sino:

Authentic Hadith of `Ali ibn abi Talib from Tareekh al-Tabari 4/428, when the six men gathered after the passing of `Umar to elect a successor, each man spoke, when it was `Ali’s turn he said:

[…If the messenger (saw) had promised us anything (with regards to leadership) we would have fulfilled his wish, and we would have argued about it until we die, no one will beat me to call people to the truth…]

# Whenever I accuse you of copy-pasting (obviously with no resources to verify details), it might seem insulting. This has really expose you again that your reliance is only to copy paste.

# Anyway, the account of Imam Jarir al-Tabari on this report (the six-men committee) are of two slightly contradictory versions. Your copy-paste is the second version.

# So, should you go by this 2nd version, I might as well submit the first version which says:

"(Ali said) 'By God, the caliphate has again been taken away from us because the final authority rests in the hands of Abd ar-Rahman, who is an old friend and brother-in-law of 'Uthman, whereas Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas is Abd ar-Rahman's cousin from Banu Zuhra; naturally these three will support each other, and even if Zubair and Talha vote for me it would be of no use"

Source: Abu Ja'far Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh ar-Rasul wa'l-Muluk (Edition, M. J. De Goeje et al; London 1879-1901), volume 1, pp.2780;

* Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Jabir Al-Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf (edition. S. D. F. Goitein, Jerusalem 1936), volume 5, pp.19

# However, see attached scan-pages of more recent English translation - The two slight contradictory accounts.

Continuation of scan-pages of Tabari's two version account of the six-man committee.

Continuation of scan-pages of Tabari's two version account of the six-man committee

Continuation of scan-pages of Tabari's two version account of the six-man committee. These remaining two scan-pages complete the two versions of Tabari's documentations.

sino:

Now to your opinion why Ali (RA) didn’t bring the narration at Ghadir Khumm is quite poor, firstly, you have no evidence to back this, and secondly, you guys claim that Imamah is a divine appointment, and maula means authority over the Muslims, did Ali (RA) now deny himself this position of authority by keeping quiet?!

# Point 1: Evidence to back what? That Abubakar and Umar's caliphacy was done secretly behind Ali and therefore there is no question why Ali did not use hadith Ghadir to prove his rightful position?

* A matter that has been decided behind him never worth fighting for. He has been told that the Ummah will betray him.


# Point 2: You said we (Shia) claimed "Mawla" means "authority over Muslims", I challenge you by the authority of that same hadith of our Prophet to counter prove that "Mawla" in that context does not mean "authority over the believers". This (OP) is what you have been dodging since the start of this unending argument.

# Point 3: You ask, "{[did Ali (RA) now deny himself this position of authority by keeping quiet?!]}

# Oh! You want him to became rogue like Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan who split the Ummah because of power?

* Imam Ali did not need the seat of Khilafah by force. What exactly does he want to prove with it when it is the seat that needed him the most had the betrayals know?!

The purpose of Khilafah (continuation of Nubuwah) is to guide people. You don't force yourself on people if they have betrayed you or doesn't want you. Lots of Prophet of Allah were rejected and betrayed by their people.

Allah says:

"You are only a warner, and Every people has a guide." {Quran 13:7}

Al-hafiz Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani's words in Fath al-Bari:

Al-Tabari has narrated it with a good (hasan) chain through the route of Sa'id b. Jubayr from Ibn 'Abbas:

When this verse was revealed, the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, placed his hand on his chest and said: "I am the warner." And he pointed to 'Ali and said: "You are the guide. After me, the rightly guided ones will become guided through you."

That report is in vol. 8, p. 376 of Fath al-Bari.
http://islamport.com/w/srh/Web/2747/4613.htm

And here http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=8483&idto=8484&bk_no=52&ID=2468


# Very few stood by Ali in the period of his predecessors (Abubakar, Umar and Uthman). This rejection of Ali continued even after he had been sworn in as the Khalifah. Had the entire Sahabah accepted him as their Mawla, none would have dare to raise sword against him. Do you fight Allah and His Prophet as your Mawla?

sino:

And none of the sahabah remembered this appointment made by the Prophet (SAW) at Ghadir Khumm?!

# Nabi has foretold that the Ummah will betrayed Ali after him. Do you have any problem with the hadith?

# In fact this is another testimony to correctness of the hadith "O Ali! You are to me of the status of Harun to Musa except you are not a Prophet. And you are my Khalifah over every believer after me"

Nabi Harun was betrayed and rejected by Nabi Musa's Ummah. So was Ali by Nabi's Ummah.

# I wish to quote a conversation between Ibn Abbas and Umar ibn al-Khattab over the issue of Khilafah.

CONVERSATION BETWEEN UMAR IBN AL-KHATTAB AND ABDULLAH IBN ABBAS ON THE ISSUE OF CALIPHATE
Imam Tabari documents:

Umar asked Ibn Abbas, "Why did 'Ali not join us and co-operate with us? Why did the Quraysh not support your family while your father is the uncle and you are the cousin of the Prophet?"

"I do not know," replied Ibn Abbas.

"But I know the reason," said 'Umar. "Because the Quraysh did not like to allow both the Nubuwah and the Khilafah to be combined in your house (Bani Hashim), for with this you would feel arrogant and rejoice. The Quraysh therefore prefered to choose the leader for themselves and they made the right choice and were guided by God in that."

Ibn Abbas replied, "O Amir al-Mu'minin, as for your statement that the Quraysh chose their own leader and were guided in their choice, it may be correct if the choice...was in the same sense as the choice of God from among the Quraysh. As for your statement that the Quraysh did not like to like to allow both the Nubuwah and the Khilafah with us, it is not surprising, for God has described many people who disliked 'what God has sent down to them and thus render their deeds fruitless (Q. XLVII: 9)'.

At this point Umar became angry and said, "I have heard many things about you but I ignored them because of my regards for you. I am told that you think that we have taken away the caliphate from you through oppression and because of envy."

Ibn Abbas said, "As for oppression, it is evident and as concerns envy, so it is obvious; Satan envied Adam and we are the children of Adam."

Umar lost his temper and retorted, "Alas, O Banu Hashim, your hearts are full of hatred, rancour and false pretensions."

Ibn Abbas said, "Be gentle, O Amir al-mu'minin, and do not describe the hearts of the people from whom God has removed all kinds of uncleanliness and purified them with complete purification (Q. XXXIII: 33). Moreover, the Prophet himself belonged to the Banu Hashim."

Umar said, "Let us leave this topic."

Source: Abu Ja'far Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh ar-Rasul wa'l-Muluk (Edition, M. J. De Goeje et al; London 1879-1901), volume 1, pp.2769-2770.

Attached is the scan-pages of the English edition I have submitted above.

sino:

Fourthly, Ali (RA) had nothing contrary to say about his predecessors except praises and respect and prayers, there was no enmity between themselves…It is obvious that you guys are the ones really claiming what the Prophet (SAW) and Ali (RA) never claimed.

So, why did then Imam Muslim documents the reaction of Umar why he revealed Ali's and Abbas thought over Abubakar and Umar?

Imam Muslim documents:
"When the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, died, Abū Bakr said: “I am the walī of the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him.”.... So both of you ('Alī and 'Abbās) thought him (i.e. Abū Bakr) to be a liar, sinful, A TRAITOR and dishonest. And Allāh knows that he was really truthful, pious, rightly-guided and a follower of the truth. Abū Bakr died and I became the walī of the Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, and the walī of Abū Bakr. So both of you thought me to be a liar, sinful, A TRAITOR and dishonest."

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (Beirut: Dār Iḥyā al-Turāth al-'Arabī), vol. 3, p. 1376, #1757

# Should I quote Shia sources on Ali's thought about his predecessors?

sino:

Yeah the narration is vague, what brought about asking for people to stand up and bear witness, i.e what was the reason?!

Alhamdulillah you admitted that the hadith you copy-pasted was fake. You don't use a weak hadith to fill in the gap of Sahih hadiths.

sino:

And as I said earlier, your assumption holds no water, the incidence happened close to his death, if it was about being appointed as the successor of the Prophet (SAW), he would have said so during the time of Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA), and Uthman (RA), in fact, those loyal to him would have brought the narration of Ghadir Khumm as evidence to back him.

