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

And [mention] when Abraham was raising the foundations of the House and [with him] Ishmael, [saying], "Our Lord, accept [this] from us. Indeed You are the Hearing, the Knowing.
 

Our Lord, and make us Muslims [in submission] to You and from our descendants a Muslim nation [in submission] to You. And show us our rites and accept our repentance. Indeed, You are the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.
 

Our Lord, and send among them a messenger from themselves who will recite to them Your verses and teach them the Book and wisdom and purify them. Indeed, You are the Exalted in Might, the Wise."

 

The Qur’an states the Prophet Mohammed was chosen by the dua of Prophet Ibrahim.

surah al Baqarah 127/129

 

Tafsir of ibn Kathir

Our Lord! Send amongst them a Messenger of their own) (2: 129). 

Allah accepted Ibrahim's supplication, although He had full knowledge beforehand that it will occur by His decree. To further elaborate on this subject, we should mention the Hadith about what the Messenger of Allah said when he was asked, "O Messenger of Allah! Tell us about how your prophethood started.'' He said, 

 

«دَعْوَةُ أَبِي إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ، وَبُشْرَى عِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ، وَرَأَتْ أُمِّي كَأَنَّهُ خَرَجَ مِنْهَا نُورٌ أَضَاءَتْ لَهُ قُصُورُ الشَّام»

 

(I am the supplication of my father Ibrahim, the good news of Jesus, the son of Mary, and my mother saw a light that radiated from her which illuminated the castles of Ash-Sham (Syria).) 

In this Hadith, the Companions asked the Messenger about the beginning of his prophethood. We will explain this matter later, if Allah wills.

Seems like a divinely appointment to me.

Edited by Labbayka
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

  • Moderators
3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

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.

It's not so much a necessity, but the authority of a prophet is such that I cannot see an argument for an independent khilafah. Obeying a prophet is ultimately the obedience of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) Himself because He has sent the ambiya (عليه السلام) with a role, a message and a task which requires our utmost obedience. 

The only context in which we can imagine a khalifah other than a prophet is a context in which a prophet is not present (either locally, such as the case of Musa (عليه السلام) and Haroon (عليه السلام) or globally such as the departure of the holy prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)))

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

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.

It's an interesting example because indeed Talut was designated and sent as a King over the Israelites. But the authority of Samuel was of course superior, because it was Samuel who conveyed this command and defended it when it was challenged. So between the two, the khalifatullah would be Samuel rather than Talut since it is the former who is the representative of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and who is conveying His command. 

Quote

Therefore, these are separate things which can be combined in a single person, which only means that person possesses two separate offices.

Then we agree that the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had these roles, even if the timeline may differ. However, if I understand correctly you are now saying that both were divine appointments? Was your original argument not that only nubuwwah is divinely granted, and political leadership (which itself can differ from khilafah fil ardh) is a matter of consultation? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

It's not so much a necessity, but the authority of a prophet is such that I cannot see an argument for an independent khilafah. Obeying a prophet is ultimately the obedience of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) Himself because He has sent the ambiya (عليه السلام) with a role, a message and a task which requires our utmost obedience. 

The only context in which we can imagine a khalifah other than a prophet is a context in which a prophet is not present (either locally, such as the case of Musa (عليه السلام) and Haroon (عليه السلام) or globally such as the departure of the holy prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)))

It's an interesting example because indeed Talut was designated and sent as a King over the Israelites. But the authority of Samuel was of course superior, because it was Samuel who conveyed this command and defended it when it was challenged. So between the two, the khalifatullah would be Samuel rather than Talut since it is the former who is the representative of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and who is conveying His command. 

I make a distinction between types of Khilafah. The Khilafat fil-Ard spoken of in Ayat al-Istikhlaf clearly refers to dominion, establishment (tamkin) and power in the land, and not simply theoretical authority, even if that theoretical authority is divine and supreme. So it is evident that Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم did not possess Khilafat al-Ard during the Meccan phase. Furthermore, Khilafat fil-Ard is kasbi as per Ayat al-Istikhlaf

Quote

Then we agree that the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had these roles, even if the timeline may differ. However, if I understand correctly you are now saying that both were divine appointments? Was your original argument not that only nubuwwah is divinely granted, and political leadership (which itself can differ from khilafah fil ardh) is a matter of consultation? 

