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

14 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

The truce was between Quraish in Mecca and Muslims in Medina. Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer were not Medina muslims so the Treaty was not applicable for them.

Thanks for once again making my point.

By the way, I'm pretty sure if you read the actual text of the Treaty, it doesn't mention the words Mecca and Medina, the two parties that are named are "Muhammad" and "Quraysh"

Anyways, you have obviously reversed course by saying "the Treaty was not applicable for them" when you earlier said:

Quote

Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal abided by the clauses in the Treaty.

In conclusion, the Treaty was not applicable to Abu Basir, Abu Jandal and company رضى الله عنهم because they were outside the Prophet's political jurisdiction. This is manifest proof that the Prophet's political jurisdiction is separate from his Prophetic jurisdiction, and that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم possessed separate roles of Prophet and administrator, the foundation of my thesis

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
19 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Thanks for once again making my point.

By the way, I'm pretty sure if you read the actual text of the Treaty, it doesn't mention the words Mecca and Medina, the two parties that are named are "Muhammad" and "Quraysh"

Anyways, you have obviously reversed course by saying "the Treaty was not applicable for them" when you earlier said:

In conclusion, the Treaty was not applicable to Abu Basir, Abu Jandal and company رضى الله عنهم because they were outside the Prophet's political jurisdiction. This is manifest proof that the Prophet's political jurisdiction is separate from his Prophetic jurisdiction, and that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم possessed separate roles of Prophet and administrator, the foundation of my thesis

Of course they abided by the rules of the Treaty because Abu Baseer agreed to be returned to Mecca. 

The clause was any Muslim escaping to Medina had to be returned to Mecca so they escaped and didn't go to Medina. That is why the Quraosh couldn't say that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) broke the Treaty.

I guess i have to simplify things for you since you clearly can't connect dots.

Treaty = Muslim escaping to Medina had to be returned. Example: Abu Baseer. Abided by the clause.

How do you abide by the clause of the Treaty and still make it unapplicable to oneself? Escape but don't go to Medina.

Problem solved.

Red herring alert...

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

Of course they abided by the rules of the Treaty because Abu Baseer agreed to be returned to Mecca. 

Abu Jandal, not Abu Basir

Once again you are making a fatal blunder and overlooking the point I raised earlier

The rules of the Treaty stipulate that there is not to be any fighting between the two parties

Did Abu Basir, Abu Jandal and their camp رضى الله عنهم abide by this rule?

Abu Jandal رضى الله عنه did not "agree to be returned to Mecca", he didn't have a choice in the matter. His father forced him to return, his father confronted the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم about the terms of the Treaty, which forbade the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم from granting protection to the Muslim fugitives who were under Quraish custody

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

Abu Jandal, not Abu Basir

Once again you are making a fatal blunder and overlooking the point I raised earlier

The rules of the Treaty stipulate that there is not to be any fighting between the two parties

Did Abu Basir, Abu Jandal and their camp رضى الله عنهم abide by this rule?

Abu Jandal رضى الله عنه did not "agree to be returned to Mecca", he didn't have a choice in the matter. His father forced him to return, his father confronted the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم about the terms of the Treaty, which forbade the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم from granting protection to the Muslim fugitives who were under Quraish custody

You need to read up on the history. Abu Jandal incident happened at Hudaibiya.

Abu Baseer escaped to Medina and was returned.

Per the Treaty, there was no fighting between the Quraish of Mecca and the Muslims of Medina.

Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer were not Muslims of Medina because they didn't go to Medina. They found the loophole left in the Treaty by the Quraosh and used it to their advantage.

Red herring...

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

Per the Treaty, there was no fighting between the Quraish of Mecca and the Muslims of Medina.

Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer were not Muslims of Medina because they didn't go to Medina. They found the loophole left in the Treaty by the Quraosh and used it to their advantage.

Let me quote the terms of the Treaty, it contains four clauses:

Quote

The first was that the Prophet, , and his Companions should return to Madeenah without having entered Makkah. In the following year, they may come with travelers’ weapons and stay for only three days.

The second was that there would be a truce between both parties for ten years, during which people could live safely.

The third was that whoever wished to enter a covenant with Muhammad, , would be allowed to do so, and whoever wished to enter into a covenant with Quraysh would be allowed to do so.

The fourth was that if a person from Quraysh came to Muhammad, , without the permission of his guardian, Muhammad, , should send him back, but if one of the followers of Muhammad, , went to Quraysh he would not be returned.

