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

4 minutes ago, Cool said:

First of all decide that whether 3:104 is mentioning an ummah within ummah or not? Then we can move ahead.

Sure, there is a concept of Ummah within an Ummah in 3:104. Now prove that Ummah refers to Ahl al-Bayt exclusively.

Quote

Ummm, as long as you continue to try to contaminate the "Ahlul Kisa" by including "Ummahat ul Mo'mineen" & Banu Abbas in them, I can't help you at all. 

You were suppose to prove Twelve Imams. How did you derive Twelve Imams from Ahl al-Kisa – which are five individuals عليهم السلام? How did five become twelve?

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

  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

It is not something separate or additional to the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who said:

فَعَلَيْهِ بِسُنَّتِي وَسُنَّةِ الْخُلَفَاءِ الرَّاشِدِينَ الْمَهْدِيِّينَ عَضُّوا عَلَيْهَا بِالنَّوَاجِذِ

So upon him is my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, Mahdis. Bite on to it [singular] with the molars”

I am wondering why the Ahlul Sunnah don't even consider those who were introduced by Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as the bearers of his "minniyat"!!!! 

"Innahum minni wa ana minhum"

"Hussaino minni wa ana min Hussain"

"Fatimato bad'ato minni....."

Etc......

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
2 minutes ago, Cool said:

I am wondering why the Ahlul Sunnah don't even consider those who were introduced by Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as the bearers of his "minniyat"!!!! 

"Innahum minni wa ana minhum"

"Hussaino minni wa ana min Hussain"

"Fatimato bad'ato minni....."

Etc......

 

Because we dont take from unknowns .

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

Sure, there is a concept of Ummah within an Ummah in 3:104. Now prove that Ummah refers to Ahl al-Bayt exclusively.

Take baby steps my dear. 

Now analyse the verse 22:78 with all your sincerity. I don't need to prove that which is self evident. 

12 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

You were suppose to prove Twelve Imams. How did you derive Twelve Imams from Ahl al-Kisa – which are five individuals عليهم السلام? How did five become twelve?

I am not deriving anything here. From these 5 you can easily reach to the 6th which is the 4th Imam, Imama Zayn ul Abideen (عليه السلام).

Have you reached to my 4th Imam? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The prophet in Mecca:

The prophet exhibited his best moral character before the first revelation to the inhabitants of Mecca who were unbelievers ie kufar. Kufar used to say the prophet as Sadiq (truth ful one) and Ameen ie (Honest).

Muhammad, The Last Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) made his way to Mount Safa, the most well-known elevation in the whole of Makkah, to announce Islam to its people at a time when 360 idols were placed around the Kaaba. He felt no fear or shame. Stood on a high place, and exclaimed, 'Ya Sabaha-hu'. His voice resounded on the mountain and attracted the attention of the people. Large crowds from various tribes hurried toward him to hear what he was going to say. Muhammad, The Last Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) turned to them and said, 'O people! Will you believe me if I say there is an army marching behind this mountain which is about to attack you?'

They all answered, 'Of course we would, we have not heard a lie from you throughout your life'.

Muhammad, The Last Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said, 'O people of the Quraish! I warn you to fear God's punishment. Save yourself from the fire. My position is the same as that of the sentry who sees the enemy from afar and warns his people of the danger of their enemies. Does such a person ever lie to his people?'

Abu Lahab ibn Abd Al-Muttalib, who feared lest Muhammad, The Last Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) words should impress the people, broke the silence and addressing him said, 'Give our oath to you? May you perish (die)! Have you gathered us here to tell us such words?'

Thus they accepted him as truthful but they denied him as a prophet. (Partially accepted him but his message was denied)

The prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) spent his life in Meecaa for 40 years and then he got first revelation from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى):. The prophet had authority and permission by Alalh (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and he presented many miracles to those who did not believe in him, these included:

1.     Splitting the Moon

One of the most dramatic miracles took place in Mecca when the disbelievers once challenged Muhammad to perform a miracle. He was inspired by God to point to the moon, which split into two completely separate halves. It remained that way for some time, before eventually converging back together. The disbelievers couldn’t believe their eyes, calling it ‘magic’. However, this miraculous supernatural event was a crystal-clear sign that Muhammad was indeed a prophet of God.

Thus the prophet proved his authority by Allah by the miracle due the permission granted by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) even over disbelievers.

2.     Isra and Mairaj

Isra refers to the night journey Muhammad undertook with the Angel Gabriel, traveling from Mecca to Jerusalem shortly before his migration to Medina. This was a miraculous event because it was humanly impossible to travel this distance in such a short period at the time. From Jerusalem, Muhammadp ascended to the heavens in what is called Mairaj where he held communion with God. By the time Muhammad returned to Mecca, it was still night.

This is another evidence of the authority of the prophet given to him by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), no one can deny it.

Many more miracles can be quoted from history of islam that took place in Mecca during the life of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

https://islamhashtag.com/miracles-prophet-muhammad/

Thus all these miracles provides the evidence of the authority given to him by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) over the world. The kufar yet denied the prophet and revelation and message of islam.

The prophet spent his 40 years of life before first revelation and 12 years after the revelations before he migrated to medina.

The prophet in Medina:

The life of the prophet there were wars with kufar of Mecca these included:

Battle of Badr

Battle of Uhud

Battle of Trench

Battle of Khyber

Battle of tabuk

 Then another event that was made included Treaty of Hudaybiya.

The main points of treaty were the following:

The two parties and their allies should desist from hostilities against each other. Muhammad, should not perform Hajj this year but in the next year, Mecca will be evacuated for three days for Muslims to perform Hajj.

Muhammad should send back any Meccan who had gone to Medina without the permission of his or her protector (according to William Montgomery Watt, this presumably refers to minors or women.

It was allowed for both Muhammad and the Quraysh to enter into alliance with others.

Conquest of Mecca

The truce of Hudaybiyya had been enforced for two years. The tribe of Khuz'aah had a friendly relationship with Muhammad, while on the other hand their enemies, the Banu Bakr, had an alliance with the MeccansA clan of the Bakr made a night raid against the Khuz'aah, killing a few of them.[ The Meccans helped their allies (i.e., the Banu Bakr) with weapons and, according to some sources, a few Meccans also took part in the fighting. After this event, Muhammad sent a message to Mecca with three conditions, asking them to accept one of them. These were the following.

The Meccans were to pay blood money for those slain among the Khuza'ah tribe, or

They should have nothing to do with the Banu Bakr, or

They should declare the truce of Hudaybiyya null.

The Meccans replied that they would accept only the third condition.] However, soon they realized their mistake and sent Abu Safyan to renew the Hudaybiyya treaty, but now his request was declined by Muhammad. Muhammad began to prepare for a campaign.

In 630, Muhammad marched on Mecca with an enormous force, said to number more than ten thousand men. With minimal casualties, Muhammad took control of Mecca. He declared an amnesty for past offences, except for ten men and women who had mocked and made fun of him in songs and verses. Some of these were later pardoned. Most Meccans converted to Islam, and Muhammad subsequently destroyed all of the statues of Arabian gods in and around the Kaaba, without any exception. The Qur'an discusses the conquest of Mecca in verses 1-3 of the An-Nasrsura.

-        Farewell pilgrimage

-        Ghadeer Khum

-        Death of the prophet

The total life of the prophet is 10 years in Medina.

There have been mufiqeen / hypocrites in Medina that is mentioned by verse of quran:

وَمِمَّنْ حَوْلَكُم مِّنَ الْأَعْرَابِ مُنَافِقُونَ ۖ وَمِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ ۖ مَرَدُوا عَلَى النِّفَاقِ لَا تَعْلَمُهُمْ ۖ نَحْنُ نَعْلَمُهُمْ ۚ سَنُعَذِّبُهُم مَّرَّتَيْنِ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّونَ إِلَىٰ عَذَابٍ عَظِيمٍ

And from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement (9:101)

We know that it is about Sahabis if we look thought hadith of Bukhari.

Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "Some of my companions will come to me at my Lake Fount, and after I recognize them, they will then be taken away from me, whereupon I will say, 'My companions!' Then it will be said, 'You do not know what they innovated (new things) in the religion after you."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 584:

The tradition, indicate the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) knowledge and awareness that some of his companions will change after him (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), and, therefore, will be condemned to hell.

And from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement

Quran [9:101]

Allah talks about the hypocrites around Prophet who pretend to be his sincere companions and even Prophet does not know them according to the above verse. This is in conformity with the traditions of Sahih al-Bukhari mentioned above that Allah will say to His Prophet that "You do not know what these companions have done after you left them."

The claim about the prophet having political authority only in Medina that was given by consultation is completely rejected as the prophet had authority by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) since the beginning of the prophet hood from life in Mecca. 

There is no consultation exist in quran even for the appointment of the prophet thus the selection of the prophet successor (either political or esoteric) based on consultation is nothing but a hypocritical statement from the today hypocrites.

This is considered  as denial of the khatam nabuwat of the prophet s,a,w apparently by dividing him into many roles and assuming a different person (possibly a successor) for each role that’s is completely rejected. 

wasalam

@Cool    @ShiaMan14     @elite

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cool said:

I don't need to prove that which is self evident. 

Claiming something is self-evident doesn’t make it so. I await your definitive evidence that the Ummah within the Ummah spoken of in 3:104 refers exclusively to the Twelve Imams.

Quote

Now analyse the verse 22:78 with all your sincerity

No mention of twelve Imams there either. Please try again.

Quote

I am not deriving anything here. From these 5 you can easily reach to the 6th which is the 4th Imam, Imama Zayn ul Abideen (عليه السلام).

Have you reached to my 4th Imam? 

How have we reached the 4th Imam from ahl al-Kisa?

Btw, historically the Shi’ah divided over the identity of the fourth Imam. According to the Kaysaniyah the fourth Imam was sayyidina Ibn al-Hanafiyah رضى الله عنه. He was one of many other sons of Amir al-Mu’minin كرم الله وجهه, why aren’t they included in the Ahl al-Bayt? Apart from Imam Ali as-Sajjad رضى الله عنه, why aren’t the others sons of Imam Husain and Imam Hasan رضى الله عنهما included in the Ahl al-Bayt?

Your list of who is included and who is excluded from Ahl al-Bayt from the progeny of Ahl al-Kisa is highly arbitrary, and intensely disputed within the world of Shi’ism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muslim2010 said:

The claim about the prophet having political authority only in Medina that was given by consultation is completely rejected as the prophet had authority by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) since the beginning of the prophet hood from life in Mecca. 

The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم never possessed a formal office of political authority in Mecca. On the contrary, he was under the political authority and protection of the Bani Hashim chief, namely, his uncle Abu Talib.

The authority associated with his Prophesy does cover all spheres, and may potentially challenge any human institution if the need arises, but that is not the same thing as holding a formal office of political power.

I’ve given the example of Prophet Joseph عليه السلام. Being a prophet, his divine authority covered all spheres and theoretically he could challenge any human institution if the need arose. Nevertheless, he was offered a formal office of political authority by the king of Egypt, then asked to have the specific portfolio of management of the treasury. My question is, did Prophet Joseph’s authority extend over the treasury of Egypt before he was appointed minister over it by the King? If yes, why did he ask for the specific office of treasury when he already possessed divine authority over it?