No sir, in the case of our Prophet صلوات الله والسلام عليه Khilafat fil-Ard was not divinely appointed for him. Yes, it was ordained for him in the Takwini sense, but that is true for all rulers, good or bad. Our Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله obtained Khilafat fil-Ard by means of the people of Medina who invited him to assume a position of political authority among them, which then gradually expanded to cover all Arabia.

In the case of Talut, however, Mulk was divinely ordained for him. Prophet Samuel عليه السلام did not occupy an active role of leadership and rule among Bani Israel, but being a Prophet, he could potentially overrule the rulers and kings, including Talut, if the need ever arose. But his authority did not have the backing of power and force, unlike Talut’s, therefore, in the sight of Allah, his authority is higher, and the Believers ought to respect that and obey it willingly. That the nation did not always obey their Prophets is another story.

A good example of this kind of set up (Prophet Samuel and Talut) is Shaikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab being the religious leader, and King Muhammad bin Saud being the king and ruler of the Arabs. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab did not possess any office of political authority, but he was regarded as Imam and a religious authority, who worked in tandem with Ibn Saud the king. Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his descendants could potentially or theoretically overrule the Saudi kings if they transgressed in the religious matters. That has been the traditional structure of the Saudis till this day, though gradually the religious leadership (Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's descendants including the current Grand Mufti) has been sidelined and lost much of its independence.

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

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.

What’s your point?

They abided by all the clauses of the Treaty. First escape, they were returned.

Second time, they didn't go to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) so couldn't be returned - abided by the Treaty.

Treaty had no clause that no Muslim would attack Meccans just that Muhammad wouldn't. Once again, AB and AJ were within their right to attack AND not break the treaty.

My point about Quraish renegotiating the contract is they realised the loophole they had left in the Treaty and had to fix it. Loophole being Muslims who escaped but didn't go to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Abiding to a Treaty and it being applicable are different.

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Labbayka said:

Seems like a divinely appointment to me.

Of course, the Prophet’s Nubuwwah was a divine appointment. Who is saying otherwise? It goes without saying all Prophets are divinely appointed in their office of Prophesy.

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

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

Once again you are in dangerous grounds like Caliph Umar in doubting the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) during the signing of the Treaty AND completely wrong.

Umar doubted the Treaty because he thought Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was negotiating/signing it. When Umar confronted the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), he told Umar, "I am God's servant and messenger. I will never disobey His command and He will not allow me to perish".

Clearly Hudaibiya was signed by the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) under divine guidance and not by Caliph Muhammad as you claim.

FYI - Umar fasted, gave alms, prayed and freed slaves the rest of his life as penance.

This is the dangerous ground you tread upon when you try to distinguish the Prophet's actions based on your knowledge. Trust and rely on the Ahlul-Bayt.

Do we need to continue this thread any further?

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

I make a distinction between types of Khilafah

Ok, perhaps you can state the different types at some stage. There are a few occurrences of khilafa in the Qur'an, I would say that each time it is written (in fact revealed) in a way which implies divine appointment rather than the decisions of men.

I have also read the remainder of your post, but it will become more relevant after we have discussed the above (ie are there any instances of khilafa being granted by the people in the Qur'an, is there a difference between the divinely granted khilafa and the one determined by fallible men, which are the kinds of khilafa etc)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
10 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

This is the dangerous ground you tread upon when you try to distinguish the Prophet's actions based on your knowledge. Trust and rely on the Ahlul-Bayt.

I agree that this distinction between nabi, negotiator, commander, etc is firstly not relevant to a muslim because we obey the prophet unconditionally and completely (or at least attempt to), and I also agree that trying to differentiate this in the context of obedience is dangerous for us as muslimeen because it opens the door to all sorts of deviation. 

I originally assumed that the intention of this topic was to propose a Barelvi-esque answer to the question of khilafah by claiming that the caliphs were political leaders and the aimmah (عليه السلام) spiritual (although this only works if you then take your madhab from the ahlulbayt, which they don't do), but it seems to be going in another direction. 