Read any primary source on the content of the Treaty, I guarantee you the two parties are always named "Muhammad" and "Quraysh".

The Treaty does not speak of "Muslims of Madinah" or "Madinah", it names "Muhammad".

Now according to you, "Muhammad" ought to represent all the Muslims. But that would only be true if we understand "Muhammad" the party named in the Treaty as referring to Muhammad in his capacity of Prophet and Messenger of God صلى الله عليه وسلم

Now I hope you understand.

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

Right, we are meant to obey him absolutely and not selectively. But there is an obvious distinction between the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ordering Usamah bin Zaid رضى الله عنه to command an army, for example, and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ordering adult males to pray the Salat in congregation when they hear the Adhan. The former is an example of an order issued in his capacity of administrator, and the latter an example of an order issued in his capacity of Messenger of God.

In another thread, you had accused someone of doubting the cessation of Prophethood. I am now doubting your belief in the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) altogether.

Telling someone to command the army or join the army is part of the call to jihad which is no different than a call to prayer.

Based on this statement, Badr, Uhud, Khandaq were not jihad but political battles. 

I had my suspicions which you have pretty much confirmed that you are a Jew/Christian pretending to be Sunni to stir fitna on ShiaChat.

That "ilham" turns out to be satanic waswaas. 

@Mahdavist - I have serious doubts about this person based on the quoted post.

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Let me quote the terms of the Treaty, it contains four clauses:

Read any primary source on the content of the Treaty, I guarantee you the two parties are always named "Muhammad" and "Quraysh".

The Treaty does not speak of "Muslims of Madinah" or "Madinah", it names "Muhammad".

Now according to you, "Muhammad" ought to represent all the Muslims. But that would only be true if we understand "Muhammad" the party named in the Treaty as referring to Muhammad in his capacity of Prophet and Messenger of God صلى الله عليه وسلم

Now I hope you understand.

Has it really come down to this?

 

7 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

The fourth was that if a person from Quraysh came to Muhammad, , without the permission of his guardian, Muhammad, , should send him back, but if one of the followers of Muhammad, , went to Quraysh he would not be returned.

Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer didn't go to Muhammad who happened to be in Medinah.

They stayed away from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Medinah to abide by the rules of the Treaty and still make it inapplicable to them.

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

In another thread, you had accused someone of doubting the cessation of Prophethood.

I don't recall this

Quote

I am now doubting your belief in the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) altogether.

That's your husn adh-dhan

Alhamdulillah, I affirm my belief that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

Quote

Telling someone to command the army or join the army is part of the call to jihad which is no different than a call to prayer.

Based on this statement, Badr, Uhud, Khandaq were not jihad but political battles. 

Allah through the Quran instructed the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to wage war against the polytheists. So his act of waging war against them, as manifested in these particular battles, was in his capacity of Prophet, I do not deny that at all

What I am saying is that the specific organization of armies, the tactical decisions, the appointing of commanders in the armies, these are the discretionary affairs which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم managed in his capacity of administrator

Quote

I had my suspicions which you have pretty much confirmed that you are a Jew/Christian pretending to be Sunni to stir fitna on ShiaChat.

I would have preferred you confirm my beliefs and ask me to clarify my statements that were causing you to become suspicious and doubtful, rather than hastily jumping to conclusions and making such a serious allegation against me.

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

They stayed away from the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Medinah to abide by the rules of the Treaty and still make it inapplicable to them.

Once again, you are insisting on your interpretations of one of the clauses while ignoring the elephant in the room, the clause of the treaty which says there is suppose to be a ceasefire between Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and Quraysh for ten years.

Please review the original content of the Treaty, and pay attention to how the two parties are named and defined. The original content of the Treaty does not speak of "Muslims of Medina", it speaks of Muhammad, which is understood as representing the Muhammad and those under his political jurisdiction.

According to your bizarre interpretation, if any Muslim left the vicinity of Madinah he was allowed to fight the Quraish according to the Treaty? (rhetorical question)

If any Muslim left the vicinity of Medina he was no longer bound by the Treaty in any of its clauses? (rhetorical question)

Come on my man, you're smarter than this

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

I don't recall this

That's your husn adh-dhan

Alhamdulillah, I affirm my belief that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

Allah through the Quran instructed the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to wage war against the polytheists. So his act of waging war against them, as manifested in these particular battles, was in his capacity of Prophet, I do not deny that at all

What I am saying is that the specific organization of armies, the tactical decisions, the appointing of commanders in the armies, these are the discretionary affairs which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم managed in his capacity of administrator

I would have preferred you confirm my beliefs and ask me to clarify my statements that were causing you to become suspicious and doubtful, rather than hastily jumping to conclusions and making such a serious allegation against me.

