of academic fraud.

The second thing you should notice is that the translations do not match. You have translated the word مولى or ولي to mean leader, whereas the English translation of Sunan Ibn Majah as published by Darussalam has translated it as "friend". Now we will have to discuss, as an important part of this debate, the correct meaning and translation of the words ولي and مولى in the context of the Hadith al-Ghadir.

The third thing you should notice is that this Hadith, in this particular wording, is declared weak. The narrator Ali bin Zayd bin Jad'an is a weak narrator. However, the asl of the Hadith is

من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه

which is Sahih and Mutawatir.

Therefore, we can discuss this particular wording of the Hadith, that I accept, and not the wording you have quoted, which is weak.

Finally, I invite you to read the comments on this narration from the publisher: "An expression of proximity and close relationship with Ali رضى الله عنه was considered necessary by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم because some people had come up with complaints against him who had just returned from Yemen."

And continuing onto the next page:

page157.png.7d6be45254e28c79db60802eb20e5ade.png

Read the highlighted section: "Some people have used even these remarks to establish Ali's title to being Prophet's immediate successor as caliph, although proximity of relationship or friendship has nothing to do with title for caliphate."

So it is clear that the Hadith itself "Whomsoever I am Mawla for Ali is his Mawla" is not disputed, but its interpretation is disputed. You must therefore prove how this Hadith must only be interpreted to mean that sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه was designated to be the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم successor. I await your response.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Haji 2003 changed the title to [DEBATE: ONLY CHERUB & ANSUR CAN POST] Succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم
  • Advanced Member

:bismillah:

I guess you need a hadith saying that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said clearly that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is his successor,

"...'O Messenger of Allah didn't you see Ali do such and such?'

The Prophet replied with anger in his face,

'What do you want from Ali? Ali is from and I am from him and his is the Wali of every believer.'

The Hadith is Sahih under the Standards of Muslim and didn't narrate it. Dhahabi stayed quiet in Al Talkhees"

Mustadrak, Al Hakim, V.3, P.119, Hadith 4579, Dar al Kitub al Illmiya, Beirut, Lebanon.

Another Hadith, that's almost exactly the same.

"...'O Messenger of Allah, Didn't you see Ali do Such and Such?'

The Prophet replied with anger in his face, 'Do not search for mistakes in Ali, He is from me and I am from him, and he is the Wali of every believer after me.' "

Musnad, Ahmed Ibn Hanbel, V.16, P.497, Hadith 22908

Now it is ignorant to say that the interpretations differ, Another Hadith,

"Narrated Zayd ibn Arqm that he said, When the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was on his way back from Hajj al Wada' he stopped at Ghadir Khumm, and he said, 'I have left for you the Thaqalayn, one of them is bigger than the other, they are the Book of Allah and my Itra عترة, and they will not separate until they meet me at the pond.' Then he said, 'Allah is my Master and I am the Master of every Believer.' Then he took the hand of Ali and said, 'Whoever I am their Master than he (Ali) is his Wali, O Allah be loyal to those who are loyal to him, and be an enemy of his enemy.'

The Hadith is Sahih under the standards of the Shaykhayn (Bukhari and Muslim). Dhahabi stayed quiet in Al Talkhees."

Mustadrak, Al Hakim, V.3, P.118, Hadith 4576, Dar al Kitub al Illmiya, Beirut, Lebanon.

Mawla means Master, in this event the Prophet is reminding them of this verse,

النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنْفُسِهِمْ

"The Prophet has more authority over the believers than themselves."

(33:6)

Another hadith,

"Narrated Abu Tufayl that he heard Zayd Ibn Arqm say, The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) stopped between Mecca and Medina (on his way back from Hajj Al Wada') he Prayed, than he Praised Allah than started his speech, 'O people I have left behind the Thaqalayn, and if you follow them you will never go astray, they are the Book of Allah and my Itra عترة Ahlulbayt.' Than he said 3 times, 'Do you know that I have more Authority over the believers than themselves?' The People said yes. Than he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said, 'Whoever I am their Master, than Ali is their Master.'

I think I've made Ghadir Khumm a little more clear for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

:bismillah:

I guess you need a hadith saying that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said clearly that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is his successor,

"...'O Messenger of Allah didn't you see Ali do such and such?'

The Prophet replied with anger in his face,

'What do you want from Ali? Ali is from and I am from him and his is the Wali of every believer.'

Try to quote the Arabic matn of the Hadith. Anyways, I know which Hadith you are quoting, and so I shall reproduce the original Arabic:

إِنَّ عَلِيًّا مِنِّي وَأَنَا مِنْهُ وَهُوَ وَلِيُّ كُلِّ مُؤْمِنٍ بَعْدِي

"Ali is from me and I am from him, and he is the Wali of every Believer after me"

This Hadith is actually Hasan, but that is still acceptable and I will not dispute its authenticity.

Regarding this Hadith I shall raise two points, two points that will puncture two holes in your argument:

Firstly, as I mentioned in my previous post, the word ولي is going to be discussed as to its precise meaning when used in this context.

Remember, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the word Wali as used in this Hadith must mean ruler or leader, and does not have any other meaning in this context. Thus far you have not even attempted to address this.

Secondly, the very context of the Hadith you are quoting indicates that the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم statement regarding sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه is NOT a statement concerning the succession. Let's examine the context:

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain: that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) dispatched an army and he put 'Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of it. He left on the expedition and he entered upon a female slave. So four of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) scolded him, and they made a pact saying: "[If] we meet the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) we will inform him of what 'Ali did." When the Muslims returned from the journey, they would begin with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and give him Salam, then they would go to their homes. So when the expedition arrived, they gave Salam to the Prophet (ﷺ), and one of the four stood saying: "O Messenger of Allah! Do you see that 'Ali bin Abi Talib did such and such." The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) turned away from him. Then the second one stood and said as he said, and he turned away from him. Then the third stood before him, and said as he said, and he turned away from him. Then the fourth stood and said as they had said. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) faced him, and the anger was visible on his face, he said: "What do you want from 'Ali?! What do you want from 'Ali?! Indeed 'Ali is from me, and I am from him, and he is the ally [WALI] of every believer after me." (Jami at-Tirmidhi #3712)

Notice here that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is not intending to nominate sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه as his successor, but his intention is to defend sayyidina Ali and rebuke those who are complaining about him. Therefore, this translation of the Hadith, as published by Darussalam, has translated the word Wali to mean "ally" to fit the context. That makes much more sense.

I also have a question for you regarding your use of this Hadith as a proof for your claim: If the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم intended to announce sayyidina Ali's succession, why didn't he do so clearly and unambiguously using a word like Khalifah, or Imam, or Amir, or Hakam, etc.? Why did he use the word "Wali" whose primary meaning is not "ruler" or "leader"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Now he wants one saying Caliph,

إني تارك فيكم خليفتين كتاب الله عز وجل حبل ممدود ما بين السماء والأرض أو ما بين السماء إلى الأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض

"Narrated Zayd ibn Thabit said: 'The Messenger of Allah said, "I am leaving with you two Caliphs, The Book of Allah; the rope between the heavens and the earth and my Itra عترة Ahlulbayt. They will not separate until they meet me at the pond.'

The Hadith is hasan."

Musnad, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, V.16, P.28, Hadith 21470

 

إني تارك فيكم خليفتين كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض

"Narrated Zayd ibn Thabit said: 'The Messenger of Allah said, "I am leaving with you two Caliphs, The Book of Allah and my Itra عترة Ahlulbayt.'

Tabarani Narrated it and the Narrators are trustworthy."

Majma' al Zawaid, Al Haythami, V.1, P.230, Dar al Kitub al Illmiya, Beirut, Lebanon.

 

إني تارك فيكم خليفتين كتاب الله عز وجل حبل ممدود ما بين السماء والأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض

"The Messenger of Allah said, 'I am leaving with you two CALIPHS, The Book of Allah, a rope between the heavens and the earth and my Itra عترة, Ahlulbayt. They will not separate until they meet me at the pond.'

