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

  • 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

On 9/17/2020 at 10:08 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

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.

I’m not engaging in any deception.

It is a principle of debate that the one who quotes something ought to provide the reference. It was my right to ask for the reference from Bukhari, and to your credit you did cite the English translation of the Hadith, which I then examined and refuted your points regarding it.

If you’re unable to continue feel free to quit, but don’t accuse me of deception as the pretext to quit.

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

I’m not engaging in any deception.

It is a principle of debate that the one who quotes something ought to provide the reference. It was my right to ask for the reference from Bukhari, and to your credit you did cite the English translation of the Hadith, which I then examined and refuted your points regarding it.

If you’re unable to continue feel free to quit, but don’t accuse me of deception as the pretext to quit.

There is no problem in asking me for reference. The problem is rejecting the one I cited from Tabari calling it unreliable even though you seem quite familiar with the one from Bukhari.

It is deception when you reject a known accepted narration.

Are you saying this is the first time you heard/read about Hudaibiya in Bukhari specifically this narration? 

 

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

There is no problem in asking me for reference. The problem is rejecting the one I cited from Tabari calling it unreliable even though you seem quite familiar with the one from Bukhari.

It is deception when you reject a known accepted narration.

Are you saying this is the first time you heard/read about Hudaibiya in Bukhari specifically this narration? 

The narration you quoted from Tabari is based on an incomplete chain, what’s wrong with pointing that out? Even your claim that sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه fasted as penance for having questioned the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is not authentically established. In Sahih al-Bukhari, it is narrated as part of the Balaghat of al-Zuhri, and is therefore another incomplete chain.

I generally knew of this incident and that it was in Sahih al-Bukhari, though I didn’t recall the exact wording of the narration for it is quite long.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curious
On 9/17/2020 at 12:12 PM, Cherub786 said:

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.

This is a very good starting point. So, which verse in Quran lays the foundation for such a claim? 

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

This is a very good starting point. So, which verse in Quran lays the foundation for such a claim? 

As far as I know, this concept is based in Hadith, for example, the Hadith in which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم told sayyidina Uthman رضى الله عنه that Allah would clothe him with a frock and people would try to strip him of it, but he should not remove it. That was the frock of Khilafah.

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

As far as I know, this concept is based in Hadith, for example, the Hadith in which the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم told sayyidina Uthman رضى الله عنه that Allah would clothe him with a frock and people would try to strip him of it, but he should not remove it. That was the frock of Khilafah.

You may fool yourself, but history is a testimony that Uthman was corrupt. Do you not fear Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) ascribing lies in the name of ALLAH (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, power said:

You may fool yourself, but history is a testimony that Uthman was corrupt. Do you not fear Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) ascribing lies in the name of ALLAH (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)!!

History can be corrupt but not my beloved Uthman رضى الله عنه

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

History can be corrupt but not my beloved Uthman رضى الله عنه

Sure, my advise to you Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has given Aql use it, and dont use it against the Almighty. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/19/2020 at 7:48 PM, Cherub786 said:

The narration you quoted from Tabari is based on an incomplete chain, what’s wrong with pointing that out? Even your claim that sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه fasted as penance for having questioned the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم is not authentically established. In Sahih al-Bukhari, it is narrated as part of the Balaghat of al-Zuhri, and is therefore another incomplete chain.

I generally knew of this incident and that it was in Sahih al-Bukhari, though I didn’t recall the exact wording of the narration for it is quite long.

For someone who 'knows' the most obscure shiah hadith, I am surprised that you only 'knew' of this incident as mentioned in Bukhari. There is nothing wrong with pointing out an incomplete chain in Tabari but you rejected it even though I pointed out that it is validated by Bukhari.

So are you now saying that you have doubts over the Zuhri claim about Caliph Umar's penance. The fact that he doubted Muhammad's prophethood is established. Now, whether he paid the penance for it or not is up to you to decide. This verse of the quran comes to mind though I hope you accept Zuhri's claim:

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

I will continue the discussion and hope you will be more sincere moving forward...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/17/2020 at 3:23 PM, Cherub786 said:

Religion is meant to inform the politics of a Muslim.

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

I don't even know what the first sentence means - just seems like a non answer.

