The topic heading says - Islamic Interfaith Dialogue between Sunni, Shia, Sufi, Salafi, etc.

Correct me if I am wrong. There are two major sects within Muslim Ummah - Sunni (85%) and Shi'ites (15%). Then Suunis are divided into 35 sub-sects, while Shi'ites count for 37 sects. Salafis, Wahabbis, Deobandi, Ahl-e-Qur'an, etc. all consider themselves sunnis - while a sufi can be a Sunni or Shi'ite.

So who is talking to whom?

No offence.

Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullah wa barkatuhu,

Rehmat wrote: So who is talking to whom?

Anyone can talk to anyone, as long as a decorum is maintained on the forum.

Maa salaama,

Nausheen

No. That's not what I meant. I was merely keeping the facts straight - that except Shi'ites, every Muslim sectarian thinks that he/she is Sunni - including a Qadiani, or a Sufi

Personally, I never have stomach for any sectarian person or group. I participate on both Sunni and Shi'ite websites.

Wa Salaam

and some shia subsects, like zaidis are closer to sunni than to mainstream shias (Shia Ithna Asheri), but for some reason they fall under the umbrella of shia rather than sunni

Aliya wrote: and some shia subsects, like zaidis are closer to sunni than to mainstream shias (Shia Ithna Asheri), but for some reason they fall under the umbrella of shia rather than sunni

I am afraid that's not true. Shi'itism is divided into two main sects - 12-Imami and Zaidi. The 7-Imami (Ismaili) are part of Zaidi.

On the other hand, both sunni sects - Hannafi and Maliki take Shi'ite's sixth Imam - Imam Ja'afar Sadiq as their Sunni Imam.

rami wrote: Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem assalamu alaikum >>>Islamic Interfaith Dialogue<<< It is called "Intrafaith" meaning of the same religion, I made the same mistake. The four madhabs are not a sect, neither are sufi's (traditional sufi's anyway). Defanition of a sect in islam is a group who thinks they are correct while everyone out side there group is incorect ie munafiq,fasiq, kafir etc.

I disagree.

There are several Haddiths which mentions division of Ummah into 72 or so, sects.

The word "Madhab" has different meanings in different languages - for example in Persian and Urdu, it means 'religion'.

The 'four' are not 'madhabs', but "Schools of Fiqah (Jurisdiction)" - the fifth being "Fiqah-e-Ja'afariah".

As I posted earlier - Sufi could belong to Shi'ite or Sunni denomination of Islam. Historically, it were the Sufi Safvid dynasty, which converted Sunni majority into a minority in Iran, over a few centuries ago.

Rehmat wrote: No. That's not what I meant. I was merely keeping the facts straight - that except Shi'ites, every Muslim sectarian thinks that he/she is Sunni - including a Qadiani, or a Sufi Personally, I never have stomach for any sectarian person or group. I participate on both Sunni and Shi'ite websites. Wa Salaam

Since you discriminate against neither the so-called Sunnis nor the so-called Shiites, I think you agree with the purpose of this part of the IslamiCity forum. It's to develop friendly and brotherly interaction among Muslims.

Sufis are generally Sunnis, as far as I know. Are the Safawis really deemed a Sufi group? When they first appeared in the political stage, they believed in a non-mainstream Shiite branch. Later they adopted mainstream Twelver (Imaami) Shi'ism and spread it in Iran. The Safawis were originally Turks, and their early understanding of Shiism was affected by pre-Islamic Shamanistic beliefs of the Turks. As I have said just now, they later adopted mainstream Twelver Shiism.

Mustafaa wrote: [QUOTE=Rehmat] ....Sufis are generally Sunnis, as far as I know. Are the Safawis really deemed a Sufi group? When they first appeared in the political stage, they believed in a non-mainstream Shiite branch. Later they adopted mainstream Twelver (Imaami) Shi'ism and spread it in Iran. The Safawis were originally Turks, and their early understanding of Shiism was affected by pre-Islamic Shamanistic beliefs of the Turks. As I have said just now, they later adopted mainstream Twelver Shiism.

Sorry that's not true either - historically speaking.

Shi�ism, which today appears closely mingled with the whole Iranian sense of national identity, was in its origin almost entirely a stranger to Iran. The origin of Shi�ism is said to be the Iranian response to an �Arab Islam�. Apart from the inappropriateness of these ethnic categories, there is simple fact that the earliest Shi�is were themselves, with few exceptions, Arabs, and Iran was for a long time an overwhelming Sunni country. Aside from a few centers, traditional centers such as Qum, Shi�ism was little represented in Iran.

In the aftermath of the Mongol conquest of the Muslim Near East in the 13th century, when the authority of the Abbasid Caliphate was shattered and destroyed, with the consequent weakening at least in official position of Sunni thought, a gradual increase in influence of Shi�ism in Iran began to be noticed. However, upto 16th century, Iran was still an overwhelmingly Sunni country.

The two forces, which spread Shi�ism in Iran the most were both non-Iranian. The first was the Safavid dynasty (1502-1722), originally a Turkish speaking family of hereditary Sufi shaykhs centred in the Northwestern frontiers lands of Iran. Transforming itself into a contender for power, it recruited a large number of followers from outside Iran from Turkic nomads of Asia Minor, Syria and the Southern Caucasus. Afterwards the Safavids for political reasons manufactured a false genealogy for themselves � seeking descent from Imam Musa Kazim, the seventh Shi�I Imam. However, subsequent historical research has proved this claim to be false.

After, the Safavids consolidated their power in Iran, they decided to convert the majority, if necessary, by force to Shi�ism. (Source: Extract from a lecture by professor Dr. Hamid Algar, a Shi'ite scholar)

The sources do not explain what they mean by a 'Sufi branch'. The early beliefs of the Safawis may have had Sufi elements, but they were the heretic 'Kizilbash' Turks  originally. (Kizil bash means 'red head' in Turkish.)

However, the online sources that I have just checked make a distinction between the Safawi family and the Kizilbash Turkmens who supported this family. They seem to suggest that the Safawi family was not one of the heretic Kizilbashs... I do not know the exact fact anyway...

EDIT: Addition: They also seem to suggest that there have been different groups that are named 'Kizilbash'. I'm a bit confused, but I can't delve into Safawi history now...

Rehmat wrote: There are several Haddiths which mentions division of Ummah into 72 or so, sects.

Yes to the hadiths but it doesn't mean that today there are 72 sects  

I think people have a misunderstanding that when something of a future issue is discussed like the above, 'there will be 72 sects' they think its all formed 'now'

but then again I don't know how many there are today there could be 72

Also

Variants of Shi'a Islam

The variants of Shi'a Islam differ regarding the rights of succession after the death of Prophet Muhammad, but they agree that the Imams were usurped from their rightful position.

Sevener Shi': The Ismailis are the largest group among Sevener Shi'as.

Fiver Shi'as or Zaidis: A group that is found mostly in Yemen that believes in the four Caliphs of Islam like the Sunnis, and thereafter Hasan and Hussayn and Ali ibn Husayn thereafter they hold to the Imamate of Zayd bin Ali bin Hussayn. Zaydis also reject the notion of divinely appointed Imams.

Both major Shi'a sects believe that the last Imam (either the seventh or the twelfth) has been hidden alive by God. Beliefs vary as to what will happen when the last Imam, called the Mahdi ("the guided one"). It is generally believed that the last Imam will be accompanied by Jesus and will affirm Muhammad's message to mankind from God.

Angel wrote: ...but then again I don't know how many there are today there could be 72

That's really interesting observation - I mean someone 'dosn't know' but still like to criticize others' opinion

Yes Muslims have 72 sects; Christians have 73, while Jews have 71. Now please spare me to list all of them

Rehmat wrote: Angel wrote: ...but then again I don't know how many there are today there could be 72 That's really interesting observation - I mean someone 'dosn't know' but still like to criticize others' opinion

hehehe

Yes Muslims have 72 sects; Christians have 73, while Jews have 71. Now please spare me to list all of them

someone has done their homework  ok I spare you the job of listing them all but it would be interesting to see , maybe one day

And by the way, there's another hmmmm...72 sects, 72 virgins - a conspiracy going on  nausheen should have left the conspiracy forum

Angel wrote: ....And by the way, there's another hmmmm...72 sects, 72 virgins - a conspiracy going on  nausheen should have left the conspiracy forum

Think this way - Jews and Christians are jealous that we may get 72 virgins, but none for them.

Wa Salaam

>>>The word "Madhab" has different meanings in different languages - for example in Persian and Urdu, it means 'religion'.<<<

That is not relavent. Do you know what a madhhab is?

>>>The 'four' are not 'madhabs', but "Schools of Fiqah (Jurisdiction)" - the fifth being "Fiqah-e-Ja'afariah".<<<

There is no such thing as a Ja'fariah madhhab from sunni point of view, Obviously you are shia then br?

>>>As I posted earlier - Sufi could belong to Shi'ite or Sunni denomination of Islam. Historically, it were the Sufi Safvid dynasty, which converted Sunni majority into a minority in Iran, over a few centuries ago.<<<

Sufi's can be shia or sunni that is true, but a person can only understand how if he knows what Sufism/Tassawuf is. If you understand that then you know that calling sufis a sect is like saying anyone who practised Usul al fiqh belongs to a sect which is rediculous.

rami wrote: ....Yes but it seems your understaning of the term sect in islam is not correct...

Hmmmmmm! That's your word against me. Who is going to decide?

Sunni islam is not a sect in Islam , The mahdhabs which consist of roughly 90% of all sunni muslims can not be called a sect no matter how much "spin" you put on the term

Wrong again. As I wrote earlier, Sunnis (if Salafis and Wahabbi allows you to count - Hannafi, Maliki, Sufis, Nakshbandis, Deobandis, etc. as Sunnis then they constitute 85% of Muslims out of 1.5 billion, according to Saudi 'World Muslim League'! And I am not even excluding the 25 million Qadianis either!

The scholars of islam have all followed a madhhab even those the salafi's follow so unless you are not sunni i dont see from what angle you are making this point

Which scholars, dear? Does your list also includes Imam Ja'afar Sadiq (ra), who happened to be teacher of Imam Abu Hannifa (ra) and Imam Malik (ra)?

As for 'my angle' is concerned - it goes straight to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), who never called himself a Sunni - or did he?

Do you know what a madhhab is

No, the 'Learned one' - but can you teach me?

There is no such thing as a Ja'fariah madhhab from sunni point of view, Obviously you are shia then br?

I give a hoot what your point of view is - because I never live in 'self-denial'. As I noted above - both Maliki and Hannafi 'Fiqah' are influenced by 'Fiqah-e-Ja'afari'.

Thanks for avoiding to call me a 'Kafir'! Because, just being a 'Muslim' never satisfy the sectarians.

Sufi's can be shia or sunni that is true, but a person can only understand how if he knows what Sufism/Tassawuf is. If you understand that then you know that calling sufis a sect is like saying anyone who practised Usul al fiqh belongs to a sect which is rediculous

I could post a Salafi website to show how misinformed you're about sects - But then it would be just like advertising an Israeli website.

Any comments on that?

Wa Salaam.

Auzubillahi minash shaitan ir rajeem,

Bismillah ir rehman ir rahim,

Assalamualaikum wa rahmatullah wa barkatuhu,

Brother Rami,

I remember reading a detailed description of the 73 sects in Islam from "Al Ghuniya liTalibi Tariq'al Haqq"... it was made online by sunnah.org. I cannot find it thru their search anymore, but it answers manythings that you would want to say on this topic.

I am not so sure if i posted on the old forum, but surely if you do a thorough search, you should be able to find it.

Maa salaama,

Es_Selam'un Aleykum ve Rahmetullahi ve Berakatuh,

 We are going got discuss the issue at the weekend,till to that time i suggest from you staying in calm and not loosing the peace tune....think about that...all of the users in the thread are caring to islam and doing their bests;no bad person inside of us...evil loves these issues to destroy the peace between the muslims as we have seen in the past...let's give all our hands to each other finding the truth;at least understanding each other;politeness is the door of understanding to each other..we are all loving Allah and caring to Qur'an;no chance to evil and Qur'an is not an chaos book...let's meet at the weekend,everybody will be relaxed and cool then we will deeply discuss....i call everyone to discuss,to put their efforts after a dua to Allah for the finding the best in with all good intentions and concerns inside the science of shariat...

I have a question.

I have heard some Muslims call other Muslims kafirun, even after reading Ayat 4:94

"O you who believe, when you go forth (to fight) in Allah�s way, make investigation, and say not to any one who offers you salutation, Thou art not a believer, seeking the good of this world�s life. But with Allah there are abundant gains. You too were such before, then Allah conferred a benefit on you; so make investigation. Surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do."

I have also seen people who display the images of others being called idolotors. I don't agree with this. 

However, I have seen images of Prophets being sold even in Mecca, and I am against that.

Could someone please speak to this issue?

blond wrote: I have a question. I have heard some Muslims call other Muslims kafirun, even after reading Ayat 4:94 "O you who believe, when you go forth (to fight) in Allah�s way, make investigation, and say not to any one who offers you salutation, Thou art not a believer, seeking the good of this world�s life. But with Allah there are abundant gains. You too were such before, then Allah conferred a benefit on you; so make investigation. Surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do." I have also seen people who display the images of others being called idolotors. I don't agree with this.  However, I have seen images of Prophets being sold even in Mecca, and I am against that. Could someone please speak to this issue?

 Es_Selam'un Aleykum ve Rahmetullahi ve Berakatuh,

 Blond,i did not put these pics as reflecting them the idols of mine;no they aren't...i love and respect them;but my only idol is Allah...two complaints on my pics makes me to delete them...this is the best,i think...

Suleyman wrote: blond wrote: I have a question. I have heard some Muslims call other Muslims kafirun, even after reading Ayat 4:94 "O you who believe, when you go forth (to fight) in Allah�s way, make investigation, and say not to any one who offers you salutation, Thou art not a believer, seeking the good of this world�s life. But with Allah there are abundant gains. You too were such before, then Allah conferred a benefit on you; so make investigation. Surely Allah is ever Aware of what you do." I have also seen people who display the images of others being called idolotors. I don't agree with this.  However, I have seen images of Prophets being sold even in Mecca, and I am against that. Could someone please speak to this issue?  Es_Selam'un Aleykum ve Rahmetullahi ve Berakatuh,  Blond,i did not put these pics as reflecting them the idols of mine;no they aren't...i love and respect them;but my only idol is Allah...two complaints on my pics makes me to delete them...this is the best,i think...

No Sir! Please don't take offense to my questions.

Please, don't feel inclined to take down the people who you respect on my account. I don't think you are wrong to honor the people who taught you. I was just wondering what you all think about the kind of  standard I mentioned, that is all.

I apologize to you for offending you.

Suleyman wrote: [QUOTE=blond] ....Blond,i did not put these pics as reflecting them the idols of mine;no they aren't...i love and respect them;but my only idol is Allah...two complaints on my pics makes me to delete them...this is the best,i think...

That's a very good thing you did brother. I do have pictures of Sayyid Maududi (ra) and Imam Khomeini (ra) in my private study room, but I would not display it as Avatar - though there is nothing wrong with that, but I would rather have some 'Islamic symbols' instead. Maybe, the Administrator could provide those.

One thing more - not criticism, but a suggestion - Allah (swt) is not an 'idol' - His Majestic is beyond human imagination - He is what He is.

blond wrote: .....I have also seen people who display the images of others being called idolotors. I don't agree with this.  However, I have seen images of Prophets being sold even in Mecca, and I am against that. Could someone please speak to this issue?

Asslam-o-Aliakum

Here is a Fatwa� on this subject by - Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Canada

"Photography as a medium of communication or for the simple, innocent retention of memories without the taint of reverence/shirk does not fall under the category of forbidden Tasweer.

One finds a number of traditions from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, condemning people who make Tasweer, which denotes painting or carving images or statues. It was closely associated with paganism or shirk. People were in the habit of carving images and statues for the sake of worship. Islam, therefore, declared Tasweer forbidden because of its close association with shirk (association of partners with Allah). One of the stated principles of usul-u-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) is that if anything directly leads to haram, it is likewise haram. In other words, Tasweer was forbidden precisely for the reason that it was a means leading to shirk.

The function of photography today does not fall under the above category. Even some of the scholars who had been once vehemently opposed to photography under the pretext that it was a form of forbidden Tasweer have later changed their position on it - as they allow even for their own pictures to be taken and published in newspapers, for videotaping lectures and for presentations; whereas in the past, they would only allow it in exceptional cases such as passports, drivers� licenses, etc. The change in their view of photography is based on their assessment of the role of photography.

Having said this, one must add a word of caution: To take pictures of leaders and heroes and hang them on the walls may not belong to the same category of permission. This may give rise to a feeling of reverence and hero worship, which was precisely the main thrust of the prohibition of Tasweer. Therefore, one cannot make an unqualified statement to the effect that all photography is halal. It all depends on the use and function of it. If it is for educational purpose and has not been tainted with the motive of reverence and hero worship, there is nothing in the sources to prohibit it."

It is not considered haram (forbidden) to hang family pictures on the wall; however, I should urge you against hanging them on the wall directly facing you in Prayer. For by hanging them in the direction of Prayer, your thoughts will likely be distracted; furthermore, it may inadvertently give the impression that we worship pictures. It is important for us Muslims to make ourselves distinct in our religious practices from those who associate partners with Allah in their worship. So never hang such pictures in the direction of your Prayer.

Still another point to consider: Never hang pictures of leaders and heroes, past or present, on your walls, for it may inadvertently lead to feelings of extreme reverence and hero worship, and this in turn may become an avenue leading to shirk. Such things are considered as avenues leading to that which is haram, and hence considered as forbidden. It is worth remembering that this was the main rationale for prohibiting carving images and statues in the first place.

Since, however, such motives are entirely lacking in hanging family pictures, there is no reason to consider it as haram.

I suggest you follow the example of Imam jaffar as sidiq when it comes to replying and act with adab.

This is what Imam Jaffar as sidiq actualy taught Imam Abu Hanifa,

Ibn `Abidin relates in his al Durr al mukhtar that Imam Abu Hanifa said: "If it were not for two years, I would have perished." Ibn `Abidin comments:

Any comments on that?<<<

You should be more carefull where you get you information from, Tasawuf is an Islamic science, if you like i can provide for you quotes from Clasical Sunni muslim scholars.

That is the sunni defanition, so no it is not my word

Which of the 35 sects among Sunnis have that �definition�? Anyone other than Wahabism or Salafism? Because these two sect believe that the remaining 32 Sunni sects and 37 Shi�ite sects � all are heretics or Kafirs!

What are you abjecting to, i gave a rough figure of sunni muslims who follow a madhhab�

Do you know when some is talking of �rough figure� � he says �approximately� or �estimated�. This distortion of population to serve your hatred towards Shi�ites destroy your credibility, once for all.