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

Once again you are in dangerous grounds like Caliph Umar in doubting the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) during the signing of the Treaty AND completely wrong.

How did I “doubt” the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم about the Treaty of Hudaibiyah? The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was clearly right and extremely wise in agreeing to that Treaty, it demonstrated his genius and foresight. Of course, that’s easy for me to say in hindsight. The genius of this Treaty is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم took advantage of the fact that his political jurisdiction did not extend over the Muslims of Mecca, therefore, some Muslims could continue to fight the Quraish and therefore weaken them, while the main body of Muslims in Medina would remain safe from the Quraish and use the time to deal with other pressing matters and fortify their military strength and position. It proves that the Prophet’s political jurisdiction was separate from his Prophetic jurisdiction.

Quote

Clearly Hudaibiya was signed by the Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) under divine guidance and not by Caliph Muhammad as you claim.

He صلى الله عليه وسلم may have been divinely inspired to sign the Treaty (certainly that is a strong possibility), but the Treaty was not divinely revealed by Allah, it was a product of negotiation with Suhail bin Amr, who was an unbeliever at the time, representing the pagan Quraish. It was he who proposed the conditions like the clause about anyone going to the Prophet who is under custody of Quraish without their permission must be returned. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم didn’t propose that condition, he only accepted it, perhaps under divine guidance as it would later prove to be to his advantage.

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

Treaty had no clause that no Muslim would attack Meccans just that Muhammad wouldn't. Once again, AB and AJ were within their right to attack AND not break the treaty.

Ironically, and inadvertently, you’re making my argument for me. You acknowledge that in the Treaty, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is not to attack the Quraish, but this doesn’t apply to all the Muslims. So you have indirectly acknowledged the fact that in the Treaty, the party designated “Muhammad” صلى الله عليه وسلم does not represent all the Muslims.

Consider this carefully. If Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم signed the Treaty in his capacity of Messenger of God, then the party designated under his blessed name would necessarily include all the Muslims without exception. All Muslims would be bound by the terms of the Treaty which the party designated “Muhammad” agreed to. It’s really quite straightforward, it seems as though you are deliberately and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the simple fact.

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

I agree that this distinction between nabi, negotiator, commander, etc is firstly not relevant to a muslim because we obey the prophet unconditionally and completely (or at least attempt to), and I also agree that trying to differentiate this in the context of obedience is dangerous for us as muslimeen because it opens the door to all sorts of deviation. 

I originally assumed that the intention of this topic was to propose a Barelvi-esque answer to the question of khilafah by claiming that the caliphs were political leaders and the aimmah (عليه السلام) spiritual (although this only works if you then take your madhab from the ahlulbayt, which they don't do), but it seems to be going in another direction. 

This was my alert message to you.

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

How did I “doubt” the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم about the Treaty of Hudaibiyah? The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was clearly right and extremely wise in agreeing to that Treaty, it demonstrated his genius and foresight. Of course, that’s easy for me to say in hindsight. The genius of this Treaty is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم took advantage of the fact that his political jurisdiction did not extend over the Muslims of Mecca, therefore, some Muslims could continue to fight the Quraish and therefore weaken them, while the main body of Muslims in Medina would remain safe from the Quraish and use the time to deal with other pressing matters and fortify their military strength and position. It proves that the Prophet’s political jurisdiction was separate from his Prophetic jurisdiction.

He صلى الله عليه وسلم may have been divinely inspired to sign the Treaty (certainly that is a strong possibility), but the Treaty was not divinely revealed by Allah, it was a product of negotiation with Suhail bin Amr, who was an unbeliever at the time, representing the pagan Quraish. It was he who proposed the conditions like the clause about anyone going to the Prophet who is under custody of Quraish without their permission must be returned. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم didn’t propose that condition, he only accepted it, perhaps under divine guidance as it would later prove to be to his advantage.

The doubt is whether the Treaty was signed as a low level caliph or as the Prophet of Allah aka Rasoolallah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

I provided you the exact words of the Prophet and you still have doubts as evident by your use of the word "may have".