Do the Quran and hadees provide a clear cut definition and distinction of what are Prophetic duties vs caliphate duties as administered by the Prophet?

Provide evidence that selecting Usama and ordering others to join him was not Prophetic duty.

I have to say that the entire abu Jandal/Abu Basser issue and now this issue are red herrings to avoid the main topic of discussion because we have been slowly deconstructing your original post.

I didn't accuse you. I notified you of my suspicion.

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
4 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Once again, you are insisting on your interpretations of one of the clauses while ignoring the elephant in the room, the clause of the treaty which says there is suppose to be a ceasefire between Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and Quraysh for ten years.

Please review the original content of the Treaty, and pay attention to how the two parties are named and defined. The original content of the Treaty does not speak of "Muslims of Medina", it speaks of Muhammad, which is understood as representing the Muhammad and those under his political jurisdiction.

According to your bizarre interpretation, if any Muslim left the vicinity of Madinah he was allowed to fight the Quraish according to the Treaty? (rhetorical question)

If any Muslim left the vicinity of Medina he was no longer bound by the Treaty in any of its clauses? (rhetorical question)

Fact: both Abu Baseer and Abu Jandal were returned when they went to Medina/Muhammad. Use them interchangeably- makes no difference.

Fact: Both escaped a second time and did not go to Muhammad

Fact: both fought and/or ransacked Meccan caravans

Fact: Meccans did not accuse Muhammad (saw ) of breaking the Treaty.

Conclusion: as a muslim if you escape Mecca, dont go to Medina/Muhammad to keep the Treaty intact.

10 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Come on my man, you're smarter than this

Really? After your debacle of a performance on the Ashura/Id thread. Really?

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

Do the Quran and hadees provide a clear cut definition and distinction of what are Prophetic duties vs caliphate duties as administered by the Prophet?

Prophetic duties are those which Allah revealed to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

If Allah didn't reveal something to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم it means the matter is discretionary. Therefore, the Prophet's discretionary activity in that sphere is understood as him acting in a capacity other than his Prophetic capacity.

Consider the famous incident when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم commanded a specific strategy the army was to abide by in the preparation for the Battle of Ahzab.

Sayyidina Salman al-Farisi رضى الله عنه asked the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم whether that strategy was revealed to him (meaning it was in his Prophetic capacity) or it was based on his personal assessment (meaning in his capacity of administrator). The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم confirmed it was the latter case. Then sayyidina Salman counselled a different strategy (the digging of the trench), he would not have dared suggested an alternative strategy if the Prophet had commanded the original strategy in his capacity of being a Prophet, on the basis of divine revelation. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم therefore accepted Salman's advice and amended the original strategy accordingly

Quote

I didn't accuse you. I notified you of my suspicion.

You said I "confirmed" your suspicion, which is tantamount to an accusation. At any rate, I'm not going to argue on that, if you are not making an accusation, that's obviously better than merely expressing your suspicion (which is not grounded)

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

Conclusion: as a muslim if you escape Mecca, dont go to Medina/Muhammad to keep the Treaty intact.

What about "as a Muslim don't fight the Quraish to keep the Treaty intact"?

You have yet to reconcile this dilemma.

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

I have tonsay that the entire abu Jandal/Abu Basser issue and now this issue are red herrings to avoid the main topic of discussion because we have been slowly deconstructing your original post.

You are welcome to resume discussion on the main topic as you see fit. I've already made my point on the Treaty of Hudaybiyah and conclude decisively that it is a strong proof for my theory about two separate roles and jurisdictions of the Prophet - a Prophetic jurisdiction and a political jurisdiction

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

What about "as a Muslim don't fight the Quraish to keep the Treaty intact"?

You have yet to reconcile this dilemma.

If you can show proof that the Quraish accused the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) of violating the Treaty due to the actions of Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer - post escape, I will concede the point. But in the absence of such proof, my point stands.

But I suggest we table the discussion until I get to Medina. I am still in Mecca.

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

If you can show proof that the Quraish accused the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) of violating the Treaty due to the actions of Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer - post escape, I will concede the point. But in the absence of such proof, my point stands.