Similarly, Prophet Samuel عليه السلام was asked by Bani Israel to appoint a king over them. My question is, did Prophet Samuel not possess political authority over Bani Israel before he was asked to appoint a king, if yes, then why did he agree to appoint a king over Bani Israel, why didn’t he tell them “I’m already your king, what other king do you want, I’m the Prophet of God, I have authority over this nation”?

In conclusion, Prophet Muhammad’s صلى الله عليه وسلم divine authority was always there, but like Prophet Joseph, he was designated to a formal, political office, in order to take on an active role of executing political authority. It is that formal, political office that is not divinely appointed, for he was appointed to it by the Ansar by means of consultation and human election.

Quote

There is no consultation exist in quran even for the appointment of the prophet thus the selection of the prophet successor (either political or esoteric)

Consultation does exist in the Quran (Surah 42:38). The institution of Prophesy is a divine institution, as proven throughout the Quran, therefore, it is obvious that Prophets cannot be designated through consultation. But nowhere in the Quran does it say that the institution of political rule is exclusively a divine institution, therefore, there is no problem in designating political rulers through consultation.

Quote

This is considered  as denial of the khatam nabuwat of the prophet s,a,w apparently by dividing him into many roles and assuming a different person (possibly a successor) for each role that’s is completely rejected.

That the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possessed multiple roles apart from his Nubuwwah is an established historical fact. His political and administrative role was at times modified and even suspended. Consider the incident of the judgment of Bani Qurayzah after their treachery. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was not the judge in that matter, the judgment was appointed for sayyidina Saad bin Mu’adh رضى الله عنه. Before delivering his binding judgment, sayyidina Saad asked the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم whether his judgment would be final and even the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would have to accept it, the Prophet said yes. This proves that in the realm of formal political authority, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم could even share or suspend some of that authority. That is impossible with respect to his Prophetic authority that is divine and can never be shared, suspended, or derogated.

I await your answer to all these points.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve already discussed at length my proof of the Prophet’s separate role of political leader in the discussion concerning the Treaty of Hudaibiyah with ShiaMan14. I demonstrated that the Prophet’s political jurisdiction did not extend over the Muslims of Mecca, like Abu Basir and Abu Jandal رضى الله عنهما who were therefore not bound by the Treaty, and could continue to fight and raid the Quraish.

Next, I would like to explain another similar proof, which is the incident of Bani Quraizah and how they were judged not by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم but by sayyidina Sa’d bin Mu’adh رضى الله عنه. Let me quote a Shi’ah account, from the Message by Ja’far Subhani:

Quote

Bani Qurayzah eventually decided to surrender to the Muslims without any conditions or, as stated by some historians, to accept as final the decision of Sa'd Mu'az, with whom they had already concluded a pact. In view of this the gates of the fortress were opened by them. The Commander of the Faithful, therefore, entered the fortress with a special corps and disarmed all the Jews. He then detained them in one of the houses of Bani Najjar till their fate was finally decided.

As the Jews of Bani Qaynuqa', who had been arrested in the past by the Muslim army, had been forgiven on the intercession of Bani Khazraj and especially of Abdullah Ubayy and the Prophet had refrained from shedding their blood, the people of Bani Aws also pressed the Prophet, with a view to vie with Bani Khazraj, that as Bani Qurayzah had concluded a pact with them he might forgive them.

The Prophet did not, however, concede to their request and said: "I leave the decision to Sa'd Mu'az, your elder and the chief of Bani Aws. Whatever he says will be acceptable to me". All those present sincerely accepted this offer of the Prophet. Moreover, Bani Qurayzah themselves had also agreed to abide by the decision of Sa'd Mu'az. As quoted by Ibn Hisham and Shaykh Mufid, the Jews of Bani Qurayzah had sent a message to the Prophet that Sa'd Mu'az should arbitrate their case.

In those days Sa'd Mu'az's hand had been wounded by an arrow-shot and he was confined to bed for its treatment in the tent of a woman named Zamidah, who was expert in surgery. The Prophet used to go there occasionally to enquire after his health. The young men of Bani Aws got up and brought the chief of their tribe before the Prophet with special ceremonies.

When Sa'd arrived the Prophet said: "All of you should pay respect to your chief". All those present stood up as a mark of respect to Sa'd. Those who had accompanied Sa'd had also requested him repeatedly on the way that he should do good to Bani Qurayzah and save them from death.

However, as opposed to all this insistence, he gave his decision that all their soldiers should be put to death, their property should be distributed (amongst the Muslims) and their women and children should be made captives.

Consider this carefully: If the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم position of chief arbitrator and judge of Medina was a divine appointment, why did he agree not to judge the Bani Quraizah. The latter requested that the Prophet not judge them, but Sa’d bin Mu’adh should judge them. Why did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم agree to this request if him being judge was a divine appointment? This indicates that the role of judge and arbitrator was never a divine appointment, nor was it part of his Nubuwwah. That is why he agreed that someone else, Sa’d bin Mu’adh, should have the responsibility and authority of judging Bani Quraizah and not himself.

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

How does that equate to inviting the people to establish a state or to assign him the office of political authority?

Did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم call upon them to believe in Allah and to believe in His Prophesy, and to help him in the cause of spreading that Message, or did he call them to assign him an office of political authority? The Ansar invited the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to take up a position of arbitrator among them of their own prerogative. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم never asked them for political office.

Guiding people in the matter of the world and the hereafter does not necessitate holding a formal office of political authority. In essence, you have used proofs that are vague and ambiguous (guiding people in their worldly affairs) to establish something specific (necessity of holding office of political authority).

Nabuwaat itself is the office of political and religious authority which administer the affair of the world and hereafter by the command of Allah. Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) need not required  to assign him the office of the  political administration of the age of Jahillaya. Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was given the  “hukm, Ilm and Kitab and he possessed  the qualities of scholar, judge, and leader.

So they who have believed in him, honoured him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful. 7:157

He is the one who has strengthened you with his help and with believers (following you). 8:62

People elect their chief was the system in the age of Ignorance, Allah rejected that system by sending his messenger with  the truth.

On that Sa`d bin Ubada said, "O Allah's Messenger ()! Excuse and forgive him, for by Him Who revealed the Book to you, Allah brought the Truth which was sent to you at the time when the people of this town (i.e. Medina) had decided unanimously to crown him and tie a turban on his head (electing him as chief). But when Allah opposed that (decision) through the Truth which Allah gave to you, he (i.e. `Abdullah bin Ubai) was grieved with jealously. and that caused him to do what you have seen."  Sahih al-Bukhari 4566 https://sunnah.com/bukhari/65/88

After the death of the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) people turned back on their heels towards the system of ignorance(jahiliyya) to elect their chief.

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

Claiming something is self-evident doesn’t make it so. I await your definitive evidence that the Ummah within the Ummah spoken of in 3:104 refers exclusively to the Twelve Imams.

Well, for us existence of God is self evident too yet we have many humans who are not willing to just open their eyes. So your denial is not a problem for me at all it is a problem for yourself. 

With 3:104, I have just cracked your understanding of vast ummah. With 3:110 I have proved the existence of "khayra ummatan" (best leaders/community) brought fourth for humans (ukhrijat lil naas) who do the job of amr bil ma'ruf nahi anil munkar. 

With 2:143, I proved the existence of "ummatan wasatan" (just leaders/community) who are witness over humans & Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) witness over them. If you continue to dispute with me over the word "ummah", I would give your another verse as evidence:

وَمِن قَوْمِ مُوسَى أُمَّةٌ يَهْدُونَ بِالْحَقِّ وَبِهِ يَعْدِلُونَ

7:159 

This is yet another example of leaders within the Qowm of Prophet Musa (عليه السلام).

Are you with me till this point?

9 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

No mention of twelve Imams there either. Please try again.

وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ مِّلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمينَ مِن قَبْلُ وَفِي هَذَا لِيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا شُهَدَاء عَلَى النَّاسِ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِاللَّهِ هُوَ مَوْلَاكُمْ فَنِعْمَ الْمَوْلَى وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ

22:78 

I will not let you go from here so easily without analysing. To help you out in analysing this verse, I am going to ask you questions one by one In-sha-.Allah.

1. Who are the people addressed in this verse?  All Muslims generally? Or specifically those for whom it is said مِّلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ? 

While analysing this point, you are requested to keep in mind the verse 2:124 

وَإِذِ ابْتَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا قَالَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِي قَالَ لاَ يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ

Actually you cannot get rid of "ummat of 12". This very figure exists in your own books.

9 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

How have we reached the 4th Imam from ahl al-Kisa?

 

9 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

According to the Kaysaniyah the fourth Imam was sayyidina Ibn al-Hanafiyah رضى الله عنه.

With simple answer. There are just two Imams introduced by Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) from the sons of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and rest of the Imams are from the progeny of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام). Or you need to give evidence of Prophet's saying that every son of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) will be an Imam. 

In fact Imamate of Imam Zayn ul Abideen (عليه السلام) is self evident too if you can just see. It is mentioned in some history books that al-Hanafiyah (رضي الله عنه) pledged allegiance to Yazid (L) which is an identified fasiq, fajir, mukazzib, kafir etc. Imam of time cannot just obey this type of person as mentioned by Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) in his words:

"میرے جیسا اس جیسے کی بیعت نہیں کر سکتا"

 

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

 

Similarly, Prophet Samuel عليه السلام was asked by Bani Israel to appoint a king over them. My question is, did Prophet Samuel not possess political authority over Bani Israel before he was asked to appoint a king, if yes, then why did he agree to appoint a king over Bani Israel, why didn’t he tell them “I’m already your king, what other king do you want, I’m the Prophet of God, I have authority over this nation”?

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet (saw) said, " chiefs of The Israelis used to be the prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place.  Sahih al-Bukhari 3455

 It is clear from the below verses that Talut was appointed as an army chief  to control and command an army who want to fight in the way of Allah.

Have you not considered the chiefs of the children of Israel after Musa, when they said to a prophet of theirs: appoint for us an authority (commander), (that) we may fight in the way of Allah. He said: may it not be that you would not fight if fighting is ordained for you? They said: And what reason have we that we should not fight in the way of Allah, and we have indeed been compelled to abandon our homes and our children. But when fighting was ordained for them, they turned back, except a few of them, and Allah knows the unjust.2:246

Their Prophet said to them: "Allah has appointed Talut as authority (commander) over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "Allah has chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah grant his authority to whom He pleases. Allah care for all, and He know all things."2:247

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, elite said:

Nabuwaat itself is the office of political and religious authority which administer the affair of the world and hereafter by the command of Allah.

Incorrect. Nubuwwah is not a political office. Read the history of Nubuwwah. Read the Hebrew Bible. Read about the Prophets. Prophets have rarely been men in charge of government and statecraft.

Allah says:

فَبَعَثَ اللّٰہُ النَّبِیّٖنَ مُبَشِّرِیۡنَ وَ مُنۡذِرِیۡنَ

So Allah raised Prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners (2:213)

Prophets were not raised to be political rulers, but to be bearers of good tidings and warners.

