Questions for Lomax (SRI "moderator" and apologist)
Mr Mahdi
A Mu'min is one who believes in all what has all revealed and has submitted to
Allah without any resistance. There is a movement currently underway where
Muslims are trying to reform SRI into a newsgroup that is moderated in
accordance to Islam.
Muslims of course should never be opposed to such an undertaking unless the
intention or possibility of those who are trying to reform SRI will cause the
message of Islam to be distorted and twisted. But at any rate, if there is no
attempt at distorting Islam and a group of Muslims want to make a "newsgroup
about Islam" as an Islamic one, no Mu'min would ever oppose such a thing.
Unfortunately, Lomax is one of those who is opposed to trying to make SRI an
Islamic newsgroup. Some of us wonder why a Muslim would be oppose to such a
thing? I myself wonder, and I can only give theories that I believe as most
likely the reasons why he is opposed to such a noble task.
I have several questions for Lomax that I would like answered so that he can
have the chance to clarify his position for us concerning this sensitive
matter.
1. Do you think that you are pleasing Allah and doing an Islamic duty in your
opposition of the Islamic reformation of SRI?
2. Do you think that your attempt to impose your "Interfaith" and "American
Islam" beliefs as a criterion of SRI moderations standards is in strict
accordance to Islam and is something that Allah will be pleased at?
3. Do you think that calling an avowed enemy of Islam (Jochen Katz) a "friend"
is in accordance to Islam and something that pleases Allah and explain why have
you made non-Muslims as your awliyaa', despite Allah forbidding such a thing?
4. Do you think that allowing the enemies of Islam to attack Islam and
propagate their religion here on SRI is something that Allah allows and is
pleased at?
I would like for Lomax to answer these questions. I have another question to
ask him, but he doesn't have to answer this one. He is a Muslim, but does he
consider himself a Mu'min and if so why and if not why not?
Mahdi Muhammad
ax78699
past the moderators at all. - (you would've been blocked from my mailbox
ages ago). Yes things can be 'changed' with 'pressure' but only if you use
wisdom (intuition from the heart) will you be changing things for the
better...
The fact is they are the moderators wether you like it or not and no amount
of technical jargon, slander, whatever will change that. Chill out brother
and focus a little.
"If words come out of the heart they will enter the heart, but if they come
from the tongue, they will not pass beyond the ears."
BTW - it's 'pleased with', not 'pleased at'.
_____________
Mr. Muhammad
mar...@vom.com
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
>A Mu'min is one who believes in all what has all revealed and has submitted to
>Allah without any resistance. There is a movement currently underway where
>Muslims are trying to reform SRI into a newsgroup that is moderated in
>accordance to Islam.
Without ratifying Mahdi's use of pronouns and prepositions, yes. As
Mahdi knows, were he to exercise his memory, I am one element in that
movement.
>Muslims of course should never be opposed to such an undertaking unless the
>intention or possibility of those who are trying to reform SRI will cause the
>message of Islam to be distorted and twisted.
Indeed.
>But at any rate, if there is no
>attempt at distorting Islam and a group of Muslims want to make a "newsgroup
>about Islam" as an Islamic one, no Mu'min would ever oppose such a thing.
Properly defined, true.
>Unfortunately, Lomax is one of those who is opposed to trying to make SRI an
>Islamic newsgroup.
Stated without evidence, and presumed in much of what follows.
>Some of us wonder why a Muslim would be oppose to such a
>thing? I myself wonder, and I can only give theories that I believe as most
>likely the reasons why he is opposed to such a noble task.
Theories built on an imaginary foundation are not likely to be
fruitful.
>I have several questions for Lomax that I would like answered so that he can
>have the chance to clarify his position for us concerning this sensitive
>matter.
Far be it from me to deprive Mahdi of an opportunity for better
understanding.
>1. Do you think that you are pleasing Allah and doing an Islamic duty in your
>opposition of the Islamic reformation of SRI?
Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question as stated because I am
not opposed to the Islamic reformation of SRI. I do consider that what
I do with respect to the newsgroup is in fulfilment of Islamic duties,
and I hope for the pleasure of Allah in this.
>2. Do you think that your attempt to impose your "Interfaith" and "American
>Islam" beliefs as a criterion of SRI moderations standards is in strict
>accordance to Islam and is something that Allah will be pleased at?
The presumptions start to get so twisted and complex that answers
become even more difficult. But I'll try to at least make a few
comments on the issues raised.
Mahdi previously uses "belief" as a synonym for "imaan." I prefer the
translation of "trust," since it brings out that imaan is an active
condition of the heart instead of being intellectual content, i.e.,
credo.
To attempt to give meaning to "interfaith belief," then, I would
translate this as "trust in the universality of trust in God." That
is, all legitimate religions are rooted in a trust in the ground of
being, in the truth itself. As religion becomes credo, some of this is
lost, which is why religions appear to differ, when, in fact, there is
only one religion with God, and he has named it, in our book,
"islaam." This is the religion of Adam, and of Moses, and of Jesus,
and of Muhammad, and, indeed, of many others of old and into the
present.
However, this is not a moderation standard for SRI; but it can affect
my view of moderation standards, since I trust that in a fair contest,
truth becomes clear for anyone who wants truth: and as to the others,
nothing will bring them to the truth but disaster, and even then, some
of them will cling to their own ruin.
Now I turn to "American Islam." As Mahdi knows, Islam is not about
"American" or "African" or "Arab." But various peoples have been
important in the history of Islam. Our book was brought by an Arab
prophet, and it is in the language of the Arabs. The Turks defeated
the Arabs and other Muslims and then accepted Islam, becoming its
foremost defenders to the point where the last reasonable claimants to
the office of khalifah were Turks. Yet they did not lose their pride
in being Turkish. Americans may be like Turks, and we will see what
Allah does with us. So an "American Islam" "belief" could be, for
example, an opinion that open democratic process is superior to
oligarchy, or to what amounts to oligarchy, theocracy.
Were theocracy truly rule by Theos, i.e., God, it would be the best
form of government. But the practical reality of theocracies through
history has been that they rapidly become oligarchies, where the
"correct" people lead the rest, presumed to be ignorant and incapable
of conforming themselves to the demands of true religion.
Of course, what we have *in reality* is theocracy, no matter what we
think. His authority is not challenged; he has only to say to a thing,
"Be!", and it is. But his favor is on those who consciously accept his
rule and trust in it; outer forms of government may not matter so much
to these people.
Now, it would seem that an ideal government, brought down to the human
level, would be a government of people who were favored as I
described. Presumably these people would arrange affairs in such a way
as to benefit all and not only themselves. Indeed there have been such
governments in the past, oligarchies of the righteous. The problem we
face, however, is that such oligarchies decay and become, simple
oligarchies of the powerful. For centuries, kings justified their
tyranny by the theory of "divine right." That theory is that, had God
not willed them to be king, he would not have given them the power,
and thus their rule is by divine right, and, consequentially, any
opposition to their rule is apostasy, though it may be given the name
of "treason."
For the most part, the nations of Islam followed the major form of
government found among the pre-Islamic peoples of the Middle East:
that of a strong, charismatic leader, an individual through whom all
authority descends. Islam in Africa did not always go in this
direction; I am given to understand that in some places government was
communal and by consensus, both before and after Islam. There would be
an elder or chief, to be sure, but the continued authority of that
chief was determined by the continued support of the community as a
whole.
Today, we call this "democracy," though majoritarian democracy is but
a pale reflection of what it can be; I'll call the ideal "consensus
democracy." This democracy is common in voluntary contexts, where the
group cannot impose its will upon the minority. Organizationally, I've
seen it in organizations such as Alcoholics Anonymous. To quote from
the primary document of organizational theory for AA: "For our group
purpose, there is but one ultimate authority -- a loving God as He may
express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted
servants; they do not govern."
Now, we have a clue to an ideal Islamic government in the tradition
that "My people will not agree on an error." Where there is full and
unconstrained discussion, the consensus of the community will, indeed,
represent the authority of God, if the community is a believing
community. And if it is not a believing community, who is going to
govern them for the good?
We sometimes imagine that righteous leaders will make for righteous
followers. That's backwards, in fact.
So, yes, my "American Islam" leads me to propose a governing structure
for s.r.i. that will reflect the consensus of our community, and that
will *continue* to reflect that consensus as it moves and develops. I
do have some idea as to how this can be done; it's been described in
bits and pieces but it will take some work to bring it together in a
coherent structure.
The present moderation panel developed from a single moderator,
Cynthia Suleiman, who did, in fact, represent the consensus of the
s.r.i. community. There were very, very few who opposed her, so few
that one of them resorted to impersonation in order to make it appear
that his isolated position enjoyed wider support.
However, it was known that the authoritarian structure that is the
default for usenet newsgroups was not adequate in the long run, and
thus there have been moves, since that point of consensus, to write a
new charter. Mostly they have not proceeded to completion. It takes a
lot of work, and there are few willing and able to invest such work on
a consistent basis.
So we still have the authoritarian structure. It is self-electing;
that is, moderators name their successors and they have no fixed term
of office.
>3. Do you think that calling an avowed enemy of Islam (Jochen Katz) a "friend"
>is in accordance to Islam and something that pleases Allah and explain why have
>you made non-Muslims as your awliyaa', despite Allah forbidding such a thing?
Mahdi's density of incorporated assumptions continues to increase. His
questions could be cited as paradigms of the loaded question.
First of all, I've never seen Jochen Katz describe himself as an
"enemy of Islam." In order for him to be an "avowed" enemy, he'd have
to do that. Secondly, I've studied and responded to Jochen for quite a
few years. He began his work purely defensively, responding to what
seemed to me to be intemperate and sometimes unjustified attacks on
Jochen's religion. He may have gone too far; but he is not known by me
as a liar. He has not posted lately, and I haven't looked at his web
site lately, either. So I went and looked. On the home page, I did not
find any *attack* on Islam. Here is some of what I found:
>Islam: The Iron Ceiling
>Muslims make a very important point葉he West has become a godless society
>filled with immorality and perversions.
> Read on...
Following the link, the title of the paper is explained: the author
thinks of Islam as suffering from a "repressive legalism." The author
thinks that somehow intrinsic to Islam. I don't. The paper continues
with cogent argument. I think the argument is flawed, but it is the
kind of "attack" on Islam that we need. We need coherent criticism;
such criticism forces us to examine the foundations of our religion.
Those who are incapable of doing this react to such criticism as if it
were nothing but lies. But this response, "crying lies," is of the
nature of kufr (badly translated as "unbelief") itself.
Bottom line, however, this is at the bottom of the home page:
>If you find any factual mistakes [whether misprints or a false
>representation of doctrines] on these pages, or things that
>are worded in an offensive way, contact us, we would like to correct
>that.
Yes, Jochen is a missionary. I don't take offense at that; instead I
return the favor. The results are with Allah, but we did get to the
point that Jochen acknowledged that, by the real meaning of the word,
he is -- or seeks to be -- a muslim. Of course, we won't agree with
that,
but actions are by intention.
As to making non-Muslims awliya, Jochen is not an example of that.
Perhaps Mahdi would explain the meaning of wali to the readers. I'll
say this much: "Friend" is not a decent translation of "wali," such
that Jochen could be considered my Wali. I've called him "friend"
because I have eaten with him, have debated with him without rancor on
either side, and because, for me, "friend" is the default, it need not
be earned.
>4. Do you think that allowing the enemies of Islam to attack Islam and
>propagate their religion here on SRI is something that Allah allows and is
>pleased at?
Obviously, Allah allows what he allows. As to his pleasure, it is his
pleasure that the Truth be victorious over the False, and in order for
Truth to be victorious, it must be attacked, for Truth is shy and does
not force itself on the ignorant. (It is arrogance masquerading as
truth that is so bold.) So, as others have noted, the dawa of Islam is
furthered by the presence of coherent argument; it is only when the
argument is truncated that Islam can be harmed.
Part of the reform of s.r.i. that I seek would be the compilation of a
hypertext FAQ which would contain all the routine arguments,
thoroughly expandable so that every reasonable argument is included;
then, when a new post comes in from those with less than noble
motives, it might be rejected as redundant if it brings nothing new.
We don't need more accusations that our Prophet was a child molester
(far from this!) unless someone has evidence to bring that we have not
seen and refuted.
>I would like for Lomax to answer these questions. I have another question to
>ask him, but he doesn't have to answer this one. He is a Muslim, but does he
>consider himself a Mu'min and if so why and if not why not?
Funny, the ones he demands that I answer are easy, and the one that he
makes optional is difficult. Tell you what. I'll let Mahdi answer his
own question with respect to himself, and if he sets a good example,
I'll follow it. Inshallah.
And if he sets a bad example, I'll know to avoid it.
For the benefit of our non-Muslim readers, a Muslim is one who has
"accepted": essentially, who has resigned himself to following what
Allah has commanded and avoiding what he has forbidden, whereas a
Mu'min is one who trusts in God. The two are not necessarily the same;
Mu'min is the higher title.
Abd ulRahman Lomax
Printed Circuit Design Services, Training, Protel license resales.
Chair, Protel Users Association (protel-user...@yahoogroups.com)
www.lomaxdesign.com
Mr Mahdi
>To attempt to give meaning to "interfaith belief," then, I would
>translate this as "trust in the universality of trust in God." That
>is, all legitimate religions are rooted in a trust in the ground of
>being, in the truth itself.
I have stated many times before with my interactions with people that religion
and God are two different things and truth and religion are two different
things and obeying God and religion are two different things. The proponents
of "Interfaith" want to make all religions into one, where a Muslim is as much
on the "path to God" as a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Bahai, and so on.