It's the other way around, according to your understanding, the Quraish should have accused the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم of violating the Treaty because his Muslims (Abu Basir, Abu Jandal) were attacking them. It shows that even the Quraish understood that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم concluded the Treaty of Hudaibiyah in his capacity of administrator and not Prophet, and that his political jurisdiction did not extend over Abu Basir and company رضى الله عنهم despite them being Muslims.

Quote

But I suggest we table the discussion until I get to Medina. I am still in Mecca.

Well, I'm waiting for you to resume that discussion and continue to "deconstruct" my original thesis. Once you do, I will do my best to respond and defend my theory

Quote

So are we in agreement that the Prophet had divine, political authority over the Muslims in Mecca?

He had divine authority in Mecca, not political authority

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

It's the other way around, according to your understanding, the Quraish should have accused the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم of violating the Treaty because his Muslims (Abu Basir, Abu Jandal) were attacking them. It shows that even the Quraish understood that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم concluded the Treaty of Hudaibiyah in his capacity of administrator and not Prophet, and that his political jurisdiction did not extend over Abu Basir and company رضى الله عنهم despite them being Muslims.

Okay, are we in agreement that the Quraish did not accuse the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) of violating the Treaty due to the actions of Abu Jandal / Abu Baseer?

19 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Well, I'm waiting for you to resume that discussion and continue to "deconstruct" my original thesis. Once you do, I will do my best to respond and defend my theory

Remember, I already agree with you that the Caliphate of Medina was a much lower office and different than that of Prophethood. That is not where out disagreement lies.

20 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

He had divine authority in Mecca, not political authority

Earlier you said the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) all authority over Muslims including political.

Changed your mind?

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

Okay, are we in agreement that the Quraish did not accuse the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) of violating the Treaty due to the actions of Abu Jandal / Abu Baseer?

Yes, we are in full agreement on this point

Quote

Remember, I already agree with you that the Caliphate of Medina was a much lower office and different than that of Prophethood. That is not where out disagreement lies.

Great, so you agree that the caliphate of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم in Medina was a different role to his Nubuwwah? Do you also agree he was elected to it by the Ansar رضوان الله عليهم and not divinely-appointed to it?

Quote

Earlier you said the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) all authority over Muslims including political.

Changed your mind?

My boy, we’ve been through this before. It’s exhausting to have to repeat my explanation so many times. Please note it carefully this time: The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم possesses supreme divine authority delegated to him by Allah over all spheres of human life. But this is not the same thing as occupying a formal office of political authority and actively discharging the functions of such an office.

Let me give the example of Prophet Yusuf عليه الصلاة والسلام to illustrate. Being a Prophet, he too had supreme, divinely-delegated authority over all spheres, but he asked the King of Egypt to specifically designate him to the formal office and portfolio of management of Egypt’s treasury (Surah 12:54-55), so he could practically manage its affairs with the might of temporal authority. Hope you understand now.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
8 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The former is an example of an order issued in his capacity of administrator, and the latter an example of an order issued in his capacity of Messenger of God.

As a Muslim this distinction is not relevant to me, because in either case obedience to the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) is mandatory. 

Quote

 

1. You say the promise of Khilafah fil-Ard is specific to Imam al-Mahdi عليه السلام

What about Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم? Was he granted Khilafah fil-Ard as promised in Ayat al-Istikhlaf?

 

The verse is referring to previous and future generations, so in this context the future khulafa are the aimmah (عليه السلام) or specifically Imam al Mahdi (عليه السلام). As for the khilafah during the time of revelation, indeed I believe it was granted to our holy prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

Quote

To me, that is speaking of humanity in general, and the collective Khilafah of mankind on the Earth, in the sense that we possess dominion on the Earth. 

If there are different levels of khilafah then indeed, there is this concept of man in general being a khalifah on earth. However, I believe this isn't the level of khilafah which is relevant to your discussion, since you are referring here to positions of leadership which go beyond the individual domain and cover entire societies or communities.

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

 

I had my suspicions which you have pretty much confirmed that you are a Jew/Christian pretending to be Sunni to stir fitna on ShiaChat.

That "ilham" turns out to be satanic waswaas. 

@Mahdavist - I have serious doubts about this person based on the quoted post.

This is a discussion board which is open to everyone. Clearly each person has their own views, ideas and beliefs.

