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

Prophet ص Was Elected Through Consultation

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I don't get it. Are you calling Cherry a golden calf?

Why would I call him a golden calf? I was giving an example of how Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) misguides people to test them from ahadith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 350
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم @ShiaMan14 recommended I start a new thread Like @Mahdavist pointed out, the discussion on the succession thread I started is simply going in circles, and nothing fr

Cherry - you need to read more sunni literature than shia literature. Yes, you are rejecting the Tabari narration about Hudaibiya but the same narration exists in Sahih Bukhari as well. I am sure you

وَإِذِ ابْتَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ ۖ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا ۖ قَالَ وَمِنْ ذُرِّيَّتِي ۖ قَالَ لَا يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ {124} [Shakir 2:1

Posted Images

  • Veteran Member
On 9/27/2020 at 8:45 PM, Cherub786 said:

You are grossly misrepresenting my position, and creating a straw man. I have by no means “reduced” the status of the Prophet Muhammad صلوات الله وسلامه عليه to that of a mere administrator. On the contrary, I separated the Prophet’s role of Prophesy from his role of administration. You disingenuously characterized my separating of two roles as reducing the role of Prophesy to that of administrator. This is a fundamental flaw and problem with your latest response which is the root of all other misunderstandings you have that are contingent to it.

It seems like you are changing positions again.

Your entire premise is to compartmentalize Muhammad's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) life into Prophet, Administrator, Friend, Husband, etc. Is it not?

Simple question - do you consider Muhammad's political life partly or fully divine (with permission and blessings of Allah) or completely devoid of divinity?

On 9/27/2020 at 8:45 PM, Cherub786 said:

So what is the evidence that Allah divinely legislated the Treaty of Hudaibiyah? You haven’t even bothered to address my three basic objections to your theory, namely, 1. why was the Treaty and its terms proposed by the pagans if it was divinely legislated? 2. why did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم erase and modify the text of the Treaty as per the wishes of the pagans if the Treaty itself was divinely legislated, and 3. why was one of the terms or conditions of the Treaty which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم himself proposed rejected by the pagans, and he compromised on that rejection?

The evidence you presented for the Treaty being divinely legislated was a verse of the Quran which describes it as the means of victory. I pointed out that this is only evidence of the Treaty leading to victory being a takwini matter and not a tashri’i matter. You are to date unable to answer this point.

You have switched your position on this from signing treaties not being part of Prophethood to splitting takwini and tashri.

Answer to all 3 questions is one word - negotiations.

Are you now saying that signing the Treaty was divine and part of Prophethood but the contents of the Treaty were just a discussion between Kuffar and Muhammad?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
40 minutes ago, El Cid said:

Why would I call him a golden calf? I was giving an example of how Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) misguides people to test them from ahadith.

I am trying to figure out who is being misguided and who is the golden calf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Psychological Warfare

Once this is proven, nice segue into the basic social unit.i.e Family(husband/wife/kids). Consultation No Wali. 

Now expand the concept from the basic social unit to the most complex(State/Nation/Ummah/Global Social Unit). You will know, consultation does not work in case of head of the family unit to Global social unit.

A goat can't benefit form the Qur'an or Hadith. It will probably eat it. 

So, Intellect is the basic requirement to understand Qur'an and Hadith. Most of the Conjecture/Language/grammar skills all the highwire and fancy word games will fail and you will save uptienth pages of Conjecture and wasted time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I am trying to figure out who is being misguided and who is the golden calf.

I don't really get how my post was confusing but I'll explain anyway.

I read that brother Cherub claims that he got inspiration by God(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) during his Salat for this topic. I'm saying that it could be true. In the Quran it says Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guides whomever He(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wants and misguides whomever He(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wants. So I'm saying I don't know if Cherub is guided or misguided, I'll leave that open to the views of the posters and their analytical deduction. Then I posted one ahadith from memory about an example of this.

