sunni tashayu'

[Abu Sulayman]

I appreciate you have a different interpretation of the Quran. I provided an ayah above supporting our position:

Tell me, according to your tafsir, can you name those who are charged with authority? Is there any instance in the entirety of humanity that Allah left the people to decide their leader, or did Allah select the leader? If you are adamant that Allah left it for the people after the Prophet died, then how did the 1st Caliph gain right to appoint his successor? Is he above the Prophet?

Our answer: as per interpretation provided by the Prophet pbuf, Ali (a.s) falls under the category among "those charged with authority among you".

As for those charged with authority, then it could refer to those who are charged with authority upon the Muslims in REALITY with the condition that they are referring to the divine law for ruling and judgement.
There maybe also other interpretations and whatever can be genuinely understood in more than one way based upon context and language (meaning: no farfetched interpretations!) can NOT be used in order to declare people as "disbelievers in the hereafter, who deserve eternal punishment".

I think you know that we do NOT regard non-Prophets to be infallible and this necessitates that leadership will be in the hands of fallible people after the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam).
In fact this is even necessitated by the ideas of your own group, because after Imam al-'Askari (radhiallahu 'anhu) there is no "infallible leader" anymore (this with the knowledge that the Imam had not even any political leadership position in the first place).

If you say "then what about al-Mahdi", then the answer is: There is no way for you to claim that his son was indeed Imam al-Mahdi (radhiallahu 'anhu) with certainity and even if his son is al-Mahdi, then we're unable to contact him for more than 1000 years.

So in reality there is NO infallible leadership since MORE than 1000 years and this by agreement between us and you.

Further explanation of our position:
Prayer is mentioned in Quran, but you must go to the Prophet (pbuhf) to know how to pray (there are 4 different ways in the 4 major sunni madhabs to pray as you know, one of which is similar to the Shia way aka Malikis because Malik took the prayer from the people of Medina aka those felt to be closest to the Prophet).

To reduce the whole prayer to where one puts one hands during it and claim based upon which Madhhab is nearer to which one is something only a secterian Sh'ia or "Salafi" mind could come up with. These differences are minor differences and even the difference with the Imamiyya regarding this are nowhere great.

Likewise, leadership (Imamah) is mentioned in Quran, you go to the Prophet to tell you who that is. Of course it's not going to list the 12 names directly, there are 1000s of people with the names Mohamed, Ali, etc. The Quran provides the characteristics, hadith provides the minute details.

Let me repeat: There are only TWO positions among your classic scholars regarding the Islam of non-Imami Muslims, with one position regarding them as Muslims ONLY in this world, while the other view regards them as disbelievers in BOTH worlds.

So if something is important to this degree then there should have existed clear cut and direct texts regarding this issue! But there are no such texts!
Why is it that we find so many texts regarding belief in angels for example or any other article from the Arkan al-Iman, yet we don't find the same for political leadership in the manner you understand it?

You only have texts, which can be either understood in more than one way (were you choose some farfetched meanings with no connection to context or language a lot of times) or are weak / severly weak / outright fabricated.

That's the basic premise where Shia and Sunni differ.
To me, when the Prophet says "Do I not have more right over you than you do over yourselves" to the companions, and when they reply "yes you do" he continues and says "then whoever I am his master, this Ali is his master". That to me is clear enough Ali is the master after the Prophet (pbuhf) and has more right over the companions than they do themselves. I am sure you heard of Ghadir Khumm, and I can show you the reasons why it is delusional to think that Prophet meant "friend".
The Prophet said "Quran & Ahlulbayt", not "Quran and Sunnah of x and y person".

The incident with Ghadir Khumm has a clear context and background and the moment one knows the context / background any claim that it was about political leadership of the Islamic Umma after our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) brakes apart.

As for "Qur`an and Ahl al-Bayt" and "Qur`an and Sunna", then BOTH is found in the authenic texts and the only thing that makes one deny the latter or the former is extremism.

And how could the Sunna of the Chosen One (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) not be an example and role model for us to follow!?! This should not be even be up to discussion among Muslims.

Ultimately, according to our tafsir, Imamah is as clear as the order to pray.

But as I further illustrated with the quote from Imam Jafar al-sadiq (a.s): those who are ignorant of this and do not hate ahlulbayt, but otherwise are good muslims, heaven is their abode.

You still have to show that any of your CLASSICAL scholars ever held this position regarding non-Imami Muslims.
In fact even if you were to show it, then it would be an absolutely minority view.

By the way: We do NOT trust a single word of that what Imamis have narrated and claim as the word of the A`imma (and I respect ALL of them), nor do I see any reason why one should regard you as trustworthy in that which you narrate from them.

I'm not intending any disrespect here, but all this Taqiyya has negative effects on your credibility.
I've seen Shi'a who claim that the A`imma would practice Taqiyya while speaking about creedal issues! Then how should we know what is Taqiyya and what not?