# I cant over flog this issue. I have explained clearly enough. Take it or continue repeating it.

# We have given you the case of Uthman's selection.

sino:

The narration is authentic based on the fact that there are similar authentic narrations (which you brought one of them); there is also a similar narration with same chain that was authenticated by Shuaib Al-Aranuut by stating (Sahih li ghayrihi), apparently, there is an issue with the sanad. But, authenticity of the narration I brought is not an issue; even the number of those that stood up is also not an issue. Since we can get more information from the narration which does not render the narration to be rejected, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

# Again you don't use a fake hadith to fill in the gap for sahih hadiths. Such an attempt is desperation.

# The one I brought never states any reason why Imam Ali called people out. And it has a context in which "[i]man kuntu mawlau fa adha Ali mawla" was said. Your fake hadith never have this context.

# This context is very important. Its the only thing that guides as per the real meaning of "Mawla". And it is what you have been dodging all round.

Kindly refer to the above attached screenshot of Abu Tufyal's hadith document by Albani. However, here's Imam Ahmad same account:

Abu Tufayl (RA) has narrated that ‘Alī (RA) gathered the people in an open place and said to them: I make every Muslim swear and ask him if he has heard the Prophet (Peace be upon him) say something (about me) on the day of Ghadir Khum, he should stand up. At this, thirty persons stood up — while Abu Nu‘aym said that a larger number of people stood up — and they bore witness that (we remember that time) when the Messenger of Allah (Peace be upon him) said to the people while holding your hand: Do you know that I am more entitled over the lives of the believers? All of them said: yes, O Messenger of Allāh! Then he said: one who has me as his master has this (‘Alī) as his master. O Allāh! Befriend him who befriends him (‘Alī) and be his enemy who is his (‘Alī’s) enemy. The narrator (Abu Tufayl) says that when I came out I had some doubt. In the meantime, I met Zayd bin Arqam (RA) and told him that I had heard ‘Alī (RA) say this. At this Zayd bin Arqam (RA) said: how can you deny while I have myself heard the Messenger (SAW) say this about ‘Alī (RA)?”

Sheikh Shu'aib al-Ar'naut in Tahqiq of Musnad Ahmad said:

The Isnad of this report is “SAHIH” and the Rijaal are all “THIQA AND RIJAL OF BUKHARI and MUSLIM” except for Fatr bin Khalifa who is amongst Rijaal of Sunnan and Imam Bukhari (rah) narrated from him in Maqrunan form

Source: Abū ‘Abd Allāh Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Ḥanbal b. Hilāl b. Asad al-Shaybānī, Musnad (Muasassat al-Risālah; 1st edition, 1421 H) [annotators: Shu’ayb al-Arnāūṭ], vol. 4, p. 370, # 19321

# Again check the bolded context of this hadith as reported. What does Mawla signified?

# Abu Tufayl, a doubter, after this conviction became a diehard Shia of Ali who helped crushed his enemies at Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan. Indeed a Mawla is he with greater authority over yourself (Quran says in case of Nabi), and it is he who guides from depth of darkness into light (Quran says about Allah).

sino:

Bros, it is not an assumption, it is a fact, and the evidences are there for all to read (on the link I presented). Your own assumption has no evidence(s); you just sat down and brought it out of thin air! Ali (RA) would use the narration of Ghadir Khumm to defend himself against his opponents, not and never to state him having right to the caliphate. Here is evidence for this:

“Rifā‘ah bin Iyās ad-Dabbī relates on the authority of his father who relates it on the authority of his grandfather. He said: We were with ‘Alī (RA) on the day of the Battle of Jamal. He sent a message for Talhah bin ‘Ubaydullāh (RA) who called on him. He said: I make you swear by Allāh! Have you heard from the Messenger of Allāh (SAW): [b]One who has me as his Mawla has ‘Alī as his Mawla O Allāh! Befriend him who befriends him and be his enemy who is his enemy. Talhah (RA) said: Yes. ‘Alī (RA) said: Then why do you fight with me? Talhah (RA) said: I did not remember it. The narrator said: (After this) Talhah (RA) went back.”[/b]

[ Hākim narrated it in al-Mustadrak vol 3, page 371 # 5594 ; Bayhaqī in al-I‘tiqād wal-hidāyah ilā sabīl-ir-rishād ‘alā madhhab-is-salaf wa ashāb-il-hadīth page 373; Ibn ‘Asākir in Tārīkh Dimashq al-kabīr vol 27, page 76].

# Allahu Akbar! This evidence is even against you. What does "Mawla" meant in this context? Someone with greater authority liken to the authority of Nabi or a friend?

# Was the Prophet a believer's friend or Master whom must be obey?

# Talha, Aisha and Zubair had believed and accepted Imam Ali as their Mawla (Master), they wouldn't wage war against him. Talha and Zubair had been with Imam Ali from the beginning. They formed a group that opposed Abubakar and Umar. At the end, they both betrayed their Mawla.

sino:

Again Ali (RA) clarified issue of caliphate during the same battle above, which puts all your assumptions to eternal rest, we read:

Amro bin Sufiyan said: When Ali came on the day of Jamal he said: “O people, the Apostle of Allah(SAWS) did not promise us anything regarding this Imarah (Caliphate/Succession) until we saw in our own opinion that we must appoint Abu Bakr and he took a straight path then he left us…

[Source: Ahmad and al Bayhaqi and al Mubarakpoori with good chain].

# You can do better with this yet a vague hadith

Do you call this references:

Source: Ahmad and al Bayhaqi and al Mubarakpoori with good chain ? Inna lillah wa Inna ilayhi rajiun.

# Besides, Hadith Khilafah, Hadith Wilayat and Hadith Khalifatain clearly, without any shadow of doubt, showed Nabi truly designated a Khalifah/Khulafau.

I wonder how a vague hadith with no sensible sanad or proper reference can ever be submitted as an evidence to prove otherwise.

# Even if you have a "credible hadith" that prove otherwise, then it will definitely contradict those three clear ahadith which prove that Nabi designated a Khalifah/Khalifatain.

sino:

Again, the sahabahs also do same to defend Ali (RA), Example:

Amr ibn Maymun said: “I was sitting once in the company of ibn Abbas when nine men came to him and said, ‘O ibn Abbas! Either come to debate with us, or tell these folks that you prefer a private debate.’ He had not lost his eye-sight yet he said: ‘I rather debate with you.’ So they started talking, but I was not sure exactly what they were talking about. Then he stood up and angrily said: “Woe to them! Woe to them! They insult a man who gathered ten (virtues)!.… Prophet(SAWS) also said: Whosoever I am Mawla of, Ali is his Mawla. [Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. Vol. 3, Pg. # 331 – 333.]

Here Ibn Abbas defended Ali (RA) with the narration when those people were insulting him, so Ibn Abbas knew this narration, but did not understand it to mean caliphate of Ali (RA) after the death of the Prophet (SAW).

# Is this desperation or what? How come you lose your senses so easily Mr Sino?

# The question remain: What is the meaning of "Mawla" in the context of hadith Ghadir Khumm which Ibn Abbas referenced?

You can never run away from this simple question.

# We've been able to maintain our stance that Mawla in the context of hadith Ghadir Khumm means nothing but "someone with greater authority over every believer".

Nabi was very careful linking this word with Allah's and His Messenger's wilaya-ship.

sino:

So it is not out of place for the author of the comment, backed by these evidences, and the narration found in Ibn Abi Shaybah to state that the context (reason) for Ali’s (RA) statement was to defend himself against the criticisms leveled against him by his opponents and detractors.

# I have given you a hadith narrated by Imran ibn Hussain in Sunan Tirmidhi where Nabi sent Ali to lead some men to an expedition. As usual they were criticizing Ali. Nabi's response was that "Do not fault Ali. He is the Wali of every believer after me"

# In both your vague hadith and the authentic above, similar things happened and response was they are insulting a man who Nabi says "Whosoever I am his Mawla, Ali is his Mawla."