Even if what you said was true (I don't believe it is, but that's irrelevant), it shouldn't have an impact on our discussion.

In general we should focus on what is being said rather than who is saying it (as per the famous saying attributed to Imam Ali (عليه السلام) )

I would therefore like to ask you to refrain from such comments and to stick to the discussion. 

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

As a Muslim this distinction is not relevant to me, because in either case obedience to the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) is mandatory. 

True, obedience to the Khalifah and to the Ulil-Amr is likewise mandatory - though conditional to such obedience not being contrary to the Shari'ah.

Quote

indeed I believe it was granted to our holy prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

Great, now I would like to ask you, if you examine Ayat al-Istikhlaf, do you agree that the Khilafah that is promised there is kasbi and not wahbi? In other words, Allah will grant Khilafah to Whom He wills of the Believers provided they fulfill certain conditions, like having true faith, performing good deeds, establishing the Salat, giving Zakat, worshiping Allah alone and not falling into Shirk?

If your answer is yes, it is kasbi, do you agree that Prophet Muhammad's Khilafah fil-Ard was kasbi?

Quote

If there are different levels of khilafah then indeed, there is this concept of man in general being a khalifah on earth. However, I believe this isn't the level of khilafah which is relevant to your discussion, since you are referring here to positions of leadership which go beyond the individual domain and cover entire societies or communities.

I only brought this up because you said:

Quote

 we are not taking the khilafah fil ardh to necessarily be a political position (after all, Adam (عليه السلام) was also a khaleefatullah fil ardh). 

I wanted to explain my view that Khilafah fil-Ard means some sort of dominion in the land, whether political, de facto political, social influence due to personal charisma. Therefore, I would not say someone is Khalifah fil-Ard if that individual is isolated, has no political dominion and no considerable following with a great degree of influence among them.

Because you gave the example of Adam as a Khalifah fil-Ard who didn't have political dominion, I needed to explain about the reality of Adam being Khalifah, which I suppose you more or less agree with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
4 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

True, obedience to the Khalifah and to the Ulil-Amr is likewise mandatory - though conditional to such obedience not being contrary to the Shari'ah.

It's not about the khulafa or the ulil amr, and it's not conditional in this case. This is specifically about the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) to whom Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has repeatedly commanded obedience in the Qur'an without conditions, roles, caveats or anything of the sort.

7 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

 

If your answer is yes, it is kasbi, do you agree that Prophet Muhammad's Khilafah fil-Ard was kasbi?

Not necessarily, unless we are saying that this one verse is the one and only indicator of his khilafa. In general his prophethood is wahbi, and for the muslimeen therein lies his authority. At that point obedience to him ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) becomes mandatory regardless of any other position or title. 

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

You are welcome to resume discussion on the main topic as you see fit. I've already made my point on the Treaty of Hudaybiyah and conclude decisively that it is a strong proof for my theory about two separate roles and jurisdictions of the Prophet - a Prophetic jurisdiction and a political jurisdiction

We ask a simple question to those who are denying the political authority of our prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) over the believers, that "Please quote a verse of Quran to verify and confirm the exclusion of the political authority of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) from ALL the  matters (as falsely quoted /assumed in your claim) while the believers are to obey  him in All matters.

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muslim2010 said:

We ask a simple question to those who are denying the political authority of our prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) over the believers

Another straw man. Who is denying the political authority of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم over the Believers?

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

Another straw man. Who is denying the political authority of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم over the Believers?

How would  you confirm the distinction  among the two by denying the political authority from All the other matters? Any evidcne from quran?

We do not take religion based on historical conjectures   but verses of quran..

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

Not necessarily, unless we are saying that this one verse is the one and only indicator of his khilafa. In general his prophethood is wahbi, and for the muslimeen therein lies his authority. At that point obedience to him ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) becomes mandatory regardless of any other position or title. 

Now are you saying that the Prophet’s Khilafat fil-Ard is intrinsic to his Nubuwwah? If yes, does that mean the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possessed Khilafat fil-Ard the instant he became a Prophet? For example, was he a Khalifah fil-Ard when he emerged from the blessed Cave of Hira having just experienced his first Quranic revelation, without even a single follower yet? And even if we fastforward a little to when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was commanded to announce his Risalah to the people, he had only a handful of followers and most of Mecca had rejected him, would you characterize him as Khalifah fil-Ard at that point too?