This of course goes against Islam because Allah the Most High tells us who is
on the true path, which religion is the only accepted religion, who is a
kaafir, who is a Muslim, and so on.
If any one here had the chance to see an "Interfaith" meeting in action, it is
quite interesting to see how Islam is twisted and degraded into a mere religion
and how this twisting of Islam is deliberately done to appease and please the
non-Muslims. For one, an Intefaith session is basically a "I love you, you
love me, we are all a big happy family..." Da`wah is never made, because the
invitation of Islam is not being done when you actually complement the kufr
religions that do not believe in all what Allah revealed to Muhammad (saaw).
Also, when you make everyone who is not a Muslim your awliyaa', you first
destroy the line between kaafir and Muslim (so everybody is now a "believer")
and second you go against the order of Allah by taking these Kuffar as your
awliyyaa'.
>So an "American Islam" "belief" could be, for
>example, an opinion that open democratic process is superior to
>oligarchy, or to what amounts to oligarchy, theocracy.
This is the secular argument as well as a nationalistic one. First of all,
there is no American Islam just like there is no American fiqh. Islam is
Islam, no matter what time and what place. Allah said in the Quran that He
perfected as well as completed Islam. Now to try to say that Islam needs a
"regional flavor" would go against what Allah said Islam is; perfect and
completed.
It is a nationalistic argument because it is based on the "minority fiqh"
mentality that says that Islam needs to be adapted (instead of we adapting to
the standards of Islam) to whatever time and place we are in, so as to
distinguish itself from the other "regional Islams". This is a perfect way to
poison and purity and timeless message of Islam into an "Islam" subjected to
the whims and desires of man. Instead of molding ourselves to Islam, we want
"Islam" to mold itself to our corrupted, man-made values and beliefs.
And of course it is a secular because democracy is completely opposed to Islam.
Islam is not a theocracy because in a theocracy the clergy has the
sovereignty, not Allah. It is not an ogliarchy because the sovereignty does
not belong to a "few people," but to Allah.
The Islamic state is an ideological state where Islam is the ideology just like
Capitalism is the ideology of an ideological state like America.
Democracy, no matter how much we try to give in various "interpretations" to
it, always go back to its essence and that is to whom the sovereignty belongs
to and of course it is to man. I already expounded many times on democracy
here in this forum and it is not a suprise that many Muslims who are secular
still cling to a belief that Islam clearly refutes and is completely opposed
to.
The phenomena of those who call for democracy in Islam is that they lack
evidence to support their views. Despite the lack of evidence from the Quran
and Sunnah, they still insist on democracy. Amazing.
>So, yes, my "American Islam" leads me to propose a governing structure
>for s.r.i. that will reflect the consensus of our community, and that
>will *continue* to reflect that consensus as it moves and develops.
Why Lomax decided to be so vague here may be quite obvious for some including
me. The "governing structure" based on "American Islam" would include
non-Muslims moderating SRI. An Islamic newsgroup would make Islam as the
standard for moderation and because of this, a non-Muslim cannot rule or judge
by Islam, a religion he does not believe in.
Also Lomax left out the details of this "governing structure." For one, it is
not based on Islam but based on the secular kufr belief of "humanism."
Humanism is a belief that tries to define what is right or wrong, what is fair,
what is good, and so on based not on what Allah considers as such but what man
considers as such. So if a Muslim has the right to refute Christianity,
according to humanism, a Christian has the right to "refute" Islam. Although
Islam is definitely not against critical challenges from the Kuffar,
"refutation" of Islam is impossible, so what the person who is trying to refute
Islam must do is lie and twist the facts about Islam. Islam does not allow
this.
>First of all, I've never seen Jochen Katz describe himself as an
>"enemy of Islam."
LOL, so if a murderer does not call himself a murderer, then he isn't one?
What kind of logic is this?!?
Jochen Katz made it clear that he regards Muhammad (saaw) as a false prophet,
the Quran as not the Book of God, and Islam is not the religion of God. His
website tries to not only convert Muslims to Christianity, but tries to make
Muslims and well as non-Muslims doubt the veracity of Islam.
Despite all of this, it is mind-boggling to see how Lomax does not see all of
this as attacks against Islam. I wonder if this is an example of humanism gone
amuck because it is unthinkable for a Muslim to consider all of the above as
not attacks against Islam.
>On the home page, I did not
>find any *attack* on Islam.
Like I said, it is unthinkable for a Muslim to conclude this despite the facts
proving otherwise.
May Allah protect us from this "American Islam"!!!!!!
I suggest that people read the message to which I replying to because it
clearly shows us the humanism and "American Islam" philosophy and mentality in
action.
>As to making non-Muslims awliya, Jochen is not an example of that.
>Perhaps Mahdi would explain the meaning of wali to the readers. I'll
>say this much: "Friend" is not a decent translation of "wali," such
>that Jochen could be considered my Wali. I've called him "friend"
>because I have eaten with him, have debated with him without rancor on
>either side, and because, for me, "friend" is the default, it need not
>be earned.
First, this whole Interfaith thing is making Kuffar as your awliyyaa'.
Awliyaa' is not exactly the same as aSdiqaa' or aSHaab (both are plural for
"friends") because awliyyaa' denote more of an alliance and mutual support than
"friendship" (Sadaaqah)." Waliiy comes from the same root as walaa', which
means loyalty. Now to make Kuffar friends as in "Interfaith" is to make them
your allies in religion because according to the Interfaith philosophy, all
religionists are "believers" who share a "common bond" with each other. Da`wah
is never made in such Intefaith functions because true da`wah would make it
clear that non-Muslims are Kuffar and not "fellow believers", and this would in
effect "insult" the non-Muslims because they don't like to be told that Islam
views them as non-believers. So you have to give your alliance to not Islam
but to the Interfaith cause when it comes to this Interfaith thing, thus making
Kuffar as your awliyyaa'.
>Obviously, Allah allows what he allows.
Answer the question. Yes Allah allows what He allows but that doesn't mean
that what He allows is something we should tolerate, despite Allah giving us
the order to forbid the munkar and enjoin the good!
Why would Allah order us to forbid the munkar if it was just allowing munkar to
be rampant because "Allah allows what He allows"???
The logic you use to so faulty that I wonder why you even use it!
I know why, but I will decide to hold my comments for now on this matter.
Mahdi Muhammad
http://members.xoom.com/mrmahdi/caliphate.html
Imran Razi
I feel compelled to defend Br. Lomax against this unwarranted attack.
>
> >To attempt to give meaning to "interfaith belief," then, I would
> >translate this as "trust in the universality of trust in God." That
> >is, all legitimate religions are rooted in a trust in the ground of
> >being, in the truth itself.
The proponents
> of "Interfaith" want to make all religions into one, where a Muslim is as much
> on the "path to God" as a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Bahai, and so on.
There's a big difference between an attempted meaning of an "interfaith
belief" and your view of the desires of Interfaith proponents, as big a
difference as between belief and those that profess belief.
There are several different types of interfaith groups. One type
focuses on what is called the "Abrahamic religion", and sees it as the
root of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, but it excludes the other.
This is the only form of interfaith which tries to supplant Islam, or
find some deeper truth beyond Islam, much in the way certain Sufi
groups try to do.
But the other types of interfaith groups don't do this. They try to
focus on some commonalities among their religions, and perhaps some
mutual understanding and debate.
>
> If any one here had the chance to see an "Interfaith" meeting in action, it is
> quite interesting to see how Islam is twisted and degraded into a mere
> religion
> and how this twisting of Islam is deliberately done to appease and please the
> non-Muslims.
I've been to many interfaith meetings, and almost never is it as you
describe.
> This is the secular argument as well as a nationalistic one. First of all,
> there is no American Islam just like there is no American fiqh.
As I recall, it was you that first suggested Br. Lomax followed
"American Islam".
Islam is
> Islam, no matter what time and what place. Allah said in the Quran that He
> perfected as well as completed Islam.
Obviously, the context was how different peoples interpreted and
practiced the one Islam. It seems like you're arguing for the sake of
arguing. Either that or trying to give a khutba for those not involved
in the conversation. But if that's your intent, start another thread.
> And of course it is a secular because democracy is completely opposed to
> Islam.
We've been through this several times. Democracy DOES NOT mean
"secular democracy". Both in modern and ancient times it refers
primarly to the form of government, not its content. You must pay
closer attention to this distinction. Your attack is directed to
secular democracy, and the power of a people to choose its own
ideology, including rejecting Islam. This is all about content.
> Democracy, no matter how much we try to give in various "interpretations" to
> it, always go back to its essence and that is to whom the sovereignty belongs
> to and of course it is to man.
"Sovereignty", first of all, is a Western concept alien to Islam.
Secondly, it developed much later that the notion of "democracy"
traditionally understood as developing from ancient Greece. Third, the
notion of sovereignty has always been vague, confused, and heavily
criticized by nonMuslims as well as Muslims. So,
1. Your connection between the notion of "democracy" and the notion of
"sovereignty" is a mistake, on all levels.
2. If you want to discuss the notion of democracy, and its proper
defintion, by all means let's do so. But let us not do it
superficially, as you have in the past. Let us bring forth the ancient
Greek texts and views and start discussing them.
3. We can also discuss the notion of sovereignty. It's main
development occurred in Europe, within Christianity, under a heavy
Latin influence.
Frankly, I'm more interested in Islamic notions of power and social
control, and their historical and intellectual development, and to that
end I encourage your forays into political thought. But so far all
I've seen is a poor attack on Western notions, coupled with completely
unhelpful and inaccurate slogans.
I already expounded many times on democracy
> here in this forum
See above.
and it is not a suprise that many Muslims who are secular
> still cling to a belief that Islam clearly refutes and is completely opposed
> to.
Sure, secular Muslims probably do have beliefs opposed to Islamic ones,
almost by definition. But who are these "secular Muslims"? Not many
on this forum.
>
> The phenomena of those who call for democracy in Islam is that they lack
> evidence to support their views. Despite the lack of evidence from the Quran
> and Sunnah, they still insist on democracy. Amazing.
Those calling on democracy are calling for a certain structure of
political rule. The burden is not on them to find evidence from Quran
and Sunnah in support of it (by the way, note the many discussions of
"shura" and democracy in support), the burden is on you to find
evidence from the Quran and Sunnah that this form is haram.
> Also Lomax left out the details of this "governing structure." For one, it is
> not based on Islam but based on the secular kufr belief of "humanism."
Where did you come up with this?
> Humanism is a belief that tries to define what is right or wrong, what is
> fair,
> what is good, and so on based not on what Allah considers as such but what man
> considers as such. So if a Muslim has the right to refute Christianity,
> according to humanism, a Christian has the right to "refute" Islam.
This right of reciprocity would hold independently of any grounding in
humanism.
> >First of all, I've never seen Jochen Katz describe himself as an
> >"enemy of Islam."
>
> LOL, so if a murderer does not call himself a murderer, then he isn't one?
> What kind of logic is this?!?
It's your own poor use of language. You said "AVOWED enemy of Islam",
and it is to this that Br. Lomax is responding.
>
> Jochen Katz made it clear that he regards Muhammad (saaw) as a false prophet,
> the Quran as not the Book of God, and Islam is not the religion of God. His
> website tries to not only convert Muslims to Christianity, but tries to make
> Muslims and well as non-Muslims doubt the veracity of Islam.
Still not an avowed enemy. And it makes a difference.
> >On the home page, I did not
> >find any *attack* on Islam.
It's obvious by the astericks that Br. Lomax is using "attack" in a
specialized or very specific sense.
>
> The logic you use to so faulty that I wonder why you even use it!
>
> I know why, but I will decide to hold my comments for now on this matter.
You really haven't understood his "logic", or his responses. It's wise
of you to hold your comments, because you are speculating way beyond
what is reasonable.
wa salaam,
Imran Razi
The Way
campaign to promote a particular 'party' is being naturally challenged ie,
his intentions are being tested by Allah Almighty.
Isn't this the typical 'preaching to the converted' as I can't imagine
newcomers to the wonderful spirituality of Islam have the capacity for such
overwhelming and technical dogma better off behind the closed doors of a
secular saudi political office than a public forum!
I'm sorry but I don't see much support or nodding heads anywhere..?
Wasalaam,
tariq.
surayya
So now its Tariq, not just Mahmoud (aka Mohammed Smith), or Jonathon D.
Mahdi watch out for this one.
Wa salam
sister Surayya
Mr Mahdi
>I feel compelled to defend Br. Lomax against this unwarranted attack.
What are you talking about?
>One type
>focuses on what is called the "Abrahamic religion", and sees it as the
>root of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, but it excludes the other.
Interfaith, whether it be "all religions" or just the so-called "Abrahamic
religions" is to degrade Islam to just another religion and to legitimize the
other religions. Interfaith tries to redefine what a "believer" (mu'min) is
and how Muslims should view and approach Islam. True da`wah is never made, and
the enemies of Islam use Interfaith as a tool to fight Islam, making Muslim
proponents of Interfaith follow an "Islam" the Kuffar sanctions and approves.
>We've been through this several times.
You been through it several times because you couldn't understand it the first
time nor do have understood it this time.
>Democracy DOES NOT mean
>"secular democracy".
Democracy is about the people being the source of legislation, being the source
of what is right or wrong, and so on. A leader in a democracy MUST consult the
people concerning matters of ruling, and the choice of the majority is binding
and the minority is actually at the mercy of the majority.