Imam Jaffar as sidiq did not establish a madhhab, nor do sunni's believe what you attribute to him

Ignorance is very dangerous thing buddy. What I �aatribute� come from a great Sunni historian from Pakistan, Dr. Jamil Ahmad in his masterpiece �Hundred Great Muslims�. I can assure you the writer is more knowledgeable than �you and me� put together.

you reply is bordering on insulting i suggest you tone down your reply's or they will be moderated, please read the forum guidlines for posting

Are threatening me as a Moderator or what?

I suggest you follow the example of Imam jaffar as sidiq when it comes to replying and act with adab

And what�s wrong with the rest of Imams � Abu Hannifa, Shaifi, Malik, Hassan al-Bannah, Khomeini, etc? But you just said my �attributions� of Imam Ja�afar (ra) were wrong!

I'l remember to call my Shia friends that next time we go to pray Dhur while we apoint a Salafi br as our Imam

I can assure you � You would not be the first one!

You should be more carefull where you get you information from, Tasawuf is an Islamic science, if you like i can provide for you quotes from Clasical Sunni muslim scholars

NO thank you very much. I am quite well informed about the background of �this science� � going back to Hinduism and Buddhism.

As for the �scholars are concerned� � Sunni Sufis like Hamza Yusuf, Hassan Turabi, Abdullah Hakim Murad, Nuh Han Him Keller, and Dr. Saeed Ramadan are called DEVIANTS by the Wahabi and Salafi scholars.

[Moderator  Edited]
 

Please read the forum guidlines!

3. Use of upper case and bold (font) is not permissible for the whole of the message body, however it may be used to add emphasis to words or phrases contained within your message.

assalamu alaikum 

>>>Which of the 35 sects among Sunnis have that �definition�? Anyone other than Wahabism or Salafism? Because these two sect believe that the remaining 32 Sunni sects and 37 Shi�ite sects � all are heretics or Kafirs!<<<

>>>Do you know when some is talking of �rough figure� � he says �approximately� or �estimated�. This distortion of population to serve your hatred towards Shi�ites destroy your credibility, once for all.<<<

Haste is from shaytan and so is anger, your posts are full of both.

We should emulate those whom allah loves,

"... Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! And to purify you a (thorough) purifying (33:33)".

Allah's wish is to purify them, we should also wish the same for our selves.

>>>The mahdhabs which consist of roughly 90% of all sunni muslims<<<

>>>Ignorance is very dangerous thing buddy. What I �aatribute� come from a great Sunni historian from Pakistan, Dr. Jamil Ahmad in his masterpiece �Hundred Great Muslims�. I can assure you the writer is more knowledgeable than �you and me� put together. <<<

I have never heard of him, so i dont see what your point is in quoting him there are many great clasical muslim historians.

>>>Are threatening me as a Moderator or what?<<<

you reply is bordering on insulting i suggest you tone down your reply's or they will be moderated, please read the forum guidlines for posting.

I think i made my self very clear.

>>>And what�s wrong with the rest of Imams � Abu Hannifa, Shaifi, Malik, Hassan al-Bannah, Khomeini, etc? But you just said my �attributions� of Imam Ja�afar (ra) were wrong!<<<

As Imam Abu hanifa said he was a man of extremely high adab, you should act more with adab.

>>>I can assure you � You would not be the first one!<<<

That was not a pun, i was very serious my shia friends will laugh when i tell them i was accused of calling a shia Kafir, and incase you didnt understand my last statment very regularly our Imam is a Salafi br.

>>>NO thank you very much. I am quite well informed about the background of �this science� � going back to Hinduism and Buddhism.<<<

That is a joke and an orientalist view, unless you misread my quote about Imam abu hanifa and Imam Jaffar al siddiq, 'Imam Abu Hanifa was taught Tassawuf by Jaffar al Sidiqq" so i very much doubt you are informed or rely on accurate sources.

>>>As for the �scholars are concerned� � Sunni Sufis like Hamza Yusuf, Hassan Turabi, Abdullah Hakim Murad, Nuh Han Him Keller, and Dr. Saeed Ramadan are called DEVIANTS by the Wahabi and Salafi scholars.<<<

I didnt mean contemporary scholars i said "clasical scholars".

Scholars Like;

al-Hasan al-Basri, Imam Abu Hanifa, Sufyan al-Thawri, Imam Malik, Imam Shafii, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Al Hakim Al Tirmidhhi....etc

Rehmat wrote: As for the �scholars are concerned� � Sunni Sufis like Hamza Yusuf, Hassan Turabi, Abdullah Hakim Murad, Nuh Han Him Keller, and Dr. Saeed Ramadan are called DEVIANTS by the Wahabi and Salafi scholars.

I know some people, claiming to belong to no specific group, but have a motif of bellitlling "a" group, bringing quotes from "another" group, which they know are positively "anti" to this first group.

Like some to the non-muslims would want to provoke the sunnis, with quotes from shias etc.

There are two groups in India a) barelwi b) dewbandi ... I can never remember who is who, but one is a sufi and other is a salafi. There is a "qissa"  which some ppl (belonging to none of the above mentioned groups) will not fail to relate to you(if they know you have a suif bend) about one of the scholars of the sufi group on his death ..... that when he died, people saw the face of the corpse was like a pigs.  What should someone do if people talk like this ... you should get up and walk out of the mahfil, because the believers are those who walk on this earth in humility, when the ignorant address, they say peace ....

Salafis are the only group who think they have the right to call anybody and everybody a DEVIANT.

Your tone is very belligerant. You do not give an impression of discussing  the matter, rather trying to flaunt  your knowledge accompanied by a dismissal to everything that is, or will be brought forth.

Last but not the least. You can assure nothing about sufism. Tassawwuf should not be taken from people who do not have proper adab towards shcolars (Ulema) of Islam!

N

Nausheen wrote: I know some people, claiming to belong to no specific group, but have a motif of bellitlling "a" group, bringing quotes from "another" group, which they know are positively "anti" to this first group.

well i am just quoting the above quote coz its brilliantly summing up "some people". i hope these people stop this attitude

Nausheen wrote: There are two groups in India a) barelwi b) dewbandi ... I can never remember who is who, but one is a sufi and other is a salafi.

The salafis here in pakistan would boil over this statement. this statement is factually incorrect. Sister plz visit the corresponding websites about barelwis and dewbandis to get to know them better. "" Niether is salafi :) "" i am refraining from saying more here coz i dont want a debate about them to start here :)

Salam

Asslam-o-Aliakum

Here is the Salafi point of view - taken from a website from India.

The Deobandis - are one of the groups of Muslims. This group is connected to and named after the Madrasa of Deoband � Saharanpur � in India, With regard to basic tenets of belief (�aqeedah), they follow the madhhab of Abu Mansoor al-Maatreedi. They follow the madhhab of Imaam Abu Haneefah with regard to fiqh. And They follow the Sufi tareeqahs of the Naqshbandiyyah, Chishtiyyah, Qaadiriyyah and Saharwardiyyah with regard to spiritual development as they say. 

The Brailvi - the belief and practices of this sect are founded upon superstition, folklore and many innovatory practices. It is a sad fact that the masses of ignorant Muslims do not know the real meaning of �Ibaadah (worship); they address their worship (unknowingly) to other than Allah, thereby committing a kind of shirk (associating partners with Allah), which would drive a person right out of Islam. They turn in awe and submission to the graves of Prophets and Righteous people, Invoking them, seeking their help, making vows and offering sacrifices to them. Having realised with great dismay that forms of greater shirk (polytheism) are rife throughout the Muslim World, we have made this page in the hope that it will guide those who have gone astray and bring them out of the darkness of shirk into the light of True Islam.

Rehmat wrote: ........... They turn in awe and submission to the graves of Prophets and Righteous people, Invoking them, seeking their help, making vows and offering sacrifices to them. Having realised with great dismay that forms of greater shirk (polytheism) are rife throughout the Muslim World, we have made this page in the hope that it will guide those who have gone astray and bring them out of the darkness of shirk into the light of True Islam.

How would anyone hope to succeed when their leaders (for their political gains, I think) mimic the same ideas by visiting the graves of pious people and "asking" dua from these graves instead of offering "Fateha" for them. The latest case is shown on the TV news when president of Pakistan lately visited India and reportedly doing the same thing on the grave of a great pious man of his time. This kind of acts not only strengthen the false beliefs of these people but also helps them promoting it all higher levels.  May Allah help all of us to recognise true Islam. Amen.

AhmadJoyia wrote: How would anyone hope to succeed when their leaders (for their political gains, I think) mimic the same ideas by visiting the graves of pious people and "asking" dua from these graves instead of offering "Fateha" for them. The latest case is shown on the TV news when president of Pakistan lately visited India and reportedly doing the same thing on the grave of a great pious man of his time. This kind of acts not only strengthen the false beliefs of these people but also helps them promoting it all higher levels.  May Allah help all of us to recognise true Islam. Amen.

Hey don't expect every Muslim to act like a Wahabi - Against grave worshipping - but love America worshing!

ibraheem wrote: P.S. - Above is the unanimous position of the Four Islamic Jurisprudence Schools of Thought (Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafie) of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, Aasharis and Maturidis absolutely united with consensus.

Can this 'ignorant' put this question? Why the Hanbali (Wahabi, Salafi, or whatever) call Hanafis 'heretics'?

Was this an answer to my question - or a page from some sectarian website?

Bismillah ir rahman ir rahim,

Brother Ibn Hanbal, Assalamulaiakum wa rahmatullah wa barkatuhu,

Most of the ppl on the boards have decided not to engage in a dialogue with this person. You  r not too far from being called a zionist or something to that effect.

All over the boards he has been disrespecting muslims and nonmuslims alike. And from the horse's mouth, this loud mouth was a moderator on a wahabi website .... not a big surprise.

Thus as an advise save your breath, and move on to some useful conversation, insha allah.

Maa salaama,

Nausheen

Rehmat wrote: Hey don't expect every Muslim to act like a Wahabi - Against grave worshipping - but love America worshing!

Worshipping anything other than Allah is not understood under the context of any Islamic belief what to say for only "Wahabis". Isn't it? Instead of denoucing the action (the least one can do), I didn't expect this kind of reply from you atleast. I thought you are quite knowldgeable guy other than little ..........; but I can bear that as long as you remain focused with right kind of approach. Cheers! 

I have not read all 1000+ postings, however, I would like to particpate any. I hope this was not already said.

I am an American re-vert to Islam (originally a Christian until the age of 21). I say this to establish that I have not been indoctrinated into any particular Islamic school of thought, and I beleive that Allah (S.W.A.) would not impose on us anything that did not make sense. This is the main reason for leaving the faith of my birth and the vast majority of my family members.

I have done quite a bit of research regarding the Sunni-Shia issue, and I am firmly convinced that the Shia are correct. When I say correct, let me explain (in part) what I mean. It is clear to me that;

1.) The Prophet Muhammad (A.S.) nominated Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (A.S.) as his successor at least 3 times during his life in a clear an unmistakeable fashion. There are numerous sources in both Sunni and (of course) Shia books. I am amazed that my Sunni brothers and sisters consistently deny this when it is so clear, obvious and rational.

2.) The Sunni arguments against the Shia seem to revolve around the fact that the Shia are insulting to the companions of the Holy Messenger and some of his wives (such as Aisha). Please read your own books and you will find that some of the companions were good, and some of them were evil. Muawiya is considered a companion of the Prophet, and yet he attacked with military force the (according to Sunni's) fourth of the rightly guided caliphs on numerous occassions. Aisha also attacked Imam Ali (A.S.) in battle in the battle of the Camel (which is recorded in all Sunni books) along with Talah and Zubair (also companions). Being in open rebellion against the caliphate is a clear sin. Is this not the Sunni veiwpoint?

There are many other things I could say in this vein, however, I wish to keep it short and wait for a respons.  

Salam

Ali Zaki wrote: I have done quite a bit of research regarding the Sunni-Shia issue, and I am firmly convinced that the Shia are correct. When I say correct, let me explain (in part) what I mean. It is clear to me that; 1.) The Prophet Muhammad (A.S.) nominated Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (A.S.) as his successor at least 3 times during his life in a clear an unmistakeable fashion. There are numerous sources in both Sunni and (of course) Shia books. I am amazed that my Sunni brothers and sisters consistently deny this when it is so clear, obvious and rational.

Can you please present where the Prophet(saw) in clear and unmistakable terms have appointed Ali(ra) as next caliph, i will be looking forward to read your evidence. I hope you will not disappoint as with what you have called clear and unmistakable evidence that our Prophet(saw)(saw) appointing Ali(ra).

2.) The Sunni arguments against the Shia seem to revolve around the fact that the Shia are insulting to the companions of the Holy Messenger and some of his wives (such as Aisha).

 Thats incorrect, we have allot of issues with shia, and their beliefs about the companions and the prophets family is only one of this issues. offcurse we will have big problem with any one who believes that almost all companions of the prophet became renegades after departure of our beloved prophet (saw).

Please read your own books and you will find that some of the companions were good, and some of them were evil. Muawiya is considered a companion of the Prophet, and yet he attacked with military force the (according to Sunni's) fourth of the rightly guided caliphs on numerous occassions. Aisha also attacked Imam Ali (A.S.) in battle in the battle of the Camel (which is recorded in all Sunni books) along with Talah and Zubair (also companions). Being in open rebellion against the caliphate is a clear sin. Is this not the Sunni veiwpoint?

The problem with shia is you see things in black and white. Why not just read what lead to this conflict instead of simplifying the entire conflict. I will help you little it all started with Uthman ibn affans(ra) death and hes killers. 

" Can you please present where the Prophet(saw) in clear and unmistakable terms have appointed Ali(ra) as next caliph"

You have asked my all time favorite question! Thank you!

I just wrote this on a different posting, but I will repeat it here.

Regarding the first point.

The First Time

" When the verse: "And warn thy nearest relations (26:214), was revealed, the Prophet ordered 'Ali to prepare food and invite the sons of 'Abdu'l-Muttalib so that he could convey to them the words of Allah. After the feast, the Prophet intended to talk to them, but Abu Lahab interfered by saying:"Verily, your comrade has entranced you". Upon hearing this statement all of them dispersed.

The next day, the Messenger of Allah again called them for a feast. After they had finished with their food, the Prophet addressed them: "O sons of 'Abdul'l-Muttalib, I have brought for you the good of this world and the next, and I have been appointed by the Lord to call you unto Him. Therefore, who amongst you will administer this cause for me and be my brother, my successor and my caliph?" No one responded to the Prophet' s call except 'Ali who was the youngest of the congregation. The Prophet then patted 'Ali's neck and said: "O my people! This 'A1i is my brother, my successor and my caliph amongst you. Listen to him and obey him.'' [16] "

" Abu Dharr al-Ghifari says that one day he was praying with the Prophet when a beggar came to the Prophet's mosque. No one responded to his pleas. The beggar raised his hands towards heavens and said, "Allah! be a witness that I came to Thy Prophet's mosque and no one gave me anything". 'Ali (as) was bowing in ruku' at that time. He pointed his little finger, on which was a ring, towards the beggar who came forward and took away the ring. This incident occurred in the Prophet's presence who raised his face towards heaven and prayed: "O Lord! my brother Musa had begged of Thee to open his breast and to make his work easy for him, to loose the knot of his tongue so that people might understand him, and to appoint from among his relations his brother, as his vizier, and to strengthen his back with Harun and to make Harun his partner in his work. O Allah! Thou said to Musa, 'We will strengthen thy arm with thy brother. No one will now have an access to either of you!' O Allah! I am Muhammad and Thou hast given me distinction. Open my breast for me, make my work easy for me, and from my family appoint my brother 'Ali as my vizier. Strengthen my back with him". The Prophet had not yet finished his prayers when Jibril brought the above quoted verse. [17] "

See: http://al-islam.org/imamate/

They are demanding of me a right which they have abandoned, and a blood that they have themselves shed.[1] If I were a partner with them in it then they too have their share of it. But if they did it without me they alone have to face the consequences. Their biggest argument (against me) is (really) against themselves. They are suckling from a mother who is already dry, and bringing into life innovation that is already dead. How disappointing is this challenger (to battle)? Who is this challenger and for what is he being responded to? I am happy that the reasoning of Allah has been exhausted before them and He knows (all) about them."

While waiting for the response from brother/sister Ayubi1187

I would like to add a few things to my previous reply. For the sources refereces for the first two instances of the decleration of Imam Ali (A.S.) as the prophets successor, please click on the linked references ([16], [17]). When you look them up, your will find these hadith transmitted from multiple sources, including non-Muslim scholars of history (as well as 'sahih' Sunni lines of transmission)

For the third instance (Ghadir Khumm), I would like to provide a complete listing of sources. The reason for this is that I have read in Sunni books who respond to this hadith by criticizing the chain of narrators. For this reason, I have burdened this form (I apologize) with a more extensive bibliographical demonstration.

Asnad of Hadith of Ghadir:

a. al-Hafiz Abu 'Isa at-Tirmidhi (d.279 A.H.) has said in his Sahih (one of the as-Sihah as-Sittah) that "This is a good (hasan) and correct (sahih) hadith.''[24]

b. al-Hafiz Abu Ja'far at-Tahawi (d. 321 A.H.) has said in his Mushkil u'l-athar that "This hadith is sahih according to the chains of narrators (asnad) and no one has said anything contrary to its narTators." [25]

c. Abu 'Abdillah al-Hakim an-Naysaburi (d. 405 A.H.) has narrated this hadith from several chains in his al-Mustadrak and has said that this hadith is sahih. [26]

d. Abu Muhammad Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-'Asim; has said: "This hadith is accepted by ummah, and it is in conformity with the principles.

Likewise, the following traditionalists (among hundreds of others) have quoted that this hadith is sahih:-

1. Abu 'Abdillah al-Mahamili al-Baghdadi in his Amali; 2. Ibn 'Abdi 'l-Barr al-Qurtubi in al-Isti 'ab; 3. Ibnu 'l-Maghazili ash-shafi'i in al-Manaqib; 4. Abu Hamid Ghazzali in Sirru 'l-'alamayn; 5. Abu'l-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi in alManaqib; 6. Sibt ibn al-Jawzi in Tadhkirat khawaissi 'l-ummah; 7. Ibn Abi'l-Hadid al-Mu'tazili in his Sharh Nahji 'l-balaighah; 8. Abu 'Abdillah al Ganji ash-Shafi'i in Kifayatu 't-talib; 9. Abu 'l-Makarim 'Ala'ud-Din as-Simnani in al-'Urwatu'l-wuthqa; 10. Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani in Tahdhibu'l-tahdhib; 11. Ibn Kathir ad-Dimashqi in his Tarikh; 12. Jalalu'd-Din as-Suyuti; 13. al-Qastalani in al-Mawahibu 'l-ladunniyyah; 14. Ibn Hajar al-Makki in as-Sawa'iqu 'l-muhriqah; 15. 'Abdu'l-Haqq ad Dihlawi in Sharhu 'l-mishkat; and many others. [28]

It should be noted that all the names mentioned above are of Sunni scholars; and in Sunni usage, a hadith is called ''sahih'' when it is uninterruptedly narrated by persons of approved probity ('adil) who have perfect memory, does not have any defect, and is not unusual (shadhdh). [29]

If the above virtues are found in the asnad of a hadith but the memory of one or more of its narrators is a degree less than that required for sahih, then it is called "hasan " [30]

So when the Sunni scholars say that the hadith of Ghadir is sahih, they mean that its narrators are of approved probity (i.e., they do not have any defect in belief and deeds) and have perfect memory, and that this hadith has no defect and is not unusual.

