Why did rasool announce khilafat of mawla Ali in Ghadeer Khum not in Arafat

[Debate follower]

On 11/10/2021 at 8:48 AM, Cool said:

Now when you talk about Nehjul Balagha, we suggest you to start with the sermon famous as shaqshaqqiyah. Which was addressed right when people were gathered around Ali (عليه السلام) for making him caliph. 

Sermon 92 has its context, you cannot deduce from it what you are trying to as long as there is sermon shaqshaqqiyah in the same book. 

Assalama alaykum Cool

Authenticity of Sermon 92 is doubtful, but Shias generally ignore this as that’s the only statement where Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) can be shown to lay his claim to Khilafaat.

This sermon 92 can be dated to around 18 to 20 years after passing away of the blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). (2 years for Hz. Abu Bakr, 10 years for Hz. Umar Al Khattab and around 6 years midway of Hz Uthman bin Affan (may Allah be pleased with these three Noble Souls immensely)). This is 20 years too late.

This sermon 92 goes against Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him). As I had said earlier, Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) was one of the foremost Believers in Islam. He was known for his wisdom and bravery.  In this Sermon Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) as a weak man just protesting that he has been robbed of his rightful status which was being dismantled right in front of his eyes but he could do nothing but on top of it be their advisor!
If, he was Divinely chosen to succeed the Blessed Prophet (peace be upon him) he was duty bound to fight for it and restore it.

He would have followed the illustrious example of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and fought for his cause not caring for the consequences.  Following is reply of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when his dear Uncle had requested him mute down his opposition to the Mushrikeens!

“By Allah, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand on condition that I abandoned this course, I would not abandon it until Allah has made it victorious, or I perish therein.”"  
Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) would have done the same, no doubt.

This Sermon should have been said just after the funeral of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) if he was Divinely Ordained.

Now this blessed Surah comes into effect.

O Messenger! Convey everything revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not, then you have not delivered His message. Allah will ˹certainly˺ protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the people who disbelieve. Al-Maida:67

As per Shia beliefs the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had conveyed the message and Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is duty bound to implement it come what may, trusting that Allah Almighty will protect him just as Allah Almighty had promised to protect the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

Also, there are confirmed reports challenging the authenticity of Sermon 92, Shias generally ignore this as they wouldn’t have any legs to stand on!

Now, since we are on Nahjul Balagha – Can you explain the following? Letter 58 A letter sent by Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) to the people of various provinces, giving them the causes of the Battle of Siffin.

The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it. To read complete version – the link -

https://english.almaaref.org/essaydetails.php?eid=578&cid=102

Here Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is categorially stating that there was NOT and iota of differences in their Beliefs. Absolute none.  He has not mentioned anything about Imamate or Khum Ghadir event.
The only reason he mentions is Syrians (His opponents in the Battle of Siffin) were falsely laying the blame of the murder of Hz.Uthman bin Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) on his side and were not giving him time to get to the matter. 
He said that was the only reason for the split.  Nothing to do with Divine Appointment.

What are your comments? I can guess, it is not authentic! Right?

Edited November 11, 2021 by Debate follower

[Debate follower]

On 11/10/2021 at 5:28 PM, 145_turbo_16V said:

Disingenuous, khutbah 6 was to point out to Muawiya of his faulty logic, but it's now used to say the appointment of the earlier caliphs was with the pleasure of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

145_turbo_16V Salaams – Disingenuous????

It you my dear who is being disingenuous. You are trying to misrepresent words of Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him)! I don’t know from where you have dragged in faulty logic of Muawiya?

Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is qualifying his selection to Khalifat saying that “the people who paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have paid allegiance to me based on the same principles as the allegiance to them” and further he added “So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah”.

Quote

but it's now used to say the appointment of the earlier caliphs was with the pleasure of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

These are the words of Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), these were written then, nobody is using it now! I genuinely understand these are perplexing predicament for Shias to explain thus all means are at hand to wiggle out by any means, disingenuous or not.

[Debate follower]

15 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

The empty words of a kingmaker - how exactly is that supposed to change the context of the hadith that brother @powerquoted?

Salaams Sabrejet  Of course to you it'll be.  Understandable, your sectarian constraints. I quoted the full hadith and it explains itself.  Everything happens with the WILL of the REAL KINGMAKER.

@ power Salaam – You have raised a lot of points I need some time to respond to those.  So, when I get the time I’ll try to answer to my ability.

[Sabrejet]

3 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Everything happens with the WILL of the REAL KINGMAKER.

Wa alaikum assalam brother.

I assume you are referring to the aqeeda that everything that happens, then it is Allah's act (Predestination and Divine Decree)? Aside from Asharis, no one else even believes this, as it doesn't have any actual base in truth.

This appointment was the act of these people; it wasn't Allah's act any more than the appointment of Ummayad rulers and other tyrants throughout Islamic history.

[Abu Nur]

36 minutes ago, Sabrejet said:

Wa alaikum assalam brother.

I assume you are referring to the aqeeda that everything that happens, then it is Allah's act (Predestination and Divine Decree)? Aside from Asharis, no one else even believes this, as it doesn't have any actual base in truth.

This appointment was the act of these people; it wasn't Allah's act any more than the appointment of Ummayad rulers and other tyrants throughout Islamic history.

It is a dispute interpretation of the verse: everything is from God. 

The most horrible belief from this is belief that God also created Evil. Min sharri maa khalaq. This verse of course should be understood that evil comes only from a creation who have free will to disobey, not from God. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Abu Nur

[145_turbo_16V]

This was a better to Muawiya, I hope you realized that.

He is telling Muwaiya, "you won't accept me as the khalifa, but these are same people who accepted the first 3, using those same conditions. Therefore if you accept the first 3 khalifas, and the people accepted them, then by that logic I am the legitimate khalifa. Also, again by that logic, you must accept that this is what Allah has willed. Therefore you have no arguments against me"

 

 

 

 

 

[145_turbo_16V]

Even Sheikh Uthaymeen (رضي الله عنه) said that Ali (عليه السلام) thought that he (عليه السلام) was more deserving of the khalifas than Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and others. So to say that he willingly accepted the khilafat of the 3 others is false. That's why letter 6, in light of the events surrounding the issue of khilafah is regarded as an argument against Muawiya.

Because it's quite obvious, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) :

1-Thought he was more deserving to them all (as stated by Sheikh Uthaymeen (رضي الله عنه)  in At-Ta'liq ala Sahih Muslim (shown below)

Annahu ahaqqu min Abu Bakr

2-Did not give Baiah for 6 months (according to Sahih Bukhari)

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by 145_turbo_16V

[Maisam Haider]

On 11/4/2021 at 12:42 AM, Debate follower said:

He never uttered anything about his successor

How is it logically possible for the Prophet (s) to teach us every little thing about Islam, including how to sit, how to eat etc.... But still not utter anything at all about his successor, which is a matter which has divided Muslims for centuries and will continue to do so till judgement day? 

Did the Prophet (s) give this extremely, extremely important topic so little importance that he didn't utter anything about it in his entire life.... And Allah remained silent on this too? 