All in all, all of the above make democracy secular. Calling it "secular
democracy" is liking call ice "cold ice" and trying to make it different from
"ice". Democracy is secular, when the people is the reference for all matters
instead of Allah.
Now the crux of this debate is trying to make certain aspects of democracy an
"adjective" of democracy. For example, democracy has voting. People would
like to take this aspect and make it an adjective of democracy, insisting that
voting is "democratic." Voting is not at all democratic, it is just a means
used in a democracy for electing a leader and other politicians.
People forgot the real issue of democracy and tried to focus on aspects adopted
by democracy and insist that the real issue of democracy is the "democratic"
principle adopted by democracy. So from there they will try to make a parallel
between Islam and democracy, saying things like Islam has voting, consultation
(shura), and so, so Islam must then be "democratic."
Let's take shura or consultation. Shura has nothing to do with making Islam
"democratic". Shura is not even something obligatory on the Khalifah, but
highly recommended due to the fact that he needs to consult people on certain
issues he is faced with. But the thing about shura is that the people do not
have the sovereignty nor do they legislate, unlike in a DEMOCRACY. The
Khalifah has the option to listen and follow what the Majlis ash-Shura has
suggested that he should do. There is no majority rules, their is no "by the
people, for the people, of the people" you see in democracy.
As for voting, voting is not democratic. Islam uses voting to elect a Khalifah
for example, but the sovereignty still belongs to Allah. In democracy voting
is used to elect a person who will rule by other than what Allah has revealed
and will legislate laws.
>"Sovereignty", first of all, is a Western concept alien to Islam.
Nonsense. Siyaadah means sovereignty in Arabic. It describes the ultimate
authority when it comes to things like legislation and ownership. Everything
belongs to Allah, He is the Master and Owner of the Universe. He makes the
laws, He determines what is right and wrong, etc. Man does not have the right
to legislate laws, to determine what is right or wrong, and so on. This has
not a Western concept alien to Islam at all.
>Sure, secular Muslims probably do have beliefs opposed to Islamic ones,
>almost by definition. But who are these "secular Muslims"? Not many
>on this forum.
Some of us get confused by the term "secular Muslim." Some believe that this
term means a person who came from a Muslim backround (but is an obvious
apostate) who is basically opposed to Islam as a system of life and wants a
staunchly secular country where religion and politics are separated.
My use of "secular Muslim" is to label those who insist in partaking in a
secular system like that of America. They believe that it is ok to vote for a
person (kaafir or Muslim), knowing that the person will disobey Allah by not
ruling solely by what has revealed in a system that comes from Allah. They
ignore the concept of wakaalah (deputization) which is making a person your
represenative over you. If you vote for a person to be your represenative and
he does Haraam due to the fact that his job requires him to do Haraam, you are
responsible as well for doing the Haraam.
Also, the secular Muslims adopt kufr concepts such as "the ends justify the
means" or "if you can't beat them, join them", both which has no basis in
Islam.
As for the principle "aD-Daruurah tubiiH al-maHDHuuraat"
(necessity;distress;need allows the forbidden) it is a principle taken way out
of context and used to justify selfish motives in the name of Islam. If that
were the case, the Muslims would not of suffered so much at the hands of
Quraish, the Muslims would of never refused to join the political system of
Quraish, the Muslims would of never refused to compromise Islam and make
concessions.
>Those calling on democracy are calling for a certain structure of
>political rule. The burden is not on them to find evidence from Quran
>and Sunnah in support of it (by the way, note the many discussions of
>"shura" and democracy in support), the burden is on you to find
>evidence from the Quran and Sunnah that this form is haram.
The structure for political rule in Islam is defined in the Quran and the
Sunnah. One of the earliest books on this issue is al-Mawardi's "al-aHkaam
as-sulTaaniyyah" which clearly explains the detail of the Islamic political
system. That have been countless of books after that that explains the Islamic
political system based on evidence from the Quran and Sunnah.
>This right of reciprocity would hold independently of any grounding in
>humanism.
Islam allows me to call kufr false but doesn't allow anyone to call Islam
false. Islam thus rejects such so-called "fair" secular standards and beliefs
such as "humanism." Where do you think the inconsistent belief called
"political correctness" comes from? What else, from "humanism."
>It's your own poor use of language. You said "AVOWED enemy of Islam",
>and it is to this that Br. Lomax is responding.
Concerning the "poor use" of language, here is the definition of "avowed":
[Middle English, from Middle French avouer, from Latin advocare]
First appeared 14th Century
1 : to declare assuredly
2 : to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame <ever ready to ~ his
reactionary outlook>
synonym see ACKNOWLEDGE, ASSERT
-- avow*er (noun)
Jochen Katz is open about his opposition to Islam. He is open at his attempts
to discredit Islam, to convert Muslims to Christianity, to cause Muslims and
non-Muslims to doubt Islam and so on. This is what you call an "avowed" enemy.
was-salaam
Mahdi Muhammad
http://members.xoom.com/mrmahdi/caliphate.html
Hamid AzizPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net
news:9gp2ml$m2q$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> >Democracy DOES NOT mean "secular democracy".
> Democracy is about the people being the source of legislation, being the
source of what is right or wrong, and so on.
Comment:-
Asalam 'alaikum,
Islam requires mutual consultation. Even the Prophet had no powers of
compulsion.
"And if thy Lord willed all who are in the earth would have believed
together. Wouldst thou compel men until they are believers? It is not for
any soul to believe save by the permission of Allah. He hath set uncleanness
upon those who have no sense." 10:100-101
"We know best what they say, and thou (O Muhammad) are not one to compel
them; but admonish by means of the Quran him who fears My warning." 50:45
It is not possible to rule a people without their consent and without
oppression and opposition.
It is people, including their human leaders, who must judge and carry out
all policies.
This means that the ideas and values held by the people and the leaders will
prevail.
All this will be the case even if the State and government are Islamic.
It is possible to educate people to accept certain values and to be
motivated and act accordingly. When this is done then the people will
establish that kind of State and Government. This will be so even when the
majority of people are Muslim.
Education is being done these days in all countries according to the desires
of the Rich and Powerful and prestigious such as Industrialists,
Politicians, those who control the culture such as novelists, artists, movie
makers, writers of magazines, actors, news media.
If the people are not Muslim then no Islamic State can be produced. If it
is, then an Islamic State and Government will be regarded as oppressive.
This will cause tension, opposition and conflict which will even detract
truly Muslim rulers from running affairs according to their ideals. The
State will cease to be Islamic.
"Allah changes not the condition of a people until they change that which is
in their hearts."
When a state is created according to Islamic principles then even the
definition of "Democracy" can change. It will mean "a government run on
objective principles for the welfare and development of man."
The common idea that Democracy means "the government of the people by the
people for the people" is an illusion. It does not exist anywhere. All
governments are run by a set of powerful people for their own benefit within
the limits of their ability and the political, economic and cultural
conditions.
--
H. S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
vmi...@yahoo.com
> As-salaamu `alaikum
Wa Alaykum asSalm Wr Wbt
> Shura is not even something obligatory on the
> Khalifah, but highly recommended ....
In light of the Quranic verse:
" ... and their (i.e, believers') affairs are adminsitered through
mutual consultation ...",
How can you say that Shura is not an obligation?
Would it not be more correct to say that consulting is obligatory, but
the final decision is the Amir's (i.e, with justifiable reason, he can
overrule the recommendation of the Shura)?
WasSalam
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
rjaff...@yahoo.com
Mr Mahdi wrote:
> As for voting, voting is not democratic. Islam uses voting to elect a Khalifah
> for example, but the sovereignty still belongs to Allah.
salaam,
other than the first 4 khulafah and 'umar bin 'abdil 'azeez, please name
me 7 khaleefah's that
were just and righteous in their rulership.
what is better a just secular ruler or an unjust khaleefah? the
majority of the so called "successors of the Prophet" as believed by the
majority of muslims were unjust.
i had previously asked you what you thought of how the 'abbasids
overthrow the umayyad rulers and installed themselves as rulers. a lot
of what you say looks nice in theory but when you look at the practical
side of how khilafah turned out it was a disaster.
coming back to your quote above, my point is:
If the Khalifah is the representative of the people then there is
nothing wrong with the people electing who should represent them. But
the Khalifah is not the representative of the people, he is the
representative of Allah, hence only Allah can choice who should
represent Him.
[3:154] they entertained about Allah thoughts of ignorance quite
unjustly,
saying: We have no hand in the affair. Say: Surely the affair is wholly
(in the
hands) of Allah.
[4:65]But no! by your Lord! they do not believe (in reality) until they
make you
a judge of that which has become a matter of disagreement among them,
and then
do not find any straitness in their hearts as to what you have decided
and
submit with entire submission.
[28:68]And your Lord creates and chooses whom He pleases; to choose is
not
theirs; glory be to Allah, and exalted be He above what they associate
(with
Him).
[33:36]And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that
they should
have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have
decided a
matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays
off a
manifest straying.
There has not been a single issue that muslims have disagreed so much
upon like Khilafah. Due to the fight for Khilafah countless people have
been killed in history. It is inconceivable that God and His Messenger
would remain utterly silent on such an important issue which has been
the main matter of disagreement among them (see 4:65 above).
The unbelievable part is that the 1st ruler of muslims, Abu Bakr did not
leave the decision of who should succeed him to the people. He himself
appointed 'Umar as his successor.
Now how can it be believed that the Prophet appoints no successor but
Abu Bakr appoints his successor? Why did not Abu Bakr do as the Prophet
allegedly did? Was Abu Bakr more insightful into the affairs of the
muslims than Allah and His Messenger?
Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 325:
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
Apostle) 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."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.325
Muslim Book 020, Number 4486:
It has been reported on the authority of Ibn 'Umar who said: I entered
the apartment of (my sister) Hafsa. She said: Do yoa know that your
father is not going to nominate his successor? I said: He won't do that
(i. e. he would nominate). She said: He is going to do that. The
narrator said: I took an oath that I will talk to him about the matter.
I kept quiet until the next morning, still I did not talk to him, and I
felt as if I were carryint, a mountain on my right hand. At last I came
to him and entered his apartment. (Seeing me) he began to ask me about
the condition of the people, and I informed him (about them). Then I
said to him: I heard something from the people and took an oath that I
will communicate it to you. They presume that you are not going to
nominate a successor. If a grazer of camels and sheep that you had
appointed comes back to you leaving the cattle, you will (certainly)
think that the cattle are lost. To look after the people is more serious
and grave. (The dying Caliph) was moved at my words. He bent his head in
a thoughtful mood for some time and raised it to me and said: God will
doubtlessly protect His religion. If I do not nominate a successor (I
have a precedent before me), for the Messenger of Allah (may peace be
upon him) did not nominate his successor. And if I nominate one (I have
a precedent), for Abu Bakr did nominate. The narrator (Ibn Umar) said:
By God. when he mentioned the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)
and Abu Bakr, I (at once) understood that he would not place anyone at a
par with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and would not
nominate anyone.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/020.smt.html#020.4486
interestingly 'Umar admits that keeping silent about Khilafah would be
tantamount to God failing to protect his religion, yet most muslims
believe that the Prophet kept silent on this important issue and
appointed no one. 'Ibn 'Umar raises a very important point.
no single issue has divided the muslim community as much as the issue of
khilafah. on account of it we have broken into sects and much blood has
been shed.
logically it means that it is quite impossible that the Prophet (sawa)
remained silent on this issue. He must have appointed someone. Was
that someone Abu Bakr though? The next hadeeth clarifies that somewhat.
Muslim Book 020, Number 4485:
It has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah b. 'Umar who said: I
was present with my father when he was wounded. People praised him and
said: May God give you a noble recompense! He said: I am hopeful (of
God's mercy) as well as afraid (of His wrath) People said: Appoint
anyone as your successor. He said: Should I carry the burden of
conducting your affairs in my life as well as in my death? (So far as
Caliphate is concerned) I wish I could acquit myself (before the
Almighty) in a way that there is neither anything to my credit nor
anything to my discredit. If I would appoint my successor, (I would
because) one better than me did so. (He meant Abu Bakr.) If I would
leave You alone, (I would do so because) one better than me, i. e. the
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), did so. 'Abdullah says: When
he mentioned the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) I understood
that he would not appoint anyone as Caliph.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/020.smt.html#020.4485
It always amazes me that 'Umar says that the Prophet (sawa) left the
matter undecided and the Prophet appointed no one yet Abu Bakr when he
was about to die appoints himself ('Umar).
How can it be possible that Abu Bakr had the insight to appoint a
successor but God and His Messenger didn't have such insight? If non
appointing a successor was indeed the Sunnah of the Prophet then why did
Abu Bakr apparently go against this sunnah of the Prophet and appoint
his successor? Was Abu Bakr more intelligent then the Prophet (sawa).
Even 'Umar did not leave the world and leave the matter undecided, but
he didn't do as Abu Bakr did either, rather he invented a 3rd way and
personally selected6 people to choose among themselves who should be the
Khalifah.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 51, Number 4:
Narrated Al-Aswad:
In the presence of 'Aisha some people mentioned that the Prophet 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?"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/051.sbt.html#004.051.004
Leaving aside the fact that 'Aisha denied that the Prophet appointed
'Ali, nonetheless it is clearly visible that there were some people who
still believed that the Prophet appointed 'Ali even in the time of
'Aisha.
Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 540:
Narrated Talha:
I asked 'Abdullah bin Abi 'Aufa, "Did the Prophet 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 did not make any will?" He said, "He
made a will wherein he recommended Allah's Book."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/061.sbt.html#006.061.540
This is indeed quite amazing. Allah orders us in the Qur'an to make a
will before you die but the Prophet himself makes no will and dies
intestate? We hear that the Prophet made a will wherein he recommended
the book of Allah but is this really how it happened? Let us see:
Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 468:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were
some men in the house, and among them was 'Umar bin Al-Khatttab, the
Prophet said, "Come near let me write for you a writing after which you
will never go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill, and
you have the Quran, so Allah's Book is sufficient for us." The people in
the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, "Come near so that
Allah's Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go
astray," while some of them said what 'Umar said. When they made much
noise and differed greatly before the Prophet, he said to them, "Go away
and leave me." Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was a great disaster that
their difference and noise prevented Allah's Apostle from writing that
writing for them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/092.sbt.html#009.092.468
Muslim Book 013, Number 4014:
Sa'id b. Jubair reported that Ibn 'Abbas said: Thursday, (and then
said): What is this Thursday? He then wept so much that his tears
moistened the pebbles. I said: Ibn 'Abbas, what is (significant) about
Thursday? He (Ibn 'Abbas) said: The illness of Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) took a serious turn (on this day), and he said: Come
to me, so that I should write for you a document that you may not go
astray after me. They (the Companions around him) disputed, and it is
not meet to dispute in the presence of the Apostle. They said: How is
lie (Allah's Apostle)? Has he lost his consciousness? Try to learn from
him (this point). He (the Holy Prophet) said: Leave me. I am better in
the state (than the one in which you are engaged). I make a will about
three things: Turn out the polytheists from the territory of Arabia;
show hospitality to the (foreign) delegations as I used to show them
hospitality. He (the narrator) said: He (Ibn Abbas) kept silent on the
third point, or he (the narrator) said: But I forgot that.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/013.smt.html#013.4014
It always amazes me that some muslims always try to justify the behavior
of some companions, especially 'Umar who prevented the Prophet from
getting that document written. Was it an unimportant document?
It was only his last will and testimony which was something that would
have prevented the community from ever going astray, thats all. Not a
big deal is it?
This incident is indisputable because there have been several companions
who have narrated the incident including 'Umar himself. Here are some
more references:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death4.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death5.jpg
We have already discussed the Great Event of Ghadeer Khumm where the
Prophet appointed 'Ali as his successor.
We have also discussed that from the context of the Prophet's
announcement concerning 'Ali we can easily understand that the Prophet
was not only announcing the friendship of 'Ali but something much more
significant as he asked just before this 3x "Don't I have a greater
right upon you then you do over your own souls?" Right after that
without any gap he raised 'Ali's hand and said "Whoever I am his Mawla
then 'Ali is Mawla".
25 years after the incident of Ghadeer Khumm 'Ali gathers the companions
of the Prophet in Rahbah in Kufa and adjures them in Allah's name to
testify if they heard the Prophet make this announcement.
Thirty sahabis, twelve of whom had particiated in the Battle of Badr,
stood and testified that the Prophet (pbuh) took `Ali by the hand and
asked people: "Do you know that I have more authority over the believers
than the believers themselves have?" They answered in the affirmative.
He, peace be upon him and his progeny, then said: "To whomsoever I have
been mawla, this (`Ali) is his mawla."
Please see http://al-islam.org/murajaat/ for more detailed information.
also http://al-islam.org/ghadir/ has very important facts about Ghadeer.
salaam,
rj
--
The Messenger Of Allah Said (sawa)
"I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
Never Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These
Two
Shall Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
Innee Tarik Feekum Maa In Tamassaktum Bihimaa Lan TaDilluu Ba'di
Kitaaballahi Wa 'Itrati Ahla Bayti Wa Innahumaa Lan Yatafarraqaa Hattaa
Yaridaa 'Alayal Hawd.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain2.jpg
References:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with
reference to several chains of transmitters.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of
Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic
(Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and
Muslim).
Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5,
pp 182,189,350,366,419
see http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia
The Prophet also said (sawa):
Behold! My Ahl al-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah, whoever embarked in it
was saved, and whoever turned away from it was drowned.
Inna Mathala Ahli Baytee Feekum Mathalu Safeenati NuH man rakibaha najaa
Wa Man Takhallafa 'Anhaa halak
sample of Arabic text taken from http://www.muhaddith.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/safinah.jpg
References:
AlĸHakim records this tradition of the Prophet (S) in his Mustadrak, ii,
343, iii, 150:
Abu Nu`aym in Hilyat alĸ'awliya', iv, 306;
alĸKhatib in Ta'rikh Baghdad, xii, 19;
alĸSuyuti in alĸDurr alĸmanthur (al-Matba`at alĸMaymaniyyah,
Egypt,1314),
under verse 2:58 also in his Jami' al Sagheer.
alĸMuttaqi in Kanz alĸ`ummal, i, 250, vi, 216;
alĸHaythami in Majma` alĸzawa'id, ix, 167, 168;
alĸMuHibb alĸTabari in Dhakha'ir alĸ`uqba, 20; alĸManawi in Kunuz
alĸHaqa'iq, 132.
Yanabi Muwaddah, Qundoozi Hanafi, p 30, 370
al Sawaiq al Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar, p 184, 234
see http://al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/index.HTM
Imran Razi
Thank you for your posts, they are interesting and informative. I was
brought up as a "Sunni", but I don't call myself "Sunni" or "Shia",
just "Muslim".
One question I have is why did not the Prophet (saws) make it much
clearer that Ali (ra) was to be his political successor? Why didn't he
make a big public announcement appointing his successor, if he intended
to have a successor? He had the time to do so, to gather even just a
half-dozen prominent Companions and simply say to them "Ali will be
your leader after me." Or do you think this DID happen, and was later
denied and covered up by the politically successful party? It seems
strange to me that such an important issue comes down to the WRITING of
a will on his deathbed, and the fairly ambiguous phrase "mawla". (But
equally ambiguous is the argument that having Abu Bakr (ra) lead
prayers means the Prophet wanted him as the successor). I mean, if he
wanted a successor, why didn't everyone know it? In present times and
past, the successor to a political leader is usually well-known amongst
the public.
wa salaam,
Imran Razi
Omar Mirza
> Mr Mahdi wrote:
> The unbelievable part is that the 1st ruler of muslims, Abu Bakr did not
> leave the decision of who should succeed him to the people. He himself
> appointed 'Umar as his successor.
> Now how can it be believed that the Prophet appoints no successor but
> Abu Bakr appoints his successor?
The Prophet(s) was concerned about adding to the religious
obligations of his people. In many ahadith, he refuses to answer a
question, because by doing so his answer would become obligatory on
all Muslims. One of his main concerns was to keep the burden of his
Umma as light as possible. Why? As the Prophet sent as a Mercy to the
Worlds, he knew very well that the more obligations there are, the
more opportunity there is for people to fail in them, and the more
chances there are of a serious punishment befalling them.
If the Prophet(s) had appointed Ali, the latter's commands would
have become binding on all Muslims, and the punishment for disobeying
him would have been as great as the punishment of disobeying the
Prophet(s). Ali, and his explicitly appointed successors, would have
made decisions and given commands, all of which would have been orders
for which the punishment would be as great as that of disobeying the
Prophet himself. This would impose a great burden on the people.
Suyuti records in his Tarikh al-Khulafa that a group of Companions
came to the Prophet(s) and explicitly asked for a successor to be
appointed. He said "If I were to appoint a successor, some of you
would rebel against him, and then punishment would descend upon you."
Omar Mirza
> clearer that Ali (ra) was to be his political successor?
I think the problem goes much deeper than just this. For according to
the Shia, Ali was not just the political successor, but also a
divinely appointed Imam who was infallible in just the way the
Prophet(s) was.
All the more reason for the Prophet(s) to be very explicit about such
a central and crucially important matter.
One wonders why the Quran doesn't mention the Imamate either.
Omar Mirza
> past, the successor to a political leader is usually well-known amongst
> the public.
Exactly right. We may take the example of Abu Bakr himself, who
left nobody in any doubt that Umar was to be his successor. And Umar,
who left nobody in any doubt that there was to be a council after him.
And Muawiya, who (notoriously) left nobody in any doubt that Yazid was
to be his successor after him.
If the Prophet(s) had really explicitly appointed a successor,
none of the Companions would have been left in any doubt as to what to
do after his death. The entire event of Saqifa, the extended arguments
about who should be caliph, would not have occurred. It is really
implausible to suppose that such a large congregation of the Ansar,
men who had accepted Islam when nearly the whole of the rest of Arabia
was against it, should fail to bring up the Prophet's(s) explicit
instructions, if they knew of any in this matter.
Abu Bakr just could not have had any credibility if he was
opposing an explicit, religiously binding command of the Prophet(s) in
front of men who had devoted so much time and energy to supporting the
cause of Allah.
rjaff...@yahoo.com
Imran Razi wrote:
>
> Assalaamu alaykum Br. rjaffer,
>
> Thank you for your posts, they are interesting and informative.
Thanks. I have always enjoyed reading your posts and look forward to
reading more of them.
I was
> brought up as a "Sunni", but I don't call myself "Sunni" or "Shia",
> just "Muslim".
I also don't call myself Shi'i, just a muslim and muhibb of the
ahlul-bayt (as).
> One question I have is why did not the Prophet (saws) make it much
> clearer that Ali (ra) was to be his political successor?
>Why didn't he
> make a big public announcement appointing his successor, if he intended
> to have a successor? He had the time to do so, to gather even just a
> half-dozen prominent Companions and simply say to them "Ali will be
> your leader after me." Or do you think this DID happen, and was later
> denied and covered up by the politically successful party?
Yes I believe the Prophet did make it very clear that 'Ali was his
political successor.
He made this public announcement at Ghadeer Khumm after his last Hajj
between Mecca and Medina
in the presence of several thousand muslims. Even our sunni brothers
don't deny the incident of
Ghadeer but they interpret it in such a way that does not conflict with
there beliefs.
You will see a nice summary about Ghadeer at
http://al-islam.org/imamate/
The context of the immediate context of Ghadeer must be considered in
order to arrive at an objective
and correct conclusion.
another nice correspondence is at:
You will see that the Shi'ah have really done a lot of research about
Ghadeer due to its importance. There is a tremendous 11 volume
encyclopedia on the subject in Arabic available at:
http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/lib/hadith.htm
It seems
> strange to me that such an important issue comes down to the WRITING of
> a will on his deathbed, and the fairly ambiguous phrase "mawla". (But
> equally ambiguous is the argument that having Abu Bakr (ra) lead
> prayers means the Prophet wanted him as the successor).
The Prophet has stated in other places well before Ghadeer that 'Ali is
his Khaleefah, but strangely our sunni brothers interpret even those as
meaning Khaleefah among the Ahlul-Bayt only. Please see for example:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifa1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifa2.jpg
also
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain2.jpg
The word "Mawla" when taken out of context is ambiguous but when the
context is accepted the meaning is very very clear. Please see for
example:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/ali.jpg
The tradition is Saheeh according to Hakim in his Mustadrak of Bukhari
and Muslim and there are close to 100 other Sahih traditions concerning
the incident which you can find in Ghadeer by Amini linked above.
The Prophet explains that he is leaving two things behind that if the
muslims follow they will never go astray. He explains that they are the
Qur'an and the Ahlul-Bayt (as). In other traditions he explains that he
will have 12 successors so naturally the 12 must be among his Ahlul-Bayt
(as). Please see:
http://al-islam.org/twelve/ for more info on this point.
Then the Prophet exact the important question 3 times in different ways:
"Do you not know that I have a greater right on the believers then they
have upon their ownselves?" (This is the context that the sunnis
ignore). He used the word Awla three times which is an allusion to
verse 33:6
Then he immediately raised the hand of 'Ali high infront of thousands of
people and says "Whoever I am his Mawla then 'Ali is his Mawla".
I don't know how much clearer the Prophet could have made it. Of course
when the context is ignored Mawla can be interpreted in more than 15
different ways but how can one ignore the context? It is not fair to do
so.
As far as the leading of Abu Bakr of prayer, one can easily verify that
at Saqifah when Abu Bakr was "elected" 'Umar never presented the point
that Abu Bakr lead prayer and that is why he should lead. He didn't say
it at Saqifah neither did he say it just before Abu Bakr sat on the
Minbar of the Prophet for the first time. Abu Bakr was commissioned by
the Prophet to go on the expedition of Usaamah along with the bulk of
the Sahabah with the exception of 'Ali. There was no way that Abu Bakr
could have lead that final prayers. Please see
the following link for more details:
http://aqaed.com/books/resale4/indexs.html
Another subtle problem about this issue is the sunnis unwillingness to
even accept the possibility that the Sahabah made a mistake after the
Prophet's demise.
It is well known that among the Prophet's companions there were many
hypocrites and several of them even tried to murder the Prophet on the
way back from the Prophet's last Hajj. Look up the incident of
'Aqabah. It is very interesting.
> I mean, if he
> wanted a successor, why didn't everyone know it?
Everyone did know it. It appears that some interpreted it as a mere
recommendation of the Prophet. Some only took it in the spiritual sense
but not political as if spiritual and political are divided in Islam.
'Ali was a competent political leader too and it appears unfair to me
that he was caste aside.
You will see that 25 years after the incident of Ghadeer 'Ali assembled
the Sahabah at Rahbah and adjured them
to stand up if they witnessed the declaration at Ghadeer.
Thirty sahabis, twelve of whom had particiated in the Battle of Badr,
stood and testified that the Prophet (pbuh) took `Ali by the hand and
asked people: "Do you know that I have more authority over the believers
than the believers themselves have?" They answered in the affirmative.