Why are you applying this to the killing between Ali (a.s) and Muawiyah? Tell, me if this was the Prophet who muawiyah tried killing, would this Ayah apply in such a context? No, because the Prophet is not just any believer, he is the master.
According to you, Ali is the 4th Rightly guided caliph. People who fight to kill him are by definition wrongly-guided. This may be hard for you but imagine Muawiyah fought Abu Bakr and tried to kill him, and Abu Bakr called him a hypocrite, would you still say Amir Muawiyah? Yes? No?

A simple response: I do NOT regard those who killed 'Uthman Dhul Nurayn (radhiallahu 'anhu) as disbelievers.
'Uthman (radhiallahu 'anhu) was such a man that our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) gave TWO of his DAUGHTERS (I've read that some Shi'a claim them to be step-daughters, but it doesn't change anything!) to him in marriage, so imagine and be aware and do not find fault in the judgment of the Chosen One (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)! Would he (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) give these two flowers (radhiallahu' anhuma) to anyone regarding whose Islam and Iman he is not sure!? Does he (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) not get revelation and know who is a believer in reality and who not?

Yet, we do NOT make Takfir upon those who killed him.

For us, Ali (a.s) is the master after the Prophet (pbuhf), and the Prophet said "Ali is with Haqq and haqq is with Ali". Therefore, whoever fights him, fights Haqq. And whoever fights Haqq, fights Allah, because Allah is with Haqq and Haqq is with Allah. This person therefore is the enemy of Allah, no? Please tell me the flaw in this logic, or if you doubt that the Prophet said that about Ali.

I agree that Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) is with Haqq, but this does not necessitate that those involved in the Fitna on the other side were disbelievers. I don't understand this Takfiri mindset with which you are looking at this issue.

Furthermore, you did not address the fact that Muawiyah instituted state-wide LA'ANA (cursing) of Ali (a.s). How do you think it'll go down in heaven? Bloodshed?

We do NOT regard this claim regarding Mu'awiya (radhiallahu 'anhu) as correct.
Yes, many of the Umara` of the Bani Ummayya were involved in this issue of cursing and were [real] Nawasib and we disassociate ourselves from them.

This whole culture of cursing is that of the Nawasib and the Rawafidh and is a proof for the deviation of both groups.

Furthermore you did not address that Ammar was martyred by hypocrites as per the Prophet (pbuhf) (not me saying this).

'Ammar (radhiallahu 'anhu) was killed by the group that had rebelled (al-Fi`a al-Baghiyya). How does this now necessitate Takfir and claiming them to be hypocrites!?

If you refer back to the Aya 49:9 which mentions the two groups of BELIEVERS fighting and it mentions FA IN BAGHAT IHDAHUMA 'ALA Al-UKHRA, so this means that this description in the Hadith does necessitate Takfir.

[Abu Sulayman]

Correction:

If you refer back to the Aya 49:9 which mentions the two groups of BELIEVERS fighting and it mentions FA IN BAGHAT IHDAHUMA 'ALA Al-UKHRA, so this means that this description in the Hadith does* necessitate Takfir.

* NOT

[Abu Sulayman]

For the record, you brought this up, not me.
I will state historical facts agreed upon by Sunni and Shia and even Salafi; no insulting, no cursing, no attacking. Plain facts.

1. Provide me with reference from Quran that says the people can elect their Leader.
2. Please explain to me what gave the first Khalifa the right to appoint the second Khalifa.
3. Please explain to me what gave the second Khalifa the right to form a shura council consisting of six members to elect the third khalifa?
4. Please explain to me why the Prophet is not allowed to designate his successor?
5. Why did Sayeda Fatema die angry at the first Khalifa? Where is her grave located?
If you can answer these questions satisfactorily, the Shia will cease to exist.
I know it's a lot, so for me, answering just 1 of the questions will suffice.

Sahih Bukhari Chapter of "The battle of Khaibar", Arabic-English, v5, tradition #546, pp 381–383, also v4, Tradition #325) that Hazrat Fatimah was angry with Abu Bakr and did not speak to him before she died.
"(O Prophet) tell (people) I don’t ask you any wage except to love my family.”(Qur’an 42:23).
The Messenger of Allah (S) had frequently said:
"Fatimah is a part of me. Whoever makes her angry, makes me angry."
Sunni references:
- Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v5, Traditions #61 and #111
- Sahih Muslim, section of virtues of Fatimah, v4, pp 1904-5

- Regarding 1: Provide me references that they can NOT elect someone, who they regard as godfearing and just!
How then is Iran ruled today?! Subhanallah, that which is okay for you is disallowed for others?

- Regarding 2: Explain to me how he (radhiallahu 'anhu) had NO such rights with the knowledge that the majority of the Muslims - especially the Muhajirun and Ansar, whom Allah ta'ala praises in His Book in a clear and direct manner! - were pleased with him and ACCEPTED and SUPPORTED his decision!