The Hadith is Sahih."

Sahih Al-jami’i Al Sagheer, Al-Albani, V.1, P.482, Hadith 2457.

 

So Ahlulbayt are the Caliphs after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and The Master of Ahlulbayt after Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is Imam Ali (عليه السلام), and you keep ignoring that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said at Ghadir Khumm,  'Do you know that I have more Authority over the believers than themselves?'. Than he says Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is now the Master of the Believers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Now he wants one saying Caliph,

إني تارك فيكم خليفتين كتاب الله عز وجل حبل ممدود ما بين السماء والأرض أو ما بين السماء إلى الأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض

"Narrated Zayd ibn Thabit said: 'The Messenger of Allah said, "I am leaving with you two Caliphs, The Book of Allah; the rope between the heavens and the earth and my Itra عترة Ahlulbayt. They will not separate until they meet me at the pond.'

The Hadith is hasan."

Musnad, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, V.16, P.28, Hadith 21470

 

إني تارك فيكم خليفتين كتاب الله وعترتي أهل بيتي وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض

"Narrated Zayd ibn Thabit said: 'The Messenger of Allah said, "I am leaving with you two Caliphs, The Book of Allah and my Itra عترة Ahlulbayt.'

Tabarani Narrated it and the Narrators are trustworthy."

Majma' al Zawaid, Al Haythami, V.1, P.230, Dar al Kitub al Illmiya, Beirut, Lebanon.

إني تارك فيكم خليفتين كتاب الله عز وجل حبل ممدود ما بين السماء والأرض وعترتي أهل بيتي وإنهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا علي الحوض

"The Messenger of Allah said, 'I am leaving with you two CALIPHS, The Book of Allah, a rope between the heavens and the earth and my Itra عترة, Ahlulbayt. They will not separate until they meet me at the pond.'

The Hadith is Sahih."

Sahih Al-jami’i Al Sagheer, Al-Albani, V.1, P.482, Hadith 2457.

So Ahlulbayt are the Caliphs after the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and The Master of Ahlulbayt after Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is Imam Ali (عليه السلام), and you keep ignoring that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said at Ghadir Khumm,  'Do you know that I have more Authority over the believers than themselves?'. Than he says Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is now the Master of the Believers. 

I shall answer your argument and evidence from a number of angles:

First Response

This does not prove your claim, which was: "Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would be the successor after him."

You were meant to quote a Verse of the Quran (which you couldn't) or an authentic Hadith from the mouth of Rasul Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم where he specifically designated sayyidina Ali bin Abi Talib رضى الله عنه to be his Khalifah upon his death.

What you have quoted here does not name sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه. It has named the Ahl al-Bayt collectively, which was not your claim

Second Response

The Hadith with this wording is actually weak. You conveniently did not cite the Sanad, which includes the narrator Sharik bin Abd Allah an-Nakha'i. The muhaddith Shu'aib Arnaut has mentioned that the sanad of this narration is weak because of that narrator's poor memory:

title.thumb.png.43e87d1957a135ba67d0ea2a6618542a.png279647122_Iamleavingbehind2CaliphsQuranandAhlalBayt(MusnadAhmadv_35p.45621578)weakbecauseofSharik.png.6263cc2032e11bed8052427c39ab28ad.png

The shawahid or corroborating reports which are authentic refers to Hadith ath-Thaqalayn, where the word thaqalayn (two heavy things) is used, and not khalifatayn. It is likely that the narrator Sharik b. Abd Allah al-Nakha'i changed the word thaqalayn for khalifatayn due to his poor memory.

Therefore, this narration is weak and I do not accept it as an evidence for your claim on that basis either

Third Response

If, for the sake of argument, this narration with this wording is accepted, the term khalifatayn does not refer to succession in the sense of leadership of the community after the death of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, for the Hadith also states that the Quran is the first of the two khalifatayn, but the Quran is not a person, and it was not given the political/administrative rank of succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Hence, in this narration, khalifatayn will be understood upon its linguistic meaning and not its terminological (istilahi) meaning. In other words, it is to be understood as khalf, something that is left behind.

Fourth Response

As I already mentioned, the actual Hadith which is authentic and which I accept is Hadith ath-Thaqalayn, but that Hadith clarifies that the wasiyah (will) of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is not that the Ahl al-Bayt be followed or given the political/administrative leadership of the Ummah, rather, the Hadith clarifies that the Ummah is to be mindful of their sanctity and fear Allah with regard to their affair:

قَامَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَوْمًا فِينَا خَطِيبًا بِمَاءٍ يُدْعَى خُمًّا بَيْنَ مَكَّةَ وَالْمَدِينَةِ فَحَمِدَ اللَّهَ وَأَثْنَى عَلَيْهِ وَوَعَظَ وَذَكَّرَ ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏"‏ أَمَّا بَعْدُ أَلاَ أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ يُوشِكُ أَنْ يَأْتِيَ رَسُولُ رَبِّي فَأُجِيبَ وَأَنَا تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ ثَقَلَيْنِ أَوَّلُهُمَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ فِيهِ الْهُدَى وَالنُّورُ فَخُذُوا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَاسْتَمْسِكُوا بِهِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَحَثَّ عَلَى كِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَرَغَّبَ فِيهِ ثُمَّ قَالَ ‏"‏ وَأَهْلُ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي

Zaid b. Arqam narrates: One day Allah’s Messenger ﷺ stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him and delivered the sermon and exhorted (us) and said: Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a Messenger (the Angel of Death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah’s call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you for Allah’s sake (of your duties) to the members of my family, I remind you for Allah’s sake to the members of my family, I remind you for Allah’s sake to the members of my family.

(Sahih Muslim)

Notice that in the Hadith ath-Thaqalayn, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم orders his Ummah to hold fast to and adhere to the Book of Allah, but he does not say the same thing about the Ahl al-Bayt, he does not say "hold fast to and adhere to the Ahl al-Bayt". This proves that his wasiyah for the Book of Allah and the Ahl al-Bayt are different. His wasiyah is that we adhere to the Book of Allah, and be mindful of Allah in our dealing with his Ahl al-Bayt. Apparently, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was intimated about what would happen to his Family, how segments within the Ummah would mistreat and persecute them, like what happened at Karbala, so before his death he made a Wasiyah that the Ummah should be mindful of the sanctity of his Family for the sake of Allah. His intention was not to nominate them collectively to the role of his political/administrative succession and leadership of the Ummah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

This does not prove your claim, which was: "Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would be the successor after him."

I have already quoted Wali of the Believers after me but you pulled out an ignorant translation saying it meant Ally

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

You were meant to quote a Verse of the Quran (which you couldn't) or an authentic Hadith from the mouth of Rasul Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم where he specifically designated sayyidina Ali bin Abi Talib رضى الله عنه to be his Khalifah upon his death.

Because you did the 'Hasbuna Kitab Allah' trick and didn't let me use hadith to back it up.

And who are you compared to the Sunni scholars to weaken the Hadith?

Al Albani said it was Sahih, Then you say, 'He didn't mean Khalifa as successor.' Or 'it doesn't concern succession' even though it clear says he is the Wali of every believer.

And the footnote for the Hadith said its Sahih.

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

The shawahid or corroborating reports which are authentic refers to Hadith ath-Thaqalayn

Where is the evidence?

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

What you have quoted here does not name sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه. It has named the Ahl al-Bayt collectively, which was not your claim

Isn't Imam Ali (عليه السلام) part of Ahlulbayt?

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

for the Hadith also states that the Quran is the first of the two khalifatayn, but the Quran is not a person, and it was not given the political/administrative rank of succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wanted to the People to follow what the Quran says of what is Halal and Haram and Ahlulbayt (and the Best of Ahlulbayt after Rasul Allah is Imam Ali (عليه السلام) )

The Hadith is Sahih and did the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) say this out of no where or was he told to?