I have to say your attitude is that of the ignorant that you would rather save your own face and make false claims against the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) than acknowledge you made a grave mistake.

 

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

Ironically, and inadvertently, you’re making my argument for me. You acknowledge that in the Treaty, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is not to attack the Quraish, but this doesn’t apply to all the Muslims. So you have indirectly acknowledged the fact that in the Treaty, the party designated “Muhammad” صلى الله عليه وسلم does not represent all the Muslims.

Consider this carefully. If Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم signed the Treaty in his capacity of Messenger of God, then the party designated under his blessed name would necessarily include all the Muslims without exception. All Muslims would be bound by the terms of the Treaty which the party designated “Muhammad” agreed to. It’s really quite straightforward, it seems as though you are deliberately and stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the simple fact.

You really have no business discussing Treaty of Hudaibiya since Caliph .uham.ad made the Treaty according to you and not Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

The difference between you and me is that I am steadfast in my faith so I don't have to keep switching positions.

Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer were returned to Mecca on their first escape so clearly they were under the Treaty.

The second time they simply didn't go to Medina. Biggest thing in my favor is that the Quraish came to the Prophet (saw ) to renegotiate the contract and call Abu Baseer back to Medina.

I am truly disappointed in you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Ok, perhaps you can state the different types at some stage. There are a few occurrences of khilafa in the Qur'an, I would say that each time it is written (in fact revealed) in a way which implies divine appointment rather than the decisions of men.

I have also read the remainder of your post, but it will become more relevant after we have discussed the above (ie are there any instances of khilafa being granted by the people in the Qur'an, is there a difference between the divinely granted khilafa and the one determined by fallible men, which are the kinds of khilafa etc)

Khilafat fil-Ard, as described in Ayat al-Istikhlaf, which is the most relevant Ayah concerning the granting of Khilafah for this Ummah, describes it as being Kasabi, that is, attained in exchange for collective effort on the part of the Believers who strive to have true faith, do good deeds, worship Allah alone, not fall into Shirk, establish the Salat, give the Zakat, and obey the Apostle صلى الله عليه وسلم

In summary, seven conditions are laid out in Surah 24:55-56 as part of Allah’s Covenant with this Ummah to grant us Khilafat fil-Ard. This is the type of Khilafah that is relevant to our discussion on the political office which was assumed by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم at the invitation of the Ansar.

I believe that this Khilafah is ultimately a gift and blessing of Allah, but it can come about through human means, as it came about for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم through the wasilah of the people of Medina, and it came about for the Rightly-Guided Caliphs thereafter through asbab of consultation and election by humans. This does not negate the fact that ultimately it is Allah Who grants Khilafat fil-Ard in recompense for the fulfillment of those seven conditions.

However, to claim that an individual, however pious and great he may be in his personal merits, possesses Khilafat fil-Ard despite not having any actual executive authority in the land (rightfully or wrongfully) makes no sense.

If you saw a beggar on the street claiming he was the king of the country, would you take his claim seriously. He may be deserving of the title “king” due to his personal merits, as opposed to the actual king sitting on the throne who isn’t worthy of his crown, nevertheless, we understand kingship as meaning someone who possesses actual dominion and occupies the throne, wearing the crown. The same is the case with Khilafat fil-Ard, unless you can show me an example where Allah declared someone a Khalifah in the Earth without that individual possessing the least bit of political dominion and practically exercising the authority associated with Khilafah.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Abu Jandal and Abu Baseer were returned to Mecca on their first escape so clearly they were under the Treaty.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I am the landlord and you are a tenant in my house. I tell you I will allow you to stay in my house on two conditions: 1. you give me rent every month and 2. you are not allowed to have any visitors in the house

In this agreement there are two parties, you and me. There is no third party, there isn’t even a third individual who is bound by this agreement.

Only you and me are bound by this agreement, I am bound to let you stay in my house and you are bound to give me rent every month and not have any visitors. If these terms are violated than the agreement is violated. So far so good?

Now let’s say one of your friends calls you and says he’s coming over to visit you at the house. Your friend is not a party to the agreement, he is not bound by its terms.