- Regarding 3: Rather explain to me why it's wrong to form a Shura consisting of known supporters of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)!

- Regarding 4: Please explain to me where you got this accusation from! Rather the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) can command us this and other than this, but if he (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) has NOT specified a person / persons, then we can NOT claim specification out of nowhere!

Regarding 5: Because of the issue of Fadak and there are different narrations on this whole issue and acting as if only your version of history is correct is not really academic.

Regarding the issue of the Hadith of making Fatima (radhiallahu 'anha) angry: You will not be able to deny that there were even incidents where she (radhiallahu' anha) became upset or angry with Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) and there are even narrations to this effect.
So will you apply this Hadith to Imam 'Ali (radhiallahu 'anhu) also?

The problem is really when statements are taken out of their original context and intention and implemented in a manner to establish one's secterian ideas.

[Abu Sulayman]

Let me repeat: There are only TWO positions among your classic scholars regarding the Islam of non-Imami Muslims, with one position regarding them as Muslims ONLY in this world, while the other view regards them as disbelievers in BOTH worlds.

So if something is important to this degree then there should have existed clear cut and direct texts regarding this issue! But there are no such texts!
Why is it that we find so many texts regarding belief in angels for example or any other article from the Arkan al-Iman, yet we don't find the same for political leadership in the manner you understand it?

You only have texts, which can be either understood in more than one way (were you choose some farfetched meanings with no connection to context or language a lot of times) or are weak / severly weak / outright fabricated.

Just that one understands the importance of the point mentioned above:

Since there are NO clear proofs for the Imami Shi'i view on political leadership in the Qur`an al-karim and since the Qur`an al-karim establishes the goodness of the Ansar and Muhajirun (who are mostly apostates and hypocrites in the eyes of the Imamiyya!), leading classical scholars of the Imamiyya claimed that the Qur`an al-karim is DISTORTED (and this without having any proof whatsoever!).
Now this is outright disbelief (!) no matter how some Shi'a - who say that they do not follow this view, even if it's an existing view among some (or maybe even many?) of their leading scholars of the past - will try to defend them.

The existence of such a view should be enough to understand the weakness of the arguments of the Imamiyya.



Consider also the following:
If one studies early Islamic history, then one will NOT get the feeling that anyone from the blessed Ahl al-Bayt or the noble Sahaba actually believed in Imama in the manner it became later famous from the Imamiyya! In fact Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) did NOT believe in Imama in the manner they teach today, nor had our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) teached what they now claim to be from the essential beliefs of a believer!!!

Note that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) did not leave this worldy life except AFTER teaching the religion in the BEST manner and warning his nation what he feared for them and from them! And he (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) NEVER told us that the majority of his followers will be in hellfire, rather the OPPOSITE!



There are other points to consider: If some of the things that the Imamiyya claim regarding some of the leading companions would be true, then it would entail an attack against ALL early Muslims (including the blessed Ahl al-Bayt).

Take for example their claim that 'Umar al-Faruq (radhiallahu 'anhu) BROKE the rib of Fatimatul Zahra` (radhiallahu 'anha), which is based upon incorrect narrations (let no one please tell me "it's also found in your books", because our scholars may mention narrations which they themselves do not deem to be correct, but simply in order to make others able to examine their authenitcity and so on): They combine this with their claim that she was pregnant and lost her child due to this and died herself due to this and some of them even stoop that low to claim she was whipped and so on. If this would be the truth - and Allah ta'ala knows that it's an ugly lie against Islam itself! -, then it would mean that ALL early Muslims where without any Ghira whatsoever!
The daughter of Chosen One (may peace and blessings be upon him and her) gets beaten and the Muslims did not even say one word!?! Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) - the lion of Allah ta'ala, who did not fear anyone from among the creation! - did not stand up for his WIFE (!), who is the DAUGHTER (!) of the Chosen One (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)!?!? It's such an obvious lie, that I get disgusted by mentioning these empty claims!


Then: If the issue of Imama (political leadership) with the Imami Shi'i understanding of it would be correct and would be so important, then it would have been ABSOLUTELY OBLIGATORY upon Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) to clarify this to the people and take up arms against the "apostates"! But he instead chose to advice the Shaykhayn (may Allah ta'ala be pleased with all three of them), which is more than enough for the one who understands to see the falseness of the claim of the Imamiyya!

Let no one claim that "he wanted to avoid infighting" or "it would have harmed Islam" (what "Islam" after the majority of Muslims being "disbelievers" in the hereafter!) or other weak attempts to respond to this point, because if Imama in the manner the Imamiyya claim would be correct, then what happened would have been indeed apostasy and this "apostasy" lead all future Muslims "astray" and made them think that Imama in the manner the Imamiyya claim today is not correct. So the deviation of all future generations of Muslims after Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) would then be due him not clarifying the truth and not fighting for it, and this is clearly farfatched and in opposition to established proofs and this necessasitates the Imamiyya to be wrong and Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) to be right!