53_3.png

53_4.png

"He does not speak out of his own desires.

 It is not but a revelation revealed."

And don't forget the Hadith of the Warning when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) called Imam Ali (عليه السلام) his successor, when Tabari narrated it he took the work Caliph and said Katha wa Katha

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

I have already quoted Wali of the Believers after me but you pulled out an ignorant translation saying it meant Ally

The burden of proof is upon you to prove that the terms ولي or مولى as used in Hadith al-Ghadir can only mean leader or ruler in the context of that Hadith. Thus far you have not done so. On the contrary, I demonstrated that the term ولي in the narration of Imran bin Husain that you quoted cannot possibly mean leader or ruler, given the context of that narration.

Quote

And who are you compared to the Sunni scholars to weaken the Hadith?

Al Albani said it was Sahih,

This is a straw man argument. I did not weaken the Hadith independent of the authority of Sunni scholars and muhaddithin. On the contrary, I quoted the takhrij of Shuayb Arnaut in which he weakened the sanad of the Hadith you quoted on the basis of the narrator Sharik bin Abd Ullah al-Nakha'i, because of his poor memory.

So here is what the muhaddithin said about this narrator Sharik:

قال الجوزجاني: سيئ الحفظ مضطرب الحديث مائل

al-Juzjani said his memory is poor, and mixed up or shaky in Hadith

قال الدارقطني: ليس شريك بقوي فيما ينفرد به

al-Dar Qutni said: "He is not strong in that which is alone in narrating"

quoted from Siyar A'lam an-Nubala

Granted Albani declared the narration authentic, but Shuaib Arnaut has contradicted him in that judgment. The proof is with the latter because of the problems with the narrator Sharik. And the narrations of sayyidina Zayd bin Thabit رضى الله عنه where the term khalifatayn is present are all through the narrator Sharik, therefore, it is not strong as per the judgment of Imam ad-Dar Qutni رحمه الله

Quote

Where is the evidence?

In the footnote to the Hadith you quoted from Musnad Ahmad, Shuaib Arnaut refers back to narration #11104 where he analyzes the shawahid in detail. The one he declares Sahih is Hadith ath-Thaqalayn as narrated by Zayd bin Arqam رضى الله عنه as reported in Sahih Muslim:

289248752_ShahidSahih.png.699ade90e43434a5b00fb3a905b2718a.png

Quote

Isn't Imam Ali (عليه السلام) part of Ahlulbayt?

Yes, but your claim was that sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه alone was the individual designated by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to be his successor, you did not claim that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated the Ahl al-Bayt collectively as his successor.

The Ahl al-Bayt is a broad category which included many individuals apart from sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه in the lifetime of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

Therefore, you cannot use it as a proof for your claim because it is ambiguous. If you use this narration as a proof for sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه succession, it can also be used to argue the succession of the Prophet's uncle sayyidina Abbas bin Abd al-Muttalib رضى الله عنه

And if you say that no Muslim group ever claim the Prophet's uncle was designated his successor, you would be incorrect, for the Abbasids and specifically the Abbasid ruler al-Mahdi, and also the Rawandiyyah sect believed that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated sayyidina Abbas his successor, with the Imamate passing down from him to his son Abd Allah bin Abbas, then his son Ali bin Abd Allah, then to his son Muhammad bin Ali, then to his son Ibrahim bin Muhammad, and then to his sons, the first Abbasid rulers as-Saffah and al-Mansur.

And here is another major problem with this proof you are presenting. The Hadith specifically mentions the word عترتي "My Itrah". The word Itrah is also ambiguous as there is considerable difference of opinion among linguists and others as to whom it includes. According to one view, Itrah only includes offspring (children, grandchildren, etc.) and sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه would not be included in this definition of Itrah, as he was not from the Prophet's offspring, but from his cousins. This was the view of the linguist Ibn al-Arabi (d.231 AH) for example.

Therefore, the proof you are presenting has many flaws and does not by any means substantiate your original claim that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم specifically designated sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه to succeed him upon his death, and not anyone else.

Quote

And don't forget the Hadith of the Warning when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) called Imam Ali (عليه السلام) his successor, when Tabari narrated it he took the work Caliph and said Katha wa Katha

Please properly quote it with reference

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/13/2020 at 11:09 PM, Cherub786 said:

Read the highlighted section: "Some people have used even these remarks to establish Ali's title to being Prophet's immediate successor as caliph, although proximity of relationship or friendship has nothing to do with title for caliphate."

My counter to you saying that Mawla means friend is simple, if that's the case, why did Umar congratulate him after the event of Ghadir?

From Abi Saeed al-Khudri, who said,

 

This verse (5:67) was revealed in the merit of Ali ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام). When this verse was revealed, Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) took the hand of Ali (عليه السلام) and said, 'WHOEVER I AM HIS MASTER, ALI IS HIS MASTER. O Allah! Love those who love him. Be hostile to those who are hostile to him."
Umar then said, "Congratulations to you to son of Abi Talib, You have become my Mawla and the Mawla of all the believers male and female".

Tafseer%20Nesapoori.JPG?height=400&width

Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran Wa Ragaib al-Furqan - al-Nesapoori, Vol. 2, Pg. 616 

https://ia600507.us.archive.org/32/items/abuyaala_77991/02_77992.pdf <----------PDF link

 

What else?

{وَأخرج ابْن مرْدَوَيْه عَن ابْن مَسْعُود قَالَ: كُنَّا نَقْرَأ على عهد رَسُول الله صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم {يَا أَيهَا الرَّسُول بلغ مَا أنزل إِلَيْك من رَبك} أَن عليا مولى الْمُؤمنِينَ {وَإِن لم تفعل فَمَا بلغت رسَالَته وَالله يَعْصِمك من النَّاس 

From Ibn Masood who said, 

"We used to recite in the times of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) like this, {"O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to You from Your Lord"}, 'That Ali is the Mawla (leader/chief) of the believers', {"If You do not do it then You have not Conveyed His message and Allah will protect You from the people" }(5:67)

Durr%20Mansoor-1.jpg?height=300&width=40

Tafseer Durr al-Mansoor, Vol. 6, Pg. 383

https://ia800605.us.archive.org/8/items/WAQ26888/drm05.pdf <--------PDF link

 

What else?

From Abi Saeed al-Khudri, who said,

"The verse 'O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to You from Your Lord' (5:67) was revealed on the Day of Ghadir Khumm in regards to Ali ibn Abi Talib"

Asbaab%20al-Nuzul-1.jpg?height=400&width

Asbaab al-Nuzul, al-Wahidi, Pg. 150

https://ia800201.us.archive.org/33/items/AsbabNuzul/Asbab_Nuzul.pdf <--------PDF link

 

What else?

 

Under the verse 5:67, It says:

Tenth: "This verse was revealed in the merit of Ali ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام). When this verse was revealed, Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) took the hand of Ali (عليه السلام) and said, 'WHOEVER I AM HIS MASTER, ALI IS HIS MASTER. O Allah! Love those who love him. Be hostile to those who are hostile to him."

