The concept of leader being chosen by Allah [swt] is Islamic concept hence those who reject it will obviously call it fantasies. Your logic is absolutely flawed! You are suggesting that three for four people deicde a thing about which they themselves are not confident of what they are doing, and whatever is the outcome/result, it has to be the result liked by Allah [swt] subhanallah! Same pathetic logics lead to the tragedy of Karbala where a few ignorant people supported Fasiq & Faajiq Yazeed since he had attained power (no matter how)!
And i dont know from where did u get this one:
While Abu Bakar said about himself:
“Now then: O people, I have been put in charge of you, although I am not the best of you. Help me if I do well; rectify me if I do wrong”
A person who is himself looking for guidance and did not deem himself capable enough, atleast Shia cannot accept him to be the guide, since they believe it among Usool-e-Deen that Allah [swt] is just (Aadil) , and remember i am not talking about guide for this world only but the one who can intervene in hereafter as well!!
okay thanks for making it clear…
you see my friend u will never make sense of this unless you read with an open mind the other version of history in which
a-both sides are not right ..
b-.in which murder of hz Uthman is merely used as an excuse to revolt against the rightful caliph
c-Tribal vengeance makes a comeback and replaces the islamic sense of justice
I don't understand you sunni's as to how you chose your Imams or Caliphs such as Moawiyah who openly faught against Imam Ali (A.S). Plus he was the very son of the woman who openly chewed the liver of Hazarat Hamza (A.S) in the battle of Uhad and his farther was an open enemy of the Prophet P.B.U.H. Also wasn't Moawiyah the one that killed Bibi Aysha. The sunni believe in Abu Hanifah I would like to ask you wasen't he the student of the Shia Imam Jaffer Sadiq (a.s) who's Unversity I have visited in Saudi Arabia. Here I would like to ask who would know better the Teacher or Student?
Syedana Ali:razi: also fought him too… That’s not a very good logic …
Ok.. Hinda:razi2: did come into the fold of Islam and anyone who accepts Islam, his/her sins are washed away… mind you Prophet:saw: forgave her but never wanted to see her out of the love of Hamzah:razi:… Having said that, who are YOU to point fingers on someone whom Prophet:saw: forgave??? Also, your logic is very unislamic and childish… You are judging a person based on whose son he is rather than who he was? If your logic holds some water, you should extend it to the fact that Abu Lahab and Abu Jahal were the uncles of the Prophet:saw: will you then deny him:saw: as the prophet based on that???
Never knew that… any reference???
Imam Jafar Sadiq:razi: was not shia… Just because Shia consider him as their Imam does not mean he practiced the religion what shia practice today. He is a very well known Muslim scholar in Sunnies as well…
the shura is the method used to appoint a leader in islam e.g. after the prophet SAW died.. the sahabah's elected abu bakr as the first khalifah and people gave bay'ah to him as khalif including hadrat Ali (RA), this is how a khalifah is elected
in the quran it says ** "And if two parties from the believers fight amongst themselves, then make peace between the two. And if one of the two parties rebels against the other, then FIGHT the party that is rebellious until the order of Allah does come to pass..." [Quran 49:9]. **
hadrat mu'awiya did not kill bibi ayesha, hadrat mu'awiya was a muslim.. dsnt matter if his parents were not bcos many sahabah's had parents who were mushrikhs
Who are you to tell me that Imam Jaffer Sadiq was not a shia as I come from his Family tree. I don't think you have read in to Imam Jaffer Sadiqs Fiqh of law makes much more sense than your Imam so don't you say that he was not a shia I am a syed and and come from his family tree. Talking about battle of the camel was started by Bibi Aysha not Imam Ali (a.s) and the battles of siffeen etc so ask yourself the question why did moawiyah fight against Imam Ali a.s who was the Imam at the time. Isen't it forbidden not to fight against your Caliph?
Now that is another illogical statement. Do you know that many Arab tribes were from the family tree of Ibraheem:as:… Were they following that religion in Arabia when Prophet:saw: was appointed as a Rasool???
Just because you claim to be from the same Family tree does not mean whatever you say is truth…
How can there be a reconciliation between the Ahlus Sunnah and the shiahs while they swear and abuse the three Khulafaa ur Raashidah. If they had any intelligence then they would realise that their abuse is in fact an abuse of Rasulullah Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Abu Bakr and Umar Radhiyallahu anhuma are the father-in-laws of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi wa sallam. They were his close confidants during his lifetime, and are his close neighbours after his demise. Who can achieve this honour? Who can achieve this honour? *They took part in Jihaad with Rasulullah alayhi wa sallam in all the Jihaad campaigns. These facts should be sufficient to dispel the false accusations of the shiahs.