[Abu Sulayman]

Note that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) did not leave this worldy life except AFTER teaching the religion in the BEST manner and warning his nation what he feared for them and from them! And he (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) NEVER told us that the majority of his followers will be in hellfire, rather the OPPOSITE!

I had written the following comment in response to the early Wahhabiyya / Najdis (who claimed that the majority of the Muslims of their time were "polytheists" and "worse than pagans"), but it can also be used against the Imamiyya Shi'a (famously known as Rafidha), because their leading authorities of the past taught that the majority of Muslims were in fact "disbelievers in the hereafter" and would therefore "share the same fate as the idol worshipers":

Indeed, there is is no solid proof whatsoever.

The thing is: If something is so important that it differentiates between being a monotheist and a polytheist, then it would be expected to have been clarified by hundreds of classical scholars in a clear cut manner and in detail, but we do not find most of the things that MIAW (d. 1206 AH) regards as "greater polytheism" to be even mentioned ONCE in any of the known books of creed, be they Ash'ari or Athari.

Rather what we find is that it's mentioned in the books of Fiqh and some of these things are called by the scholars as forbidden and as major sins, and other things are only disliked, while one finds even issues which they allowed or even recommended and the best example is the seeking of intercession with the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - during the visitation, which is recommended in most major Fiqh books of ALL four Madhahib.

There is another important point that one should not forget:
Our noble Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was sent as the Seal of all Messengers and Prophets - peace be upon them all - and he explained the religion in the best form and did not leave his Umma without warning them what he was afraid for them and what not, because he - 'alayhil salatu wal salam - was informed by His Lord what will happen to his nation and from his nation until the day of judgement.

The Tawhid that the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was sent with is mentioned in Surat al-Ikhlas and the important issues of the religion are mentioned in the famous Hadith of Jibril - peace be upon him - and whosoever believes in these is a Muslim.

The so called Kitab al-Tawhid of MIAW can NOT override these sources, because they're revelation!

So let us now see whether our Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was afraid for his nation to fall into greater polytheism and the worship of idols - as the Najdis claim! - or not.

{ فَلَا وَرَبِّكَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ حَتَّىٰ يُحَكِّمُوكَ فِيمَا شَجَرَ بَيْنَهُمْ ثُمَّ لَا يَجِدُوا فِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَرَجًا مِّمَّا قَضَيْتَ وَيُسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا }

{ But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Messenger], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission. }

[Al-Qur`an al-karim 4:65 with English interpretation]

For more, see here:

- The Prophet ﷺ was not afraid that his nation will fall into [greater] polytheism and swore by Allah regarding this!
- The only polytheism that can be found in his nation is the lesser one!
- The Prophet ﷺ informed his nation that satan has despaired to be EVER worshiped on the Arabian peninsula again!
- When will idols be worshiped again in the lands of the Arabs?: When ALL believers die (just before the end of times)!



So we say to the Imamiyya: So if the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) would have feared for the majority of his nation to become "disbelievers in the hereafter" (as your classical scholars claim!), he surely would have warned them and informed them regarding this, but he did not do this! So the above narrations prove that you Imamis and the Najdis are both wrong and that the majority of the Muslims are NOT disbelievers in the hereafter in opposition to both your claims!

(It's somehow weird that Najdis and Imamis hate each other (and all other Muslims of course) so much and then are actually very near in mindset to each other.
They both are also unfortunately at the forefront in causing bloodshed among Muslims, while forgetting the real enemies.)

[ilikepie]

- Regarding 1: Provide me references that they can NOT elect someone, who they regard as godfearing and just!
How then is Iran ruled today?! Subhanallah, that which is okay for you is disallowed for others?

- Regarding 2: Explain to me how he (radhiallahu 'anhu) had NO such rights with the knowledge that the majority of the Muslims - especially the Muhajirun and Ansar, whom Allah ta'ala praises in His Book in a clear and direct manner! - were pleased with him and ACCEPTED and SUPPORTED his decision!

- Regarding 3: Rather explain to me why it's wrong to form a Shura consisting of known supporters of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)!

- Regarding 4: Please explain to me where you got this accusation from! Rather the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) can command us this and other than this, but if he (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) has NOT specified a person / persons, then we can NOT claim specification out of nowhere!

Regarding 5: Because of the issue of Fadak and there are different narrations on this whole issue and acting as if only your version of history is correct is not really academic.

Regarding the issue of the Hadith of making Fatima (radhiallahu 'anha) angry: You will not be able to deny that there were even incidents where she (radhiallahu' anha) became upset or angry with Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) and there are even narrations to this effect.
So will you apply this Hadith to Imam 'Ali (radhiallahu 'anhu) also?

The problem is really when statements are taken out of their original context and intention and implemented in a manner to establish one's secterian ideas.