Tafeer%20Kabeer.jpg?height=293&width=400

Tafseer-e-Kabeer, Vol. 12, Pg. 49

https://archive.org/stream/TafserAlKabeer/12_altrkhalkabr#page/n48/mode/2up <-----PDF link

15 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Please properly quote it with reference

0?ui=2&ik=b2c16b50ab&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1675207012030657536&th=173f87e6dd54b400&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ_d1W0qx7mZW8kdz8zpRB5WLahhgjgmNjF9PXh-Pt41e936BDyrarJ0YzYa1NHh1UWtHP68GXhLPeDBw4C-gewpQHinOdteFx4nlkDVDac6Q7LHZYJbw-8ZBqs&disp=emb&realattid=173f87e15aac6ccc8641

0?ui=2&ik=b2c16b50ab&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1675207035052168118&th=173f87ec398513b6&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ8SCQNT_XCjXr0FpPbdxCfKdrdcLft3syZf4TqjS6KjKTGkuvUpI-8cV7mEOWMm-Yk3cR-Rg0_gqmhQ5fMn0t6Ls-b4aHaWgjLdfA6qG1L3yDg0XhpKvf6LPko&disp=emb&realattid=173f87e72ef5c2112661

0?ui=2&ik=b2c16b50ab&attid=0.1&permmsgid=msg-f:1675207057292421820&th=173f87f167246abc&view=fimg&sz=s0-l75-ft&attbid=ANGjdJ9ZOU9mk3tK-5LbxGGkHfND0ESM_t9thy7D1p9MNEN94-Ga1QDIWRkk-BLNZgxKdqPWTaO7dZWxoqZ4t3x3uieaqstEs2SoHR7isewM794Cg_v3KLS6yXKJ3TE&disp=emb&realattid=173f87ec65db0f4eb5e1

If you want me to show you how Tabari played with the hadith in his Tafsir just ask.

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

My counter to you saying that Mawla means friend is simple, if that's the case, why did Umar congratulate him after the event of Ghadir?

From Abi Saeed al-Khudri, who said,

This verse (5:67) was revealed in the merit of Ali ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام). When this verse was revealed, Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) took the hand of Ali (عليه السلام) and said, 'WHOEVER I AM HIS MASTER, ALI IS HIS MASTER. O Allah! Love those who love him. Be hostile to those who are hostile to him."
Umar then said, "Congratulations to you to son of Abi Talib, You have become my Mawla and the Mawla of all the believers male and female".

Tafseer%20Nesapoori.JPG?height=400&width

Tafseer Gharaib al-Quran Wa Ragaib al-Furqan - al-Nesapoori, Vol. 2, Pg. 616 

 

The response to this argument is twofold:

First Response

You have quoted a narration from a Tafsir, but the complete Sanad is missing. Without Sanad, it will have to be dismissed as an evidence for your position.

Second Response

If I accept this narration, for the sake of argument and for the time being, it still doesn't prove your claim. As I have explained, the context of Hadith al-Ghadir proves that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم intended to defend Sayyidina Ali bin Abi Talib رضى الله عنه from complaints against him, therefore, we interpret him being named "Mawla of the Believers" and "Wali of the Believers" as one of his major virtues.

If sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه did congratulate sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه, it does not affect our interpretation whatsoever, for he would have been congratulating him for the Prophet announcing this grand virtue of his, and not for being nominated as the Prophet's successor.

Therefore, the argument of congratulations is weak and does not at all prove that the meaning of Mawla or Wali is leader or ruler in this context.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

What else?

{وَأخرج ابْن مرْدَوَيْه عَن ابْن مَسْعُود قَالَ: كُنَّا نَقْرَأ على عهد رَسُول الله صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم {يَا أَيهَا الرَّسُول بلغ مَا أنزل إِلَيْك من رَبك} أَن عليا مولى الْمُؤمنِينَ {وَإِن لم تفعل فَمَا بلغت رسَالَته وَالله يَعْصِمك من النَّاس 

From Ibn Masood who said, 

"We used to recite in the times of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) like this, {"O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to You from Your Lord"}, 'That Ali is the Mawla (leader/chief) of the believers', {"If You do not do it then You have not Conveyed His message and Allah will protect You from the people" }(5:67)

Durr%20Mansoor-1.jpg?height=300&width=40

Tafseer Durr al-Mansoor, Vol. 6, Pg. 383

Once again there is no complete Sanad from this Tafsir you are quoting as evidence.

Keep in mind that our books of Tafsir mention several different opinions regarded the asbab an-Nuzul of Ayat at-Tabligh, and the conjunction of announcing sayyidina Ali's Wilayah is only one of them. And as I shall demonstrate, that opinion does not have the backing of a foolproof Sanad

Quote

From Abi Saeed al-Khudri, who said,

"The verse 'O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to You from Your Lord' (5:67) was revealed on the Day of Ghadir Khumm in regards to Ali ibn Abi Talib"

Asbaab al-Nuzul, al-Wahidi, Pg. 150

Again you did not quote the Sanad. However, in the spirit of discussion and to help you out a bit, I will quote the Sanad for you from Asbab al-Nuzul of al-Wahidi. This way it cannot be said that I did not debate in good faith but merely took advantage of the weakness of my opponent:

Abu Sa‘id Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Saffar informed us> al-Hasan ibn Ahmad al-Makhladi> Muhammad ibn Hamdun ibn Khalid> Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Halwani> al-Hasan ibn Hammad Sijjadah> ‘Ali ibn ‘Abis> al-A‘mash> Abu’l-Hajjab> ‘Atiyyah> Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri who said: “This verse (O Messenger! Make known that which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord…) was revealed on the day of ‘Ghadir Khumm’ about ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be well pleased with him”

My response to this argument is twofold:

First Response

The narration is weak and there are major problems in the sanad: The first is the weakness of Ali bin Aabis, who is weakened by Yahya bin Ma’een, Al-Jazajani, Al-Nasa’ee, Ibn Hibban, Al-Saji, and others. The second weakness is Atiyyah Al-Awfi, who was weakened by Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim, Al-Jawzajani, Al-Nasa’ee, and others. The third weakness is that when Atiyyah Al-Awfi quotes Abu Sa’eed, he is actually referring to Ibn Al-Kalbi and not Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri. Al-Kalbi has been described as a liar by several scholars, include Al-Jawzajani, Ibn Hibban, and Al-Hakim.

If you wish, I can quote the original references to prove these three points from the books of Ilm al-Rijal, but in the interest of saving time and energy, I shall not do so now, in case you are willing to take my word for it.

Therefore, this narration is extremely weak and cannot be used as evidence for your claim

Second Response

If I accept this narration, for the sake of argument and for the time being, it still does not substantiate your claim that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه his successor. This is because Ayat at-Tabligh simply instructs the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to convey the Message that was revealed to him. We cannot assume, without evidence, that that message refers to appointing a successor to succeed him. That may be your contention, but it cannot be accepted without evidence.

If we accept that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم announced that sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه is "Mawla of the Believers" because of Ayat at-Tabligh, it would simply mean that Allah commanded the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to convey to the people this grand virtue of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه, and explain to the people the lofty rank he possesses in this Religion.

Therefore, it is futile for you to try to prove any connection between Ayat at-Tabligh and the Hadith al-Ghadir, because neither does Ayat at-Tabligh explain that the message that must be conveyed is instruction for Khilafah, nor have you established the meaning of Hadith al-Ghadir is nominating a successor.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is nearing its conclusion. I have pretty much answered Ansur's strongest arguments, and demonstrated quite plainly that they do not substantiate his claim.

Keep in mind that in this debate Ansur can be compared to a plaintiff and myself to a defendant in a lawsuit. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove his case with evidence, while the defendant does not have to prove his defense, but by simply poking holes in the plaintiff's or prosecution's arguments, will succeed in defending himself from the lawsuit.

One of the proofs that Ansur is emphasizing in this debate is Hadith al-Ghadir, when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said "Whomsoever I am Mawla of, Ali is his Mawla (too)". He claims this is an explicit proof that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم nominated sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه to be his successor.