We've already agreed that there are divine state wide rules such as zakat, jihad. My argument is that "treaties" are part of this since they are mentioned in the Quran and the ahadith.

On 9/17/2020 at 3:23 PM, Cherub786 said:

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.

No, the rank of caliphate is not elevated in its own right. Caliphate was elevated because the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) occupied it. Otherwise, you would have to say all rulers (kings, caliphs, presidents, PM, etc) are elevated.

We have agreed that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) elevated the rank of the caliphate AND we agree that we would obey the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in all his edicts.

On 9/16/2020 at 5:58 PM, Cherub786 said:

I would happily obey all his edicts and commandments associated with both his Nubuwwah and his political authority

Given that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has greater prophetic and political authority over us, it becomes a moot point if people are permitted to elect their own leader or not. Once the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) got confirmation from the Muslims of that time (undoubtedly you would confirm too) that he has greater authority over their lives than they themselves, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has taken away their right to elect their own leader by stating "man kunto mawla, fa hada Ali-yun mawla"

Of course the above is applicable to Muslims only who consider the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to be their authority in prophetic and political matters so it's your choice whether this applies to you or not. 

Coffin nailed?

Let me know if we need to go on...

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

No, the rank of caliphate is not elevated in its own right. Caliphate was elevated because the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) occupied it. Otherwise, you would have to say all rulers (kings, caliphs, presidents, PM, etc) are elevated.

We have agreed that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) elevated the rank of the caliphate AND we agree that we would obey the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in all his edicts.

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the Messenger of Allah Almighty – He never was a Khalifah (Calipha) and did not occupy Khilafaat,

Khalifah (calipha)means deputy or representative

Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was the first Successor of Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) His title was Khalifatu Rasul al-Allah (Successor of Messenger of Allah ((peace and blessings be upon him))

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

We've already agreed that there are divine state wide rules such as zakat, jihad. My argument is that "treaties" are part of this since they are mentioned in the Quran and the ahadith.

So everything mentioned in the Quran has a divine status?

Quote

would have to say all rulers (kings, caliphs, presidents, PM, etc) are elevated.

Yes they are elevated. Parents and the status of being a parent is another rank that is inherently elevated. The Quran and Hadith therefore command respect and obedience to the rulers from their subjects, and to parents from their children. That there may be bad rulers is similar to how there may be bad parents, but the rank of ruler and the rank of parent is nevertheless elevated in the Sight of Allah جلّ شانه

Quote

the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) has taken away their right to elect their own leader by stating "man kunto mawla, fa hada Ali-yun mawla"

I’ve answered this point in my other thread (the debate thread on succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم). No point beating a dead horse here and refuting it again. Mawla in this context means beloved friend and not political authority.

But I will quote a Khutbah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه present in your literature, which proves that he gave the bay’ah to the first Khalifah and to his Imam, sayyidina Abi Bakr as-Siddiq رضى الله عنه

Untitled.thumb.png.646de5805b9138ce5cdc78554defcedb.png1223740497_AliRAsayspledgedallegiancetoAbuBakrRA(BiharalAnwarv_33p.568).png.742e3de1cf1e837f07177b3a30dc1b67.png

Untitled2.thumb.png.b2a78f442090e93e494ea805ace53df6.png1282461618_AliRAsayspledgedallegiancetoAbuBakrRA(SharhNahjalBalaghahIbnabilHadidv_6p.95).png.4287b360dae8a350367c3e1ba244252a.png

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

So everything mentioned in the Quran has a divine status?

Not everything but certainly if Allah calls a treaty "fath mubeen", then it is divine.

14 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Yes they are elevated. Parents and the status of being a parent is another rank that is inherently elevated. The Quran and Hadith therefore command respect and obedience to the rulers from their subjects, and to parents from their children. That there may be bad rulers is similar to how there may be bad parents, but the rank of ruler and the rank of parent is nevertheless elevated in the Sight of Allah جلّ شانه

That is an inherently sunni belief (about rulers, not parents) and dare I say it is made up to safeguard the incorrect rulings and actions of the caliphs. That is how Muslim bin Uqba justified Harrah...by saying he fulfilled the wishes of his leader.

