Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

[DEBATE] The Succession to Rasul Allah (saw).

Rate this topic


Ansar Shiat Ali

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

@Mahdavist

@Haji 2003

I would love for you to please moderate the Debate.

 I offered @Nightclaw a debate about the succession to Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and he accepted. It will be a 1v1. My position is that Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Ali (عليه السلام) is his successor of every believer after him and he (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) also that he is the master of whoever he is a master of. Therefore he should've been the real Caliph.

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

How the debate will work:

I will bring proofs and he will respond to them, if he doesn't refute the proof then I remain right and therefore he loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

How the debate will work:

I will bring proofs and he will respond to them, if he doesn't refute the proof then I remain right and therefore he loses.

@NightclawDo u accept these conditions? If you do the debate will start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

Ok brother, any post that isn't from you or @Nightclaw will be deleted. 

Also, @Nightclawis a beginner member, so if you could accept his posts as soon as possible that would be great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Okay, I am finally able to post (still need moderator approval, however).

As per your conditions, they are quite blunt and quite one-sided. It is as if I am not able to provide my own proofs, judging based on your conditions [as such was not included]! Nevertheless, I accept. However, I will question whatever sources you bring. As a fellow student of knowledge, it is imperative that you know how to identify authentic sources from whichever you bring, especially if you are doing so from my side. This will prove to you falling short as you may bring up things in which you do not know if it can be used or understand it truly. I would hope you have basic knowledge about 'Ilm al-Rijal from my side and an even greater amount on your side and not seek to copy and paste things to be right and glamor over how wrong the other side is with great glamor.

We can start now with you doing the honors.

[Bear in mind that my replies are limited due to me being a new member and me also being unable my posts, so I will certainly write very long responses with a lot of evidence along with it.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

:bismillah:

Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Ali (عليه السلام) is the Caliph of the Believers after him,

ksunna_0000.jp2&id=FPksunna&scale=4&rotate=01

"The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said to Ali (عليه السلام),

'You are to me like Harun (عليه السلام) was to Musa (عليه السلام) except that you are not a Prophet, and You are the Caliph of every Believer after me.'..."

"The Sanad/Chain is Hasan and the Rijal are the Rijal of the Shaykhayn (Bukhari and Muslim)..."

Kitab Al Sunnah, Abu Bakr Ahmed Ibn Abi Asim, Examined by Al-Albani, p. 565, Hadith 1188.

This is a clear proof that Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Ali (عليه السلام) is the Caliph of every Believer after him.

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

:bismillah:

Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Ali (عليه السلام) is the Caliph of the Believers after him,

ksunna_0000.jp2&id=FPksunna&scale=4&rotate=01

"The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said to Ali (عليه السلام),

'You are to me like Harun (عليه السلام) was to Musa (عليه السلام) except that you are not a Prophet, and You are the Caliph of every Believer after me.'..."

"The Sanad/Chain is Hasan and the Rijal are the Rijal of the Shaykhayn (Bukhari and Muslim)..."

Kitab Al Sunnah, Abu Bakr Ahmed Ibn Abi Asim, Examined by Al-Albani, p. 565, Hadith 1188.

This is a clear proof that Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Ali (عليه السلام) is the Caliph of every Believer after him.

I am not sure what I should say. I agree with this hadith. This happened, as 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) became a caliph of every believer after the first three. I am not sure what this proves other than what we both agree on - 'Ali is to be caliph of every Muslim after him. Did it say directly? No. To say this is not only misconstruing the hadith via confirmation bias, but a blatant lie as the wording is not there. 

I will also ask that you give the full explanation of the hadith rather than taking it out and singling it alone, especially during a debate. Most hadiths have context behind them and are not randomly said. Muhammad ibn Abdullah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) never spoke out of randomness nor out of the blue, so give context behind this hadith before using it entirely. Include the explanation for it and such when necessary.

A second point is that Harun (peace be upon him) did not succeed Musa (peace be upon him), so this would be evidence against you, not for you. The wording is contradictory to what you are claiming - even if you do not accept the hadith.

Thirdly, I will respond with another hasan hadith:
حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الأُمَوِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ أَبِي الْعَلاَءِ الْمُرَادِيِّ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ هَرِمٍ، عَنْ رِبْعِيِّ بْنِ حِرَاشٍ،

عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ، رضى الله عنه قَالَ كُنَّا جُلُوسًا عِنْدَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ

"‏ إِنِّي لاَ أَدْرِي مَا بَقَائِي فِيكُمْ فَاقْتَدُوا بِاللَّذَيْنِ مِنْ بَعْدِي ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَأَشَارَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ ‏.‏"
"We were sitting with the Prophet ﷺ and he said: 'Verily, I do not know how long I will be with you, so stick to those two after me,' and he signaled towards Abu Bakr and 'Umar."

I know what your response will be - "it's not hujjah upon us!". No matter. However, this is going to be troublesome for you. If the hadith you brought is accepted by you, then you will have problems. The narrators in the same hadith may or may not have said things you will surely disagree with and goes against your entire beliefs. So I ask you - do you accept this hadith? If so, then how? The criteria for hadith from your scholars [i.e. Al-Hilli, al-Mufid, etc.] is not met in this hadith, so it is impossible for you to accept it. If you do not accept it, why use it as evidence against me in the first place?

