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

Guest Pschological Warfare
Quote

Disobedience to a Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is not kufr, it is sin. Disbelief and rejection of a Prophet is kufr.

وَإِذْ قُلْنَا لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ اسْجُدُوا لِآدَمَ فَسَجَدُوا إِلَّا إِبْلِيسَ أَبَىٰ وَاسْتَكْبَرَ وَكَانَ مِنَ الْكَافِرِينَ {34}

[Shakir 2:34] And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam they did obeisance, but Iblis (did it not). He refused and he was proud, and he was one of the unbelievers.
[Pickthal 2:34] And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever.
[Yusufali 2:34] And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith.

-------------------

Did Iblis disbelief and reject God? or Did the accursed Disobey/refused ? 

 

 

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

1 hour ago, Guest Pschological Warfare said:
Did Iblis disbelief and reject God? or Did the accursed Disobey/refused ? 

Iblis rejected God’s authority and did not consider himself bound to obey God, hence he committed kufr.

I’m not sure why you folks are arguing with me on this point, this is the madhhab of the Khawarij that someone who commits a sin is guilty of kufr and becomes a kafir. I guess it’s the Shi’ah madhhab too?

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

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

As I said, we don't have a basis for any such authority in our texts. The appointments of the prophets were divine as were those of the aimmah according to our madhab. Is political leadership outside of this framework legitimate? I imagine you will find different views among our madhab (some would say yes, due to the hadith of every banner being a false banner before that of the Qa'im, while others would say that leadership that is aligned with the madhab, giving the example of wilayatul faqih, is in fact legitimate).

Regarding the authority of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), for us it is clear that it is total and complete. We don't seperate it into divine and non divine portions. Any command of his is hujjah upon us.

Quote

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

Narrations in your books present a different picture (ie that there was a punishment during the time of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) which the khulafa then changed, as well as that the congregational taraweeh was also something that wasn't practiced until some point during the second caliphate). I understand you don't want to derail the thread, but if you want specific references I can share them inshaAllah. If you already know the references then you may need to admit here that changes in the Shari'a did occur.

10 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

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 latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare
Quote

Iblis rejected God’s authority and did not consider himself bound to obey God, 

Fyi

Quote

"As for Lordship in Divine Legislation, we know that from the Islamic perspective and in accordance with the teachings which the Holy Our’ an presents, the origin of deviation in belief and action is Iblis which is the same being who had been created before Hazrat Adam (عليه السلام) and had been engaged in worshipping Allah for many years. Amirul-Mu’mineen (The commander of the faithful) Al- Imam ‘Ali (عليه السلام) says in "Nahjul- Balaghah":

“Iblis worshipped Allah for six thousand years, while we do not know whether it was the years of this world or of the years of the hereafter6

Iblis worshipped Allah for six thousand years and yet it is not known whether these years have been of the years of this world each year of which is 365 days or of the years of the other world each day of which is one thousand years. Anyhow, for a very long period of time which is not quite imaginable for us, Iblis had existed and had been worshipping Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), so that the angels had though that Iblis was of the angels and had given it a place in their own ranks. But Iblis had a two-sided nature (namely, like man, it had free will) and had to be tested so that the level of its At-Tawhid and knowledge of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) would emerge and it would become clear whether he had the necessary level of At-Tawhid or not.

The test of Iblis was realized through Hazrat Adam (عليه السلام), in the way that after the creation of Hazrat Adam (عليه السلام), Iblis was commanded (By Allah) to perform sajdah (prostration) to Adam (عليه السلام). But Iblis disobeyed this Divine command and because of this disobedience, it was driven away from the nearness to Allah and became the head of the inmates of hell and the rest of the inmates of hell will go to hell for following Iblis.

But why the one who has worshipped Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in His Oneness is driven away from His nearness for one opposition and one sin and reaches such a level of wretchedness which is unthinkable for us? What is the secret behind the fact that so much worship is ignored and Iblis falls so low because of just one sin?

The analysis which on the basis of Islamic outlook can be made on this matter is that the sin of Iblis stemmed from defect in its At-Tawhid, manifested itself in the form of a practical disobedience (to Allah) and caused its fall. Because in reality Iblis did not believe in whatever Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) commands, His creatures should accept His command unquestionably, Iblis said;

..أَنَا خَيْرٌ مِنْهُ خَلَقْتَنِي مِنْ نَارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُ مِنْ طِينٍ

“…I am better than he; You have created me out of fire, while him did you create out of dust (7:12).”

What is this command You are giving me, how should I prostrate to Adam while I am better than him? These words in fact arose from Iblis spirit of disbelief and unfaithfulness and were demonstrative of his inner and hidden kufr. The Holy Qur’an says:

..وَكَانَ مِنَ الْكَافِرِينَ

“…And he was one of the disbelievers (2:34)”

Such disbelief existed in Iblis before, but it had not yet emerged and turned into the stage of action. Iblis did not have belief up to the required level of At-Tawhid and did not believe that the right to command order and inhabit unquestionably belongs exclusively to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and whatever He commands has to be fulfilled: otherwise, Iblis believed in the One God and he also talked to Allah.

..خَلَقْتَنِي مِنْ نَارٍ وَخَلَقْتَهُ مِنْ طِينٍ

“…You have created me out of fire, while him did you create out of dust (7:12).”

Iblis even believed in Allah’s Lordship in creation and in the Resurrection Day.

..أَنْظِرْنِي إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ يُبْعَثُونَ

“…Respite me until the day when they are raised up (7:14)”.

So, Iblis had neither any defect in the principle of belief in Allah’s being the Creator, or in belief in Allah’s Lordship in creation and nor in belief in ma’ad.

But still he falls so much! Why?

Because he does not believe in Allah’s Lordship in Law-giving (Divine legislation) and docs not regard Allah’s command to be obeyed unquestionably, unless Allah’s command would be consistent with (Ibis’s) own thought and desire." 2

 

The essence of Worship is to Obey the command of the Wali. With out obedience, its all lip service.

 

إِذَا جَاءَكَ الْمُنَافِقُونَ قَالُوا نَشْهَدُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ إِنَّكَ لَرَسُولُهُ وَاللَّهُ يَشْهَدُ إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ لَكَاذِبُونَ {1}

[Shakir 63:1] When the hypocrites come to you, they say: We bear witness that you are most surely Allah's Messenger; and Allah knows that you are most surely His Messenger, and Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are surely liars.
[Pickthal 63:1] When the hypocrites come unto thee (O Muhammad), they say: We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah's messenger. And Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the hypocrites indeed are speaking falsely.
[Yusufali 63:1] When the Hypocrites come to thee, they say, "We bear witness that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah." Yea, Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His Messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the Hypocrites are indeed liars.

اتَّخَذُوا أَيْمَانَهُمْ جُنَّةً فَصَدُّوا عَنْ سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۚ إِنَّهُمْ سَاءَ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ {2}

[Shakir 63:2] They make their oaths a shelter, and thus turn away from Allah's way; surely evil is that which they do.
[Pickthal 63:2] They make their faith a pretext so that they may turn (men) from the way of Allah. Verily evil is that which they are wont to do,
[Yusufali 63:2] They have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct (men) from the Path of Allah: truly evil are their deeds.

ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا ثُمَّ كَفَرُوا فَطُبِعَ عَلَىٰ قُلُوبِهِمْ فَهُمْ لَا يَفْقَهُونَ {3}

[Shakir 63:3] That is because they believe, then disbelieve, so a seal is set upon their hearts so that they do not understand.
[Pickthal 63:3] That is because they believed, then disbelieved, therefore their hearts are sealed so that they understand not.
[Yusufali 63:3] That is because they believed, then they rejected Faith: So a seal was set on their hearts: therefore they understand not.

-----

They acknowledged Muhammad al-Mustafa ( peace be upon him and his pure progeny) Only thru their words- their actions did not support their Verbal claim. So, to say someone belive in the Prophet but does not obey is essentially disbelieve. They do not recognize Prophet's Over All Authority over them. Period. no if's and buts about it. 

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

As I said, we don't have a basis for any such authority in our texts. The appointments of the prophets were divine as were those of the aimmah according to our madhab. Is political leadership outside of this framework legitimate? I imagine you will find different views among our madhab (some would say yes, due to the hadith of every banner being a false banner before that of the Qa'im, while others would say that leadership that is aligned with the madhab, giving the example of wilayatul faqih, is in fact legitimate).