On the one hand you say that caliphate of Muhammad is man-made and any group of people can choose the successor. On the hand, it is an elevated position in the Sight of Allah. Clearly if Caliphate is an elevated position in the sight of Allah, then people do not have a choice in the matter.

Of course now your argument will be that it is a high position but high enough that people can't choose their own leader....say it ain't so.

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

I’ve answered this point in my other thread (the debate thread on succession to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم). No point beating a dead horse here and refuting it again. Mawla in this context means beloved friend and not political authority.

okay, we will beat the mawla horse in the other thread as long as we agree that when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said, "he has more authority over muslims", he didnt mean it as a friend because that wouldn't make any sense.

1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

But I will quote a Khutbah of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه present in your literature, which proves that he gave the bay’ah to the first Khalifah and to his Imam, sayyidina Abi Bakr as-Siddiq رضى الله عنه

Before we discuss this (if we we must), can we agree that there was disagreement between them and that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) claimed caliphate was his right?

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

Not everything but certainly if Allah calls a treaty "fath mubeen", then it is divine.

What kind of logic is that? In Surat al-Nasr, Allah describes another victory which is that people will enter the Religion in droves. Is that divine too?

Quote

Of course now your argument will be that it is a high position but high enough that people can't choose their own leader....say it ain't so.

It seems you think a high position must inherently be divine. How many high positions are there in human societies, are they all divine? Is the role of teacher divine?

You claim the role of ruler is divine. Then why isn’t the role of minister also divine? Where do you draw the line between roles that are divine and non-divine based on importance or in your words “highness”?

Quote

 we agree that when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said, "he has more authority over muslims",

When did we agree to this? I never even heard such a Hadith. Perhaps you can properly cite it, preferably with the Arabic matn.

Quote

Before we discuss this (if we we must), can we agree that there was disagreement between them and that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) claimed caliphate was his right?

How can we agree caliphate was sayyidina Ali’s رضى الله عنه divine right, when according to both Sunni and Shi’ah literature he gave his bay’ah to sayyidina Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه?

According to you, sayyidina Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه was a false caliph and caliphate is a divine office, similar to how Prophesy is a divine office.

So why did sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه ignore his divine right and pledge allegiance to a “False caliph” (God forbid)?

That would be like Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ignoring his own Nubuwwah and giving bay’ah to the false prophet Musaylimah!

It’s obvious your theory of a divine caliphate and sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه being designated to it is a latter evolution of Shi’ite theologians, because sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه himself had no knowledge of it, since he gave bay’ah to our Sunni Caliphs, and never argued that God divinely appointed him Caliph of the Ummah.

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

What kind of logic is that? In Surat al-Nasr, Allah describes another victory which is that people will enter the Religion in droves. Is that divine too?

Err, yes!!!

I can't speak for sunnis but with shiahs being ardent and sincere lovers of Allah, the Prophet and Islam, the victory spoken off in Surah Nasr is divine victory. Kuffar were vanquished in Mecca, idols were destroyed in Kaaba...all in all a great divine victory. 

What's the sunni stance - Fath-e-Mecca was not divine, just smart political maneuvering by Muhammad?

2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

It seems you think a high position must inherently be divine. How many high positions are there in human societies, are they all divine? Is the role of teacher divine?

You claim the role of ruler is divine. Then why isn’t the role of minister also divine? Where do you draw the line between roles that are divine and non-divine based on importance or in your words “highness”?

I never said that. I don't believe caliphate is divine at all. But that wasn't the discussion. You stated that caliphated is an elevated rank and the Prophet touching anything elevates it (becomes sunnah). So Prophet elevated the caliphate and thus has more right to elect a successor than people. Its that simple.

2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

When did we agree to this? I never even heard such a Hadith. Perhaps you can properly cite it, preferably with the Arabic matn.

You said it. You said you would obey the Prophet (saw ) in prophetic and political matters. Reneging?

2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

How can we agree caliphate was sayyidina Ali’s رضى الله عنه divine right, when according to both Sunni and Shi’ah literature he gave his bay’ah to sayyidina Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه?

According to you, sayyidina Abu Bakr رضى الله عنه was a false caliph and caliphate is a divine office, similar to how Prophesy is a divine office.

So why did sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه ignore his divine right and pledge allegiance to a “False caliph” (God forbid)?