To claim that the Prophet (s) not only didn't appoint a successor, but also remained silent on this topic and didn't utter a single word about it is actually an insult to the Prophet. 

[Cool]

On 11/12/2021 at 2:34 AM, Debate follower said:

If, he was Divinely chosen to succeed the Blessed Prophet (peace be upon him) he was duty bound to fight for it and restore it.

Alaikas-Salam Brother!!

Did the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) fight with people for enforcing his status of Prophethood?

Why you think it is "duty bound" for Ali (عليه السلام) to fight for his wilayah announced by Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) at Ghadeer? 

On 11/12/2021 at 2:34 AM, Debate follower said:

He would have followed the illustrious example of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and fought for his cause not caring for the consequences.  Following is reply of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when his dear Uncle had requested him mute down his opposition to the Mushrikeens!

“By Allah, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand on condition that I abandoned this course, I would not abandon it until Allah has made it victorious, or I perish therein.”"  
Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) would have done the same, no doubt.

Unfortunately, as a single man against these polytheists, please see how Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) defended himself when visiting the Ta'if valley, when migrating from Makkah etc. 

Your quoted words are representing his determination of spreading the divine message i.e., there is no god except Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

He (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) even removed his title "Prophet of Allah" while making the peace treaty with mushrikeen of Makkah. 

On 11/12/2021 at 2:34 AM, Debate follower said:

This Sermon should have been said just after the funeral of the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) if he was Divinely Ordained.

His not offering the pledge is not sufficient?

If majority of the Muslims are agreed to disobey the command of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and dislike/reject what has been selected for them by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & His Apostle, why would Imam Ali (عليه السلام) force them to accept him as their Ulil Amr?  

What has been said by Ali (عليه السلام) and what happened to Ali (عليه السلام) and his family is well documented in history books. I don't want to recall & repeat those terrible moments. 

On 11/12/2021 at 2:34 AM, Debate follower said:

per Shia beliefs the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had conveyed the message and Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is duty bound to implement it come what may, trusting that Allah Almighty will protect him just as Allah Almighty had promised to protect the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

Why Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is "duty bound" to implement it? Was it a command to Ali (عليه السلام) that make sure to be my successor? Be a ruler over them after me? Or the command of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is for general Muslims "whomsoever I am his master, this Ali is his master"? 

It is not obligatory for Ali (عليه السلام) to enforce his capacity, his status on all Muslims rather it is obligation of all Muslims to accept Ali (عليه السلام) as their master/ruler/guardian. 

On 11/12/2021 at 2:34 AM, Debate follower said:

Here Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is categorially stating that there was NOT and iota of differences in their Beliefs. Absolute none.  He has not mentioned anything about Imamate or Khum Ghadir event.

lol, 

On 11/12/2021 at 2:34 AM, Debate follower said:

So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it. To read complete version – the link -

You want Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to speak for his status every where, even when he is an "elected caliph" and is dealing with the ones who appeared before him as rebels. I was not expecting immature questions from you brother.

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

How come Imam Ali did not object and oppose the Caliphs becoming the Caliph, and did not abolish the Bid’ahs (innovations)? And if the Caliphs were kafirs (unbelievers), how come he did not declare them kafirs and announce that they had unrightfully usurped the Caliphate when he came to power?

So you (Shias) should also do what Imam Ali did. Otherwise you are forced to admit that Imam Ali betrayed the Ummah and did not enlighten the Ummah regarding the Caliphate, but we all know that Imam Ali has never done such a thing.

 

Concise answer

On some occasions Imam Ali did object to the previous Caliphs in practice and according to what has been narrated in our books the imam had opposed and criticized the previous Caliphs several times. For example, the sermon known as shighshighiyyah which is narrated in the book of Nahjul Balagha is one of these instances. Although in some situations the Imam preferred to keep quiet about this issue because of the greater good. The hadith you mentioned is not a mutawatir one from the Shia point of view and also contradicts the mutawatir ahadith narrated by the Sunnis in this regard. It is also noteworthy that keeping quiet about an issue is not always seen as betrayal.

 

et about an issue is not always seen as betrayal.

Detailed Answer

The abovementioned question is actually comprised of a number of questions:

Is it true that the hadith in which the Imam says that Abu Bakr and Umar are best individuals among the Ummah after the prophet, is mutawatir (narrated so many times and by different transmitters, to the extent that one becomes sure such a hadith has indeed been issued by an infallible)?

Before explaining the answers to these questions we must note that such questions come to mind, due to the fact that the Bani Umayyah (the Umayyids) prohibited the narration of any hadith mentioning the virtues of Imam Ali and altered history because of political ambitions, which unfortunately is still going on due to the same reasons.

The fact that the first and second Caliphs raised their voice to the point that they were scolded and chided by the first verses of Surah Al-Hujarat[7], although the Sunnis believe that they were forgiven later on by Allah.

Quote

1- The hadith which says that Imam Ali's relation towards the prophet is identical to that of Prophet Harun's to Prophet Musa.[2]

2- The hadith in which the prophet said: "The person that angers Fatimah is like the person who has angered me."[3]

3- The fact that an individual did not let the prophet write something at the end of his life and claimed the prophet was hallucinating.[4]

4- The fact that Fatimah (عليه السلام) was dissatisfied with the first and second Caliphs until she passed away.[5]

5- The fact that the prophet replaced Abu Bakr with Ali to convey the message of Bara'at.[6]

6- The fact that the first and second Caliphs raised their voice to the point that they were scolded and chided by the first verses of Surah Al-Hujarat[7], although the Sunnis believe that they were forgiven later on by Allah.

 

On 11/12/2021 at 1:04 AM, Debate follower said:

This sermon 92 goes against Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him). As I had said earlier, Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) was one of the foremost Believers in Islam. He was known for his wisdom and bravery.  In this Sermon Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) as a weak man just protesting that he has been robbed of his rightful status which was being dismantled right in front of his eyes but he could do nothing but on top of it be their advisor!
If, he was Divinely chosen to succeed the Blessed Prophet (peace be upon him) he was duty bound to fight for it and restore it.

The Opinion of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) on Caliphate

Quote

What you are referring to is not a sermon of Imam Ali to Muslims, and you have also taken it out of context. it was a part of his letter to Muawiyah when he refused to give his oath to Imam Ali (عليه السلام). Moreover, in contrary to your claim, in that letter Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did NOT say that he BELIEVES in the function of election for Caliphate. (Please see the full text of the letter below). He rather wanted to use the argument of his opponents against themselves.

 

Quote

But the rulers who came after the Prophet imposed upon people that this is what election means, and this became a principle imposed on people and assumed to be their verdict that whoever the nobles of Medina elect would be deemed to represent the entire world of Islam, and no person has right to question it, whether he was present at the time of election or not, and that no one has right to reconsider the matter.

People, from whom Muawiyah was later receiving support, were those who had clamored the loudest about that argument. But when the rulership of the Muslim State in the form of caliphate came to Imam Ali, they rebelled against it, many of them were rebelling even after having sworn the oath of allegiance to him.