Points 1-3: My dear brother. You are completely missing my point. My point is there is a clear inconsistency in how leaders are elected, that is the issue. Further, I am not iranian, i don't live in iran, and iran's decisions/rulings etc. are NOT hujjah upon me, therefore I fail to see the relevance.
Point 4: again, you are missing the crux of my argument; Abu Bakr has the foresight to designate a successor, but the Prophet doesn't? Further, I cited Ghadir Khumm which you conveniently ignored.
Point 5: Doesn't matter what the issue was, what matters is fact A: whoever angers Fatema angers the Prophet and whoever angers the Prophet angers Allah, fact B: Fatema died angry at Abu bakr. You can put two and two together on what that means =).

Finally, there is not a single incident where Ali (a.s) was displeased with Fatema (a.s), and Fatima displeased with Ali. Not a single instance and both have testified to this =) But even if what you say is true; she didn't die angry with him now did she? That's huge, colossal, incomparable.

[ilikepie]

I had written the following comment in response to the early Wahhabiyya / Najdis (who claimed that the majority of the Muslims of their time were "polytheists" and "worse than pagans"), but it can also be used against the Imamiyya Shi'a (famously known as Rafidha), because their leading authorities of the past taught that the majority of Muslims were in fact "disbelievers in the hereafter" and would therefore "share the same fate as the idol worshipers":




For more, see here:

- The Prophet ﷺ was not afraid that his nation will fall into [greater] polytheism and swore by Allah regarding this!
- The only polytheism that can be found in his nation is the lesser one!
- The Prophet ﷺ informed his nation that satan has despaired to be EVER worshiped on the Arabian peninsula again!
- When will idols be worshiped again in the lands of the Arabs?: When ALL believers die (just before the end of times)!



So we say to the Imamiyya: So if the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) would have feared for the majority of his nation to become "disbelievers in the hereafter" (as your classical scholars claim!), he surely would have warned them and informed them regarding this, but he did not do this! So the above narrations prove that you Imamis and the Najdis are both wrong and that the majority of the Muslims are NOT disbelievers in the hereafter in opposition to both your claims!

(It's somehow weird that Najdis and Imamis hate each other (and all other Muslims of course) so much and then are actually very near in mindset to each other.
They both are also unfortunately at the forefront in causing bloodshed among Muslims, while forgetting the real enemies.)

Oh really? Then please explain these hadiths to me, which clearly state that some of the companions at the least turned evil. Therefore, if there is a question on some of the companions, we by extension need to examine the lives on ALL the companions.

Narrated Ibn al-Musaiyab:
"Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned APOSTATE as renegades (reverted from true Islam)."
(Sahih Muslim, part 10, p64, also P59)

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel)
came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), 'Come along.' I asked, 'Where?' He said, 'To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah' I asked, 'what is wrong with them?' He said, 'They turned APOSTATE as renegades after you left.' Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); Come along.' I asked, "Where?' He said, 'To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.' I asked, What is wrong with them?' He said, 'They turned APOSTATE as renegades after you left. So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd."
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.592

Narrated 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar) and some men amongst you will be brought to me, and when I will try to hand them some water, they will be pulled away from me by force whereupon I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' Then the Almighty will say, 'You do not know what they did after you left, they introduced new things into the religion after you.'"
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.174

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

if Shia point of view regarding political authority is correct, the early ridda wars must have been a golden opportunity for imam Ali to claim what was rightfully his belonging by the sword?

If early caliphs were apostates and hypocrites (Allah's refuge is sought) why did Imam Ali not fight them ?
A true prophet always triumphs over a false claimant,
then how come a false pretender to the legacy of a true prophet get away from such a crime?

Imam Ali , if he had fought and made an example of them, everybody would have fallen in line?

Abu Bakr faced a difficult situation where apostates were threatening and plotting , he fought even with less numbers,
Why Imam Ali didn't fight when apostates were plotting and taking over?


Moreover I came across a shocking revelation, that Abu sufyan came to Imam Ali after thaqifa and asked him that he will provide men and weapons to fight, but Imam Ali didn't cease the opportunity?

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

https://youtu.be/Qf7pjFcYHL8

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

https://youtu.be/7wb--T3mB-c

[Abu Sulayman]

Points 1-3: My dear brother. You are completely missing my point. My point is there is a clear inconsistency in how leaders are elected, that is the issue.

There is no inconsistency in reality, because in all the cases mentioned the majority of the Ahl al-Hall wal 'Aqd were completely supportive of these decisions and this is enough for legitmacy, especially considering that they ruled in accordance to the divine law.

By the way: According to your classical scholars I'm a "disbeliever in the hereafter", so how am I your "dear brother" now? In fact I know what you use as "proofs" to argue that your way is correct, so the excuse of ignorance can not even apply to me, so this is yet another reason why you shouldn't regard me as your "dear brother".

Let's be honest with each other.

Further, I am not iranian, i don't live in iran, and iran's decisions/rulings etc. are NOT hujjah upon me, therefore I fail to see the relevance.