That would be like Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ignoring his own Nubuwwah and giving bay’ah to the false prophet Musaylimah!

It’s obvious your theory of a divine caliphate and sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه being designated to it is a latter evolution of Shi’ite theologians, because sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه himself had no knowledge of it, since he gave bay’ah to our Sunni Caliphs, and never argued that God divinely appointed him Caliph of the Ummah.

I said nothing about divine right. I am simply asking if in your very selective history, did Abu Bakr and Ali have a dispute over caliphate or not (even if it was for a day)? Feel free to be concise and answer with a Y/N.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

@Cherub786,

Can you confirm this too?

6 hours ago, ShiaMan14 said:

For someone who 'knows' the most obscure shiah hadith, I am surprised that you only 'knew' of this incident as mentioned in Bukhari. There is nothing wrong with pointing out an incomplete chain in Tabari but you rejected it even though I pointed out that it is validated by Bukhari.

So are you now saying that you have doubts over the Zuhri claim about Caliph Umar's penance. The fact that he doubted Muhammad's prophethood is established. Now, whether he paid the penance for it or not is up to you to decide. This verse of the quran comes to mind though I hope you accept Zuhri's claim:

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

I will continue the discussion and hope you will be more sincere moving forward...

Did Calilh Umar offer penance for his kufr?

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

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the Messenger of Allah Almighty – He never was a Khalifah (Calipha) and did not occupy Khilafaat,

Khalifah (calipha)means deputy or representative

Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was the first Successor of Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) His title was Khalifatu Rasul al-Allah (Successor of Messenger of Allah ((peace and blessings be upon him))

Salaam brother,

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/21/2020 at 6:14 PM, Debate follower said:

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is the Messenger of Allah Almighty – He never was a Khalifah (Calipha) and did not occupy Khilafaat,

Khalifah (calipha)means deputy or representative

Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was the first Successor of Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) His title was Khalifatu Rasul al-Allah (Successor of Messenger of Allah ((peace and blessings be upon him))

Just curious, how was Caliph Abu Bakr the successor of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) did not select him to succeed him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2020 at 8:51 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

Err, yes!!!

I can't speak for sunnis but with shiahs being ardent and sincere lovers of Allah, the Prophet and Islam, the victory spoken off in Surah Nasr is divine victory. Kuffar were vanquished in Mecca, idols were destroyed in Kaaba...all in all a great divine victory. 

You are confusing divine in the takwini sense with divine in the tashri’i (legislative) sense.

On 9/21/2020 at 8:51 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

What's the sunni stance - Fath-e-Mecca was not divine, just smart political maneuvering by Muhammad?

It was divinely ordained through the help and decree of Allah جلّ شانه but it was not divinely legislated.

Quote

I never said that. I don't believe caliphate is divine at all. But that wasn't the discussion. You stated that caliphated is an elevated rank and the Prophet touching anything elevates it (becomes sunnah). So Prophet elevated the caliphate and thus has more right to elect a successor than people. Its that simple.

You’ve agreed that caliphate is a separate rank to Prophesy, and you’ve agreed it isn’t divine. You’re getting there slow and steady. Most of my work is done with you on this topic.

Now it’s boiled down to this: Should the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم have appointed his successor to the non-divine, separate rank of Caliphate or should he have left the office open, so that the people could consult and fill it with their own wisdom, seeking the blessing and inspiration of Allah in the matter?

That is why I began this thread, to prove that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم himself was not divinely appointed in the legislative sense, to the rank of Caliphate, rather, he received it after a process of consultation and election by the Ansar رضى الله عنهم

On 9/21/2020 at 8:51 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

You said it. You said you would obey the Prophet (saw ) in prophetic and political matters. Reneging?

First establish the authenticity of this alleged Hadith. At the very least quote it properly with reference.

On 9/21/2020 at 8:51 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

I said nothing about divine right. I am simply asking if in your very selective history, did Abu Bakr and Ali have a dispute over caliphate or not (even if it was for a day)? Feel free to be concise and answer with a Y/N.

How is it relevant to the topic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest
On 9/22/2020 at 8:37 AM, ShiaMan14 said:

That is an inherently sunni belief

salam bro.