Quote

People elect their chief was the system in the age of Ignorance, Allah rejected that system by sending his messenger with  the truth.

Explain why the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم told the Ansar who pledged allegiance to him at the Second Bay’ah of Aqabah to elect twelve Naqibs among themselves to manage their affairs. Why didn’t the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم divinely appoint the Naqibs?

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

 It is clear from the below verses that Talut was appointed as an army chief  to control and command an army who want to fight in the way of Allah.

Learn basic Arabic my friend, the word مَلِك means king not “army chief”.

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

I await your answer to all these points.

Salam, I do not find any reason to respond your posts as that has already been done by the SC members including two senior members of your choice. They all have done it as replied and refuted your baseless conjectures. I just say my final words.

If you suppose as mentioned in your replies that the political authority of the prophet  during in Medina was not applicable to the people in Mecca or vice versa then the question arises did the authority of  the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) remain not applicable to the muslims in Mecca after the conquest of Mecca (while the prophet lived in Medina)? If after the conquest of Mecca the authority of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)  became applicable to the muslims in Mecca then it is a proof for us in the light of verses of quran that the prophet has unconditional authority  over the believers.

If we suppose that prophet had a limited or conditional authority over the believers due to geographical location or any other reason then the same principle can be applied to the one who was selected as ruler after him by the people.  Thus the people living other than Medina also do have right to reject this authority altogether. (We do not consider the ruler after the prophet as rightful  successor as no principle of consultation is mentioned nor any example  for choosing the prophets /leaders/ successors/ caliphs/ imams in the quran).

But there are verses of Quran providing the clear evidence of the unconditional  authority over the believers and it is not limited because of any geographical location,  its categorization or sub-categorization thus any other claim in this regard is rejected.

I agree to disagree with your views and words as this is a denial of the khatam Nabuwah for me.  wasalam

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

I’ve given the example of Prophet Joseph عليه السلام. Being a prophet, his divine authority covered all spheres and theoretically he could challenge any human institution if the need arose. Nevertheless, he was offered a formal office of political authority by the king of Egypt, then asked to have the specific portfolio of management of the treasury. My question is, did Prophet Joseph’s authority extend over the treasury of Egypt before he was appointed minister over it by the King? If yes, why did he ask for the specific office of treasury when he already possessed divine authority over it?

Similarly, Prophet Samuel عليه السلام was asked by Bani Israel to appoint a king over them. My question is, did Prophet Samuel not possess political authority over Bani Israel before he was asked to appoint a king, if yes, then why did he agree to appoint a king over Bani Israel, why didn’t he tell them “I’m already your king, what other king do you want, I’m the Prophet of God, I have authority over this nation”?

 

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 9/8/2020 at 11:41 AM, Cherub786 said:

But do you acknowledge the fact that Allah has enjoined consultation?

Consultation has been enjoined but it can obviously not overrule the commands of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). Only when neither of these are present would one consider other methods.

On 9/8/2020 at 11:41 AM, Cherub786 said:

My precedent is the fact that the Prophet’s own khilafah fil-ard was established through shura of the Ansar. That is the first premise of my thesis

I understand that this is one of your positions but like I said you are simultaneously trying to describe it as a divine appointment and an issue of consultation. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in the Quran has said that it is He who will make the khulafa, not the people. The ayah refers to previous khulafa, which would for instance be Dawud (عليه السلام). It was Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) who granted him his khulafa, not the people. 

So it is either a divinely appointed role or it isn't.

On 9/8/2020 at 11:41 AM, Cherub786 said:

But you haven’t really answered my earlier argument that Adam is never specifically named as Khalifah, or why the Angels questioned Allah that the Khalifah He was placing on the Earth will cause corruption and spill blood when Adam, in his individual capacity, didn’t cause corruption or ever spill blood

We can discuss this point if there's actually a difference. Are you suggesting that Adam (عليه السلام) was not a khalifa of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? If so, then there is a discussion. If not, then we are in agreement that he was the khalifa that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) was referring to.

On 9/8/2020 at 1:54 PM, Cherub786 said:

The grammatical structure indicates that it is a single Sunnah, and not separate or additional to the Prophet’s Sunnah, as the word عليها has the singular pronoun suffix and not عليهما which has the dual pronoun suffix

Side comment, since it wasn't addressed to me: it's interesting that for hadith al thaqalayn you used a reverse argument saying that the single tense indicated holding on to the Qur'an only. 

 

Quote

Remember, Sunni Caliphate is not the equivalent of the Catholic papacy or the Shi’ite Imamate. It is not a religious authority in its essence, for us the religious authority is the Prophet and the Scripture.

This isn't really true though. If it was then the caliphs would have absolutely no significance today. 

You have answered this more accurately above where you stated that the sunnah of the caliphs and the prophet is one and the same to you. This is the sunni position.

On 9/8/2020 at 11:59 AM, Cherub786 said:

The successor is obviously not a Prophet. Of course, it is natural that the one who is succeeding to political authority over Muslims ought to be a righteous man personally, and more importantly, ought to rule in accordance with the Divine Law, but how does it follow that the successor must be something like a Prophet himself?

The point here is that this isn't really a successorship at all, it is more like a change of regime. The prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had divine authority, regardless of whether he was recognized as a political leader or not. This political leadership was more relevant to those who didn't believe in him. For the muslimeen his  every order is hujjah, we don't make distinctions. 

The same cannot apply for a common man who takes up the political seat simply because they don't have the same level of authority.

To disobey or oppose the prophet would amount to kufr. Can you say the same for subsequent caliphs?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
22 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Consultation does exist in the Quran (Surah 42:38).

Yes, it is also mentioned in 3:159 and the verse ends as follows:

فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللّهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَوَكِّلِينَ

3:159) so when you have decided, then place your trust in Allah; surely Allah loves those who trust.

It is not necessary or binding on Prophet to consider any suggestions and act accordingly. On the other hand, it is obligatory on companions to obey the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) even if he decide to go against their suggestions or don't even feel consultation necessary. That's why the verse says:

فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللّهِ

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

If you suppose as mentioned in your replies that the political authority of the prophet  during in Medina was not applicable to the people in Mecca or vice versa then the question arises did the authority of  the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) remain not applicable to the muslims in Mecca after the conquest of Mecca (while the prophet lived in Medina)? If after the conquest of Mecca the authority of the prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)  became applicable to the muslims in Mecca then it is a proof for us in the light of verses of quran that the prophet has unconditional authority  over the believers.

The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم first attained political authority after the Hijrah to Medina. After that, his political authority gradually expanded, with the conquest of Mecca, and eventually over all of Arabia.

Quote

If we suppose that prophet had a limited or conditional authority over the believers due to geographical location or any other reason then the same principle can be applied to the one who was selected as ruler after him by the people.  Thus the people living other than Medina also do have right to reject this authority altogether.

My answer to your first point answers this second one as well. When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم passed away, his temporal authority and the State of Medina had expanded to include all of Arabia, therefore his successor to that office inherited authority over all of Arabia and not just the town of Medina. It seems you failed to realize that political authority and jurisdiction can expand gradually through conquest, and that's what happened after the Hijrah.

Quote

(We do not consider the ruler after the prophet as rightful  successor as no principle of consultation is mentioned nor any example  for choosing the prophets /leaders/ successors/ caliphs/ imams in the quran).

Consultation is mentioned in Surah 42:38, which thus far you have failed to answer.

Quote

I agree to disagree with your views and words as this is a denial of the khatam Nabuwah for me.  wasalam

Denial of Khatm un-Nubuwwah is to believe that anyone after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wields his Prophetic authority, and has succeeded him in his capacity of Prophesy and not another capacity unrelated to his Prophesy. Hence, your belief in the Imamate as having the same divine authority of Nubuwwah and exhibiting attributes that are exclusive to Nubuwwah is a manifest violation of the Khatm un-Nubuwwah.

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

Consultation has been enjoined but it can obviously not overrule the commands of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). Only when neither of these are present would one consider other methods.

Good. So you agree in principle that consultation is valid means of determining affairs of the community in the absence of a divine command from Allah and His Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

Do you agree that the Ansar رضى الله عنهم were correct in consulting among themselves whether to invite the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to their town to serve as chief arbitrator among them? If that was a divine command, what was the need for them to consult among themselves and invite the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم? Why didn’t the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم simply inform them that Allah has divinely appointed him to come to Medina and be their chief arbitrator?

Quote

I understand that this is one of your positions but like I said you are simultaneously trying to describe it as a divine appointment and an issue of consultation. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in the Quran has said that it is He who will make the khulafa, not the people. The ayah refers to previous khulafa, which would for instance be Dawud (عليه السلام). It was Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) who granted him his khulafa, not the people. 

So it is either a divinely appointed role or it isn't.

Why can’t it be both?

And is it explicit in the Quran that King David’s caliphate in the Earth was a divine appointment as in mansus min Allah, or could it possibly mean Allah made him the Khalifah in the takwini sense. The Arabic word جعل "he made” can be understood in both senses, correct?

And if we refer to the Hebrew Bible, how does it explain the process through which David became King? A divine appointment, or a human effort?

As I asked before, if for the sake of argument in the Quran all instances of Khilafat fil-Ard are divine appointments, is that sufficient to establish a principle that Khilafat fil-Ard can only be divinely appointed? Is that sufficient to conclude that the Prophet Muhammad’s صلى الله عليه وسلم own Khilafat fil-Ard must have been divinely appointed – despite evidence to the contrary which I have presented plenty of?

Finally, what about Ayat al-Istikhlaf, which doesn’t speak of Khilafat fil-Ard as a divine appointment, but as a kasbi mansab?

Quote

This isn't really true though. If it was then the caliphs would have absolutely no significance today. 

You have answered this more accurately above where you stated that the sunnah of the caliphs and the prophet is one and the same to you. This is the sunni position.

The Rightly-Guided Caliphate doesn’t have any significance as a source of Islamic Shari’ah – for us the sources of Divine Law and teaching is the Prophet and the Scripture.

The Rightly-Guided Caliphate is to serve as a model of leadership and government for the Muslims, that is its religious significance if you will. It is to serve as a reminder of how Allah blessed and saved the Ummah after the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم death, a concept we refer to as قدرة الثانية a second manifestation of Allah’s Power at a time of confusion and uncertainty when a Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم dies and the Devil goes into hyper mode, seizes the opportunity to create dissension and confusion within the Community. In this sense, the Rightly-Guided Caliphate resembles the succession of Prophet Joshua عليه السلام and the righteous Judges after him following the death of Prophet Moses عليه السلام.

The concept of holding on to the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs means that Sunnah which is the Prophet’s own Sunnah and not contrary or independent of it. That is why the Hadith says to bite on to it (singular) with the molars, for it is one Sunnah and not distinct Sunan.

Quote

The point here is that this isn't really a successorship at all, it is more like a change of regime. The prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had divine authority, regardless of whether he was recognized as a political leader or not. This political leadership was more relevant to those who didn't believe in him. For the muslimeen his  every order is hujjah, we don't make distinctions. 

