No one has yet been able to prove me wrong in this discussion on the Messengers of Allah versus the so called infallible imams.
People either run away or start cursing or ask the mods to close the thread.
My question is very simple and logical; Messengers of Allah including Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa alayhimus salam and the Final Messenger of Allah, Muhammad sallAllahu alayhe wasallam were all successful.
None of them were killed by someone like a Khariji or an Omaiyad.
Allah protected them from the evils of their enemies.
Allah disgraced and defeated their enemies too.
But in case of the so called infallible imams, the rule is different.
All the infallible imams had to face defeat.
All the infallible imams had treacherous followers who betrayed them.
All the infallible imams couldn’t get the khilafah that they were fighting for.
The so called enemies of these imams (Banu Umaiyah) overpowered the imams, and enjoyed the khilafah for over 100 years?
I wonder why people call them infallible imams, they were not even successful men at least in the material world (as we all live in the material world). Allah swt gave material success to the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad s.a.w by granting him with authority to rule people and by defeating his enemies. But no such success for the so called infallible imams…
Now some guys are going to give me example of Obama, Israel and conquerors of the past and compare their 'success story' with that of Banu Umaiyah.
Well, these people are not relevant.
We are talking about the so called direct rivals of the infallibles; Saiyidina Muawiyah radiyallahu anhu, Yazid bin Muawiyah and the rest..
Muslims fought the pagans of Makkah and the people of the Book under the leadership of Muhammad s.a.w and Muslims overpowered the Kuffar and got success. Are you going to compare this success with that of Americans of Jews today?
If not, then why the success that the Prophet of Islam and his followers got from Allah was not in the fate of 'infallibles'?
Is it because the followers of the infallibles were treacherous liars who betrayed them or it is because the followers finally found out the so called infallible imams didn't have ability to lead them?
One may use this logic against Christians that Jesus Christ can't be god (or God) because he was overpowered by the Romans / Jews who according to the Christians killed Jesus.
How can (a) god/God be killed by the infidels?
If I use this argument, does it mean I hate Jesus?
**My question is very simple and logical; Messengers of Allah including Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa alayhimus salam and the Final Messenger of Allah, Muhammad sallAllahu alayhe wasallam were all successful.
None of them were killed by someone like a Khariji or an Omaiyad.
Allah protected them from the evils of their enemies.
**
Wasn't Hazrat Yahya martyred by Jews? I'm not sure, but Hazrat Zakariya's death was also not natural. In Quran Bani Israel are condemned on many places by calling them murderers of Anbiya.
Getting killed by evil forces doesn't mean defeat of the people who sacrificed their lives for a cause
Wasn't Hazrat Yahya martyred by Jews? I'm not sure, but Hazrat Zakariya's death was also not natural. In Quran Bani Israel are condemned on many places by calling them murderers of Anbiya.
Getting killed by evil forces doesn't mean defeat of the people who sacrificed their lives for a cause
Quran doesn't mention which messengers of Allah were killed / martyred by the Kuffar, so Quran doesn't say that Zakariya a.s or Yahya a.s were killed.
Quran rejects the claims of Kuffar that they killed Isa alayhis salam. According to Quran, the disciples (hawaris) of Isa alayhis salam finally got the khilafah over the Kuffar (Jews and Romans).
The rejectors of Nuh alayhis salam were destroyed in tsunamis.
Allah protected Ibrahim alayhis salam from his enemies (polytheists) too.
Musa alayhis salam overpowered Pharaoh and his people by the will of Allah.
And our Holy Prophet, Muhammad s.a.w also defeated the Kuffar and ruled Hijaz.
Those who are killed in the way of Allah are martyrs, no doubt, they are successful in the hereafter, but you can't call them successful in the world if they couldn't achieve their goals they were fighting for. Great messengers of Allah that I've mentioned above achieved their goals in this world too.
Quran doesn't mention which messengers of Allah were killed / martyred by the Kuffar, so Quran doesn't say that Zakariya a.s or Yahya a.s were killed.
Quran rejects the claims of Kuffar that they killed Isa alayhis salam. According to Quran, the disciples (hawaris) of Isa alayhis salam finally got the khilafah over the Kuffar (Jews and Romans).
The rejectors of Nuh alayhis salam were destroyed in tsunamis.