^ but, bro@Cherub786is not your  normal sunni bro. He posted 13 entries on his blog, "defending" mirza ghulam ahmad's belief, which a normal sunni bro won't do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 9/23/2020 at 12:28 AM, Cherub786 said:

You are confusing divine in the takwini sense with divine in the tashri’i (legislative) sense.

It was divinely ordained through the help and decree of Allah جلّ شانه but it was not divinely legislated.

Oh great. First we are splitting out the live of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in different states - Prophet, Administrator, etc.

Now we are splitting divinity into divine decree and divine legislation.

I hope everyone can see how you are grasping at straws....

On 9/23/2020 at 12:28 AM, Cherub786 said:

You’ve agreed that caliphate is a separate rank to Prophesy, and you’ve agreed it isn’t divine. You’re getting there slow and steady. Most of my work is done with you on this topic.

Now it’s boiled down to this: Should the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم have appointed his successor to the non-divine, separate rank of Caliphate or should he have left the office open, so that the people could consult and fill it with their own wisdom, seeking the blessing and inspiration of Allah in the matter?

That is why I began this thread, to prove that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم himself was not divinely appointed in the legislative sense, to the rank of Caliphate, rather, he received it after a process of consultation and election by the Ansar رضى الله عنهم

I have been in agreement that caliphate is a separate rank than Prophethood from the very beginning. I even listed out the 4 offices we have and the 2 offices you have - so you haven't done anything. No coffins have been nailed.

Where we differ is in your question - "should the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) have appointed a successor". Before answering "should", don't we need to answer "Could the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) elect his own successor?"

On 9/23/2020 at 12:28 AM, Cherub786 said:

First establish the authenticity of this alleged Hadith. At the very least quote it properly with reference.

 

This is your proof:

On 9/16/2020 at 5:58 PM, Cherub786 said:

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.

 

On 9/23/2020 at 12:28 AM, Cherub786 said:

 

How is it relevant to the topic?

I will tell you how it is relevant once you tell me if Ali and Abu Bakr had a disagreement over who should be caliph.

Also you owe me an answer to:

On 9/21/2020 at 10:54 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

Did Calilh Umar offer penance for his kufr?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Curious
On 9/22/2020 at 9:12 AM, Cherub786 said:

 

Quote

 we agree that when the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said, "he has more authority over muslims",

When did we agree to this? I never even heard such a Hadith. Perhaps you can properly cite it, preferably with the Arabic matn

oh boy...even if you don't acknowledge the existence of such hadith, are you now denying

[Shakir 33:6] The Prophet has a greater claim on the faithful than they have on themselves,

???

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

Oh great. First we are splitting out the live of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) in different states - Prophet, Administrator, etc.

Now we are splitting divinity into divine decree and divine legislation.

I hope everyone can see how you are grasping at straws....

Perhaps more people can see that you are unable to make a consistent, coherent and logical argument. In your attempt to prove the Treaty of Hudaibiyah was divinely legislated by Allah, rather than answering my proofs which absolutely demolish your claim

three proofs: 1. proposal for this peace treaty was given by Suhail b. Amr, not by Allah and His Apostle صلى الله عليه وسلم, 

2. If it was divinely revealed, 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.

3. the initial proposal of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم rejected, and he ultimately accepted that rejection, agreeing to perform the Umrah next year?

you quote Verses of Quran which speak about Allah granting victory to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, not realizing that victory is a takwini affair not a legislated affair.

Let me give you an example if you still can’t comprehend. Allah may legislate the Prophet to fight a battle, but can Allah legislate the Prophet and the Sahabah to win a battle? So if the Muslims lost a battle, or the battle ended in a stalemate, such as Uhud, can it be said the Muslims disobeyed Allah because Allah commanded victory for them? You see how ludicrous your argument is? You confuse takwini with tashri’i and you confuse tashri’i with takwini.

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

I have been in agreement that caliphate is a separate rank than Prophethood from the very beginning. I even listed out the 4 offices we have and the 2 offices you have - so you haven't done anything. No coffins have been nailed.