When he shows up at your door, you will not let him enter into the house. You will use your own authority as a resident of the house to deny him entry, you will not use the agreement with me as the authority to deny him entry.

This is a simple legal concept. Your friend is bound by your authority as resident of the house and has to leave. He does not even know about the agreement nor does he have to in order for you to deny him entry.

The same is the case with Abu Jandal and Abu Basir رضى الله عنهما, they were forced to return to Mecca on the grounds that they were under the custody of the Quraish. They did not return because they were subject to the Treaty which they were not a party to. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم being a party to the Treaty was bound to extradite anyone who came to him who was under Quraish custody and did not have permission of the Quraish to leave them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems we have reached an impasse in the discussion. I propose a simple step to help the discussion continue to flow constructively.

@Mahdavist @ShiaMan14

In my thesis I laid out my simple theory of succession:

Premise #1: the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was invited by the Ansar and not divinely-appointed to occupy the office of political authority among them, which he accepted

Premise #2: When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم died it was this office of political authority he vacated and not the office of his Prophesy, which is sealed after him

Conclusion: Whoever succeeded the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his office of political authority was therefore not meant to be divinely appointed, as the Prophet wasn’t, and could not succeed to the Prophet’s Prophesy which was sealed, but only wield those powers which the Prophet wielded as a political authority.

Now I invite your side to present a counter narrative which explains your theory in direct response to what I have just outlined. This will help me understand where your side is coming from precisely and will open new avenues for discussion on the points which are different regarding the basic structure of the succession argument.

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

Let me give you an example. Suppose I am the landlord and you are a tenant in my house. I tell you I will allow you to stay in my house on two conditions: 1. you give me rent every month and 2. you are not allowed to have any visitors in the house

In this agreement there are two parties, you and me. There is no third party, there isn’t even a third individual who is bound by this agreement.

Only you and me are bound by this agreement, I am bound to let you stay in my house and you are bound to give me rent every month and not have any visitors. If these terms are violated than the agreement is violated. So far so good?

Now let’s say one of your friends calls you and says he’s coming over to visit you at the house. Your friend is not a party to the agreement, he is not bound by its terms.

When he shows up at your door, you will not let him enter into the house. You will use your own authority as a resident of the house to deny him entry, you will not use the agreement with me as the authority to deny him entry.

This is a simple legal concept. Your friend is bound by your authority as resident of the house and has to leave. He does not even know about the agreement nor does he have to in order for you to deny him entry.

The same is the case with Abu Jandal and Abu Basir رضى الله عنهما, they were forced to return to Mecca on the grounds that they were under the custody of the Quraish. They did not return because they were subject to the Treaty which they were not a party to. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم being a party to the Treaty was bound to extradite anyone who came to him who was under Quraish custody and did not have permission of the Quraish to leave them.

You are trying to win an argument you have already lost and more importantly do not understand. Even your analogy is wrong.

Here is a more appropriate analogy:

Company Q and Company M have an agreement that any employee that attempts to go from Company Q to Company M will be returned to Company Q. Any employee going from Company M to Company Q is permitted to do so.

Employee J went to Company M from Company Q and was returned to Company Q. Same thing happened to Employee B.

Then both employees left Company Q but didn't go to Company M. Thus they were not required to go back to Company Q.

Company Q realised there was a loohole in the contract with Company M so they renegotiated the contract to permit employees to go from Company Q to Company M.

BTW, the CEO of Company M made a divine contract.

 

 

 

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

It seems we have reached an impasse in the discussion. I propose a simple step to help the discussion continue to flow constructively.

@Mahdavist @ShiaMan14

 

The impasse is due to your lack of understanding and stubbornness in acknowledging your were wrong about Hudaibiya. I am dropping that topic as there is nothing to discuss.

Moving on...

 

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

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.

I want to start from here.

All divine authority the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) possessed included political authority regardless of whether he had means to execute on it or not.

 Can we move on from this point forward?

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

You are trying to win an argument you have already lost and more importantly do not understand. Even your analogy is wrong.