In this post, I shall quote from recognized and authoritative Shi'ah scholars who acknowledge the fact that this Hadith is not an explicit proof for sayyidina Ali's succession. Rather, they confess it is an example of ambiguity:

Muhammad b. Ali al-Karajuki (d.449 H) is one such Shi'i scholar, a student of both Shaykh al-Mufid and Shaykh at-Tusi. He writes in his book al-Ibanah (p.328) that the appointment of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه is based on two kinds of proofs, one that is:

أحدهمـا : هـو النـصّ الجـلي ، الـذي عـلم سـامعوه مـن

رسـول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) مراده منه بالاضطرار ، وإن كـان الآن يُعلم ثبوته بالاسـتدلال

"Nass al-Jali, a strong text through which definitive knowledge is attained and clearly proves"

and the second that is:

والآخر : هو النصّ الخفي ، الذي لا يُقطع على أنّ سـامعيه من الرسـول (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) علموا النصّ بالإمامة منه اضطراراً ، ولا يمنع عندنا أن يكـون علموه اسـتدلالا ، من حيث اعتبار دلالة اللفظ.

فأمّـا نحـن ، فإنّـا لا نعلـم ثبوتـه والمراد منـه إلاّ بالاسـتدلال ،

كـقوله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) : «أنت منّي بمنزلة هارون من موسـى»

وكـقوله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) : «مَن كـنت مولاه فعليٌّ مولاه»

"Nass al-Khafi, which is ambiguous" and he quotes as example of this category of ambiguous proof the two well-known narrations, Hadith al-Manzilah and Hadith al-Ghadir

Similarly, al-Sharif al-Murtada, another well known and authoritative Shi'i scholar, mentions the same thing in his book al-Shafi fil-Imamah (v.2 p.67) that there are two kinds of proof, one that is clear and decisive, and one that is ambiguous, in establishing the divine appointment of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه. He quotes Hadith al-Ghadir as an example of an ambiguous proof:

title.thumb.png.e104871082c8ea34041206f0c726f993.png715712286_HadithalGhadirandalManzilaareambiguousproofforWilayah(alShafifilImamav_2p.67)SharifalMurtada.png.5aec241f4a52fd5ce6b8daf536712d23.png

I shall also quote, in sha Allah, Mulla Baqir Majlisi and at-Tabarsi to this effect.

Now it is established that according to well-known and authoritative Twelver Shi'ah Ulama, Hadith al-Ghadir, which Ansur is quoting as proof to establish the succession of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه is an example of an ambiguous proof, and not definitive. Ambiguous in the sense that it is not explicit, definitive, and that it is open to interpretation.

Again, I ask my interlocutor to quote an argument for his claim that is unambiguous and definitive. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

I hid the posts since nothing shows up. Maybe you can try to use an image hosting website. 

Can you give me one?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Tabari is History, the event of the Warning, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) says Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is his brother, his Wasi, and his Caliph (after him).

https://ibb.co/WDNJ9LJ

https://ibb.co/k1KTQYX

https://ibb.co/qkgHnv0

Tabari plays with the event in his Tafsir and instead of Wasi and Caliph, its Katha wa Katha.

https://ibb.co/6WDQn0z

https://ibb.co/sjKL7NX

https://ibb.co/BzBQvLN

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Tabari is History, the event of the Warning, Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) says Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is his brother, his Wasi, and his Caliph (after him).

Before I address this, I must point out a contradiction in your evidence.

You previously quoted the following as evidence of your claim:

Quote

What else?

{وَأخرج ابْن مرْدَوَيْه عَن ابْن مَسْعُود قَالَ: كُنَّا نَقْرَأ على عهد رَسُول الله صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم {يَا أَيهَا الرَّسُول بلغ مَا أنزل إِلَيْك من رَبك} أَن عليا مولى الْمُؤمنِينَ {وَإِن لم تفعل فَمَا بلغت رسَالَته وَالله يَعْصِمك من النَّاس 

From Ibn Masood who said, 

"We used to recite in the times of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) like this, {"O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to You from Your Lord"}, 'That Ali is the Mawla (leader/chief) of the believers', {"If You do not do it then You have not Conveyed His message and Allah will protect You from the people" }(5:67)

So, your evidence was that Ayat at-Tabligh was revealed to order the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to announce the wilayah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه which he did at Ghadir Khumm.

Now you are presenting another argument that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم previously announced the khilafah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه at the beginning of his prophesy and ministry, in the event of Da'wat al-Ashirah. If this new argument is correct, it invalidates your previous argument that prior to Ghadir Khumm, the Prophet hadn't announced the succession of sayyidina Ali, so Allah revealed Ayat at-Tabligh (5:67) instructing the Prophet to convey the message Allah revealed to him, otherwise he hasn't conveyed it.

Therefore, these two arguments you have presented contradict each other. If one is correct, the other is automatically nullified Logically, both cannot be correct.

Therefore, before I proceed to address this argument, you must decide which of these two arguments is correct and which one you are going to rescind. I await your answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

Before I address this, I must point out a contradiction in your evidence.

You previously quoted the following as evidence of your claim:

So, your evidence was that Ayat at-Tabligh was revealed to order the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to announce the wilayah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه which he did at Ghadir Khumm.

Now you are presenting another argument that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم previously announced the khilafah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه at the beginning of his prophesy and ministry, in the event of Da'wat al-Ashirah. If this new argument is correct, it invalidates your previous argument that prior to Ghadir Khumm, the Prophet hadn't announced the succession of sayyidina Ali, so Allah revealed Ayat at-Tabligh (5:67) instructing the Prophet to convey the message Allah revealed to him, otherwise he hasn't conveyed it.

Therefore, these two arguments you have presented contradict each other. If one is correct, the other is automatically nullified Logically, both cannot be correct.

Therefore, before I proceed to address this argument, you must decide which of these two arguments is correct and which one you are going to rescind. I await your answer.

Lol, what was my claim again?

Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would be the successor after him.

Ghadir Khumm is evidence to my claim. Ghadir Khumm wasn't my my main claim it was just evidence.

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

the Prophet hadn't announced the succession of sayyidina Ali,

I've caught you now, I didn't say that. Also, I didn't the say that Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is his Successor once. Just like how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) tells his Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in numerous verses to tell the Muslims to Pray or Pay Zakat.

At this point you are just trying to weaken one of the events,

The Event of the Warning was witnessed by the Sons of Abdul Mutallib (عليه السلام) and not all the Muslims, while Ghadir Khumm was in front of all of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Lol, what was my claim again?

Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would be the successor after him.

Ghadir Khumm is evidence to my claim. Ghadir Khumm wasn't my my main claim it was just evidence.

I've caught you now, I didn't say that. Also, I didn't the say that Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is his Successor once. Just like how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) tells his Messenger (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in numerous verses to tell the Muslims to Pray or Pay Zakat.

At this point you are just trying to weaken one of the events,

The Event of the Warning was witnessed by the Sons of Abdul Mutallib (عليه السلام) and not all the Muslims, while Ghadir Khumm was in front of all of them.

I understand what your claim is, but your evidence of Ayat at-Tabligh manifestly contradicts your evidence of Da'wat al-Ashirah. You cannot use two contradictory pieces of evidence for the same claim.

According to Ayat at-Tabligh:

وَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلْ فَمَا بَلَّغْتَ رِسَالَتَهُۥ

And what is your own Twelver Shi'ah interpretation of this Verse, including the words:

وَٱللَّـهُ يَعْصِمُكَ مِنَ ٱلنَّاسِ

Is it not that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم initially feared announcing the Khilafah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه because he feared the reaction of the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم that they would desert the Religion? And so Allah revealed this Ayah to reassure him and ordered him to announce the Khilafah otherwise he has not fulfilled his duty of conveying the message.

All of this clearly and logically implies that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not announce the Khilafah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه before the event of Ghadir Khumm, before the revelation of Ayat at-Tabligh.

Now you have attempted to resolve this dilemma by saying:

Quote

The Event of the Warning was witnessed by the Sons of Abdul Mutallib (عليه السلام) and not all the Muslims, while Ghadir Khumm was in front of all of them.