The same cannot apply for a common man who takes up the political seat simply because they don't have the same level of authority.

To disobey or oppose the prophet would amount to kufr. Can you say the same for subsequent caliphs?

It is not a change in regime. It is the inheriting of the same political office, previously occupied by the perfect man صلى الله عليه وسلم, but succeeded to by righteous men رضى الله عنهم who were nonetheless imperfect and fallible as they were not Prophets.

Disobedience to a Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is not kufr, it is sin. Disbelief and rejection of a Prophet is kufr. Likewise, disobedience to the Khalifah is sin not kufr, and rejection of a Rightly-Guided Khalifah is likewise sinful and not kufr, because the Quran never tells us to believe in Khulafa, it tells us to believe in 1. Allah 2. His Angels 3. His Scriptures 4. His Apostles 5. the Afterlife (the Quran never says to believe in Imams or Khalifas – but to obey them)

To say that disobedience is kufr and not merely sin is the madhhab of the Khawarij. We in Ahl us-Sunnah do not say sin equals kufr.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/6/2020 at 4:59 PM, 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

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.

Salaam ,

Apologies for the delayed response. I wanted to ensure I take the time to respond to your argument thoroughly.

First, I would like to thank you for presenting a thought-provoking thesis on the different roles of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

Second, I would like to thank you for being patient with my questions. I could have countered your initial arguments at the onset but needed a few clarifications. Also, you and others have conducted a fairly non-emotional discussion even though there were a few jabs thrown around by all parties.

Third, please keep in mind that I am neither as eloquent as you nor as knowledgeable as the other shia brothers who have already responded to you sufficiently.

I am going to break down this post into 3 sections:

  • Section A: Status of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as Prophet and Caliph
  • Section B: Electing Caliphs

Section A: Status of Muhammad (saw):

Your assertion is that the Prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is divine but his Caliphate in Medina was not divine and merely a secular political post with the following duties (per your post) - "concluded treaties, appointed judges and governors to various towns and provinces, dispatched armies and appointed their commanders, received delegations and entered into negotiations with them, and so on and so forth". I am going to add "tax collection" to the list as well

To me, the distinction between divine and secular is if a duty is mentioned in the Quran that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), it is divine, otherwise it is secular. The duties that you consider secular are mentioned in the Quran as duties of the Prophet:

  • Treaties - Hudaibiya
  • Appointing judges & governors - "Those vested in authority"
  • Dispatching armies and appointing commanders - Jihad and "vested authority"
  • Receiving delegations and negotiating with them - Mubahila
  • Collecting taxes - zakat, jizya, kharaj, khums

Previously, you had clearly stated that Hudaibiya was a secular decision and not a divine one. There is clear reference to it in the Quran and below is a screenshot from Al-Tabari (that you consider reliable) where the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) clearly stated, "I will never disobey His command". It is quite clear that the treaty of Hudaibiya was divine.

Hudaibiya.gif.7c9bb5bba9f8c6ddd0aa40db6cef71a7.gif

This also covers the proof of Caliph Umar being repentant all his life for questioning the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and his Prophethood. I would advise you to do the same.

Now, the only counter you can provide is that "signing the Treaty" was divine but the contents of the Treaty was not divine. Another similar counter could be that jihad is divine but choosing whom to fight is not and so on. All that is going to do is speak to the sheer ridiculousness of your claim.

The fact that actions of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as administrator of Medina are listed in the Quran is sufficient evidence that his caliphate was divine.

Additionally, you mention:

On 9/4/2020 at 12:25 AM, Cherub786 said:

Incorrect, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possesses supreme (divinely-delegated) authority over the Muslims in his capacity of Prophet, which encompasses all matters including political, legal, social, family, personal, religious, doctrinal, in short, every sphere of human life.

But there is a difference between possessing supreme authority in a particular sphere and occupying a formal office associated with that sphere. A formal office in the political sphere has the backing of political power, the capacity to enforce and execute the authority vested in it.

According to you, the Second Pledge of Aqabah was political allegiance. The Medinites pledged their allegiance on the political potential of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) rather than actual political authority. That is what we say too - the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) possessed political authority, it simply manifested itself when he took over Medina or started with becoming the Chief Administrator of 2 tribes of Medina.

The Medinites did nothing more than help the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) fulfill his mission hence they were known as Ansar aka Helpers.

More on this in my summary but this is a good segue to the next section.

Section B: Electing Caliphs:

You made an interesting point that since 2 tribes of Medina made him their Chief Administrator, then they were free to choose the next Administrator. There are multiple issues with this concept.

  1. You claimed that becoming head of state was incidental and divine at the same time. To put it another way, God approved the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) becoming the head of state meaning his actions had divine approval. 
  2. Assuming you are correct that people had the freedom to choose their subsequent leader, then why and how was Caliph Abu Bakr elected at Saqifah. There were only 2 clans of Khazraj present along with Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaidah Al-Jarra. Why weren't Aws consulted? At the very least, all 9 tribes mentioned in the Medina Charter should have been consulted openly along with the Mujahiroun before anyone gave bayah to him. Nothing of the sort happened. 
  3. If I accept Saqifah, how do you explain the selection of Umar by Abu Bakr. If your claim is correct that people should be allowed to elect their caliph, then the caliphate of Umar is illegal or unconstitutional or illegitimate since Abu Bakr just put him in the seat of caliphate
  4. Similarly, how is the shura acceptable when no member of the Ansar or Ansar tribes were in the shura?
  5. Based on free elections, only the caliphate of Imam Ali can be consider legitimate because he was truly elected by the people - Muhajir and Ansar alike which brings us full circle to why not elect him in the first place.
  6. If we say the caliphate is not a divine position of authority, then how are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (عليه السلام) and Hasan (عليه السلام) rightly-guided (rashideen)? How did they become rightly-guided? Are they divinely inspired? If so, then surely the Prophet is more divinely inspired than any of them unless you say the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) received different level of divine inspiration depending on the role he was playing. How ridiculous is that?

Summary:

In summary, you have made preposterous claims against the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in order to justify Abu Bakr usurping the caliphate. You have demoted, degraded and lowered the status of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to suit your narrative. The problem is the narrative breaks down very quickly if we simply look at the Quran and the actions of the caliphs.

As a sunni you simply fail to realize the supremacy of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). If he chose to become caliph, then that elevated the position of the caliphate instead of lowering his status. His status and loftiness is given by Allah. To use a very simple example, miswak is just a stick but if the Prophet uses it, miswak becomes elevated to becoming sunnah. 

Since the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) elevated the status of caliphate, then it would have benefited no one but Muslims to put the person most like him in his place. An example of the benefit is that smart people like you would not resort to silly and nonsensical claims to defend the illegitimate usurpation of the caliphate.

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

I am going to break down this post into 3 sections:

Section A: Status of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as Prophet and Caliph

Section B: Electing Caliphs

This looks like two sections to me (where is Section C?) Anyways, I like the fact that you have accepted my earlier suggestion of presenting a comprehensive counter narrative to my thesis. Simply reacting to bits and pieces of my argument without addressing the essence of it and deconstructing it from the foundation proved to be getting us nowhere in the dialogue. I am also impressed with how you have deconstructed my thesis in this latest post of yours and made a good attempt to refute it logically.

Quote

The duties that you consider secular are mentioned in the Quran as duties of the Prophet:

Treaties - Hudaibiya

Appointing judges & governors - "Those vested in authority"

Dispatching armies and appointing commanders - Jihad and "vested authority"

Receiving delegations and negotiating with them - Mubahila

Collecting taxes - zakat, jizya, kharaj, khums

It would have been better had you quoted the actual Verses of the Quran where these specific duties of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم are prescribed.

But even without knowing what specific Verses you are speaking of, I will attempt to answer your argument.

If, for the sake of argument, Allah told the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to make a specific treaty, or to dispatch a specific army, or to appoint a specific commander, or to receive a specific delegation, or to collect a specific tax, etc., does that necessitate that these are regular functions of Prophesy? For example, if Allah told the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to appoint xyz as commander of an army and dispatch that army on a particular expedition, can we derive from this that every time the Prophet is appointing a commander and dispatching an army on some expedition, he is doing so under divine authority?

Let me examine some of your examples: You speak of the institution of zakat, jizya, kharaj and khums. These are apparently divine ordinances in Islam, I do not deny that giving them is part of the Religion, and that they are statutory laws.

The question is, is the method of their collection and the designated authority authorized to collect these religious “taxes” and tributes divinely instituted to, or is that from the discretionary affairs?

If you claim the former is true, that the method of collection and the authority authorized to collect these things is divinely appointed by Allah, then I would ask you for evidence of that claim.

But if you agree with me that the method of Zakat collection, and the authority authorized to collect Zakat, Ushr, Kharaj, etc., is a discretionary matter or a secular affair, then let me say that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was collecting these taxes and tributes from the people not in his capacity of Prophet but in his capacity of political authority.

Another example you cite is Mubahalah. This is your weakest and most problematic example. The Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم discussion and dialogue with the Christians of Najran was clearly in his capacity of Prophet, as that was a purely religious discussion in which he was explaining to them the falsehood of their theology, the trinity, deification of Jesus, etc., and inviting them to believe in his Nubuwwah and Revelation. It was not connected with his political authority, therefore, naturally the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم acted in accordance to the divine instruction of Allah in that regard in challenging them to a contest of Mubahalah.

The next example I want to deal with is Jihad. As I recall, I briefly touched on this point earlier in the thread, when I said that Jihad itself as a divine commandment to fight the pagan Arabs needs to be separated from the discretionary, secular affair of organizing armies, dispatching expeditions, strategic and logistical decisions, and appointing specific commanders. Therefore, by presenting the divine ordinance of Jihad in the Quran you have not actually proven that the discretionary affairs associated with Jihad were likewise divine, or that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم executed them in his capacity of Prophet.

Appointing judges and governors is likewise not a divine matter, unless you can quote to me from the Quran where Allah revealed to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to designate a specific individual as judge or governor. The Quran certainly commands us to obey the ulil amr minkum, but it does not divinely designate who they specifically are as individuals.

Finally, you said Hudaibiyah is an example of a divinely revealed matter, and then quote a narration from Tarikh at-Tabari.

I’ve checked the sanad of that particular narration, and conclude it is not authentic as it is maqtu. Imam at-Tabari says “Ibn Ishaq from al-Zuhri”, clearly a sanad with much inqita in it and therefore not authentic.

But if for the sake of argument I accept this narration, the reported statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه "I am God’s servant and messenger. I will never disobey His command, and He will not allow me to perish” does not indicate that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was divinely commanded to negotiate or sign the Treaty. He is simply explaining to sayyidina Umar that he ought to trust him, because being a Prophet it is impossible he should ever disobey Allah, in either a divinely ordained matter or even a discretionary matter. “He will not allow me to perish” means if the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was doing something wrong or incorrect, Allah would surely rectify the matter because he is divinely protected.