The issue is not obedience. I don’t deny that obedience was necessary to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم the moment he became a Prophet. I am arguing that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم acquired Khilafah fil-Ard subsequent to his acquisition of Nubuwwah, not simultaneous to it. I am also arguing that Khilafah fil-Ard is kasbi, as per the teaching of Ayat al-Istikhlaf. You have at least agreed that the Khilafah of Ayat al-Istikhlaf is Kasbi, and that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was a Khalifah as per Ayat al-Istikhlaf, but you say there may be other Ayaat of the Quran which indicate his Khilafah was wahbi.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/4/2020 at 4:03 PM, Cherub786 said:

This is why I'd rather discuss with @Mahdavist and @ShiaMan14 at least they are engaging me and addressing the evidence, unlike the rest of your guys

 

On 9/4/2020 at 4:10 PM, Cherub786 said:

But I suggest you leave this discussion for @Mahdavist and @ShiaMan14

They are doing a lot better job in engaging with my argument, which they have at least comprehended and are attempting to deconstruct

500_F_162914687_tcZNv8EkP7GrzQEU5kyUohmz

 

The Cat has been kept inside the box.

:hahaha:   :party:

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
23 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم intended to have Messenger of God next to his name for a descriptive purpose, to identify who he is. It does not mean conducting this treaty was a function of his Risalah. That is why he was ultimately amenable to having it erased and replaced with "Son of Abd Allah". The function of Risalah is to convey the Message of God to the people, not to make treaties of a purely political nature

The sentence quoted  is out of context, it is for those who turn away from the obedience of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and for the polytheists.

But if they turn back then upon you is only to convey. 3:20

And obey Allah and obey the Messenger and beware. And if you turn away – then know that upon Our Messenger is to convey clearly.5:92

And those who associate others with Allah say, "If Allah had willed, we would not have worshipped anything other than Him, neither we nor our fathers, nor would we have forbidden anything through other than Him." Thus did those do before them. So is there upon the messengers except to convey? 16:35

But if ye deny, then nations have denied before you. Then upon  messenger is only to convey clearly.29:18

But if they turn aside, We have not sent you over them as care taker ; on you is only to convey;42:48

 When prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) called you he is calling you as messenger (8:24)

When prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) give you something he is giving you as a messenger (59:7)

Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Mu'alla:

While I was praying, the Prophet () called me but I did not respond to his call. Later I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I was praying." He said, "Didn't Allah say: 'O you who believe! Give your response to Allah (by obeying Him) and to His Apostle when he calls you'?" (8.24) " Sahih al-Bukhari 5006

 Role of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)  as a care taker (hafiz)  and   manager (wakil) was denied for those  who turn aside from him and polytheists.

But if Allah had willed, they would not have associated. And We have not appointed you over them as a care taker , nor are you a manager over them.6:107

And if you obey him you will be guided. 24:54

Thus if you obey the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) he is guide, care taker & manager for you, that means he was the wali (incharge of the affairs) of the believers.

In the capacity of above role assigned by Allah to his messenger  he concluded the peace treaty

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
9 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Now are you saying that the Prophet’s Khilafat fil-Ard is intrinsic to his Nubuwwah? If yes, does that mean the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possessed Khilafat fil-Ard the instant he became a Prophet?

I would say so yes, and this would apply to every prophet sent by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

If we are assuming that there is a khilafah seperate from prophethood, then who has authority over whom? Does the prophet have authority over the khalifa or is it the other way around? 

I would say it is the prophet who has authority, in which case is the khalifa still a khalifa at all? 

Logic dictates that the prophet is also the khalifatullah. Otherwise you end up with a situation where you have two different representatives of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

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

He had divine authority in Mecca, not political authority

 

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

Another straw man. Who is denying the political authority of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم over the Believers?

Well, you are.

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

My boy, we’ve been through this before. It’s exhausting to have to repeat my explanation so many times. Please note it carefully this time: The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم possesses supreme divine authority delegated to him by Allah over all spheres of human life. But this is not the same thing as occupying a formal office of political authority and actively discharging the functions of such an office.

But I never said anything about a formal office. You keep bringing it up. I am still in Mecca.

So now are we agreement that pre-hijra, while in Mecca, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) possessed full divine authority over all believers including political authority despite not holding a formal political office?

 

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

I would say so yes, and this would apply to every prophet sent by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

You seem to be suggesting that Khilafat fil-Ard is necessary in order for an individual to be متبوع and مطوع required to follow and obey. I agree that one who is a Nabi in his essence possesses the divine authority that requires obedience and following.