All our unending nasia have finally come to a concluding question: So, what exactly is the meaning of Wali and Mawla of every believer as Allah and Nabi are every believer's Wali and Mawla"?

sino:



(iv). Mother of Believers- Sayyida Ayesha(RA) :

(a). Narrated Al-Aswad: In the presence of `Aisha some people mentioned that the Prophet (SAWS) had appointed `Ali by will as his successor. `Aisha said, “When did he appoint him by will? Verily when he died he was resting against my chest (or said: in my lap) and he asked for a wash-basin and then collapsed while in that state, and I could not even perceive that he had died, so when did he appoint him by will?” [ Sahih al-Bukhari #2741 ]

Comment: The other Member of Ahlulbayt, who rejected the view that Ali(RA) was appointed as the Successor of Prophet(SAWS) at Ghadeer or after that, was Sayyida Ayesha(RA). She had no idea about Ali(ra) being appointed as Prophet’s Successor at anytime. In this report we find that, some people influenced by the ideology of Abdullah Ibn Saba, claimed that Ali(ra) was appointed by Prophet(saws) as his successor by his will, hence Ayesha(ra) rejected this corrupt and baseless view of the Saba’ees.

We have more or less respond to your long lists of hadiths. I however have a special interest in this hadith of Umm al-Mu'minin Aisha.

# First, it is no longer a secret the hatred Aisha had for Imam Ali. The hatred grew to the extent she disobeyed Allah's and His Messenger's command and wage civil war against her Mawla and Wali. So, her statement above is the least.

# She has been asked once (after the demise of her husband) who the most beloved of Nabi was? She replied, "Aishah". And she was asked who amongst men? She replied, "Her father". On the contrary, another Sahih hadith revealed she was once shouting and talking back at Nabi and said, "I have discovered that Ali is more beloved to you than me and my father".

# Another ahadith revealed she dislike mentioning the name of Ali in anything good.

So, what do you expect her to say especially in this matter of Khilafah? Do you forget Allah revealed that her heart has been deviated from the truth?

# As per claim that Nabi died on her lap/chest, Imam al-Hakim documents a counter hadith:

Umm Salamah has also narrated an authentic hadith saying : "By the One by Whom alone do I swear, `Ali was the closest to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) upon his death. We [she and Ali] visited him one afternoon, and he happily and
repeatedly said: `Ali has come! `Ali has come!'Fatima (as) inquired whether `Ali had been sent on an errand. Later on, `Ali came again, and I thought that probably he needed to have some privacy with the Prophet (pbuh); so, we came out and sat at the door. I was closer to the door. The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) bent his head over `Ali and started talking to him
confidentially, addressing him affectionately, till he passed away; so, `Ali was the last person to be with him before his death."

Al-Hakim comments: This hadith is Sahih upon the standard of the two sheiks

Al-Dhahabi concurs: Sahih

Source: Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Muṣtafā ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā], vol. 3, p. 139.

# Alhamdulillah Aishah herself was reported to have confessed of her Bid'ah before her death.

AlBaqir, before I respond to your posts accordingly, are all the narrations, scan pages etc. Researched by you?! Are you the original individual that brought these evidences including the scan pages from the original sources?

Thank you in anticipation of an honest and sincere answer.

sino:


Bros, still you haven’t answered my question. The fact remains that Ali (RA) did not make reference to Ghadir Khumm as evidence against anyone in terms of succession whether they (his predecessors) were chosen in secrecy or not is immaterial, since he (RA) also pledged allegiance to them after all, and also when he did so does not matter. In fact, we have a narration which clearly states the position of Ali (RA) with regards to khilafah.

From Al haythami in Mujama’a al Zawa’ed 9/50:

They said to Ali: “Will you not appoint a successor?” He said: “The Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) did not appoint a successor so that I may do so, If Allah wishes that something good happens to you then he will make you all gather around the best (Man) amongst you just like he made them gather around the best Man (i.e. Abu Bakr) after their Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)”

[Rank: All narrators are that of the Sahih except Ismail bin Abi al Harith and he is Trustworthy].

Authentic Hadith of `Ali ibn abi Talib from Tareekh al-Tabari 4/428, when the six men gathered after the passing of `Umar to elect a successor, each man spoke, when it was `Ali’s turn he said:

[…If the messenger (saw) had promised us anything (with regards to leadership) we would have fulfilled his wish, and we would have argued about it until we die, no one will beat me to call people to the truth…]

Now to your opinion why Ali (RA) didn’t bring the narration at Ghadir Khumm is quite poor, firstly, you have no evidence to back this, and secondly, you guys claim that Imamah is a divine appointment, and maula means authority over the Muslims, did Ali (RA) now deny himself this position of authority by keeping quiet?! And none of the sahabah remembered this appointment made by the Prophet (SAW) at Ghadir Khumm?! Thirdly, the personality of Ali (RA) is that of a warrior and a courageous Muslim, he would never shy away from speaking the truth to anyone (as evident in the above narration), yet we cannot find him stating that his caliphate was usurped. So for over 25 years, Ali (RA) couldn’t find an opportunity to remind the people, including Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, whom he happened to have direct access to, and also amongst his students. Fourthly, Ali (RA) had nothing contrary to say about his predecessors except praises and respect and prayers, there was no enmity between themselves…It is obvious that you guys are the ones really claiming what the Prophet (SAW) and Ali (RA) never claimed.



Yeah the narration is vague, what brought about asking for people to stand up and bear witness, i.e what was the reason?! And as I said earlier, your assumption holds no water, the incidence happened close to his death, if it was about being appointed as the successor of the Prophet (SAW), he would have said so during the time of Abu Bakr (RA), Umar (RA), and Uthman (RA), in fact, those loyal to him would have brought the narration of Ghadir Khumm as evidence to back him. But it was not so, and I shall bring evidences that shows the understanding of the sahabas (including ahl-l-bayt) of the narration, and how they applied it.




The narration is authentic based on the fact that there are similar authentic narrations (which you brought one of them); there is also a similar narration with same chain that was authenticated by Shuaib Al-Aranuut by stating (Sahih li ghayrihi), apparently, there is an issue with the sanad. But, authenticity of the narration I brought is not an issue; even the number of those that stood up is also not an issue. Since we can get more information from the narration which does not render the narration to be rejected, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Be that as it may, as I hinted earlier, I would be bringing the understanding of how the narration of Ghadir Khumm was understood and applied by the sahabahs subsequently…


Bros, it is not an assumption, it is a fact, and the evidences are there for all to read (on the link I presented). Your own assumption has no evidence(s); you just sat down and brought it out of thin air! Ali (RA) would use the narration of Ghadir Khumm to defend himself against his opponents, not and never to state him having right to the caliphate. Here is evidence for this:

“Rifā‘ah bin Iyās ad-Dabbī relates on the authority of his father who relates it on the authority of his grandfather. He said: We were with ‘Alī (RA) on the day of the Battle of Jamal. He sent a message for Talhah bin ‘Ubaydullāh (RA) who called on him. He said: I make you swear by Allāh! Have you heard from the Messenger of Allāh (SAW): One who has me as his Mawla has ‘Alī as his Mawla O Allāh! Befriend him who befriends him and be his enemy who is his enemy. Talhah (RA) said: Yes. ‘Alī (RA) said: Then why do you fight with me? Talhah (RA) said: I did not remember it. The narrator said: (After this) Talhah (RA) went back.”

[ Hākim narrated it in al-Mustadrak vol 3, page 371 # 5594 ; Bayhaqī in al-I‘tiqād wal-hidāyah ilā sabīl-ir-rishād ‘alā madhhab-is-salaf wa ashāb-il-hadīth page 373; Ibn ‘Asākir in Tārīkh Dimashq al-kabīr vol 27, page 76].

Again Ali (RA) clarified issue of caliphate during the same battle above, which puts all your assumptions to eternal rest, we read:

Amro bin Sufiyan said: When Ali came on the day of Jamal he said: “O people, the Apostle of Allah(SAWS) did not promise us anything regarding this Imarah (Caliphate/Succession) until we saw in our own opinion that we must appoint Abu Bakr and he took a straight path then he left us…
[Source: Ahmad and al Bayhaqi and al Mubarakpoori with good chain].