When you say different views, do you mean these two views specifically, or there are possibly more views? Also, I’m interested in your personal view. If it is these two views that are in your Madhhab and not a third or several other views, then obviously you subscribe to one or the other.

But let’s take the more generous or liberal of the two views, which is that government of that is not divinely appointed or even aligned with the divinely appointed Imamate is illegitimate. Apart from Iran does this not mean the government of every single Muslim country in the world is illegitimate? In fact, the government of every country in the world, Muslim or non-Muslim, is illegitimate? Do you accept this?

Quote

Narrations in your books present a different picture (ie that there was a punishment during the time of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) which the khulafa then changed

Note there is no fixed hadd for drunkenness in the Quran. It is mentioned in our Hadith books that sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه gave forty lashes, but also acknowledged that eighty lashes and forty lashes are both established from the Sunnah. Another Hadith states that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم used to have someone guilty of drunkenness beaten with palm branches and sandals, and that the Caliphs executed the punishment of actual lashing. Now it is clearly a matter of fiqh and ijtihad, and doesn’t seem to be a statutory hadd. What is clear is that some kind of corporal punishment is required for someone guilty of drunkenness from the perspective of Shari’ah, but the exact nature of that punishment has an element of discretion in it.

Quote

the congregational taraweeh was also something that wasn't practiced until some point during the second caliphate).

I disagree. The practice of offering Tarawih defined as congregational prayer of Qiyam al-Lail immediately after Isha during Ramadan, has precedent from the Prophet’s Sunnah. I would argue it even has proof from the Quran:

اِنَّ رَبَّکَ یَعۡلَمُ اَنَّکَ تَقُوۡمُ اَدۡنٰی مِنۡ ثُلُثَیِ الَّیۡلِ وَ نِصۡفَہٗ وَ ثُلُثَہٗ وَ طَآئِفَۃٌ مِّنَ الَّذِیۡنَ مَعَکَ

Surely, thy Lord knows that thou standest up praying for nearly two thirds of the night, and sometimes half or a third thereof, and also a party of those who are with thee

(Surah 73:20)

As I understand it, in your madhhab there is no such thing as offering nawafil in congregation, and specifically, Tahajjud or Qiyam al-Lail cannot be offered in congregation, but this appears to contradict 73:20 which describes the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم praying in the night with a group of people with him. You should also know that sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه did not institute congregational night vigil either, he only organized multiple but small congregational night vigils into a single, large one. So the practice of Muslims praying Tarawih in multiple but small congregations in the same masjid was taking place even before sayyidina Umar al-Faruq organized them into a single congregation per Masjid.

Quote

The latter.

Where and how do you precisely differ from the Khawarij on this point, i.e., that deliberately disobeying Allah while still acknowledging the religious necessity of that obedience is nonetheless kufr?

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

When you say different views, do you mean these two views specifically, or there are possibly more views? Also, I’m interested in your personal view.

You may recall earlier in the thread that my own position (based on precaution rather than knowledge) is to avoid participation in any political system and allegiance to any leader who isn't divinely appointed. 

I understand that there have been and will be various systems, including those established and handled by muslimeen, but none of them have any Shar'i basis meaning that their authority is man made rather than divine. This applies to any government, muslim or otherwise.

21 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Note there is no fixed hadd for drunkenness in the Quran.

I agree, but along with the Quran we have the sunnah and in addition to the sunnah you have instances where the early khulafa made their own introductions/modifications 

 

21 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I disagree. The practice of offering Tarawih defined as congregational prayer of Qiyam al-Lail immediately after Isha during Ramadan, has precedent from the Prophet’s Sunnah. I would argue it even has proof from the Quran:

Tahajjud has a basis of course, we all agree on this. The Quran mentions that apart from the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) there are also others who perform the night prayers (there is no reference to a congregation). 

Regarding the other points you mention, if I recall correctly the narrations in your books state that the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) came out during the night to pray (not after the 'Isha prayers) and in fact he told the people to perform the night prayer at home after they gathered behind him. 

21 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Where and how do you precisely differ from the Khawarij on this point, i.e., that deliberately disobeying Allah while still acknowledging the religious necessity of that obedience is nonetheless kufr?

Apparently I don't differ if this is indeed their stance. 

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

You may recall earlier in the thread that my own position (based on precaution rather than knowledge) is to avoid participation in any political system and allegiance to any leader who isn't divinely appointed. 

I understand that there have been and will be various systems, including those established and handled by muslimeen, but none of them have any Shar'i basis meaning that their authority is man made rather than divine. This applies to any government, muslim or otherwise.

Alright, but I think you’re still being somewhat vague in not answering whether you consider the government itself legitimate or a usurpation which isn’t divinely appointed.

I was hoping you would at least say it can be legitimate, which would go a long way to resolving our dispute on the Khilafah of the first three Caliphs رضى الله عنهم

But it seems according to you any government that isn’t divinely appointed has no Shari basis. I would dispute this quite strongly. I’ve previously mentioned examples where the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم acknowledged the legitimacy of the governments of non-Muslims, so how much more legitimate must the governments of Muslims be?

Acknowledging the legitimacy of the various states and governments of the world is a necessary barrier to the violent and revolutionary extremism we find in the Muslim world today and historically from two camps: 1. Shi’ites and 2. Kharijites

The Shi’ites say any government is illegitimate which isn’t under the authority of an infallible Imam. The Kharijites say any government is illegitimate if it doesn’t rule strictly by the Shari’ah, hence their slogan لا حكم الا لله

Both these positions are deeply problematic, potentially and actually dangerous as we’ve seen from all the conflicts and terrorism in the Middle East are due to Shi’ites (Houthis) and Kharijites (AQ, IS).

Quote

I agree, but along with the Quran we have the sunnah and in addition to the sunnah you have instances where the early khulafa made their own introductions/modifications 

I reaffirm that the acts and rulings of the Caliphs in discretionary matters not covered by the Quran and Sunnah, are their own ijtihad, and not permanently binding or universal for the Muslims. This is true for all Muslim rulers and judges.

Quote

Tahajjud has a basis of course, we all agree on this. The Quran mentions that apart from the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) there are also others who perform the night prayers (there is no reference to a congregation). 

Perhaps not explicitly, but I believe the Verse (73:20) can be interpreted to mean congregational night prayer. Regarding this Verse:

al-Fayruzabadi writes in hisTafsir:

وجماعة من المؤمنين معك في الصلاة

"A jama'ah among the Believers with you in the Salat"

Al-Baghawi states:

يعني المؤمنين وكانوا يقومون معه

"That is, the Believers, and they stood [in prayer] with him"

Similarly, the great exegete al-Khazin wrote:

يعني المؤمنين، وكانوا يقومون معه الليل

"That is, the Believers, and they stood [in prayer] with him [in] the night"

Quote

 if I recall correctly the narrations in your books state that the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) came out during the night to pray (not after the 'Isha prayers) and in fact he told the people to perform the night prayer at home after they gathered behind him. 

This is incorrect, he never told them to pray their night prayer at home. He صلى الله عليه وسلم only said he did not come out to lead the congregational night prayer (after leading it for several days) because he was fearful it might become an obligation, and the Ummah wouldn’t be able to handle it.

The night prayer technically begins after Isha, but can be offered anytime until the time for Fajr begins, although to pray in the latter part of the night is superior.

Quote

Apparently I don't differ if this is indeed their stance. 

Now you acknowledge that delibarate commission of a sin, disobedience to Allah and His Apostle صلى الله عليه وسلم is an act of kufr. Like the Khawarij, do you actually make takfir on specific individuals who are guilty of deliberate disobedience?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/12/2020 at 7:08 PM, Cherub786 said:

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

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?

I don't find it surprising at all at how selective you are in your hadith selection. This entire episode of Hudaibiya with Umar's rejection of the Peace Treaty is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. The Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) words "I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious." is also mentioned in it. Also mentioned is the penance Umar paid for questioning and doubting the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Surah Fath was also revealed in honor of this Treaty. It has some pretty strong words for those who rejected and doubted the Peace Treaty.

Of course the Treaty applied to the Muslims of Mecca - there were clauses in it for them.