I think you are overconfident for nothing, have you ever toughed about why majority of muslims dont share your beliefs? What you have putt forward is very easy to explane. Firstly shia  have always the tendency hiding the proper context when they make their clime. If they present the narations in its proper context it would have destroyed their arguments. So you have to take the linguisticall  Historical,  and textual context in consideration or ells any one can make any thing out of nothing.

Lets as now go through your evidence

Ali Zaki wrote: You have asked my all time favorite question! Thank you! The First Time " When the verse: "And warn thy nearest relations (26:214), was revealed, the Prophet ordered 'Ali to prepare food and invite the sons of 'Abdu'l-Muttalib so that he could convey to them the words of Allah. After the feast, the Prophet intended to talk to them, but Abu Lahab interfered by saying:"Verily, your comrade has entranced you". Upon hearing this statement all of them dispersed. The next day, the Messenger of Allah again called them for a feast. After they had finished with their food, the Prophet addressed them: "O sons of 'Abdul'l-Muttalib, I have brought for you the good of this world and the next, and I have been appointed by the Lord to call you unto Him. Therefore, who amongst you will administer this cause for me and be my brother, my successor and my caliph?" No one responded to the Prophet' s call except 'Ali who was the youngest of the congregation. The Prophet then patted 'Ali's neck and said: "O my people! This 'A1i is my brother, my successor and my caliph amongst you. Listen to him and obey him.'' [16] "

The Prophet(saw) said "..my successor and my caliph(leader) amongst you". I ask you to whom did he say this too? who was he addressing? it wasn't amongst the muslims if you follow the context, the prophet was inviting sons of Abd Al Muttalib to islam? It was only amongs them he said this.

The Second Time " Abu Dharr al-Ghifari says that one day he was praying with the Prophet when a beggar came to the Prophet's mosque. No one responded to his pleas. The beggar raised his hands towards heavens and said, "Allah! be a witness that I came to Thy Prophet's mosque and no one gave me anything". 'Ali (as) was bowing in ruku' at that time. He pointed his little finger, on which was a ring, towards the beggar who came forward and took away the ring. This incident occurred in the Prophet's presence who raised his face towards heaven and prayed: "O Lord! my brother Musa had begged of Thee to open his breast and to make his work easy for him, to loose the knot of his tongue so that people might understand him, and to appoint from among his relations his brother, as his vizier, and to strengthen his back with Harun and to make Harun his partner in his work. O Allah! Thou said to Musa, 'We will strengthen thy arm with thy brother. No one will now have an access to either of you!' O Allah! I am Muhammad and Thou hast given me distinction. Open my breast for me, make my work easy for me, and from my family appoint my brother 'Ali as my vizier. Strengthen my back with him". The Prophet had not yet finished his prayers when Jibril brought the above quoted verse. [17] "

This is what i call building a case out of straws. Where douse the prophet say Ali(ra) is my successor? is this what you call clear evidence?

The Third Time snippet unauthentic version

Ghadeer declaration is the most popular shia arguments to prove Ali(ra) nomination as caliph. But what they fail mention is the background behind this statement.  It was when an expedition and led by Ali(ra) return from its mission that some people from the expedition started to complain to the Prophet(saw) that Ali(ra) has done such and such. It was after that the prophet(saw) said this words "man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah". It was not in any way a declaration that Ali(ra) was hes successor. If the prophet(saw) wanted to declare Ali as caliph he could have done that during the Hajj on the day of Arafa and not after.

ALSO: The Messenger of Allah said to Ali: "Your position to me is like the      position of Aaron (Haroon) to Moses, except that there shall be no      Prophet after me" Sunni References: (1) Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English version, Traditions 5.56, 5.700 (2) Sahih Muslim, Arabic, v4, pp 1870-71 (3) Sunan Ibn Majah, p12 (4) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, p174 (5) al-Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 15-16 (6) Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, p309

Again the shia hide the reason why the prophet said this hadith. The prophet left Ali(ra) to command People while all other men followed, Ali(ra) did not wanted to be left behind. It was after that the prophet used this analogy to Haroon(as) who was left in in charge over his people while Musa(as) went to mount Sani. Even if we putt aside the context  answer me this was Haroon(as) successor to Moses(as)?

If, by " it all started with Uthman ibn affans(ra) death and hes killers." you are implying that Imam Ali(A.S.) had something to do with the assasination of Uthman (as Muawiya ibn abu Suffian did)  then please present your evidence for this.

Any one who climes Ali(ra) had something to do with Uthamns(ra) dead is not different from shias.

In his famous collection of speechs, "Nagul Balagha", Imam Ali says in sermon 22 about those who accussed him of participating or sactioning the killing of Uthman

sermonis in nahjul-balaghah are pure fabrications it was written many generations after Ali(ra) and the author doesn't give any chain of transmission, which makes the books worthless as historical evidence 

I aprreciate your viewpoint.

With due respect, neither of us are religious scholars (at least I know I am not). In this regard, I would appreciate if you would quote the sources (scholarly sources) of your opinion, as I have done. If we are just going to give our opinions, as the British say, 'higly-piggly', then this discussion will not really go anywhere.

In regards to your comments on the Hadith of Ghadir, I would like to give some further credence to my assertion.

According to the following Sunni scholarly works;

al-Suyut.i, al-Durr al-Manthur, Vol. II, p. 256; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah, Vol. II, p. 14; al-Hamawini, Fara'id al-simtayn, Chapter 12; al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad, Vol. VIII, p. 290; al-Suyuti, al-Itqan, Vol. II, p. 31; al-Khwarazmi, al-Tarikh.

The following Ayat, which was the last Ayat of the Quran was revealed immediately after the decleration of Ghadir.

" Today I have perfected for you your religion, completed for you My bounty, and chosen Islam for you as religion. (5:3)"

As we know, the hadith of Ghadir includes the statement that,

" O you people! Know it well that Jibril came down to me several times bringing me orders from the Lord, the Merciful, that I should halt at this place and inform every man, white and black, that 'Ali, the son of Abu Talib, is my brother and my wasiyy (successor) and my caliph".

Putting aside further academic research, doesn't it seem to be logical that "Today" is refering to the day and the perfection, bounty and completion are the descriptive adjective refering to the important event that occured on the day which is referenced.

Was there anything else that may have occured on that day which would meet all these qualification (i.e., perfection, bounty and completion of the religion)?

If the purpose of the verse was to convey some limited authority given to Imam Ali (a.s), would not the time limit for that authority have been specified?

I don't understand your statement " If the prophet(saw) wanted to declare Ali as caliph he could have done that during the Hajj on the day of Arafa and not after." Why? Are you restricting the authority of the Prophet? Does the Holy Quran not specify that" "The Prophet has a greater claim to the souls of the believers than the believers themselves."(33:6)" Again, this authority is not restricted to any time or place, and extends even to the day of Judgement.

To further support this

Ibn Jarir, on the authority of Qubaysah ibn Abi Dhu'ayb that he said: Ka'b said: "Had this verse been revealed on other than this community, they would have taken the day of its revelation as a feast in which they meet."! Then 'Umar said: O Ka'b, which verse you mean? He replied: "This day have I perfected your religion for you." 'Umar said: I know the day and place in which it was revealed... that was on Friday, on 'Arafat Day, and both of them are celebrated by us as a feast, thanks to Allah.[98]

CONTINUED

HERE IS MORE EVIDENCE

Whoever considers me his master, then Ali is his master. (He said it) at the end of the Farewell Pilgrimage, when it was confirmed that Ali would succeed, and many people congratulated him on that, including Abu Bakr and Umar who were among the well-wishers, and who were quoted as having said to the Imam, Well done, Ibn Abi Talib, overnight you have become a master of all the believers." [64]

[64]

Musnad, Ahmed Hanbal, vol 4 p 281
Siyar al Amin, al Ghazali, p 12
Tadhkirat al Awas, Ibn al Jawzi, p 29
Al Riyadh al Nazarah, al Tabari, vol 2 p 169
al Bidayah wan Nihayah, vol 5 p 212
Tarikh, Ibn Asakir, vol 2 p 50
Tafsir, al Razi, vol 3 p 63
al Hawi lil Fatawi, al Suyuti, vol 1 p 112

In regards to your statement" was Haroon(as) successor to Moses(as)?" In the case of most (if not all) prophets, they nominated a succesor. Haroon inherited the authority (Imamate) over the jews whenever Musa was not present, for example, when Moses was receiving the ten commandments on Mount Sinai. Although the question of whether or not Haroon was a rasool, nabi, imam, all of these or some of them is up for debate. What is clear is that he certainly was designated as an Imam over the community in Musa's absence.

We must ask ourselves why the Prophet Muhammad says that "You are like Haroon was to Musa". If it is in regards to some limited, or restricted form of authority then why did he repeat this same hadith at several times and different occassions? The key for a sincere beliver to understand the reason for this repitition is the decleration of Ghaddir, which is why he repeats it again on that day.

In addition, the prophet (a.s.) died approx 70 days after this declaration. During those seventy days, after this statement was made, did he give any additional hadith, or receive any additional revelation which would circumscribe the authority give to Imam Ali (a.s.) at Ghadir?

If this incident was in reference to some past incident, please provide the sources for this so that the credibility may be ascertained.

REGARDING YOUR COMMENT

" The Prophet(saw) said "..my successor and my caliph(leader) amongst you". I ask you to whom did he say this too? who was he addressing? it wasn't amongst the muslims if you follow the context, the prophet was inviting sons of Abd Al Muttalib to islam? It was only amongs them he said this."

Is not a successor the person that will inherit authority, not one who current holds that authority? What does Imam Ali (a.s.) inherit? If it is the authority ( " Listen to him and obey him" ) of only these people after the death of the prophet, then what about people like Abu Talib (and others) who died before the prophet? Also, if it means some type of current authority, then how can this be while the prophet is still alive?

This is an issue of common sense. If someone is designated as the Caliphate after me, it mean the Caliphate of the Muslims. After all, didn't Omar and Abu Bakr refer to themselves as Caliphate Rasool. If the prophet already said that Ali was the Caliphate Rasool (this is the precise meaning of "my Caliphate"), then how can they claim that title for themselves.

Salam

Salaam

One issue about Haroon I wanted to point out: Prophet Haroon was not the Imaam or leader over the Jews after Musa's death.

So it seems to me quite strange how the Prophet's saying could carry any weight after his death, considering this fact.

Yes Jello, I agree. Please answer these questions so that I may understand your viewpoint better.

1.) What is the explanation of the Sunni scholars as to why, on several occasions the prophet (a.s.) refered to Imam Ali in this way (see page 5)? Could you please quote your sources in your answer.

2.) During the decleration of Ghaddir, why does the prophet (a.s.) say" man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah" before saying that Imam (a.s.) is like Haroon was to Musa..."

3.) Why did the companions, including Omar and Abu Bakr congratulate Imam Ali (a.s.) on being declared, "Amir al Mumminin" or, Master of all the Believers (see page above for sources) if their understanding was something other than the obvious one (i.e., that Imam Ali (a.s. ) had inherited the authority of the prophet (a.s.) as Haroon inherited the authority of Musa)

4.) If this authority given was only valid during the life of the Prophet (a.s.), then does that mean the Imam Ali (a.s.) had authority over the Prophet (a.s.) while he was still alive and among the community? I ask this question because, unlike Musa, the prophet (a.s.) did not leave his community after giving this authority to Imam Ali (a.s.).

Salaam

Salaam

We need to see the implications of the phrase " man kuntu mawlah fa Ali mawlah".

For anyone who knows the least of Arabic and would have taken "mawla" to mean "Imaam" (as Shias are pushing for this meaning), then what the Prophet is basically saying is that He himself and Ali are both Imaams at the same time. And there is absolutely no other explanation that can be given to this.

About Haroon, our Shia friends can come up and give us hundreds of similitudes between Haroon and Musa and say that Muhammad and Ali were the same in these hundreds of ways. But there is absolutely no way that this can be taken as Ali is Muhammad's succesor after his death, simply because this never happened,a nd even according to Shias, the inheritor of Musa was another person. Would it not be the most obvious of all things, for Allah to keep Haroon alive after Musa, so that the similitude in this case can be seen?

Personally speaking, I believe that the Shia-Sunni discussion should not pick up here, but at a more conceptual level. Let us see what Ali Zaki says about this. If he objects, I will explain the reasons for me taking this position.

Salam Jello,

I appreciate your feedback, however, you have not answered any of my questions.

If you saw that 'mawla' means something else, then what? If you believe that the prophet was masoom (sinless), then he could not declare something that would only be a source of confusion and discord (namely that both the prophet (a.s.) and Imam Ali (a.s.) were concurrent Imams).

As you know, there have been hundreds of Shia books written about this incident, however, I've asked the questions because I'm interested in a different point of view on this incident (since you don't deny it happened). By the way, if 'mawla' does not mean 'imam', how about 'Amir al Mumminin' (which is what Omar and Abu Bakr called Imam Ali (a.s.) after the decleration).

I am happy to discuss things on any level you would like, however, I would like to stick to the topic and not get too far off track as a coutesy to those who are viewing these threads based on the subject title.

If you would like to start a new thread and call it something else, then myself and others can decide if we would like to participate.

Salam.

Ali Zaki wrote: I aprreciate your viewpoint. With due respect, neither of us are religious scholars (at least I know I am not). In this regard, I would appreciate if you would quote the sources (scholarly sources) of your opinion, as I have done. If we are just going to give our opinions, as the British say, 'higly-piggly', then this discussion will not really go anywhere.

Merely copying and pasting without veryfing the sources will not help either. I advice you to pick up the sources yourself and read the material you are trying to quote in context to be able at least to understand what you are trying to present here. 

According to the following Sunni scholarly works; al-Suyut.i, al-Durr al-Manthur, Vol. II, p. 256

This is what he said:

 " Ibn Mardaveh and Ibn Asakir barrated through a WEAK CHAIN from Abu Saeed Al-Khudri the he said: " When the Messenger of Allah (SAW) made Ali stand on the day of Ghadeer and he called for his Wilayah. Jibreel discended upon him with this verse (Today I have completed for you your religion)

and Ibn Maradaveh and Al-Khateeb and Ibn Asakir narrated through a WEAK CHAIN from Abu Huraira that he said: " When it was the day of Ghadeer Khum, which is 18th of Dhul Hijja, the Prophet (SAW) said: " Whoever I am his mawla , then Ali is his mawla" So Allah revealed (Today I have completed for you your religion)""

You would not know that Al-Suyuti declared these narrations, in his Tafseer as weak, if you had not referred to the book yourself. And you would not know that Al-Suyuti related a dozen other narrations stating that this verse was revealed in another occasion.

If time permits, I will Insha'allah translate for my brothers and sisters what Al-Suyuti reported in his Tafseer. Meanwhile I will just post below a reply for a similar claim made by Shia regarding Tafseer of Al-Razi:

You are here for quite a long time, didnt you know what exactly compelled Nabi make this Khutaba .... Allah compelled Prophet to make this annoucement. Imām Rāzī comments on the mode of revelation of this verse: ���������� ����������� ������� ��� ������� ������� ���� ��������. (O (honoured) Messenger! Whatever has been revealed to you from your Lord, convey (it all to the people). ���� ����� �� ��� ��� �� ��� ���� ���� ������, ���� ���� ��� ����� ��� ����, ����: �� ��� ����� ���� �����, �����! ��� �� �����, ���� �� �����. ����� ��� ��� ���� ���, ����: ����� �� �� ��� ��� ����! ����� ����� ����� �� ���� ������. ��� ��� ��� ���� ������� �� ���� ����� �� ��� ��� ���� ����. �This verse has been revealed to stress �Alī�s excellence, and when the verse was revealed, the Prophet (��� ���� ���� ���� ����) caught hold of �Alī�s hand and said: One who has me as his master has �Alī as his master. O Allāh! Be his friend who befriends him, and be his enemy who is his enemy. (Soon) after this, �Umar (��� ���� ���) met him (�Alī (��� ���� ���)) and said: O Ibn Abī Tālib! I congratulate you, now you are my (master) and the master of every male and female believer. �It has been narrated by �Abdullāh bin �Abbās, Barā� bin �Āzib and Muhammad bin �Alī (��� ���� ����). Rāzī related the tradition in at-Tafsīr-ul-kabīr (12:49, 50). Ibn Abī Hātim Rāzī has copied Abū Sa�īd al-Khudrī�s tradition from �Atiyyah al-�Awfī in Tafsīr-ul-Qur'ān-il-�azīm (4:1172 # 6609) to point out that the verse (5:67) was revealed in praise of �Alī bin Abī Tālib (��� ���� ���). The following also related the tradition: i. Wāhidī, Asbāb-un-nuzūl (p. 115). ii. Suyūtī, ad-Durr-ul-manthūr fit-tafsīr bil-ma�thūr (2:298). iii. Ālūsī, Rūh-ul-ma�ānī (6:193). iv. Shawkānī, Fath-ul-qadīr (2:60). So, It was Allah the almighty who COMPELLED His Beloved Nabi to make this khuttaba. Wasalam

Subhanallah, the Rafidites have become so notorious for half-quotes that one cannot depend on almost anything they quote from the books of Sunnah.

Actually in the list of 10 causes of revelation mentioned by Razi in his tafseer as sayings of scholars of tafsir, this particular cause is the 10th and last:

"Scholars of Tafsir have mentioned many causes of revelation. The first is that this verse was revealed in the instance of stoning and retaliation as was previously mentioned in the story of the Jews. The Second cause is that it has been revealed because of the Jews' cristicism and making fun of the religion, and the Prophet [s.a.w.w] remained silent about them, thus this verse was revealed. Third: When the verse of choice was revealed, which is �O Prophet! say to thy wives:" (i.e 33:28), the Prophet [s.a.w.w] did not deliver this verse to them out of fear that they may choose this world, and thus it (i.e 5:67) was revealed. Fourth: It was revealed with regards to Zayd and Zaynab Bint Jahsh. Aisha �Radia Allahu Anha- said: Whoever claims that the Messenger of Allah [s.a.w.w] concealed part of what was revealed to him, then he has committed a great lie against Allah, for Allah has said: " O Apostle (Muhammad)! Proclaim (the Message)" and was the Messenger of Allah �tala- to conceal part of what was revealed to him he would have concealed His saying: "And you hide in your mind that which Allah was to bring to light" [33:37] Fifth: It was revealed with regards to Jihad, for the hypocrites hated it, so he used to withhold from urging them for Jihad. Sixth: When the saying of Allah has been revealed: "Revile not ye those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest they out of spite revile Allah in their ignorance." [6:108], the Messenger withheld from reviling their gods, so this verse was revealed, and He said: "Proclaim" i.e the faults / criticism about their gods and do not hide it, and Allah will protect you against them. Seventh: It was revealed with regards to the rights of Muslims , because in the Last Pilgrimage after he has declared the rulings and rituals of Hajj , he said: Have I not declared (it to you)?, they said: yes. He �peace and blessings be upon him � said: O Allah be my witness. Eighth: It has been narrated that he [s.a.w.w] rested under a tree in one of his journeys and hanged his sword on it, when a Bedouin came while he was sleeping and snatched the sword saying: "O Muhammad! Who will protect you against me!" , he said: " Allah" , so the hand of the Bedouin trembled, the sword fell from his hand, and he banged his head against the tree until his brains burst, so Allah revealed this verse and explained that he will protect him against people. Ninth: He used to fear Quraish , the Jews and the Christians, so Allah removed this fear from his heart with this verse. Tenth: This verse has been revealed to stress �Alī�s excellence, and when the verse was revealed, the Prophet (��� ���� ���� ���� ����) caught hold of �Alī�s hand and said: One who has me as his mawla has �Alī as his mawla. O Allāh! Be his friend who befriends him, and be his enemy who is his enemy. (Soon) after this, �Umar (��� ���� ���) met him (�Alī (��� ���� ���)) and said: O Ibn Abī Tālib! I congratulate you, now you are my mawla and the mawla of every male and female believer. This is the saying of �Abdullāh bin �Abbās, Barā� bin �Āzib and Muhammad bin �Alī (��� ���� ����).