He, peace be upon him and his progeny, then said: "To whomsoever I have
been mawla, this (`Ali) is his mawla; O Lord! Befriend whoever befriends
him, and be the enemy of whosoever chooses to be his enemy."
In present times and
> past, the successor to a political leader is usually well-known amongst
> the public.
The succession of 'Ali is well known for those that know it. You will
rarely see sunnis address the issue of Ghadeer. If one studies the
incident of Ghadeer Khumm it is impossible to not see it.
For most sunnis it is a great dilemma. They want to maintain the belief
in the inerrancy of the Sahabah but if they accept the implications of
Ghadeer Khumm that 'Ali is the spiritual and political successor of the
Prophet they will have to comprimise their belief about the inerrancy of
the Sahabah.
That is why this is a very sensitive issue. The Shi'ah try to prove the
errancy of the Sahabah to remove this hurdle but the Sunnis usually get
offended and accuse the Shi'ah of hating the Sahabah. Actually the
Shi'ah love the Sahabah but only the pious among them. They believe
that some Sahabah were saints and some were less than that.
Sorry for the long email and so many links.
wa salaam,
Ridwaan
>
> wa salaam,
> Imran Razi
Seeraj
> > past, the successor to a political leader is usually well-known amongst
> > the public.
>
> Exactly right. We may take the example of Abu Bakr himself, who
> left nobody in any doubt that Umar was to be his successor. And Umar,
A small but very important correction: Abu-Baker(RA) had NOT
appointed Omar(RA)as his successor, he had only SUGGESTED him.
Omar(RA) still needed to have the Bi'ah (Oath of allegiance)
from the Muslims to become the legitimate Khalifa. Omar(RA)
was supported by most of the Muslims of that day, and he
became the Khalifa. A tiny minority opposed that decision,
most notably from those who opposed was Saad Ibn Ubidah(RA),
who was one of the most prominent leaders of the Ansar.
Saad refused to give his allegiance to Omar(RA), and
in fact never did that.
W'assallam,
Seeraj
Omar Mirza
>
> The word "Mawla" when taken out of context is ambiguous but when the
> context is accepted the meaning is very very clear. Please see for
> example:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/ali.jpg
I see that you have given a lot of importance to the context in which
this statement is reported to have been uttered. But I wonder if you
have considered the even broader context.
This is as follows, and I'm following Martin Lings's account. Ali had
been placed at the head of 300 men coming back from an expedition in
Yemen, and he was approaching Mecca from the south. His men had taken
a lot of booty, and there was a lot of linen that could have clothed
the whole troop. They were approaching at the end of the Pilgrimage,
and that meant that the men were concerned they would not have good
clothes on entering Mecca. In Ali's absence, the men all clothed
themselves from the booty. Ali saw them, and demanded that all the
clothing be restored, since it could only be given out by the
Prophet(s). This caused a lot of resentment among the other troops,
who were anxious to look their best for Eid. They started murmuring
against Ali, and when the Prophet(s) heard them he said "O people,
blame not Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the path of Allah." But
these words were not enough, or they were heard by too few,and the
resentful murmurings against Ali continued.
On the way back to Medina, one of the troops bitterly complained about
Ali, and the Prophet(s) became very angry. He said to the man "Am I
not nearer to the believers than their own selves?" The man said yes,
so the Prophet(s) said "Whose nearest I am, Ali is his nearest too."
Later, when the Prophet(s) had halted at Ghadir Khumm he repeated
these words, and then added "O God , be the friend of him who is his
friend, and the enemy of him who is his enemy."; and then the
murmurings against Ali were silenced.
(Lings cites Ibn Kathir as a source for this account).
So if the broader context is taken into account, then the Prophet's
statement is meant to be a way of stopping the resentment against Ali,
not a way of giving him the caliphate. He(s) was concerned about the
lack of respect being shown to Ali, and that is why he said what he
did. "Whose nearest I am, Ali is his nearest too" means, in this
context, "You should not be resentful against Ali anymore than you are
resentful against me."
Wa al-Salam,
Omar
Seeraj
> to have a successor? He had the time to do so, to gather even just a
> half-dozen prominent Companions and simply say to them "Ali will be
> your leader after me." Or do you think this DID happen, and was later
> denied and covered up by the politically successful party? It seems
> strange to me that such an important issue comes down to the WRITING of
> a will on his deathbed, and the fairly ambiguous phrase "mawla". (But
> equally ambiguous is the argument that having Abu Bakr (ra) lead
> prayers means the Prophet wanted him as the successor). I mean, if he
Who had argued that the Prophet(SAW) had appointed Abu-Baker(RA)
as his successor??
The position of the Muslims is that the Prophet(SAW) had left the
matter to the Ummah to decide.
But,, aren't we making ourselves the fun of the whole world by
this discussion???!
Let us suppose that Abu-baker(RA) was the wrong man, and let us
suppose that Ali(RA)was appointed by the Prophet(SAW) as the
successor. And let us also believe for a moment that 99.99% of
the companions had collectively conspired to alter the orders
of the Prophet(SAW), which is an assumption that even Nussurdien's
donkey will feel embarrassed to make.
Let us assume all that. And then, what can we do about it in
practical terms??
Should we now roll the history back and appoint Ali(RA) as
the Khalifa?
Should we continue forever re-fighting the battles that took
place before more than 1400 years ago?
Should we dig up the graves of those who made mistakes and
punish them?
"Truly it is not their eyes that are blind, but their hearts
which are in their breasts" [Qur'an 22:46]
Seeraj,
W'assallam
rjaff...@yahoo.com
Omar Mirza wrote:
> > http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/ali.jpg
>
> I see that you have given a lot of importance to the context in which
> this statement is reported to have been uttered. But I wonder if you
> have considered the even broader context.
'alaykum salaam wa RaHmatullah brother Omar,
thank you for you reply and yes I have considered that story and it
doesn't convince me and here are a few reasons why.
as you know during the rulership of 'Ali 25 years after the demise of
the Prophet (sawa), 'Ali gathered
all the Sahabah he could find and asked them publically in the plain of
Rahbah who was there at Ghadeer Khumm and witnessed the declaration of
the Prophet about him. Thirty sahabis, twelve of whom had particiated
in the Battle of Badr stood and testified.
may I ask, why Imam 'Ali (as) was making such an issue 25 years later
during his reign? The significance of the Ghadeer Khumm declaration is
much more than most muslims appear to understand.
It doesn't make sense to me that people 25 years latter would still hold
grudges about some linen 'Eid cloths.
secondly it is acknowledged that 'Ali with-held his pledge of allegiance
for at least 6 months to Abu Bakr. Why? Please mind that the Shi'i
don't even agree with this but for the sake of making a point obviously
'Ali saw a problem with the Khilafah of Abu Bakr. So what was the
problem?
third please look at the immediate context of the Ghadeer Khumm
declaration above. please notice how the Prophet (sawa) explained how
he is leaving two things behind if the people follow they will never go
astray and they are the book of Allah and the Ahlul-Bayt (as). When the
Prophet clearly explained that he will have 12 successors does it make
sense to you that he forgot to mention who they are? Not even the first
successor? What is the point of declaring that he will have 12
successors and then not explain exactly who they are?
Did the Prophet really leave this issue as a mystery to blindly have
faith in ?
I don't want to offend you in anyway so I hope you will not mind this
example. I always tell my christian acquaintances and I think the
example hopefully will show the truth of this matter too.
Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my
Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a
Father,
and he shall be to me a Son?
Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest;
but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
Most Christians believe that Jesus is literally the son of God but when
one considers the implications of the above 2 verses it clears this up
really nicely.
the verses say "This Day I Have Begotten Thee".
This clearly shows that before this "This Day" Jesus was not the
Begotten Son of God. It is a clear proof that "Son of God" is rank or
title of honor that Jesus acquired at a certain time. It is a clear
proof that Jesus is (if anything) metaphorically a "begotten son" not
literally.
Now look at the following well know narration and there are many others
like it:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/mawla10.jpg
'Umar says to 'Ali at Ghadeer Khumm "Congratulation, you have become my
Mawla and the Mawla of every believing man and woman."
the word used is ASBaHta. Obviously there is no point in saying 'Ali
became the Mawla of every believer if Mawla only means dear friend.
When was 'Ali ever not a "dear friend" of every believer so that 'Umar
has to congratulate him for BECOMING the Mawla of every believer?
Obviously 'Ali received a great rank on that blessed day.
Of course brother you will always find people using this or that excuse
to interpret Ghadeer Khumm in a way that doesn't clash with their sect.
I have been studying this issue of successorship for a long time now and
the more I read and consider the more the 12er Shi'ah position makes
sense to me.
To believe that God and His Messenger remained utterly silent about such
an important issue is totally unreasonable if not impossible to me.
After weighing all sides of the arguments I find the Shi'ah position
much more convincing. In order to be honest to myself and my Creator I
have to follow what convinces me.
I hope you are not offended and again,thank you for your reply.
salaam,
ridwaan
-------------------------------------------------------
Omar Mirza
> But,, aren't we making ourselves the fun of the whole world by
> this discussion???!
>
> Let us suppose that Abu-baker(RA) was the wrong man, and let us
> suppose that Ali(RA)was appointed by the Prophet(SAW) as the
> successor. And let us also believe for a moment that 99.99% of
> the companions had collectively conspired to alter the orders
> of the Prophet(SAW), which is an assumption that even Nussurdien's
> donkey will feel embarrassed to make.
That is exactly the assumption that the Shia DO make, and their
Deen rests on it. IF they are in fact, correct, then the religion of
the Ahl us-Sunnah rests on very shaky foundations indeed. For we
accept, as binding on us, everything narrated on the authority of the
Prophet(s) by the Sahaba. If those people were not in fact righteous
and sound in their religion, then we are following delusions, and had
better repent as soon as possible.
And if the Sahaba as a whole rejected a clear and binding religious
commandment, then are they not kuffar, worthy of being severely
punished? Or at the very least very grave sinners (fasiqun)? After
all, it is not a case of making an occasional slip which one soon
corrects and leads to repentance. This is a matter of DELIBERATELY and
SYSTEMATICALLY depriving an infallible divinely appointed Imam of his
right, thereby disobeying Allah's explicit and clear command at the
mouth of His Prophet(s), and misleading everyone else about it as
well.
If the Shia are right about the khilafa, then Sunni Islam is so much
bunk, because it is based on people capable of such a misdeed that
nothing they tell us about the Prophet(s) can be trusted.
That is why the question of what happened 1400 years ago is EXTREMELY
relevant to our lives NOW.
Salam Alaykum,
Omar
Omar Mirza
> as you know during the rulership of 'Ali 25 years after the demise of
> the Prophet (sawa), 'Ali gathered
> all the Sahabah he could find and asked them publically in the plain of
> Rahbah who was there at Ghadeer Khumm and witnessed the declaration of
> the Prophet about him. Thirty sahabis, twelve of whom had particiated
> in the Battle of Badr stood and testified.
I would like to know what is the source of this report. As you may
know, historical reports after the period of the Prophet are fraught
with diffculties because of the large number of forgeries that were
circulated by partisans of all sides in the conflicts. Many of the
historians through whom we receive these reports, such as Waqidi, are
known for their bad character and their lying. So before I comment, I
would like to know the isnad for this report before I know what to say
about it.
Frankly, it is sufficient for me that virtually all the Muhajirin
and the Ansar gave their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr very soon
after the death of the Prophet(s). The Muhajirin had believed in the
Prophet(s) during the terrible years of persecution in Mecca, they had
left their families and their property to live in a strange land with
strangers, they had fought with their fathers and sons and brothers
for the sake of the Allah, even against huge odds. The Ansar believed
in the Prophet(s) before the rest of Arabia, they put aside their
tribal feuds for him, and fought along with him, spending their wealth
and opposing their own family members for his sake. As Malik ibn Anas
said "All the cities were conquered by the sword, even Mecca, but
Madina was conquered by the Quran." There must have been something
special about the Ansar that they should have believed in the
Prophet(s) when the rest of the world was against him. Now these
people were not inerrant, they certainly made mistakes, slipped up,
let their passions get the better of them from time to time. But while
not ma'sum, they were indeed righteous, penitent, and firmly devoted
to Allah and His Messenger(s) and it is for this reason that Allah
says "You are the best community ever raised up for the good of
mankind." Does it make sense that the best community should so soon go
so horribly stray? Hardly.
While they may have made mistakes from time to time,it is not
plausible that the vast majority of the Muhajirin and the Ansar would
deliberately conspire to disobey the Prophet(s) in a clear and
well-known command.
> may I ask, why Imam 'Ali (as) was making such an issue 25 years later
> during his reign? The significance of the Ghadeer Khumm declaration is
> much more than most muslims appear to understand.
The declaration does not amount to an appointment of Ali, but it does
indicate that Ali had a special position with the Prophet(s). This may
be what he had in mind in bringing the matter up. There must have been
something soecial about Ali, as indeed there was, for the Prophet(s)
to be so concerned about the resentment against him.
> It doesn't make sense to me that people 25 years latter would still hold
> grudges about some linen 'Eid cloths.
They didn't. See above.
> secondly it is acknowledged that 'Ali with-held his pledge of allegiance
> for at least 6 months to Abu Bakr. Why? Please mind that the Shi'i
> don't even agree with this but for the sake of making a point obviously
> 'Ali saw a problem with the Khilafah of Abu Bakr. So what was the
> problem?
Ali was angry that he hadn't been consulted by Abu Bakr when the
decision was taken. He did feel he had some claim in the matter, but
that does NOT imply he thought he had been explicitly been appointed
to rule.