Again, the sahabahs also do same to defend Ali (RA), Example:

Amr ibn Maymun said: “I was sitting once in the company of ibn Abbas when nine men came to him and said, ‘O ibn Abbas! Either come to debate with us, or tell these folks that you prefer a private debate.’ He had not lost his eye-sight yet he said: ‘I rather debate with you.’ So they started talking, but I was not sure exactly what they were talking about. Then he stood up and angrily said: “Woe to them! Woe to them! They insult a man who gathered ten (virtues)!.… Prophet(SAWS) also said: Whosoever I am Mawla of, Ali is his Mawla. [Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. Vol. 3, Pg. # 331 – 333.]

Here Ibn Abbas defended Ali (RA) with the narration when those people were insulting him, so Ibn Abbas knew this narration, but did not understand it to mean caliphate of Ali (RA) after the death of the Prophet (SAW).

So it is not out of place for the author of the comment, backed by these evidences, and the narration found in Ibn Abi Shaybah to state that the context (reason) for Ali’s (RA) statement was to defend himself against the criticisms leveled against him by his opponents and detractors.

Jazakallahu khairan. Your reply to baqir is a classical example of إن كنت ريحا فقد لاقيت اعصارا

sino:

Examples from Sahaba:

(vi). Umar bin al-Khattab(RA)

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar: It was said to `Umar, “Will you appoint your successor?” `Umar said, “If I appoint a Caliph (as my successor) it is true that somebody who was better than I (i.e., Abu Bakr) did so, and if I leave the matter undecided, it is true that somebody who was better than I (i.e., Allah’s Messenger (SAWS)) did so.” On this, the people praised him. `Umar said, “People are of two kinds: Either one who is keen to take over the Caliphate or one who is afraid of assuming such a responsibility. I wish I could be free from its responsibility in that I would receive neither reward nor retribution I won’t bear the burden of the caliphate in my death as I do in my life.” [Sahih al-Bukhari #7218]

Comment: Umar(RA) never understood Ghadeer declaration to be Ali’s appointment as the Successor of Prophet(SAWS). Rather he believed that Prophet(SAWS) didn’t appoint his successor.

(vii). Abdullah ibn Umar(RA)

(a). We read

Uqbah bin Aws al Sadusi narrated: Ibn Umar said: In this nation there shall be twelve Caliphs, Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, you got his name right, Omar Al-Farouq as an iron horn you got his name right, Othman who is Zhu Nourain (the one with two lights) has been given two portions of mercy for he was innocently killed, you got his name right.

[Takhreej Kitab al Sunnah #1154 by Sheikh al Albani ; Hadith Grading: Chain SAHIH].

Comment: Here we find that Abdullah ibn Umar(RA) counted Abubakr(RA) as the first rightful Caliph, which implies that even he didn’t believe Ghadeer event to be an appointment of Prophet’s successor.

(b). We read in [Sahih al-Bukhari #7218] that Abdullah ibn Umar(RA) narrated a hadeeth where Umar(RA) said Prophet(SAWS) didn’t appoint his successor, without making any objection to it, or claiming that Ali(RA) was already appointed a Caliph during Ghadeer event. This proves that even Abdullah ibn Umar agreed with Umar that Prophet (SAWS) didn’t appoint his successor.

(viii). Safinah ibn Farrukh(RA)

Narrated Safinah: The Prophet (SAWS) said: The Caliphate upon the Prophetic methodology will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills. Sa’eed told that Safinah said to him: Calculate Abu Bakr’s caliphate as two years, ‘Umar’s as ten, ‘Uthman’s as twelve and ‘Ali so and so. Sa’eed said: I said to Safinah: They conceive that ‘Ali was not a caliph. He replied: ‘Bani Az-Zarqa’ told a lie. Meaning the Bani Marwan.

[Sunan Abi Dawud #4646 ; Grade: Hasan Sahih (Al-Albani)].

Comment: We see that Safinah(RA) or Mihran – as was his actual name – believed that the Caliphate of first four Caliphs, that is Abu Bakr(RA), Umar(RA), Uthman(RA) and Ali(RA) was the Caliphate on the Prophetic methodology, as it was Prophesied by the Messenger of Allah(SAWS). If he believed that Prophet (SAWS) had appointed Ali (RA) as his successor, then undoubtedly Safinah (RA) wouldn’t have counted the Caliphate of the first three Caliphs among the Caliphate upon the Prophetic methodology.

(ix). Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa(RA)

Narrated Talha: I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa, “Did the Prophet (SAWS) make a will (to appoint his successor or bequeath wealth)?” He replied, “No.” I said, “How is it prescribed then for the people to make wills, and they are ordered to do so while the Prophet (SAWS) did not make any will?” He said, “He made a will wherein he recommended the Muslims to adhere to Allah’s Book.”[Sahih al-Bukhari #5022].

(x). Abdullah ibn Masood(RA) & All the Sahaba of Prophet(SAWS)

Abdullah ibn Masood(RA) said: “What the Muslims saw as good was good for Allah, and what the Muslims saw as bad was bad for Allah, and all the companions saw that they should make Abu Bakr the successor.”[Mustadrak al-Hakim vol 3, page 78-79].

Comment: Sahaba didn’t understand Ghadeer event to be an appoint of Prophet’s Successor, hence they made Abubakr(RA) the Successor of Prophet(SAWS). The occurrence of Saqifa incident, where Ansar and Muhajireen gathered to appoint a successor of Prophet (SAWS), itself is a proof that they didn’t believe Ghadeer event to be an appointment of Prophet’s successor.

Moreover, the strong Ansar in their homeland giving up their claim of appointing a Successor from among them, and eventually accepting a Man from a weak and small tribe of Bani Taym from Quraysh(i.e Abubakr), is another solid evidence that they had no idea about Ghadeer event being an appointment of Prophet’s Successor.

Sufyan(Thawri) said: If anyone thinks that ‘Ali (RA) was more deserving for the Caliphate than both of them, he imputed error to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, the Muhajirun (Immigrants), and the Ansar (Helpers) Allah be pleased with all of them. I think that with this (belief) none of his action will rise to the heaven. [Sunan Abi Dawud #4630]

Important Note:

This fact that Prophet (SAWS) didn’t appoint any Successor is Mutawatir bi’l-ma’na. Narrations that reach the level of Tawatur with the common
meaning found in all of them, even though they differ in wording or incident. This is called Mutawatir bi’l-ma’na (conceptual Mutawatir). For example, one report says that Zaid gave a book, the other says, he gave a pen, the third says, he gave money. Now, collectively all the reports indicate that Zaid gave, however they differ as to what he gave. Therefore, tawatur will be considered in that Zaid gave. Examples of this kind of Mutawatir are numerous in the Hadith. (See Imam Suyuti’s Tadrib al-Rawi, 460-461).

Therefore, the odd Shia interpretation of Hadeeth al-Ghadeer, claiming that Prophet (SAWS) appointed his successor goes against a Mutawatir fact (100% authentic) that Prophet (SAWS) didn’t appoint his successor, thus it is outright rejected."


Honestly, I do not understand how you people would just pick a narration or a verse, and give them your interpretations with absoluterly no recourse to the understanding of the righteous predecessors, including the ahl-l-bayt you keep saying you follow, and then try to sell that as the truth for people to believe and follow. My question still stands, and if you do not have the answer, you should rethink the path you have chosen for yourself!

رفعت الأقلام وجفت الصحف
This is so far one of the best reply to this shia ghadir kum issue

# Sino, am very sorry I don't discuss my personal quest to religious research publicly.


However, wallahi am done with our back and forth argument that doesn't yield anything. If you like make a 100 pages copy-paste replies. What I am solely concern of is for you to give the meaning of Mawla and Wali as used by the Prophet:

[size=15pt]Do you not testify that Allāh and His Messenger are more entitled to you than yourselves and that Allāh the Almighty and His Messenger are your Mawlā?” They said, “Yes, we do”. He said, “So, whosoever Allāh and His Messenger are his Mawlā, verily this one – or ‘Alī - is his mawlā[/size].