The "Golden calf" was an Idol made by the Samiri as mentioned in the Quran when Hazrat Musa((عليه السلام)) went to Mount Sinai to talk with Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for Forty days. It also says that the calf idol made a "lowing sound" which is also what appealed to the idol worshippers because they believed in superstition and believed the idol was alive. 

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

So I'm saying I don't know if Cherub is guided or misguided, I'll leave that open to the views of the posters and their analytical deduction

You can know that by reading his opening posts on this thread.

Why hiding your conclusion as you haven't read anything except his statement of receiving divine inspiration? 

 

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

You can know that by reading his opening posts on this thread.

Why hiding your conclusion as you haven't read anything except his statement of receiving divine inspiration? 

 

I am not hiding anything. I have not been an active and contributing participant of this topic nor I've provided any insight of my own with accurate proof. So, I can't come here and pass my judgements. I'm merely providing proof on how his claim of inspiration could be true based on the Misguidance/Guidance quote from the Quran whilst claiming neutrality until I refute his position with proper proofs/insights of my own.

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

The "Golden calf" was an Idol made by the Samiri as mentioned in the Quran when Hazrat Musa((عليه السلام)) went to Mount Sinai to talk with Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for Forty days. It also says that the calf idol made a "lowing sound" which is also what appealed to the idol worshippers because they believed in superstition and believed the idol was alive. 

It is mentioned by some exegetes that the sound made by the golden calf was through blowing into some orifice of it, like how you can make a sound with a trumpet or horn if you blow into it. In other words, the golden calf was not just an idol but a musical instrument too. The idea that the golden calf started talking by itself is absurd. The Holy Quran clearly says that the golden calf could not speak, that is one of the arguments against it being divine, because God is Someone Who necessarily speaks, Kalam is one of His divine attributes, and what differentiates Him from lifeless idols.

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

It is mentioned by some exegetes that the sound made by the golden calf was through blowing into some orifice of it, like how you can make a sound with a trumpet or horn if you blow into it. In other words, the golden calf was not just an idol but a musical instrument too. The idea that the golden calf started talking by itself is absurd. The Holy Quran clearly says that the golden calf could not speak, that is one of the arguments against it being divine, because God is Someone Who necessarily speaks, Kalam is one of His divine attributes, and what differentiates Him from lifeless idols.

I don't really understand this post. Why was there a need to explain to me what the Golden Calf was? Where did I say that I believed it started talking by itself or moving. I said it made a sound which is mentioned in the quran: But then, [so they told Moses, the Samaritan] had produced for them [out of the molten gold] the effigy of a calf, which made a lowing sound; and thereupon they said [to one another], "This is your deity, and the deity of Moses-but he has forgotten [his past].

I Then said that this sound whatever it was was interpreted by the Jahil people in that area as a sign of the calf being alive based on their superstition. This wasn't my main focus anyway. My main point was the Misguidance/Guidance quote from the Quran and whether you are receiving either/or. Though I did quote one Hadith which said there was a sound which came from the permission of Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to test the Imaan of people. I'll try to find this hadith for you.

Wasalam.

 

Edited by El Cid
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, El Cid said:

I don't really understand this post. Why was there a need to explain to me what the Golden Calf was? Where did I say that I believed it started talking by itself or moving. I said it made a sound which is mentioned in the quran: But then, [so they told Moses, the Samaritan] had produced for them [out of the molten gold] the effigy of a calf, which made a lowing sound; and thereupon they said [to one another], "This is your deity, and the deity of Moses-but he has forgotten [his past].

I Then said that this sound whatever it was was interpreted by the Jahil people in that area as a sign of the calf being alive based on their superstition. This wasn't my main focus anyway. My main point was the Misguidance/Guidance quote from the Quran and whether you are receiving either/or.

Wasalam.

What is the proof for your claim I underlined, that the people interpreted the sound coming from the golden calf as evidence of it being alive?