Well the absolute majority of the Shi'a in my country look up to Iran and have taken them as a role model.
What I find a little bit ironic is that none of the Shi'a rulers throughout history have ever reached the justice of the Shaykhayn, yet we see our Shi'a whining about their rule day and night!

I also repeat myself: According to both of us there is NO infallible leadership since more than 1000 years!

According to our view it ended when the Chosen One (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi sallam) left the life of this world, while according to you it ended with the 12 A`imma.

So how do you elect Muslims leaders in the meantime?
This point just shows that your whole obsession with Imama has no real implications on our lives at all and is just a point to create hatred and enmity among Muslims and this for no reason at all!

Yes, when Imam al-Mahdi (radhiallahu 'anhu) appears, then their is no doubt regarding him being the leader and Bay'a being obligatory to him, but has he already appeared? NO!

Point 4: again, you are missing the crux of my argument; Abu Bakr has the foresight to designate a successor, but the Prophet doesn't? Further, I cited Ghadir Khumm which you conveniently ignored.

The Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) left the issue to the Shura of the Ahl al-Hall wal 'Aqd of every time and this is how the first Khulafa` were chosen!

As for Ghadir Khummy, then I clearly answered regarding this. What's the context / background of this incident? The moment you know it, your proof becomes non-existent.

I can only repeat myself, even if you choose to ignore this point: According to your classical scholars those Muslims who disagree with you on Imama are "disbelievers in the hereafter".
Don't you think that our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) would have made this issue clear as the sun and highlighted it again and again, if your position regarding it would be correct?!
Don't you think that Imam 'Ali would have drawn the swords against the Shaykhayn (may Allah ta'ala be pleased with all three of them)?
And what about the broken rip issue, which now every Rafidhi is mentioning as if it's a fact? Is it not an insult to Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) and the early Muslims in general?

The result of your ideas entails attacking the pure Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) themselves, wallahul musta'an.

Point 5: Doesn't matter what the issue was, what matters is fact A: whoever angers Fatema angers the Prophet and whoever angers the Prophet angers Allah, fact B: Fatema died angry at Abu bakr. You can put two and two together on what that means =).

Finally, there is not a single incident where Ali (a.s) was displeased with Fatema (a.s), and Fatima displeased with Ali. Not a single instance and both have testified to this =) But even if what you say is true; she didn't die angry with him now did she? That's huge, colossal, incomparable.

It does matter, because even good human beings may have a misunderstanding and be upset at each other because of it.
And even the issue of her (radhiallahu 'anga) being angry is mentioned only in one or two versions of the narrations regarding Fadak and not in others.

Do you really think that we will build our whole religion upon a narration here and another one there and then combine this with your understanding?!

Even your scholars know that their ideas are not established by the Book of Allah ta'ala and a clear and direct manner, which is why some (or many?) of your leading authorities of the past chose to regard the Book of Allah ta'ala as DISTORTED (while having no proof for their ugly claim!) and thereby they DISBELIEVED with certainity! Now this is real APOSTASY!

Then: Why did Fatimatul Zahra` (radhiallahu 'anha) ask for Fadak instead of asking for the Khilafa for Imam 'Ali (radhiallahu 'anhu)?

Why for God's sake is there no clear proof for the whole issue of Imama in the manner you claim and then you expect the Muslims to believe in it?!

Let me be very clear: IF (a very big one!) your view on Imama would be correct, then the people not clarifying it such that the majority of the Muslims do NOT believe in it, would be none other than the pure Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) themselves! And they are free from not clarifying the truth with certainity, which necessitates your ideas to be wrong!

One last point: Do you see how you made the whole religion about what happened AFTER the noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?!? Do you find any proof for doing so in the Book of Allah ta'ala?!? Not even one word!

[Abu Sulayman]

Oh really? Then please explain these hadiths to me, which clearly state that some of the companions at the least turned evil. Therefore, if there is a question on some of the companions, we by extension need to examine the lives on ALL the companions.

Narrated Ibn al-Musaiyab:
"Some men from my companions will come to my Lake-Fount and they will be driven away from it, and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you left: they turned APOSTATE as renegades (reverted from true Islam)."
(Sahih Muslim, part 10, p64, also P59)

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel)
came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), 'Come along.' I asked, 'Where?' He said, 'To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah' I asked, 'what is wrong with them?' He said, 'They turned APOSTATE as renegades after you left.' Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); Come along.' I asked, "Where?' He said, 'To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.' I asked, What is wrong with them?' He said, 'They turned APOSTATE as renegades after you left. So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd."
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 8.592

Narrated 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount (Kauthar) and some men amongst you will be brought to me, and when I will try to hand them some water, they will be pulled away from me by force whereupon I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' Then the Almighty will say, 'You do not know what they did after you left, they introduced new things into the religion after you.'"
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.174

Do you seriously want to say that in these narrations the very Muhajirun and Ansar - with the Shaykhayn (may Allah ta'ala be pleased with them) on top of them - are intended, who have been EXPLICITLY PRAISED in the Book of Allah ta'ala?!?!?!!?!??!???????