You should know that even with these narrations being numerous, it is more fit to explain the verse as Allah �tala- assuring him of protection against the cunning schemes of the Jews and Christans and ordered him to announce the proclamation without having fear of them, this is because the context before this verse and after this verse is addressing the Jews and Christians, it would not be possible to throw verse in the middle making it foreign to what is before it and after it"

This is what Al-Razi mentioned in his tafseer word for word without deletion and in context. As one can see, that Al-Razi did not endorse the 10th cause of revelation as Smart's quote would make us think he did. Of course the context that the verse has been mentioned in the Quran is always ignored by Rafidites when snatching verses from the Quran to prove their doctrines as they did with verse of purification [33:33] and verse of wilaya [5:55]. To appreciate the point Al-Razi has made, I will include the verse before and after this particular verse we are studying:

" And if they had kept up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do. O Messenger! proclaim the (message) which hath been sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject Faith. Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people." [5:66-68]

As one can, see this verse has been revealed amidst verses relating to and addressing the Jews and the Christians, so it would not be befitting His Majesty that Allah most High would be vague in His Book and to jump from one point to the other without any prelude or link, that He would be talking about the Jews and Christians and then he would address the proclamation of Ali's Imamate and then he would come back to the Jews and Christians to tell them to follow that which has been revealed about Ali (r.a.a) and that Ali's Imamate would increase inordinancy and unbelief in the Jews and Christians!! Very confusing indeed.

Also, as is well known, the incident of Ghadeer occurred 3 or 4 months before the Prophet's death when all of Arabia has already subdued itself to the Prophet , even the Christians in Najran and Jews in Yemen. What is there for the Prophet to fear from proclamation when his followers have increased a hundred fold!! Rather this verse was revealed at a much earlier stage of the Prophetic era when Islam was still struggling for its survival, surrounded by many enemies.

Furthermore, Al-Razi does not provide any chain of narration to verify and support the view that the incident of Ghadeer was a cause of revelation for this particular verse.

As for the narration reported by Ibn Abi Hatim, its chain is as follows: my father told us: Uthman Ibn Khurzad told us: Ismail Ibn Zakariya told us: Ali Ibn Abis told us: from Al-Amash from Atiya Al-Awfi from Abu Saeed Al-Khudri.

Analysing the isnad we come to find out the following:

Ismail Ibn Zakariya Al-Kufi:

Al-Fadl Ibn Zeyad: I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about Abu Shihab and Ismail Ibn Zakariya. He said: both of them are trustworthy (thiqqa)

Abu Al-Hassan Al-Maymoni reported from Ahmad: As for the famous hadiths he narrates then his hadiths are close (to truth), good. However, the chest is not open for him, he is not known as such , meaning seeking hadith.

Al-Nasai said: I hope that there is no problem with him.

Abu Yahya narrated from Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: he is weak.

Al-Nasai said in Jarh wa Tadeel: he is not strong

Ali Ibn Abis:

Yahya Ibn Maen said: He is nothing. And such said Ibrahim Ibn Yaqub Al-Jozqani, Al-Nasai, and Abu Al-Fath Al_Azdi

Ibn Hibban said: his mistakes were excessive such that he deserved to be deserted.

Al-Daraqutni said: He can be considered (i.e as a support for other narrations)

Al-Amash:

He is Mudalis and this narration he did not explicitly mention that he heard it from his sheikh.

Atiya Al-Awfi:

Al-Bukhari said: "Ali told me: from Yahya: Atiya and Abu Harun and Bishr Ibn Harb are all of the same status to me."

Ahmad said: " He is weak" and " It reached me that Atiya used to come to Al-Kalbi and ask him about Tafseer, and he used to give him the nickname (Kunya) of Abu Saeed, and then he would relate: Abu Saeed said" and " Abu Ahmad Al-Zubairi told me that he heard Al-Kalbi say: Atiya gave me the kunya of Abu Said."

Al-Nasai said:" He is weak"

Ibn Hiban said:" He heard from Abu Saeed hadiths and when he died he used to sit to Al-Kalbi, so if Al-Kalbi said: The Messenger of Allah �sala Allahu Alyhi Wa Salaam- said such and such he would memorize it and he gave him the kunya of Abu Saeed and narrated from him. So if it is said to him: Who narrated this to you? He would say: Abu Saeed narrated this to me. So they (i.e those who inquired) would think that he meant Abu Saeed Al-Khudri, when in reality he meant Al-Kalbi." And "It is not permissible to write his narrations except for being amazed about it." And then he related from Khaled Al-Ahmar that he said: " Al-Kalbi told me: Atiya told me: I have given you the kunya of Abu Saeed so I say: Abu Saeed narrated to us."

Accordingly Abu Saeed in this narration could be Al-Kalbi and not the companion of the Prophet �pbuh- Abu Saeed Al-Khudri.

Abu Saeed: Muhammad Ibn Al_Sae'b Al-Kalbi:

Al-Suyuti said in AL-Itqan regarding the Tafseer of Ibn Abbas � RA -: "And the weakest of its chains is the way of Al-Kalbi from Abu Saleh from Ibn Abbas. And if the narration of Muhammad Ibn Marwan Al-Sadi, the young, is added then this is the chain of lies, and quite often Al-Thalabi and Al-Wahidi narrate through it. Ibn Adi said in Al-Kamel : Al-Kalbi has some good narrations, especially through Abu Saleh, and he is known for Tafseer, and no one has Tafseer longer than his and more thorough than his, and second to him is Muqatil Ibn Sulayman, but Al-Kalbi is preferred over him for the bad beliefs of Muqatil."

Yaqut Al-Hamawi said in Mu'jam Al-Udaba regarding the Tafseer of Al-Tabari: " And he did not make reference to any untrusted Tafseer, for he did not include in his book anything from the book of Muhammad Ibn Al-Sa'eb Al-Kalbi nor Muqatil ibn Sulayman nor Muhammad ibn Umar Al-Waqidi for they are create suspicion(athina') in his view and Allah knows best."

Al-Bukhari mentioned in his Tarikh Al-Kabeer: "Muhammad Ibn Al Sae'b Abu Al- Nadhir Al-Kalbi was abandoned by Yahya Ibn Saeed, Ibn Mahdi and Ali told told us: Yahya Ibn Saeed told us: from Sufyan: Al-Kalbi told me: Abu Salih told me: everything I have told you is lies.

Al-Nasai said: He is not trusted and his hadith should not be written.

Ahmad Ibn Harun said: "I asked Ahmad Ibn Hanbal about Tafseer Al-Kalbi. He said: lies. I said: is it permissible for me to look into it. He said: No."

CONCLUSION: This narration has no credibility at all.

Bismillahi Al-Rahman Al-Raheem

Another proof for the fallacy of wisaya is what Ali -Raa- said to Abu Bakr -Raa- regarding the Bay�a: �"We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good that Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Apostle.� One notices that Ali (ra) did not make any reference to the declaration at Ghadeer Khum! He even said: �we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Apostle�; thus rendering the issue of his Khilafa to a supposition. Furthermore, if Abu Bakr�s Khilfa was illegitimate, if he was usurper of Ali�s -Raa- legitimate right to Imamate, then Ali would not refet to Abu Bakr�s -Raa- Khilafa as a �good that Allah has bestowed upon� Abu Bakr. Rather in this case it would be evil. The Prophet pbuh said: �Beware! If ever I give (by error) somebody something of his brother's right then he should not take it as I have only, given him a piece of Fire.� This is with regards to worldly matters; one�s camel or date tree so you could imagine how worse is the case with Khilafa!!

Also, Ali was late in given Bay�a for six months. This is either a correct action or a wrong action. If it was a correct action, then Ali should continue to refrain from giving Bay�a to Abu Bakr as he did in the first six months.

What about Ghadeer Khum?

In the Arabic language the word "mawla" has many different meanings:

Ibn Al-Atheer said: the term "mawla" has been repeatedly used in Hadith. He said: It is a name given to a large group: it is the master, the owner, the sayyid, the one bestowing a favour, the one who has freed a slave, the one who loves , the one who supports in war / disputes ,the neighbour, the follower , the cousin , the one who is part of a pact , the leader , the son in-law, the one freed , and the one whom the favour is bestowed upon. He said: "and all of these have been used in Hadith and the meaning should be used based on the context and every person who takes a responibility is a mawla and wali"

The term mawla has also been mentioned in the Quran:

������� ������� ���� ��������� ����������� ��������� �������������� ���������������� ������ ������ �������


And as you can notice, if we were to define "mawla" as "ameer" then the Believers cannot be the Ameers of the Prophet . Rather it means friends , backers which is opposite to enemy.

Furthermore, the Prophet did not leave any doubt for the meaning of the word mawla in his speech at Ghadeer Khum, for immediately after declaring that Ali as the mawla of the believers , the next phrase in his speech is " O Allah be mawla to his mawla and be enemy to his enemy". And as one might notice the Prophet used mawla in the speech to be the antonym of enemy.

The speech of the Prophet is self explanatory , one need note be an expert in the Arabic language to figure out what the Prophet meant by the word "mawla".

The background behind this statement

Narrated Imran Ibn Husayn (ra) : The Messenger of Allah pbuh sent an expedition and made Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra) a leader over them. Ali (ra) proceeded in the expedition and took a young woman (i.e from the spoils of the war), so they (i.e people in his army) considered this wrong from him and four of the companions of the Messenger of Allah pbuh agreed to inform the Prophet pbuh of what Ali did.

Imran continued: and whenever Muslims came from a journey they would start with the Messenger of Allah pbuh, they would look at him , greet him and then move to their belongings. When the expedition arrived they greeted the Messenger of Allah pbuh. Then one of the four (companions) said: "O Messenger of Allah! Did you not know that Ali has done such and such?!" So he (i.e the Prophet pbuh) turned away from him. And then the second stood up and said the same thing and he turned away from him, and then the third stood up and said the same thing and he turned away from him , and then the fourth stood and said: " O Messenger of Allah! Did you not know that Ali has done such and such?! The Messenger of Allah pbuh turned towards him with anger in his face and said: "What do you want from Ali?! Ali is from me and I from him. He is the wali (friend) of every believer" [Al-Hakim]

As can be seen by the actions of the Sahaba who showed enmity towards Ali (ra), the Prophet pbuh meant by this wilaya / muwala which is the opposite of enmity. This expedtion took place when the Prophet pbuh used to be in Hajj. The same notion was expressed by the Prophet pbuh after Hajj ,at Ghadeer Khum on his way back to Medina were the people who had shown enmity to Ali (ra) resided. Had the Prophet pbuh entended this to be a declaration of Ali's Imamate he would have certainly declared it at Mount Arafa' infront of the whole pilgrims who came from all over the Arabian penninsula and not have limited it to the inhabitants of Medina.

Even if one was to ignore the context of the Prophet�s pbuh speech the interpretation of mawla as leader is nonsense. How can the Prophet pbuh declare that �Whoever I am his leader then Ali is his leader� , and every Muslim knows that in the lifetime of the Prophet pbuh he was the one and only leader of Muslims and nobody else was the leader of Muslims!! The Khilafa of Ali , whether a Muslim says he deserved immediately or after some time, happened only after the death of the Prophet pbuh.

Also if the Prophet�s pbuh intended Khilafa by saying �whoever I am a mawla of his, then Ali is (also) a mawla of his�, then this will be known to all people especially the Ansar. Those who narrated this hadith from amongst the Ansar are many: Anas , Abu Saeed, Zayd Ibn Arqam, Abu Ayub, and Al-Bara. At the beginning, the Ansar were not in agreement with the Muhajirs in the selection of a Khalif after the Prophet�s pbuh death, they have gathered in Saqifa to make Baya to Saad Ibn Ubada. If one would accept the ill-minded thinking of the 12ers and think bad of the Sahaba, then one would say that the Ansars ignored this hadith which declares Ali�s Imamate to favour an Ansari leader. Since this did not happen and the Khilafa shifted to the Muhajirs, there is no reason for the Ansars to deny Ali�s Khilafa, if this is really what is meant by mawla in this hadith. Ansars made refuge for the Prophet pbuh in hi lifetime, they have fought all the surrounding Arab tribes for his sake, they have fought their allies of Jahiliya , the Jews, for his sake. They have spent their wealth, their lives for his sake. They have endangered their city, their families, their properties, their wealth, and their children for the sake of defending the Prophet pbuh. What stops them from doing the same for the sake of his wasi, his legitimate successor?! This is impossible. Hence, the word �mawla� in this hadith can only mean friendship / support / help which is the opposite of enmity.

Al-Razi said regarding tafseer of the verse: �This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion Al-Islam�:

�Our friends said: This verse is a proof for the invalidity of the Rafidites saying. This is because He � tala � has made it clear that the Kafirs are in despair of changing the religion. The emphasis is made in His saying (so fear them not, fear Me!). If the Imamate of Ali (ra) was explicitly dictated by Allah � tala � and by His Messenger pbuh through an explicit statement that is obligatory for everybody to follow, then the one wishing to change it or hide it would be in despair according to this verse. This means that none of the Sahabah would be able to deny this explicit statement nor would a report or tradition be known of it. So we know that the claim for the existence of such an explicit statement is a lie and that Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra) was not explicitly declared as an Imam�

Salaam

There is too much information that Ali Zaki pasted from the al-islam.org site. However, one thing is interesting in the last post of Page 5, and this has to do with Umar's statement about the day when Verse 5:3 was revealed. Umar says it was on the Day of Arafah. Now this is completely against Shia belief, which states that this Verse was revealed 9 days later. So perhaps if Ali Zaki could explain to us on what basis he or other Shias consider Umar's statement to be correct based on the obvious error in the statement.

Your asking for reference as if you can check them. But i will help you little and quote some of the authentic references and you will see in which context the prophet said  "man kuntu mawlah fa ali mawlah". Shia always quote fabricated and manipulated versions about ghader.

Imran ibn Hasin related a genuine tradition He said: "The Messenger of Allah raised and sent
  an army under the command of Ali b. Abi Talib. From the
  khums (one fifth of the share) received by him, Ali set
  aside a slave girl for himself. This was distasteful to
  some of his men and four of them decided to complain of
  this to the Prophet, Allah's blessing and peace be upon
  him and his posterity. On their return they approached
  the Prophet (pbuh&hf) and one of them stood up and said:
  O Messenger of Allah! Do you not see that Ali did so
  and so? The Prophet (pbuh&hf) turned away his face from
  him. Still another man stood up and repeated what his
  two colleagues had said and met the same reaction. Then
  the fourth man stood up and spoke like his predecessors.
  The Prophet, Allah's blessings and peace be upon him and
  his posterity, then turned to them with the signs of
  anger of his face and said: What do you want me to do
  with 'Ali? Surely, Ali is from me and I am from him, and
  after me he is the master of all the faithful. "-Musnad, Ahmad Hanbal, vol. 4 p. 438 Caption

similar tradition to the above are found in 1)Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, p. 650. 2)Tabari, The Last Years of the Prophet, IX, p. 111. 3) Mustadrak, Hakim, vol. 11 p. 11, and al Dhahabi in his. Talkhis al Mustadrak, admits its genuiness according to the
  standard set by Muslim.

Ayubi1187 wrote:   Imran ibn Hasin related a genuine tradition He said: "The Messenger of Allah raised and sent   an army under the command of Ali b. Abi Talib. From the   khums (one fifth of the share) received by him, Ali set   aside a slave girl for himself.

To do what with? To marry or just so she can do his chores?

   Kim...

Salaam

I was waiting to have a little more time in order to go through Ali Zaki's posts. So let us see what we have got here....

Ali Zaki says:

Please read your own books and you will find that some of the companions were good, and some of them were evil.

This is not an allegation that can only be leveled against us Sunnis. In the case of Shias, there are so many evidences of the majority of the followers of the Imaams in some cases not even being aware of the basic tenets of Shiaism, even though such issues should have been ingrained in the minds of the followers of the Imaams.

Also, the Shia see no problem in reporting whichever Hadeeth even from the "evil Companions" if it is favor of their arguments. So we need to know exactly what is the problem with an "evil Companion" if his statements are taken as true evidence ???

Besides the Shia allegation is not that "some of the Companions were good and some were bad" but that the overwhelming majority of them were bad save for 10 or 15 of them (and even in these cases, if we look at Shia scholars claims about some of these 10 or 15, still there would be some problems with them).

SEE ALSO

http://www.al-islam.org/ask/ - http://www.al-islam.org/ask/ (written by a former Sunni scholar)

Mister Tijani Samawi could not have been a "Sunni scholar" by any stretch of the imagination. My sister, at the age of 11, already knew things about Islaam that Tijani found out only after "ardous research". There are many examples of this in his other books, but it is obvious that his conversion is not really much different from that of other people to Shiism. His claim to have been a "Sunni scholar" is laughable, to say the very least.

OR, if you have a little time, this will certainly be sufficient

http://al-islam.org/murajaat/index.htm - http://al-islam.org/murajaat/index.htm

Another farce. There is absolutely no way that 112 letters could have changed hands between Egypt and Syria in the space of 180 days in the years 1910-1911, simply because the mailing service was not so fast, nor is it so fast even today. There was no MSN Messenger or Paltalk back then, so I do not know how this discussion could have taken place in the time frame as claimed.

The following Ayat, which was the last Ayat of the Quran was revealed immediately after the decleration of Ghadir.

" Today I have perfected for you your religion, completed for you My bounty, and chosen Islam for you as religion. (5:3)"

According to Shia Aalims, this portion of Verse 5:3 was not the last Ayat of the Quran, but other Ayats were also revealed after this. ( I am not saying this is the

Sunni view, but since Ali Zaki is a Shia, I am going along with his scholars).