Once again, let me summarize your position 1. caliphate is a separate rank to Prophesy 2. caliphate isn’t divine

I’m closing in for the kill now, but I want to give you this last opportunity to clarify anything regarding these two points

1 hour ago, ShiaMan14 said:

Where we differ is in your question - "should the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) have appointed a successor". Before answering "should", don't we need to answer "Could the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) elect his own successor?"

That isn’t the issue. The issue is, as per the OP of this thread, that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wasn’t divinely appointed to the Caliphate, therefore, it follows that his successor to that rank would likewise not be divinely appointed. You’ve already agreed caliphate isn’t a divinely appointed station. I wander what we are really arguing about then?

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

The issue is, as per the OP of this thread, that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wasn’t divinely appointed to the Caliphate, therefore, it follows that his successor to that rank would likewise not be divinely appointed.

So people appointed Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as Caliph therefore people will appoint his successor. By this logic Abu Bakr should not have nominated his successor because it is the right of people to appoint Caliph. 

Means you're accepting Abu Bakr has deprived people from their right of appointing caliph. 

Or either you are trying to deprive Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) from his right to nominate the caliph. 

What is actually your problem Cherub? 

هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ

9:33 He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.

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

Perhaps more people can see that you are unable to make a consistent, coherent and logical argument. In your attempt to prove the Treaty of Hudaibiyah was divinely legislated by Allah, rather than answering my proofs which absolutely demolish your claim

three proofs: 1. proposal for this peace treaty was given by Suhail b. Amr, not by Allah and His Apostle صلى الله عليه وسلم, 

2. If it was divinely revealed, 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.

3. the initial proposal of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم rejected, and he ultimately accepted that rejection, agreeing to perform the Umrah next year?

you quote Verses of Quran which speak about Allah granting victory to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, not realizing that victory is a takwini affair not a legislated affair.

Let me give you an example if you still can’t comprehend. Allah may legislate the Prophet to fight a battle, but can Allah legislate the Prophet and the Sahabah to win a battle? So if the Muslims lost a battle, or the battle ended in a stalemate, such as Uhud, can it be said the Muslims disobeyed Allah because Allah commanded victory for them? You see how ludicrous your argument is? You confuse takwini with tashri’i and you confuse tashri’i with takwini.

 

What is it with Sunnis and violence? You are either demolishing or destroying or nailing my coffin.

I think you are turning violent because you can foresee (may be ilham) that you are about to lose.

You have gone from treaties are purely political to "Treaty is divine decree and not divine legislation". For your 3 points, the answer is as simple as Allah made the divine decree to sign a Treaty with the Kuffar of Mecca. Therefore whatever treaty the Prophet legislates with the kuffar, that in effect becomes divine and fath mubeen.

The problem here is not takwini, tashri'i. The problem here is you have lost the argument and trying to come up with excuses to save face.

Fighting Uhud was divine legislation. What happens next is irrelevant.

Treaty with kuffar was divine legislation. How it is done is irrelevant.

Your stance was that signing treaties is just the act of an administrator; now I have forced you to pivot to accepting that signing the treaty was divine. I have never once claimed/rejected whether the contents of the Treaty are divine legislation or not. We will never agree on this part.

You have reduced the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to an administrator to justify the usurpation of the caliphate by Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Hence you reject the contents of Hudaibiya. 

We accept the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as a Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) at all times so whatever he signs is divine for us. 

But fact remains, Treaty of Hudaibiya is divine and that was not your initial position.

 

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Once again, let me summarize your position 1. caliphate is a separate rank to Prophesy 2. caliphate isn’t divine

I’m closing in for the kill now, but I want to give you this last opportunity to clarify anything regarding these two points

Ah, more violence. Please do go for the kill. I hope I survive.

Just know that I could have ended this argument on Pg1 as well.

4 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

That isn’t the issue. The issue is, as per the OP of this thread, that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم wasn’t divinely appointed to the Caliphate, therefore, it follows that his successor to that rank would likewise not be divinely appointed. You’ve already agreed caliphate isn’t a divinely appointed station. I wander what we are really arguing about then?

We have a fundamental difference in what we think about Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and hence we are having this argument.

I am telling you with 100% that the caliphate is not divine and that your Caliph-e-Rashideen were not rashid. To me, these go hand in hand. 

I will even help you out here with some circular (il)logic.