Also, there is no need to type the reference out if you have a pictures of it. I can go to the books myself and see. If you do not provide any pictures, then written sources will suffice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
35 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

1. The hadith is Mutlq مطلق. It clearly means that Ali (عليه السلام) is the Caliph/successor of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This didn't happen to any other Sahabi.

Yes, it is clear. You keep iterating that he is the caliph after him. We agree. It never said directly, however. This is a clear extrapolation that holds no real basis other than confirmation bias [which still holds no real form of weight]. As a matter of fact, the same wording is used when referring to Abu Bakr and 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them.

Quote

2. Harun (عليه السلام) would have succeeded Musa (عليه السلام) if he didn't die 1st

This is baseless.

Quote

3. If Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) actually said this, why did they gather in a shed to take the Caliphate? Shouldn't the people already know that Abu Bakr and Umar should have been Caliph? They usurped the Caliphate. Also there was a dispute on who should have been Caliph at Saqifa, Abu Bakr was chosen out of nowhere. Abu Bakr even wished that Abu Ubaydah or Umar would have been chosen on the day of Saqifa.

Nobody gathered in a shed to "take Caliphate". Provide evidence for this. You ask if the people should have already known - yes, that is why he was chosen. You must understand that there had to be a decision making as it was vital for the Muslims. Abu Bakr himself stated that there would be problems if everyone [including the tribe of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)] was not present. However, it was important that a leader be elected quickly. They were deciding a leader at Saqifa, and 'Umar quickly decided to pledge allegiance to 'Umar, in which others followed his lead. Others were elected and pondered upon, but it ultimately led to Abu Bakr. Everyone attested to his greatness and closeness to the Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It was a rushed event. It had to be. Anyone who is throwing a hissy fit over this has not picked up a book on [authentic] Islamic history and merely skim through to refute and accept what they see as true rather than actually being sincere to find the truth - or even looking through it thoroughly. He had prominence with his father-in-law and many other wonderful attributes. This is why he was chosen despite being in contest with others. The reason why people were hesitant to choose was because not everyone was present and it, as Abu Bakr said, would cause problems and enmity. 

Lo and behold, it did.

Quote

They usurped the Caliphate.

Again, this is baseless due to your own statement after and many other material.

Majority picked Abu Bakr, regardless of what you say. Abu Bakr did not elect himself, as you have clearly pointed out that he thought of 'Umar and Abu Ubaydah (may Allah be pleased with them) to be fit for the position. This clearly indicates he did not want to "usurp" anything. What an amazing, humble man. Led the Ummah aright and spread Islam to many places, mashallah. May Allah be pleased with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Answer this question, did this happen to any other sahabi? The same wording isn't used for Abu Bakr and Umar because it never happened.

In the same wording? Of course not. However, I could show you a plethora of hadiths that indicate Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman. It would be senseless, as you would simply reject and say it is not hujjah upon you. I find that tedious as you are quick to use my sources against me [and as your only evidence], but are quick to reject it. I am not sure what hadiths you accept nor reject, at this point. Anything I can provide to you with an authentic chain or narration, I know you will reject. You take our hadiths out of context and distort the meaning and use it as evidence. It is ridiculous, but expected.

Quote

Do you know what a Saqifa is?

Yes. It is a building or construction like that of the Romans and Greeks, or a colosseum. I do not know the name of it in English.

Quote

2. The merits of Abu Bakr are nowhere near the ones of Ali (عليه السلام).

3. Umar even admits that the pledge to Abu Bakr was a slip up that should not have happened,

I agree. Abu Bakr spread Islam and helped the Muslim world beyond contention. The spread of Islam led to new allies and an advancement in society as we know it. He was loved by all Muslims at the time. Even the Jews and Christians liked him, with good reason. He was a gentle, kind, understanding man whom Allah promised Paradise eternally. He was the best friend of the Messenger (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and closest companion that everyone attested to.

Quote

One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.....And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us..."

إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ أَلاَ وَإِنَّهَا قَدْ كَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ وَقَى شَرَّهَا، وَلَيْسَ مِنْكُمْ مَنْ تُقْطَعُ الأَعْنَاقُ إِلَيْهِ مِثْلُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، مَنْ بَايَعَ رَجُلاً عَنْ غَيْرِ مَشُورَةٍ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَلاَ يُبَايَعُ هُوَ وَلاَ الَّذِي بَايَعَهُ تَغِرَّةً أَنْ يُقْتَلاَ

The answer/fatwa concerning your statement.

فهذا الحديث صحيح متفق على صحته، ولفظه عند البخاري عن ابن عباس: ثم إنه بلغني قائل منكم يقول والله لو قد مات عمر بايعت فلانا فلا يغترن امرؤ أن يقول إنما كانت بيعة أبي بكر فلتة وتمت، ألا وإنها قد كانت كذلك، ولكن الله وقى شرها، وليس فيكم من تقطع الأعناق إليه مثل أبي بكر، من بايع رجلا من غير مشورة من المسلمين فلا يتابع هو ولا الذي تابعه تغرة أن يقتلا.