Your entire premise that Treaties are political and not religious is moot since the Prophet confirmed it was Allah's Will. Moreover revealing the surah makes it religious+political. Quran + Sunnah is the Sunni slogan right? Quran containing Surah Fath and "Sunnah" containing "I will not disobey Allah" is sufficient evidence of the Prophet's political authority being divine.

Again not surprising that your allegiance is to the sunni narrative rather than the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and the obvious truth staring you in the face.

 

On 9/12/2020 at 7:08 PM, Cherub786 said:

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!

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.

This is getting quite retarded. Zakat aka tax collection is a political+religious act. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) laid the foundation of this tax collection. Therefore the Prophet has divine political authority. Otherwise Zakat collection as a whole would be discretionary. The fact that Zakat has certain obligatory rules and other discretionary is because that is how shariah is defined.

Once we establish that an act is divine then the shariah rulings vary by situation but as long as we recognize the act itself is divine.

Same applies for the Prophet's authority. Quran tells us to "Obey the Prophet" - it does not distinguish between religious obedience or political obedience so it means his political authority is also legislated by Allah.

Treaty - divine
Zakat - divine
Jihad - divine
Prophet's political authority = Divine.
The fact that shariah gives us flexibility in some areas and rigidity in other areas does not mean the Prophet's political authority is not divine; it simply means shariah has rules to be followed.

On 9/12/2020 at 7:08 PM, Cherub786 said:

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?

Wait a sec - you think ulil-amr means a regularly elected official? You should answer the question - who is the ultimate authority?

On 9/12/2020 at 7:08 PM, Cherub786 said:

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.

Okay, you said the treaties are discretionary. I said the Treaty of Hudaibiya is divinely legislated which you rejected. I provided evidence that the Prophet said "I will not disobey Allah" meaning he will sign the Treaty. Since the question of disobedience arose, then obviously the Treay of Hudaibiya was divine legislation.

On 9/12/2020 at 7:08 PM, Cherub786 said:

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?

Of course it was the duty of the Ansar to protect the Prophet - that is the essence of bayah. This act of bayah was the recognition of the Prophet's political authority over the people...without the backing of a state at that time.

You are either purposely or accidentally confusing divinity with shariah flexibility. Between the Treaty of Hudaibiya, Zakat, Jihad and Medinites giving bayah to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) before the establishment of a state, I have sufficiently proven that the Prophet's political authority was divine.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/12/2020 at 7:59 PM, Cherub786 said:

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.

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.

You claimed there is separation of religion and politics (church & state). How can there be any shariah about political rule? The fact that there is political shariah means the caliphate was divine. And if it is divine, then you premise that Medinites could elect whoever is faulty.

On 9/12/2020 at 7:59 PM, Cherub786 said:

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.

Why does being the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) political successor require respect and reverence. Its not like the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) selected him, is it?

Who cares about Abu Bakr or Ali personal merits. If we go by personal merits, then Ali's merits outweigh everyone else's combined. Quran praised Ali even more so whats the point. This is politics - why do personal merits matter. Voluntary en masse and yet we had Ridda wars.

I still fail to see how Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali were Rashidoun. There were political appointees - nothing more per your narrative. Moreover, you say they were Rashidoun because they followed the Quran and Sunnah. Does that mean the remaining thousands of sahaba did not? Were they not as pious? I thought they were all stars?

You can't have Khalifa-e-Rashidoun and maintain the hypothesis that caliphate is simply a political matter so Medinities could elect whomever.

On 9/12/2020 at 7:59 PM, Cherub786 said:

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.

I dont understand this because your premise is separation of Church & State.

On 9/12/2020 at 7:59 PM, Cherub786 said:

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.

Can you confirm you are rejecting Khalid bin Waleed killing Malik bin Nuwayra and forcing himself on his wife. Then he was called in by Caliph Abu Bakr and pardoned. Moreover, is not paying zakat a capital offense in Islam?

 

On 9/12/2020 at 7:59 PM, Cherub786 said:

Rebellion against any established political authority is strictly haram.

 

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.

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.

So based on this premise, Yazid was an established political authority and was in his right to kill Imam Hussain (عليه السلام). If we look at Yazid's actions, he pretty much did what is stated in 5.33 so Yazid Zindabad?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Quote

Yet another proof for my thesis that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم possessed dual roles of prophet and judge, is the event of the judgment on the treachery of Bani Quraizah:

أقبل وهو راكب على حمار قد وطَّؤوا له عليه، جعل الأوس يلوذون به ويقولون: يا سعد، إنهم مواليك، فأحسن فيهم. ويرققونه عليهم ويعطفونه، وهو ساكت لا يرد عليهم. فلما أكثروا عليه قال: لقد آن لسعد ألا تأخذه في الله لومة لائم. فعرفوا أنه غير مستبقيهم، فلما دنا من الخيمة التي فيها رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: قوموا إلى سيدكم. فقام إليه المسلمون، فأنزلوه إعظاما وإكراما واحتراما له في محل ولايته، ليكون أنفذ لحكمه فيهم. فلما جلس قال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إن هؤلاء وأشار إليهم قد نزلوا على حكمك، فاحكم فيهم بما شئت. قال: وحكمي نافذ عليهم قال:نعم. قال: وعلى مَنْ في هذه الخيمة قال:نعم. قال: وعلى مَنْ هاهنا. وأشار إلى الجانب الذي فيه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو معرض بوجهه عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إجلالا وإكرامًا وإعظامًا فقال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم:نعم. فقال: إني أحكم أن تقتل مُقَاتلتهم، وتُسبْى ذريتهم وأموالهم. فقال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: لقد حكمت بحكم الله من فوق سبعة أرقعة

When he arrived, riding on a donkey that had been specially equipped for him to ride, some of the Aws began to urge him not to be too harsh, saying, “O Sa’d, they are your clients so be kind to them” trying to soften his heart. But he kept quiet and did not answer them. When they persisted in their request, he said, “Now it is time for Sa’d to make sure that no rebuke or censure will divert him from the path of Allah.” Then they knew that he would not let them live. When he reached the tent where the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Stand up for your leader”. So the Muslims stood up for him, and welcomed him with honor and respect as befitted his status and so that his judgment would have more impact. When he sat down, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “These people” and he pointed to them “have agreed to accept your judgment, so pass judgment on them as you wish.” Sa’d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “My judgment will be carried out?” The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Yes.” He said, “and it will be carried out on those who are in this tent?” He صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “yes.” He said, “And on those who are on this side?” and he pointed towards the side where the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was, but he did not look directly at the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم out of respect for him. The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said to him: “Yes.” So Sa’d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “My judgment is that their fighters should be killed and their children and wealth should be seized.” The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “You have judged according to the ruling of Allah from above the seven heavens.”

(Tafsir Ibn Kathir; v.6 p.398; Surah 33:26):

Those who claim the Prophet’s office of temporal authority and judgment was intrinsic to his Prophesy must answer how it was possible and permissible for the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to temporarily suspend his prerogative to judge the matter of Bani Quraizah in favor of sayyidina Sa’d bin Mu’adh رضى الله عنه. This narration makes it quite plain that sayyidina Sa’d was to judge the Bani Quraizah independently, and that his judgment would be binding upon everyone, including the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم himself.

Here is the response.via tafseer:

Quote

Pooya/Ali Commentary 33:26]

The reference is to the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza. As citizens of Madina they were bound by solemn agreement to help in the defence of the city. But on the occasion of the siege by the Quraysh and their allies they intrigued with the enemies and treacherously aided them. The Banu Qurayza were filled with terror and dismay when Madina was free from the Quraysh danger. They shut themselves in their fortress about three or four miles to the east of Madina.

Ahul Fida and Tabari in their histories and Hirwi in Habib al Siyar say that soon after his return from the battle of Khandaq, while laying aside his armour, the Holy Prophet was washing his hands and face in the house of his beloved daughter Fatimah whom he used to visit before going to his own quarter on return from an expedition or excursion the angel Jibrail brought a command from Allah to proceed immediately against the Qurayza Jews.

The Holy Prophet instantly sent Ali with his standard, and himself following with his army laid siege to the fortress of the Jews. The Holy Prophet himself went near the gate of their fortress and asked them to surrender. They did not. Had they done as suggested by the Holy Prophet they would have enjoyed the fair and lenient terms given to the tribe of Banu Quinuqa It is said that at the command of the Holy Prophet the grove of the trees near the walls of the fortress moved over to a place away from it so as to give shelter to the Muslim army.