 

a general election took place in Medina to elect him as Caliph by Emigrants and Helpers and nobody can deny this fact. Therefore even according to the principles formulated by the opponents of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), his election was lawful, regular and bonafide.

Thus Muslim who already accepted such principles to legitimize the election of the Abu Bakr, have no the right to speak or act against him (Ali). And Muawiyah had no right to propose re-election nor to refuse allegiance when, in practice, he recognized this principle for Abu Bakr.

 

 

Quote

Imam Ali cited the above argument merely as a stopple against Muawiyah (and in another occasion to Talha and Zubair) simply to prove how fictitious and flimsy were the points raised by his enemies to deprive him of his just rights and how they would go back upon their accepted principles to harm him.

One may recall that such counter argument was used by Prophet Abraham in the Quran where he once claimed to be the worshipper of the Sun and the moon to show people that how a wrong premise would result in self- contradictory result.

 In fact Muawiyah's real aim was to prolong the matter that at some point his own authority might get support.

One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Allah's wealth(5) like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats. When I took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not heard the word of Allah saying: That abode in the hereafter, We assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for the pious ones. (Qur'an, 28:83)

 

Quote

Abdullah Ibn Masud narrated: The messenger of Allah (P.B.U.H) ordered me to follow him, on the night of the Jinn. I went with him until we reached the hight of Macca... (the prophet) said: "I was promised that the Jinn and human will believe in me. As to the human they believed in me, as to the Jinn you have seen"; he continued: "I feel that my end is drawing near." I said: O Messenger of Allah, won't you make Abu Bakr as your Caliph? He turned away from me, so I realized that he disagreed; I said: O Messenger of Allah, won't you make Umar as your Caliph? He turned away from me, so I realized that he disagreed; I said: O Messenger of Allah, won't you make Ali as your Caliph? He said: "(That's) him. By the One whom there is no God beside Him, if you chose him and obeyd him He (Allah) entered you into Paradise all together."

Sunni references: - Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v8, p314 - Also mentioned by al-Tabarani

Quote

It is easy to forget that when he became the Caliph it had been 25 years since the Muslim society was constantly brainwashed and influenced by the propaganda that justified the actions of the previous Caliphs and to oppose them in some fields would cause serious problems. For example, returning Fadak was perceived as an effort to reach personal interests.  Moreover, the period of his Caliphate was so short and full of battles and sabotages that would not give him the opportunity for fundamental reformation regarding many issues.

 

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa2851

https://www.erfan.ir/english/90202.html

 

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On the day of Ghadir the Messenger of Allah summoned the people toward ‘Ali and said: “Ali is the mawla of whom I am mawla.” The news spread quickly all over urban and rural areas. When Harith Ibn Nu’man al-Fahri (or Nadhr Ibn Harith according to another tradition) came to know of it, he rode his camel and came to Madinah and went to the Messenger of Allah (s) and said to him: “You commanded us to testify that there is no deity but Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah. We obeyed you. You ordered us to perform the prayers five times a day and we obeyed. You ordered us to observe fasts during the month of Ramadhan and we obeyed. Then you commanded us to offer pilgrimage to Makkah and we obeyed. But you are not satisfied with all this and you raised your cousin by your hand and imposed him upon us as our master by saying `Ali is the mawla of whom I am mawla.’ Is this imposition from Allah or from you?”
The Prophet (s) said: “By Allah who is the only deity! This is from Allah, the Mighty and the Glorious.”
On hearing this Harith turned back and proceeded towards his she-camel saying: “O Allah! If what Muhammad said is correct then fling on us a stone from the sky and subject us to severe pain and torture.” He had not reached his she-camel when Allah, who is above all defects, flung at him a stone which struck him on his head, penetrated his body and passed out through his lower body and left him dead. It was on this occasion that Allah, the exalted, caused to descend the following verses:
“A questioner questioned about the punishment to fall. For the disbelievers there is nothing to avert it, from Allah the Lord of the Ascent.”(70:1-3)

1. al-Sirah al-Halabiyah, by Noor al-Din Ali bin Burhan ud-din al-Halabi, v3, part 2, page 336 & 337.
2. Al-Kashaf wal Bayan fi Tafsir al Quran by Abu Ishaq Thalabi, commentary of verse 70:1-3. The Tafsir can be downloaded from Wahabi/Salafi website
   Download from almeshkat.net
3. Nur al-Absar, Shaykh Shiblanji, p119
4. Mufti Ghulam Rasool quoted the same incident from ‘Tadkiratul Khawwas’ page 39 in his book
   Imam Zain al Abdeen, pages 49-51
5.   Tafseer Qurtubi, under the commentary of 70:2.
6. Faiz al Qadeer Shrah Jami al-Sagheer by Imam Abdurauf al-Munawi, Volume 6 page 218 No. 9000

http://www.shiapen.com/comprehensive/non-egalitarian-imamate/conclusion.html

 

[Debate follower]

On 11/12/2021 at 1:25 AM, Sabrejet said:

Wa alaikum assalam brother.

I assume you are referring to the aqeeda that everything that happens, then it is Allah's act (Predestination and Divine Decree)? Aside from Asharis, no one else even believes this, as it doesn't have any actual base in truth.

This appointment was the act of these people; it wasn't Allah's act any more than the appointment of Ummayad rulers and other tyrants throughout Islamic history.

Assalama alaykum brother Saberjet – Let’s not get into aqeeda debate.  We are all responsible for our actions and intentions and we will have to account for those.

I agree with that “This appointment was the act of these people” But Allah Almighty let it happen. The action/deed is of the people.

And Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) endorsed these appoints as:

“So, if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah.”

And further, he added:

“If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him.” Letter 6 Nahjul Balagha  

As a Muslim you must acknowledge that Allah Almighty’s Will is Supreme and always Prevails.  That is also we commanded in the Blessed Quran to say “In Sha Allah” if we say something for the future.

On 11/12/2021 at 1:25 AM, Sabrejet said:

it wasn't Allah's act any more than the appointment of Ummayad rulers and other tyrants throughout Islamic history.

Anybody who does any action good or bad is responsible for it and will account for it. Allah Almighty doesn’t force any action on his people, but it is HIS WILL to let it happen.  “The Ummayad rulers and other tyrants throughout Islamic history” will have to account for and pay for their actions. Just because they became khalifs or leaders doesn’t absolve them from any evil actions committed.

See the following video explaining:  It is said that nothing can happen without the permission of Allah Almighty

https://www.assimalhakeem.net/2020/09/27/it-is-said-that-nothing-can-happen-without-the-permission-of-allah-(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)-so-do-we-do-sin-with-the-permission-of-allah-(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)/

 

[Debate follower]

On 11/12/2021 at 1:54 AM, Abu Nur said:

It is a dispute interpretation of the verse: everything is from God. 

The most horrible belief from this is belief that God also created Evil. Min sharri maa khalaq. This verse of course should be understood that evil comes only from a creation who have free will to disobey, not from God. 

Assalama alaykum - So, your contention is that “creation who have free will to disobey” They created evil?