# Wa Salam alaykum

AlBaqir:
@ShiaMuslim,

I must say that am highly disappointed. This thread is about Ghadir Khumm and its going smoothly and steadily untill you posted "Ziyarat of Ashura". This has derail the thread to the point of takfirism. Wallahi this is not proper.

Is this taqqiya or ignorance?
The person you try to correct knows more about core Shia principles than you

Sorry, see another one below (Dua Sanamy Quraish Shias use for invoking curse on Abu Bakr, Umar and their daughters (RAA) - Aisha and Hafza - wives of the Prophet (SAW) he (SAW) never divorced)

He knows more than you that the Shia religion is really about cursing as many people as possible and getting multitudes in hellfire. That gives the greatest joy to shias
We Sunnis want as many as possible in jannat because we believe Allah is merciful and He forgives all sins apart from shirk

O Allah! Curse the two idols of Quraish and their two magicians, their two rebellious people, their two accusers and their two daughters. Rebuke them, they have consumed Your sustenance and have denied Your obligations, both have discarded Your commands, have rejected Your revelation, have disobeyed Your Prophet, havE destroyed Your religion, have distorted Your book, have made Your laws ineffective, have declared Your obligatory actions as incorrect, have disbelieved in Your signs, have oppressed Your friends, have loved Your enemies, have spread corruption among Your people, have made Your world occur loses.

O Allah! Send Your curses on them and their helpers as they have ruined the house of Your prophet, have dug the door of his house, broken the roof, have brought down the walls, have made the skies, the ground, have destroyed its inhabitants, have killed their supporters have put to death, their children have deserted his pulpit by his successors of knowledge, have desired his prophet hood, have ascribed a partner to their Lord, thus consider both of their sins to be great, and make their abode in 'saqar' forever, and do you know what is 'saqar?'

It leaves nothing, nor let anything remain. O Allah, send Your chastisement on them to the extent of the sins of every disobedient, and the covering of truth, and all the pupils where they have gone, and the believer whom they have harmed and the disbeliever whom they have loved,

and to the number of pious people whom they have troubled, and whom they have driven out of their cities, and helped the disbelievers, and the Imam on whom they were cruel and have changed the obligatory laws, and have destroyed the practice of the Holy Prophet, and whatever evils they have concealed, the blood which they shed, have changed the goodness and have altered the commands, have created disbelief, or the lie for which they have cheated, the inheritance which they have plundered, and stopped the booties from them and have consumed the prohibited wealth,

and that 'Khums' (the fifth part) which they considered as permitted for them, and that evil whose foundation were put, and that cruelty which they made common, that oppression, which they spread, those promises, which they dishonored, those covenant which they broke, those lawful which is termed as unlawful, and that unlawful which is termed as lawful,

that hypocrisy which they have concealed in the hearts, and to the amount of treachery which they bore in their hearts, and those stomach which they have split open, and that 'pahlu' which they broke, and that door which they broke-opened, and those gatherings which they dispersed and those degraded whom they gave honor, and those honourable whom they insulted,

and by the number of rights which they have usurped, and the order of Imam which they opposed, bestow Your wrath on them to the extent of the atrocities.

O Allah! Your curses on them to the extent of alteration in Quran and covering the truth, rendering the will, worthless, and breaking the promises, and declaring all the claims as void, refusing all the allegiances, presenting excuses, introducing breach of trust, climbing of hills and to the nuer of vessel which they turned upside down and all that defects which they possessed. Bestow Your curses on them.

O Allah curse those two, secretly and openly, such a beating which is forever continuous, nonstop and innumerable. Such a whipping which commences in the morning but does not ends at night.

Such a beating should be on those tyrants, and their helpers, their assistance, their friends and their lovers, those attracted to them and those who acknowledge their deeds, those who present proof for them, and those who follow their words, and those who approve their actions.

(Then recite four times).

O Allah! Send such a harsh chastisement upon them, that the dwellers of Hell start screaming, O Lord of the Universe accept this prayer from me.

This is the Sunni perspective of the incident of Ghadir Khum

http://www.chiite.fr/en/hadith_01.html

Anyone after the truth should read it

Muslims who went for Hajj all gathered at Arafat on Sun last week. They slaughtered on Monday and commenced stoning at the Jamarat same day
Some completed stoning on Wed and left for home
It will be strange indeed if a Hujjaj got to Riyadh on Fri and was told that the overall Amirul Hajj, say he resides in Madina, made an announcement crucial to all Hujjaj on Thur at Jiddah on his way back to Medina

Will people of Riyadh, Yemen etc who went back by road (which was the only way of moving during the time of the Prophet) not say
If the message was for all the people performing Hajj, it should have been made at Arafat?
Clearly they would not travel by road from Mecca to Jiddah and then turn back again? In the desert sun?

To make this clear, look at this map

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/saudi-arabia-map.htm

For the amazing innovations and claims related to Ghadir Khum, see this

https://gift2shias.com/2013/10/28/no-to-ghadir-qom-yes-to-ghadir-khom/

For more on the baseless claims made by shias see this
http://www.chiite.fr/en/

BetaThings:


Is this taqqiya or ignorance?
The person you try to correct knows more about core Shia principles than you

Sorry, see another one below (Dua Sanamy Quraish Shias use for invoking curse on Abu Bakr, Umar and their daughters (RAA) - Aisha and Hafza - wives of the Prophet (SAW) he (SAW) never divorced)

He knows more than you that the Shia religion is really about cursing as many people as possible and getting multitudes in hellfire. That gives the greatest joy to shias
We Sunnis want as many as possible in jannat because we believe Allah is merciful and He forgives all sins apart from shirk

# I should be the one to accuse you of ignorance.

# The naked truth is both Du'a Ashura and Du'a Sanamy Quraysh have not reach us with any authenticity.

The reason why contemporary Shī’ah do not give any value to Du’ā Ṣanamay Quraysh is not farfetched. It has no authenticity, by Shī’ī standards. For instance, this is what Āyatullāh Kamāl al-Ḥaydarī (may Allāh protect him) states about it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trrxSk3KqjA&feature=youtu.be

"It is a fabricated du’ā, and a baseless and worthless du’ā"

Shaykh Ḥaydar Ḥubbullāh (may Allāh protect him), in his special research* on the du’ā, also submits:

"Truly, the earlier sources of this du’ā, obtainable to us today, are the statements of Shaykh al-Kaf’amī and al-Ḥasan b. Sulaymān al-Ḥillī; and both of them lived in the 9th century Hijrī. There is absolutely no chain of narration for this du’ā, and there is no mention of any valid source – reaching up to Ibn ‘Abbās from ‘Alī, peace be upon him – from which this du’ā was taken. So, we do not know how this du’ā got to al-Kaf’amī, al-Ḥillī and al-Iṣfahānī. Meanwhile, their distance from the alleged time of its emanation (from ‘Alī) was around 600 years (al-Iṣfahānī), or at least 800 years (al-Ḥillī and al-Kaf’amī)."

So, it is a du’ā – which is attributed to Amīr al-Mūminīn ‘Alī (peace be upon him) – but with no chain of narration. It was also completely unknown among the Shī’ah for at least 600 years. Then, it surfaced suddenly, with no chain of transmission at all. This is why Āyatullāh al-Ḥaydarī rightly calls it a “fabricated,” “baseless,” and “worthless” du’ā.

# So, its not surprising when people like you bring your usual propaganda.

BetaThings:
This is the Sunni perspective of the incident of Ghadir Khum

http://www.chiite.fr/en/hadith_01.html

Anyone after the truth should read it

Muslims who went for Hajj all gathered at Arafat on Sun last week. They slaughtered on Monday and commenced stoning at the Jamarat same day
Some completed stoning on Wed and left for home
It will be strange indeed if a Hujjaj got to Riyadh on Fri and was told that the overall Amirul Hajj, say he resides in Madina, made an announcement crucial to all Hujjaj on Thur at Jiddah on his way back to Medina

Will people of Riyadh, Yemen etc who went back by road (which was the only way of moving during the time of the Prophet) not say
If the message was for all the people performing Hajj, it should have been made at Arafat?
Clearly they would not travel by road from Mecca to Jiddah and then turn back again? In the desert sun?