At last, after twenty five days they offered to surrender, if Sad bin Mu-az, the chief of their allies-the Bani Aws- might be appointed to decide their fate. The Holy Prophet agreed. Sad decreed that the male captives should be put to sword, women and children be sold as slaves and their goods be confiscated and divided among the besiegers. This decision was given by Sad in the light of the verses 13 and 14 of Deuteronomy 20:

"You shall put all its males to the sword, but you may take the women, the dependants, and the cattle for yourselves."

And here is the response via Quran:

فَإِنْ جَاءُوكَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ أَوْ أَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ ۖ وَإِنْ تُعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ فَلَنْ يَضُرُّوكَ شَيْئًا ۖ وَإِنْ حَكَمْتَ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِالْقِسْطِ ۚ

5:42) therefore if they come to you, judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they shall not harm you in any way; and if you judge, judge between them with equity; 

The choice whether to act as judge or not, entirely lay with the Holy Prophet.

Now ask for a new inspiration chery boy :hahaha:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
22 minutes ago, Cool said:

When he arrived, riding on a donkey that had been specially equipped for him to ride, some of the Aws began to urge him not to be too harsh, saying, “O Sa’d, they are your clients so be kind to them” trying to soften his heart. But he kept quiet and did not answer them. When they persisted in their request, he said, “Now it is time for Sa’d to make sure that no rebuke or censure will divert him from the path of Allah.” Then they knew that he would not let them live. When he reached the tent where the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Stand up for your leader”. So the Muslims stood up for him, and welcomed him with honor and respect as befitted his status and so that his judgment would have more impact. When he sat down, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “These people” and he pointed to them “have agreed to accept your judgment, so pass judgment on them as you wish.” Sa’d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “My judgment will be carried out?” The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Yes.” He said, “and it will be carried out on those who are in this tent?” He صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “yes.” He said, “And on those who are on this side?” and he pointed towards the side where the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was, but he did not look directly at the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم out of respect for him. The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said to him: “Yes.” So Sa’d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “My judgment is that their fighters should be killed and their children and wealth should be seized.” The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “You have judged according to the ruling of Allah from above the seven heavens.”

(Tafsir Ibn Kathir; v.6 p.398; Surah 33:26):

To further puncture your argument @Cherub786, & to show you your intellectual dishonesty, here is what Bukhari mentions:

Quote

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 148:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Some people (i.e. the Jews of Bani bin Quraiza) agreed to accept the verdict of Sad bin Muadh so the Prophet sent for him (i.e. Sad bin Muadh). He came riding a donkey, and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said, "Get up for the best amongst you." or said, "Get up for your chief." Then the Prophet said, "O Sad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment)."

You have further confirmed you're so obsessed with the idea of ibn Kathir/ibn Taymiyyah that God is up there sitting on the throne حكمت بحكم الله من فوق سبعة أرقعة

While the Bukhari mentioned these words:

حَكَمْتَ بِحُكْمِ اللَّهِ، أَوْ بِحُكْمِ الْمَلِكِ ‏"‏‏.‏

Edited by Cool
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I don't find it surprising at all at how selective you are in your hadith selection. This entire episode of Hudaibiya with Umar's rejection of the Peace Treaty is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari. The Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) words "I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious." is also mentioned in it. Also mentioned is the penance Umar paid for questioning and doubting the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Surah Fath was also revealed in honor of this Treaty. It has some pretty strong words for those who rejected and doubted the Peace Treaty.

 I provided evidence that the Prophet said "I will not disobey Allah" meaning he will sign the Treaty. Since the question of disobedience arose, then obviously the Treay of Hudaibiya was divine legislation.

It seems your memory is quite short, because I already decisively answered this point that the narration you brought from Tarikh at-Tabari is based on an incomplete chain.

Quote

 Otherwise Zakat collection as a whole would be discretionary. The fact that Zakat has certain obligatory rules and other discretionary is because that is how shariah is defined.

Incorrect as usual. Something that is discretionary is precisely because the Shari’ah has not defined it. You admit there are aspects to the collection of Zakat which are purely discretionary. I assume you then agree with my earlier explanation that the appointing of specific agents to collect the Zakat is a discretionary affair, as it has obviously not been divinely legislated.

Quote

Quran tells us to "Obey the Prophet" - it does not distinguish between religious obedience or political obedience so it means his political authority is also legislated by Allah.

Right, obedience to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is absolute, in both his capacities of Prophet and judge/ruler. That doesn’t invalidate my argument that his role of judge/ruler was separate to his Prophesy.

Quote

Treaty - divine
Zakat - divine
Jihad - divine
Prophet's political authority = Divine.
The fact that shariah gives us flexibility in some areas and rigidity in other areas does not mean the Prophet's political authority is not divine; it simply means shariah has rules to be followed.

By flexibility I again assume you are referring to the discretionary matters that haven’t been fixed by the Shari’ah – that is, by divine Revelation. That is proof that certain acts and instructions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم are not to be understood as Shari’ah, under divine Revelation, but from his discretion as part of his role of judge/ruler. Do you agree that the appointment of specific agents to collect Zakat, and the appointment of specific commanders to lead armies in Jihad is an entirely discretionary matter? If yes, then you have essentially assented to my argument that not all the acts and instructions of the Prophet were in his capacity of Prophet.

Quote

This act of bayah was the recognition of the Prophet's political authority over the people...without the backing of a state at that time.

This is historically inaccurate. Read the terms and wording of the Second Bay’ah of Aqabah. There is no mention of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم having the right to political authority. It was merely a pledge to protect him from his enemies. The obligation to protect is not synonymous with subjection to political authority. As W. Montgomery Watt has explained in Prophet and Statesman, the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم acquiring political authority was a gradual process that began after his arrival in Medina.

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

You claimed there is separation of religion and politics (church & state). How can there be any shariah about political rule? The fact that there is political shariah means the caliphate was divine. And if it is divine, then you premise that Medinites could elect whoever is faulty.

I didn’t say there is a separation of Religion and politics. There is no such thing as a “Church” in Islam, in the sense of an institution or body that wields divine authority. No one can wield divine authority in the legislative sense after Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ‘Seal of the Prophets’.

In Islam, the State is not a “Church”, nor does it wield divine authority in the legislative sense. The State is a manmade institution, but it is required to govern by the Shari’ah. And this is not unique to the State, every manmade institution is required to abide by and judge according to the Shari’ah, such as private corporations, families, and Muslims in their individual capacity.

You imagine that because the State is required to rule by the Shari’ah means the State is a divine institution. Let me ask you, is a private corporation a divine institution because like the State, every private corporation, company or business is required to conduct their affairs in accordance to the Shari’ah too.

Quote

Why does being the Prophet's (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) political successor require respect and reverence. Its not like the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) selected him, is it?

Every ruler and judge requires respect and reverence, until and unless they become oppressors and flagrantly violate the Shari’ah. Furthermore, anything associated with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم even if it isn’t associated with his Nubuwwah, requires respect and reverence. Hence, we even respect his relics or tabarrukat, his clothing, utensils, armor, etc. How much more then should we respect his political office, which was succeeded to by Rightly-Guided Successors after him?

Quote

If we go by personal merits, then Ali's merits outweigh everyone else's combined.

I disagree, that’s your subjective claim, and it’s not really relevant to the topic either.

Quote

Quran praised Ali even more so whats the point.

Ali رضى الله عنه is never named or specifically mentioned in the Quran, unlike sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه, the companion of the Cave, which the Quran quotes the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as addressing with the words “Allah is with both of us” in the ninth Surah. Furthermore, the Quran never says to follow sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه in his individual capacity, or to even follow the Ahl al-Bayt collectively. The Quran does, however, say to follow the Sahabah (Muhajirin & Ansar) collectively, also in the ninth Surah.

Quote

Moreover, you say they were Rashidoun because they followed the Quran and Sunnah. Does that mean the remaining thousands of sahaba did not? Were they not as pious? I thought they were all stars?