Allah protected Ibrahim alayhis salam from his enemies (polytheists) too.
Musa alayhis salam overpowered Pharaoh and his people by the will of Allah.
And our Holy Prophet, Muhammad s.a.w also defeated the Kuffar and ruled Hijaz.
Those who are killed in the way of Allah are martyrs, no doubt, they are successful in the hereafter, but you can't call them successful in the world if they couldn't achieve their goals they were fighting for. Great messengers of Allah that I've mentioned above achieved their goals in this world too.
Who are we to measure success of prophets of Allah just by the reason that their names are not mentioned in Quran and their killing was not specifically mentioned in Quran.
By the logic you given in bold part, tomorrow someone will come and tell us that people who martyred in Ghazwa e Badar or people like Syed u Shuhda Hazrat Hamza were not successful, because they were killed and could not see the victory of Islam.
Who are we to measure success of prophets of Allah just by the reason that their names are not mentioned in Quran and their killing was not specifically mentioned in Quran.
By the logic you given in bold part, tomorrow someone will come and tell us that people who martyred in Ghazwa e Badar or people like Syed u Shuhda Hazrat Hamza were not successful, because they were killed and could not see the victory of Islam.
Saiyidina Zakariya and Yahaya alayhimus salam are mentioned in Quran but it's not mentioned that they were killed. So why assume something that's not given by the Quran?
The companions who were martyred in Badr or even Uhud are successful in the hereafter. I think I already explained that in my previous post. When a person is killed / martyred without achieving their goals, they can't be called successful in the 'material world'.
Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession in the land, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion which He has chosen for them. And He will surely, give them in exchange a safe security after their fear.
The so called infallibles couldn't get this Khilafah on earth (in the material world, not in the heavens) the way companions got under the leadership of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman radiyallahu anhum..and companions and tabaeen got under the leadership of Banu Umaiyah. People may author volumes of books in condemnation of Banu Umaiyah, they can't deny that Banu Umaiyah enjoyed khilafah for over 100 years.
The infallibles didn't have authority to practice the religion; for example if they preached mutah, they couldn't enofrce it on land.
The infallibles lived in the state of fear and practised taqiyyah (according to their so called followers).
Saiyidina Zakariya and Yahaya alayhimus salam are mentioned in Quran but it's not mentioned that they were killed. So why assume something that's not given by the Quran?
The companions who were martyred in Badr or even Uhud are successful in the hereafter. I think I already explained that in my previous post. When a person killed / martyred without achieving their goals, they can't be called successful in the 'material world'.
You might study Torah and can rely the jewish history to know that these two prophets were killed. Otherwise, Quarn is enogh to repeatedly tell you that Bani Israel did killed their prophets.
As far as measuring worldly success is concerned, can we deny contribution of shuhda e Badr in success of Islam?
You might study Torah and can rely the jewish history to know that these two prophets were killed. Otherwise, Quarn is enogh to repeatedly tell you that Bani Israel did killed their prophets.
I'm not denying that few messengers of Allah were killed / martyred at the hands of Bani Israel. I'm only saying that the messengers who are mentioned in Quran by name were not killed according to the Quran, at least Quran doesn't give the name of any of them who was killed.
Secondly, the great messengers with Shariah like Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa, Muhammad alayhis salatu wassalam were not killed or martyred. So if some people say that the 12 infallibles were the 'nafs' (representatives) of Muhammad s.a.w then why they were all killed?? And why their enemies overpowered them?
[QUOTE]
As far as measuring worldly success is concerned, can we deny contribution of shuhda e Badr in success of Islam?
[/QUOTE]
Martyrs of Badr, Uhud did contribute to the over all success of Islam but the martyrs were not alive to celebrate their success in the material world, were they? Did they see the conquest of Makkah finally?
I'm not denying that few messengers of Allah were killed / martyred at the hands of Bani Israel. I'm only saying that the messengers who are mentioned in Quran by name were not killed according to the Quran, at least Quran doesn't give the name of any of them who was killed.
Secondly, the great messengers with Shariah like Nuh, Ibrahim, Musa, Isa, Muhammad alayhis salatu wassalam were not killed or martyred. So if some people say that the 12 infallibles were the 'nafs' (representatives) of Muhammad s.a.w then why they were all killed?? And why their enemies overpowered them?