To make this clear, look at this map

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/map/saudi-arabia-map.htm

For the amazing innovations and claims related to Ghadir Khum, see this

https://gift2shias.com/2013/10/28/no-to-ghadir-qom-yes-to-ghadir-khom/

For more on the baseless claims made by shias see this
http://www.chiite.fr/en/

# This is a repetition/link of what Empiree have brought. You are either lazy of reading subsequent comments and replies or simply want to mark your register on this thread.

# Our question still stand on its two feet. What is the meaning of "Mawla" as Nabi used it in his declaration:

[size=14pt]Do you not testify that Allāh and His Messenger are more entitled to you than yourselves and that Allāh and His Messenger are your Awliyā?” They said, “Yes, we do”. He said, “So, whosoever Allāh and His Messenger are his Mawlā, verily this one (i.e. ‘Alī) is his mawlā[/size]

@sino

Since you guys claim the declaration by the Prophet (s) was not appointment, tell us what it was. What was its significance? Why do you pretend it didn't happen? Why do you go on to tell us that different Hadiths use different wordings and thus you are "lost" in interpretation? Don't you think that some Hadiths playing with words is in fact aimed at concealing the meanings? Why are your people so obsessed in concealing everything that happened in relation to the Ahlul-Bayt (as)? Whether in Ghadir, Saqifa, Fadak or Karbala.

So the Prophet (s) made a sermon on Ghadir because he simply felt like blowing hot air? If you say it was to warn those who hated Imam Ali (as), then the question is this: after the Prophet's (s) death did they abide by the Ghadir declaration? Did they stop hating him? Did they not declare wars against him?

Then what do you make of the Hadith: "Ali is the leader of every believer after me"?

All those hadiths you posted claiming Imam Ali (as) was "bargaining" with others for the caliphate and never exclusively claimed it for him or attached the Event of Ghadir to the caliphate are outright forgeries and misguidance. No one would even blink an eye on them!

"Umar's Admission The Caliphate Was Usurped From Imam Ali (as) "

https://www.nairaland.com/897586/umars-admission-caliphate-usurped-imam

You have our claims in your books and you also have the counter claims you choose to believe instead. Ask yourself why!

ShiaMuslim:
@sino


Then what do you make of the Hadith: "Ali is the leader of every believer after me"?

Akhee please let them submit the meaning of those words in its original Arabic text. We don't need to translate.

My discussion with Sino is nothing but the usual back and forth argument with no probative value. The questions he's being dodging all day remains: What is the meaning of "Mawla" in the declaration of our Prophet:

# "Do you not testify that Allāh and His Messenger are more entitled to you than yourselves and that Allāh and His Messenger are your Awliyā?” They said, “Yes, we do”. He said, “So, whosoever Allāh and His Messenger are his Mawlā, verily this one (i.e. ‘Alī) is his mawlā."


# What is the meaning of "Ali is the Khalifah of every believer after me?"

# What is the meaning of "Ali is the Wali of every believer after me?

# What is the meaning of "I am leaving behind over you Khalifatain?

# Are all these declarations of our Prophet restricted to their respective event or they are declarations beyond their events?

As usual he will copy and copy and copy and paste a lots to reply my comments. That will never bother me. I will continue to ask these questions above which I implore you to help me ask them until they reply instead of dodging.

ShiaMuslim:

"Umar's Admission The Caliphate Was Usurped From Imam Ali (as) "

https://www.nairaland.com/897586/umars-admission-caliphate-usurped-imam

You have our claims in your books and you also have the counter claims you choose to believe instead. Ask yourself why!

I have revisit this great conversation even with scan-pages from Tarikh al-Tabari. Its their above. Umar admitted to their conspiracy. And it is no surprise because Nabi has foretold that the Ummah will betray Imam Ali.

I have lost track of this thread due to approach of some brothers that i deemed "un-scholarly approach". Thanks for the mention again albaqir. You brought me back here. Now, my question to you albaqir, what do you make out of this narration quoted by brother sino?. This should have cleared the air by now, dont you think?. Whether he copied it or not is irrelevant. I like his SUNNATIC approach in this dialogue. I think you should respect that faar.

sino:

Amr ibn Maymun said: “I was sitting once in the company of ibn Abbas when nine men came to him and said, ‘O ibn Abbas! Either come to debate with us, or tell these folks that you prefer a private debate.’ He had not lost his eye-sight yet he said: ‘I rather debate with you.’ So they started talking, but I was not sure exactly what they were talking about. Then he stood up and angrily said: “Woe to them! Woe to them! They insult a man who gathered ten (virtues)!.… Prophet(SAWS) also said: Whosoever I am Mawla of, Ali is his Mawla. [Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. Vol. 3, Pg. # 331 – 333.]

Here Ibn Abbas defended Ali (RA) with the narration when those people were insulting him, so Ibn Abbas knew this narration, but did not understand it to mean caliphate of Ali (RA) after the death of the Prophet (SAW).

Ibn Abass's (RTA) understanding of the incident speaks volume. I am not saying anything here out of sectarianism but I have to defend what i think is fact base on my little research. I believe that Imam Ali (RTA) being the first Kilafah is very important to you and Shi' i movement. In that case, something which is very important like this should have been mentioned in the Quran. Not only mentioned in the Quran but should be mentioned in muhkamatun (verses that are PLAIN & CLEAR) without the need for interpretation. For instance, when Allah declared Adam as kalif on earth, He did so in muhkamatun Surah 2 verse 30:


[size=15pt]وَإِذْ قَالَ رَبُّكَ لِلْمَلَائِكَةِ إِنِّي جَاعِلٌ فِي الْأَرْضِ خَلِيفَةً[/size]

When your Lord said to the angels, “I am going to place a vicegerent on the earth,”


Also, Allah said the same of Nabi Daud (AS) in Sura 38 verse 20


[size=15pt]فَهَزَمُوهُم بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ وَقَتَلَ دَاوُودُ جَالُوتَ وَآتَاهُ اللَّهُ الْمُلْكَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَعَلَّمَهُ مِمَّا يَشَاءُ[/size]


By Allah's will they routed them; and David slew Goliath; and Allah gave him power and wisdom and taught him whatever (else) He willed.


My point is, when Allah declared kilafah of Adam (as) on earth and kingdom (kilfah) of Daud and Sulaimon(AS), He did so plain and clear without a need for tawil or any confusion. He never placed them in mutashabihatun (allegorical or tawil). Why would Shia stretched verse of Qur'an to "proof" kilafah of Ali after Nabi Muhammad?. If it is that important, Allah would have Himself mentioned Ali by name plain and clear to us in the Qur'an. Since Quran is indisputable and irrefutable Book of guidance for the muslims, then, Shia can not reply heavily on narrations or ahadith (sahih or not) to proof caliphatship of Imam Ali as the first Kalif. After all, he became kalif not just as you wanted.

AlBaqir:


# This is a repetition/link of what Empiree have brought. You are either lazy of reading subsequent comments and replies or simply want to mark your register on this thread.

# Our question still stand on its two feet. What is the meaning of "Mawla" as Nabi used it in his declaration:

[size=14pt]Do you not testify that Allāh and His Messenger are more entitled to you than yourselves and that Allāh and His Messenger are your Awliyā?” They said, “Yes, we do”. He said, “So, whosoever Allāh and His Messenger are his Mawlā, verily this one (i.e. ‘Alī) is his mawlā[/size]

I don't really have time to spend so much time here otherwise I would be considered lazy at work.