Yes, the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم were Rashidin, but not all of them were Khulafa, possessing the office of the exoteric Khilafah. Our Khulafa ar-Rashidin were therefore the Prophet’s first five successors (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hasan).

Quote

Can you confirm you are rejecting Khalid bin Waleed killing Malik bin Nuwayra and forcing himself on his wife. Then he was called in by Caliph Abu Bakr and pardoned. Moreover, is not paying zakat a capital offense in Islam?

Your first question is off topic. I could answer it but that would derail the purpose of this thread. It would be better if you stick to discussing the issues and ideas and not particular personalities.

As for not paying Zakat, it is a personal sin. The tribes didn’t deny the obligation of paying Zakat, but they denied the political authority of the Caliphate to collect the Zakat from them and distribute it on their behalf. That is an example of challenging the writ of the State, which is authorized to collect the Zakat. Hence, the State or the Caliphate is justified in waging war against such rebellion. But in the absence of a State or legally authorized institution for the collection of Zakat (such as here in the West, non-Muslim countries), then Muslims are expected to give the Zakat voluntarily. If they fail to do so, they will be sinful, but obviously cannot be punished in the temporal sense, because there is no authorized authority.

Quote

So based on this premise, Yazid was an established political authority and was in his right to kill Imam Hussain (عليه السلام). If we look at Yazid's actions, he pretty much did what is stated in 5.33 so Yazid Zindabad?

Yazid’s political authority was not established, especially considering that major figures in the Ummah refused to give him the Bay’ah. Furthermore, Imam Husain رضى الله عنه never intended to “rebel” against Yazid and his government. He and his entourage were martyred without provocation or justification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

While the Bukhari mentioned these words:

حَكَمْتَ بِحُكْمِ اللَّهِ، أَوْ بِحُكْمِ الْمَلِكِ ‏"‏‏.‏

That doesn’t invalidate my argument that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم temporarily suspended his political authority to judge – at least in the matter of Bani Quraizah – and transferred that authority to sayyidina Saad b. Mu’adh رضى الله عنه.

Hence before his judgment, sayyidina Saad wanted to confirm that whatever his judgment might be, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would be bound by it, and the Prophet replied in the affirmative.

After Saad b. Mu’adh announced his judgment, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم simply informed him that his judgment coincided with the will and happiness of Allah, that was coincidental, but he did not tell him before the judgment that he must judge in a certain way.

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

It seems your memory is quite short, because I already decisively answered this point that the narration you brought from Tarikh at-Tabari is based on an incomplete chain.

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 will find it if you dig deep enough.

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

Incorrect as usual. Something that is discretionary is precisely because the Shari’ah has not defined it. You admit there are aspects to the collection of Zakat which are purely discretionary. I assume you then agree with my earlier explanation that the appointing of specific agents to collect the Zakat is a discretionary affair, as it has obviously not been divinely legislated.

We are saying the same thing. All obligatory acts of worship have discretionary and obligatory requirements. You look at the entire act and not individuals pieces that combine the act.

The absurdity of your claim is like saying fasting is discretionary because we are free to eat anything halal when breaking one's fast. The act of fasting is divine similar to treaty, zakat, jihad.

Since the Prophet enacted these political acts, then his caliphate also becomes divine. The Prophet elevates the office of caliphate; He does get reduced to a simple Administrator.

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

Right, obedience to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is absolute, in both his capacities of Prophet and judge/ruler. That doesn’t invalidate my argument that his role of judge/ruler was separate to his Prophesy.

We have already agreed to this. We see with Hz Ibrahim (عليه السلام) in the Qura that Allah gave him different ranks. Similarly the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had different ranks including the rank of political leadership over all Muslims as ordained by Allah. 

Would you reject a political edict by the Prophet because he was an administrator? Well, I guess you would and did reject Hudaibiya.

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

By flexibility I again assume you are referring to the discretionary matters that haven’t been fixed by the Shari’ah – that is, by divine Revelation. That is proof that certain acts and instructions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم are not to be understood as Shari’ah, under divine Revelation, but from his discretion as part of his role of judge/ruler. Do you agree that the appointment of specific agents to collect Zakat, and the appointment of specific commanders to lead armies in Jihad is an entirely discretionary matter? If yes, then you have essentially assented to my argument that not all the acts and instructions of the Prophet were in his capacity of Prophet.

Not at all. The discretion is provided by sharia. The Prophet has not told us everything we can and cannot eat to break fast so are we to start splitting our obligatory Prophethood nad discretionary Prophethood? 

I am truly shocked at your allegiance to your narrative than to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

 

This is historically inaccurate. Read the terms and wording of the Second Bay’ah of Aqabah. There is no mention of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم having the right to political authority. It was merely a pledge to protect him from his enemies. The obligation to protect is not synonymous with subjection to political authority. As W. Montgomery Watt has explained in Prophet and Statesman, the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم acquiring political authority was a gradual process that began after his arrival in Medina.

The act of giving bayah itself is a political act. You dont give bayah to someone whom  you don't consider a political leader.

 

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

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 will find it if you dig deep enough.

Is this how you debate? “I’m sure you’ll find what I’m quoting if you dig deep enough”

Buddy, when you claim something it’s your responsibility to cite the reference. That’s a basic principle.

Quote

The absurdity of your claim is like saying fasting is discretionary because we are free to eat anything halal when breaking one's fast.

Ma sha Allah, this is your level.

Eating after fasting is not part of fasting. Fasting is the command to abstain from eating from dawn till dusk. I don't know what else to say to you. Perhaps you should retire or take a break and let @Mahdavist handle this discussion for now.

Quote

Similarly the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had different ranks including the rank of political leadership over all Muslims

At least now you are agreeing the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possessed “different ranks” whereas before you were contending that political leadership was an intrinsic part of his rank of Nubuwwah. So apparently I am making progress in persuading you, albeit, slowly and grudgingly.

Quote

Would you reject a political edict by the Prophet because he was an administrator? Well, I guess you would and did reject Hudaibiya.

I’m not alive in the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. The Treaty of Hudaibiya doesn’t apply to me, that’s a proof it isn’t part of the Shari’ah, but a temporary agreement enacted from the Prophet’s capacity of political leader, not Prophet. Otherwise, Treaty of Hudaibiya should have been binding and applicable till Judgment Day, over all the Muslims, but obviously that isn’t the case. Yes, if I was alive in the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his political jurisdiction extended over me, I would happily obey all his edicts and commandments associated with both his Nubuwwah and his political authority.

Quote

The Prophet has not told us everything we can and cannot eat to break fast

As already pointed out, the act of eating after breaking fast is totally separate from the act of fasting itself. I’m surprised someone apparently as intelligent as yourself would even make such a childish but desperate argument.

Quote

The act of giving bayah itself is a political act. You dont give bayah to someone whom  you don't consider a political leader.

Unproven premise. It is totally false.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

If Banu Awz and Banu Khazraj had the power to elect someone to be their ruler, surely they also had the power to dismiss him from that office.

In the case of the Messenger, do you think they had the power to dismiss the Messenger from the office once they decided to elect him to the office?

I don’t think so since they had to obey the Messenger in all matters.

Thus your thesis is hopelessly illogical.

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

That doesn’t invalidate my argument that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم temporarily suspended his political authority to judge – at least in the matter of Bani Quraizah – and transferred that authority to sayyidina Saad b. Mu’adh رضى الله عنه.

On the contrary, We see it was the political authority of the holy Prophet  (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in the whole story.

Accepting the terms of their surrender. Which is conditional with appointment of Saad b Mu'adh  (رضي الله عنه) as judge.  So how that becames suspension of his authority?

3 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Hence before his judgment, sayyidina Saad wanted to confirm that whatever his judgment might be, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would be bound by it, and the Prophet replied in the affirmative

Do you think Saad was appointed judge on Prophet or on the Jewish Tribe? 

In fact, the Jewish tribe knew that they broke the treaty to defend Madina so they were guilty. Whatever the judgement of any judge would be, it would be nothing more than a verdict of punishment (either strict or soft) for them. 

As their ally, Jewish tribe was expecting that Saad would be lenient to them in judging them but Saad judgement was according to the book of Allah and was a strict one.

To act as judge or not is the choice of holy prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

The whole story you have created to prove the "temperory suspension of authority of Prophet" has punctured. You are failed to prove that chery boy.