والمقصود بذلك أن بيعة أبي بكر ـ رضي الله عنه – وليس عمر - كانت فلتة أي فجأة لم يرجع فيها إلى عوام المسلمين، وإنما بادر إليها كبراء الصحابة لعلمهم بأحقية أبي بكر بالخلافة، وأنه لا عدل له ولا كفء من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. جاء في الفائق في غريب الحديث والأثر: فَلْتة: أي فُجاءة، لأنه لم يُنْتظَر بها العوام، وإنما ابتدرها أكابرُ الصحابة لعلمهم أنه ليس له منازع ولا شريك في وجوب التّقدم. انتهى.وفي شرح صحيح البخاري لابن بطال: قال أبو عبيد: معنى الفلتة الفجأة، وإنما كانت كذلك، لأنها لم ينتظر بها العوام، وإنما ابتدرها أكابر أصحاب محمد من المهاجرين وعامة الأنصار. انتهى.

وبعض العلماء ينكر هذا التفسير وينحى منحى آخر في تفسير الفلتة وهو أن المراد بها في لغة العرب آخر ليلة من الأشهر الحرم.

جاء في كشف المشكل من حديث الصحيحين: الفلتة الليلة يشك فيها هل من رجب، أو شعبان وقد كان العرب يعظمون الأشهر الحرم ولا يقتتلون فيها، وإذا كان آخر ليلة من الأشهر الحرم فربما شك فيها قوم هل هي من الحرم أم من الحلال؟ فيبادر الموتور الحنق في تلك الليلة فينتهز الفرصة في إدراك ثأره فيكثر الفساد في تلك الليلة وسفك الدماء وشن الغارات، فشبه عمر أيام حياة رسول الله وما كان الناس عليه من الألفة ووقوع الأمنة بالشهر الحرام الذي لا قتال فيه، وكان موته شبه الفلتة التي هي خروج من الحرم لما ظهر في ذلك من الفساد فوقى الله شرها ببيعة أبي بكر. انتهى.

وجاء في غريب الحديث للخطابي: قال أبو سليمان الخطابي: قد تكون الفلتة بمعنى الفجاءة وليست بالذي أراد عمر ولا لها موضع في هذا الحديث ولا لمعناها قرار هاهنا، وحاش لتلك البيعة أن تكون فجاءة لا مشورة فيها، ولست أعلم شيئا أبلغ في الطعن عليها من هذا التأويل، وكيف يسوغ ذلك وعمر نفسه يقول في هذه القصة لا بيعة إلا عن مشورة، وأيما رجل بايع عن غير مشورة فلا يؤمر واحد منهما تغرة أن يقتلا. انتهى.

وأما قوله: تغرة أن يقتلا ـ فالتغرة هي التغرير, والمقصود أن من بادر بمبايعة رجل دون الرجوع للمسلمين فقد عرض نفسه هو ومن بايعه للقتل، جاء في شرح صحيح البخاري لابن بطال: التغرة: التغرير، يقال: غررت بالقوم تغريرا وتغرة، وإنما أراد عمر أن في بيعتهما تغريرا بأنفسهما للقتل وتعرضا له فنهاهما عنه. انتهى.

والله أعلم

I would translate, but it is quite extensive and soporific considering we both speak Arabic.

Quote

So it was a فلتة/slip up that should not have happened and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) saved the Ummah from its evil. And after that Umar says who gives a pledge without consulting the muslims, they should both be killed, that's exactly what Abu Bakr and Umar did. Umar pledged then consulted that people. Umar wanted to make sure that the usurption of the Caliphate wouldn't happen again.

The word "فلتة" in this context does not mean slip up. It refers to something heavily rushed or hastiness [in a situation]. 

Second, other Muslims were consulted. How else was Abu Bakr selected? Through a sorting hat? No. It was at a dire time. A leader needed to be elected. This was not done deliberately, and this speech is talking about what is done deliberately. 

Third, he pledged with other Muslims around because of the dire need of a leader at that very moment in time. Again, this shows your lack in history, as you have demonstrated once again. Western historians and scholars such as Wilfred Madelung, Moshe Sharon and William Muir (though these people are excellent historians, they have a [horrendous and false] bias when it comes to writing about Muslims and their teachings, not history. Therefore, one should stick to what they teach historically, as it has been peer reviewed and constructively criticized). Muir even writes this in his book titled, "The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline, and Fall" that it had to be done. He stemmed everything from primary and secondary material. Anyone who says "THIS WAS AN USURPATION AND DONE DELIBRATELY BY THE EVIL ABU BAKR AND UMAR!" has not picked up a history book of Islam in their life. Moreover, they have not studied history in the slightest. It shows ignorance and unwillingness to accept things are not as what they are fed to you.

 
Quote

Of course it had to be quick, because as soon as Ali (عليه السلام) finishes washing, Burying, and doing Janaza of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), he would announce his power.