Here is a more appropriate analogy:

Company Q and Company M have an agreement that any employee that attempts to go from Company Q to Company M will be returned to Company Q. Any employee going from Company M to Company Q is permitted to do so.

Employee J went to Company M from Company Q and was returned to Company Q. Same thing happened to Employee B.

Then both employees left Company Q but didn't go to Company M. Thus they were not required to go back to Company Q.

Company Q realised there was a loohole in the contract with Company M so they renegotiated the contract to permit employees to go from Company Q to Company M.

BTW, the CEO of Company M made a divine contract.

What kind of foolish analogy is this? How did Company Q fix the so-called “loophole” when employees are free to leave Company Q either way?

Company Q was suffering because employees were leaving the company, so it decided to fix the problem by allowing them to go to Company M, the result is still the same, Company Q didn’t fix the problem of its employees leaving. The only way Company Q can fix that problem if it makes a new agreement with the government which mandates that employees cannot leave their company!

I think you’re getting desperate to win an argument but there’s just no way my friend.

The Treaty of Hudaibiyah was basically an extradition agreement between the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and Quraish. In an extradition agreement, fugitives who are required to be extradited by parties in the agreement are not themselves parties in the agreement. It’s an extremely simple concept, if you don’t believe me, ask any lawyer or expert on legal contracts, he’ll break it down for you. Heck, you can even go ahead and ask @Mahdavist I’m sure he will agree with me on this particular point that fugitives themselves are not a party in an extradition agreement, and that when a fugitive is extradited, the fugitive is not “abiding” by the agreement, he has no choice in the matter.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I want to start from here.

All divine authority the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) possessed included political authority regardless of whether he had means to execute on it or not.

 Can we move on from this point forward?

Yes, I’ve acknowledged this several times already, you keep saying “now let’s move on” but then you never move on. I’m waiting for you to move on and make your next point.

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

Yes, I’ve acknowledged this several times already, you keep saying “now let’s move on” but then you never move on. I’m waiting for you to move on and make your next point.

I have had to re-confirm several times because you keep changing your statements. Hopefully now you will stick to it.

Lets discuss Khazraj & Aws now. It seems to me they had 2-3 interactions with the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Can you please summarize them?

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

I have had to re-confirm several times because you keep changing your statements. Hopefully now you will stick to it.

Lets discuss Khazraj & Aws now. It seems to me they had 2-3 interactions with the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Can you please summarize them?

No sir, with much respect, I would like you to make your next point. For now I rest my case.

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

What kind of foolish analogy is this? How did Company Q fix the so-called “loophole” when employees are free to leave Company Q either way?

Company Q was suffering because employees were leaving the company, so it decided to fix the problem by allowing them to go to Company M, the result is still the same, Company Q didn’t fix the problem of its employees leaving. The only way Company Q can fix that problem if it makes a new agreement with the government which mandates that employees cannot leave their company!

I think you’re getting desperate to win an argument but there’s just no way my friend.

The Treaty of Hudaibiyah was basically an extradition agreement between the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and Quraish. In an extradition agreement, fugitives who are required to be extradited by parties in the agreement are not themselves parties in the agreement. It’s an extremely simple concept, if you don’t believe me, ask any lawyer or expert on legal contracts, he’ll break it down for you. Heck, you can even go ahead and ask @Mahdavist I’m sure he will agree with me on this particular point that fugitives themselves are not a party in an extradition agreement, and that when a fugitive is extradited, the fugitive is not “abiding” by the agreement, he has no choice in the matter.

Cherry - there is nothing to discuss on Hudaibiya other than repentance. Even the likes of Caliph Umar repented the rest of his life by fasting, praying and giving alms for thinking it was Muhammad the administrator and not Rasoolallah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who agreed to the Treaty.

You should learn from him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Just now, Cherub786 said:

No sir, with much respect, I would like you to make your next point. For now I rest my case.

I need to understand Khazraj+Aws dynamics with the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ShiaMan14 said:

Cherry - there is nothing to discuss on Hudaibiya other than repentance. Even the likes of Caliph Umar repented the rest of his life by fasting, praying and giving alms for thinking it was Muhammad the administrator and not Rasoolallah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) who agreed to the Treaty.