When the
> Prophet clearly explained that he will have 12 successors does it make
> sense to you that he forgot to mention who they are? Not even the first
> successor? What is the point of declaring that he will have 12
> successors and then not explain exactly who they are?
> Did the Prophet really leave this issue as a mystery to blindly have
> faith in ?
Have you read the Sunni commenatators about this hadith? What does Ibn
Hajar say, what does Suyuti say, what does Nawawi say, what does Ibn
Taymiyya say, what does Ibn Arabi say about it in his Futuhat, what
does Dhahabi say, etc.?
>
> Now look at the following well know narration and there are many others
> like it:
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/mawla10.jpg
>
> 'Umar says to 'Ali at Ghadeer Khumm "Congratulation, you have become my
> Mawla and the Mawla of every believing man and woman."
>
> the word used is ASBaHta. Obviously there is no point in saying 'Ali
> became the Mawla of every believer if Mawla only means dear friend.
> When was 'Ali ever not a "dear friend" of every believer so that 'Umar
> has to congratulate him for BECOMING the Mawla of every believer?
Ali was not a dear friend when people were bitterly resentful against
him. He was not always a popular man, because, like Umar, he was stern
and unyielding when it came to matters of the deen. Moreover, there
were many new Muslims around who had previously fought the Prophet(s),
their faith was not always that strong, and they resented the fact
that Ali had killed so many of their kinsmen in previous battles. His
very success in the battlefield, which was one of the karamat he was
given, made many new Muslims resent him at that time, because they had
previously lost loved ones to his invincible sword. So yes, there was
most definitely a need to declare him a close friend, so that people
would treat him with the respect that he deserved.
Umar's remark was probably meant to console and hearten Ali, who was
no doubt upset at the people's dislike of him. He was just being a
friend.
> Obviously 'Ali received a great rank on that blessed day.
Perhaps, or rather the Prophet made known to those who resented Ali
his true worth. But it was not clear enough to count as an explicit
appointment.
The Shia records of this incident do contain a clear record of an
explicit appointment. But no such thing is to be found in reliable
Sunni sources and Allah knows best.
> To believe that God and His Messenger remained utterly silent about such
> an important issue is totally unreasonable if not impossible to me.
I have explained elsewhere one reason why they may have been silent.
>
> I hope you are not offended and again,thank you for your reply.
You have said nothing at all to which I could take offense.
Wa al-Salam,
Omar
mar...@vom.com
written, slanders where he erroneously attributes views to those with
whom he has chosen to disagree, views with which the targets of his
venom would not and do not agree.
I am confining myself, here, to one single point. He had called Jochen
Katz an "avowed" enemy of Islam. I had pointed out that this was not
correct; when Mr Mahdi replied with more assertion of the same,
another wrote explaining.
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
>>It's your own poor use of language. You said "AVOWED enemy of Islam",
>>and it is to this that Br. Lomax is responding.
>
>Concerning the "poor use" of language, here is the definition of "avowed":
It's a small point, but words do not have fixed definitions, but their
meanings shift with context, so the use of the definite article "the"
here is incorrect. Rather, Mahdi is giving "a" definition. Rather
obviously, he has taken it from a dictionary.
>[Middle English, from Middle French avouer, from Latin advocare]
>
>First appeared 14th Century
Did we really need to know this? The etymology of the word is
completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
> 1 : to declare assuredly
>
> 2 : to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame <ever ready to ~ his
>reactionary outlook>
>
> synonym see ACKNOWLEDGE, ASSERT
Yes. That is what the word means. But Mahdi does not know how to
understand it and apply it to the situation. An "avowed" enemy, by
definition, has made an open declaration of enmity. He has not merely
shown enmity or behaved as an enemy.
If Mahdi had called Mr. Katz an "open" enemy of Islam, or an "obvious"
enemy of Islam, or simply an enemy of Islam, I might or might not have
agreed with him, but I certainly could not say that he was definitely
wrong.
I noted that, to my knowledge, Mr. Katz had never declared himself an
enemy of Islam. I also don't think that he would, though I could be
wrong on that. Mr. Katz knows what the word "Islam" means, and he does
not think himself an enemy of it; rather, I understand him to believe
that "acceptance" is the only proper relationship of the soul to God,
and, when I asked him about this, he said, yes, I seek to be a muslim
in the original meaning of the word.
He could have been lying, of course, though I think not. It's not
consistent with what I have seen of his character.
>Jochen Katz is open about his opposition to Islam. He is open at his attempts
>to discredit Islam, to convert Muslims to Christianity, to cause Muslims and
>non-Muslims to doubt Islam and so on. This is what you call an "avowed" enemy.
Mahdi's English has gotten much better over the last year or two. But
he should go back and read the definition he quoted: that is *not*
what we call an "avowed" enemy.
Perhaps it is a small point, but then why did Mahdi go to so much
trouble to continue to argue it? I think I know why. He cannot stand
that he makes, in debate, an error of any kind, so as long as any
shred of possibility remains, and even sometimes beyond that, he
continues to argue. He would gain credibility if he would learn to
acknowledge points made by others, even if he considers them enemies.
mypointofview2002
Quran was compiled during the time of Umar: who had disobeyed a request
to bring pen and paper to the prophet just before his death so he could make
a will to restate what he had declared earlier nominating Ali as his successor.
Taking human nature into account, do you think that umar would have allowed
an any direct referance to Imamate of Ali in the Quran in light of the above.
Draw you own conclusion. Whether you accept the Ali and his seccessors as imams
or not, they will still be the imams by the command of Allah and the promise
he made to Abraham that Real Religious Leaders(imams) will always be present
on this earth and will be from the family of Abraham.
There are lot of indirect references to the Imamate of Ali in the Quran for
those who are interested in the truth. As prophet said "Truth is always with
Ali"
Mypointofview.
vmi...@yahoo.com
rjaff...@yahoo.com wrote:
> as you know during the rulership of 'Ali 25 years after the demise of
> the Prophet (sawa), 'Ali gathered
> all the Sahabah he could find and asked them publically in the plain of
> Rahbah who was there at Ghadeer Khumm and witnessed the declaration of
> the Prophet about him. Thirty sahabis, twelve of whom had particiated
> in the Battle of Badr stood and testified.
>
> may I ask, why Imam 'Ali (as) was making such an issue 25 years later
> during his reign? The significance of the Ghadeer Khum declaration is
> much more than most muslims appear to understand.
>
It is well known amongst muslims that there was some hostility towards
Ali(RA) from some people at the time surrounding the event of Ghadir Khum.
Naturally, this was a source of anguish to the prophet(SAW) who made the
declaration of his affection towards his cousin and son-in-law, in order
to impress upon the muslims that like they loved him(SAW), they should
alos love his(SAW) cousin and not harbor rancour towards him. This
explanation of the events of Ghadir Khum is well documented, and certainly
not unknown to you.
It is also well known that the behavior of the people in Kufa remained,
more often than not, a source of much grief and anguish to Ali(RA). There
is his own testimony to this effect amongst his sermons recorded in
Nahajul Balagha.
It seems entirely possible that he did what you cite above, in order to
remind the people of the importance of supporting him, by subtly invoking
the reminders of the event of Ghadir Khum.
I mean, it amazes me that had the prophet(SAW) wanted Ali(RA) to be his
successor, he would not explicitly and simply just tell muslims that
Ali(RA) will be the leader of muslims after him(RA). Especially, since the
Shia insist that there is Quranic evidence that unless he(SAW) did so, he
would have failed to discharge his duty.
Equally amazing is the correspondingly inexplict behavior of Ali(RA) 25
years later, in that when he asked for the companions who were present at
Ghadir Khum, he did not ask them to remind the muslims that, in fact, the
prophet's directive at Ghadir Khum was that he (Ali) should have been the
Caliph all along.
Now it cannot be argued that he desisted from doing so for the fear of
the support for Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman(RAA), as they had all passed
away and Ali(RA) was the Amir of the muslims.
I would have asked you to Fear Allah(SWT) and desist from casting
aspersions on the companions, and from vain attempts to sow doubt in the
hearts of muslims, but it has never availed in the past. May be you can
wait for the Day of Jugdement for Allh(SWT) to Decide in this matter
between you and the rest of the muslims? And, for sure, we are waiting
along with you.
Mr Mahdi
>It is unnecessary to respond to the many slanders in what Mr Mahdi has
>written, slanders where he erroneously attributes views to those with
>whom he has chosen to disagree, views with which the targets of his
>venom would not and do not agree.
Lomax decided to defend once again his buddy Jochen Katz while ignoring the
other more Islamic issues I raised in my posts. The issues were secularism,
democracy and Interfaith activities.
Lomax has been a proponent of participation in the kufr political system and
well as democracy. Time and time again I have refuted this and time and time
again Lomax for some reason stills insist on remaining loyal to such a thing.
Why is that, well, I do not have access to the ghaib.
Lomax of course is active in the Interfaith movement. I noticed that he did
not touch on this at all, because everything I said was absolutely true. One
just needs to read the post Lomax responded to to see what I am talking about.
He said I committed slander but never pointed any of it out, but he decided to
once again defend his friend Jochen Katz. On the issue of Jochen Katz, if
there were an Islamic state today, he wouldn't be allow to get away with what
he gets away with now. This proves Islam sees any attack on Islam with
DELIBERATE intentions in discrediting, causing doubt, confusion, etc., of Islam
is an avowed act of hatred opposition against Islam.
As for his support of "American Islam", it seems to me that he is not bothered
to say the least that Islam is being distorted in order to please the Kuffar
and be "compatible" with their system and way of life. Islam is here to mold
us, not we mold it, Islam is about pleasing Allah, not pleasing people who
based their behaviors and beliefs on what displeases Allah.
I ask Br. Lomax to end his participation in the kufr Interfaith movement. I
ask him to also stop advocating Muslims to participate in kufr politics and
stop advocating secularism and democracy. I ask him to reject "American Islam"
and all that comes with it as well as the advocates of it. It has been proven
to him that these things contradict Islam and I hope that he decides to changes
his ways Insha' Allah.
Mahdi Muhammad
rjaff...@yahoo.com
Omar Mirza wrote:
>
> > 'alaykum salaam wa RaHmatullah brother Omar,
>
>
> > as you know during the rulership of 'Ali 25 years after the demise of
> > the Prophet (sawa), 'Ali gathered
> > all the Sahabah he could find and asked them publically in the plain of
> > Rahbah who was there at Ghadeer Khumm and witnessed the declaration of
> > the Prophet about him. Thirty sahabis, twelve of whom had particiated
> > in the Battle of Badr stood and testified.
>
>
> I would like to know what is the source of this report.
it is very well known even in hadeeth collections. for example in the
Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal there are at least 6 references to the
incident of Rahbah. Please see:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/mawla3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/mawla4.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/mawla5.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/mawla6.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/mawla7.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/mawla8.jpg
>
> Frankly, it is sufficient for me that virtually all the Muhajirin
> and the Ansar gave their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr very soon
> after the death of the Prophet(s).
It is not necessarily the case that the majority of the Muhajirin and
Ansar willfully disobeyed the Prophet
concerning the successorship of 'Ali (as). It may be that the majority
of them believed the successorship of 'Ali was mearly a recommendation
of the Prophet or maybe they believed that it only related to spiritual
matters.
Nonetheless even if they believed it was only a recommendation of the
Prophet the Prophet's recommendation ought to have been followed
(sawa).
The Prophet said that he is leaving both the Qur'an and Ahlul-Bayt (as)
as a source of guidance for the Ummah.
"I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
Never Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These
Two
Shall Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/khalifatain2.jpg
As you know from the report in the Mustadrak of Bukhari and Muslim, the
Prophet said this at the same very Ghadeer Khumm when he mentioned that
'Ali is the Mawla of the believers.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/ali.jpg
One more thing. As you know there are two versions of the asbaab al
Nuzul of the middle of 5:3. Some sunni reports say that it was revealed
at 'arafaat as reported by 'Umar and some say at Ghadeer as reported by
Abu Sa'eed al KhuDri. But don't you think that it is strange that the
verse is smack in the middle of a verse about dietary laws? Also the
verse suggests an element of fear so what was the Prophet afraid of? Do
you really think the Prophet's fear and the perfection of the religion
had to do with dietary laws?
[5:3]Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh
of
swine, and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been
invoked, and
the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a
fall and
that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts
have
eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set
up (for
idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression. THIS
DAY HAVE
THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE DESPAIRED OF YOUR RELIGION, SO FEAR THEM NOT, AND
FEAR ME.
THIS DAY HAVE I PERFECTED FOR YOU YOUR RELIGION AND COMPLETED MY FAVOR
ON YOU
AND CHOSEN FOR YOU ISLAM AS A RELIGION; but whoever is compelled by
hunger, not
inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Omar Mirza
> omar...@yahoo.com (Omar Mirza) wrote in message
> > One wonders why the Quran doesn't mention the Imamate either.
>
> Quran was compiled during the time of Umar: who had disobeyed a request
> to bring pen and paper to the prophet just before his death so he could make
> a will to restate what he had declared earlier nominating Ali as his successor.
First of all, it's false that the Quran was compiled in the time
of Umar. It was compiled shortly after the battle of Yamama in the
time of Abu Bakr. As for the issue of the pen and the paper, Umar, who
had accompanied the Prophet(s) for years understood the request to
bring pen and paper NOT as a religiously binding command, but as a
RECOMMENDATION, that is as a matter in which the Companions were given
a choice. In this he followed his ijtihad, and he was concerned that
the Prophet(s) would be put to a lot of hardship by having to dictate
a document when he was so obviously suffering as a result of his
illness. His actions were a result of his compassion for the
Prophet(s), not a result of wilful disobedience.