Wherever you are, death will overtake you, though you are in lofty towers, and if a benefit comes to them, they say: This is from Allah; and if a misfortune befalls them, they say: This is from you. Say: All is from Allah, but what is the matter with these people that they do not make approach to understanding what is told (them) 78 an Anisa

Now, compare your statement quoted below with the Blessed ayah quoted above.

On 11/12/2021 at 1:54 AM, Abu Nur said:

everything is from God. 

The most horrible belief from this is belief that God also created Evil. Min sharri maa khalaq.

Every soul must taste of death and We try you by evil and good by way of probation; and to Us you shall be brought back 35 al Anbiyah

Allah Almighty created Hell which is Evil place for those evil people who commit Evil deeds.

Allah Almighty gave Free Will to Mankind and the Jinn – within this Free Will there is ability to do or commit Evil. Shaytaan was the first one with this Free Will rebelled against the command of Allah Almighty!

And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a khalif, they said: What! wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood, and we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness? He said: Surely I know what you do not know. 30 al Baqarah

So, you still hold that Allah Almighty did NOT create evil? What a horrible belief!

[Debate follower]

On 11/12/2021 at 6:04 AM, 145_turbo_16V said:

This was a better to Muawiya, I hope you realized that.

He is telling Muwaiya, "you won't accept me as the khalifa, but these are same people who accepted the first 3, using those same conditions. Therefore if you accept the first 3 khalifas, and the people accepted them, then by that logic I am the legitimate khalifa. Also, again by that logic, you must accept that this is what Allah has willed. Therefore you have no arguments against me"

 

 

 

 

 

Assalama alykum brother, how conveniently your ignored the following from Letter! Or was it done so deliberately?

Quote

So, if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah.

And see what is in store for those who go against this decision of election of first three noble khalifs (may Allah be pleased with all) and the election of Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him).

Quote

If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him.

 

[Debate follower]

On 11/12/2021 at 7:16 PM, 145_turbo_16V said:

Even Sheikh Uthaymeen (رضي الله عنه) said that Ali (عليه السلام) thought that he (عليه السلام) was more deserving of the khalifas than Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and others. So to say that he willingly accepted the khilafat of the 3 others is false. That's why letter 6, in light of the events surrounding the issue of khilafah is regarded as an argument against Muawiya.

Because it's quite obvious, Imam Ali (عليه السلام) :

1-Thought he was more deserving to them all (as stated by Sheikh Uthaymeen (رضي الله عنه)  in At-Ta'liq ala Sahih Muslim (shown below)

Annahu ahaqqu min Abu Bakr

2-Did not give Baiah for 6 months (according to Sahih Bukhari)

 

 

Assalama alaykum brother,

1) Thinking of deserving more to be khalifa tacitly accepts that others had the right too, only that he was more deserving.  This completely debunks the notion of the ONLY ONE appointed to this status by the Divine command.

 

2) Alhamdulilalh, and he gave his reasons, saying: “spoke highly of Abu Bakr and said that what he had done was not due to jealousy of Abu Bakr, or a refusal to accept the favour that Allah had bestowed upon him, but we thought that we should have had a share in the matter, but it had been decided without consulting us, and we were upset with that.”

‘Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) entered upon Ali ibn Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) after he requested a meeting with him: ‘Ali ibn ibn Talib recited the Tashahhud, then he said: “O Abu Bakr, we acknowledge your virtue and what Allah has given you. We do not envy you for any favour that Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did it without consulting us and we thought that we had the right (to be consulted) because of our kinship with the Messenger of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). He kept speaking to Abu Bakr until Abu Bakr’s eyes filled with tears. When Abu Bakr spoke, he said: By the One in Whose hand is my soul, kinship with the Messenger of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is dearer to me than kinship with my own people. As for this dispute that occurred between me and you concerning these properties, I have not deviated from the right path with regard to them, and I have not given up something that I saw the Messenger of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) do with them, rather I have done it too.

‘Ali said to Abu Bakr: Your appointment for my oath of allegiance is this afternoon. When Abu Bakr had prayed Dhuhr, he ascended the pulpit and recited the Tashahhud, and he spoke of ‘Ali and his delay in swearing allegiance, and the excuse that he had given, then he prayed for his forgiveness. And Ali ibn ibn Talib recited the tashahhud and spoke highly of Abu Bakr and said that what he had done was not due to jealousy of Abu Bakr, or a refusal to accept the favour that Allah had bestowed upon him, but we thought that we should have had a share in the matter, but it had been decided without consulting us, and we were upset with that. The Muslims were pleased with this and said: You have done the right thing. Then the Muslims became closer to ‘Ali when he did the right thing.’ Narrated by Bukhari (3998) and Muslim (1759).

 

Also read the following:

“Imam Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: ‘With regard to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) delaying swearing of allegiance (to Abu Bakr); ‘Ali mentioned it in this hadith and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) apologised to him (for not consulting ‘Ali in the first Shura).

Moreover, this delay on ‘Ali’s part did not undermine the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and it did not undermine ‘Ali himself.

With regard to swearing allegiance, the scholars are unanimously agreed that for an oath of allegiance to be valid, it is not essential that all the people, or even all the decision-makers (Ahlul-Hilli wa al-Aqd) and prominent people, should swear allegiance. Rather there should be a group of scholars, leaders and prominent figures who do so.

With regard to it not undermining ‘Ali or his character, that is because it was not essential for everyone to come to the leader, put his hand in his and swear allegiance to him; rather once the decision-makers and prominent figures have sworn allegiance to the leader, the individual is required to accept his leadership, not show dissent and not rebel against him.

That was the case with ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) during that period, before he swore allegiance, because he did not show dissent towards Abu Bakr or rebel against him. But he was held back from coming to him for the reason mentioned in the hadith. In order for swearing allegiance to be valid and proper, that did not depend on him being present, and neither he nor anyone else was required to attend for that purpose. As it was not required, he did not come.

Nothing has been narrated from him to suggest that he thought that the oath of allegiance was not valid, and he never expressed any objection (to Abu Bakr being appointed caliph). However, he did have some misgivings in his mind, hence his coming was delayed until that matter had been dealt with.

The reason for his misgivings was that, because of his high status and the fact that he himself was a person of virtue in all aspects and was closely related to the Prophet (ﷺ), and so on, he thought that no decision should be made without him being consulted and being present. But the excuse given by Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and the rest of the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them all) was quite clear: it was because they thought that hastening to swear allegiance was in the greater interest of the Muslims, and they were afraid that if they delayed it, that could lead to problems and disputes that would in turn lead to serious negative consequences. Therefore, they delayed burying the Prophet (ﷺ) until they had sworn allegiance, because that was the most important matter, so as to ensure that no dispute would arise concerning his burial, shrouding, ghusl, funeral prayer and so on, without having anyone who could have the final say on such matters. Hence they thought that giving precedence to swearing allegiance was the most important issue at that time.” Reference: Sharh Sahih Muslim (12/77-78)

So, why don’t you follow example of Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah bless him)

[Debate follower]

On 11/13/2021 at 4:03 AM, Maisam Haider said:

How is it logically possible for the Prophet (s) to teach us every little thing about Islam, including how to sit, how to eat etc.... But still not utter anything at all about his successor, which is a matter which has divided Muslims for centuries and will continue to do so till judgement day? 