Quote

Now, the only counter you can provide is that "signing the Treaty" was divine but the contents of the Treaty was not divine. Another similar counter could be that jihad is divine but choosing whom to fight is not and so on. All that is going to do is speak to the sheer ridiculousness of your claim.

I don’t think it is ridiculous at all. It makes perfect sense that Allah may divinely command something general, but leave the specific details to the discretion of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم in his capacity of head of state. Allah commanded Jihad, but did not command the particular method and logistical issues associated with Jihad. I’ve already given the beautiful example of how the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم modified his own personal strategy for the Battle of Ahzab and accepted the suggestion of sayyidina Salman رضى الله عنه to dig the trench. If the method and details of Jihad were divinely revealed, then the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم could never have accepted suggestions to improve or modify his strategy of war.

Quote

According to you, the Second Pledge of Aqabah was political allegiance. The Medinites pledged their allegiance on the political potential of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) rather than actual political authority. That is what we say too - the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) possessed political authority, it simply manifested itself when he took over Medina or started with becoming the Chief Administrator of 2 tribes of Medina.

The Medinites did nothing more than help the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) fulfill his mission hence they were known as Ansar aka Helpers.

Actually, if you really study the Second Pledge of Aqabah, you will realize that it was a pledge to “protect” the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and not necessarily to grant him political authority. That makes sense because at the time the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was in danger from the Quraish. Abu Talib had passed away and the Quraish were getting emboldened. His original intention was not actually to acquire political authority or even a role of arbitrator, but simply to acquire protection for himself and by extension his followers of Mecca. Once the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم received that pledge of protection, his authority began to gradually increase in Medina, as W. Montgomery Watt has explained in his book Prophet and Statesman which I quoted earlier. He says that even when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم arrived in Medina, he was only considered the head of the Muhajirin and not all the clans of the Ansar, despite the fact that vast majority of those clans already accepted him as their Prophet right before the Hijrah, but they continued to have independent heads of authority for each clan. The Ansar invited the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to function as an arbitrator among them of their own prerogative. If that was the original mission of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم he would have instructed them toward that end from the moment he met them and they believed in him as a Prophet. On the contrary, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم throughout the Meccan phase never called upon anyone to facilitate the manifestion of his “potential” political authority.

Quote

You claimed that becoming head of state was incidental and divine at the same time. To put it another way, God approved the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) becoming the head of state meaning his actions had divine approval.

Yes, everything the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did in whatever capacity had divine approval in the sense that Allah did not oppose it. That is not the same as saying whatever the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did was divinely appointed and instructed by Allah.

Quote

Assuming you are correct that people had the freedom to choose their subsequent leader, then why and how was Caliph Abu Bakr elected at Saqifah. There were only 2 clans of Khazraj present along with Abu Bakr, Umar and Abu Ubaidah Al-Jarra. Why weren't Aws consulted? At the very least, all 9 tribes mentioned in the Medina Charter should have been consulted openly along with the Mujahiroun before anyone gave bayah to him. Nothing of the sort happened.

So now you are moving on from discussing the actual theory I put forward, to criticizing what you view as flaws in its implementation. I don’t know if I should answer you now on these points when you aren’t even convinced of the theory yet.

Nevertheless, let me first make it clear that I am proving non divine appointment to the succession of the Prophet’s office of political authority. Non divine appointment is not necessarily always through consultation, though Islam considers consultation the ideal means. Consultation is not actually required for validity of political decisions and appointments, but it is highly encouraged and ideal. The Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم appointment to the office of chief arbitrator and then head of state was through a combination of consultation among the elders of the Ansar clans (not universal franchise) and the subsequent prestige he gained through victory in battles of Badr and Khandaq, as W. Montgomery Watt explained. As for sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه, Saqifah was only the beginning of the process of his election, he continued to receive pledges of allegiance at his blessed hand from the people en masse, until his election was consolidated.

Quote

If I accept Saqifah, how do you explain the selection of Umar by Abu Bakr. If your claim is correct that people should be allowed to elect their caliph, then the caliphate of Umar is illegal or unconstitutional or illegitimate since Abu Bakr just put him in the seat of caliphate

As in answer to your previous point, consultation is ideal but not required for validity or legitimacy of authority. If the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated his successor to his political office, that wouldn’t invalidate my thesis, because that too would necessarily be a non divine appointment, from the discretionary affairs which a political leader has a right to. Nevertheless, sayyidina Abi Bakr did not “select” sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنهما, rather, he nominated him and then consulted various prominent Sahabah رضى الله عنهم meeting with their approval. Then when sayyidina Abi Bakr died, the people gave bay’ah to sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه of their own volition. It was not forced. Nor can you point to any historical dissent from the succession of sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه it was the most smooth and uncontroversial election.

Quote

Similarly, how is the shura acceptable when no member of the Ansar or Ansar tribes were in the shura?

The Shura council had the full confidence of the Ansar, so it was not necessary to consult every individual or clan individually or separately. You can think of it as a representative body that has the confidence of the public and whose decision is considered the people’s decision.

Quote

Based on free elections, only the caliphate of Imam Ali can be consider legitimate because he was truly elected by the people - Muhajir and Ansar alike which brings us full circle to why not elect him in the first place.

No election was a free election, including that of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه. If by free election you mean universal franchise, where each and every individual is casting his or her ballot, including women, slaves, Bedouins, etc., it was certainly not a free election. In fact, out of the four elections, the election of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه was the most controversial, as it was rejected by the people of Syria who never recognized the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه despite being a major component of the Ummah at the time.

Quote

If we say the caliphate is not a divine position of authority, then how are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali (عليه السلام) and Hasan (عليه السلام) rightly-guided (rashideen)? How did they become rightly-guided? Are they divinely inspired? If so, then surely the Prophet is more divinely inspired than any of them unless you say the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) received different level of divine inspiration depending on the role he was playing. How ridiculous is that?

Your (loaded) question assumes that divine authority is necessary for somenoe to be considered rightly-guided, but that is obviously not the case. Rightly-guided is a descriptive term, to describe the fact that those Caliphs رضى الله عنهم were men of piety and ruled in accordance with the Shari’ah and the Sunnah.

Quote

If he chose to become caliph, then that elevated the position of the caliphate instead of lowering his status

Sadly, this illustrates that you have not understood my argument at all, but only misrepresent it with polemical statements. The position of caliphate is elevated to be sure, but it is not equal to the divine position of Prophesy. I have not in the least “lowered the status” of the institution of Prophesy, I have merely pointed out that it is separate from Caliphate, and that Caliphate is an inferior position compared to Prophesy.

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

This looks like two sections to me (where is Section C?) .

Sorry about that - I ran out of time - Section C will be the shia perspective to give you a chance to break it down.

I will respond to your comments by tomorrow hopefully. They were 100% exactly as I expected. Nothing new and looks to be from a set script.

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

Sadly, this illustrates that you have not understood my argument at all, but only misrepresent it with polemical statements. The position of caliphate is elevated to be sure, but it is not equal to the divine position of Prophesy. I have not in the least “lowered the status” of the institution of Prophesy, I have merely pointed out that it is separate from Caliphate, and that Caliphate is an inferior position compared to Prophesy.

has anyone denied this? I already told you that caliphate is a lower rank than Prophethood. However, if the Prophet assumes the mantle of caliphate, then caliphate is elevated and honored to have the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as caliph. Similarly if a person with minimal to no service to Islam takes over the caliphate, its status is lowered.

There is a fundamental difference in our thinking: You believe a person's rank is elevated if he becomes caliph. We believe a person with elevated rank should become caliph.

This is an irreconcilable difference between us.

Edited by ShiaMan14
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/9/2020 at 10:40 AM, elite said:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet (saw) said, " chiefs of The Israelis used to be the prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place.  Sahih al-Bukhari 3455

 It is clear from the below verses that Talut was appointed as an army chief  to control and command an army who want to fight in the way of Allah.

Have you not considered the chiefs of the children of Israel after Musa, when they said to a prophet of theirs: appoint for us an authority (commander), (that) we may fight in the way of Allah. He said: may it not be that you would not fight if fighting is ordained for you? They said: And what reason have we that we should not fight in the way of Allah, and we have indeed been compelled to abandon our homes and our children. But when fighting was ordained for them, they turned back, except a few of them, and Allah knows the unjust.2:246

Their Prophet said to them: "Allah has appointed Talut as authority (commander) over you." They said: "How can he exercise authority over us when we are better fitted than he to exercise authority, and he is not even gifted, with wealth in abundance?" He said: "Allah has chosen him above you, and hath gifted him abundantly with knowledge and bodily prowess: Allah grant his authority to whom He pleases. Allah care for all, and He know all things."2:247

 

Quote

 

Explain why the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم told the Ansar who pledged allegiance to him at the Second Bay’ah of Aqabah to elect twelve Naqibs among themselves to manage their affairs. Why didn’t the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم divinely appoint the Naqibs?

Edited 22 hours ago by Cherub786

 

Naqib means chieftain or elder of the tribe.

Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) appointed 12 clan leaders to shoulder the responsibility of implementing the articles of this pledge and to guide the respective men of their own tribes in matters relating to the propagation of Islam.

“Messenger of Allah said: Come out to me twelve Chieftains (Nuqaba’a) from among you who would be responsible over their folk.”Then came out  twelve chiefs(naqiban) Nine from Al-Khazraj and three from Al-Aws .

Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said  to Chieftains (Nuqaba’a) , You are responsible over your people in matters among them, a responsibility like that of the disciples of Isa bin Maryam and I am the one responsible over my people. They replied yes”. Tarikh al Tabri vol 2 pg 363.

Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) asked the 12 chieftains to come out from the group. They were already the chieftain of their  tribes. Where is the election of naqibs here ?

  word مَلِك comes from  the word  مُلْكٌ 

مُلْكٌ signifies the exercise of authority to command and to forbid in respect of the generality of a people [&c.]: (Er-Rághib, TA:) or the having possession and command or authority: and the having power to exercise command or authority.(lanes Lexicon)

So who possesses  the مُلْكٌ  is مَلِك

Verses releated with Talut begins  with his appointment as an authority over the army and ends with the killing of Jalut (2:246-251). so we can derive from the available information that he was appointed as an army chief.

Edited by elite
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, elite said:

Naqib means chieftain or elder of the tribe.

Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) appointed 12 clan leaders to shoulder the responsibility of implementing the articles of this pledge and to guide the respective men of their own tribes in matters relating to the propagation of Islam.

“Messenger of Allah said: Come out to me twelve Chieftains (Nuqaba’a) from among you who would be responsible over their folk.”Then came out  twelve chiefs(naqiban) Nine from Al-Khazraj and three from Al-Aws .

Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said  to Chieftains (Nuqaba’a) , You are responsible over your people in matters among them, a responsibility like that of the disciples of Isa bin Maryam and I am the one responsible over my people. They replied yes”. Tarikh al Tabri vol 2 pg 363.

Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) asked the 12 chieftains to come out from the group. They were already the chieftain of their  tribes. Where is the election of naqibs here ?