As we know, the hadith of Ghadir includes the statement that,

" O you people! Know it well that Jibril came down to me several times bringing me orders from the Lord, the Merciful, that I should halt at this place and inform every man, white and black, that 'Ali, the son of Abu Talib, is my brother and my wasiyy (successor) and my caliph".

If the statement is correct and Jibril came to the Prophet "several times" ordering him to stop before the Prophet actually did, then by logic we would have to admit that the Prophet disobeyed Allah "several times"  before Allah warned him of the consequences if he did not obey. This is simply not acceptable to the Sunni mind, since no Companion should be made a vehicle for blaming the Prophet of point-blank disobeying Allah on "several occasions".

Besides, the hadith of Ghadeer as seen by the Shias is quite different than the hadeeth of Ghadeer as reported in Sunni sources. Ali Zaki gave us 19 Sunni traditionists and tried to show us that they have authenticated the same lenghty Ghadeer Hadeeth as reported by Shias. Since Ali Zaki has brought forward the books where these

Sunni traditionists have authenticated this Hadeeth, perhaps he can show us the page numbers and the exact comments these Sunni scholars used in saying this Hadeeth is Saheeh. If such is not the case, then perhaps Ali Zaki can show us what portion of the Ghadeer Hadeeth was accepted by them, so that we can in all fairness know exactly what these Sunni scholars said.

I don't understand your statement " If the prophet(saw) wanted to declare Ali as caliph he could have done that during the Hajj on the day of Arafa and not after."

The reason for us to make this statement is clear: The Shia claim that Ghadeer was the place where the Prophet could have a chance to address all the Muslims and inform them of his nomination of Ali as his succesor. This is wrong on many accounts:

1. Ghadeer was not a place where all Muslims would pass through, but only the portion of them that would take the road to the north of Makkah. There is absolutely no reason why the Muslims living in Makkah, or Yemen, or the areas to the south and east of Makkah, or closer than the 210 km distance between Ghadeer Khum and Makkah (such as the Muslims in Taif), would have to travel 6 days in the direction opposite to their destination, only to come back later along the same trail, a brainless act that would make them waste 11-12 days of their supplies.

2. The congregation of all Muslims for Hajj happens in Makkah, not in Ghadeer Khumm or any other place. It is more than obvious that any leader who wants to make an important statement about himself, his movement, etc., would choose the moment and place where all his followers are able to listen to his words. Ghadeer is not this place by a longshot, and it is obviously not almost 6 days after the Hajj is finished and many people are already back in their homes.

Putting aside further academic research, doesn't it seem to be logical that "Today" is refering to the day and the perfection, bounty and completion are the descriptive adjective refering to the important event that occured on the day which is referenced.

Was there anything else that may have occured on that day which would meet all these qualification (i.e., perfection, bounty and completion of the religion)?

To further support this

Ibn Jarir, on the authority of Qubaysah ibn Abi Dhu'ayb that he said: Ka'b said: "Had this verse been revealed on other than this community, they would have taken

the day of its revelation as a feast in which they meet."! Then 'Umar said: O Ka'b, which verse you mean? He replied: "This day have I perfected your religion for you

." 'Umar said: I know the day and place in which it was revealed... that was on Friday, on 'Arafat Day, and both of them are celebrated by us as a feast, thanks to Allah.

As I had mentioned before Arafat Day is the 9th of Dhul-Hijjah, while the Shia claim that this Verse was revealed on the 18th of Dhul-Hijja. Thus this report, if taken as correct, is actually in total contradiction to the entire story of Ghadeer as presented by the Shia, and would destroy the Shia arguments right from the beginning. The "today" would be a different day, and the occasion would obviously be a different occasion. Also, do note that according to Shia Imami belief, the Imaams have every authority to override and legally change what Prophet Muhammad had said (because they are maasoms and they are Prophets all but in name), so I do not know how the religion can be "perfected and completed" while the duties of Prophethood are being performed by people after the Muhammad's death.

I appreciate your feedback, however, you have not answered any of my questions.

About the issue of Haroon and Musa, I had already said that Haroon was not Musa's succesor after his death. As a matter of fact, Haroon died before Musa, so the issue never came up anyway. If the Prophet repeatedly mentioned this Hadeeth of "Haroon and Musa" without being aware of this, then the Shia are accusing the Prophet that he was not aware that the most obvious and important similitude to be proved by way of this statement never took place at all.

If the assertion is that Haroon was Musa's deputy while Musa was absent, then this is correct, but in those cases Musa was still the "Imaam" over his people, because he had not died yet. And in such cases, we would have to see each and every single person the Prophet had appointed as a leader for an expedition, or in his absence, or for a military campaign, etc. (all the cases when the Prophet was not present with a group of Muslims).

If you saw that 'mawla' means something else, then what? If you believe that the prophet was masoom (sinless), then he could not declare something that would only be a source of confusion and discord (namely that both the prophet (a.s.) and Imam Ali (a.s.) were concurrent Imams).

If the purpose of the verse was to convey some limited authority given to Imam Ali (a.s), would not the time limit for that authority have been specified?

Well, we are working with what has been reported from the Prophet. If "mawla" means "Imaam", then the conclusion is that both the Prophet and Ali were concurrent Imaams, because of the way the phrase was uttered. Just to make it simple, let us substitute "mawla" with "Imaam", then we have: "man kuntu Imaaman fa Ali Imaamun", and the phrase would be extremely clear, that both are Imaams at the same time.

This also comes into account on view of no time limit being specified, since there is no "after me" or any other statement as far as this Hadeeth is concerned, and considering that the Prophet is maasom, he surely knew what choice of words he was making. If Umar's and Abu Bakr's congratulation is meant to mean that they recognized him as the "Imaam of the time", then we have a huge problem in here as far as Imami Shia theology is concerned.

By the way, if 'mawla' does not mean 'imam', how about 'Amir al Mumminin' (which is what Omar and Abu Bakr called Imam Ali (a.s.) after the decleration).

Ali Zaki had showed us the previous Hadeeth, where Abu Bakr and Umar congratulated Ali. The title "Amir ul Muminin" did not occur there. Perhaps Ali Zaki can give us the Arabic text for us to see whether Umar, etc. used the title "Amir ul Muminin" in this case.

I am sure that Ali Zaki will object to many of the things presented here. Insha Allah we can further see into it as necessary.

Salam Jello.

I am grateful for your taking the time to read my posting and respond intelligently.

I would, first, like to make a general point. I AM NOT A SCHOLAR. I have a very limited ability to read and understand the noble Arabic language. For this reason, I have been careful to quote the sources for my opinions, and invite others to make their comments on these sources. But more importantly, I challenge other's to read the works of these scholars, rather than simply dismissing them because of things you have heard from others (who probably have not read them either.)

At this point, I would like to address your objections based, primarily on my own understanding.

There are so many evidences of the majority of the followers of the Imaams in some cases not even being aware of the basic tenets of Shiaism, even though such issues should have been ingrained in the minds of the followers of the Imaams.

Of course you will not hear any argument from me (or any other Shia) on this point. In fact, Imam Ali (a.s.) condemns his own followers more then his enemies. In fact, the greatest tragedy in human history, the murder of Imam Hussien ibn Abu Talib (a.s.) occured exactly because his shia abandoned him.

However, you cannot condemn a Imam because of the actions of his followers. If this were the case, then no leader in history would be considered legitimate.

REGARDING THE COMPANIONS AND THE 'FOLLOWERS' OF THE IMAMS

"They seek to impress upon you that they accepted Islam as a favour to you: Say: 'Do not count your Islam as a favour to me. Allah has done you a favour by guiding you to the faith, if you are truthful'" (49:17).

"And among them are those who listen to you until, when they leave you, they say to those who have been given knowledge: 'What did he say just now?' They are those upon whose hearts Allah has placed a seal. They follow their desires" (47:16).

"And a group from the believers disliked it. They dispute with you about the truth after it was made clear, as if they were being driven to death whilst they were watching it" (8:6).

"The desert Arabs say: 'We believe'. Say: 'You have not believed. Rather, say: 'We have submitted ourselves to Allah' for faith has not yet entered your hearts" (49:14).

"We have come to you with the truth, but most of you hate the truth" (43:78).

The shia are repeatedly condemned by the Sunnis for not respecting the companions of the prophet. As established above, the shia do not consider the companions sacred (and their is not basis, based on widely accepted hadith to do so), just as they don't consider the companions of the Imams sacred, or any other group. The only people that are sinless (masoom) are the prophets and Imams from the Ahl al'Bayt (as the Quran has testified to).

"According to Shia Aalims, this portion of Verse 5:3 was not the last Ayat of the Quran, but other Ayats were also revealed after this. "

I STAND CORRECTED, Chapter 70 v.1-3 were revealed later. THANKS
.

"If the statement is correct and Jibril came to the Prophet "several times" ordering him to stop before the Prophet actually did, then by logic we would have to admit that the Prophet disobeyed Allah "several times"  before Allah warned him of the consequences if he did not obey."

This, again, is incorrect. Please read the hadith again.

"O you people! Know it well that Jibril came down to me several times bringing me orders from the Lord, the Merciful, that I should halt at this place..."

Jibrial CAME DOWN to me several times BRINGING ME ORDERS is not the same as Jibril came down several times ordering me to stop (which implies "Stop where you are!"). If that was the case, then the prophet would have stopped at a different place, and not the place he was ordered to stop at. If that doesn't make sense, then imagine that you are on the freeway and you hear a siren behind you. The policeman says several times, "Get off the freeway at the next off ramp", and you continue driving to the next off ramp and then exit. Can someone accuse you of disobedience?

IN GENERAL, REGARDING THE ACCEPTENCE BY THE HADITH OF GHADEER KHUMM BY SUNNI ULAMA.

I do not own these books (honestly), and do not know where (or if) they are online to provide the link to the source (which I would prefer). I can tell you that I have, in the past, looked up these hadith for myself in the books (when I had access to them from a Sunni mosque library)  mentioned and have found them to be there.

Regarding the commentary on these hadith, I don't expect that the Sunni scholars will agree with the Shia regarding the significance or meaning of them. Again, if someone can tell me if these books are online I will be happy to attempt to provide exact links.

REGARDING THE ISSUE OF ' AS HAROON WAS TO MUSA, EXCEPT THAT THERE WILL BE NOT PROPHET AFTER ME'

"Ali, the son of Abu Talib, is my brother, my executor (Wasi), and my
successor (Caliph), and the leader (Imam) after me. His position to me
is the same as the position of Haroon (Aaron) to Moses, except that
there shall be no prophet after me. He is your master after Allah and
His Messenger."

SOURCES:

- A'alam al-Wara, pp 132-133
- Tadhkirat al-Khawas al-Ummah, Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanafi, pp 28-33
- al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, by Noor al-Din al-Halabi, v3, p273

In fact, the prophet (a.s.) clarifys this point in this speech, by explaining that he (Ali) is your master (mawla) AFTER Allah and his messenger. Or, in other words, his authority comes after the authority of the messenger.

REGARDING OMAM AND ABU BAKR CONGRATULATING IMAM ALI

After his speech, the Messenger of Allah asked every body to give the oath of allegiance to Ali (AS) and congratulate him. Among those who gave him the oath were Umar, Abu Bakr, and Uthman. It is narrated that Umar and Abu Bakr said:

     "Well done Ibn Abi Talib! Today you became the leader (Mawla) of all believing men and women."

Sunni references:
(1) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v4, p281
(2) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50
(3) Mishkat al-Masabih, by al-Khatib al-Tabrizi, p557
(4) Habib al-Siyar, by Mir Khand, v1, part3, p144
(5) Kitabul Wilayah, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari
(6) al-Musannaf, by Ibn Abi Shaybah
(7) al-Musnad, by Abu Ya'ala
(8) Hadith al-Wilayah, by Ahmad Ibn `Uqdah
(9) Tarikh, by Khatib al-Baghdadi, v8, pp 290,596  from Abu Hurayra
... and more.

If you want to say that there is a difference (in Arabic) between mawla and Imam, this is true, however, I challenge you (again) to explain the difference between "Amir al Muminin" (which is used in Shia sources, and a few Sunni sources) and "Mawla al Muminin" (which is used in most Sunni sources).

ONE MORE POINT, AND THEN I HAVE TO GET BACK TO WORK!

"The Shia see no problem in reporting whichever Hadeeth even from the "evil Companions" if it is favor of their arguments. "

If the Shia were to quote only hadith from those sources they consider reliable, then there would be no basis for dialogue. The reason is we would each spend all our time criticizing the line of transmission and saying "we don't accept him as reliable" and the other would say "We don't accept him.", etc.

The Shia are quoting from your sources so that the traditions (hadith) quoted will be acceptable to you, not because the narrators are considered reliable to the Shia. Although, of couse, their are many narrators that are accepted by both Sunni and Shia, and the tradions (hadith) themselves are considered to be true by both sources.

Salam alakum wa rahmatullah hewah barakatuh

Salaam

Briefly I will comment now, while I go through the last of Ali Zaki's post...

Since the Ghadeer Hadeeth for example, has been transmited through so many Sunni chains, could I please know of the Shia chains through which the Hadeeth has been transmitted ?

Every major work of Shia hadith documents includes the hadith of Ghadir Khumm (as you can imagine), many relate it 10's of times through different chains of narration. Here are some of the major works of Shia hadith that contain the narrations.

NOTE- Page numbers are not included, as there are many pages for each work.

1.) Al-Kulaini in the book of Al-Kaafi

2.) Al-Siddooq in his work Mun Laa Yah'dharhu Al-Faqeeh

3.) Al-Tah'dheeb in Tah'dheeb Al-Ah'kaam AND Al-Istibsaar

4.) Al-Qummi in Mun Laa Yah'dharhu

and many more. BOTH Shia and Sunni scholars have written entire books which include hundreds of chains of narrations for this hadith

Salam zaki,

 Two questions for you.

1)Shia quote sunni hadeeth claiming them to be sahih or correct.Is there any shia book of hadeeth,which contains all sahih hadeeth?or you pick some hadeeth from your books and discard others?

2)Shia claim that Prophet had divine revelations,other than Quran.

But there are many verses in Quran that were pertinent to that time.
059.005
YUSUFALI: Whether ye cut down (O ye Muslim!) The tender palm-trees, or ye left them standing on their roots, it was by leave of Allah, and in order that He might cover with shame the rebellious transgresses.
This indicate the cutting of trees of banu quraiza.This verse do not contain any command important to us now.In fact the whole surah is about the distribution of wealth of banu quraiza,and how medinan should be given more share,

Chapter 29

67. Have they not seen that We have made (Makkah)a sanctuary secure, and that men are being snatched away from all around them? Then do they believe in B�til (falsehood - polytheism, idols and all deities other than All�h), and deny (become ingrate for) the Graces of All�h?
This refer to a time when dessert people killed each other,but mecca was safe.

For the protection of the Quraysh. The caravans to set forth safe in winter and in summer. So let them worship the Lord of this House. Who has fed them against hunger, and has made them safe from fear.) (106:1-4)

In the presence of other revealations,there was no need for these verses which point to local events.Because Quran is a message to all humanity.

Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Rahim

This is an interesting topic, and I would like to see it continue, But would like to make a point, then ask a question

1) There are many verse in the Quran and Hadith that command us to be united and not to create sects

"Be not among the Mushrikun i.e., those who create differences in Deen (Isalm) and become sects. Each (sectarian) party quite content with itself (that it is following the correct path)." (30:32)

"And those who create division in Deen (Islam) and become divided into sects, O Prophet (PBUH)! You have no part in them in the least." (6:159)

just a few examples

So the question is , How do we achieve unity as an Ummah? Many cinics amoung us say that this is not possible, that we must just try and destroy the other party so that our way will be the only one. Every member of every sect thinks that their way is the right way. But how to we obey the order of Allah(s.w.a) and be unified. There must be a way, otherwise Allah(s.w.a.) would not have asked us to do it, because Allah(s.w.a) is Al Adl (Justice). We, as muslims, are unique amoung religion, because unlike other religion, all muslims

A. Worship the same God (Allah s.w.a)

B. Have the same Holy Book (The Holy Quran)

C. Have the same Prophet(Muhammed b.p.u.h

D. Have the same Qibla(Mecca )

 Since we all have these in common, we must use these to try and fulfill the order of Allah(s.w.a). We must listen to the Prophet and obey him,  and not let our petty differences halt the discussion, and not insult each other, as I have seen in some of these posts. This is a discussion amoung brothers and sisters , not amoung enemies. Since none of us were alive at the time of Out Beloved Prophet (p.b.u.h), we never had the chance to hear his words directly from his mouth, We must rely on sources of narraration that are well known to be true and acceptable, and are never known to have fabricated hadith. Also , we must look at the big picture and look at events in context, not focus on one word, or one incident.

Here is my question

Some brothers were saying that the events of Ghadeer were not held to announce the Wilayat of Imam Ali (a.s.) . Then why did the prophet hold this event, because obviously it occured, no one denies that.

Also,

About the Battle of Camel, al-Hakim and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and others recorded that:

We were in the camp of Ali on the day of Battle of Camel, where Ali sent for Talha to talk to him (before the beginning of war). Talha came forward, and Ali told him: I adjure you by Allah! Didn't you hear the Messenger of Allah (S) when he said: `Whoever I am his MAWLA, this Ali is his MAWLA. O God, love whoever loves him, and be hostile to whoever is hostile to him'?" Talha replied: "Yes." Ali said: "Then why do you want to fight me?"

- al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, pp 169,371
- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, on the authority of Ilyas al-Dhabbi
- Muruj al-Dhahab, by al-Mas'udi, v4, p321
- Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v9, p107

Also,

Ahmad Ibn Hanbal recorded in his Musnad that:

Abu Tufayl narrated that He (Ali) gathered the people in the plain of Rahbah (on year 35 AH) and adjured in the name of Allah every Muslim male present there who had heard the proclamation of al-Ghadir from the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) to stand up and testify what they had heard from the Messenger on the Day of Ghadir. Thereupon thirty (30) men stood up and gave evidence that the Prophet grasped Ali's hand and said to the audience: "He (Ali) has superior authority over those who believe me to have superiority over their lives. O Allah! Love him who loves him and hate him who hates him." Abu Tufayl says that it was in a state of great mental agitation that he left the plain of Rahbah, for the Muslim masses had not complied with the tradition. He therefore called on Zaid Ibn Arqam and told him what he heard from Ali. Zaid told him not to entertain any doubt about it for he himself had heard the Messenger of Allah uttering those words.

Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v4, p370

Salaam

I would, first, like to make a general point. I AM NOT A SCHOLAR. I have a very limited ability to read and understand the noble Arabic language. For this reason, I have been careful to quote the sources for my opinions, and invite others to make their comments on these sources. But more importantly, I challenge other's to read the works of these scholars, rather than simply dismissing them because of things you have heard from others (who probably have not read them either.)

The reason why I objected to Tijani is because I have read parts of his works where he claims that Shias showed him things he did not know even though he was a scholar or places where he shows things to "Sunni scholars" that they never knew before. And I have asked real Sunni scholars the same questions, and they were able to answer them without any problem, in fact giving more explanations on the issue at hand. So there is obviously something or the other wrong with Tijani's claim of scholarship.