That was the reason I commented on this in the first place, you also earlier said:

Quote

When people were worshipping the Calf, the idol was making some strange noise as if it was alive. Prophet Musa((عليه السلام)) asked Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) the origin of that noise. Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) told Musa((عليه السلام)) that the noise coming from the idol was from the permission of Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) because He(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) misguides people to test their true character. Something like that. If someone has the original hadith or know of it, feel free to link it.

None of this extraneous material you have mentioned is from the text of the Quran itself. I have no clue where you got it from. I mentioned the more logical explanation that the sound made by the calf was through blowing into its orifice. This point refutes your claim that the sound the calf made was used as evidence by its devotees that it was alive, or that Allah gave some kind of permission for the calf to make a noise. On the contrary, it making noise is as simple a matter as making a noise with a trumpet, horn or some other musical instrument.

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

What is the proof for your claim I underlined, that the people interpreted the sound coming from the golden calf as evidence of it being alive?

That was the reason I commented on this in the first place, you also earlier said:

None of this extraneous material you have mentioned is from the text of the Quran itself. I have no clue where you got it from. I mentioned the more logical explanation that the sound made by the calf was through blowing into its orifice. This point refutes your claim that the sound the calf made was used as evidence by its devotees that it was alive, or that Allah gave some kind of permission for the calf to make a noise. On the contrary, it making noise is as simple a matter as making a noise with a trumpet, horn or some other musical instrument.

"Though I did quote one Hadith which said there was a sound which came from the permission of Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to test the Imaan of people. I'll try to find this hadith for you."

I edited before your post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@Cherub786 - being on the virtual death row is killing me (pun intended). While I wait, can you please confirm if Caliph Umar repented after Hudaibiya. You have expressed doubts about his repentance and if he has not, then the Quran is very strict against those people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

@Cherub786 - being on the virtual death row is killing me (pun intended). While I wait, can you please confirm if Caliph Umar repented after Hudaibiya. You have expressed doubts about his repentance and if he has not, then the Quran is very strict against those people.

Repent for what sin? Since I don’t believe he committed a sin in questioning the wisdom of Hudaibiyah, why should he have repented?

Did the Angels commit a sin when they questioned Allah why He was placing a creation on the Earth that would spread corruption and spill blood?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2020 at 8:12 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

It seems like you are changing positions again.

Your entire premise is to compartmentalize Muhammad's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) life into Prophet, Administrator, Friend, Husband, etc. Is it not?

Yes, compartmentalizing is the right word, not reducing, which is the term you used before and I pointed out that is grossly misrepresenting my position. I’m sure, or at least hope, you know the difference.

On 9/28/2020 at 8:12 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

Simple question - do you consider Muhammad's political life partly or fully divine (with permission and blessings of Allah) or completely devoid of divinity?

I don’t consider his political life divine, only his prophetic ministry. The two are separate as I've demonstrated time and again throughout this thread.

On 9/28/2020 at 8:12 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

You have switched your position on this from signing treaties not being part of Prophethood to splitting takwini and tashri.

My position remains the same, the content and signing of the Treaty was not divine. It was a political calculation that proved profitable and resulted in success.

I merely responded to your erroneous assertion that because Allah revealed after the conclusion of the Treaty that the Believer had attained victory that the Treaty must be divine is absurd. It was you who confused takwini for tashri'i and I had to point that out.

On 9/28/2020 at 8:12 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

Answer to all 3 questions is one word - negotiations.

How is that an answer to my three points negating the idea that the Treaty was divine?

How can something that is divine be negotiated and amended as per the wishes and demands of pagan unbelievers? I’m still waiting for a satisfactory answer to this. I hope you won’t disappoint but I am expecting you will. But I can't really blame you, there really is no satisfactory argument for the untenable position you have taken that the Treaty was divine.

On 9/28/2020 at 8:12 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

Are you now saying that signing the Treaty was divine

No

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Repent for what sin? Since I don’t believe he committed a sin in questioning the wisdom of Hudaibiyah, why should he have repented?