Did the Prophet (s) give this extremely, extremely important topic so little importance that he didn't utter anything about it in his entire life.... And Allah remained silent on this too? 

To claim that the Prophet (s) not only didn't appoint a successor, but also remained silent on this topic and didn't utter a single word about it is actually an insult to the Prophet. 

Assalama alaykum – Of course Islam is complete way of life and Allah Almighty and the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) covered each and every aspect of human life.

Allah Almighty has commanded Muslims to conduct their affairs by mutual consultation.

 

Quote

and those who respond to their Lord, pray regularly, conduct their affairs by mutual consultation, and give of what We have provided for them; 38 ash-Shura

– appropriately named Consultation/Counsel

We, Sunnis have enough evidence from our hadith literature that the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on many occasions pointed out Hz. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as his choice for his successor. 

And in the final days of his illness when he was not able lead the Believers in prayers, the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered Hz. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) to lead the prayers.

So, the above sources are enough for us. So, Shias may not agree with this.  Then one cannot please everybody.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Debate follower

[Abu Nur]

Quote

Assalama alaykum - So, your contention is that “creation who have free will to disobey” They created evil?

Wherever you are, death will overtake you, though you are in lofty towers, and if a benefit comes to them, they say: This is from Allah; and if a misfortune befalls them, they say: This is from you. Say: All is from Allah, but what is the matter with these people that they do not make approach to understanding what is told (them) 78 an Anisa

Now, compare your statement quoted below with the Blessed ayah quoted above.

Wa Aleikum Salaam,

Yes it is exactly, that those who disobey do create evil (read below comment), because evil can only derive from entity who have free will to disobey.

Here the misfortune is punishment because of the evil action of Human being, the misfortune itself is the manifestation of disobeying. God either allowed it or not. Allowing something does not mean creating it.

The reason why God says All things are from Allaah in this context is that The benefit and the punisment truly comes From Him, read this in the concext of the following verse:

7:96) And if the people of the towns had believed and had the Taqwa (piety), certainly, We should have opened for them blessings from the heaven and the earth, but they belied (the Messengers). So We took them (with punishment) for what they used to earn (polytheism and crimes, etc.).

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by Abu Nur

[Debate follower]

On 11/11/2021 at 9:34 PM, Debate follower said:

Now, since we are on Nahjul Balagha – Can you explain the following? Letter 58 A letter sent by Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) to the people of various provinces, giving them the causes of the Battle of Siffin.

The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his household) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent of it. To read complete version – the link -

https://english.almaaref.org/essaydetails.php?eid=578&cid=102

Here Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) is categorially stating that there was NOT and iota of differences in their Beliefs. Absolute none.  He has not mentioned anything about Imamate or Khum Ghadir event.

8 hours ago, Cool said:

lol, 

Assalama alaykum, I was not expecting immature questions from you brother. Or was it just a nervous chuckle.  I'll reply to your queries within a week when I get the time.

We need to recruit some more Sunni posters here. I see that the most good and knowledgeable ones have been 'pushed out'.

[Abu Nur]

I just want to clarify about the Evil, from Ayotullah Mutahhari (ra):

there is no more than one type of being in the universe, and that is the existence of good things; evils are all of the form of non-being, and non-being is not a created thing. Non-being is from a “not creating,” not from a “creating.” One cannot say that the universe has two creators: one is the creator of beings and the other is the creator of non-beings. The example of being and non-being is like that of the sun and shadow. When a pole is put up in the sun, the area that remains dark because of the pole and doesn't become lighted by sunlight is called a “shadow.” What is a shadow? A “shadow” is darkness, and darkness is nothing but the non-being of light. When we say that light emanates from the originating centre, one cannot ask where the shadow has emanated from and what the centre of darkness is. Shadow and darkness have not emanated from anything and have no independent source and centre of their own.

I want to correct myself about Human creating evil, what I mean is exatly in the same sense how shadow and sun is related. Human being disobeying  and doing sin is exactly a non-being of good. God only creates Good, that's why the universe can only contain good things.

I want to correct myself that we can not create a non-being thing (So I'm wrong saying We create Evil), because non-being is a not created thing.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Abu Nur

[power]

7 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Assalama alaykum – Of course Islam is complete way of life and Allah Almighty and the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) covered each and every aspect of human life.

Allah Almighty has commanded Muslims to conduct their affairs by mutual consultation.

 

– appropriately named Consultation/Counsel

We, Sunnis have enough evidence from our hadith literature that the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on many occasions pointed out Hz. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as his choice for his successor. 

And in the final days of his illness when he was not able lead the Believers in prayers, the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered Hz. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) to lead the prayers.

So, the above sources are enough for us. So, Shias may not agree with this.  Then one cannot please everybody.

Salaam brother,

You state the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) had on many occasion pointed out Abu Bakr was his Successor, so dose this mean it was a command from  Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)  to the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) to nominate Abu bakr? If so then why was his nomination not communicated to the masses? 

In relation to the hadiths literature  that your are referring   of Abu Bakr's being Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم))  choice of Successors the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) has not stated this in front  of wide range of audience which is problematic to say the least. 

Beside, at Saqifah no such argument was used in favour of Abu Bakr, The only augment that was mentioned by Abu Bakr  or Umar  to get Abu Bakr nominated was his closeness to the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) no mention of Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) choosing Abu Bakr as his successor. 

 

More importantly, If it was Allah’s (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will and intention to appoint Abu bakr  to succeed after the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم))  then i need an comprehensive answer to this problematic issue that i am going to present to you.

 

This issue is Abu Bakr was tasked of delivering a divine message of the Quran called Baraah or Al-Tawbah when Abu Bakr  had left Medina, a day after departure Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) was specifically ordered  by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to promulgate these verses in Makkah either personally or to delegate authority to  someone from his own family, but to no one else. In compliance with this commandment from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) called Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to deliver the divine message.  

 

  What was the wisdom behind this process? where an appointment was followed by nullification, then reappointment of another candidate  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) Was It to make  obvious to anyone who reflects on this change in divine plan that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) intended to compare the two personalities and their qualifications.  By this comparison, not only is Imam Ali (عليه السلام) pointed out as the more qualified candidate to assume this role, by default it also highlights the disqualification of the previous candidate?

 

Therefore if Abu Bakr was not qualified to recite these verses  because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)  didn't wanted him to,  but yet Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)  wanted Abu Bakr run affairs of the Islamic state after the demise of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم))

 

Can you share your thoughts on this matter. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 

 

Edited November 15, 2021 by power

[Debate follower]

6 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

I just want to clarify about the Evil, from Ayotullah Mutahhari (ra):

there is no more than one type of being in the universe, and that is the existence of good things; evils are all of the form of non-being, and non-being is not a created thing. Non-being is from a “not creating,” not from a “creating.” One cannot say that the universe has two creators: one is the creator of beings and the other is the creator of non-beings. The example of being and non-being is like that of the sun and shadow. When a pole is put up in the sun, the area that remains dark because of the pole and doesn't become lighted by sunlight is called a “shadow.” What is a shadow? A “shadow” is darkness, and darkness is nothing but the non-being of light. When we say that light emanates from the originating centre, one cannot ask where the shadow has emanated from and what the centre of darkness is. Shadow and darkness have not emanated from anything and have no independent source and centre of their own.