Martyrs of Badr, Uhud did contribute to the over all success of Islam but the martyrs were not alive to celebrate their success in the material world, were they? Did they see the conquest of Makkah finally?
Whats the criteria of success in world BTW. I hope everyone take it differently.
Being Shaheed in way of Allah doesn't mean successful in hereafter, its success of the both worlds, because death is ultimate destination for all. If you sacrifice your life for a cause, then it doesn't matter whether you win battle or not. If we talk of karbala, Yazeed is the ultimate looser.
Whats the criteria of success in world BTW. I hope everyone take it differently.
Being Shaheed in way of Allah doesn't mean successful in hereafter, its success of the both worlds, because death is ultimate destination for all. If you sacrifice your life for a cause, then it doesn't matter whether you win battle or not. If we talk of karbala, Yazeed is the ultimate looser.
It's about you have a goal, objective in your life (khilafah); you travel to Kufah from Makkah because the people of Kufah promised they would give you their pledge of allegiance..in the end you are betrayed and you don't get the khilafah..now is that success?
And by your saying that Yazid is a loser, it doesn't become a fact or reality.
Many kuffar Jews, Christians and Hindus blaspheme the Prophet of Islam, it doesn't make him bad.
So if a cult curses Yazid as their religious duty, and has fabricated many thousand reports in order to malign him, it doesn't make Yazid bad, does it?
I'm not here defending Yazid or whoever; I'm only trying to say that Husain ra was also unsuccessful in achieving his goal (khilafah).
If Allah really assigned them with the duty to establish Islamic shariah on earth (khilafah/imamah), the so called infallible imams badly failed in it.
It's about you have a goal, objective in your life (khilafah); you travel to Kufah from Makkah because the people of Kufah promised they would give you their pledge of allegiance..in the end you are betrayed and you don't get the khilafah..now is that success?
And by your saying that Yazid is a loser, it doesn't become a fact or reality.
Many kuffar Jews, Christians and Hindus blaspheme the Prophet of Islam, it doesn't make him bad.
So if a cult curses Yazid as their religious duty, and has fabricated many thousand reports in order to malign him, it doesn't make Yazid bad, does it?
I'm not here defending Yazid or whoever; I'm only trying to say that Husain ra was also unsuccessful in achieving his goal (khilafah).
If Allah really assigned them with the duty to establish Islamic shariah on earth (khilafah/imamah), the so called infallible imams badly failed in it.
Its not the cult that curses Yazid (besides keeping the discussion whether cursing is justified or not), his subsequent action is a slap on the faces of those who want to make him Rehmat ullah Alehe. What would you say about the incident of Hirra, where Baitullah was stoned with Manjaneeq during Haj days and Muslim women of Medina were raped.
Many tries to justify his actions in respect of Karbala that he didn't have information about what was happening there. Was he also unaware of incidents that took place in Makkah and Medina in 63 AH?
Its not the cult that curses Yazid (besides keeping the discussion whether cursing is justified or not), his subsequent action is a slap on the faces of those who want to make him Rehmat ullah Alehe. What would you say about the incident of Hirra, where Baitullah was stoned with Manjaneeq during Haj days and Muslim women of Medina were raped.
Many tries to justify his actions in respect of Karbala that he didn't have information about what was happening there. Was he also unaware of incidents that took place in Makkah and Medina in 63 AH?
Worse was done by Ali ra. He attacked the army of Ummul Mumineen Aisha ra (Jamal), though that army was only returning from Basrah where they destroyed the base camp of rebels of Islamic Khilafah (killers of Uthman ra). In other words, Ali ra was the aggressor in Jamal.
Not just that, he attacked the people of Syria under Muawiyah ra too (Siffeen). 150,000 people were killed in 5 years of the civil war under Ali ra and it's not a joke!
Why no one cares that Ali ra attacked Muslims and killed thousands of them in wars like that, though his khilafah was controversial.
Yazid's khilafah was not controversial because Ameer Muawiyah ra had already taken pledge of allegiance of people for Yazid in his own life.
I don't know what were the circumstances in the incident of Hirra and Baitullah, but the action of Husain ra was wrong, it was rebellion against the nominated Khalifah of time.