About Murajaat and whether the discussions actually took place, there are many criticisms about this that can be further examined. However, I do not think I need to get into this, unless Ali Zaki thinks it appropriate.

Of course you will not hear any argument from me (or any other Shia) on this point. In fact, Imam Ali (a.s.) condemns his own followers more then his enemies. In fact, the greatest tragedy in human history, the murder of Imam Hussien ibn Abu Talib (a.s.) occured exactly because his shia abandoned him.

In this case, I am not talking about the Companions of the Imaams in general, but those Companions of the Imaams who are relied upon by most of the modern Shia Aalims as upright and correct in their behavior. Still, it will be surprising to see that even some of these followers who are relied by Shias to bring us the actions, words, and knowledge of the Imaams cannot be Shia as understood by the Imami Shia scholars of today. A detailed treatment of this is perhaps beyond the scope of thsi thread.

REGARDING THE COMPANIONS AND THE 'FOLLOWERS' OF THE IMAMS

"They seek to impress upon you that they accepted Islam as a favour to you: Say: 'Do not count your Islam as a favour to me. Allah has done you a favour by guiding you to the faith, if you are truthful'" (49:17).

"And among them are those who listen to you until, when they leave you, they say to those who have been given knowledge: 'What did he say just now?' They are those upon whose hearts Allah has placed a seal. They follow their desires" (47:16).

"And a group from the believers disliked it. They dispute with you about the truth after it was made clear, as if they were being driven to death whilst they were watching it" (8:6).

"The desert Arabs say: 'We believe'. Say: 'You have not believed. Rather, say: 'We have submitted ourselves to Allah' for faith has not yet entered your hearts" (49:14).

"We have come to you with the truth, but most of you hate the truth" (43:78).

I will begin with Verse 43:78. I am not aware of how this can refer to the Companions, since the context of the Ayah is with reference to the Mujrimun in general. Allah says:

[43:74]  Verily, the Mujrimun (criminals, sinners, disbelievers, etc.) will be in the torment of Hell to abide therein forever.
[43:75]  (The torment) will not be lightened for them, and they will be plunged into destruction with deep regrets, sorrows and in despair therein.
[43:76]  We wronged them not, but they were the Zalimun (polytheists, wrong-doers, etc.).
[43:77]  And they will cry: "O Malik (Keeper of Hell)! Let your Lord make an end of us." He will say: "Verily you shall abide forever."
[43:78]  Indeed We have brought the truth (Muhammad SAW with the Qur'an), to you, but most of you have a hatred for the truth.
[43:79] Or have they plotted some plan? Then We too are planning.
[43:80] Or do they think that We hear not their secrets and their private counsel? (Yes We do) and Our Messengers (appointed angels in charge of mankind) are by them, to record.

If Ali Zaki wants to show that this is reference to the Companions in specific, then he will have to show us a good number of tafseers were this is mentioned. I am afraid that not even most of Shia commentators would take this Verse in the meaning Ali Zaki is trying to give it. Anyway, Insha allah we will see further into this matter.

Next is Ayah 47:16, its context being:

[47:16]  And among them are some who listen to you (O Muhammad SAW) till, when they go out from you, they say to those who have received knowledge: "What has he said just now? Such are men whose hearts Allah has sealed, and they follow their lusts (evil desires).
[47:17]  While as for those who accept guidance, He increases their guidance, and bestows on them their piety.
[47:18]  Do they then await (anything) other than the Hour, that it should come upon them suddenly? But some of its portents (indications and signs) have already come, and when it (actually) is on them, how can they benefit then by their reminder?
 
Again, how do we know that these are the Companions of the Prophet? If Ali Zaki maintains this, then he will need to:

1. Show us the tafseers were the Companions are specified as belonging to this group
2. Show us the stories where these Companions met "those who had received knowledge" and said things similar to those contained in this Ayah.

 I think we should discuss these two Ayats first, then we cam move on to the remaining three Ayats.

This, again, is incorrect. Please read the hadith again.

"O you people! Know it well that Jibril came down to me several times bringing me orders from the Lord, the Merciful, that I should halt at this place..."

Jibrial CAME DOWN to me several times BRINGING ME ORDERS is not the same as Jibril came down several times ordering me to stop (which implies "Stop where you are!"). If that was the case, then the prophet would have stopped at a different place, and not the place he was ordered to stop at. If that doesn't make sense, then imagine that you are on the freeway and you hear a siren behind you. The policeman says several times, "Get off the freeway at the next off ramp", and you continue driving to the next off ramp and then exit. Can someone accuse you of disobedience?

Insha Allah if I have the time, I will bring the references from Ali Zaki's Shia scholars about the specific things Jibril said to the Prophet before the Ghadeer Khumm event. In the meantime, I would like him to seriously look into how many people where actually present at the event and who was absent, and at the background of Ali's trip that he undertook to Yemen immediately before the Hajj.

IN GENERAL, REGARDING THE ACCEPTENCE BY THE HADITH OF GHADEER KHUMM BY SUNNI ULAMA.

I do not own these books (honestly), and do not know where (or if) they are online to provide the link to the source (which I would prefer). I can tell you that I have, in the past, looked up these hadith for myself in the books (when I had access to them from a Sunni mosque library)  mentioned and have found them to be there.

Regarding the commentary on these hadith, I don't expect that the Sunni scholars will agree with the Shia regarding the significance or meaning of them. Again, if someone can tell me if these books are online I will be happy to attempt to provide exact links.

I doubt that most of these books will be available online in English (or online in Arabic even). But still, Insha Allah it will be acceptable if I can get the verification of these from whichever source is available to me.

REGARDING THE ISSUE OF ' AS HAROON WAS TO MUSA, EXCEPT THAT THERE WILL BE NOT PROPHET AFTER ME'

"Ali, the son of Abu Talib, is my brother, my executor (Wasi), and my
successor (Caliph), and the leader (Imam) after me. His position to me
is the same as the position of Haroon (Aaron) to Moses, except that
there shall be no prophet after me. He is your master after Allah and
His Messenger."

SOURCES:

- A'alam al-Wara, pp 132-133
- Tadhkirat al-Khawas al-Ummah, Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanafi, pp 28-33
- al-Sirah al-Halabiyyah, by Noor al-Din al-Halabi, v3, p273

In fact, the prophet (a.s.) clarifys this point in this speech, by explaining that he (Ali) is your master (mawla) AFTER Allah and his messenger. Or, in other words, his authority comes after the authority of the messenger.

This particular series of references will need to be checked, as I am afraid that perhaps Ali Zaki has not done the verification by himself to see whether they meet the Sunni criteria. Still, if this narration is correct, why did the Prophet Muhammad mention two qualities of Ali with respect to Muhammad that Haroon did not possess with respect to Moses ??? Again, I am forced to reiterate that the Prophet seemed to know some of the relationships between Haroon and Moses and how they were applicable between himself and Ali (and also that there is not another Prophet after Muhammad), but on the most crucial and elementary link, he was not aware that the Haroon and Musa similitude was not applicable.... why ???

One more issue to consider about "No Prophethood" after Muhammad (SAW). A good number of Shias I have discussed with consider the post of Imaamah to be higher than the post of Prophethood in general. Also, many consider that the Imaams are higher than Prophets, which would obviously entail that an Imaam is a Prophet plus something additional to that. This is also obvious from the fact that the Imaams in some Shia Ahadeeth explain that they are higher than Musa, or Ibrahim, or Jesus, and that they possess all the qualities, miracles, and knowledge of the previous Prophets. So I believe that this puts a question mark over the "No more Prophethood" claim by the Imami Shias.

REGARDING OMAR AND ABU BAKR CONGRATULATING IMAM ALI

After his speech, the Messenger of Allah asked every body to give the oath of allegiance to Ali (AS) and congratulate him. Among those who gave him the oath were Umar, Abu Bakr, and Uthman. It is narrated that Umar and Abu Bakr said:

     "Well done Ibn Abi Talib! Today you became the leader (Mawla) of all believing men and women."

Sunni references:
(1) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v4, p281
(2) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50
(3) Mishkat al-Masabih, by al-Khatib al-Tabrizi, p557
(4) Habib al-Siyar, by Mir Khand, v1, part3, p144
(5) Kitabul Wilayah, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari
(6) al-Musannaf, by Ibn Abi Shaybah
(7) al-Musnad, by Abu Ya'ala
(8) Hadith al-Wilayah, by Ahmad Ibn `Uqdah
(9) Tarikh, by Khatib al-Baghdadi, v8, pp 290,596  from Abu Hurayra
... and more.

If you want to say that there is a difference (in Arabic) between mawla and Imam, this is true, however, I challenge you (again) to explain the difference between "Amir al Muminin" (which is used in Shia sources, and a few Sunni sources) and "Mawla al Muminin" (which is used in most Sunni sources).

If the Companions and the rest of the Muslims took an oath of allegiance with respect to Ali, then the Shia would have to say that the Ghadeer event took  many days to complete... Why ? Because according to the Shia claim, 100000 people were present, and each one had to individually take the oath of allegiance at Ali's hand. Now, an oath of allegiance is a highly important event, not merely based on "congratulation". The Shia may check how the Prophet (SAW) took the oath of allegiance from people during his lifetime, when they became Muslims, or at other important occasions (such as Hudaybiyah). And if the same technique was used in this case (as the Shia claim) then this would would be the "Days of Ghadeer" rather than the "Day of Ghadeer". However, we do not find any such historical trace among Sunni or Shia history about a formal bayah, and even if such a thing is implied, the time it would take is not considered in the whole of the explanation.

I think we should consider this issue above before moving to the difference between Amir and Mawla in linguistic terms.

Salams to br. Jello and others

Jello Said

One more issue to consider about "No Prophethood" after Muhammad (SAW). A good number of Shias I have discussed with consider the post of Imaamah to be higher than the post of Prophethood in general. Also, many consider that the Imaams are higher than Prophets, which would obviously entail that an Imaam is a Prophet plus something additional to that

I have been in the Shia community for 12 years and have talked to hundreds, both laymen and scholars. I'm sorry buy I have never heard this. No shia that I have ever met or talked to has said that the position of the Imamate is higher than prophethood or that there was any human being who received divine revelation after Prophet Muhammed (p.b.u.h). If you can find anything like this in any Shia book, written by a well known scholar of Shia Islam.Please don't start setting up strawmen. Let's stay on topic, I thought we were talking about Ghadir Khum. Wa Salama

Salaam

Well, I am answering to the general points raised by Ali Zaki. Insha Allah later I will gather all the evidences from Shia laymen and scholars about my assertion, but I suppose this should be for a later time.

Wa Salaam

Salam alakum Jello.

Again, I am impressed with the detail and care of your responses. InshahAllah we will learn from eachother.

I want to address some of your points and, InshahAllah, I will address others later.

I WANT TO ADDRESS THIS ONE FIRST, AS IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE.

" A good number of Shias I have discussed with consider the post of Imaamah to be higher than the post of Prophethood in general. Also, many consider that the Imaams are higher than Prophets, which would obviously entail that an Imaam is a Prophet plus something additional to that. This is also obvious from the fact that the Imaams in some Shia Ahadeeth explain that they are higher than Musa, or Ibrahim, or Jesus, and that they possess all the qualities, miracles, and knowledge of the previous Prophets. So I believe that this puts a question mark over the "No more Prophethood" claim by the Imami Shias."

This is a comment I have heard often from the Sunni brothers I have spoken with. Personally, I have never read any book by a mainstream Shia author or heard any knowledgeable Shia scholar say that any of the Imams are HIGHER than a prophet. Of course, among the common people, I have heard strange and exagerated statements regarding the Imams which are untrue. These statements are made due to a lack of knowledge, however, there is a basis for it. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". This applies in physics as well as soceity in general.

In my opinion, 1400 years of oppression of the followers of the school of Ahl al'Bayt has casued them to (sometimes) exaggerate the positive qualities of the Imams to attempt to conterbalance the lies and negative qualities falsely attributed to them by their enemies. This situation is unhealthy and unnatural, however, it has a cause and that cause must be considered in it's historical context to explain this phenomenon.

This, or course, does not justify any false claims (whether positive or negative) made about the Imams. As Imam Ali (a.s.) said, ""There are two groups who will suffer humiliating death, and I am not responsible for them (since I disdain their deeds): those who exceed the lawful limits of love for me and are Ghullat (extremists), and those who, for no reason whatsoever, are hostile to me. I hate those who extol my position beyond its proper limit, just as Christ hated the Christians."

The Imams are imams, not prophets. Their knowledge and authority come AFTER the Holy, Blessed Prophet Muhammad (a.s.). They do not bring a NEW message as a prophet does. Their duty is only to lead the Umma, to clarify the principles of the religion of Islam and to serve as the proof of Allah (s.w.a.) on the earth (Hujja).

REGARDING TIJANI AND 'AL-MARJAAT' (The Right Path)

This is what I don't understand. If you have read these books, and would like to criticize their CONTENT, then I would love to hear your constructive criticism. However, it seems that you just want to make ad homoneim arguments against the authors or details regarding the circumstances of mail delivery system in the early 1900's. I don't see how this is relevent to the overall point.

I have personally met Sayed Tijani, and questioned him regarding his early experiences as a Sunni scholar. In addition, I have many friends who have also met and questioned him and I have not heard one person (Shia, Sunni or Sufi) who question the autobiographical portions of his book. He also expalins in his book why some of the 'basic' things did not come up in his education as a scholar. I encourage you to read his book, as he addresses many of your concerns.

HIS BEST (in my opinion) WORKS

'AND THEN I WAS GUIDED'

http://al-islam.org/guided/ - http://al-islam.org/guided/

' The Shi'ah are (the real) Ahl al-Sunnah'

http://al-islam.org/real/ - http://al-islam.org/real/

Regarding Al-Marajaat, Sayed Sharif al-Deen al-Musawayi was a well known scholar at his time (and many other books have been written about him), as was the Sunni Alim Maulana Shaykh al­Islam. I will provide the link again, in case you change your mind about your analysis.

http://al-islam.org/murajaat/index.htm - http://al-islam.org/murajaat/index.htm

REGARDING THE VERSES OF QURAN CITED CONDEMING PEOPLE WHO WERE WITH THE PROPHET.

I will be happy to locate Tafsir (inshahAllah) for these verses, as it is not permissible for someone who is not qualified to interpret the Quran. My intention in quoting the verses was not to interpret their specific meaning. My intention was to show that (which is obvious from the verses) that there were people ("they accepted Islam..., "those who listen to you..., "a group from the believers..." "The desert Arabs (who) say: 'We believe'...") that there were people around the Prophet Muhammad (a.s.) who professes Islam that were rebuked and condemned by Allah (s.w.a.). This much is obvious, and can be accepted at face value.

If you say that "All the Companions were good" and your define compainons as all of the Muslims who were with the Prophet (a.s.) during his lifetime, then the Quran clearly contradicts this. If you define the Companions more narrowly, then a more careful examination would be neccessary.

I will consider your points in more detail later, inshahAllah

Salam

Salam

Personally, I have never read any book by a mainstream Shia author or heard any knowledgeable Shia scholar say that any of the Imams are HIGHER than a prophet.

In this respect, we would need to gather the opinions of all leading Shia Aalims throughout the centuries and see for example: Did they consider Imaam Ali to be higher than Musa, or Imaam Husayn to be higher in status than Ibrahim, etc., and how many of them subscibed to which viewpoint. I will provide one small example, but Insha Allah we can discuss this at a later time further...

I obtained a copy of Khomeini's "Islamic Government" from http://www.wandea.org.pl/khomeini-pdf/hukumat-i-islami.pdf - http://www.wandea.org.pl/khomeini-pdf/hukumat-i-islami.pdf . I think it is good enough for the purposes of this discussion, and if there are objections with regards to my source, we will deal with them later.

We have Khomeini's declaration: To prove that government and authority belong to the Imam is not to imply that the Imam has no spiritual status. The Imam does indeed possess certain spiritual dimensions that are unconnected with his function as ruler. The spiritual status of the Imam is the universal divine viceregency that is
sometimes mentioned by the Imams (peace be upon them). It is a viceregency pertaining to the whole of creation, by virtue of which all the atoms in the universe humble themselves before the holder of authority. It is one of the essential beliefs of our Shi'i school that no one can attain the spiritual status of the Imams, not even the cherubim or the prophets. In fact, according to the traditions that have been handed down to us, the Most Noble Messenger and the Imams existed before the creation of the world in the form of lights situated beneath the divine throne; they were superior to other men even in the sperm from which they grew and in their physical composition.  Their exalted station is limited only by the divine will, as indicated by the saying of Jibra'il recorded in the traditions on the mi'raj: �Were I to draw closer by as much as the breadth of a finger, surely I would burn.� The Prophet himself said: �We have states with God that are beyond the reach of the cherubim and the prophets.� It is a part of our belief that the Imams too enjoy similar states, before the question of government even arises. For example, Fatima also possessed these states, even though she was not a ruler, a judge, or a governor.

Of course, the above really does not need much explanation, as Khomeini quoted a tradition from the Prophet to support his view, and Khomeini declares that the Maasomen were superior "to other men" without exception from "before the creation of the world in the form of lights". Notice that the Shia belief does not hold that Prophets Musa, or Jesus, or Ibrahim, or other Prophets were created from light, etc., but this is a distinction only applicable to the 14 Ma'asoomen.

To be fair, I will include what the translator Hamid Algar comments: " The statement here that no one can attain the spiritual status of the Imams, not even the cherubim or the prophets thus carries the strict sense that the Imams are superior to those prophets whose mission lacked the dimension of governmental leadership". Still, this would  clearly mean that according to Algar (not Khomeini, for he did not mention this), Imaams are higher in status than the vast majority of Prophets, for very few Prophets actually had governemnetal leadership. (Actually, this would contradict some other statements I have heard from some Shias that all Prophets are Imaams, but I suppose this will have to wait).

If Ali Zaki has something to say about this, Insha Allah I would like to hear about it.

However, it seems that you just want to make ad homoneim arguments against the authors or details regarding the circumstances of mail delivery system in the early 1900's. I don't see how this is relevent to the overall point.

Now about Tijani specifically, I have had the chance to read "Then I Was Guided". His arguments are mostly in line with normal Shia debators, and save for his personal anectodes, there is really nothing shockingly new in this book, as far as I am concerned. Of course, in order to answer each and every single issue, it would be way outside of the scope of this thread.

About Al-Murajaat, the reason for criticising the mailing system, etc. is that if this discussion between the two never really took place, then the basis of the book is false and it should not have been written in the form of a debate/discussion. If it was another book about all these issues written in a normal format, then that is another matter, but the incidents surrounding the book are very important to consider in this case.

If you say that "All the Companions were good" and your define compainons as all of the Muslims who were with the Prophet (a.s.) during his lifetime, then the Quran clearly contradicts this. If you define the Companions more narrowly, then a more careful examination would be neccessary.