The question that naturally arises is if that is true, how did Tabari come to learn about the Event of the Warning, and how did the narrators through whom it reached him come to learn of it? Furthermore, you claim that Ghadir Khumm announcement happened in front of "all the Muslims" unlike the Event of the Warning. This is another one of your erroneous claims. I request you to please prove that the announcement of Ghadir Khumm happened in front of "all the Muslims" and not simply a select group of Sahabah رضى الله عنه. History bears witness that the event of Ghadir Khumm occurred after Khutbat al Widaa on the Day of Arafah. It was that farewell sermon which was witnessed by the mass of the Muslims gathered for Hajj, but after it, the Muslims dispersed going their different ways back home, majority of them were not present at Ghadir Khumm. Again, the onus is on you to prove your claim that unlike the Event of the Warning, the event of Ghadir Khumm was in front of all them, "all the Muslims".

Secondly, the Event of the Warning in which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, according to you, announced the Khilafah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه to the sons of Abd al-Muttalib. Why didn't the surviving sons of Abd al-Muttalib and their families pledge allegiance to sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه and accept his Khilafah after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم died? I'm speaking of sayyidina Abbas, sayyidina Aqil bin Abi Talib, their families and others?

And now finally, I shall examine and refute your claim that the Event of the Warning as you quoted it from Tarikh at-Tabari is authentic:

Here is the Sanad: Ibn Humayd - Salamah - Muhammad b. Ishaq - Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim - Minhal b. Amro - Abd Allah Ibn al-Harith - Abd Allah b. Abbas - Ali b. Abi Talib

There are a number of problems with this chain. I will only mention a few well known examples, though if you wish we can go into detail, but that will only reveal more fundamental problems with the chain. Muhammad bin Ishaq is mudallis, and he is narrating عنعن from Abd al-Ghaffar.

But the main problem with this narration is Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim (Abu Maryam al-Ansari). He is a fabricator.

Let me quote from the books of Ilm al-Rijal to demonstrate. From al-Kamil fil-Du'afa al-Rijal of Ibn Adi al-Jurjani:

عَبد الغفار بن القاسم أَبُو مريم الأنصاري كوفي.
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمد بن خلف، حَدَّثني أبو العباس القرشي قال علي بن المديني أبو مريم الحنفي اسمه عَبد الغفار بن القاسم وكان يضع الحديث.
حَدَّثَنَا مكي بن عبدان، قَال: حَدَّثَنا مُحَمد بْنُ يَحْيى، قَال: حَدَّثَنا مُحَمد بن الصلت، حَدَّثَنا عَبد الغفار بن القاسم بن يَحْيى، وَهو بن قيس بن قهد أَبُو مريم.
حَدَّثَنَا ابن حماد، حَدَّثَنا العباس، عَن يَحْيى، قَالَ: أَبُو مريم عَبد الغفار بن القاسم ليس بشَيْءٍ.
حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ حَمَّادٍ، حَدَّثَنا معاوية، عَن يَحْيى، قال: عَبد الغفار أَبُو مريم كوفي ليس بثقة.
حَدَّثَنَا ابن حماد، قَال: حَدَّثَنا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ الْمَدِينِيِّ قَالَ فِي حَدِيثِ شُعْبَة عَنِ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ مَقْسَمٍ قَال: إِذَا أَصَابَ الْمُحْرِمُ الصَّيْدَ فَلَمْ يَكُنْ عِنْدَهُ جَزَاءٌ.
قَالَ شُعْبَة فِي الحديث أخبرني أَبَان، وأَبُو مريم، قَال: قَال علي أَبَان هُوَ بن تغلب وأما أَبُو مريم فاسمه عَبد الغفار وكان لشعبة فيه رأي وتعلم مِنْهُ زعموا توقيف الرجال ثم ظهر مِنْهُ رأي رديء فِي الرفض فترك حديثه.
وسمعت أحمد بن مُحَمد بن سَعِيد يثني عَلَى أَبِي مريم ويطريه وتجاوز الحد فِي مدحه حتى قَالَ لو انتشر علم أَبِي مريم وخرج حديثه لم يحتج الناس إِلَى شُعْبَة.
وابن سَعِيد حيث مال هذا الميل الشديد إنما كَانَ لإفراطه فِي التشيع وقد روى شُعْبَة، عَن أَبِي مريم هذا حديثين أحدهما عن نافع، عنِ ابن عُمَر والآخر عن عَطاء، عَن جابر.
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمد بْنُ يُوسُفَ بْنِ عَاصِمٍ، حَدَّثَنا يوسف بن موسى، حَدَّثَنا جَرير، عَن عَبد الغفار بن القاسم، عَن أَبِي جعفر قَالَ ذكر عنده الذي كَانَ عطاء وطاوُوس يقولان عن جابر،
ابن القاسم، عن ابي جعفر، عن عَبد الله فِي الذي أعتقه مولاه فِي عهد النبي صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسلَّمَ كَانَ أعتقه عن دين فأمر أن يبيعه ويقضي دينه فباعه بثماني مِئَة درهم قَالَ أَبُو جعفر شهدت هذا الحديث من جابر فقال إنما أذن فِي بيع خدمته.
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمد بْنُ أَبِي عَلِيٍّ الْخَوَارِزْمِيُّ، حَدَّثني هِلالُ بْنُ الْعَلاءِ، حَدَّثَنا أَبُو سُلَيْمٍ عُبَيد بْنُ يَحْيى، حَدَّثَنا أَبُو مريم عَبد الغفار بن الْقَاسِمِ، عَن قَتادَة، عنِ ابْنِ سِيرِين، عَن أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَال: قَال رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: لاَ يَخْطُبُ الرَّجُلُ عَلَى خِطْبَةِ أَخِيهِ، ولاَ يَسُومُ عَلَى سَوْمِ أَخِيهِ.
وهذا يرويه، عَن قَتادَة عَبد الغفار بن الْقَاسِمِ.
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمد بن سَعِيد، حَدَّثَنا جَعْفَرُ بْنُ عَبد اللَّهِ، وَمُحمد بْنُ عُبَيد بْنِ عُتْبَةَ، قَالا: حَدَّثَنا سَعِيد بن عثمان، حَدَّثَنا أَبُو مَرْيَمَ عَنِ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ عَمْرو بْنِ شُعَيب، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَن جَدِّهِ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيه وسَلَّم قَال: لا تُنْكَحُ الْمَرْأَةُ عَلَى عَمَّتِهَا، ولاَ عَلَى خَالَتِهَا.
قَالَ وَحَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مَرْيَمَ، عنِ الزُّهْريّ عَنْ سَعِيد، عَن أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ نَهَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَحْوَهُ.
وَحَدِيثُ الزُّهْريّ عَنْ سَعِيد، عَن أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ يَرْوِيهِ أبو مريم.
حَدَّثَنَا الْحُرُّ بْنُ مُحَمد بْنِ أَشْكَابٍ، حَدَّثني أبي، حَدَّثَنا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ الْمُفَضِّلِ وَدَلَّنِي عَلَيْهِ أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ وأثنى عليه خيرا، قَال: حَدَّثني أبو مريم الأنصاري، حَدَّثني ثوير
بْنُ أَبِي فَاخِتَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ سَمِعْتُ عَلِيًّا يَقُولُ لا يُحِبُّنِي كَافِرٌ، ولاَ وَلَدُ زِنَا.
ولعبد الغفار بن القاسم أحاديث صالحة وفي حديثه ما، لاَ يُتَابَعُ عَليه وكان غاليا فِي التشيع وقد روى عنه شُعْبَة حديثين ويكتب حديثه مَعَ ضعفه.

In conclusion, this narration is not acceptable due to weakness in chain and presence of a known fabricator. Furthermore, there is a difficulty with the very content of the narration, which is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم supposedly offered the Khilafah to anyone from the assembly of his relatives who volunteered to take it! According to this narration, because sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه volunteered, it was given to him. This actually goes against your doctrine that the Khilafah is divinely appointed and people cannot nominate themselves for it, nor can it be auctioned. Secondly, this goes against common sense that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would simply auction his Khilafah to whoever volunteered to take it.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
31 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

The question that naturally arises is if that is true, how did Tabari come to learn about the Event of the Warning, and how did the narrators through whom it reached him come to learn of it?