You claimed that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم "appointed” the 12 Naqibs, but that is false. The Hadith says:

اخرجوا إلى منكم اثنى عشر نقيبا يكونون على قومهم

Take out (elect) for me, from among you, twelve Naqibs, who shall manage their people”

image.png.9951ab10900306c558fc0c9397110204.png

You claimed that the 12 Naqibs were already chieftains of their tribes, but where is the evidence for this claim? If the 12 Naqibs were already chiefs of their tribes, why did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم tell the Ansar to take out 12 Naqibs from among them? This implies that the 12 Naqibs weren’t known yet.

Quote

مُلْكٌ signifies the exercise of authority to command and to forbid in respect of the generality of a people

Thank you for proving my point. You earlier restricted the meaning of Malik to be “Army chief”, but now you admit it means authority over the generality of the people. So was it Talut عليه السلام who had authority over the generality of the people, or the Prophet Samuel عليه السلام. One is named Malik (King) and the other is not.

Quote

Verses releated with Talut begins  with his appointment as an authority over the army and ends with the killing of Jalut (2:246-251). so we can derive from the available information that he was appointed as an army chief.

You should read the Quran more carefully. It says that the one who killed Jalut (Goliath) was David عليه السلام:

وَ قَتَلَ دَاوٗدُ جَالُوۡتَ

So if anyone was the Army chief it was David and not Talut (Saul). This is also confirmed in the Hebrew Bible, which clearly says Saul was the first King of Israel, appointed to that position through the agency of Prophet Samuel.

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

You claimed that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم "appointed” the 12 Naqibs, but that is false. The Hadith says:

اخرجوا إلى منكم اثنى عشر نقيبا يكونون على قومهم

Take out (elect) for me, from among you, twelve Naqibs, who shall manage their people”

image.png.9951ab10900306c558fc0c9397110204.png

You claimed that the 12 Naqibs were already chieftains of their tribes, but where is the evidence for this claim? If the 12 Naqibs were already chiefs of their tribes, why did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم tell the Ansar to take out 12 Naqibs from among them? This implies that the 12 Naqibs weren’t known yet.

Thank you for proving my point. You earlier restricted the meaning of Malik to be “Army chief”, but now you admit it means authority over the generality of the people. So was it Talut عليه السلام who had authority over the generality of the people, or the Prophet Samuel عليه السلام. One is named Malik (King) and the other is not.

You should read the Quran more carefully. It says that the one who killed Jalut (Goliath) was David عليه السلام:

وَ قَتَلَ دَاوٗدُ جَالُوۡتَ

So if anyone was the Army chief it was David and not Talut (Saul). This is also confirmed in the Hebrew Bible, which clearly says Saul was the first King of Israel, appointed to that position through the agency of Prophet Samuel.

اخرجوا means  you come out/get out/ exit/ take out/pull out/bring forth

 خَرَجَ      Never meant to elect in the dictionary.

 If we take it as “ take out” then also it means  “you take out(of the group) to me” or you come out(of the group) to me

 That means 12 chieftains should come out form their place (from the group) and come to me.

 When chieftains came out to the prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) ,he assigned them the responsibility over their people, that means he appointed them as a responsible person over their people.

“When separated (from the people) Talut with the army (for war)….2:249” further proves that Tault was having the authority over the army. “and Dawud Killed Jalut” proves that Dawud was a soldier in the army of Talut.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curious

A simple problem requires a simple solution.

You theorise “Banu Awz and Banu Khazraj offered the office of leader, administrator, arbitrator or judge over Medina to the Messenger”.

So what should be the greatest evidence for this theory, acceptable to all? Of course, the contents of the Pledge of Aqaba 1 and 2. You even admitted himself there’s no such offer written in the pledges.

21 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Actually, if you really study the Second Pledge of Aqabah, you will realize that it was a pledge to “protect” the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and not necessarily to grant him political authority. That makes sense because at the time the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was in danger from the Quraish. Abu Talib had passed away and the Quraish were getting emboldened.

So, your theory is null and void. End of story.

21 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

His original intention was not actually to acquire political authority or even a role of arbitrator, but simply to acquire protection for himself and by extension his followers of Mecca. Once the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم received that pledge of protection, his authority began to gradually increase in Medina, as W. Montgomery Watt has explained in his book Prophet and Statesman which I quoted earlier. He says that even when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم arrived in Medina, he was only considered the head of the Muhajirin and not all the clans of the Ansar, despite the fact that vast majority of those clans already accepted him as their Prophet right before the Hijrah, but they continued to have independent heads of authority for each clan. The Ansar invited the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to function as an arbitrator among them of their own prerogative. If that was the original mission of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم he would have instructed them toward that end from the moment he met them and they believed in him as a Prophet. On the contrary, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم throughout the Meccan phase never called upon anyone to facilitate the manifestion of his “potential” political authority.

 

You see, originally, Banu Awz and Banu khazraj had decided to elect Abdullah ibn Ubai as their ruler, in a bid to stop the feud among them. The Pledge of Aqaba put a stop to this.

Did they think the Messenger as a better ruler? Or did they believe, through Islam, their hearts could be united?

I believe more in what the Quran says than what W. Montgomery Watt said.

[Shakir 3:103] And hold fast by the covenant of Allah all together and be not disunited, and remember the favor of Allah on you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts so by His favor you became brethren;

[Shakir 8:62] And if they intend to deceive you-- then surely Allah is sufficient for you; He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers

[Shakir 8:63] And united their hearts; had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise.

 

22 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Yes, everything the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did in whatever capacity had divine approval in the sense that Allah did not oppose it. That is not the same as saying whatever the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did was divinely appointed and instructed by Allah.

I think, all agreed that the primary role of the Messenger is as a representative of Allah. This however doesn’t negate the kingship role. If you read Quran [4:59], whenever a dispute/disagreement occurs about anything, we’ve to refer to Allah and the Messenger. Surely this “anything” includes “political matters” as understood by people of today.

Some believe, the kingship role can be succeeded through consultation. However, i believe Quran [7:155] should be a timely reminder.

 

 

 

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

If, for the sake of argument, Allah told the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to make a specific treaty, or to dispatch a specific army, or to appoint a specific commander, or to receive a specific delegation, or to collect a specific tax, etc., does that necessitate that these are regular functions of Prophesy? For example, if Allah told the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to appoint xyz as commander of an army and dispatch that army on a particular expedition, can we derive from this that every time the Prophet is appointing a commander and dispatching an army on some expedition, he is doing so under divine authority?

So now we should examine every Treaty/direction/command of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to determine if it was divine or man-made?

 

20 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Let me examine some of your examples: You speak of the institution of zakat, jizya, kharaj and khums. These are apparently divine ordinances in Islam, I do not deny that giving them is part of the Religion, and that they are statutory laws.

The question is, is the method of their collection and the designated authority authorized to collect these religious “taxes” and tributes divinely instituted to, or is that from the discretionary affairs?

If you claim the former is true, that the method of collection and the authority authorized to collect these things is divinely appointed by Allah, then I would ask you for evidence of that claim.

But if you agree with me that the method of Zakat collection, and the authority authorized to collect Zakat, Ushr, Kharaj, etc., is a discretionary matter or a secular affair, then let me say that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was collecting these taxes and tributes from the people not in his capacity of Prophet but in his capacity of political authority.

Another example you cite is Mubahalah. This is your weakest and most problematic example. The Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم discussion and dialogue with the Christians of Najran was clearly in his capacity of Prophet, as that was a purely religious discussion in which he was explaining to them the falsehood of their theology, the trinity, deification of Jesus, etc., and inviting them to believe in his Nubuwwah and Revelation. It was not connected with his political authority, therefore, naturally the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم acted in accordance to the divine instruction of Allah in that regard in challenging them to a contest of Mubahalah.

The next example I want to deal with is Jihad. As I recall, I briefly touched on this point earlier in the thread, when I said that Jihad itself as a divine commandment to fight the pagan Arabs needs to be separated from the discretionary, secular affair of organizing armies, dispatching expeditions, strategic and logistical decisions, and appointing specific commanders. Therefore, by presenting the divine ordinance of Jihad in the Quran you have not actually proven that the discretionary affairs associated with Jihad were likewise divine, or that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم executed them in his capacity of Prophet.

Appointing judges and governors is likewise not a divine matter, unless you can quote to me from the Quran where Allah revealed to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to designate a specific individual as judge or governor. The Quran certainly commands us to obey the ulil amr minkum, but it does not divinely designate who they specifically are as individuals.

Finally, you said Hudaibiyah is an example of a divinely revealed matter, and then quote a narration from Tarikh at-Tabari.

I’ve checked the sanad of that particular narration, and conclude it is not authentic as it is maqtu. Imam at-Tabari says “Ibn Ishaq from al-Zuhri”, clearly a sanad with much inqita in it and therefore not authentic.

But if for the sake of argument I accept this narration, the reported statement of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه "I am God’s servant and messenger. I will never disobey His command, and He will not allow me to perish” does not indicate that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was divinely commanded to negotiate or sign the Treaty. He is simply explaining to sayyidina Umar that he ought to trust him, because being a Prophet it is impossible he should ever disobey Allah, in either a divinely ordained matter or even a discretionary matter. “He will not allow me to perish” means if the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was doing something wrong or incorrect, Allah would surely rectify the matter because he is divinely protected.

Once again we are on the treacherous grounds if we start picking and choosing what elements of the Prophet's live are divine. But let's make an attempt:

  • Zakat:  zakat is mentioned with salat multiple times in the Quran to highlight its importance. If Zakat was discretionary, then why is it mentioned in the Quran and why is it obligatory? Next you will say that zakat is divine but how it is implemented is discretionary. I could use the same thought-process for salat since the exact method for salat is also not clearly mentioned in the Quran. Can you confirm zakat is not one of the 5 pillars of Islam?
  • Mubahila: more confusion on your part. Mubahila was religious and political. When the Christians declined to accept Mubahila, the agreement with the Prophet was payment of a certain amount (tax) and also funding the war in Yemen (shields, weapons, horses). This was a Treaty that was negotiated. Religion and politics completely intertwined here.
  • Jihad: Much like zakat, your argument is non-sensical. It is similar to saying salat is mentioned in the Quran but how to perform salat is not so it is discretionary. 
  • Ulil-Amr: Where does AMR come from? Who is the ultimate authority? If it is Allah, then it means authority comes from Allah. And who will tell us who the authority is better than the Prophet?
  • Hudaibiya: This is why I can't take you seriously. You can quote Tabari ad nauseam but I can't. Moreover the narration from Hudaibiya is present in Bukhari and/or Muslim. To further illustrate your blindness, you are making excuses for Umar. He wanted the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to not negotiate with the Kuffar. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) did not say "I really want to" but said, "I will not disobey Allah". This means the Treaty was Allah's command that was not to be disobeyed. How could the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) disobey Allah in a discretionary matter? If Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) wants to do A and Allah says do B, then B automatically becomes divine. It is absolutely pathetic that we even have to discuss this and makes your entire thread completely useless.
On 9/9/2020 at 9:30 PM, Cherub786 said:

Actually, if you really study the Second Pledge of Aqabah, you will realize that it was a pledge to “protect” the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and not necessarily to grant him political authority. That makes sense because at the time the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was in danger from the Quraish. Abu Talib had passed away and the Quraish were getting emboldened. His original intention was not actually to acquire political authority or even a role of arbitrator, but simply to acquire protection for himself and by extension his followers of Mecca. Once the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم received that pledge of protection, his authority began to gradually increase in Medina, as W. Montgomery Watt has explained in his book Prophet and Statesman which I quoted earlier. He says that even when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم arrived in Medina, he was only considered the head of the Muhajirin and not all the clans of the Ansar, despite the fact that vast majority of those clans already accepted him as their Prophet right before the Hijrah, but they continued to have independent heads of authority for each clan. The Ansar invited the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to function as an arbitrator among them of their own prerogative. If that was the original mission of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم he would have instructed them toward that end from the moment he met them and they believed in him as a Prophet. On the contrary, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم throughout the Meccan phase never called upon anyone to facilitate the manifestion of his “potential” political authority.