I want to correct myself about Human creating evil, what I mean is exatly in the same sense how shadow and sun is related. Human being disobeying  and doing sin is exactly a non-being of good. God only creates Good, that's why the universe can only contain good things.

I want to correct myself that we can not create a non-being thing (So I'm wrong saying We create Evil), because non-being is a not created thing.

Assalama alaykum brother, Thanks for your explanation.

All explanations by Ayotullah Mutahhari are in abstraction, and this is not in reality.  I say this with full humility with respect to respected Ayotullah Mutahhari.

It is Allah Almighty who has created everything, even the acts that we commit. Good or Evil. And we will eventually be judged by our actions. Just as Goodness exists, EVIL exists in reality and not in abstraction.

6 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

God only creates Good, that's why the universe can only contain good things.

The above statement is sacrilegious (I know it is not your attention nor you mean it). Unwittingly you are setting limitation to Allah Almighty’s Creativity. If Allah Almighty Creates Good; He Has the Ability to Create ‘non-being of good’. This terminology ‘non-being of good’ is just fanciful euphemism for EVIL.

Good Actions – These actions are created by Allah Almighty and are recommended by Allah Almighty. And doing these actions, we are rewarded with abode in Heaven

Believing 1) in Allah Almighty all His Attributes 2) Tawheed 2) Messengers and Final Messenger ship of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) 3) Believing in totality of Quran 4) Praying, Fasting, Giving Zakat & Alms, fighting in just Jihad, giving charity, being obedient to ones Parents and elderly, dealing fairly with people, maintaining good relationship with relatives etc. etc…….

Evil Actions – These actions are created by Allah Almighty as Test and forbidden by Allah Almighty. And doing these actions we rewarded by abode in Hell.

Committing Shirk, Disobeying Allah, Murder, Adultery, Dealing in Magic, Robbing, Cheating, Gambling, adulterating food, consuming alcohol, and intoxicants, using vulgar language, dressing obscenely, Pride Greed Jealousy Lust Backbiting Stinginess Malice disease. etc etc…...

It is we, Human beings and the Jinn who have been given limited Free Will to choose which action we want to commit. And will eventually pay for our actions in the Future.

Clearly, Allah Almighty wants people to encourage others towards GOODNESS and FORVID what is EVIL.

Let there be a group among you who call ˹others˺ to goodness, encourage what is good, and forbid what is evil—it is they who will be successful. 104 al-Imran 

Take the following case of Angels Hurut and Marut mentioned in the Blessed Qur’an.

and follow [instead] that which the evil ones used to practice during Solomon's reign - for it was not Solomon who denied the truth, but those evil ones denied it by teaching people sorcery -; and [they follow] that which has come down through the two angels in Babylon, Hurut and Marut-although these two never taught it to anyone without first declaring, "We are but a temptation to evil: do not, then, deny [God's] truth!" And they learn from these two how to create discord between a man and his wife; but whereas they can harm none thereby save by God's leave, they acquire a knowledge that only harms themselves and does not benefit them - although they know; indeed, that he who acquires this [knowledge] shall have no share in the good of the life to come. For, vile indeed is that [art] for which they have sold their own selves -had they but known it 102 al Baqarah

Angels Harut and Marut taught the people magic. But they warned them beforehand that "We are but a temptation to evil: do not, then, deny [God's] truth!"

Do you these two angels were teaching Evil magic without Allah Almighty’s permission? This is sent by Allah Almighty’s test!

See what the wife of Hz. Yusuf’s (peace be upon him) boss, who had tried to tempt him, said:

And I do not seek to free myself from blame, for indeed the soul is ever inclined to evil, except those shown mercy by my Lord. Surely my Lord is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” 53 Surah Yusuf

Jahannum is an Evil Abode for Evil People

˹O Prophet!˺ Tell the disbelievers, “Soon you will be overpowered and driven to Hell—what an evil place to rest!” 12 al Imran

Those whose souls the angels take while they had wronged themselves, the angels say (to them), “In what business were you (involved)?” They say, “We were oppressed in the earth.” They say, “Was not the earth of Allah wide enough for you to emigrate to it?” Those people are such that their refuge is Jahannam. It is an evil place to return; 97 an-Nisa

Say, "I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind,
The Sovereign of mankind,
The God of mankind,
From the evil of the retreating whisperer
Who whispers [evil] into the breasts of mankind
From among the jinn and mankind" Surah an-Nas

[Abu Nur]

Unfortunately what you did is nothing but to avoid to even understand what we try to say and call it abstraction and not reality. You did not even try to point out what is wrong with the definition of evil that I clearly mentioned. 

1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

He Has the Ability to Create ‘non-being of good’.

Non-being of good is not an creation. It is what we call an absense of the creation. 

Edited November 15, 2021 by Abu Nur

[Debate follower]

Assalama alaykum brother,

I rather that quote the full sentence.

1 hour ago, Debate follower said:

He Has the Ability to Create ‘non-being of good’. This terminology ‘non-being of good’ is just fanciful euphemism for EVIL.

I did read your post at least 3 times to understand what the term 'Non-being', this is the first time I came across it. I checked the meaning: it is - 'the state of not being; non-existence'. 

So 'non-being of good' means goodness not existing.   You also said:

8 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

God only creates Good, that's why the universe can only contain good things.

So, Allah Almighty doesn't or cannot create evil?  Evil is just opposite of Good"

Wasalaam

[145_turbo_16V]

I think one of the claims that the isharah that Rasullallah gave to the people about Abu Bakr(رضي الله عنه) should lead the ummah was the fact that he was asked to lead the salat. Is the correct or incorrect? There are may other claims too, but the texts and discussions I've had points to this incident.

Yaqeen institutes brief paper on this seems to point to this.

This is one of the claims:

 

Narrated Abu Musa:

"The Prophet (ﷺ) became sick and when his disease became aggravated, he said, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayer." `Aisha said, "He is a softhearted man and would not be able to lead the prayer in your place." The Prophet (ﷺ) said again, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer." She repeated the same reply but he said, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. You are the companions of Joseph." So the messenger went to Abu Bakr (with that order) and he led the people in prayer in the lifetime of the Prophet.

Some sunni ulama I've heard from have also completely rubbished this claim, they (some sunni ulama) claimed that saqeefah was ad-hoc committee which had nothing to do with what Rasullullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had ordered, they accept it, but it's not divine. As in the words of Umar (رضي الله عنه)  "the allegiance with Abu Bakr was a faltah but Allah saved us from its evil"

But I want to know which claims is the strongest?