Baseless based on confirmation bias. There is nothing authentic to show this. 

Quote

Now, get back on topic, because you are literally saying that even though the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said that Ali (عليه السلام) is his successor, it doesn't mean 1st. What type of logic is that?

I do not see where you do not see the logic. The same wording he used for 'Ali being his successor after him is the same wording he used when referring to Abu Bakr and 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with them all. "مِنْ بَعْدِي" is used for referring to both 'Ali and Abu Bakr and 'Umar. That is the closest thing you will get to stating that there was an appointment [at least by the wording]. 

Let me give you an authentic narration [isnads/musnids are all trustworthy] from 'Ali ibn Abu Talib:

عَنْ أَبِي جُحَيْفَةَ قَالَ قَالَ عَلِي ابْن أَبِي طَالِب رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَلَا أُخْبِرُكُمْ بِخَيْرِ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ بَعْدَ نَبِيِّهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ أَلَا أُخْبِرُكُمْ بِخَيْرِ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ بَعْدَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ عُمَرُ
Abu Juhayfah reported: Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Shall I not tell you about the best of this nation after its Prophet? It is Abu Bakr. Shall I not tell you about the best of this nation after Abu Bakr? It is Umar.”
Musnad Ahmad [bin Hanbal] - 835

 

Now let me give you ahadith from the Messenger himself (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) which are authentic in narration, no chains broken and all of the narrators are trustworthy, as per your request of asking for wording of such:

The chain: حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الأُمَوِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا وَكِيعٌ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ أَبِي الْعَلاَءِ الْمُرَادِيِّ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ هَرِمٍ، عَنْ رِبْعِيِّ بْنِ حِرَاشٍ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ

عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ كُنَّا جُلُوسًا عِنْدَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ إِنِّي لَا أَدْرِي مَا بَقَائِي فِيكُمْ فَاقْتَدُوا بِاللَّذَيْنِ مِنْ بَعْدِي وَأَشَارَ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ
Hudhayfah reported: We had been sitting with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and he said, “Verily, I do not know how much longer I will remain with you. After me, follow these two,” and [the Prophet] pointed to Abu Bakr and Umar.
Sunan at-Tirmidhi, volume 6:  Book of Virtues - hadith #3663.

 

The chain: حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ يَحْيَى بْنِ سَلَمَةَ بْنِ كُهَيْلٍ، حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ سَلَمَةَ بْنِ كُهَيْلٍ، عَنْ أَبِي الزَّعْرَاءِ، عَنِ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ

عَنْ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ اقْتَدُوا بِاللَّذَيْنِ مِنْ بَعْدِي مِنْ أَصْحَابِي أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ وَاهْتَدُوا بِهَدْيِ عَمَّارٍ وَتَمَسَّكُوا بِعَهْدِ ابْنِ مَسْعُودٍ
Ibn Mas’ud reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Follow the example of these two men from my companions after me, Abu Bakr and Umar. Be guided by the guidance of ‘Ammar and adhere to the advice of Ibn Mas’ud.
Sunan at-Tirmidhi, volume 6: Book of Virtues - hadith #3805
 

 

Let me know if you accept this hadith [the one you originally sent me], by the way. If you do, then you must accept the other hadith that have the same narrators saying this about Abu Bakr, 'Umar or 'Uthman. The hadiths I mentioned after the one of 'Ali do not necessary have the same narrators as the hadith you are using against me, though I am waiting to see if you will accept this hadith or not despite it not being in your criteria for accepting.

Quote

Your response to the hadith doesn't do anything to disprove me.

You have brought nothing for me to disprove other than you claiming one thing based off a hadith that you should not even accept to begin with. The hadith does not say 'Ali is the immediate successor, just as it does not say Abu Bakr nor 'Umar are the immediate successors. If anything, anyone with an iota of a brain cell can deduce that Abu Bakr was chosen for good reason and it was not usurpation. I reiterate, as I always do, history needs to be looked at, not blindly believing what "authentic" things you are given.

Be careful with your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
25 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

The word "فلتة" in this context does not mean slip up.

It doesn't mean slip up because it concerns Abu Bakr and Umar? All of a sudden Arabic changes because the Sahaba are involved? What type of religion is this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
41 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

Again, these are obvious fabrications of your scholars, if this was actually said by Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), there wouldn't have been a dispute over the Caliphate.

You made the claim that these were fabrications by my scholars - so prove it. Prove that these were fabrications. 

Quote

This is just a bias excuse not to accept Ali (عليه السلام) as the Caliph of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). If this was said for Abu Bakr and Umar, you would accept it instantly. It obviously means immediate successor, the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) didn't say this for any other Sahabi, he didn't say, "Abu Bakr and Umar are the Caliphs after me."