**Uthmaan Radhiyallahu anhu was husband to two of the daughters of Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Allah Ta' ala will not choose for his beloved Rasool except the best of men, and the best of companions. This was the relationship between Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and the three Khulafaa ur Raahideen. He never said that these three are the enemies of Islam, and never warned against these three, as the shiahs claim.
If fact swearing at these three is an attack against Ali Radhiyallahuanhu. Ali Radhiyallahuanhu gave Abu Bakr Radhiyallahuanhu the Bait (oath of allegiance) in the Masjid (openly), and he (Ali Radhiyallahu anhu) got his daughter Ummu Kulthoom married to Umar Radhiyallahuanhu, he took the bait at the hands of Uthmaan Radhiyallahuanhu, was his minister, close friend and beloved one.
**Would Ali Radhiyallahuanhu give his daughter to a kaafir, or would he give the ba'it to a kaafir. Subhaanallah, this is indeed a great slander. *
Imam Jaffer was a shia as all the other imams were. If you guys new a tad bit about the Imams and their lives etc., this question wouldnt even arise. :halo:
With regards to the topic at hand, how someone can call the Prophet (saw) crazy on his deathbed, question the Prophet’s nabuwwat several times, and get away with it in your books, is beyond me. IMO not even the danish cartoons were as insulting, for the reason being it wasnt directly to the Prophet’s (saw) face. how you manage to distinuguish between either insult by justifying one and protesting against the other, is merely fascinating psychology.
For the ignorant asking irrelevant questions as to why the Prophet would ask for a pen or paper if he was illiterate. Well most likely it would been the same person who wrote the treaty of hudaibya..i.e. Imam Ali (as). Hope that answers your question.
The second Ayah that you have qouted was revealed at Hajj at Arafah, has nothing to do with Ghadir and so is the first ayah. The only people connectig 5:67 to Ghadir Tatabai followers.
And why wud Muslims not accept everything from Prophet saw, like giving up their ancestral religion, leaving their husbands and wife, fighting against their own kith and kin, fasting, praying etc but only refusing Ali’s Imamat? Was Ali ra so unconvincing as a leader?
And why wud Muslims not accept everything from Prophet saw, like giving up their ancestral religion, leaving their husbands and wife, fighting against their own kith and kin, fasting, praying etc but only refusing Ali's Imamat? Was Ali ra so unconvincing as a leader?
First of all the verses reveled like what i had stated, if you like you can consult to Imam Fakhruddin Razi's tafseer.
There were different reasons for not accepting Ali [as] as their imam/caliph, some of them had grudge against him and didnt want him to see leading, a few thought that they cannot follow someone who is younger than those, drama which had 6,7 characters had resulted in a political power therefore people then preferred to stick with that since according to them it was unislamic to oppose the ruler (no matter how he has been elected or how he is), while rulers also did efforts to seize any opposition. Having said that, there were people who adhered to Ali [as].
slander/cursing is not a quality associated with Imams, dissociating is.
and maatam or the lack of it does not distinguish shia from a non shia, as it is not an essential requirement of their faith. it is the beliefs and aqaid on imamat and other essential principles that set us apart. we are also known as fiqh e jafferi…so you’d think we’d know about his aqaids and which side of the fence he’s on?
armughal…are you saying the the calamity of thursday ahadith in your books is false? please explain.
Imams of Ahlulbayt [as] didnt do matam but they encourage lamentation for the martyrs of Karbala. As for slander, as for the second part , yes there are traditions to that effect in some of our books.
There were different reasons for not accepting Ali [as] as their imam/caliph, some of them had grudge against him and didnt want him to see leading, a few thought that they cannot follow someone who is younger than those, drama which had 6,7 characters had resulted in a political power therefore people then preferred to stick with that since according to them it was unislamic to oppose the ruler (no matter how he has been elected or how he is), while rulers also did efforts to seize any opposition. Having said that, there were people who adhered to Ali [as].
I have seen the Tafseer of Ibn Kathir, Tafsir of Moudoodi and Abdul Waheed and have not found what u say. Ofcourse u can find it in ur books. And needless to say that shiites relate every verse of praise to Ali ra and every verse of condemnation to Abu Bakr or Umer ra.
subhanallah! Same pathetic logics lead to the tragedy of Karbala where a few ignorant people supported Fasiq & Faajiq Yazeed since he had attained power (no matter how)!
great job boy nice