Khilafah fil-Ard is something else. It is the quality of someone who has dominion, the ability to exercise power practically. In the Quran, the term tamkin is used both in Ayat al-Istikhlaf and to describe the condition of Prophet Joseph عليه السلام after he acquired temporal authority in the Egyptian government:

وَ کَذٰلِکَ مَکَّنَّا لِیُوۡسُفَ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ ۚ

And thus did We establish Joseph in the land

(12:56)

So Khilafat fil-Ard is associated with tamkin, with establishment in the land, and should not be confused with the right of political authority. An individual may possess the right of political authority, but may not possess Khilafat fil-Ard, which is the practical establishment of that authority. Therefore, it is strange for you to say that Khilafat fil-Ard is intrinsic to Nubuwwah, and that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was Khalifat fil-Ard the instant he became a Prophet.

Quote

If we are assuming that there is a khilafah seperate from prophethood, then who has authority over whom? Does the prophet have authority over the khalifa or is it the other way around? 

I would say it is the prophet who has authority, in which case is the khalifa still a khalifa at all? 

Logic dictates that the prophet is also the khalifatullah. Otherwise you end up with a situation where you have two different representatives of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

Take the example of Prophet Samuel عليه السلام and Talut (Saul) عليه السلام. The latter was granted Mulk while the former was not, but the former, being a Prophet, possessed ultimate divine authority in the human realm by virtue of being a Prophet, the spokesman of God Himself. But practical authority to exercise that power was vested in the non-Prophet, King Saul. In other words, here was a scenario where the Prophet Samuel possessed Nubuwwah but not Khilafat fil-Ard, and the King Saul possessed Khilafat fil-Ard and not Nubuwwah.

According to my thesis, Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was appointed to Nubuwwah at the Cave of Hira, and he subsequently acquired Khilafat fil-Ard, the practical power to exercise and implement political authority in the land, upon migration to Medina some thirteen years later. Therefore, these are separate things which can be combined in a single person, which only means that person possesses two separate offices.

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

Yes, we are in full agreement on this point

Okay, Quraish did not complain about treaty violations when AJ and AB stayed away from the Prophet and both of them were returned to Meccans when they came to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

 Then obviously the Treaty was binding on AB+AJ meaning they had to abide by the rules. Staying away from Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was within the rules.

Moreover, the Quraish actual modified the Treaty to permit anyone escaping Mecca to be with Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) so that Abu Baseer would stop raiding their caravans and go to Medina.

Question: was the Treaty of Hudaibiya conducted by Muhammad - Caliph of Medina or Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Divine political treaty or administrative treaty?

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

So now are we agreement that pre-hijra, while in Mecca, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) possessed full divine authority over all believers including political authority despite not holding a formal political office?

Yes, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has divine authority over all matters, but that authority was potential and theoretical, it could not be actualized without tamkin (establishment) and political power to execute and implement the authority.

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

Okay, Quraish did not complain about treaty violations when AJ and AB stayed away from the Prophet and both of them were returned to Meccans when they came to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

 Then obviously the Treaty was binding on AB+AJ meaning they had to abide by the rules. Staying away from Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was within the rules.

If the Treaty was binding on them, why did they flagrantly violate it by attacking the Quraish, raiding their caravans? You have only two choices; 1. they were violating the Treaty, in which case they were disobeying the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and challenging his political authority, or 2. the Treaty didn’t apply to them and so they need not be bound by its terms

You cannot argue that the Treaty applied to them and they complied with it fully, and that their act of raiding the Quraish caravans was not a violation of the Treaty.

Quote

Moreover, the Quraish actual modified the Treaty to permit anyone escaping Mecca to be with Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) so that Abu Baseer would stop raiding their caravans and go to Medina.

What’s your point?

Quote

Question: was the Treaty of Hudaibiya conducted by Muhammad - Caliph of Medina or Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? Divine political treaty or administrative treaty?

The Treaty was negotiated by Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم in his capacity of administrator of a political entity, not in his capacity of Prophet and Messenger. Therefore it was an administrative treaty and not a divine treaty. If it was a divine treaty it would have been revealed by Allah Himself, not the product of negotiation with the unbelievers, and it would have been binding on all the Believers, including Abu Basir, Abu Jandal and the others of their camp رضى الله عنهم

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...