The definition of Companion as far as Sunni Islam is concerned is quite clear: A "Sahabi" is a person who became Muslim during the Prophet's life, met the Prophet while the Prophet was alive, and died while in the state of Islaam, either before or after the Prophet. Thus, the very definition of "Sahabi" in Sunnism does not allow for apostasy, hypocrisy, or any other similar evil, because in this case the individual would not be a "Sahabi", simply beacuse he died as a non-Muslim. In any case, this issue will probably need a bit more discussion later.

THE POSITION OF ISLAMIC SCHOLARSHIP REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE IMAMS AND OTHER PROPHETS.

First of all, I certainly do accept Imam Khomeni (r.a.) as a legitimate scholar, although much of the details of this statement need to be understood in the context of his particular scholarly tradition (i.e,, the Urfani). Dr. Hamid Algar is also a very knowledgeable scholar, and is an excellent source of information on Shia Islam (he is also a proffesor at a secular universtity, U.C. Berkeley).

To understand the meaning of this, one must understand that, from our perscpective (i.e. in relations to their infallibility, the neccessity of their followers to follow their guidance, etc.) their is NO difference between any of the prophets.

And We did not send any apostle but that he should be obeyed by Allah's permission . . . (4:64)

The Knower of the Unseen; so He does not reveal His secrets to any except to him whom He chooses for an apostle; for surely He makes a guard to march before him and after him, so that He may know that they have indeed delivered the messages of their Lord, and He encompasses what is with them and He takes account of everything. (72:26-28) 

All the prophets are free from error or sin, and they all must be obeyed. However, two issues must be considered. The two issues are, 1.) This mission of each messenger or Imam is different based on the circumstances of his time and Umma and not all prophets or Imams are given the same type of mission and 2.) Each prophet or Imam has a specific degree of ability, or stength based on his spiritual (or metaphysical) nearness to Allah (s.w.a.)

Sayed Tabatabi in 'Al-Mizan' gives an excellent discourse on this point in his tafsir of Surat Al Baqara, v.134, and I will just include a small portion of it for explanation.

http://www.almizan.org/Tafseer/baqarah30.asp - http://www.almizan.org/Tafseer/baqarah30.asp

I have heard from some Shias that all Prophets are Imaams

Of course, this is incorrect because a person must have an 'Ummah' to be an Imam, and there are many examples in the Quran of prophets that did not have an Ummah or any leadership position.

The definition of Companion as far as Sunni Islam is concerned is quite clear: A "Sahabi" is a person who became Muslim during the Prophet's life, met the Prophet while the Prophet was alive, and died while in the state of Islaam

I have heard many definitions of the Sahaba among the Sunni's, and I am sceptical that there is one agreed upon definition. Also, can you please explain (and give some references for) the Sunni position regarding the qualities of the Sahaba (I don't want to make assumptions). If this is given, I will try (inshahAllah) to explain and give reasons and acceptable references for the Shia position on this.

Salam

Salams to all sincere brs and srs,

Let's refocus, please! My purpose is not to spout my positions to people, my purpose is to discover truth, otherwise this is just a waste of time for me. If anyone out there can convince me that the Prophet Muhammed(p.b.u.h) whom I accept (and who all muslims accept) as my Master and Leader, and had commanded the people to select the leader after them, thru a popular election process, then please bring widely accepted and credible evidence, and I will accept this position (i.e. become Sunni). I am not convinced yet, for the following reasons

- Did the Prophet(p.b.u.h.) ever use a popular election to decide the leadership of the muslims ?

I am not a scholar of Islamic history, but I have read quite a few books and I have never heard of a single instance of the Prophet(p.b.u.h) ever doing this. The Prophet taught us by his example, and everything that he expected us to do, as muslims, he also did , and repeated it on many occasions. This may seem an obvious point, but I will give examples

• The Prophet expected us to pray, fast, make the hajj, give charity, have good manners, etc. He did all of these things and repeated them many times in front of the people because he knew he would be alive for only a short time and the Ummah of later times would not get to see him personally perform these actions, so he was instructed by Allah(s.w.a.) how to carry out these things and he carried them out in public, repeatedly as he was instructed by his Lord and Creator.
• Does it make any sense that the Prophet would instruct his followers in every big and small issue and leave the most important issue up to the people (i.e. leave no instructions for how this was to take place) Is the number of Tawaf that we make when doing hajj or the form of Wudu more important than the leadership of the Ummah from the time of the Prophet(p.b.u.h) till the day of Judgement ?
• The Prophet did instruct the Ummah in matters of leadership. Firstly, whether it was who would carry the Standard of Islam in battle, or who would be in charge of certain affairs when the prophet was absent, he always appointed someone, he never left this up to the people.
• The events of Ghadir cannot be looked at in isolation from all the events preceeding it, due to the following above points. Thru previous events, the Prophet had already established the precedent regarding how the Ummah should deal with the issue of leadership, and in addition, he had established who the leaders of the Ummah should be. The events of Ghadir were only meant to codify, and to make official what was already well known to the people.

If the other brs , such as jello, are correct, and the Events of Ghadir had some other, lesser purpose, then what was that purpose ? Why would Rasoollalah(p.b.u.h) call those who were behind to come forward, and those who went forward to come back while the other thousands were left standing for hours in the middle of a burning desert with no shade or other form of relief. Did he do this merely to tell people to love and respect Ali, or that Ali was his friend (as some sunnis say). Excuse me , but that explaination is ridiculous on the face of it. If you consider the above point, and get rid of your prejudice and misconceptions, what other conclusion can we reach.

The truth is simple.

With Salams,

HERE IS THE SERMON, for those who haven't already read it

This is the website that I copied it from

http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/the_message/61.htm - http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/the_message/61.htm

"

All glory is specially for Allah. We seek His help and have faith in Him and rely upon Him. We seek refuge in Him from our evil doings and indecent deeds. He is the Lord besides whom there is no guide. There will be none to mislead one whom He guides. I testify that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger. Yes O people! I may soon accept the Divine invitation and may depart from amongst you. I am responsible and you too are responsible. What is your opinion about me?" At this stage those present said loudly: "We testify that you have carried out your mission and made efforts in this behalf. My Allah reward you for this!"

( 753 ) The Prophet said: "Do you testify that the Lord of the World is one and Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger and that there is no doubt about life in the other world?" AII of them said: "lt's correct and we testify it". Then the Prophet said: "O my followers! I am leaving behind two valuable assets as legacies to you and it is to be seen as to how you behave with these two legacies of mine". At this moment a person stood up and said with a loud voice: "What do you mean by the two exquisite things? To this the Prophet replied; "One of them is the Book of Allah one side of which is related to Allah and the other side is in your hands. And the other thing is my progeny and my Ahl al-Bayt. Allah has informed me that these too memorable things will not act separated from each other". Yes O people Don't seek precedence over the Qur'an and over my progeny and do not be negligent in your behaviour towards them lest you should be annihilated. At this moment he held the hand of Ali and raised it so high that the whiteness of the armpits of both of them became visible to the people. He introduced him (i.e. Ali) to all the people and then said: "Who enjoys more rights over the believers than themselves?" All of them said Allah and His Prophet know better . Then the Prophet said: "Allah is my maula (master) and I am the maula of the believers and I am more deserving and enjoy more rights over them than they themselves. Yes O people! Of whomsoever I am the maula this Ali is also his maula. http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/the_message/61.htm#n4" name=t4>[1] "O Allah! Love those who love Ali and be inimical to those who are inimical towards Ali. O Allah! help Ali's friends; humiliate his enemies and make him the pivot of truth". In the meanwhile the Archangel Jibreel came and brought this verse: This day I have perfected your religion for you and completed My favours to you and have chosen for you the religion Islam (Surah al-Ma'idah 5:3) At this moment the Prophet pronounced Takbir loudly and then added: "I thank Allah for His having perfected His http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/the_message/61.htm#t4" name=n4>[1] In order to make sure that no misunderstanding arose afterwards the Prophet repeated this sentence thrice.

( 754 ) religion and for having completed His favour and for His having been pleased with the mastership and succession of Ali after me". Then the Prophet stepped down from the platform and said to Ali: "Sit in a tent so that the chiefs and distinguished personalities of Islam may shake hands with you and congratulate you". The two shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) congratulated Ali before all others and called him their maula. Hassan bin Thabit the renowned poet after obtaining the Prophet's permission recited the following verses: "He said to Ali: Stand up for I have selected you to succeed me and to guide the people after me". "Of whomsoever I am the maula Ali is his maula. You love him sincerely and follow him".

-------------
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error...
Quran Ch.2 Verse 256

Salaam

Just a simple objection I wanted to point out: Abu Hadi says that the Prophet stopped everyone in a "hot burning desert". Some Shias even try to imply that it was the hottest time of the year, etc.  This is an amazing claim based on the fact that the Ghadeer event was on the 10 March (it is still winter in the Northern Hemisphire), and the name Ghadeer by definition means a Pond, a place of shade and water in contrast with the desert.

Another issue has to do with the poet Hasan ibn Thabit: Is he counted among the "Shia of Ali" Companions or not? Have Shia scholars all accepted his Shiaism? Obviously, this is to be asked, since the Shia are implying that Hasan ibn Thabit understood perfectly what the Prophet meant and composed poetry in favor of the events that had taken place.

Mister Abu Hadi, like other Shias, has said that the Prophet always appointed someone to a military expedition, or in his absence, and so on. Since the Prophet's decision is final and infallible in all his appointments, may I know specifically the people he appointed to the many different positions during his lifetime, according to Shia historians ?

Another interesting issue I have discovered about this Ghadir Khum event, with respect to Angel Jibreel's descent. As we might remember, Ali Zaki said that Jibreel told the Prophet several times before-hand to stop at Ghadeer Khum, and the revelation of Verse 5:67 was done in harmony with these orders. However, in "The Message" what we have is simply:

the Archangel Jibreel descended at a place called Ghadir Khum and communicated the following verse to the Prophet:

O Messenger! Convey what is revealed to you from your Lord for if you do it not it would be as though you have not conveyed His message. Allah will protect you from the people. (Surah al-Ma'ida 5:67).

Interesting to note that Ayatullah Subhani does not mention the other occasions of Jibreel's descent at all, instead giving the impression that the Prophet heard this the first time and decided to immediately stop "in his tracks" so as to say.

So which version is correct ?  I am sure that both "correct histories" have been written by Ayatullahs, so why the obvious difference ?

jello wrote: Another interesting issue I have discovered about this Ghadir Khum event, with respect to Angel Jibreel's descent. As we might remember, Ali Zaki said that Jibreel told the Prophet several times before-hand to stop at Ghadeer Khum, and the revelation of Verse 5:67 was done in harmony with these orders. However, in "The Message" what we have is simply: the Archangel Jibreel descended at a place called Ghadir Khum and communicated the following verse to the Prophet: O Messenger! Convey what is revealed to you from your Lord for if you do it not it would be as though you have not conveyed His message. Allah will protect you from the people. (Surah al-Ma'ida 5:67).

Kan you quote the source that say this aya was reveled in Ghader Khum, because i have sen you beating around this aya to many times.

For my position about Ghadeer and that there was no explicit mentioning of any succesor, I will use the words of a Shia scolar, AbdelAziz Sachedina. I am taking this from a criticism to Sachenida's comments from another Shia Aalim, Syed Rizivi:

The controversy started regarding the statement of a learned Sh�'a scholar published in the Bio Ethics Encyclopaedia under the entry of "Islam" in which he writes:

"Mohammad died in 632 C.E., having brought the whole of Arabia under the Medina government. However, he had left no explicit instructions regarding succession to his religious-political authority."[60]

Initially, when I was given a copy of the article, I did not think much of it because I realized that it was a paper written for a very wide audience. (Although ideally the issue of succession should not have been mentioned in that article at all, its deletion would not have harmed the main body of the article.) However, the response of the learned writer to the questions sent to him via internet by some Sh�'as from the U.K. became a matter of concern for me. He responded as follows:

"On the question whether there was no EXPLICIT instruction regarding succession to the Prophet's 'religious-political authority' let it be clear that the statement while asserting that there were no EXPLICIT (that is, distinctly expressed, clearly stated, not merely implied) instruction in the matter of succession to the 'Prophet's religious-political authority,' it asserts by implication that there was an IMPLICIT (that is, necessarily involved though not plainly expressed) direction in the matter. This implicit direction of the Prophet was expressed on several occasions in his lifetime, including finally at al-Ghadir.

"It was also because of this absence of explicit statement on these occasions that Imam 'Ali never used any of these occasions, including al-Ghadir, to put forward his candidacy as the only rightful successor of the Prophet."[61]

After the 21st of Ramadhan 1418, the learned scholar issued another statement in which he reaffirmed his belief in the absence of the explicit appointment of Imam 'Ali by writing:

"The foundation of our faith, that is the Shi'a faith, is based on this IMPLICIT sense. Historically (the only position that can be taken in the article here) the source of dissension in the early community was the absence of EXPLICIT directions regarding the succession in the community."

"The statement of the wilaya (man kuntu mawla[hu] fa hadha 'Aliyyun mawla[hu]), which is the documentation for the Sh�'a acclamation in support of the Imamate of Imam 'Ali, is regarded as an implicit rather than explicit statement of the Prophet regarding the 'succession of his comprehensive authority.' The reason is that the word mawla in Arabic is ambiguous as far as the 'succession' itself is concerned."[62]

Note, the bold portions are Sachenida's statements. Of course, as a "mainstream" Shia Aalim, Rizivi goes on to put forward the classical theories as to why Ali's appointment was explicit. However, if a Shia scholar of Abdel Aziz Sachedina's stature doubted the explicit nature of the Prophet's appointment after so many years of studying Shiism in Shia centers of learning, this is an issue of note. It seems that only after a load of Shia objections (and perhaps threats even) was Sachedina forced to come into line and declare that his view on this is the same as that of mainstream Imami Shias.

Now about the position of Shias with respect to Prophets and Imaams, I will take an excerpt from al-islam.org's article on Imamah vs. Prophethood (Part I) , were it is mentioned clearly:

The Shia believe that the rank of Imamat (the position of a divinely-appointed leader) is higher than that of prophethood and messengership.

and

The Shia further believe that the twelve Imams of the House of Prophet Muhammad have the rank higher than that of ALL the messengers (be Imam or not) except Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF).

I know the person who wrote this is perhaps not a scholar of Shiism, but since al-islam.org has agreed to place the statements in its website, it would indicate that such a view has at least a good ammount of support among learned Shias as well.

Salams to br. jello and others,

Quoting jello,

Interesting to note that Ayatullah Subhani does not mention the other occasions of Jibreel's descent at all, instead giving the impression that the Prophet heard this the first time and decided to immediately stop "in his tracks" so as to say.

Please provide source for the above, I would be intersted in reading it, as he is a well known scholar.

As regards your other source,

I will use the words of a Shia scolar, AbdelAziz Sachedina. ...

I have never heard of him before. I googled him and he seems to be a very minor figure at best. I don't belive he is a mushtahed. It would be helpful to the discussion if you didn't use such sources in the future.

You have posted a quote from Imam Khomeni, which I haven't addressed yet, because it seemed a little off topic, although not terribly so. In shah Allah, if I have the time, I will address this quote, as it is an important one and worthy of explaination.

Some members of this forum have asked me to give examples of some of the Prophet's(p.b.u.h) appointments during his lifetime. In shah Allah, and with your permission, I will post some. All of these are from well know narrators from Ahl Al Sunnah. Here is the first

From Sahih Bukhari,

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 192:

Here is another, about the same incident, again from Sahih Bukhari

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 219c:

Here is another example,

In the ninth year after Hijrah, following the Prophet�s return from the battle of Tabuk, he (the Prophet) appointed Abu Bakr to lead three hundred Muslims so as to instruct them rituals of Hajj. Abu Bakr set off to Makkah with those accompanying him; he then proclaimed in people the Prophet�s advice that polytheists are no longer allowed to perform Hajj after this year and no naked person is allowed to perform the Tawaf around the Ka`bah.

Here is the scholarly source for this,

Salaam

I wanted to quickly mention that the site at islamonline says as the title that Abu Bakr led the first Hajj at A.H.9 (Abu HAdi can check this). Also, it mentions that Ali came only to declare Surah al-Taubah, and not as a commander to replace Abu Bakr, and it says so very clearly.

Additionaly, I would like for all of us to go through all the appointments the Prophet (SAW)  made in his life, since they would give us an insight into what the Prophet's preferences were as a whole.

Salams,

Quoting Br. Jello

Additionaly, I would like for all of us to go through all the appointments the Prophet (SAW)  made in his life, since they would give us an insight into what the Prophet's preferences were as a whole http://www.islamonline.net/English/hajj/Landmarks/1425/09.shtml -

I also belive we should do this. Al Hamdu Ilah, we agree on something.

Salaam

So let us start first with the battle of Tabuk... it is well-known that Ali (Raa) was left behind by the Prophet to take care of the city of Madeenah in his abscence. So the Prophet must have appointed someone as the standard-bearer from amomg his Companions, as well as leaders to other posts during the preparation for the confrontation.... so who were they ??? 

Salam Jello,

I would like to say that your attention to detail and staying on topic is refresing .

Regarding the declaration of Surah al-Taubah, I don't believe that the Shia point of view is that Imam Ali (a.s.) was sent because of some particular error or oversight by Abu Bakr, but rather it related to the following,

�Al� is from me and I am from him. My words will not be conveyed except by me or by �Al�.'

Which is in Ibn Hanbal�s Musnad published in 6 volumes by Matba�ah al-Maymaniyyah, vol. 4, pp. 164-165, 1st edition, Egypt, 1313 AH.

OTHER OCCASIONS WHERE IMAM ALI WAS APPOINTED TO REPRESENT THE PROPHET

Again, from Ahmad ibn Hanbal

"Burayrah (Aslam�) has related:

The Prophet (S) dispatched two regiments towards Yemen, one under the command of (Imam) �Al� bin Ab� T�lib [(�a)] and the other led by Kh�lid bin Wal�d with instructions that when the two regiments are with each other they should be under the sole command of (Imam) �Al� [(�a)], and when they are separate they will remain under different commanders. We the Muslim forces, encountered the Yemeni tribe of Ban� Zayd and fought and defeated these infidels. When their men had died fighting, the families surrendered and from among the captives, (Imam) �Al� [(�a)] chose a maid for himself.

Burayrah continues:

Kh�lid bin Wal�d sent me to the Prophet with a letter informing him of this matter. I submitted the letter to the Prophet and when he had read it I saw signs of anger appear on his face. I said:

O Messenger of Allah (S), you sent me with a man instructing me to obey him, and accordingly I performed whatever duty I was ordered to do.

The Messenger of Allah (S) said:

L� taqa� f� �Al�yyin fa innahu minn� wa ana minhu wa huwa waliyyukum ba�d� wa innahu minn� wa ana minhu wa huwa waliyyukum ba�d� (Don't try to find faults with �Al�, he is indeed from me and I am from him, he is your leader after me. He is from me and I am from him, he is your leader after me).

Ibn Hanbal�s Musnad, vol. 5, 356, Matba�ah al-Maymaniyyah.

REGARDING THE EXPEDITION OF TABUK

Please refer to the sources for the interpretation, as this is also in quotation marks.