> Taking human nature into account, do you think that umar would have allowed
> an any direct referance to Imamate of Ali in the Quran in light of the above.
A classic Shia move. When they don't find their favourite dogmas
supported in the Quran, they assume that it was altered by the
Companions. But how could anyone have succeeded in promulgating a
Quran which was missing such crucially important verses? The Quran was
a well-known document already in the Prophet's(s) lifetime, since it
was memorised, either in whole or in part, by large numbers of people.
Nobody could get away with altering the speech of Allah like that, it
would be too easy to spot, and people would rebel. Why, on this forum
I recently made fun of Heger by deliberately misquoting him,and he
IMMEDIATELY replied to correct what I had written. Heger was jealously
careful of his words, and wouldn't let anyone misquote him and get
away with it. Do you REALLY think that the Companions, the Muhajirun
and the Ansar who had struggled for so long on behalf of the
Prophet(s) with their persons and their goods, would be any LESS ready
to correct tampering with the WORDS OF ALLAH? May Allah guide both of
us.
If there were verses referring to the Imamate, why do not the Shia
recite these verses? They would certainly have been known to the
infallible Imams, who would have had an obligation to teach them to
their followers, and thus the Shias would have been reciting a
different Quran to the rest of the Muslims. But they don't.
And if one of the first three caliphs had deliberately suppressed
verses about Ali during their time, why did not Ali make these verses
known when he became caliph? He had so much trouble both with Muawiya
and with the fickleness of his own followers from Kufa, would it not
make sense for him to enhance his authority by making public these
verses? Would it not be OBLIGATORY on Ali to make the TRUE version of
the Quran known to the people? Would it not be OBLIGATORY on his son
Hasan to also make these verses known? Why then do we not read about
them doing either of these things, since they would certainly become
well-known, and could not be hidden from historians? Why don't the
Shia themselves have a different Quran, especially as their twelfth
Imam is STILL ALIVE? Could the twelfth Imam not have made these verses
known during his lesser occultation at least?
These are not facetious questions. May Allah guide both of us.
> There are lot of indirect references to the Imamate of Ali in the Quran for
> those who are interested in the truth.
Name me three.
Wa al-Salam,
Omar
Omar Mirza
>
> it is very well known even in hadeeth collections. for example in the
> Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal there are at least 6 references to the
> incident of Rahbah. Please see:
Brother Ridwaan, I wasn't able to access the links you gave. Do you
have any others? I think those links are dead.
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal was never claimed to contain only sound
ahadith. In fact the Imam was ordering his son to strike ahadith from
it even on his death-bed. This means we should be careful with
anything in it. It would be important for me to see how sound these
ahadith are. If there are major gaps in the isnads, then I would not
take them too seriously, although there may be some truth to them as
well.
At any rate, the incident does show that the Prophet(s) held Ali in
high estimation, and that may be why Ali brought it up.
> > Frankly, it is sufficient for me that virtually all the Muhajirin
> > and the Ansar gave their oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr very soon
> > after the death of the Prophet(s).
>
> It is not necessarily the case that the majority of the Muhajirin and
> Ansar willfully disobeyed the Prophet
> concerning the successorship of 'Ali (as). It may be that the majority
> of them believed the successorship of 'Ali was mearly a recommendation
> of the Prophet or maybe they believed that it only related to spiritual
> matters.
And perhaps they also believed that the Prophet's appointment of
Abu Bakr to lead the prayer was an implicit recommendation as well. In
which case they believed themselves to be acting on at least one of
his recommendations.
But brother, if the Prophet really wanted to make the Imamate of
Ali obligatory on the Muslims, then he could have made it clear very
EASILY, just as he made all kinds of other obligations very clear.
Just take a look at the Shia version of the speech at Ghadir Khumm.
What could be clearer than that? All he needed to say was "It is
obligatory for all Muslims to accept Ali as their Imam after my death.
Whoever does not do so will face a punishment from Allah. It is
forbidden for anyone to choose anyone else as their leader while Ali
is still alive."
Clearly the Propeht (s) would have made his meaning at least as
clear as that if the appointment of Ali was actually an obligation.
And if he had, you would not find the overwhelming majority of the
Muhajirun and the Ansar accepting Abu Bakr without so much as saying
once in their discussions "Hey wait a minute!! We were ordered to take
Ali as our Imam!! That's an obligation on us!" Instead, they felt no
prick of conscience about their actions.
> Nonetheless even if they believed it was only a recommendation of the
> Prophet the Prophet's recommendation ought to have been followed
> (sawa).
See above. It is better to follow a recommendation than not, but there
is no sin in leaving a recommendation.
> The Prophet said that he is leaving both the Qur'an and Ahlul-Bayt (as)
> as a source of guidance for the Ummah.
>
> "I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
> Never Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These
> Two
> Shall Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
I can't access the links you gave me. Do you have any others?
The usual form of this hadith, in the Muwatta, is "the Quran and my
Sunnah." I'm not sure how authentic the form above is, but I'd really
like to find out.
> As you know from the report in the Mustadrak of Bukhari and Muslim, the
> Prophet said this at the same very Ghadeer Khumm when he mentioned that
> 'Ali is the Mawla of the believers.
If this is the Mustadrak of Hakim Nishapuri, it is known that he made
many mistakes and was severely censured by other traditionists for
many of his choices.
Wa al-Salam,
Omar
mar...@vom.com
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
>Lomax decided to defend once again his buddy Jochen Katz while ignoring the
>other more Islamic issues I raised in my posts. The issues were secularism,
>democracy and Interfaith activities.
My decision was to defend the truth, that is to testify to what I know
and see. This is, on occasion, an obligation in Islam. Mr. Katz is not
in danger here, but the truth is in danger, or, more accurately, Mr
Mahdi is in danger because he seems to be completely unconcerned that
he says what is false.
Yes, I did not deal with secularism, democracy, and interfaith
activities. Those are large issues and beyond my capacity at the
moment. It has been my hope to write a substantive article, in
particular on democracy, and I would not choose to confine myself by
the demands of responding to Mr Mahdi.
I am not a secularist, so I need and would not defend secularism, per
se. But the issue is more complex than that. If Mr Mahdi wants simple
answers, he's not going to get them. As to democracy, I am neither a
democrat; rather I trust in consensus, which goes beyond democracy and
is, in my opinion, our surest guide to true guidance. It bears a
resemblance to democracy but is not identical with it. If Mr Mahdi
does not like consensus, too bad for him.
>Lomax has been a proponent of participation in the kufr political system and
>well as democracy. Time and time again I have refuted this and time and time
>again Lomax for some reason stills insist on remaining loyal to such a thing.
>Why is that, well, I do not have access to the ghaib.
Indeed he does not, nor does he trust it.
Mr Mahdi seems to think that I have an obligation to respond to
whatever he writes. I don't. I notice that most of his opinions stir
up no agreement from other writers on this newsgroup. Therefore I
conclude that few are deluded by them. I am not an expert on Hizb
uT-Tahir; were I, I might have an obligation.
>Lomax of course is active in the Interfaith movement. I noticed that he did
>not touch on this at all, because everything I said was absolutely true. One
>just needs to read the post Lomax responded to to see what I am talking about.
Hello? I'm active in the Interfaith movement? What does that mean?
*What activities does Mr Mahdi imagine I am engaged in*?
Just because Mr Mahdi imagines something about me, am I "guilty" of it
merely because I do not respond? Does this man have any understanding
of our religion?
As I wrote, I was not going to respond to all his slanders. By
reference that indicated that much of what he wrote was not true, so I
*did* respond.
There is a strange disease which afflicts some of our writers. In this
respect Mr Mahdi resembles Dr Heger. If one does not respond to what
they have written, they treat it as a proof that what they have
written was a conclusive, irrefutable exposition. This is a serious
delusion.
>He said I committed slander but never pointed any of it out, but he decided to
>once again defend his friend Jochen Katz.
How did I defend Mr. Katz? I merely noted a fact: as far as I have
seen, he has never openly acknowledged being an enemy of Islam. Thus
Mr. Mahdi's characterisation of him as an "avowed" enemy of Islam was
false. This is not a defense of Mr. Katz; I did not attempt to clear
Mr Katz of an implied charge that he *is* an enemy of Islam. It was
simply a minor but clear example of how Mr Mahdi is careless with his
words. One who is careless with words is one step below a liar, and,
indeed, liars sometimes justify their lies, when they are caught, by
claiming that what they said was only an accidental error.
If we are going to accuse others, it behooves us to be *very* careful
what we say.
>On the issue of Jochen Katz, if
>there were an Islamic state today, he wouldn't be allow to get away with what
>he gets away with now.
Wouldn't that be up to the khalifah? Or does Mr Mahdi think that his
ijtihad is binding on the khalifah?
Fortunately, Mr Mahdi is not the khalifah! Were he the khalifah,
assuming that his character had not changed, I would fear that I had
made a terrible mistake in accepting Islam. But I do not fear that;
and there already is a khalifah, to whom I am pledged.
And just what is Mr Katz "getting away with now"? He is not a
participant on this newsgroup, not for a long time. Neither is he
stirring up acts of violence against the Muslims, which could justify
action against him (as has been justified the reported action of the
Prophet, SAS, against the "poets.") If Mr Mahdi thinks that Mr Katz is
doing something reprehensible, something against which we should take
action, he can bring this to our attention. Actually, however, it
appears he doesn't care about Mr Katz except as a tactic in debate, as
a verbal bludgeon by which he attempts to strike me. Why does he seek
to strike me? He seeks to strike me because I have reflected back to
him his attitudes toward others. He does not like what he sees; he
prefers to keep evil in its place, which, for him, is "out there" in
others. And thus he falls into Satan's trap.
>This proves Islam sees any attack on Islam with
>DELIBERATE intentions in discrediting, causing doubt, confusion, etc., of Islam
>is an avowed act of hatred opposition against Islam.
No, it would be an act of opposition. It would only be "avowed"
opposition if the person explicitly acknowledged being in opposition.
Mr Mahdi is showing us that
(1) He is unable to understand simple language or
(2) He is bound to the idea that he is right and he is unwilling to
*ever* acknowledge error.
The former is simple ignorance, but I fear that the truth is the
latter, which is a mark of kufr. Fear God, Mr Mahdi.
>As for his support of "American Islam", it seems to me that he is not bothered
>to say the least that Islam is being distorted in order to please the Kuffar
>and be "compatible" with their system and way of life. Islam is here to mold
>us, not we mold it, Islam is about pleasing Allah, not pleasing people who
>based their behaviors and beliefs on what displeases Allah.
The term "American Islam," as Mr Mahdi is using it, is his invention.
He has not clearly shared with us what he means by it. Obviously, to
him, it is a negative thing. But to me, American Islam means Islam as
it is understood and practiced by Americans, that is, in this case,
people who were born in the United States of America or who have made
it their home, as a place where they belong and for which they feel
some responsibility.
Yes, Islam is here to mold us. Not Mr Mahdi.
Mr Mahdi imagines that "American Muslims" change their religion in
order to please those around them. I'm sure that some do this, as do
people all over the world. But that is no more characteristic of Islam
in America than it is in other parts of the world, and I might suggest
that it is less so here, because people in general feel more personal
freedom here, less social pressure to conform. Not no social pressure,
but less.
>I ask Br. Lomax to end his participation in the kufr Interfaith movement.
*What participation?*
What exactly is he claiming that I am doing that he thinks I should
not be doing?
There is a "kufr interfaith movement," not that I would mangle the
language like that. I flee from participation in it, that is, in kufr
disguised as interfaith tolerance and cooperation. But I also have
been informed by the scholars that the Prophet, SAS, commanded us that
we have good relations with our neighbors, and that by this he did not
only mean our Muslim neighbors.
I also consider that if I have the power to prevent an evil, I have an
obligation to exercise that power. Mr Mahdi mistakes this as, somehow,
an attempt to legitimize what is forbidden on the grounds of
necessity. It is not.
But it is not forbidden to vote in an election, unless one knows that
a harm is done by so voting. Mr Mahdi invents haram this and haram
that, forgetting that it is haram to invent haram. I actually consider
voting, under American conditions, an obligation, and it seems that
the majority of Muslims here agree with me, at least among those that
have any opinion on it. Mr Mahdi stands almost alone -- very few agree
with him -- and thinks that, somehow, he has the power of proclamation
of what is kufr. But he does not even know how to form a coherent
concept.
"kufr interfaith movement." That is not English and it is not Arabic.
It is word salad, pretending to have a meaning. I could speculate as
to what he means, but if he wants to claim that something is kufr --
kufr is a noun, not an adjective -- it is his *obligation* to be clear
about what it is, exactly. But I don't think he cares about his
obligation, he only pursues his image of victory in debate. It will
not save him from the fire.
>I
>ask him to also stop advocating Muslims to participate in kufr politics and
>stop advocating secularism and democracy.
I don't advocate secularism, so I can't stop advocating it.
I don't advocate democracy, per se, at least not as Mahdi understands
it, so I can't stop advocating that either.
I obviously don't advocate that Muslims participate in any kind of
kufr, which is why I warn Mahdi, so again, there is nothing for me to
stop.
I do wonder, however, what is "kufr politics" and is it different from
other kinds of politics? Perhaps if Mr Mahdi would explain I could
take something from what he is saying.
>I ask him to reject "American Islam"
>and all that comes with it as well as the advocates of it.