Doubting the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is not a sin?

[Shakir 4:137] Surely (as for) those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the (right) path.

6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Did the Angels commit a sin when they questioned Allah why He was placing a creation on the Earth that would spread corruption and spill blood?

Cherry - come on now.

Questioning a decision of Allah and questioning Allah's "godhood" are different. Did the angels say we doubt you are Allah because you are placing creation on earth that would cause bloodshed? No!

Umar didn't just question the decision of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but questioned his prophethood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Doubting the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is not a sin?

Umar didn't just question the decision of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) but questioned his prophethood.

What’s the source of this claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Look on pg8.

There’s no proof on page 8 that sayyidina Umar al-Faruq رضى الله عنه ever doubted the Nubuwwah of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, including in connection with the Treaty of Hudaibiyah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Yes, compartmentalizing is the right word, not reducing, which is the term you used before and I pointed out that is grossly misrepresenting my position. I’m sure, or at least hope, you know the difference.

I don’t consider his political life divine, only his prophetic ministry. The two are separate as I've demonstrated time and again throughout this thread.

There in lies the fundamental difference between us. We have not compartmentalized Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) at all. 

I would like to confirm this another way - was Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) a full-time prophet or part-time prophet?

How did he compartmentalize his multiple roles? 

Perhaps it would be better to make this a separate topic.

6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I don’t consider his political life divine, only his prophetic ministry. The two are separate as I've demonstrated time and again throughout this thread.

Earlier you said you would obey Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in all political matters. Why would you do that if you don't think he was divine political leader?

6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

My position remains the same, the content and signing of the Treaty was not divine. It was a political calculation that proved profitable and resulted in success.

I merely responded to your erroneous assertion that because Allah revealed after the conclusion of the Treaty that the Believer had attained victory that the Treaty must be divine is absurd. It was you who confused takwini for tashri'i and I had to point that out.

How is that an answer to my three points negating the idea that the Treaty was divine?

How can something that is divine be negotiated and amended as per the wishes and demands of pagan unbelievers? I’m still waiting for a satisfactory answer to this. I hope you won’t disappoint but I am expecting you will. But I can't really blame you, there really is no satisfactory argument for the untenable position you have taken that the Treaty was divine.

Umar is the biggest proof that the Treaty was divinely ordained. Umar didn't say, "Mo, you are just an ordinary Administrator, this Treaty business does not apply to me." and walked into Mecca to perform tawaf.

Umar asked, "Arent you the Prophet of Allah?". So Umar questioning the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) vis-a-vis signing the Treaty and not his administrative position is the biggest proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

There’s no proof on page 8 that sayyidina Umar al-Faruq رضى الله عنه ever doubted the Nubuwwah of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, including in connection with the Treaty of Hudaibiyah.

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan:

(whose narrations attest each other) ...
 `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "I went to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, 'Aren't you truly the Messenger of Allah?' The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Yes, indeed.'

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan:

(whose narrations attest each other) ...
 `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "I went to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, 'Aren't you truly the Messenger of Allah?' The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Yes, indeed.'

Once again I’m disappointed. I was seriously expecting a curveball, but yet another softball.

So according to you asking a question = rejection?

The best part is that it was actually a rhetorical question. Perhaps you don’t know what a rhetorical question is, so let me quote the definition:

a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.”

Let me give you an example. Suppose you were the servant of a king, serving in his royal court. A peasant entered the court who was very angry at the king for some reason, maybe because of some new tax, and went straight to the king’s throne and spit in his face.

The king calmly wiped the saliva from his face but withheld his guards from taking any action against the peasant who was allowed to leave the castle without any repercussions.

Now you were observing all this and were confused as to the king’s tolerance of that peasant’s disrespect. You said, “sire, aren’t you the king?”

The king said, “yes, of course”

Then why didn’t you discipline that rude peasant who disrespected your royalty?”