Ask for a new inspiration now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

If Banu Awz and Banu Khazraj had the power to elect someone to be their ruler, surely they also had the power to dismiss him from that office.

In the case of the Messenger, do you think they had the power to dismiss the Messenger from the office once they decided to elect him to the office?

I don’t think so since they had to obey the Messenger in all matters.

Thus your thesis is hopelessly illogical.

In Islam, once a leader has established his leadership and gotten the Bay’ah, he cannot be dismissed from office for life, unless there are extreme circumstances, such as apostasy, insanity, incapicitation, having committed a serious offense, etc.

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

I didn’t say there is a separation of Religion and politics. There is no such thing as a “Church” in Islam, in the sense of an institution or body that wields divine authority. No one can wield divine authority in the legislative sense after Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ‘Seal of the Prophets’.

In Islam, the State is not a “Church”, nor does it wield divine authority in the legislative sense. The State is a manmade institution, but it is required to govern by the Shari’ah. And this is not unique to the State, every manmade institution is required to abide by and judge according to the Shari’ah, such as private corporations, families, and Muslims in their individual capacity.

You imagine that because the State is required to rule by the Shari’ah means the State is a divine institution. Let me ask you, is a private corporation a divine institution because like the State, every private corporation, company or business is required to conduct their affairs in accordance to the Shari’ah too.

Cherry - you are highly confused. Either Islam says religion and politics are separate or they are intertwined. Which is it?

The difference between what you are saying and what I am saying is this. States are required to abide by shariah - that means if you and I have a dispute on property, the state can use shariah to determine a solution; or inheritance laws for example. That's an example of what you are saying.

But when Allah issues mandates at the State level (Treaties, Taxes, Wars), then the rule itself becomes divine.

17 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Every ruler and judge requires respect and reverence, until and unless they become oppressors and flagrantly violate the Shari’ah. Furthermore, anything associated with the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم even if it isn’t associated with his Nubuwwah, requires respect and reverence. Hence, we even respect his relics or tabarrukat, his clothing, utensils, armor, etc. How much more then should we respect his political office, which was succeeded to by Rightly-Guided Successors after him?

Are you saying that just being the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) elevated the rank of Caliphate?

17 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I disagree, that’s your subjective claim, and it’s not really relevant to the topic either.

Ali رضى الله عنه is never named or specifically mentioned in the Quran, unlike sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه, the companion of the Cave, which the Quran quotes the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم as addressing with the words “Allah is with both of us” in the ninth Surah. Furthermore, the Quran never says to follow sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه in his individual capacity, or to even follow the Ahl al-Bayt collectively. The Quran does, however, say to follow the Sahabah (Muhajirin & Ansar) collectively, also in the ninth Surah.

Agreed - we can discuss the merits of the caliphs elsewhere.

I wouldn't brag about the "companion of the cave" because it is an admonishment, not a praise - separate topic though.

So Quran says to follow the sahaba (Muhajirin & Ansar). Was Ali not a sahaba or not a muhajir? If we are to not follow the sahaba then surely Ali's caliphate was wrong and he was no rashid caliph for sure then.

18 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Yes, the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم were Rashidin, but not all of them were Khulafa, possessing the office of the exoteric Khilafah. Our Khulafa ar-Rashidin were therefore the Prophet’s first five successors (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hasan).

I am still confused.

All sahaba were rashidin - understood.
Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hasan were rashidin + caliph = Khulafa-e-Rashidin - understood
Muawiya was a sahaba, therefore he was rashid. Muawiya was caliph but somehow not Khalifa-e-Rashid. - confused

What am I missing? I have color-coded my confusion for you.

18 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

As for not paying Zakat, it is a personal sin. The tribes didn’t deny the obligation of paying Zakat, but they denied the political authority of the Caliphate to collect the Zakat from them and distribute it on their behalf. That is an example of challenging the writ of the State, which is authorized to collect the Zakat. Hence, the State or the Caliphate is justified in waging war against such rebellion. But in the absence of a State or legally authorized institution for the collection of Zakat (such as here in the West, non-Muslim countries), then Muslims are expected to give the Zakat voluntarily. If they fail to do so, they will be sinful, but obviously cannot be punished in the temporal sense, because there is no authorized authority.

Why is the State collecting my religious obligation?

It seems to me that Caliph Abu Bakr thought it was his right to impose his will on a divine matter. There were tribes that continued to remain Muslims - that's all that mattered. No way was capital punishment authorized.

18 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Yazid’s political authority was not established, especially considering that major figures in the Ummah refused to give him the Bay’ah. Furthermore, Imam Husain رضى الله عنه never intended to “rebel” against Yazid and his government. He and his entourage were martyred without provocation or justification.

As much as I respect you, this is a complete and utter lie.

Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and Abdullah bin Zubayr were the only ones who did not give allegiance to Yazid. The rest of the "ummah" did. Compare that to at least 10-15 tribes that were involved in the Ridda Wars.

Yazid had more established political authority than Caliph Abu Bakr. As a matter of fact, one of the justifications of the Ridda wars is that "the ummah was about to fall apart" so clearly there was mass revolt against the caliphate of Abu Bakr. 

So I will ask again - was Yazid right in quelling the Hussain rebellion? Hussain did not pay allegiance just like the tribes of the Ridda Wars. Using your words, Ridda War tribes and Hussain challenged the writ of the State.

 

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

Is this how you debate? “I’m sure you’ll find what I’m quoting if you dig deep enough”

Buddy, when you claim something it’s your responsibility to cite the reference. That’s a basic principle.

I didn't supply it on purpose. For someone like you who has access to the most obscure shia references, I was relying on you to simply recognize the error of your ways rather than me having to pinpoint it. But since you asked:

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan:

(whose narrations attest each other) ...
 `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "I went to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, 'Aren't you truly the Messenger of Allah?' The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Yes, indeed.' I said, 'Isn't our Cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'I am Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.' I said, 'Didn't you tell us that we would go to the Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka`ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, 'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it?' " `Umar further said, "I went to Abu Bakr and said, 'O Abu Bakr! Isn't he truly Allah's Prophet?' He replied, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'Indeed, he is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and he does not disobey his Lord, and He will make him victorious. Adhere to him as, by Allah, he is on the right.' I said, 'Was he not telling us that we would go to the Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did he tell you that you would go to the Ka`ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, "You will go to Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it." (Az-Zuhri said, " `Umar said, 'I performed many good deeds as expiation for the improper questions I asked them.' ") ...

Clearly, the Treaty was a divine edict and not a political move by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as you had indicated.

17 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Eating after fasting is not part of fasting. Fasting is the command to abstain from eating from dawn till dusk. I don't know what else to say to you. Perhaps you should retire or take a break and let @Mahdavist handle this discussion for now.

You should read closer and at every nuance. I was explicit in stating "when breaking one's fast". Breaking fast is part of the act of fasting because it has to be done at a certain time. I did not write "after breaking fast" but "when breaking fast".

Try again.

17 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

At least now you are agreeing the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم possessed “different ranks” whereas before you were contending that political leadership was an intrinsic part of his rank of Nubuwwah. So apparently I am making progress in persuading you, albeit, slowly and grudgingly.

You really need to remember your conversations right. I have been saying from the onset that caliphate is a lower rank than Prophethood. That is not where our disagreement lies. Please go back and re-read my comments from the beginning so I don't have to repeat my stance.

17 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I’m not alive in the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. The Treaty of Hudaibiya doesn’t apply to me, that’s a proof it isn’t part of the Shari’ah, but a temporary agreement enacted from the Prophet’s capacity of political leader, not Prophet. Otherwise, Treaty of Hudaibiya should have been binding and applicable till Judgment Day, over all the Muslims, but obviously that isn’t the case. Yes, if I was alive in the time of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his political jurisdiction extended over me, I would happily obey all his edicts and commandments associated with both his Nubuwwah and his political authority.

Refer back to the previous section. Hudaibiya is not applicable to any of us because the Treaty was broken and ended upon the conquest of Mecca. It has nothing to do with being binding until Judgement Day.

17 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

As already pointed out, the act of eating after breaking fast is totally separate from the act of fasting itself. I’m surprised someone apparently as intelligent as yourself would even make such a childish but desperate argument.

Per the previous statement the act of breaking the fast is different to post-break eating. Slow down and pay attention to nuances.

17 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Unproven premise. It is totally false.