Because Imam Ali (عليه السلام) told Abdullah ibn Abbas (رضي الله عنه) who then told other people,

44 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Is it not that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم initially feared announcing the Khilafah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه because he feared the reaction of the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم that they would desert the Religion? And so Allah revealed this Ayah to reassure him and ordered him to announce the Khilafah otherwise he has not fulfilled his duty of conveying the message.

All of this clearly and logically implies that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not announce the Khilafah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه before the event of Ghadir Khumm, before the revelation of Ayat at-Tabligh.

Again, the other Muslims didn't know that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was called the Caliph (after the Prophet), so Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) decided to reveal the Ayah to tell the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) tell them that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is the successor. And after this happened than (5:3) was revealed.

49 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Why didn't the surviving sons of Abd al-Muttalib and their families pledge allegiance to sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه and accept his Khilafah after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم died? I'm speaking of sayyidina Abbas, sayyidina Aqil bin Abi Talib, their families and others?

They rejected the Caliphate of Abu Bakr when Saqifa happened.

50 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Here is the Sanad: Ibn Humayd - Salamah - Muhammad b. Ishaq - Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim - Minhal b. Amro - Abd Allah Ibn al-Harith - Abd Allah b. Abbas - Ali b. Abi Talib

There are a number of problems with this chain. I will only mention a few well known examples, though if you wish we can go into detail, but that will only reveal more fundamental problems with the chain. Muhammad bin Ishaq is mudallis, and he is narrating عنعن from Abd al-Ghaffar.

But the main problem with this narration is Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim (Abu Maryam al-Ansari). He is a fabricator.

There is a difference between Hadith and History, you don't give Hadith standards to a History book.

Now before I get into the Event of the Warning, let's go back to something the Hadith of 'I have left behind 2 caliphs'. Why do you reject this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

There is a difference between Hadith and History, you don't give Hadith standards to a History book.

Answer this simple question, is the statement:

Quote

Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) says Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is his brother, his Wasi, and his Caliph (after him).

Is this a Hadith of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم  ??

If your answer is "yes", then of course the standards of authentication for a Hadith will apply.

If your answer is "no" then what are you presenting as evidence? You claim the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه his Khalifah, are you going to quote an authentic Hadith of the Prophet to prove this claim?

Furthermore, even if we accept your argument that standards for history books are lower than standard for Hadith (but you are quoting a Hadith!), that still doesn't mean we will accept history as narrated by a known fabricator like Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim.

We are not denying the historical incident of the Da'wat al-Ashirah, we are denying the specific narration with the wording in which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم allegedly designated sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه his successor. You have a duty to prove that narration (Hadith) is authentic. I have already proven it is a fabrication.

Quote

let's go back to something the Hadith of 'I have left behind 2 caliphs'. Why do you reject this?

Please pay attention, I already answered that Hadith here 

I mentioned four responses to this Hadith you quoted. No point in repeating the material

Also, I recommend you review this entire thread and note all the questions I asked you which so far you haven't bothered to answer. Take your time, no rush, but please do make an attempt to answer some of my questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

that still doesn't mean we will accept history as narrated by a known fabricator like Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim.

Take this for example, Abu Mikhnaf (رضي الله عنه) is amazing in History! (both accepted by Sunni and Shia scholars) but some Sunni and Shia scholars say he is weak in Hadith.

2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

If your answer is "no" then what are you presenting as evidence? You claim the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه his Khalifah, are you going to quote an authentic Hadith of the Prophet to prove this claim?

For the sake of the Debate I'll say yes because I'll show why they weakened Abu Maryam was for a ignorant reason.

Again I will give a example, the Book Tarikh al Khulafa' by Ibn Qutaba, its a Book of History and not Hadith, but it still quotes the our Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) say I have left for you 2 Caliphs, One is the Holy and Noble Quran, and the Other is Ahlulbayt,

My claim was Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would be the successor after him. I didn't say that my evidence had to mention name.

So going back to the 2 Caliphs, the Master of Ahlulbayt is Imam Ali (عليه السلام), So if anyone from Ahlulbayt would to take the Caliphate, it would be Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

We are not denying the historical incident of the Da'wat al-Ashirah, we are denying the specific narration with the wording in which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم allegedly designated sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه his successor. You have a duty to prove that narration (Hadith) is authentic. I have already proven it is a fabrication.

I know you are not denying it, because they are many more books that talk about the Event, the reason I brought up Tabari is to show you how he played with it and he saw the danger of the quoting the whole Event.

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

But the main problem with this narration is Abd al-Ghaffar b. al-Qasim (Abu Maryam al-Ansari). He is a fabricator.

Why did your scholars call him weak? 

Let's see,

There 6 BIG scholars that talk about the Event of the Warning,

1. Ibn Ishaq

2. Tabari

3. Ibn Abi Hatem Al Razi

4. Ibn Mardawayh

5. Abu Nuaym al Asfahani

6. Al Bayhaqi

Ibn Ishaq and Tabari narrate off of Abu Maryam al Ansari,

Abu Maryam was one of the Sheikhs/Teachers of Shubah Ibn Hajaj, what do they say about Shubah?

They say he is 'Amir al Mumineen of Hadith and only narrates from trustworthy people.' 

محمّد بن إسحاق يروي هذا الخبر عن عبد الغفار بن القاسم ، وهو أبو مريم الانصاري ، وهو شيخ من شيوخ شعبة بن الحجاج الذي يلقّبونه بأمير المؤمنين في الحديث ، ويقولون بترجمته إنّه لا يروي إلاّ عن ثقة

Now the question will arise, 'If that's true, why does Ibn Adi al Jurjani say he fabricates and is nothing?' Well its because he talked about Uthman in a bad way which really upset the scholars. why did Dhahabi say about Abu Maryam in Mizan al I'tidal ميزان الاعتدال?

Dhahabi says, "Rafidi."

ولذا نرى في ميزان الاعتدال عندما يذكره الذهبي يقول : رافضي

So its clear that they weakened Abu Maryam because he was either a Shia or he said things about Uthman, because of that the Sunni scholars steamed like a hot teapot and said he is 'weak, nothing, fabricator'.

See according to one of the BIGGEST Sunni scholars, Ibn Hajar al Asqalani in Muqadimat Fath Al Bari bi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari, says that a scholar/narrator being Shia doesn't change how authentic he is.

فقد نصّ ابن حجر العسقلاني في مقدمة فتح الباري في شرح البخاري على أنّ التشيع بل الرفض لا يضر بالوثاقة

Let's sum it all up in 2 ways,

1. You say he is a fabricator and you bring up the evidence

2. Let's look at who he was and why they weakened him.

3. Turns out he is the Sheikh/Teacher of 'Amir al Mumineen in Hadith and the one who only narrates from trustworthy people.'

4. If his student who only narrates from the trustworthy people narrates from his teacher than how is his teacher weak?

5. Your claim has been easily refuted.

2nd way,

1. Dhahabi says he is a Rafidi, thus he is weak.

2. That's wrong because Ibn Hajar al Asqalani says no it doesn't matter if he is Sunni or Shia.

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2020 at 5:07 PM, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Take this for example, Abu Mikhnaf (رضي الله عنه) is amazing in History! (both accepted by Sunni and Shia scholars) but some Sunni and Shia scholars say he is weak in Hadith.

But you are quoting a Hadith. Though it is in a book of history, it is still a Hadith, and the standard of Hadith verification applies to it. It is illogical to argue that if something is in a Hadith book it requires more verification than if something is in a book of history. We are not so keen about books of history because they generally don't have content that deals with our beliefs and laws. They are just stories, one can accept or reject them as it's not a big deal. But you are trying to prove that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم appointed sayyidina Ali bin Abi Talib رضى الله عنه his successor. This is an important matter that affects our Religion. Your side claims this is a matter of Iman, and those who rejected it were either apostates, hypocrites or severely misguided. Therefore, because the stakes are so high, you will have to prove this claim with decisive evidence.