The king answered, “oh, because I understand his frustration and I don’t want my subjects to think I’m an arrogant tyrant”

Now when you asked the king “aren’t you the king?” were you actually doubting his kingship or were you trying to make a point by drawing attention to the apparently bizarre behavior of your king who didn’t behave like a typical king?

If you understood this simple parable, you will understand that when sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه asked the Prophet “aren’t you the Messenger of Allah?” he wasn’t doubting his Risalah, but asking a rhetorical question.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I would like to confirm this another way - was Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) a full-time prophet or part-time prophet?

Full time Prophet, and permanent Prophet, but not always acting in the capacity of Prophet.

For example, Trump is full time, not part time, President of the US, but he is not always acting in the capacity of President. Despite being President, he still has other capacities that are separate from his presidency, like husband, father, business man, friend, and so forth.

Incidentally, I mentioned business man. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used to purchase items from the marketplace. He made business dealings and financial transactions with people. Was he doing so in his capacity of Prophet? For example, when he mortgaged his shield to a Jew was that a divine act?

29 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Earlier you said you would obey Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in all political matters. Why would you do that if you don't think he was divine political leader?

Because obedience is still required to a political leader, divine or otherwise.

29 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Umar is the biggest proof that the Treaty was divinely ordained. Umar didn't say, "Mo, you are just an ordinary Administrator, this Treaty business does not apply to me." and walked into Mecca to perform tawaf.

Umar asked, "Arent you the Prophet of Allah?". So Umar questioning the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) vis-a-vis signing the Treaty and not his administrative position is the biggest proof.

Already dealt with and answered.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Once again I’m disappointed. I was seriously expecting a curveball, but yet another softball.

So according to you asking a question = rejection?

The best part is that it was actually a rhetorical question. Perhaps you don’t know what a rhetorical question is, so let me quote the definition:

a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.”

Let me give you an example. Suppose you were the servant of a king, serving in his royal court. A peasant entered the court who was very angry at the king for some reason, maybe because of some new tax, and went straight to the king’s throne and spit in his face.

The king calmly wiped the saliva from his face but withheld his guards from taking any action against the peasant who was allowed to leave the castle without any repercussions.

Now you were observing all this and were confused as to the king’s tolerance of that peasant’s disrespect. You said, “sire, aren’t you the king?”

The king said, “yes, of course”

Then why didn’t you discipline that rude peasant who disrespected your royalty?”

The king answered, “oh, because I understand his frustration and I don’t want my subjects to think I’m an arrogant tyrant”

Now when you asked the king “aren’t you the king?” were you actually doubting his kingship or were you trying to make a point by drawing attention to the apparently bizarre behavior of your king who didn’t behave like a typical king?

If you understood this simple parable, you will understand that when sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه asked the Prophet “aren’t you the Messenger of Allah?” he wasn’t doubting his Risalah, but asking a rhetorical question.

Yeah, I figured you would say exactly this - rhetorical question. Except the problem is that rhetorical questions aren't supposed to be answered but the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) did answer.

That's why I didn't paste the piece about Umar going to Abu Bakr and asking him the same question about the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Abu Bakr also felt compelled to answer a rhetorical question.

So in your parable, I would then go to you (another servant) and ask you the same rhetorical question, "hey Cherry, is Mo really a king, I mean really?" You not being smart wouldn't realize this was a rhetorical question would also respond much like the king and say, "Yes he is the king".

Then someone else (Cool?) would inform us that I offered penance for my doubts but then you won't accept Cool's statement because you didn't hear it directly from me.

I admire your passion to "save" Caliph Umar  to the point that it makes you look so silly. 

I won't hold my breath but eventually you should show more loyalty to Muhammad (saw ) than his doubters. Its funny that you can infer rhetorical question 1400 years later reading a text but Muhammad (saw ) and Abu Bakr couldnt.

By the way, Shibli Nomani also mentions the same incident.