Uh... no. I would not accept it instantly. I would look for the more obvious and reasonable answer. If you want something that is directly mentioning by the Messenger of the Caliphate of 'Umar, here:

حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ ، أَخْبَرَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا صَالِحُ بْنُ كَيْسَانَ ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ ، عَنْ عُرْوَةَ 
، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ، قَالَتْ : قَالَ لِي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : فِي مَرَضِهِ ادْعِي لِي أَبَا بَكْرٍ ، أَبَاكِ ، وَأَخَاكِ ، حَتَّى أَكْتُبَ كِتَابًا ، فَإِنِّي أَخَافُ أَنْ يَتَمَنَّى مُتَمَنٍّ وَيَقُولُ قَائِلٌ : أَنَا أَوْلَى ، وَيَأْبَى اللَّهُ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا أَبَا بَكْرٍ

A'isha reported that Messenger of Allah ﷺ in his (last) illness asked me to call Abu Bakr, her father, and her brother too, so that he might write a document, for he feared that someone else might be desirous (of succeeding him) and that some claimant may say: I have better claim to it, whereas Allah and the Faithful do not substantiate the claim of anyone but that of Abu Bakr.
Sahih Muslim volume 6 - Merits of the Companions - hadith #2387

The chain is authentic via not only the strong narrators and unbroken chain, but due to it being mutawaatir [way before any of your rijal came along].

Quote

It doesn't mean slip up because it concerns Abu Bakr and Umar? All of a sudden Arabic changes because the Sahaba are involved? What type of religion is this?

No. If you knew Arabic, you would know the context his speech was in. It is not only in the explanation I gave you above, but it is pretty self-explanatory for someone who knows the Arabic language. The language did not change. The usage of the word عَنِ does not always entail the same meaning. The same with the word على. In one context, you can use it to pray to or for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) - one gains you rewards, the other takes you outside of the fold of Islam with shirk. It all depends on the word that follows or precedes it. This is pretty basic Arabic grammar that I would hope you would know.

As a matter of fact, I will give you a quick lesson right now on the hadith.

إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ
Now, as we can see here, this is an excerpt of the hadith you quoted. Let us dive in, shall we?

إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ
"Verily, it was/it had been" - this is referring to the event that happened at Saqifa [this is important, keep this in mind].

بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ
"The pledge [of allegiance to] Abu Bakr" 

فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ
"[Was] unexpected/sudden/by surprise, and has/will be fulfilled"

You may ask - how do I know that this translation is correct? Because fathatain over the last letter of the word فَلْتَةً. Adding a kesra or a dhumma can result in an entirely different word. An example of such is this: قلت - how did you read that? Qultu? Qulta? Qulti? Same word structure, different meaning altogether.

 

I know, I know. Petty differences. However, it is essential. You can mean something completely different be pronouncing a letter wrong in the wrong tone, as with many other languages. It is not because I want it to be that way - it is how it is. That is how the language is set up. 

Edited by Nightclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Nightclaw said:

Third, he pledged with other Muslims around because of the dire need of a leader at that very moment in time. Again, this shows your lack in history, as you have demonstrated once again. Western historians and scholars such as Wilfred Madelung, Moshe Sharon and William Muir (though these people are excellent historians, they have a [horrendous and false] bias when it comes to writing about Muslims and their teachings, not history.

No, Umar did it because they needed someone to take the place of Ali (عليه السلام) as soon as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

No, Umar did it because they needed someone to take the place of Ali (عليه السلام) as soon as possible.

Sure - you could argue this. However, what reasonable evidence do you have to support this other than how you feel via your own flawed deduction? They could have easily gotten rid of 'Ali, the first three caliphs. They had a powerful army that took down 2 superpowers at the time [Rome and Persia]. It does not add up. What would they even need to usurp 'Ali for? To spread Islam? To enjoin good and forbid evil? I do not understand. If Imam 'Ali knew that he should have taken the seat, why did he not stand up? Was he afraid of them? Certainly not. What other conclusions are there? If you are going to derive your hadith from my sources, tell me if you accept them or not and based off of what criteria. I want to see something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
8 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

No. If you knew Arabic, you would know the context his speech was in. It is not only in the explanation I gave you above, but it is pretty self-explanatory for someone who knows the Arabic language. The language did not change. The usage of the word عَنِ does not always entail the same meaning. The same with the word على. In one context, you can use it to pray to or for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) - one gains you rewards, the other takes you outside of the fold of Islam with shirk. It all depends on the word that follows or precedes it. This is pretty basic Arabic grammar that I would hope you would know.

As a matter of fact, I will give you a quick lesson right now on the hadith.

إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ
Now, as we can see here, this is an excerpt of the hadith you quoted. Let us dive in, shall we?

إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ
"Verily, it was/it had been" - this is referring to the event that happened at Saqifa [this is important, keep this in mind].

بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ
"The pledge [of allegiance to] Abu Bakr" 

فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ
"[Was] unexpected/sudden/by surprise, and has/will be fulfilled"

You may ask - how do I know that this translation is correct? Because fathatain over the last letter of the word فَلْتَةً. Adding a kesra or a dhumma can result in an entirely different word. I know, I know. Petty differences. However, it is essential. You can mean something completely different be pronouncing a letter wrong in the wrong tone, as with many other languages. It is not because I want it to be that way - it is how it is. That is how the language is set up. 

إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ
Now, as we can see here, this is an excerpt of the hadith I quoted. Let us dive in, shall we?

إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ
"(Inama/انما is a word of restriction meaning only) It was only (referring to Saqifa)

بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ
"The pledge [of allegiance to] Abu Bakr" 

فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ
"Was a Slip that happened and it fulfilled."

And you cut down the hadith and didn't mention how he said that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) saved the Ummah from its evil. Because Umar said this it makes more sense to say the translation is Slip up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
7 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Sure - you could argue this. However, what reasonable evidence do you have to support this other than how you feel via your own flawed deduction? They could have easily gotten rid of 'Ali, the first three caliphs. They had a powerful army that took down 2 superpowers at the time [Rome and Persia]. It does not add up. What would they even need to usurp 'Ali for? To spread Islam? To enjoin good and forbid evil? I do not understand. If Imam 'Ali knew that he should have taken the seat, why did he not stand up? Was he afraid of them? Certainly not. What other conclusions are there? If you are going to derive your hadith from my sources, tell me if you accept them or not and based off of what criteria. I want to see something.

The reason they didn't get rid of Ali (عليه السلام) is, if they did kill Ali (عليه السلام), then the fools following Abu Bakr and Umar would have had their eyes opened. 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did stand up, he did not pledge until they threatened to Burn down his house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

They contradict Sahih Hadiths, its that simple. This shows me you don't study History, if this really happened, there wouldn't have been a dispute between Ali (عليه السلام) and Abu Bakr.

My, oh my... I wonder why you fail to respond to what I say and simply look to try and prove me wrong. It seems to me as if you are trying to mask something. You have called my hadith fabrications - on what grounds? You do not know the science of hadith for us and I stated it was essential that you do. You claim I do not study history? Fine. You can have your opinion, even it is wrong. 

The only problem that was present was that not everyone was there. This is natural to be upset, for various reasons. However, the majority chose Abu Bakr as the Caliph. There was no dispute, despite being contention. 'Ali was not angry, rather hurt by this.

Quote

Again, a contradiction of sahih hadiths and history. Now, Hadith al Manzila, (the one I quoted that you still have failed to refute) happened before the Battle of Tabook when Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) left Medina and he left Ali (عليه السلام), happened before the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was martyred, Thus this Hadith is a Fabrication.

Why would the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) say Ali (عليه السلام) is his successor then say Abu Bakr is his successor.

Firstly, I find it funny how you state that the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was martyred and claim I do not know history. He was never martyred. This is a lie - and again - shows your lack of historical and hadith knowledge. 

What hadith am I supposed to be refuting? You have given several.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ
Now, as we can see here, this is an excerpt of the hadith I quoted. Let us dive in, shall we?

إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ
"(Inama/انما is a word of restriction meaning only) It was only (referring to Saqifa)

بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ
"The pledge [of allegiance to] Abu Bakr" 

فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ
"Was a Slip that happened and it fulfilled."

And you cut down the hadith and didn't mention how he said that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) saved the Ummah from its evil. Because Umar said this it makes more sense to say the translation is Slip up.

You basically said exactly what I said. I know it was referring to Saqifa. That is what I mentioned. 

Again, with the last part... that is incorrect. It is not because it is 'Umar. It is because that is how it is translated in the Arabic language. I gave you examples of such and you still deny it. The fathatain makes it restricted in meaning to "sudden, unexpected". 

You still have yet to respond to my other points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Nightclaw said:

My, oh my... I wonder why you fail to respond to what I say and simply look to try and prove me wrong. It seems to me as if you are trying to mask something. You have called my hadith fabrications - on what grounds? You do not know the science of hadith for us and I stated it was essential that you do. You claim I do not study history? Fine. You can have your opinion, even it is wrong. 

The only problem that was present was that not everyone was there. This is natural to be upset, for various reasons. However, the majority chose Abu Bakr as the Caliph. There was no dispute, despite being contention. 'Ali was not angry, rather hurt by this.

Oh my, its a straight forward response. I know your hadith science, I am not just saying this out of nowhere, its just the truth. I see how you stay quiet when I said that there was a dispute between Ali (عليه السلام) and Abu Bakr, that is a clear contradiction. 

3 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Firstly, I find it funny how you state that the Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was martyred and claim I do not know history. He was never martyred. This is a lie - and again - shows your lack of historical and hadith knowledge. 

What hadith am I supposed to be refuting? You have given several.

The Shia say Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was martyred, but that is another story for another time.

This is the Hadith,

ksunna_0000.jp2&id=FPksunna&scale=4&rotate=01

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

The reason they didn't get rid of Ali (عليه السلام) is, if they did kill Ali (عليه السلام), then the fools following Abu Bakr and Umar would have had their eyes opened. 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did stand up, he did not pledge until they threatened to Burn down his house.

Still does not make any sense. He could have hired someone to kill him or poisoned him and whatnot. Many ways to get rid of him. Therefore, saying this is baseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, Nightclaw said:

Still does not make any sense. He could have hired someone to kill him or poisoned him and whatnot. Many ways to get rid of him. Therefore, saying this is baseless.

The people would still say no one would be behind this except Abu Bakr and his Gang. They knew that wanted Ali (عليه السلام) gone.