Yaqeen institute also did a brief paper, but it's compelling, so I know the arguments from their side.

From the Shia side, on the issue of Imamah and Wilayah of Amirul Mu'minin (عليه السلام) it's mostly unanimous.

 

 

 

 

[Abu Nur]

2 minutes ago, Debate follower said:

Assalama alaykum brother,

I rather that quote the full sentence.

I did read your post at least 3 times to understand what the term 'Non-being', this is the first time I came across it. I checked the meaning: it is - 'the state of not being; non-existence'. 

So 'non-being of good' means goodness not existing.   You also said:

So, Allah Almighty doesn't or cannot create evil?  Evil is just opposite of Good"

Wasalaam

Wa aleikum salaam. It is not about cannot. It is like only truth exist and whatever is false is exactly non-exential because in reality there is only truth. 

I used to believe that Evil is also creation but after seeking knowledge and reflecting, I came to conclusions that there are exactly things that exist and what is real in reality and for all of them there is also the non-exential that what we call non-being. 

Hell fire is evil resting place because it only manifest for its inhabitants of the non-being of goodness. While paradise is true life where what manifest is exactly the creations that God has perfected without any non-being to be manifested. 

[Debate follower]

36 minutes ago, 145_turbo_16V said:

I think one of the claims that the isharah that Rasullallah gave to the people about Abu Bakr(رضي الله عنه) should lead the ummah was the fact that he was asked to lead the salat. Is the correct or incorrect? There are may other claims too, but the texts and discussions I've had points to this incident.

Yaqeen institutes brief paper on this seems to point to this.

This is one of the claims:

 

Narrated Abu Musa:

"The Prophet (ﷺ) became sick and when his disease became aggravated, he said, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayer." `Aisha said, "He is a softhearted man and would not be able to lead the prayer in your place." The Prophet (ﷺ) said again, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer." She repeated the same reply but he said, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. You are the companions of Joseph." So the messenger went to Abu Bakr (with that order) and he led the people in prayer in the lifetime of the Prophet.

Some sunni ulama I've heard from have also completely rubbished this claim, they (some sunni ulama) claimed that saqeefah was ad-hoc committee which had nothing to do with what Rasullullah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) had ordered, they accept it, but it's not divine. As in the words of Umar (رضي الله عنه)  "the allegiance with Abu Bakr was a faltah but Allah saved us from its evil"

But I want to know which claims is the strongest?

Yaqeen institute also did a brief paper, but it's compelling, so I know the arguments from their side.

From the Shia side, on the issue of Imamah and Wilayah of Amirul Mu'minin (عليه السلام) it's mostly unanimous.

 

Allow me to post the hadith with full reference

Narrated Abu Musa: "The Prophet (ﷺ) became sick and when his disease became aggravated, he said, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayer." `Aisha said, "He is a soft-hearted man and would not be able to lead the prayer in your place." The Prophet (ﷺ) said again, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer." She repeated the same reply, but he said, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. You are the companions of Joseph." So, the messenger went to Abu Bakr (with that order) and he led the people in prayer in the lifetime of the Prophet. Grade: Sahih REFERENCE: Sahih Al Bukhari 678

38 minutes ago, 145_turbo_16V said:

Some sunni ulama I've heard from have also completely rubbished this claim, they (some sunni ulama)

Are you presenting this as your evidence?!!?

[Debate follower]

53 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

Wa aleikum salaam. It is not about cannot. It is like only truth exist and whatever is false is exactly non-exential because in reality there is only truth. 

I used to believe that Evil is also creation but after seeking knowledge and reflecting, I came to conclusions that there are exactly things that exist and what is real in reality and for all of them there is also the non-exential that what we call non-being. 

Hell fire is evil resting place because it only manifest for its inhabitants of the non-being of goodness. While paradise is true life where what manifest is exactly the creations that God has perfected without any non-being to be manifested. 

Assalama alaykum brother -Your philosophy is deep; I’m trying to understand it. I’m not trying to be ‘difficult’.

– In this world falsehood exists.

And say: The truth has come, and the falsehood has vanished; surely falsehood is a vanishing (thing).81 Al-Isra

if, it didn’t exist then how would it vanish?

And my thanks for being polite.

[Ashvazdanghe]

14 hours ago, Debate follower said:

o, why don’t you follow example of Hz. Ali ibn Abu Talib (may Allah bless him)

Salam your so called narrations about allegiance of Amir al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) with ex idol worshipper & wine drinker Abubakr & then Umar who has buried his new born daughter alive before converting Islam is just total fabrication of people likewise Ummayid then at our time Wahabists & Salafist which even gulible people accept such narration then in contrast to your claims lady Fatima (sa) never has mad allegiance with Abubakr until she martyred due invasion of Umar to her house & heavy hitting of her which as her last will she has asked from Amir al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to bury her anonimously in order to none of three caliphs pray on her for her funeral because she knew members of Saqifa as usurper of right of Amir al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & oathbbreakers of public covenant of Muslims with prophet Muhammad (pbu) for accepting successorship of Amir al muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) after his demise.

[Ashvazdanghe]

15 hours ago, Debate follower said:

See the following video explaining:  It is said that nothing can happen without the permission of Allah Almighty

https://www.assimalhakeem.net/2020/09/27/it-is-said-that-nothing-can-happen-without-the-permission-of-allah-(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)-so-do-we-do-sin-with-the-permission-of-allah-(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)/

 

This is just nonsense of Wahabi mufti which belives to Tajsim (considering physical body for Allah) & one of his famous advices is encouraging people to drinking urine of camel many anti Shia rhetorics .

[145_turbo_16V]

5 hours ago, Debate follower said:

 

Are you presenting this as your evidence?!!?

NO! One sunni alim claiming or refuting doesn't really make it an evidence. This actually surprised me. Actually what that sunni alim said also shocked a few other sunni ulama to be honest  

I'm saying that I do not know what exactly are the evidences you regard to be the strongest because this will vary from the ulama you speak to or listen to. Like I said, one alim said leading the prayer has nothing to do with Abu Bak (رضي الله عنه) being appointed. SO obviously, it seems, his point of view and yours are different. So that's not an issue as I don't think there is real consensus behind what Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) was elected.

To me, it doesn't matter because those "evidences" are not even valid. But I would like to know what "evidences" you have put forward in your past discussions.

So from YOUR point of view, what is your strongest claim?

If you look at the kitab fadhail as-sahaba fi Sahih you can find many claims in there and different ulama will pick different virtues to support their claims. So which ones do you regard as the strongest?

Edited November 16, 2021 by 145_turbo_16V

[Cool]

16 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Or was it just a nervous chuckle.  I'll reply to your queries within a week when I get the time.

Alaikas Salam Brother!!

It wasn't any sort of nervousness  my dear brother.

Let me give you a clue before you formulate your reply. Try to understand Ali (عليه السلام) and his actions in light of the words said by the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) about him. That's the only good way to understand Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and his actions.

Wassalam!!

[Cool]

16 hours ago, Debate follower said:

We need to recruit some more Sunni posters here. I see that the most good and knowledgeable ones have been 'pushed out'.