"In the expedition of Tabuk (in the month of Rajab of the ninth year A.H.) the Prophet left 'A1i as his deputy in Medina. 'Ali exclaimed with dismay: "Are You leaving me behind?" The Prophet asked him: "O 'Ali, are you not satisfied that you have the same position in relation to me as Harun had to Musa except that there is no prophet after me? "

"The Prophet thereby meant that as Musa had left behind Harun to look after his people when he went to receive the Commandments, in the same way he was leaving 'Ali behind as his deputy to look after the affairs of Islam during his absence. "

SOURCES: Ibn Majah: as-Sunan, p.l2; Ahmad: al-Musnad, vol. 1, p. 174; an-Nasa'i: al-Khasa'is, pp. I5-16; atTahawi: Mushkilu 'l-athar, vol. 2, p. 309; al-Muhibb at-Tabari: Dhakhatiru 'l-'uqba, p.63.

Ironically, The Shia scholars use this tradition as proof of Imam Ali's(a.s.) nomination as the successor of the Prophet(a.s.).

A MORE GENERAL POINT REGARDING THE OBLIGATION OF OBIEDIENCE TO IMAM ALI

Here, I am using a Shia source, however, I quote it because I know that some (if not most) Sunni's consider the Jafari 'Mathab to be legitimate and valid.

O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority from among you(Ulu L'Amr); then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end (4:59).

al-Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (as) said that this verse was revealed about 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, Hasan and Husayn (as) . Upon hearing this, someone asked the Imam: "People say, 'Why did Allah not mention the names of 'Ali and his family in His Book?'"

The Imam answered: "Tell them that there came the command of salat (prayer), but Allah did not mention whether three or four raka'at (units) (to be performed); it was the Apostle of Allah who explained all the details. And (the command of ) zakat was revealed, but Allah did not say that it is one in every forty dirham; it was the Apostle of Allah who explained it; and hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) was ordered but Allah did not say to perform tawaf ( circumambulation of the Ka'bah) seven times the Apostle of Allah explained it. Likewise, the verse was revealed: Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority from among you, and it was revealed about 'A1i and Hasan and Husayn (as). 

Salaam Alaykum

Regarding the declaration of Surah al-Taubah, I don't believe that the Shia point of view is that Imam Ali (a.s.) was sent because of some particular error or oversight by Abu Bakr, but rather it related to the following,

�Al� is from me and I am from him. My words will not be conveyed except by me or by �Al�.'

Which is in Ibn Hanbal�s Musnad published in 6 volumes by Matba�ah al-Maymaniyyah, vol. 4, pp. 164-165, 1st edition, Egypt, 1313 AH.

Considering that this is the viewpoint of Ali Zaki, we would need to consider the following:

1. Suffice to say that in other occasions, the Prophet used the phrase "He is from me and I am from him" with respect to other Companions or tribes as well. Perhaps these appear in the Musnad Ibn Hanbal as well, so I am not sure how there can be an exact privilege for Ali based on the first part of the Hadeeth

2. The second portion says about the words of the Prophet, in this case the Quraan.

I would like to ask:

1. Is there any other occassion when Ali was charged with conveying Ayats or Surahs of the Quraan in the same way as was the case here?
2. Even in the case brought forward, we still would have to admit that Ali was not endowed with the commandership of the Hujjaj, and his being sent was specific in nature, related to proclaiming Surah al-Taubah only. If there is some disagreement on this, perhaps we can look into it.

"Burayrah (Aslam�) has related:

The Prophet (S) dispatched two regiments towards Yemen, one under the command of (Imam) �Al� bin Ab� T�lib [(�a)] and the other led by Kh�lid bin Wal�d with instructions that when the two regiments are with each other they should be under the sole command of (Imam) �Al� [(�a)], and when they are separate they will remain under different commanders. We the Muslim forces, encountered the Yemeni tribe of Ban� Zayd and fought and defeated these infidels. When their men had died fighting, the families surrendered and from among the captives, (Imam) �Al� [(�a)] chose a maid for himself.

Burayrah continues:

Kh�lid bin Wal�d sent me to the Prophet with a letter informing him of this matter. I submitted the letter to the Prophet and when he had read it I saw signs of anger appear on his face. I said:

O Messenger of Allah (S), you sent me with a man instructing me to obey him, and accordingly I performed whatever duty I was ordered to do.

The Messenger of Allah (S) said:

L� taqa� f� �Al�yyin fa innahu minn� wa ana minhu wa huwa waliyyukum ba�d� wa innahu minn� wa ana minhu wa huwa waliyyukum ba�d� (Don't try to find faults with �Al�, he is indeed from me and I am from him, he is your leader after me. He is from me and I am from him, he is your leader after me).

Ibn Hanbal�s Musnad, vol. 5, 356, Matba�ah al-Maymaniyyah.

Now, for this I would like to point out the following:

1. When was the time of this incident of Ali being sent to Yemen ??? It will be of importance once we agree on it.

2. Do Ali Zaki or Abu Hadi have the Arabic edition of the Ibn Hanbal Musnad being quoted ? I consider it highly unlikely that all the wording as presented would be accepted as Saheeeh by Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal considering that a) He is one of the four founders of the Sunni schools of thought and b) He has many Ahadeeth in the Musnad that would obviously contradict this narration's last portion.

Insha Allah I will myself try to find a brother who has it, so that we may clarify the issue.

"In the expedition of Tabuk (in the month of Rajab of the ninth year A.H.) the Prophet left 'A1i as his deputy in Medina. 'Ali exclaimed with dismay: "Are You leaving me behind?" The Prophet asked him: "O 'Ali, are you not satisfied that you have the same position in relation to me as Harun had to Musa except that there is no prophet after me? "

"The Prophet thereby meant that as Musa had left behind Harun to look after his people when he went to receive the Commandments, in the same way he was leaving 'Ali behind as his deputy to look after the affairs of Islam during his absence. "

So the issue about leaving Ali in Madeenah has been brought up before, and I mentioned about Haroon and Musa also, so I do not think repeating it would be good. However, one of the previous questions I had asked was: What were the appointments the Prophet made during his expedition to Tabuk and his return to Madeenah from that expedition ???

O ye who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority from among you(Ulu L'Amr); then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end (4:59).

al-Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq (as) said that this verse was revealed about 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, Hasan and Husayn (as) . Upon hearing this, someone asked the Imam: "People say, 'Why did Allah not mention the names of 'Ali and his family in His Book?'"

The Imam answered: "Tell them that there came the command of salat (prayer), but Allah did not mention whether three or four raka'at (units) (to be performed); it was the Apostle of Allah who explained all the details. And (the command of ) zakat was revealed, but Allah did not say that it is one in every forty dirham; it was the Apostle of Allah who explained it; and hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) was ordered but Allah did not say to perform tawaf ( circumambulation of the Ka'bah) seven times the Apostle of Allah explained it. Likewise, the verse was revealed: Obey Allah, and obey the Apostle and those vested with authority from among you, and it was revealed about 'A1i and Hasan and Husayn (as).

I wanted to point out that had Verse 4:59 been revealed with respect to Ali and Hasan and Husayn as the Ul' il' Amr, then what is the reason for us to refer matters back to "Allah and His Messenger", if the Imaams are infallible in every respect ??? Thus, if they are infalible just like the Messenger, why the need for the extra phrase: "then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end" ???

Now also, we need to see about this supposed statement from Imaam as-Sadiq. It presupposes that the Quran does not mention the specific things about the religion, but rather leaves this tihngs out for the Ahadeeth. Now:

1. The Quraanic words "salat", "zakat", "siyam", and "hajj" appear many more times than the word "Imaam" or any other similar terminology. Also, the explanation provided in the Quraan itself  about these aspects is much more lenghty than it is about "Imaamah", even though one would would expect it to be the other way around if Shiism was indeed being taught by Allah in the Quraan.

2. According to some of the Shia Ahadeeth, Imaamah is much more important that all these other issues. As I see it, this is because the belief in Imaamah is an Usul-e-Deen, while prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and so on are Furu-e-Din...

So I cannot see how this similitude can be made. It is like saying that the Quraan did not mention how many deities there are and it only said you should "worship something", but the Ahadeeth said that Allah should be worshipped and that He is One. There would be a wild number of "Islaamic sects" each with competing numbers and names of deities, since each would interpret the issue differently (and who could blame them, if the Holy Book they agree on is not clear about the matter ???)

3. Actually the Sunni objection is not with respect to the naming of people or lack of it, but that there is no consistency between the Quraanic explanation of the term Imaam and the Shia theological viewpoint of this concept. A simple example is with reference to Verse 4:59 itself, although other issues can also be seen if studied carefully.

Salams to br. Jello and others,

Quoting Br. Jello

I wanted to point out that had Verse 4:59 been revealed with respect to Ali and Hasan and Husayn as the Ul' il' Amr, then what is the reason for us to refer matters back to "Allah and His Messenger", if the Imaams are infallible in every respect ??? Thus, if they are infalible just like the Messenger, why the need for the extra phrase: "then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Apostle, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end" ???

Here is a good explaination of this verse from a shia perspective. They have explained it better than I could, so I have included this link

http://forum.shiasource.com/board/index.php?showtopic=1490 - http://forum.shiasource.com/board/index.php?showtopic=1490

Now also, we need to see about this supposed statement from Imaam as-Sadiq. It presupposes that the Quran does not mention the specific things about the religion, but rather leaves this tihngs out for the Ahadeeth. Now:

1. The Quraanic words "salat", "zakat", "siyam", and "hajj" appear many more times than the word "Imaam" or any other similar terminology. Also, the explanation provided in the Quraan itself  about these aspects is much more lenghty than it is about "Imaamah", even though one would would expect it to be the other way around if Shiism was indeed being taught by Allah in the Quraan.

2. According to some of the Shia Ahadeeth, Imaamah is much more important that all these other issues. As I see it, this is because the belief in Imaamah is an Usul-e-Deen, while prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and so on are Furu-e-Din...

So I cannot see how this similitude can be made. It is like saying that the Quraan did not mention how many deities there are and it only said you should "worship something", but the Ahadeeth said that Allah should be worshipped and that He is One. There would be a wild number of "Islaamic sects" each with competing numbers and names of deities, since each would interpret the issue differently (and who could blame them, if the Holy Book they agree on is not clear about the matter ???)

Yes, but the Quran does mention , over and over again, (also the bible and the Torah mention over 100 times) that God is One, unique, without partner or peer, etc. It is true that there are many sects in Islam, but none that I know of worship more than one God. As you know, the Quran is explicit about some issues, and implicit about others.

Think about it for a second, the beauty of the Quran lies in its use of few words, ie. explaining so much by using so little words. Even many Western Scholars such as Gibbon and George Bernard Shaw acknowledge that the Quran excels all similar works written in the West in it's beauty and elogance of language. For the Quran to explain all the technical details of the religious duties would be repetative. The Quran says ' Obey Allah, The Messenger, and Ul il Amr'. This is an explicit and unconditional statement, not open for interpretation. This instruction should be enough for us. If the dispute is about, 'Who is Ul' il' Amr', then this is a legitimate quesiton, and InShahAllah we can discuss it further, although I think the link above explains most of it. I think this explaination should address your other points. If not, let me know, I will have some more time to post tomorrow. Salams,

.

Salam Jello.

By the way, I would like to say, in advance, that I may not be able to respond to your further postings for a few days because I am in Graduate School (California State University, Fullerton), and I will be having final exams for the rest of this month (May). I say this so that you will not wonder about the delay, as I am very much enjoying our discussion and (inshahAllah) we will continue with it.

RE: The Declaration of Surat Al-Taubah

you said, "I am not sure how there can be an exact privilege for Ali based on the first part of the Hadeeth"

I do not claim that this denotes anything other than the clear statement of the Prophet (a.s.). The Quran was revealed to the heart of the most noble messenger at once (on Laylat Al-Qadr), and he was commanded to recite the relevent portion of the Quran at the appropriate time. If you memorize the Websters Dictonary and recite the exact definition of a word when the word occurs in coversation, the words are yours, however, the SOURCE of the information is not yourself.

So the difference between Hadith of the prophet (a.s.) and the Quran is the source of the information. One is a specific book that was "sent down" on a certain, particular night(i.e. the Quran), and the other are revelations sent to the heart of the messenger that are not part of this book, or given through the angel Gibrail. We know, however, that whether or not the "words" of the prophet are Quran or Hadith the source is the same (i.e. Allah (s.w.a.)) and the method of conveyance is the same, words. Therefore, it does not matter if the words are Quran or Hadith, the decleration still applies.

The Quraanic words "salat", "zakat", "siyam", and "hajj" appear many more times than the word "Imaam" or any other similar terminology. Also, the explanation provided in the Quraan itself  about these aspects is much more lenghty than it is about "Imaamah", even though one would would expect it to be the other way around if Shiism was indeed being taught by Allah in the Quraan.

The purpose of the Quran is not to teach "Shiism", The role of the 12 Imams (Shiism)  is to teach the Quran. The foundation of Islam is the Quran, however, The Quran cannot be properly understood and applied without the guidance of the Prophet (a.s.) and the Ahl'al Bayt, as testified in the hadith of Thaqanayn.

" I am leaving behind two precious things (thaqalayn) among you. The first of the two is the Book of Allah. In it is guidance and light. So get hold of the Book of Allah and adhere to it." Then he urged and motivated (us) regarding the Book of Allah . Then he said, "And my Ahl al­Bayt (family). I urge you to remember God regarding my Ahl al­Bayt. I urge you to remember God regarding my Ahl al­Bayt. I urge you to remember God regarding my Ahl al­Bayt"'" ....

(Sahih Muslim, part 7, Kitab fada'il al­Sahabah [Maktabat wa Matba`at Muhammad `Ali Subayh wa Awladuhu: Cairo] pp. 122-123.)

There are other, more clear versions of this hadith (which you are probably familiar with. I quoted this version because it is in Sahiah Muslim, and is easy to verify.

According to some of the Shia Ahadeeth, Imaamah is much more important that all these other issues.

To say that Imaamah is more important than acts of Ibadah (worship) is not correct, and is not the Shia position. However, if one wants to practice Islam correctly, the words of the prophet must be obeyed. I have included this well known hadith, as well as a relevent explanation which is better then what I could come up with.

"I found the word Bab and its plural Abwaab mentioned in the Quran 27 times. in most instances, it refers to the proper way of entering into a place with permission (2:58); a place of destiny (40:76) and a passage of blessings (39:73).

Symbolically, a bab is the proper way to reach you desired destination. For example, in the famous tradition of the Holy Prophet (S) he said: "I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate (Bab)." Meaning that if you would like to acquire the Prophet's knowledge, the proper way is through Imam Ali (AS)."

SOURCE: http://al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00593.html - http://al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00593.html

Salam

Salaam Alaykum

In view of the current situation that Ali Zaki will be unavailable for some time, I would like to simply leave Abu Hadi (or whichever other Shia knows of this) to answer the following question that I had asked before, concerning the Prophet's appointments:

Who did the Prophet (SAW) appoint as the leader for the Tabuk expedition ?

Of course, during this time I will go through the posts as much as I can, and trying to see what is relevant, etc. so that I can reply appropriately, Insha Allah.

Say. Surely my prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death are (all) for Allah, the Lord of the worlds;

Salams Jello, Abu hadi and Ali Zaki

Alhamdoillah , I have been observing this scholarly discussion about the Appointments by Holy prophet (PBUH) . Please keep up the good work.

wassalam

Say. Surely my prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death are (all) for Allah, the Lord of the worlds;

Salam ala kum to Jello, Abu Hadi, Abdullah and others.

Again, I wish to assure those who are following this discussion that it is my sincere intention (Inshahallah) to carry this discussion forward. If, by the grace of Allah (s.w.a.) I am still in this world tommorrow, I will continue with my next posting. Thank you for your understanding.

Salam.

Salaam Alaykum again,

I wanted to ask, besides the Tabuk appointment question, about the Prophet's speech at Arafat in his final Hajj... Any Shia sources specifying what the Prophet said on the 9th of Dhul-Hijja at Arafat ?

Salams to jello, Ali Zaki , and others

It has been a while since my last post. I have been ill the past week, but InshahAllah, I am feeling better now.

In regards to Tabuk, I am familiar with the basic incidents of this expeditions. Basically, some hypocrites who lived in the region of Tabuk set up a mosque and invited Imam Ali to come and pray there. The Holy Prophet sent an expedition to deal with these people and destroy the mosque. Here are some sources I found

http://al-islam.org/restatement/34.htm - http://al-islam.org/restatement/34.htm

This is from a post I found on this site

The Prophet left `Ali behind in the campaign of Tabuk. The latter said: "O Messenger of Allah! Are you leaving me behind with the women and children?" The Prophet replied: "Are you not happy to stand next to me like Harun next to Musa, save that there is no Prophet after me?"

The Prophet said: "I am the city of knowledge and `Ali is its gate." Another version states: "I am the house of wisdom and `Ali is its gate."

Main sources: Abu Nu`aym, Hilya al-Awliya� 1:100-128 #4; al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala� 1/2:615-660 #5.

I guess your question is, "Why did the Prophet leave Imam Ali(a.s.) behind when he had been at the prophet's side during all the previous military expeditions?" If you look at the link from al-islam.org, it give a good and reasonable explaination as to the "why" of this.  Basically, the reason is because all of the men had been called up to fight in this campaign and the Prophet(p.b.u.h) needed someone to guard the city and act as the leader of the capital of the Muslims (Medina) in his absence.

This is from Sir John Glubb (a western historian)

One more hadith about Tabuk (and the reason for leaving Imam Ali (a.s.) behind in Medina)

Salaam Alaykum

I am sorry that I may have been misunderstood, but my question was specific as to whom the Prophet appointed as the head of the expedition to Tabuk from among the other Muslims (except Ali of course, since he had stayed in Madeenah). I am not asking which was more important or less important at this point. So Insha Allah if the members Ali Zaki or Abu Hadi could shed some light on the answer to this specific question, it would be good...

Salaam Jello,

I have read several accounts, however, I am not able to determine that there was a particular person that was considered the "head of the expedition". There is two possible reasons for this 1.) Since the prophet was with them, noone held the position of Imam other than the Prophet (a.s.) himself 2.) Since there was no battle (as the Romans had left before the Muslims arrived), there was noone designated as "standard bearer", which is usually recognized as the commander of the army (after the Prophet, of course, if he is present).

Is this what you wanted?

Salam

Salaam

Well, saying that the Prophet (SAW) was with them and therefore they did not need a leader is contradictory of course, since the Prophet always appointed someone as leader of the expedition even when he was present. The issue of "standard bearer" was not limited only to the time when the battle was to begin, but was from the time the expedition started.

One more thing is that in any expedition, there would obviously be many sub-expeditions that the Prophet would command for people to do, so perhaps we can also look into that ??? Not only for Tabuk but for other expeditions as well, though in this case we are talking about Tabuk only.

In any case, perhaps Ali Zaki can give us the references he has read, and perhaps together we can come to a conclusion in this regard, if he believes I have missed some point, etc.