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Except the problem is that rhetorical questions aren't supposed to be answered

Incorrect. That may be a modern convention in the English speaking world, but it’s not a hard and fast rule. It will vary from culture to culture and depending on the context.

Allah asks a rhetorical question in the Quran:

اَلَیۡسَ اللّٰہُ بِاَحۡکَمِ الۡحٰکِمِیۡنَ

Is not Allah the best of judges?

I’m sure you would agree this is a rhetorical question. Nonetheless, what is the masnun answer to this Ayah, which we even silently answer in the Salat after its recitation?

بلى وأنا على ذلك من الشاهدين

Indeed, and I am concerning it among the witnesses”

And even if you deny these words, then let me give you an example from the Quran itself, rhetorical question accompanied by its answer:

قَالَ اَوَ لَمۡ تُؤۡمِنۡ ؕ قَالَ بَلٰی

Allah said: “Hast thou not believed?”

Abraham said: “Indeed”

Do you agree Allah was asking Abraham a rhetorical question, or do you imagine Allah doubted Abraham’s belief (God forbid)?

If you agree it was a rhetorical question, why did Abraham answer the question anyways?

It’s the same reason the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم answered sayyidina Umar’s rhetorical question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stupendous
3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Incorrect. That may be a modern convention in the English speaking world, but it’s not a hard and fast rule. It will vary from culture to culture and depending on the context.

Allah asks a rhetorical question in the Quran:

اَلَیۡسَ اللّٰہُ بِاَحۡکَمِ الۡحٰکِمِیۡنَ

Is not Allah the best of judges?

I’m sure you would agree this is a rhetorical question. Nonetheless, what is the masnun answer to this Ayah, which we even silently answer in the Salat after its recitation?

بلى وأنا على ذلك من الشاهدين

Indeed, and I am concerning it among the witnesses”

And even if you deny these words, then let me give you an example from the Quran itself, rhetorical question accompanied by its answer:

قَالَ اَوَ لَمۡ تُؤۡمِنۡ ؕ قَالَ بَلٰی

Allah said: “Hast thou not believed?”

Abraham said: “Indeed”

Do you agree Allah was asking Abraham a rhetorical question, or do you imagine Allah doubted Abraham’s belief (God forbid)?

If you agree it was a rhetorical question, why did Abraham answer the question anyways?

It’s the same reason the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم answered sayyidina Umar’s rhetorical question.

Good answer bro cherub.


It’s the same reason when Muawiya asked why don’t you curse.............shimmy thinks he knows the inner hearts of men and assumes the starting of cursing started from the rhetorical question of Muawiya.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/22/2020 at 6:39 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

Salaam brother,

I honestly thought you were a bot that simply "Liked" Cherry's posts. Nice to meet you.

When we say "caliphate" in this context, we are talking about the rulership over Muslims.

Wa’alaykum brother Shiaman14 – I glad to know that you now know that I am not a ‘bot’.

It must have been a great relief for you!

Prior to this you must have had sleepless nights wondering, ‘How Cherub786 besides posting all over Shiachat has managed to embed a ‘bot’ in this website!

You must admit (even grudgingly) that Cherub786 has enlivened Shiachat immensely (it was quite boring before he ventured here). I hope you people treat him well and keep him her for some time. 

You must admit (even grudgingly) that he is well-read, well-informed, very articulate, and prolific writer.

For couple of weeks due circumstances, I could not post here but I made sure to get time to read his posts!

Thanks for welcoming and it is my pleasure to meet you too (online).

I just wanted to make a distinction between Leadership of Messenger (peace and blessing be upon him) of Allah Almighty and Khilafaat of his successors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
9 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Incorrect. That may be a modern convention in the English speaking world, but it’s not a hard and fast rule. It will vary from culture to culture and depending on the context.

Allah asks a rhetorical question in the Quran:

اَلَیۡسَ اللّٰہُ بِاَحۡکَمِ الۡحٰکِمِیۡنَ

Is not Allah the best of judges?