Now I must Pray, let's save the replies for tomorrow.

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
33 minutes ago, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

I already explained why it doesn't mean sudden, You were a typical Sunni and skipped the fact that Umar said that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) stopped the evil that was coming out of what they were doing.

Explain morphologically and etymologically from the Arabic language why it cannot possibly mean sudden. Hint - you cannot. The Arabic language does not change, unfortunately. You can throw a hissyfit and say you are right all you want and until the sun goes down - just because you have flimsily explained it and try to bark to assert your correctness does not change the fact at hand, I am afraid. I have already explained it from the Arabic standpoint. It literally means "sudden, to happen suddenly, unexpected". It does not mean anything else. Without the fathatain, it will mean from what you have said; "mistake, fault, slip, suddenly, minor fault", etc. However, WITH the fathatain, the meaning is restricted to mean "sudden, unexpected, unexpectedly, suddenly". There is nothing else that needs to be said concerning this. If you mention it again, I will only ignore you regarding it as you clearly are now being arrogant and refusing to accept something based on simple Arabic grammar knowledge and would rather remain ignorant - which is fine by me. I lose no sleep over it.

Quote

The Shia say Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) was martyred, but that is another story for another time.

Evidence for this is weak [due to narration itself and narrators] and contradictory. 

Quote

Ah, It was sudden, Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) didn't say Abu Bakr was his successor. It happened suddenly. Also, during Saqifa, why didn't the people just say, "Abu Bakr! Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said you are his successor"? Because The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) never said that Abu Bakr is his successor.

I just showed you that he did, based off of a narration that you reject - yet, oddly enough, you continue to use evidence from my side that you reject to authenticate your side. It is like you have no belief if it were not for our narrations. Now, I understand that you use it as proof against me, but you do not understand Arabic that well to begin with. You clearly do not have an understanding of the language outside that of a child. This is not the problem. The problem is that you are dictating with a miniscule amount of knowledge that you cannot utilize properly and, well... trying to utilize it. You claimed these narrations were fabrications and did not answer as to how they were - rather rejecting them without even knowing of them. 

If this was the case, why is there no shred of evidence that people state that "O Abu Bakr! Did the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah upon him) not appoint 'Ali as his successor?". Why did no one testify that 'Ali should be Caliph directly after the death of Abu al-Qasim (peace and blessings of Allah upon him)? Your point is moot and can be used against you. 

I only excluded the part where 'Umar says that he stopped the evil in which was coming because I wanted to highlight the part you mentioned specifically. However, I will address it now.

Quote

"One should not deceive oneself by saying that the pledge of allegiance given to Abu Bakr was given suddenly and it was successful. No doubt, it was like that, but Allah saved (the people) from its evil, and there is none among you who has the qualities of Abu Bakr. Remember that whoever gives the pledge of allegiance to anybody among you without consulting the other Muslims, neither that person, nor the person to whom the pledge of allegiance was given, are to be supported, lest they both should be killed.....And no doubt after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ) we were informed that the Ansar disagreed with us and gathered in the shed of Bani Sa'da. `Ali and Zubair and whoever was with them, opposed us..."

إِنَّمَا كَانَتْ بَيْعَةُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ فَلْتَةً وَتَمَّتْ أَلاَ وَإِنَّهَا قَدْ كَانَتْ كَذَلِكَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ وَقَى شَرَّهَا، وَلَيْسَ مِنْكُمْ مَنْ تُقْطَعُ الأَعْنَاقُ إِلَيْهِ مِثْلُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، مَنْ بَايَعَ رَجُلاً عَنْ غَيْرِ مَشُورَةٍ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَلاَ يُبَايَعُ هُوَ وَلاَ الَّذِي بَايَعَهُ تَغِرَّةً أَنْ يُقْتَلاَ

Western and Eastern scholars know that immediately after the death of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), it was a crucial moment. The Arab tribes [non-Muslims] wanted to attack and pounce upon the Muslims at the time. The Romans and Persians were also advancing. Some Muslims were under immense stress because of their loss and the entire Ummah was entering turmoil. A leader had to be chosen. Someone to guide. This is not really up for a debate, as this is what happened according to every single biographical, historical, sociological and geographical expert that has studied this field. You can argue against it, but it does not take away from the fact of the matter and I will no longer be entertaining you claiming it as false because you do not like what you hear.

Now that we understand that much, let me go on further to explain. The evil 'Umar was referring to was not what they did, rather what was to come out of choosing a ruler, as the wrong people could come to power. It is as simple as that. This is attested by Abu Bakr's extraordinary reign, in which he did so much for the Muslims. He spread Islam and set forth an amazing example, may Allah be pleased with him. He was the rightful person to lead, as 'Umar claims.

Quote

The people would still say no one would be behind this except Abu Bakr and his Gang. They knew that wanted Ali (عليه السلام) gone.

Still does not make any sense. He could have easily gotten rid of them all. 