Wallahi, this proves nothing but your hearts being black and you having ill intentions! How else did you reach to these conclusions?
You come up with interpretations, that would lead to contradictions within the revelation! But in reality there is no contradiction in the revelation, rather the contradiction is in your understanding.

And don't try to tell me "I don't intend all of them", because you DO intend the absolute majority of them (!!!) and this despite these people giving up their wealth and their lives in order for Islam to reach to your forefathers! Is this how you thank those, who were a mean in your forefathers guidance to Islam?!??

[ilikepie]

if Shia point of view regarding political authority is correct, the early ridda wars must have been a golden opportunity for imam Ali to claim what was rightfully his belonging by the sword?

If early caliphs were apostates and hypocrites (Allah's refuge is sought) why did Imam Ali not fight them ?
A true prophet always triumphs over a false claimant,
then how come a false pretender to the legacy of a true prophet get away from such a crime?

Imam Ali , if he had fought and made an example of them, everybody would have fallen in line?

Abu Bakr faced a difficult situation where apostates were threatening and plotting , he fought even with less numbers,
Why Imam Ali didn't fight when apostates were plotting and taking over?


Moreover I came across a shocking revelation, that Abu sufyan came to Imam Ali after thaqifa and asked him that he will provide men and weapons to fight, but Imam Ali didn't cease the opportunity?

Here is your answer directly from Ali (a.s) himself, enjoy the read:
Beware! By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)2 dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death).
I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(Then he quoted al-A’sha’s verse):

My days are now passed on the camel’s back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir’s brother Hayyan.3

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group4 and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! What had I to do with this “consultation”? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high.

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 wealth5like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like a 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)

Yes, by Allah, they had heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes and its embellishments seduced them. Behold, by Him who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat.

(It is said that when Amir al-mu’minin reached here in his sermon a man of Iraq stood up and handed him over a writing. Amir al-mu’minin began looking at it, when Ibn ‘Abbas said, “O’ Amir al-mu’minin, I wish you resumed your Sermon from where you broke it.” Thereupon he replied, “O’ Ibn ‘Abbas it was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided.” Ibn ‘Abbas says that he never grieved over any utterance as he did over this one because Amir al-mu’minin could not finish it as he wished to.)


https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-bala...on-abu-quhafah

[ilikepie]

Do you seriously want to say that in these narrations the very Muhajirun and Ansar - with the Shaykhayn (may Allah ta'ala be pleased with them) on top of them - are intended, who have been EXPLICITLY PRAISED in the Book of Allah ta'ala?!?!?!!?!??!???????

Wallahi, this proves nothing but your hearts being black and you having ill intentions! How else did you reach to these conclusions?
You come up with interpretations, that would lead to contradictions within the revelation! But in reality there is no contradiction in the revelation, rather the contradiction is in your understanding.

And don't try to tell me "I don't intend all of them", because you DO intend the absolute majority of them (!!!) and this despite these people giving up their wealth and their lives in order for Islam to reach to your forefathers! Is this how you thank those, who were a mean in your forefathers guidance to Islam?!??

Thanks for your replies. I also read your previous point. It seems we have reached an impasse given your emotionally charged emotions unfortunately.
I will re-iterate, you and your colleagues said the likes of Muawiyah is respected simply because he is a companion.
I referenced a quote from Sahih books (by your standard) that the Prophet (pbuhf) said some of his companions will be put in the hellfire.
Therefore, regardless whether Muawiyah is one of those or not, it remains proven that some of his companions are bound for hellfire, and that merely being a companion is NOT an acceptable argument for respecting a personality.

Still, nobody addressed that Muawiyah went the distance to issue state-wide Laa'na on Ali (a.s). As I mentioned before, I did not even bring up the 2 khalifas, you did lol. I was interested in how Muawiyah can be respected.

It may not be clear to you, but it is clear as day to me.
"I am the city of knowledge, and Ali is its gate"
"None but a hypocrite hate you, oh Ali".
"Ali is to me as Harun is to Musa, except there is no Prophet after me"
"Tomorrow, I will give the banner to someone who loves me and Allah, and Allah and me love him, and he never returns except with victory" and he gave the banner to Ali as the 2 khalifas looked on after failing to capture Khaybar (I can provide sunni and shia references if you wish =))
Ali is the nafs of Rasoollalah as per the event of Mubahila.
"Who will aid my in my mission of Prophethood? Whoever aids me will be the leader after me" Ali stood up, and the Prophet told him to sit down. This happened 3 times while none of his 40 relatives stood, thus, the Prophet said "Ali will be leader after me". Abu Lahab (l.a) thereafter made fun of Abu Talib "Haha, your son will be master over you".
"The swing of Ali is greater than the whole of worship by mankind AND jinn"

I can go on forever. But lets go to quranic verses now which further prove that Allah chose Ali ibn Abi Talib, and did not leave it to the humans to elect, otherwise you end up with Hitlers and Trumps.