This is what Ali himself said in Nahjul Balagha letter 6, the book which Shias say contains the sermons of Ali (RA) and which Ayatollah Khomeini put next to the Qur'an

Verily, the people who paid allegience to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, have paid allegience to me based on the same principles as the allegience to them. So anyone who was present has no right to go against his pledge of allegience, and anyone who was absent has no right to oppose it. And verily shura (consultation) is only the right of the Muhajirs and the Ansar. So if they decide upon a man and declare him their imam, then it is with the pleasure of Allah. If anyone goes against this decision, then he must be persuaded to follow the rest of the people. If he persists, then fight with him for leaving that which has been accepted by the believers. And Allah shall let him wander misguided and not guide him

When the opportunity to become Caliph arose following Uthman's death, Ali did not hasten to become the caliph
He said in sermon 204 of the same Nahjul Balagha

By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it.

AlBaqir:


# I should be the one to accuse you of ignorance.

# The naked truth is both Du'a Ashura and Du'a Sanamy Quraysh have not reach us with any authenticity.

If you accuse me of ignorance, your shia brother stands equally accused
And he appears more knowledgeable than you

In any case Shias are using the dua (curse), are they not?

I submit that you and Ayatollah Kamal Hydari are guilty of Taqqiya

AlBaqir:

The reason why contemporary Shī’ah do not give any value to Du’ā Ṣanamay Quraysh is not farfetched. It has no authenticity, by Shī’ī standards. For instance, this is what Āyatullāh Kamāl al-Ḥaydarī (may Allāh protect him) states about it:

"It is a fabricated du’ā, and a baseless and worthless du’ā"

There are many fabricated hadith used by Shias
So what is the big deal here?
In any case, does Nahjul Balagha have chains? No
But Shias consider it the best thing after the Qur'an
When you ask about the Shia practice of self cutting with matchete, a lot of shias disown it due to taqiyya, yet others praise it
And the practice is expanding

AlBaqir:

# So, its not surprising when people like you bring your usual propaganda.

What propaganda?
Your Shia brother brought it here? Did he not? You only rebuked him for derailing, not for propaganda or using an inauthentic narration (Dua)
And he specifically said the reaction to it by Sunnis here is expected as that is used to identify the enemies of Allah and Ahlul Bayt and he gleefully told them that they will end in hellfire
Given your reaction and that of Ayatollah kamal Hydari, are you two Nasibis too?

Finally let me ask you a question, do you, Al Baqir, trust the research of Ayatollah Kamal Hydari?

^@ Empiree,

# First, point of correction: Endeavour to check the specific areas I accused Sino of copy-pasting without verification.

# Second, as per the hadith in view, Ibn Abbas highlighted 10 exclusive merits of Imam Ali. Observe this was after the death of Imam Ali. So this rebuttal of Ibn Abbas has nothing to do with the issue of Khilafah. Interestingly, there are some Sahabah who even during the Khilafah of Ali never paid allegiance to him. The likes of Abdullah ibn Umar, Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan et al.

# Third, putting aside the other 9 merits, when Ibn Abbas mentioned the hadith of Ghadir against those who speak ill of Imam Ali, what was the intent?

Empiree, the intent is you don't speak ill of Ali whose "authority over the believer(Mawla)" is liken to that of Allah and Nabi as per the context of hadith Ghadir. Quran says, "The Prophet has a greater claim (Awla) on the faithful than they have on themselves" (surah Ahzab: 6).

# Remember this is nearly same narration with that of Imran ibn Hussain as documented by Tirmidhi and others: When some set of soldiers came to complaint about Ali. What was Nabi's response? Nabi said, "What do you want from 'Ali?! What do you want from 'Ali?! Indeed 'Ali is from me, and I am from him, and he is the Wali of every believer after me"

Second Issue
# In respect of Adam, Dawood and Sulaiman in the Quran, those are people of the past whose reference is very important for the people of "present" (i.e when Quran was revealed). Even Quran make reference of Musa and Eesa far more than our Nabi. Why? It is normal to make reference of the pasts than recounting every single event of the present. Had there been another divine book after Quran, it would definitely talks more about the time of our Prophet. This is where ahadith and seerah are relevant.

# Why didn't Allah mentioned the name of Ali specifically in the Quran? I say not only Ali but every other players in the Khilafah chronicles. This is part of the wisdom of Allah to protect the Quran from being tampered with. Shia-Sunni loggerhead gone to the extent that both sides have fabricated so many ahadith on the lip of the Prophet. Who told you they can't tamper with names if mentioned in the Quran? Don't assume Quran is being protected spiritually only. Its style, construction, use of language, not mentioning names etc are part of its protection. There are specific verses that were "wrongly" placed within contexts they do not belong. Even a Sunni Sahih hadith claimed Ibn Abbas corrected a reading in the Quran claiming the present reading is wrong.

# Do you believe in the verse of Imamah that the offspring of Ibrahim were made Imam over mankind? If you believe in this verse, then what is difficult in believing the offspring of Muhammad to be the Imam over mankind - this is in respect to hadith salat.

# As important as Salat (five daily prayers), what does Quran says about it other than "establish regular"? Do you know the extent of controversies we have on salat! Why cant Allah clearly highlights everything pertaining to salat? All these are job of the Prophet just like nomination/designation of successor is his job.

udatso:

Jazakallahu khairan. Your reply to baqir is a classical example of إن كنت ريحا فقد لاقيت اعصارا

و إياكم، تمام يا موالي، أتلك العبارة المذكورة آنفا من أبواب شعر؟ أحبها جداً

BetaThings:


In any case Shias are using the dua (curse), are they not?

I submit that you and Ayatollah Kamal Hydari are guilty of Taqqiya

# There are many unreferenced Du'a among the Muslims today. If "majority" of Shia recite those two Du'a, does that make those Du'a authentic?

# In a civil and scholarly debate, you don't submit weak or fabricated data as evidence.

# Taqiyah or no Taqiyah, your submission has no value.

BetaThings:


There are many fabricated hadith used by Shias
So what is the big deal here?

In any case, does Nahjul Balagha have chains? No
But Shias consider it the best thing after the Qur'an

# Yes there are lots of weak and fabricated ahadith in Shi'i books of ahadith. As much as Sunni too admitted same in their books of ahadith, the diehard among the Sunni still maintained that all ahadith in Bukhari and Muslim are 100%. In short, the big deal is you don't use weak or fabricated ahadith to fill in the gap or submit as evidence.

# Nahj al-Balagha is a weak book. I hardly submit its content as evidence. Like you rightly said, it has no Sanad linking Imam Ali or any Aimmah of Ahlulbayt. However there are sympathy for "some" sayings in it because they can be referenced in other sahih books like al-Kafi. Even if it is in al-Kafi, its authenticity have to be proven.

# Whoever considers Nahj al-Balagha next to Quran does it out of sentiment. Obviously not with any probative evidence. So, such claim is empty.

BetaThings:


When you ask about the Shia practice of self cutting with matchete, a lot of shias disown it due to taqiyya, yet others praise it
And the practice is expanding

# This is irrelevant.

# Besides, there is no sahih evidence whatsoever in any Shi'i books of ahadith that support Tatbir. And countless Shi'i Maraji have ceaselessly ruled Tatbir to be haram. Besides, only a deluded fraction of Shia engage in Tatbir due to its cultural background (Sikhsm) in their locality.

BetaThings:


Finally let me ask you a question, do you, Al Baqir, trust the research of Ayatollah Kamal Hydari?

# I trust any research work so far it is backed by authentic evidence.

udatso:

رفعت الأقلام وجفت الصحف
This is so far one of the best reply to this shia ghadir kum issue

Don't mind these shi'a, they like cherry picking, and looking for vague statements to support their unfounded claims. May Allah not make us deviate on the right path of Islam Ameen.

AlBaqir:
# Sino, am very sorry I don't discuss my personal quest to religious research publicly.


However, wallahi am done with our back and forth argument that doesn't yield anything. If you like make a 100 pages copy-paste replies. What I am solely concern of is for you to give the meaning of Mawla and Wali as used by the Prophet:

[size=15pt]Do you not testify that Allāh and His Messenger are more entitled to you than yourselves and that Allāh the Almighty and His Messenger are your Mawlā?” They said, “Yes, we do”. He said, “So, whosoever Allāh and His Messenger are his Mawlā, verily this one – or ‘Alī - is his mawlā[/size].