Muhammad is just an Administrator;
Caliphs were rightly guided because they followed Muhammad's sunnah
Muhammad is just an administrator so why would they follow his sunnah.
They follow his sunnah in religious matters.
So they are just caliphs who are good muslims
No, they are rashid because they are sahaba
Muawiya was sahabi so he is caliph-rashid
No he is rashid because he was sahabi butwas not caliph-e-rashid because he was not caliph; he was king.
So Muawiya was Amir-e-rashid.

And the folklore goes on and on and on...

Heck just the sheer stupidity of sunni (lack of)thought is what drives you to violence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
35 minutes ago, Cool said:

So people appointed Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as Caliph therefore people will appoint his successor. By this logic Abu Bakr should not have nominated his successor because it is the right of people to appoint Caliph. 

Means you're accepting Abu Bakr has deprived people from their right of appointing caliph. 

Or either you are trying to deprive Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) from his right to nominate the caliph. 

What is actually your problem Cherub? 

هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ

9:33 He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.

I went through this with Cherry and didn't have answers so he changed the topic.

Please recite fateha for me - Cherry is going for the kill and may nail my coffin.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 8:26 PM, Cool said:

So people appointed Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as Caliph therefore people will appoint his successor. By this logic Abu Bakr should not have nominated his successor because it is the right of people to appoint Caliph. 

Means you're accepting Abu Bakr has deprived people from their right of appointing caliph. 

Or either you are trying to deprive Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) from his right to nominate the caliph. 

What is actually your problem Cherub? 

I’ve answered elsewhere that sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه only nominated sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه to succeed him to the Caliphate after a process of consultation with senior Sahabah رضى الله عنهم, in other words, it wasn’t a unilateral designation.

Now again, this is a side issue that is ignoring the essence of my argument. It’s more “beating around bush” from your side. When will you come to the main point?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 8:57 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

You have reduced the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to an administrator

Muhammad is just an Administrator;
Muhammad is just an administrator

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

On 9/24/2020 at 8:57 PM, ShiaMan14 said:

You have gone from treaties are purely political to "Treaty is divine decree and not divine legislation". For your 3 points, the answer is as simple as Allah made the divine decree to sign a Treaty with the Kuffar of Mecca. Therefore whatever treaty the Prophet legislates with the kuffar, that in effect becomes divine and fath mubeen.

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

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

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

I’ve answered elsewhere that sayyidina Abi Bakr رضى الله عنه only nominated sayyidina Umar رضى الله عنه to succeed him to the Caliphate after a process of consultation with senior Sahabah رضى الله عنهم, in other words, it wasn’t a unilateral designation

You need to give evidence for any such consultation. And then you need to view it in light of the election of Abu Bakr in Saqifa. 

6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Now again, this is a side issue that is ignoring the essence of my argument. It’s more “beating around bush” from your side. When will you come to the main point?

You argument becomes null & void if we view it in light of the divine commands mentioned in Quran where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has made obligatory on believers the unconditional obedience of Prophet. Whatever he gives we must take and whatever he prohibits we must stay away.

هُوَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُ بِالْهُدَى وَدِينِ الْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ

9:33 

The divine mission "لِيُظْهِرَهُ عَلَى الدِّينِ كُلِّهِ" cannot be accomplished if there is no political authority vested in Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). 

It is that simple.

Edited by Cool
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 9/2/2020 at 7:27 PM, Cherub786 said:

This was the last sentence of my argument and it's the first thing you want to break down? Why are you avoiding the meat and potatoes?

Inspiration, as in Ilham. It was an Ilqa to my heart and mind, a sudden realization of the truth after I was praying and reflecting for guidance on the matter a few weeks ago. It came from God

I saw some people making fun of this statement in the comments. It's pretty unislamic to do so I must say. Brother Cherub could be telling the truth and I can prove it.

The Holy Quran in Surah Ibrahim states: Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills.

Whether Brother Cherub is being misguided or guided, I'll leave that open to interpretation.

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

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

I saw some people making fun of this statement in the comments. It's pretty unislamic to do so I must say. Brother Cherub could be telling the truth and I can prove it.

The Holy Quran in Surah Ibrahim states: Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills.

Whether Brother Cherub is being misguided or guided, I'll leave that open to interpretation.

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

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

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...