Quote

Again I will give a example, the Book Tarikh al Khulafa' by Ibn Qutaba, its a Book of History and not Hadith, but it still quotes the our Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) say I have left for you 2 Caliphs, One is the Holy and Noble Quran, and the Other is Ahlulbayt,

My claim was Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) would be the successor after him. I didn't say that my evidence had to mention name.

So going back to the 2 Caliphs, the Master of Ahlulbayt is Imam Ali (عليه السلام), So if anyone from Ahlulbayt would to take the Caliphate, it would be Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Again, another totally illogical argument. You claim the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated sayyidina Ali his successor, but assert that you don't have to provide evidence that he clearly did so? How else are we suppose to know the Prophet appointed sayyidina Ali his successor if Ali's name isn't mentioned by the Prophet? Therefore, any evidence you present which doesn't clearly and decisively identify sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه as the successor will be rejected. We cannot accept any ambiguous proof, especially in such a serious matter (a matter that your side has made crucial to the Religion).

Next you are repeating the same Hadith about leaving behind 2 Caliphs. I already disproved that Hadith, it is weak, and even if it wasn't weak, it clearly doesn't prove your position. Furthermore, you say "So if anyone from Ahlulbayt would to take the Caliphate it would be Imam Ali" this is your unproven premise.

Quote

So its clear that they weakened Abu Maryam because he was either a Shia or he said things about Uthman, because of that the Sunni scholars steamed like a hot teapot and said he is 'weak, nothing, fabricator'.

Incorrect as usual. Where is the proof that the muhaddithin declared Abu Maryam a fabricator on the basis of him being a Shi'i or Rafidi? His being a fabricator is in addition to him being a Shi'i or Rafidi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Incorrect as usual. Where is the proof that the muhaddithin declared Abu Maryam a fabricator on the basis of him being a Shi'i or Rafidi? His being a fabricator is in addition to him being a Shi'i or Rafidi.

Read this,

https://www.aqaed.com/book/144/1.html

It will tell you everything you need to know about the Event.

6 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

But you are quoting a Hadith. Though it is in a book of history, it is still a Hadith, and the standard of Hadith verification applies to it. It is illogical to argue that if something is in a Hadith book it requires more verification than if something is in a book of history. We are not so keen about books of history because they generally don't have content that deals with our beliefs and laws. They are just stories, one can accept or reject them as it's not a big deal. But you are trying to prove that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم appointed sayyidina Ali bin Abi Talib رضى الله عنه his successor. This is an important matter that affects our Religion. Your side claims this is a matter of Iman, and those who rejected it were either apostates, hypocrites or severely misguided. Therefore, because the stakes are so high, you will have to prove this claim with decisive evidence.

With the ignorance again, I literally proved that there is a difference between Hadith and History,

8 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Next you are repeating the same Hadith about leaving behind 2 Caliphs. I already disproved that Hadith, it is weak

You disproved Musnad Ahmed not Albani who says its Sahih,

10 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

You claim the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated sayyidina Ali his successor, but assert that you don't have to provide evidence that he clearly did so?

Who is the Master of Ahlulbayt? It's Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Also, let's say that the 2 Caliphs Hadith appoints all of Ahlulbayt, did you follow them or Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Read this,

https://www.aqaed.com/book/144/1.html

It will tell you everything you need to know about the Event.

Excuse me, we are having a debate, not a book club meeting.

In a debate you don't tell your opponent, "Read xyz book, it proves my position". You are suppose to prove your arguments at the debate. That's what a debate is for.

Quote

With the ignorance again, I literally proved that there is a difference between Hadith and History,

So according to you the narration of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saying Ali is my brother, my wasi and my khalifa is not a Hadith? Then what is it? Do you know the definition of Hadith, do you know the four kinds of Hadith of the Prophet (qawli, f'ili, taqriri and shama'il)? The qawl of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is not a Hadith? Are you serious?

Quote

You disproved Musnad Ahmed not Albani who says its Sahih,

Already answered:

Sharik bin Abd Allah an-Nakha'i is weak due to his poor memory and being مضطرب الحديث

Why are you repeating your refuted arguments? Bring something new

Quote

Who is the Master of Ahlulbayt? It's Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Also, let's say that the 2 Caliphs Hadith appoints all of Ahlulbayt, did you follow them or Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman?

Again, the Hadith you are quoting about 2 Caliphs is weak. I'm not even required to answer these questions on that very basis.

Nevertheless, I will answer them because they are so silly. Your claim is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated Sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه specifically to succeed him. That's why before we started this debate, if you remember, I told you write your position. Don't you remember that you started posting arguments without even mentioning your position, so I reminded you that before we debate you have to write your position, you have to clearly indicate what it is you will seek to establish with arguments. Now you are making arguments that don't establish your position, you are going against the principles of debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

Excuse me, we are having a debate, not a book club meeting.

In a debate you don't tell your opponent, "Read xyz book, it proves my position". You are suppose to prove your arguments at the debate. That's what a debate is for.

I am giving the website I got it from and you are making an excuse not to read it,

3 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

So according to you the narration of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم saying Ali is my brother, my wasi and my khalifa is not a Hadith? Then what is it? Do you know the definition of Hadith, do you know the four kinds of Hadith of the Prophet (qawli, f'ili, taqriri and shama'il)? The qawl of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is not a Hadith? Are you serious?

Even if it is a Hadith, I proved that it is still a correct one, Abu Maryam is a Shia, or your scholars got offended that he talked about Uthman, so they decided to weaken him. 

6 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Again, the Hadith you are quoting about 2 Caliphs is weak.

Again, you refuted Ahmed Ibn Hanbel not al Albani who says its Sahih,

On 8/19/2020 at 6:06 PM, Cherub786 said:

We are not denying the historical incident of the Da'wat al-Ashirah

And also you admitted that the Event happened, at this point the debate should be over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Ansur Shiat Ali

@Mahdavist

@Haji 2003

Unless you have any new evidence you wish to present to establish your claim, I recommend you prepare your closing statement for this debate in a single post, after which I shall write my closing statement in a single post too.

After that, the debate will be concluded and this thread will once again be open to everyone else for them to comment.

Please note that in the closing statement it is not allowed to present any new evidence for your claim. You can only review the evidence you already presented and summarize why you think you succeeded in proving your claim.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Cherub786 said:

@Ansur Shiat Ali

@Mahdavist

Unless you have any new evidence you wish to present to establish your claim, I recommend you prepare your closing statement for this debate in a single post, after which I shall write my closing statement in a single post too.

After that, the debate will be concluded and this thread will once again be open to everyone else for them to comment.

I'm not saying I don't have more evidence,

But To be Honest, I agree, we are going back and forth in responses and there seems to be no end,

This was a really good debate and I enjoyed it, But hopefully we can come to an agreement one day, 

But @Cherub786, I'm mostly on Shia Chat and I debate on other topics too, So you ever want to debate on another topic, I'm down. This one just doesn't seem to have an end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

I'm not saying I don't have more evidence,

But To be Honest, I agree, we are going back and forth in responses and there seems to be no end,

This was a really good debate and I enjoyed it, But hopefully we can come to an agreement one day, 

But @Cherub786, I'm mostly on Shia Chat and I debate on other topics too, So you ever want to debate on another topic, I'm down. This one just doesn't seem to have an end.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, as did I. But please prepare a closing statement (unless you want to forego that right). There's no rush, make a nice one and post it when its ready. Remember, you cannot put new evidence in the closing statement, only review and highlight the evidence you already presented and explain why you think you proved your claim or won the debate. After that, I will present my closing statement, then we will open the thread to everyone else.

If you want to debate me on any other topic just start a new thread.

Edited by Cherub786
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...