So you are saying the act of bayah is not a pledge of allegiance? 

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

Cherry - you are highly confused. Either Islam says religion and politics are separate or they are intertwined. Which is it?

Religion is meant to inform the politics of a Muslim.

Quote

But when Allah issues mandates at the State level (Treaties, Taxes, Wars), then the rule itself becomes divine.

I disagree. If Allah mandates a certain individual rule a state, then it may be said his rule is divine.

Quote

Are you saying that just being the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) elevated the rank of Caliphate?

The rank of Caliphate is elevated in its own right. That the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم occupied this rank does add to its prestige and elevation. Those who succeeded him to that office are therefore likewise bearers of prestige and highly elevated individuals.

Quote

So Quran says to follow the sahaba (Muhajirin & Ansar). Was Ali not a sahaba or not a muhajir? If we are to not follow the sahaba then surely Ali's caliphate was wrong and he was no rashid caliph for sure then.

The Quran says to follow them, meaning collectively. This is a religious command, meaning we follow them collectively with respect to how to practice and interpret Islam. No single individual among the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم has been singled out for this honor.

 

Therefore, Islam is based on three: 1. Following the Quran, 2. Following the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and 3. Following the Sahabah collectively

The first two are مثبت and the third is مظهر

That means the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم as a collective are a perfect manifestation of the correct following and interpretation of Quran and Sunnah, and not an independent source of divine authority.

Quote

I am still confused.

All sahaba were rashidin - understood.
Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hasan were rashidin + caliph = Khulafa-e-Rashidin - understood
Muawiya was a sahaba, therefore he was rashid. Muawiya was caliph but somehow not Khalifa-e-Rashid. - confused

What am I missing? I have color-coded my confusion for you.

Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan was not a Caliph in the sense of possessing Khilafat ala Minhaj an-Nubuwwah therefore it is not correct to label him a Rightly-Guided Caliph. He was king, the first dynastic king in Muslim history.

Quote

Why is the State collecting my religious obligation?

It seems to me that Caliph Abu Bakr thought it was his right to impose his will on a divine matter. There were tribes that continued to remain Muslims - that's all that mattered. No way was capital punishment authorized.

The State is authorized by the Shari’ah to collect and distribute Zakat. That doesn’t mean the State’s authority is divine, or that the State itself is divine. Sayyidina Abi Bakr as-Siddiq رضى الله عنه was in his right to send forces to crush the insurrection against his Caliphate and the central state of Medina. Their refusal to give him the Zakat was due to their rejection of his political authority, and their rejection of the Caliphate.

The Shari’ah authorizes the State to fight and punish such rebels, regardless of them being Muslim or not.

Quote

Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and Abdullah bin Zubayr were the only ones who did not give allegiance to Yazid. The rest of the "ummah" did. Compare that to at least 10-15 tribes that were involved in the Ridda Wars.

Yazid had more established political authority than Caliph Abu Bakr. As a matter of fact, one of the justifications of the Ridda wars is that "the ummah was about to fall apart" so clearly there was mass revolt against the caliphate of Abu Bakr. 

So I will ask again - was Yazid right in quelling the Hussain rebellion? Hussain did not pay allegiance just like the tribes of the Ridda Wars. Using your words, Ridda War tribes and Hussain challenged the writ of the State.

You didn’t address my point about Imam Husain رضى الله عنه not intending to “rebel” or “uprise” against Yazid’s government. Therefore, Yazid didn’t quell any “rebellion”, he had sayyidina Imam Husain murdered without just cause and provocation.

The Ridda wars were an insurrection of disparate groups, some of them outright apostates having reverted to idolatry or believing in false prophets. It is important to note that none of the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم participated in the insurrection against the Caliphate. That’s why I earlier pointed out the Quran commands us to follow Muhajirin and Ansar collectively, their collective understanding is a proof for us.

But the issue of Yazid’s government was disputed among the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم. Sayyidina Ibn Umar رضى الله عنهما did pledge allegiance to Yazid, but others did not. Therefore, it is not correct to say Yazid’s rule was uniformly established. Ibn az-Zubair رضى الله عنهما was given the bay’ah, therefore, there was a war between two rival states that happened to be Muslim, neither side can be described as “rebelling” against the other.

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

Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan:

(whose narrations attest each other) ...
 `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "I went to the Prophet (ﷺ) and said, 'Aren't you truly the Messenger of Allah?' The Prophet (ﷺ) said, 'Yes, indeed.' I said, 'Isn't our Cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'I am Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.' I said, 'Didn't you tell us that we would go to the Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka`ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, 'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it?' " `Umar further said, "I went to Abu Bakr and said, 'O Abu Bakr! Isn't he truly Allah's Prophet?' He replied, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'Indeed, he is Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and he does not disobey his Lord, and He will make him victorious. Adhere to him as, by Allah, he is on the right.' I said, 'Was he not telling us that we would go to the Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did he tell you that you would go to the Ka`ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said, "You will go to Ka`ba and perform Tawaf around it." (Az-Zuhri said, " `Umar said, 'I performed many good deeds as expiation for the improper questions I asked them.' ") ...

Clearly, the Treaty was a divine edict and not a political move by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as you had indicated.

You omitted key parts of this Hadith which clearly indicate it was not a divine edict as you claim:

Quote

Suhail said to the Prophet "Please conclude a peace treaty with us."

As you can see, the proposal for this peace treaty was given by Suhail b. Amr, not by Allah and His Apostle صلى الله عليه وسلم

Quote

So, the Prophet (ﷺ) called the clerk and said to him, "Write: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful." Suhail said, "As for 'Beneficent,' by Allah, I do not know what it means. So write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously." The Muslims said, "By Allah, we will not write except: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Write: By Your Name O Allah." Then he dictated, "This is the peace treaty which Muhammad, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) has concluded." Suhail said, "By Allah, if we knew that you are Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) we would not prevent you from visiting the Ka`ba, and would not fight with you. So, write: "Muhammad bin `Abdullah." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "By Allah! I am Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me. Write: Muhammad bin `Abdullah."

This is my second proof that the Treaty was not a divine edict. If it was, there would be no possibility for the words as dictated by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to be amended or modified as per the wishes of the Pagans.

Quote

The Prophet (ﷺ) said to Suhail, "On the condition that you allow us to visit the House (i.e. Ka`ba) so that we may perform Tawaf around it." Suhail said, "By Allah, we will not (allow you this year) so as not to give chance to the 'Arabs to say that we have yielded to you, but we will allow you next year." So, the Prophet (ﷺ) got that written.

Here is a third proof: If the Treaty in all its terms and clauses were divine, why was the initial proposal of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم rejected, and he ultimately accepted that rejection, agreeing to perform the Umrah next year? It is quite evident this Treaty was a product of back and forth negotiation, compromise and bargaining on both sides.

Now as for your argument that the Prophet said: "I do not disobey Him" as I explained earlier when we were discussing the Treaty, this is a descriptive statement that is not related to the signing of the Treaty, but to the Prophet explaining what a Prophet is. In other words, the Prophet is telling sayyidina Umar that if his signing of the Treaty and agreeing to its conditions was not right, Allah would have revealed something to him, and he would be bound to obey it. But because that didn't happen, it can be inferred that Allah has no problem with the Treaty and the Prophet was in his rights to agree to it. Allah not revealing something to prevent the signing of the Treaty doesn't mean the Treaty itself is a divine edict.

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

So you are saying the act of bayah is not a pledge of allegiance? 

Bay’ah can be a pledge of allegiance in the political sense, and it can be a purely religious act, as exemplified in the Sufi practice of bay’ah to a murshid – based on the first bay’ah of Aqabah which was a purely religious bay’ah.

So to answer your question, bay’ah can be both, political and non-political.

Edited by Cherub786
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ShiaMan14 @Cool @Mahdavist and my good friend @Debate follower

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but according to Imamiyah Shi’ah there can only be a single Imam manifesting his Imamate at a time, and Imamate is a purely linear succession.

This is obviously not the case with Prophesy. There were multiple Prophets manifesting their Prophesy simultaneously in history.

If political authority is something intrinsic to Prophesy, then in such instances of history where there were multiple Prophets contemporaneous to each other, sent to the same people, were they each owed political allegiance and possessed the right of political authority simultaneously?