Yes, everything the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did in whatever capacity had divine approval in the sense that Allah did not oppose it. That is not the same as saying whatever the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did was divinely appointed and instructed by Allah.

If the pledge was only protection, then the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would have given bayah to the Khazraj to enter into their protection. They gave bayah to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) meaning acknowledged his 'caliph' without the authority of the state behind him and promised to protect him as one does under a bayah.

On 9/9/2020 at 9:30 PM, Cherub786 said:

So now you are moving on from discussing the actual theory I put forward, to criticizing what you view as flaws in its implementation. I don’t know if I should answer you now on these points when you aren’t even convinced of the theory yet.

Nevertheless, let me first make it clear that I am proving non divine appointment to the succession of the Prophet’s office of political authority. Non divine appointment is not necessarily always through consultation, though Islam considers consultation the ideal means. Consultation is not actually required for validity of political decisions and appointments, but it is highly encouraged and ideal. The Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم appointment to the office of chief arbitrator and then head of state was through a combination of consultation among the elders of the Ansar clans (not universal franchise) and the subsequent prestige he gained through victory in battles of Badr and Khandaq, as W. Montgomery Watt explained. As for sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه, Saqifah was only the beginning of the process of his election, he continued to receive pledges of allegiance at his blessed hand from the people en masse, until his election was consolidated.

The Prophet's appointment was only Khazraj and Aws tribes - not universal.

Abu Bakr was elected at Saqifah. Thereafter the choices tribes had was to fall in line or be killed...Ridda wars. Which brings me back to the zakat discussion. If zakat is discretionary, then you would agree that the Ridda Wars were illegitimate since not paying taxes is not a sin. Does that make Abu Bakr a war criminal?

Also, why is he "Sayedina" and RIghtly-Guided? He was just an administrator...according to you.

On 9/9/2020 at 9:30 PM, Cherub786 said:

As in answer to your previous point, consultation is ideal but not required for validity or legitimacy of authority. If the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم designated his successor to his political office, that wouldn’t invalidate my thesis, because that too would necessarily be a non divine appointment, from the discretionary affairs which a political leader has a right to. Nevertheless, sayyidina Abi Bakr did not “select” sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنهما, rather, he nominated him and then consulted various prominent Sahabah رضى الله عنهم meeting with their approval. Then when sayyidina Abi Bakr died, the people gave bay’ah to sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه of their own volition. It was not forced. Nor can you point to any historical dissent from the succession of sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه it was the most smooth and uncontroversial election.

Abu Bakr wrote in his will that the next caliph is ... he apparently fainted and his scribe Uthman completed it with Umar. Mind was made up.

Once again, options were accept or sword.

On 9/9/2020 at 9:30 PM, Cherub786 said:

The Shura council had the full confidence of the Ansar, so it was not necessary to consult every individual or clan individually or separately. You can think of it as a representative body that has the confidence of the public and whose decision is considered the people’s decision.

Lol. Quite different from free elections that you claim in your original post. Moreover, Ansar did not have a real say in the matter.

On 9/9/2020 at 9:30 PM, Cherub786 said:

 

No election was a free election, including that of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه. If by free election you mean universal franchise, where each and every individual is casting his or her ballot, including women, slaves, Bedouins, etc., it was certainly not a free election. In fact, out of the four elections, the election of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه was the most controversial, as it was rejected by the people of Syria who never recognized the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه despite being a major component of the Ummah at the time.

 

I am sure you know that I know and I know that you know that in those days, only the head of the tribe had to vote (sort of an electoral college).

Right, Abu Bakr and his war criminal Khalid bin Walid conduct Ridda wars and Ali (عليه السلام) election was most controversial. 

It is a lie that the people of Syria rejected Ali (عليه السلام). The cursed Muawiya rejected Ali (عليه السلام) caliphate and rebelled against the Rightly Guided Caliph. If Ali (عليه السلام) was rightly guided and Muawiya was against him, then obviously Muawiya was wrongly guided, hence cursed. Agreed?

On 9/9/2020 at 9:30 PM, Cherub786 said:

Your (loaded) question assumes that divine authority is necessary for somenoe to be considered rightly-guided, but that is obviously not the case. Rightly-guided is a descriptive term, to describe the fact that those Caliphs رضى الله عنهم were men of piety and ruled in accordance with the Shari’ah and the Sunnah.

Why in name of Allah would they follow the sunnah of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in running the affairs of the Ummah? It is an administrative role - completely discretionary. If they are following Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then they must have considered it divine. If they are not following Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then they are not Rightly Guided.

Also, what does shariah have to do with running the country? Religion and politics are separate. 

But let's say they are rightly guided caliphs and follow shariah and sunnah. Was Ridda wars per shariah and sunnah? Was forgiving the war criminal and rapist Khalid bin Walid following shariah or sunnah? If neither, then Abu Bakr is not rightly guided. If shariah or sunnah, please confirm Islam permits raping women are killing their husbands in front of them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

@Cherub786

Quote

Do you agree that the Ansar رضى الله عنهم were correct in consulting among themselves whether to invite the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to their town to serve as chief arbitrator among them? 

I believe it was the right and appropriate thing to do. However, I don't see it impacting the authority of the prophet, because he ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had full authority over the muslimeen by definition. In other words, his authority is not dependent on any position. 

Quote

Why can’t it be both?

This is in reference to whether the khilafah of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was a divine appointment or a matter of consultation. 

Why can't it be both? The entire basis of your thread was the differentiation of divine appointment and human consultation. Are you reconsidering your initial position?

Regarding your question about the appointment of Dawud (عليه السلام), there is no mention of any consultation in our texts so unless we have some evidence of this I would understand it to be divinely appointment in the same way that Sulayman (عليه السلام) was granted a kingdom and Adam (عليه السلام) was sent as a khalifah.

You state that there isn't a rule saying that khilafah has to be divinely granted. I don't state it's a rule either, only that it's an idea with no basis in our texts.

Finally, you differentiate between what is divinely appointed and what is kasbi. This is an incorrect differentiation. Why can a divine appointment not be based on merit?

Quote

The concept of holding on to the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs means that Sunnah which is the Prophet’s own Sunnah and not contrary or independent of it

We know this isn't really the case. We know the Imam Ali (عليه السلام) specifically refused to follow the sunnah of the first two caliphs when approached by ibn Awf, rather saying that he would follow the Qur'an, the sunnah of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and his own reasoning. 

Quote

To say that disobedience is kufr and not merely sin is the madhhab of the Khawarij. We in Ahl us-Sunnah do not say sin equals kufr.

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has ordered us to obey the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) in the Qur'an. To refuse this is not kufr according to your school? Many of your scholars seem to think so. Is there not a famous hadith in Bukhari and Muslim that says:

مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ أَطَاعَ أَمِيرِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي، وَمَنْ عَصَى أَمِيرِي فَقَدْ عَصَانِي

 

Quote

 

 

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

Why can't it be both? The entire basis of your thread was the differentiation of divine appointment and human consultation. Are you reconsidering your initial position?

I don’t mean simultaneously, I mean why can’t it be that Allah appointed some to positions of political authority divinely (notably Talut) and others acquire Khilafat fil-Ard through consultation, election, or other means that are not divinely appointed?

Quote

Finally, you differentiate between what is divinely appointed and what is kasbi. This is an incorrect differentiation. Why can a divine appointment not be based on merit?

You are right, that is a scenario in which it is both Kasbi and Wahbi. But in a purely kasbi scenario, a person acquires a rank purely through effort, Allah doesn’t reveal that He has chosen him to occupy that rank, but he is recognized by people as having earned that rank through effort.

Quote

We know this isn't really the case. We know the Imam Ali (عليه السلام) specifically refused to follow the sunnah of the first two caliphs when approached by ibn Awf, rather saying that he would follow the Qur'an, the sunnah of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and his own reasoning. 

Amir al-Mu’minin كرم الله وجهه said that he did not want to be bound by the way of Shaikhain رضى الله عنهما but that he would govern according to his own ijtihad. This indicates that the issue was policy regarding the discretionary affairs. The four Rightly-Guided Caliphs may have had different methods of governing in the discretionary affairs based on their personal ijtihad and preference, but in terms of following the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم we believe they all were the best exemplars of leaders in the political sense who ruled according to the Shari’ah and the Prophet’s blessed Sunnah. That is how we interpret the Hadith “stick to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of my rightly-guided successors, bite on to it with the molars” meaning it is originally the Sunnah of the Prophet, and that his rightly guided Successors are those who shall manifest or act in accordance with it. That is why “bite on to it” is in the singular indicating one Sunnah and not multiple Sunan independent of each other.

Abd ur-Rahman b. Awf رضى الله عنه wanted the third caliph to be someone who would follow the ijtihad of Shaikhain رضى الله عنهما since it was so liked by the people and successful, but sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه refused this condition, as he believed his own independent ijtihad was more appropriate.

Quote

Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has ordered us to obey the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) in the Qur'an. To refuse this is not kufr according to your school? Many of your scholars seem to think so. Is there not a famous hadith in Bukhari and Muslim that says:

مَنْ أَطَاعَنِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَقَدْ عَصَى اللَّهَ، وَمَنْ أَطَاعَ أَمِيرِي فَقَدْ أَطَاعَنِي، وَمَنْ عَصَى أَمِيرِي فَقَدْ عَصَانِي

It depends what you mean by refuse. If you mean someone refuses to acknowledge the necessity of obedience to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, that is surely kufr. But if you mean someone acknowledges the necessity of obedience to the Prophet, yet because of personal shortcomings misses the mark and falls into sin, while acknowledging he is a weak sinner, that is not kufr. It is the same for obeying Allah, anyone who does not consider obedience to Allah necessary is undoubtedly guilty of kufr, but who among us has not committed sin which means disobedience to Allah, though we acknowledge that obedience to Allah is mandated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
22 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I don’t mean simultaneously, I mean why can’t it be that Allah appointed some to positions of political authority divinely (notably Talut) and others acquire Khilafat fil-Ard through consultation, election, or other means that are not divinely appointed?

I took your comment to be simultaneous and specific to the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)). To answer your question, like I mentioned before in theory it could be possible for some appointments to be divine while others were non divine, although when it comes to the khulafa of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) then the non divine appointment seems to lack a basis. Time and time again Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) describes how He makes or sends khulafa, never has He mentioned khulafa being appointed by the people.