I’m sure you would agree this is a rhetorical question. Nonetheless, what is the masnun answer to this Ayah, which we even silently answer in the Salat after its recitation?

بلى وأنا على ذلك من الشاهدين

Indeed, and I am concerning it among the witnesses”

The ayah 95.8 is rhetorical question but the Surah stops there does it not? That means an answer was not required.

10 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

And even if you deny these words, then let me give you an example from the Quran itself, rhetorical question accompanied by its answer:

قَالَ اَوَ لَمۡ تُؤۡمِنۡ ؕ قَالَ بَلٰی

Allah said: “Hast thou not believed?”

Abraham said: “Indeed”

Do you agree Allah was asking Abraham a rhetorical question, or do you imagine Allah doubted Abraham’s belief (God forbid)?

If you agree it was a rhetorical question, why did Abraham answer the question anyways?

It’s the same reason the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم answered sayyidina Umar’s rhetorical question.

No, Allah did not ask rhetorical question in 2.260. Allah asked a leading question. Plus Ibrahim had a curious tone rather than an insulting tone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 hours ago, Guest Stupendous said:

Good answer bro cherub.


It’s the same reason when Muawiya asked why don’t you curse.............shimmy thinks he knows the inner hearts of men and assumes the starting of cursing started from the rhetorical question of Muawiya.

 

 

welcome back Stupy. Can't believe it took you this long to respond about Muawiya and that too such a weak response. 

Muawiya asked "What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab?". Where is the rhetorical part in that question?

Saad bin Abi Waqqas gave a rather long answer thereby showing it was not a rhetorical question. Back to school little brother.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

You must admit (even grudgingly) that Cherub786 has enlivened Shiachat immensely (it was quite boring before he ventured here). I hope you people treat him well and keep him her for some time. 

You must admit (even grudgingly) that he is well-read, well-informed, very articulate, and prolific writer.

 

I don't have to grudging admit anything. I will gladly say that everything in bold, purple above is absolutely true. Despite some lies and deception, I have respect for Cherry.

1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

Wa’alaykum brother Shiaman14 – I glad to know that you now know that I am not a ‘bot’.

It must have been a great relief for you!

Prior to this you must have had sleepless nights wondering, ‘How Cherub786 besides posting all over Shiachat has managed to embed a ‘bot’ in this website!

No, I didn't have sleepless nights over a bot that can be created in an BOT101 class. For your reference, a bot does not need to be embedded into a website. BOTs can be standalone, open a browser, go to a website, search for comments from a specific user and even give the comment a rating. This would be a very 'simple' BOT and much like most sunni thought, it would not be a very intelligent bot. As a matter of fact, other bots would be embarrassed that such a 'simple' bot is even called a bot.

Then this 'simple' BOT would get together with other 'simple' BOTs and create an organization called Ahle-Simple-Wal-Jamah (ASWJ). 

 

1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

For couple of weeks due circumstances, I could not post here but I made sure to get time to read his posts!

Thanks for welcoming and it is my pleasure to meet you too (online).

I just wanted to make a distinction between Leadership of Messenger (peace and blessing be upon him) of Allah Almighty and Khilafaat of his successors.

Yes they are different.

Let's also make another distinction. According to Cherry, Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was the political leader of Muslims as his choice or choice of some Medinites and not of Allah. Therefore, it is wrong to call Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (عليه السلام) as Khalifa-e-RasoolAllah. You may call them Khalifa-e-Muhammad presumably but definitely not the Successors of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). I hope I am explaining that correctly Cherry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I don't have to grudging admit anything. I will gladly say that everything in bold, purple above is absolutely true. Despite some lies and deception, I have respect for Cherry.