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

@ShiaMan14 @Cool @Mahdavist and my good friend @Debate follower

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but according to Imamiyah Shi’ah there can only be a single Imam manifesting his Imamate at a time, and Imamate is a purely linear succession.

This is obviously not the case with Prophesy. There were multiple Prophets manifesting their Prophesy simultaneously in history.

If political authority is something intrinsic to Prophesy, then in such instances of history where there were multiple Prophets contemporaneous to each other, sent to the same people, were they each owed political allegiance and possessed the right of political authority simultaneously?

Wait a minute - I am not your good friend?

I am on record saying Prophethood and political authority are separate so this question doesn't apply to me.

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

Wait a minute - I am not your good friend?

Of course you are. But I wanted to give a shout out to Debate follower who has been giving me loads of likes and I haven’t even interacted with him yet.

Quote

I am on record saying Prophethood and political authority are separate so this question doesn't apply to me.

Fantastic, I think half the work, or even more, is done with this admission alone.

Here are a few questions for you:

  1. Is the political authority of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم divine?

  2. When was the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم appointed to political authority?

  3. You acknowledge these are separate, do you therefore acknowledge that the acts and orders of the Prophet can be separated into those linked to his Prophesy and those linked to his political authority?

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

Fantastic, I think half the work, or even more, is done with this admission alone.

I said that on pg2 or page 3. As I also said the Caliphate as you (sunni) see it is worth "the sneeze of a goat" as Imam Ali (عليه السلام) put it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/4/2020 at 8:27 AM, Cherub786 said:

The fact that the Quran is silent on the matter of who should succeed the Prophet is proof that the Prophet didn't select a successor, not a proof that he did

 The Quran is not silent about the successor of Prophet. In fact, it is not silent about anything at all. It is a detailed explanation of Everything (including succession to Prophet): 

لَقَدْ كَانَ فِى قَصَصِهِمْ عِبْرَةٌ لِّأُوْلِى ٱلْأَلْبَـٰبِ‌ۗ مَا كَانَ حَدِيثًا يُفْتَرَىٰ وَلَـٰكِن تَصْدِيقَ ٱلَّذِى بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَتَفْصِيلَ كُلِّ شَىْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُون

"In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe." (12:111)

I'm surprised how someone can believe that Quran would remain completely silent on a matter as serious as the topic of succession to Prophet ! 

A better approach for Sunnis would be to see if they can find any explanation in the Quran to back their argument that Prophet (s) didn't appoint a successor, rather than accusing Quran of being silent on this very important matter. 

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

 The Quran is not silent about the successor of Prophet. In fact, it is not silent about anything at all. It is a detailed explanation of Everything (including succession to Prophet): 

لَقَدْ كَانَ فِى قَصَصِهِمْ عِبْرَةٌ لِّأُوْلِى ٱلْأَلْبَـٰبِ‌ۗ مَا كَانَ حَدِيثًا يُفْتَرَىٰ وَلَـٰكِن تَصْدِيقَ ٱلَّذِى بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَتَفْصِيلَ كُلِّ شَىْءٍ وَهُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُون

"In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe." (12:111)

I'm surprised how someone can believe that Quran would remain completely silent on a matter as serious as the topic of succession to Prophet ! 

A better approach for Sunnis would be to see if they can find any explanation in the Quran to back their argument that Prophet (s) didn't appoint a successor, rather than accusing Quran of being silent on this very important matter. 

Can you quote me the Ayah of the Quran which gives the formula for making a nuclear bomb?

The Quran is a detailed explanation of everything, right?

Our claim that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم didn’t appoint a successor is a negative claim, in contrast to your positive claim that he did. The one who makes a positive claim is burdened to prove the claim. Therefore, please quote me the Verse of Quran where the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is instructed to appoint his successor.

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

You omitted key parts of this Hadith which clearly indicate it was not a divine edict as you claim:

As you can see, the proposal for this peace treaty was given by Suhail b. Amr, not by Allah and His Apostle صلى الله عليه وسلم

This is my second proof that the Treaty was not a divine edict. If it was, there would be no possibility for the words as dictated by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to be amended or modified as per the wishes of the Pagans.

Here is a third proof: If the Treaty in all its terms and clauses were divine, why was the initial proposal of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم rejected, and he ultimately accepted that rejection, agreeing to perform the Umrah next year? It is quite evident this Treaty was a product of back and forth negotiation, compromise and bargaining on both sides.

Now as for your argument that the Prophet said: "I do not disobey Him" as I explained earlier when we were discussing the Treaty, this is a descriptive statement that is not related to the signing of the Treaty, but to the Prophet explaining what a Prophet is. In other words, the Prophet is telling sayyidina Umar that if his signing of the Treaty and agreeing to its conditions was not right, Allah would have revealed something to him, and he would be bound to obey it. But because that didn't happen, it can be inferred that Allah has no problem with the Treaty and the Prophet was in his rights to agree to it. Allah not revealing something to prevent the signing of the Treaty doesn't mean the Treaty itself is a divine edict.

Before I answer anything else, I need the lies and deception to stop.

You have gone from rejecting the narration of Hudaibiya including the disbelief expressed by Caliph Umar to now becoming an expert.

A) You knew this all along and your rejection was deception.

B) You didn't know about this narration so don't feign being an expert on it.

I have noticed this in a couple of other situations as well. Looks like you will do anything to prove your "ilham" rather than just be sincere to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

I will re-engage in this discussion once you confirm the deception will stop.

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

If political authority is something intrinsic to Prophesy, then in such instances of history where there were multiple Prophets contemporaneous to each other, sent to the same people, were they each owed political allegiance and possessed the right of political authority simultaneously?

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

[Shakir 2:124] And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust,

إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ {55}

[Shakir 5:55] Only Allah is your Vali and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.
 

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ۖ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا {59}

[Shakir 4:59] O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

I don't know how many times these verses have been quoted here on this thread but you have your own understanding of these verses.

For us, When Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has commanded us to obey the Prophet, this obedience includes every sphere including the sociopolitical. 

If the sociopolitical role of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was not divine, that would mean people can disobey him in the matters which are political. And that is exactly what the most senior companions did when they were commanded to go with Jesh e Usama under the command of Usama bin Zayd. They disobeyed the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) by first hesitating to leave Madina then when Prophet became angry on them, they waited outside of Madina till the wafat of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). So you have a lot of guidance in such practices where people are disobeying the Prophet, doubting him & raising voices on him etc.

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

Can you quote me the Ayah of the Quran which gives the formula for making a nuclear bomb?

So that you may change the image which you have created in your mind, of your God. So that you start thinking Him as Einstein. 

By the way, Nuclear Physics is the study of subatomic particles. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has placed this subject in a phrase:

وَمَا يَعْزُبُ عَن رَّبِّكَ مِن مِّثْقَالِ ذَرَّةٍ فِي الأَرْضِ وَلاَ فِي السَّمَاء وَلاَ أَصْغَرَ مِن ذَلِكَ وَلا أَكْبَرَ إِلاَّ فِي كِتَابٍ مُّبِينٍ

10:61

You keep estimating what is a ذَرَّةٍ? Is there any thing lesser than that exist? Whether the ذَرَّةٍ denote atom or sub-atomic particles?

He has also placed nuclear reactor in front of your eyes in the form of Sun & trillions of Stars. See the nuclear fusion & fission with your own eyes man.

 

Edited by Cool
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The governmental functions of the Messenger of God (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) cannot be separated from his prophetic office.

Imamate and caliphate are inseparable, in just the same way.

Quote

A body of laws alone is insufficient for a society to be reformed. In order for law to ensure the reform & happiness of man, there must be an executive power and an executor. For this reason, God Almighty, in addition to revealing a body of law (i.e., ordinances of shari'ah), has laid down a particular form of government together with executive & administrative institution.

The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) headed the executive and administrative institutions of Muslim society. In addition to conveying the revelation and expounding and interpreting the articles of faith and the ordinances and institutions of Islam, he undertook the implementation of law and the establishment of the ordinances of Islam thereby, bringing into being the Islamic State.

(Ayatullah Khomeini)

 

Edited by Cool
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Quote

Can you quote me the Ayah of the Quran which gives the formula for making a nuclear bomb?

 

بِسْمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحْمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Get the point ? 

Edited by Liggel
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...