22 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Abd ur-Rahman b. Awf رضى الله عنه wanted the third caliph to be someone who would follow the ijtihad of Shaikhain رضى الله عنهما since it was so liked by the people and successful, but sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه refused this condition, as he believed his own independent ijtihad was more appropriate

We are essentially saying the same thing although I understand you have tried to somehow rephrase it. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) rejected the sunnah of the sheikhain.

You say it is no different than that of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), yet we see that changes have been recorded in your own books (rules of divorce, punishment for drinking wine, hajj al tamattu', taraweeh, number of rakats prayed at Mina etc). These are not merely matters of ijtihad, we are discussing Shar'i changes. 

22 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

It depends what you mean by refuse.

It means an active, deliberate and conscious refusal as opposed to an error or sin due to lack of knowledge or a weak practice of religion. 

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

 could be possible for some appointments to be divine while others were non divine

This is the point, which I’m glad you have once again reaffirmed. I was under the impression that your madhhab doesn’t accept this, that all political authority which isn’t divinely appointed is fundamentally illegitimate. This is certainly the view expressed by the late Khurram Zaki in his several debates with Sunnis that I have viewed on his YouTube channel.

Quote

We are essentially saying the same thing although I understand you have tried to somehow rephrase it. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) rejected the sunnah of the sheikhain.

You say it is no different than that of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), yet we see that changes have been recorded in your own books (rules of divorce, punishment for drinking wine, hajj al tamattu', taraweeh, number of rakats prayed at Mina etc). These are not merely matters of ijtihad, we are discussing Shar'i changes. 

The examples you have given can be discussed on an individual basis to determine if they really are, as you claim, changes to the Shari’ah. I’ll just briefly explain that the punishment for drinking doesn’t seem to have been set or fixed by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم meaning there is no statutory punishment, except that punishment itself is legislated, but the nature of that punishment appears to be discretionary. And regarding Tarawih, we say it has precedent in the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم who did lead the night vigil after Isha in congregation.

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

It means an active, deliberate and conscious refusal as opposed to an error or sin due to lack of knowledge or a weak practice of religion. 

It’s still not clear because when you say “active, deliberate, and conscious” do you mean istihlal or do you mean committing sin deliberately with intention? The former is kufr, and the latter is not. For a sin to be considered a sin it has to be intentional and deliberate. Doing something sinful unintentionally or accidentally isn’t counted as a sin for someone. If you missed a prayer because of genuine forgetfulness it isn’t a sin, as long as you make it up the moment you remember. If you skip a prayer deliberately then the question is did you skip the prayer because you no longer believe prayer is a religious obligation on you, or did you skip the prayer because of your desire and laziness while acknowledging that it is still a religious obligation and that you are sinful for not offering it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2020 at 9:23 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

So now we should examine every Treaty/direction/command of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to determine if it was divine or man-made?

Why not? The asl of the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم instructions and acts in his capacity of political authority is that they are not divine. They are his discretionary prerogative.

It may also help you to understand this point if you realize that the Nubuwwah of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is عطائى and not ذاتى

Quote
  • Zakat:  zakat is mentioned with salat multiple times in the Quran to highlight its importance. If Zakat was discretionary, then why is it mentioned in the Quran and why is it obligatory? Next you will say that zakat is divine but how it is implemented is discretionary. I could use the same thought-process for salat since the exact method for salat is also not clearly mentioned in the Quran. Can you confirm zakat is not one of the 5 pillars of Islam?

Zakat as an institution is divine. Certain details regarding Zakat are likewise divinely legislated, notably, the rates of Zakat and who comes under its obligation. Certain other details are not divinely legislated, such as who is appointed to collect the Zakat. Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم appointed certain agents to go around Arabia and collect Zakat from the tribes. If that was a divine aspect of the Zakat, then those individuals who he appointed must continue to collect Zakat till Judgment Day, and it is not allowed for anyone else to collect Zakat apart from them! I hope you can see how absurd that is.

The same can be said for Salat. It is divinely legislated act of worship, and its method is also divinely legislated. But who is appointed to lead each and every Salat is not divinely appointed, otherwise, the imam in your local mosque must be divinely appointed!

Quote
  • Jihad: Much like zakat, your argument is non-sensical. It is similar to saying salat is mentioned in the Quran but how to perform salat is not so it is discretionary. 

The same principle applies to Jihad. The appointment of specific commanders and organization of armies and all the logistics are discretionary and not divine. Read carefully my answer to you on Zakat and Salat and now you will understand Jihad too. The specific appointment for a commander in Jihad is not divine aslan, just like the specific appointment for an agent to collect Zakat is not divine, and the specific appointment for an imam to lead the Salat is not divine. If it was divine, we would need a divine proof for every commander who is leading an army in Jihad till Judgment Day, a divine proof for every agent who is collecting Zakat till Judgment Day, and a divine proof for every imam who is leading a congregational prayer service till Judgment Day.

Quote
  • Ulil-Amr: Where does AMR come from? Who is the ultimate authority? If it is Allah, then it means authority comes from Allah. And who will tell us who the authority is better than the Prophet?

In another thread you were defending Imran Khan and even comparing him to sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه (God forbid). So according to you, he must have a divine proof and a divine authority to govern Pakistan? Did Allah appoint Imran Khan? Did Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم appoint Imran Khan?

Quote

 "I will not disobey Allah". This means the Treaty was Allah's command that was not to be disobeyed.

I already pointed out the Hadith is weak (maqtu, incomplete chain). Secondly, “I will not disobey Allah” is a descriptive statement, it doesn’t infer that the Treaty in its clauses and signing was a command by Allah. If it was, why didn't it apply to the Muslims of Mecca?

Quote

How could the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) disobey Allah in a discretionary matter?

Discretionary matter by its very definition means the question of disobedience to Allah does not arise. It is a discretionary matter in whether you drink water, milk, juice, tea, coffee, or soda. The question of obedience or disobedience to Allah does not arise precisely because it is discretionary.

Quote

If the pledge was only protection, then the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) would have given bayah to the Khazraj to enter into their protection.

Wrong, the Ansar gave bay’ah pledging to protect the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. It was their duty to protect, it wasn’t the Prophet’s duty to be protected. How silly can you be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2020 at 9:23 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

The Prophet's appointment was only Khazraj and Aws tribes - not universal.

It later expanded to include all Arabia through conquest and voluntary conversion of other tribes who then voluntarily submitted to the political authority of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Quote

Abu Bakr was elected at Saqifah. Thereafter the choices tribes had was to fall in line or be killed...Ridda wars. Which brings me back to the zakat discussion. If zakat is discretionary, then you would agree that the Ridda Wars were illegitimate since not paying taxes is not a sin. Does that make Abu Bakr a war criminal?

Once a political authority is established, according to Shari’ah, those under its jurisdiction are required to acknowledge and obey that political authority ulil amr minkum.

When the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم died, he possessed political authority over all Arabia. His successor to that office of political authority therefore inherited the authority over all Arabia. When the tribes who were under that jurisdiction rebelled against the Khilafah of sayyidina Abi Bakr as-Siddiq رضى الله عنه, it became permissible for the central political authority to wage war against them and crush the rebellion as per Shari’ah. This is not only the right of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, but any established political authority. Rebellion against any established political authority is strictly haram.

Quote

Also, why is he "Sayedina" and RIghtly-Guided? He was just an administrator...according to you.

Sayyidina Abi Bakr as-Siddiq رضى الله عنه was not “just” an administrator, he possessed other roles, and the role of being the Prophet’s successor in the political sense still requires a certain level of respect and reverence. But ultimately we love and respect him for his personal merits, the fact that the Quran itself has praised him and the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم told him, as quoted in the Quran, “verily, Allah is with both of us” (9:40). The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said “The father of A’ishah is the most beloved of men to me” and “if I were to take a khalil it would be Abu Bakr”, and tons of other narrations which establish his virtue and status in the Religion. If he was a nobody (God forbid), the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم would not have agreed to his Caliphate and would not have pledged allegiance to him voluntarily en masse.

Quote

Once again, options were accept or sword.

Of course, once a political authority is established, to challenge it or rebel against it cannot be tolerated as per Shari’ah. And this is by no means unique to Islam, challenging the writ of any state is considered treason and usually dealt with by the death penalty.

Quote

Why in name of Allah would they follow the sunnah of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in running the affairs of the Ummah? It is an administrative role - completely discretionary. If they are following Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then they must have considered it divine. If they are not following Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), then they are not Rightly Guided.

Also, what does shariah have to do with running the country? Religion and politics are separate. 

Governments are required to judge in accordance to the Shari’ah and the Sunnah, their freedom is in discretionary matters. This was true for the Prophet as political leader, true for the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and for every other political authority till Judgment Day. I don’t know why you can’t understand a simple concept that the office of political administration is not divine but still required to judge according to the Shari’ah. And this isn’t limited to government either, you and I in our personal capacity are required to judge by the Shari’ah and those domains where we possess authority. If you are a father, you have to judge and discipline your household in accordance with the Shari’ah. Does it mean you are divinely appointed? If you are an employer of a business, you have to judge and deal with your employees in accordance with the Shari’ah and Sunnah – does it mean the employer has to be divinely appointed? Try to make a sincere attempt to understand what I am saying instead of arguing for the sake of argument, or instead of being stubborn.

Quote

But let's say they are rightly guided caliphs and follow shariah and sunnah. Was Ridda wars per shariah and sunnah? Was forgiving the *Sword of Allah* Khalid bin Walid رضى الله عنه following shariah or sunnah? If neither, then [sayyidina] Abu Bakr [رضى الله عنه] is not rightly guided. If shariah or sunnah, please confirm Islam permits raping women are killing their husbands in front of them.

Yes, the Ridda wars were in accordance to the Shari’ah, which licenses all political authority to crush rebellion and challenges to its writ:

اِنَّمَا جَزٰٓؤُا الَّذِیۡنَ یُحَارِبُوۡنَ اللّٰہَ وَ رَسُوۡلَہٗ وَ یَسۡعَوۡنَ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ فَسَادًا اَنۡ یُّقَتَّلُوۡۤا اَوۡ یُصَلَّبُوۡۤا اَوۡ تُقَطَّعَ اَیۡدِیۡہِمۡ وَ اَرۡجُلُہُمۡ مِّنۡ خِلَافٍ اَوۡ یُنۡفَوۡا مِنَ الۡاَرۡضِ ؕ ذٰلِکَ لَہُمۡ خِزۡیٌ فِی الدُّنۡیَا وَ لَہُمۡ فِی الۡاٰخِرَۃِ عَذَابٌ عَظِیۡمٌ

The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment

(5:33)

So sayyidina Abi Bakr as-Siddiq رضى الله عنه was perfectly justified in waging war against the rebels as per this Ayah which says that the reward of those who “strive to create disorder in the land” is that they be slain, etc.

As for what you have wrongly accused the Sword of Allah رضى الله عنه I won’t discuss that issue on this thread as it is diverting from the main 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...