Indeed! 

And I really don't want to bother you much until someone like night claw or cherub join the forum. 

[Cool]

Lets see one important point which prevented Ali (عليه السلام) to become the third caliph, i.e., addition to the two basic requirements:

a) Book of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

b) Sunnah of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)

So Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was asked to comply with the third newly introduced clause, which is the bid'ah (innovation):

c) Seerah of Shekhain

Ali (عليه السلام) refused the third clause while Uthman accepted it.

1-

حدثنا : ‏ ‏عبد الله ‏ ‏، حدثني : ‏ ‏سفيان بن وكيع ‏ ‏، حدثني : ‏ ‏قبيصة ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏أبي بكر بن عياش ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏عاصم ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏أبي وائل ،‏ ‏قال : ‏ ‏قلت ‏ ‏لعبد الرحمن بن عوف ‏: ‏كيف ‏ ‏بايعتم ‏ ‏عثمان ‏ ‏وتركتم ‏ ‏عليا ‏ ‏(ر) ‏، ‏قال : ما ذنبي قد بدأت ‏ ‏بعلي ‏، ‏فقلت : أبايعك على كتاب الله وسنة رسوله وسيرة ‏ ‏أبي بكر ‏ ‏وعمر ‏ ‏(ر) ‏، ‏قال : فقال فيما استطعت ، قال : ثم ‏ ‏عرضتها على ‏ ‏عثمان ‏ ‏(ر) ‏ ‏فقبلها

أحمد بن حنبل - مسند الإمام أحمد بن حنبل 

مسند العشرة المبشرين بالجنة - مسند الخلفاء الراشدين - مسند عثمان بن عفان (ر)

الجزء : ( 1 ) - رقم الصفحة : ( 75 )

2-

فقال : أيها الناس ، إني سألتكم سرا وجهرا بأمانيكم فلم أجدكم تعدلون بأحد هذين الرجلين أما علي وأما عثمان ، فقم إلي : يا علي ، فقام إليه تحت المنبر فأخذ عبد الرحمن بيده ، فقال : هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه (ص) وفعل أبي بكر وعمر ، قال : اللهم لا ولكن على جهدي من ذلك وطاقتي ، قال : فأرسل يده ، وقال : قم إلي : يا عثمان ، فأخذ بيده ، فقال : هل أنت مبايعي على كتاب الله وسنة نبيه (ص) وفعل أبي بكر وعمر ، قال : اللهم نعم ، قال : فرفع رأسه إلى سقف المسجد ويده في يد عثمان ، فقال : اللهم أسمع واشهد ، اللهم أسمع واشهد ، اللهم أسمع واشهد ، اللهم إني قد خلعت ما في رقبتي من ذلك في رقبة عثمان

ابن كثير - البداية والنهاية

ثم استهلت سنة أربع وعشرين - خلافة أمير المؤمنين عثمان بن عفان

الجزء : ( 10 ) - رقم الصفحة : ( 212 )

3-

.... فقال عبد الرحمن : إني قد نظرت وشاورت فلا تجعلن أيها الرهط على أنفسكم سبيلا ودعا عليا ، فقال : عليك عهد الله وميثاقه لتعملن بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله وسيرة الخليفتين من بعده ، قال : أرجو أن أفعل وأعمل بمبلغ علمي وطاقتي ، ودعا عثمان ، فقال له مثل ما قال لعلي ، قال : نعم فبايعه ، فقال علي : حبوته حبو دهر ليس هذا أول يوم تظاهرتم فيه علينا فصبر جميل والله المستعان على ما تصفون

الطبري - تاريخ الطبري - سنة ثلاث وعشرين - قصة الشورى

 الجزء : ( 4 ) - رقم الصفحة : ( 233 )

4-

وحدثنا : محمد ، قال : حدثنا : موسى بن عقبة ، قال : حدثنا : نافع ، أن عبد الله بن عمر (ر) أخبره : .... فقال عبد الرحمن : إني قد نظرت وشاورت ، فلا تجعلن أيها الرهط على أنفسكم سبيلا ، ودعا عليا ، فقال عليك عهد الله وميثاقه لتعملن بكتاب الله وسنة رسوله وسيرة الخليفتين من بعده ، قال : أرجو أن أفعل وأعمل بمبلغ علمي وطاقتي ، ودعا عثمان ، فقال له مثل ما قال لعلي ، قال : نعم ، فبايعه ....

ابن شبة النميري - تاريخ المدينة - مقتل عمر بن الخطاب (ر) وأمر الشورى

 الجزء : ( 3 ) - رقم الصفحة : ( 924 )

I am wondering why the book of Allah & Sunnah of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) were not deemed sufficient? Where is the نص that seerah of shekhain is a prerequisite for Ulil Amr? 

[power]

9 hours ago, Debate follower said:

Allow me to post the hadith with full reference

Narrated Abu Musa: "The Prophet (ﷺ) became sick and when his disease became aggravated, he said, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the prayer." `Aisha said, "He is a soft-hearted man and would not be able to lead the prayer in your place." The Prophet (ﷺ) said again, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer." She repeated the same reply, but he said, "Tell Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer. You are the companions of Joseph." So, the messenger went to Abu Bakr (with that order) and he led the people in prayer in the lifetime of the Prophet. Grade: Sahih REFERENCE: Sahih Al Bukhari 678

Are you presenting this as your evidence?!!?

Salaam brother, 

Just a quick analysis of the above hadith, in the above hadith the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) clearly states:You are the companions of Joseph 

There is substantial  evidence  the companions of Joseph were disbelievers, so who was Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) implicating being disbelievers? 

[Maisam Haider]

20 hours ago, Debate follower said:

We, Sunnis have enough evidence from our hadith literature that the Blessed Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on many occasions pointed out Hz. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as his choice for his successor. 

You claim that Prophet(s) had pointed out many times that he had chosen Abu Bakar as his successor. However, from history it is clear that none of the companions, including Abu Bakar himself thought that this was the case. If indeed the Prophet (s) had chosen Abu Bakar, there was no need for the companions to gather in Saqifa in a hurry to elect a successor when they already knew that Prophet (s) had chosen Abu Bakar.

Are you saying the Prophet chose Abu Bakar but failed to convey this to the companions in a clear manner and thus left them in utter confusion and doubt about who should be the leader ? (Naoudobillah)

If the Prophet (s) had really chosen Abu Bakar, the companions would have come up to Abu Bakar immediately after the Prophet's demise and made him the caliph. No such thing happened and this proves that the companions knew that Prophet had not chosen Abu Bakar at all.

On the contrary, people who were faithful to the Prophet (s) and knew that Ali(عليه السلام) was the chosen leader did come up to him after the Prophet's demise and accepted him as their Imam. 

Moreover, most sunnis actually do not share your view that Prophet chose Abu Bakar, rather they claim that the Prophet remained silent on this issue and left this world without naming a successor (and this thinking is an insult to Prophet that he would leave the world leaving behind Muslims in utter confusion about selection of caliph).