You should learn from him.

I’m not sure what the source is for this claim of yours. It is, of course, irrelevant to our discussion. Sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه did not understand the initial wisdom behind the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, as did some other Sahabah رضى الله عنهم. On the surface, it does seem that the conditions were not favorable for the Muslims, nevertheless, sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه accepted the Prophet’s decision. Questioning a Prophet’s decision because you don’t understand it is not disobedience in the slightest. Even the Angels questioned Allah when He decided to choose Adam. Questioning is one thing, disregarding and rebelling is quite another.

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

I’m not sure what the source is for this claim of yours. It is, of course, irrelevant to our discussion. Sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه did not understand the initial wisdom behind the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, as did some other Sahabah رضى الله عنهم. On the surface, it does seem that the conditions were not favorable for the Muslims, nevertheless, sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه accepted the Prophet’s decision. Questioning a Prophet’s decision because you don’t understand it is not disobedience in the slightest. Even the Angels questioned Allah when He decided to choose Adam. Questioning is one thing, disregarding and rebelling is quite another.

He didn't just question the decision of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). He questioned the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) itself.

This is pretty common information.

Regardless, you echoed similar sentiments as Caliph Umar and I am simply informing you of the penance he paid.

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

He didn't just question the decision of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). He questioned the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) itself.

This is pretty common information.

Nevertheless, I would like to see the source of this so-called “common information”

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

Nevertheless, I would like to see the source of this so-called “common information”

Can I provide this source once we are done with the primary topic?

Can you summarize the interaction between Khazraj + Aws or should I? I am simply not as eloquent as you.

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

Can I provide this source once we are done with the primary topic?

As you wish

Quote

Can you summarize the interaction between Khazraj + Aws or should I? I am simply not as eloquent as you.

You ought to summarize it, especially if it is the basis for a point you want to make in this discussion.

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

This was my alert message to you.

It's not really an alert to me though, is it? It's something for @Cherub786 to evaluate and reconsider. The role of the moderators isn't to monitor the beliefs of the members, but to ensure that rules are being followed (firstly) and to maintain some sort of structure to the overall forum (right thread in right section, off topic posts, derailed threads etc)

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

It's not really an alert to me though, is it? It's something for @Cherub786 to evaluate and reconsider. The role of the moderators isn't to monitor the beliefs of the members, but to ensure that rules are being followed (firstly) and to maintain some sort of structure to the overall forum (right thread in right section, off topic posts, derailed threads etc)

I didn't alert you as Mod. I alerted you as someone who has invested significant time on this thread.

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

You ought to summarize it, especially if it is the basis for a point you want to make in this discussion.

I am going to attempt and you correct me.

1) some from Khazraj met the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), converted to Islam, pledged allegiance (first pledge of Aqabah) and went back to Medina. 

2) Next year, more came from Khazraj and some came from Aws, converted, pledged allegiance (Second pledge of Aqabah), invited the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to come and be their Chief Arbritrator and went back to Medina.

3) muslims migrated to Medina over 2 years.

4) eventually the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) migrated.

Good and accurate summary?

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

I am going to attempt and you correct me.

1) some from Khazraj met the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), converted to Islam, pledged allegiance (first pledge of Aqabah) and went back to Medina. 

2) Next year, more came from Khazraj and some came from Aws, converted, pledged allegiance (Second pledge of Aqabah), invited the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to come and be their Chief Arbritrator and went back to Medina.

3) muslims migrated to Medina over 3 years.

4) eventually the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) migrated.

Good and accurate summary?

Sure I can accept the gist of it, except I’m not aware of point #3 “Muslims migrated to Medina over a period of three years”. But we can skip that point for now. Go ahead and make your next point.

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

Sure I can accept the gist of it, except I’m not aware of point #3 “Muslims migrated to Medina over a period of three years”. But we can skip that point for now. Go ahead and make your next point.

Sorry, over 2 years. I edited my posted.

I don't have a point but a question. The first and second pledge of allegiance - were they pledging allegiance to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) or Administrator Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

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...