 

There is no need to respond to this. I am done with this debate, if one can even call it that. I had an assessment of your character so far, so it is fair to say that whatever statements I make concerning you is not based off of assumption. You stated that you will show me what you know in this debate, but you have shown me nothing. In all fairness, you have shown me what you know - nothing. I feel a bit irritated, because this was nothing more than a waste of my time entertaining you without the purpose of learning nor being sincere.

You came, all guns ablazing, but to no avail. You brought a hadith that we both accept and gave your explanation [which was flawed]. You keep speaking about history and fabrications when you have no way of verifying truth from falsehood until the 10th century and bring up things as true that history negates. You do not know history as well as you think you do, so return and learn it. Stop rejecting things because they do not fit with your narrative, which is based on missing, weak, broken or fabricated material governed by an authentication method derived from the Ahlul Sunnah.

With this, I will say that I do not care what you will say after this. If you want to claim you win, then you have won. If you want to continue to throw ad hominem attacks, proceed. To take a book out of Imam Shafi'i's book..

 

“Say what you wish in abuse of me, for my silence towards an idiot is indeed an answer.
I am not at a loss for a response but rather, It does not befit the lion to answer dogs.”

 

اَلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَرَحْمَةُ ٱللَّهِ وَبَرَكاتُهُ‎ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

That everyone concludes the debate. I will say I won because The hadith remains unrefuted. Salam to you respected and respectful brother. 

Everyone, if you guys are going to respond please do not attack me or brother @Nightclaw, I am pretty sure that even he is not in the mood for such nonsense.

Everyone has an end, it may be pleasant or sorrowful. -Hazrat Ali R.A |  Quran quotes, Ali quotes, Quran quotes inspirational

May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) guide us all, May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) make us of the 313 companions of Imam al Mahdi (ajtf), May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) make the Imam (عليه السلام) have 1 Million companions. 

Wa Al Salam

Edited by Ansur Shiat Ali
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 11/15/2020 at 8:09 AM, Ansur Shiat Ali said:

1. The hadith is Mutlq مطلق. It clearly means that Ali (عليه السلام) is the Caliph/successor of Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). This didn't happen to any other Sahabi.

2. Harun (عليه السلام) would have succeeded Musa (عليه السلام) if he didn't die 1st, also Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says,

وَاجْعَل لِّي وَزِيرًا مِّنْ أَهْلِي

"And give me a Minister from my family." Yusuf Ali

"And appoint for me a minister from my family." Saheeh International

هَارُونَ أَخِي

"Aaron, my brother." (Yusuf Ali)

"Aaron, my brother. "(Saheeh International)

So, we know that Ali (عليه السلام) is not only a Wazir to Rasul Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), But also his successor.

I like to add the following verses from quran:

وَلَقَدْ قَالَ لَهُمْ هَٰرُونُ مِن قَبْلُ يَٰقَوْمِ إِنَّمَا فُتِنتُم بِهِۦ ۖ وَإِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنُ فَٱتَّبِعُونِى وَأَطِيعُوٓا۟ أَمْرِى
020:090 Aaron had certainly told them earlier, ‘O my people! You are only being tested by it. Indeed your Lord is the All-beneficent. So follow me and obey my command!’

This verse was revealed describing the Haroon told his people that they should follow him and obey him.

If we look in the quran then this word فَٱتَّبِعُونِى has been used only in two verses of quran. First in the verse 3:31 as given below where the prophet Muhammad saww has said that the Muslims should follow him.

قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ ٱللَّهَ فَٱتَّبِعُونِى يُحْبِبْكُمُ ٱللَّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ غَفُورٌۭ رَّحِيمٌۭ 

003:031 Say, ‘If you love Allah, then follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins, and Allah is all-forgiving, all-merciful.’

In the light of Hadith Manzila Imam Ali has same relation with the Prophet as Haroon has to Musa. The quran confirms that haroon was minister / adviser and successor after Musa like wise as per hadith Manzila Imam Ali is minister and successor after the Prophet Muhammad saww. This hadith also confirms the Ghadeer declaration.

Also the verse (20:90) "Fatab-uni" confirms that the Children of Israel should follow Haroon in succession to Mosa as likewise Imam Ali should be followed  in succession of Muhamamd saww.

Thus No Samri can come in between the prophet Musa and haroon  (as rejected by the prophet Musa (عليه السلام)) and no Samri or alike can come between the prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Imam Ali (عليه السلام). 

 

wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Debator

Ansur- produces a Sunni hadith that states Ali ra should be successor 

nightclaw- replies back we have same hadiths for Abu Bakr and Umar ra 

Ansur- (backed in a corner) says but not wording like that

nightclaw- yes with different but clear wordings yet the the narrators are authentic everything is authentic.....tell us how you got to the conclusion that Ali ra is the successor without checking the authenticity of the hadith?

Ansur- doesn’t know the authenticity nor knows history of Islam especially believing in falsehoods like prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) being martyred.

Conclusion .......a waste of time by nightclaw who after reading his posts is a man of knowledge compared to Ansur whom cannot even answer the authenticity of hadiths or knows any ilme rijal but is just regurgitating same old arguments without clear evidence or proof as is the case as per usual.

Link to comment
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...