Many of the Meccan polytheists had planned to kill Muhammad on the night that he left Mecca. That night, Ali risked his life by sleeping in Muhammad's bed so that Muhammad could leave Mecca safely. When the polytheists of Mecca went to Muhammad's room with the aim of killing him, they instead found Ali in his bed.
Surah Baqarah verse 207: "And of the men is he who sells his soul to seek the Pleasure of Allah. And Allah is the most Affectionate (full of Kindness) to His servants."

Mubahilah, Quran 3:61: "But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and ourselves and yourselves, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars."

"O Messenger! deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message, and Allah will protect you from the people; surely Allah will not guide the unbelieving people." - the day of Ghadir Khumm prior to the Prophet (pbuhf) ordering the people that Ali (a.s) is their master.

Ghadir Khumm when Ali was made the mowla of everyone: "This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion" (5:3).

"Only Allah is Waliyyukum and His Messenger and those who believe, those who keep up prayers and pay az-Zakāh (the Poor-rate) while they bow." Shi'ite scholars, along with Sunni ones such as Tabari,^[b]Al-Suyuti^[c] and Razi,^[d] recorded^[e] that one day, when Ali was performing the ritual prayers in the Mosque, a beggar began to ask for alms. Ali extended his finger, and the beggar removed his ring.^[18][19] Then Muhammad observed this, and a passage of the Qur'an was sent down upon him (5:55) - Wikipedia (references on the page including sunni sources)

""And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the Ignorance of yore; and keep up the Salah, and pay the Zakah, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, Ahlal-Bayt (People of the House), and purify you a (thorough) purifying." Quran 33:33

"That is of which Allah gives the good news to His servants, (to) those who believe and do good deeds. Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but al-mawaddah fil-qurbā (the love for the near relatives), and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein; surely Allah is Forgiving, Grateful." Quran 42:23


And these are only some of the reasons why we believe what we believe. And you compare some others to Ali ibn Abi Talib? Who compares to his accolades? Who is the nafs of the Prophet(pbuhf) except Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s)? If you are a sincere believer, you will directly answer my very last question with a truthful "Nobody was declared nafs Rasoollallah except Ali".

Yet despite all this, you say Muawiyah deserves respect to going to war with the Khalifa of his time.

Hope you enjoyed the discussion and exchange in beliefs. I forgive you for accusing me of a black heart, inshallah you enjoy this life to the fullest rather than focus on insignificant specks such as myself. All the best.

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

Here is your answer directly from Ali (a.s) himself, enjoy the read:
Beware! By Allah, the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr)2 dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

Then I began to think whether I should assault or endure calmly the blinding darkness of tribulations wherein the grown up are made feeble and the young grow old and the true believer acts under strain till he meets Allah (on his death).
I found that endurance thereon was wiser. So I adopted patience although there was pricking in the eye and suffocation (of mortification) in the throat. I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.

(Then he quoted al-A’sha’s verse):

My days are now passed on the camel’s back (in difficulty) while there were days (of ease) when I enjoyed the company of Jabir’s brother Hayyan.3

It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death. No doubt these two shared its udders strictly among themselves. This one put the Caliphate in a tough enclosure where the utterance was haughty and the touch was rough. Mistakes were in plenty and so also the excuses therefore. One in contact with it was like the rider of an unruly camel. If he pulled up its rein the very nostril would be slit, but if he let it loose he would be thrown. Consequently, by Allah people got involved in recklessness, wickedness, unsteadiness and deviation.

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group4 and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! What had I to do with this “consultation”? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high.

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 wealth5like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like a 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)

Yes, by Allah, they had heard it and understood it but the world appeared glittering in their eyes and its embellishments seduced them. Behold, by Him who split the grain (to grow) and created living beings, if people had not come to me and supporters had not exhausted the argument and if there had been no pledge of Allah with the learned to the effect that they should not acquiesce in the gluttony of the oppressor and the hunger of the oppressed I would have cast the rope of Caliphate on its own shoulders, and would have given the last one the same treatment as to the first one. Then you would have seen that in my view this world of yours is no better than the sneezing of a goat.

(It is said that when Amir al-mu’minin reached here in his sermon a man of Iraq stood up and handed him over a writing. Amir al-mu’minin began looking at it, when Ibn ‘Abbas said, “O’ Amir al-mu’minin, I wish you resumed your Sermon from where you broke it.” Thereupon he replied, “O’ Ibn ‘Abbas it was like the foam of a Camel which gushed out but subsided.” Ibn ‘Abbas says that he never grieved over any utterance as he did over this one because Amir al-mu’minin could not finish it as he wished to.)


https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-bala...on-abu-quhafah

Where is the sanad?