It is obvious to all that you respect Cherub786 – ‘grudgingly’ was said in jest’

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

No, I didn't have sleepless nights over a bot that can be created in an BOT101 class. For your reference, a bot does not need to be embedded into a website. BOTs can be standalone, open a browser, go to a website, search for comments from a specific user and even give the comment a rating. This would be a very 'simple' BOT and much like most sunni thought, it would not be a very intelligent bot. As a matter of fact, other bots would be embarrassed that such a 'simple' bot is even called a bot.

That’s great. Thanks for the information – one always learns

If I get time I'll reply rest of your post. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

No, Allah did not ask rhetorical question in 2.260. Allah asked a leading question.

Fine, there’s no use arguing whether it was a rhetorical or leading question. Let’s say it was a leading question. The point is, the question sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه asked to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

Aren’t you the Messenger of Allah”

falls in the exact same category that the question Allah asked Nabi Ibrahim عليه السلام falls into: “Don’t you believe?”

So if the latter is a leading question, then so is the former.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Let's also make another distinction. According to Cherry, Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was the political leader of Muslims as his choice or choice of some Medinites and not of Allah. Therefore, it is wrong to call Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (عليه السلام) as Khalifa-e-RasoolAllah. You may call them Khalifa-e-Muhammad presumably but definitely not the Successors of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). I hope I am explaining that correctly Cherry.

You are incorrect, there is a difference between Khilafat fil-Risalah and being Khalifat ur-Rasul.

Khilafat fil-Risalah means the successor has succeeded the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to his office of Risalah, meaning, the successor is a Prophet and Messenger of God.

That is actually your position, because you are refusing to make a distinction between the Prophet’s prophetic and non-prophetic political offices.

So really, you shoudn’t be asking me “why do you call Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه Khalifat ur-Rasul and not Khalifatu Muhammad?” rather, I should be asking you “why do you call Ali رضى الله عنه Khalifat ur-Rasul and not Rasul Allah?”

The title Khalifat ur-Rasul means successor to the Prophet, but not necessarily succeeding him in his Risalah. You must agree with this point if you affirm Khatm ar-Risalah and believe sayyidina Ali was not a Rasul.

Khalifat ur-Rasul is therefore a valid term, and for our purpose, it simply means the successor succeeded the Rasul صلى الله عليه وسلم to an office he previously occupied but vacated upon his death – and that is the office of political leadership and not the office of Risalah which is sealed until Judgment Day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Let's also make another distinction. According to Cherry, Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was the political leader of Muslims as his choice or choice of some Medinites and not of Allah. Therefore, it is wrong to call Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (عليه السلام) as Khalifa-e-RasoolAllah. You may call them Khalifa-e-Muhammad presumably but definitely not the Successors of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). I hope I am explaining that correctly Cherry.

Allah says:

لَا تَجۡعَلُوۡا دُعَآءَ الرَّسُوۡلِ بَیۡنَکُمۡ کَدُعَآءِ بَعۡضِکُمۡ بَعۡضًا

Treat not the calling of the Messenger among you like the calling of one of you to another (24:63)

So it’s also a matter of respect that we say ‘Khalifat ur-Rasul’ and not ‘Khalifatu Muhammad’

Your weak objection hardly affects let alone invalidates my thesis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
20 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Fine, there’s no use arguing whether it was a rhetorical or leading question. Let’s say it was a leading question. The point is, the question sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه asked to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

Aren’t you the Messenger of Allah”

falls in the exact same category that the question Allah asked Nabi Ibrahim عليه السلام falls into: “Don’t you believe?”

So if the latter is a leading question, then so is the former.

Of course not. A rhetorical question expects no answer. A leading question expects a specific answer.

The style, tone and approach were completely different but we can discuss this on the other thread I create just on this topic.

On 10/1/2020 at 5:16 AM, Guest Stupendous said:

Good answer bro cherub.


It’s the same reason when Muawiya asked why don’t you curse.............shimmy thinks he knows the inner hearts of men and assumes the starting of cursing started from the rhetorical question of Muawiya.

Hey Stupy - created a separate thread on this topic:

 

 

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...