# Wa Salam alaykum

Who cares about your personal quest for religious research?! I asked a simple and direct question, answer yes or no, and then let us see who you really are!

I had always overlooked your allegations of “copy and paste”; it seems you do not have any understanding of what you write. I can bring examples of how I had exposed your lies on here by quoting what you yourself never verified. Secondly, do you know what is called Academic Integrity and Academic Dishonesty?! You couldn’t answer my question because you have been plagiarizing other people’s works and claiming they are research carried out by you (even if indirectly).

If you want to come as someone with honesty and integrity (who does not plagiarize), you should give credits to those who had done the research you are here pasting (including the scan pages) and claiming to be your “personal quest for religious research” whatever that means.

Your creed is as a result of excuses, my question which you haven’t answered still stands, you are here giving excuses which Ali (RA) himself never gave, are you all (shi’ah) more intelligent than Ali (RA) to help him find excuses?! Give us an authentic narration where Ali (RA) used the narration at Ghadir Khumm to claim succession after the Prophet (SAW)!

With respect to the word mawlah and its meaning, I would treat that in sha Allah, just answer my question first, I have made the bold up there again!

BetaThings:


I don't really have time to spend so much time here otherwise I would be considered lazy at work.

This is what Ali himself said in Nahjul Balagha letter 6, the book which Shias say contains the sermons of Ali (RA) and which Ayatollah Khomeini put next to the Qur'an

# Since you have quoted from Nahj al-Balagha, then I have no option but to reply you based on the same "evidence" you have brought.

# First, you extract a text from a context. That is not fair. Besides, its an evidence against your belief not in support.

# Second, what you have submitted is a letter of Imam Ali to Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan who refused to pay allegiance to the Khalifah of his time. So, the point is why did he refused to pay allegiance to Imam Ali? Prior to imam's appointment, there were two "agreed upon" system by the Muhajirun and Ansar which they used to select their Khalifah. Interestingly, Mu'awiyah agreed on these system based on the fact that he paid allegiance to Abubakar, Umar and Uthman. So, why did he refused to do same for Imam Ali? This is the hujjah brought against Mu'awiyah by Imam Ali in this letter based on the very system he upheld. Here's the full text:

# A letter to Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan
"Verily, those who took the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman have sworn allegiance to me. Now those who were present at the election have no right to go back against their oaths of allegiance and those who were not present on the occasion have no right to oppose me. And so far as Shura (limited franchise or selection) was concerned it was supposed to be limited to Muhajirs and Ansars and it was also supposed that whomsoever they selected, became caliph as per approval and pleasure of Allah. If somebody goes against such decision, then he should be persuaded to adopt the course followed by others, and if he refuses to fall in line with others, then war is the only course left open to be adopted against him and as he has refused to follow the course followed by the Muslims, Allah will let him wander in the wilderness of his ignorance and schism."

BetaThings:


When the opportunity to become Caliph arose following Uthman's death, Ali did not hasten to become the caliph
He said in sermon 204 of the same Nahjul Balagha

# Why would Imam Ali hasten to the seat of Khilafah after he has been denied on several occasions?! Even when he was appointed, some prominent Sahabah rebelled against him. So, its not worth it jumping on a seat they do not want you. Ali is the Khalifah of every believer whether they accept him or not. Whoever accept him has succeeded and whoever refused to take him as his leader is doomed.
....................

In the same Nahj al-Balagha you have quoted, here's a bomb that put all your arguments into eternal rest:

Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah

"Beware! By Alláh the son of Abú Quháfah (Abú Bakr)(2) dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill. The flood water flows down from me and the bird cannot fly upto me. I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it.

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

(Then he quoted al-A`shá's verse):

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

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

Nevertheless, I remained patient despite length of period and stiffness of trial, till when he went his way (of death) he put the matter (of Caliphate) in a group(4) and regarded me to be one of them. But good Heavens! what had I to do with this "consultation"? Where was any doubt about me with regard to the first of them that I was now considered akin to these ones? But I remained low when they were low and flew high when they flew high. One of them turned against me because of his hatred and the other got inclined the other way due to his in-law relationship and this thing and that thing, till the third man of these people stood up with heaving breasts between his dung and fodder. With him his children of his grand-father, (Umayyah) also stood up swallowing up Alláh's wealth like a camel devouring the foliage of spring, till his rope broke down, his actions finished him and his gluttony brought him down prostrate.

At that moment, nothing took me by surprise, but the crowd of people rushing to me. It advanced towards me from every side like the mane of the hyena so much so that Hasan and Husayn were getting crushed and both the ends of my shoulder garment were torn. They collected around me like the herd of sheep and goats. When I took up the reins of government one party broke away and another turned disobedient while the rest began acting wrongfully as if they had not heard the word of Alláh saying:

"That abode in the hereafter, We assign it for those who intend not to exult themselves in the earth, nor (to make) mischief (therein); and the end is (best) for the pious ones." (Qur'án 28:83)

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

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

ash-Sharíf ar-Radhí says: The words in this sermon "like the rider of a camel" mean to convey that when a camel rider is stiff in drawing up the rein then in this scuffle the nostril gets bruised, but if he lets it loose in spite of the camel's unruliness, it would throw him somewhere and would get out of control. "ashnaq an-náqah" is used when the rider holds up the rein and raises the camel's head upwards. In the same sense the word "shanaqa an-náqah" is used. Ibn as-Sikkít has mentioned this in Isláh al-mantiq. Amír al-mu'minín has said "ashnaqa lahá" instead of "ashnaqahá", this is because he has used this word in harmony with "aslasa lahá" and harmony could be retained only by using both in the same form. Thus, Amír al-mu'minín has used "ashnaqa lahá" as though in place of "in rafa`a lahá ra'sahá", that is, "if he stops it by holding up the reins."

sino:

With respect to the word mawlah and its meaning, I would treat that in sha Allah, just answer my question first, I have made the bold up there again!

# We shall be waiting in sha Allah.

BetaThings:


If you accuse me of ignorance, your shia brother stands equally accused
And he appears more knowledgeable than you

In any case Shias are using the dua (curse), are they not?

I submit that you and Ayatollah Kamal Hydari are guilty of Taqqiya



There are many fabricated hadith used by Shias
So what is the big deal here?
In any case, does Nahjul Balagha have chains? No
But Shias consider it the best thing after the Qur'an
When you ask about the Shia practice of self cutting with matchete, a lot of shias disown it due to taqiyya, yet others praise it
And the practice is expanding


What propaganda?
Your Shia brother brought it here? Did he not? You only rebuked him for derailing, not for propaganda or using an inauthentic narration (Dua)
And he specifically said the reaction to it by Sunnis here is expected as that is used to identify the enemies of Allah and Ahlul Bayt and he gleefully told them that they will end in hellfire
Given your reaction and that of Ayatollah kamal Hydari, are you two Nasibis too?

Finally let me ask you a question, do you, Al Baqir, trust the research of Ayatollah Kamal Hydari?

Don't mind these candidate of hell fire if they don't repent.

ShiaMuslim:






this is how the enemies of Allah, the Prophet and his Ahlul-Bayt (as) are identified and exposed. see as you all got worked up by a simple prayer and look at the display of guilty feelings. they dislike the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) being cursed. you are indeed hypocrites with incomplete iman, if any iman at all.

anyways, every religious person is a takfiri. everyone believes only his own beliefs are right and the others' are wrong and would lead to eternal damnation.

however, we do not perpetrate Takfiri terrorism or takfiri killings as your wahhabi creed promotes following the legacy of Yazeed. you are so much terrified by our curses and cursing the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) because you know well that your Takfiri violence can only hurt in this world, while our curses inflicts eternal pain. enjoy!

I'm confused ooo, ahlul bayt, is ibn Abass not from amongst rasul's household ni, abi na handpicking una dey do, u dis despicable shia! Woe to the shias, may allaah expose the shias

# Today marks another year of Ghadir.

Let's roll it. Ashura underway...NL is going to be fire