I'll draw the line here. I am an American Muslim. The primary
attribute is "Muslim," the secondary attribute is "American." I am an
advocate of Americans accepting Islam, and I also believe that
Americans who do accept Islam will bring life to Islam as it brings
life to them.
But if "American Islam" is not "Islam," then, of course, I am against
it. But that is not how I would use those two words. I would use them
as something to be grateful for, as something, indeed, to consider an
honor and a blessing.
>It has been proven
>to him that these things contradict Islam and I hope that he decides to changes
>his ways Insha' Allah.
I hope that Allah changes my ways as he sees fit and strengthens me in
what he approves, and I wish the same for Mr Mahdi. However, Mr Mahdi
has proven nothing to me but his own obstinacy. It should be a sign to
him that he has little support and *certainly* he does not have the
right to speak for Islam, but if we were to come to him with every
proof, I fear that he would continue without pause.
If however, Mr Mahdi wishes to attempt to show to me something that I
am doing which he believes is against Islam, it will be my obligation
to hear him out. I would ask, first, that he make sure that it is
something I am actually doing, not that he merely imagines that I am
doing without evidence, and, second, that he attempt to be clear in
his argument, such that even an old man as myself might be able to
understand. I'd also ask him to be brief, that is, to take on only one
specific aspect of an issue at a time; otherwise I may be unable to
follow him, assuming he has something to say.
But I'd suggest to him, instead, that he learn to effectively
communicate with people in general, and that he learn to follow the
customs of a place where he finds himself, where these customs do not
cross into the forbidden. Otherwise he will continue tilting at
windmills with no effect, wasting his life.
The scholars have written that internet argumentation is a great
hazard to religion; Mahdi is a case study in this; and I certainly
worry about myself in this regard. If he does not believe me, he is
welcome to wait and watch, knowing that I too am waiting and watching
for a day when it will all come back to us.
Imran Razi
> The Messenger Of Allah Said (sawa)
> "I Am Leaving Two Things Behind With You That If You Follow You Will
> Never Go Astray After Me: The Book Of Allah And My Ahlul-Bayt. These
> Two
> Shall Never Seperate Until They Meet Me On The Day Of Judgement."
>
> Innee Tarik Feekum Maa In Tamassaktum Bihimaa Lan TaDilluu Ba'di
> Kitaaballahi Wa 'Itrati Ahla Bayti Wa Innahumaa Lan Yatafarraqaa Hattaa
> Yaridaa 'Alayal Hawd.
Can you give me the exact reference for this hadith? It seems to me
quite a bit turns on it. I have always read it is the "Sunnah" instead
of "Ahlul Bayt" as the second item.
Shukran,
Imran Razi
rjaff...@yahoo.com
Omar Mirza wrote:
>
> mypointo...@yahoo.com (mypointofview2002) wrote in message news:<9hajpt$a6i$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>
> > omar...@yahoo.com (Omar Mirza) wrote in message
> > > One wonders why the Quran doesn't mention the Imamate either.
> >
> > Quran was compiled during the time of Umar: who had disobeyed a request
> > to bring pen and paper to the prophet just before his death so he could make
> > a will to restate what he had declared earlier nominating Ali as his successor.
>
> First of all, it's false that the Quran was compiled in the time
> of Umar.
here I agree. yet there are many reports crediting 'Umar with the
compilation of the Qur'an. Some reports credit it to Abu Bakr, some to
'Umar and some to 'Uthmaan.
the first three rulers did make efforts to distribute the Qur'an in its
correct form throughout the muslim lands but the compilation and
arrangement of the Qur'an was already complete before the Prophet's
demise (sawa).
There would be no sense in the Prophet saying that he is leaving two
things that if the Ummah follows; the Qur'an and the Ahlul-Bayt (as) if
the Qur'an was not already complete.
>As for the issue of the pen and the paper, Umar, who
> had accompanied the Prophet(s) for years understood the request to
> bring pen and paper NOT as a religiously binding command, but as a
> RECOMMENDATION, that is as a matter in which the Companions were given
> a choice. In this he followed his ijtihad, and he was concerned that
> the Prophet(s) would be put to a lot of hardship by having to dictate
> a document when he was so obviously suffering as a result of his
> illness. His actions were a result of his compassion for the
> Prophet(s), not a result of wilful disobedience.
I wonder if you are really convinced by this statement. Let us look at
some of the reports about the Raziyah Yawm al Khamees:
Book 013, Number 4016:
Ibn Abbas reported: When Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was
about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house,
'Umar b. al-Kbattab being one of them. Allah's Apostle (may peace be
upon him) said: Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go
astray after that. Thereupon Umar said: Verily Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Qur'an
with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us. Those who were present
in the house differed. Some of them said: Bring him (the writing
material) so that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) may write a
document for you and you would never go astray after him And some among
them said what 'Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense
and began to dispute in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be
upon him), he said: Get up (and go away) 'Ubaidullah said: Ibn Abbas
used to say: There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due to
their dispute and noise. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) could
not write (or dictate) the document for them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/013.smt.html#013.4016
in another report the Prophet responded:
He (the Holy Prophet) said: Leave me. I am better in the state (than the
one in which you are engaged).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/013.smt.html#013.4014
The Prophet said, "Leave me, for my present state is better than what
you call me for."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.716
"When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah's Apostle deteriorated, he
said, 'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you
after which you will never go astray.'The people differed in their
opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, They
said, 'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is delirious? Ask him (to
understand). The Prophet replied, 'Leave me as I am in a better state
than what you are asking me to do.'
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.393
This incident is indisputable because there have been several companions
who have narrated the incident including 'Umar himself. Here are some
more references:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death4.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death5.jpg
When the Prophet tells you to do something, regardless of whether it is
a religiously binding order or a so called recommended order one must
obey. Furthermore there is no ijtihaad when the Prophet orders to do
something. The believers must obey the Prophet and there is no excuse
for disobedience even to the slightest degree. The above reports
explain that they differed in the presence of the Prophet and differing
and raising voices in the presence of the Prophet is not allowed. The
Prophet even said that I am in a better state then what you call me to.
To say that the Prophet is Yahjur which means deleriously raving is
extremely insulting.
Do you know what Yahjur means?
When the Prophet orders to do something and one disobeys it is like
disobeying God as one who disobeys the Prophet has disobeyed God and one
who obeys the Prophet has obeyed God. There are so many verses in the
Qur'an that state this. I don't feel I need to quote those verses to
you.
To say 'Umar excercised ijtihaad is a lame excuse. Ijtihaad is only
when there is no verse or command for an incident and one uses ones best
judgment in a given situation but here there was a direct order of the
Prophet so how can there be ijtihaad?
It is like saying Iblees did ijtihaad by disobeying God's order to
prostrate before Adam. After all Iblees was not an angel and the order
was for angels not jinns. Maybe Iblees felt it was not religiously
binding but only a divine recommendation. Do you see where I am getting
at?
>
> > Taking human nature into account, do you think that umar would have allowed
> > an any direct referance to Imamate of Ali in the Quran in light of the above.
>
> A classic Shia move. When they don't find their favourite dogmas
> supported in the Quran, they assume that it was altered by the
> Companions.
I think you have misunderstood the brother.
Some people ask why Imam 'Ali's name is not mentioned clearly in the
Qur'an as the Prophet's successor and the reply is that if Imam 'Ali's
name was mentioned clearly in the Qur'an people would insist that it is
not a real verse but that it is only a hadeeth qudsi and a weak one at
that etc. Or they would say that the Prophet was speaking deleriously
and raving when he said that like they said of him on his death bed
Innarrajula layahjur was hasbunallah kitabullah!
> These are not facetious questions. May Allah guide both of us.
>
> > There are lot of indirect references to the Imamate of Ali in the Quran for
> > those who are interested in the truth.
[5:55]Only Allah is your Wali and His Messenger and those who believe,
those who
keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.
see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/wali1.jpg
and http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/wali2.jpg
You will notice that the verses related to the Ahlul-Bayt in the Qur'an
are almost camouflaged or encrusted in a shell if you would accept the
term:
[42:23]That is of which Allah gives the good news to His servants, (to)
those
who believe and do good deeds. Say: I do not ask of you any reward for
it but
love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of
good
therein; surely Allah is Forgiving, Grateful.
see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/qurba.jpg
[25:57]Say: I do not ask you aught in return except that he who will,
may take the way to his Lord.
so what is the "way"? we know from 42:23 that the reward is the "love
for the near ones" and from 25:57 that the reward is to follow the "way"
so the "way" is to "love the near ones". To love necessites obedience
3:31
hence we understand who the people of authority are in 4:59
[4:59]O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in
authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it
to Allah
and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is
better and
very good in the end.
The people of authority are the ones we are ordered to love, the same
very ones we are ordered to salute in every obligatory prayer, Muhammad
wa 'ala aali Muhammad, the 12 successors from his progeny.
see http://al-islam.org/twelve/
BTW the asked what the opinion of Ibn 'Arabi was about the 12
successors. Ibn Arabi (Muhyiddin Muhammad Ibn Ali Ibn Muhammad
al-Arabi), al-
Hanbali, in his book "Al-Futuhat al-Makkia" (Chapter 366) discusses a
detailed account of the birth of al-Mahdi, son of al-Askari (AS), and
of his re-appearance before the day of resurrection.
If you want I can send you a scan from the Futhuat chapter 366
[33:33]And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the
displaying of the ignorance of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the
poor-rate,
and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only desires to keep away the
uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a
(thorough)
purifying.
[33:34]And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the
communications of
Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware.
see:Book 031, Number 5955:
'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out
one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there
came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped hitn under it, then came Husain and he
wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima
and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it
and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from
you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/031.smt.html#031.5955
and http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/ahlulbayt.jpg
Lastly you are aware how the verse of completion of religion is
incrusted inside 5:3
I am still waiting on your comments about that unusual phenomenon.
warmest regards,
ridwaan
>
> Name me three.
>
> Wa al-Salam,
>
> Omar
--
rjaff...@yahoo.com
Imran Razi wrote:
> Can you give me the exact reference for this hadith? It seems to me
> quite a bit turns on it. I have always read it is the "Sunnah" instead
> of "Ahlul Bayt" as the second item.
> Shukran,
>
> Imran Razi
here are a few exact scans from Tirmidhi
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/astray2.jpg
There is an excellent online discussion about it at:
see http://al-islam.org/thaqalayn/nontl/index.HTM
Also the first chapter of the Shi'ah Encyclopedia has good information
about it:
http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia
Many of us hear that the Prophet said he is leaving the Qur'an and his
Sunnah.
First of all that version does not exist in any of the 6 Sahih
compilations of Sunni Hadeeth namely Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood,
Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Nisa'i.
Despite the fact that the author of Sahih Muslim and many other Sunni
traditionists have recorded the 'Qur'an and Ahlul-Bayt' tradition in
their authentic books, it is regrettable that the majority of Sunnis are
unaware of its existence at the best, or deny it at the worst. Their
counter argument is that the most reliable tradition in this regard is
the one recorded by al-Hakim in his al-Mustadrak, on the authority of
Abu Huraira, attributing to the Messenger of Allah saying: "I leave
amongst you two things that if you follow or act upon, you will not go
astray after me: The Book of God and my Sunnah (traditions)."
There is no doubt that ALL Muslims are required to follow the Sunnah of
the Prophet (PBUH&HF). However, the question remains that which Sunnah
is genuine and which one is invented later and was falsely attributed to
the Prophet.
On tracing the source of this report of Abu Huraira which states "Quran
and Sunnah," we found out that it has NOT been recorded in any of the
six authentic Sunni collections of the traditions (Sihah Sittah). Not
only that, but also al-Bukhari, al-Nisa'i, and al-Dhahabi and many
others rated this report (Quran and Sunnah) as weak because of its weak
Isnad. It should be noted that although the book of al-Hakim is an
important Sunni collection of traditions, yet it is ranked inferior to
the six major Sunni books. This is while Sahih Muslim is in the second
rank among the six Sunni collections of traditions.
al-Tirmidhi reported that the "Quran and Ahlul-Bayt" version of the
tradition is traced to 30+ companions. Ibn Hajar al-Haythami reported
that he knows of 20+ companions witnessed that also. This is while the
"Quran and Sunnah" version reported by al-Hakim has only one source!
Thus we must conclude that the "Quran and Ahlul-Bayt" version is much
more reliable. Moreover al-Hakim has also mentioned the "Quran and
Ahlul-Bayt" version in his book (al-Mustadrak) through several chain of
authorities and confirmed that the "Quran and Ahlul-Bayt" version of the
tradition is authentic based on the criteria of al-Bukhari and Muslim.
Sunni references:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, v5, pp 662-663,328, report of 30+ companions, with
reference to several chains of transmitters.
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, Chapter of "Understanding (the virtues) of
Companions, v3, pp 109,110,148,533 who wrote this tradition is authentic
(Sahih) based on the criteria of the two Shaikhs (al-Bukhari and
Muslim).
Sunan, by Daarami, v2, p432
Musnad, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, pp 14,17,26,59, v4, pp 366,370-372, v5,
pp 182,189,350,366,419
Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p585, Tradition #990
al-Khasa'is, by al-Nisa'i, pp 21,30
al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami, Ch. 11, section 1, p230
al-Kabir, by al-Tabarani, v3, pp 62-63,137
Kanz al-Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, Chapter al-Iti'sam bi Habl Allah,
v1, p44.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (complete version), v4, p113, under commentary of
verse 42:23 of Quran (four traditions)
al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, by Ibn Sa'd, v2, p194, Pub. by Dar Isadder,
Lebanon.
al-Jami' al-Saghir, by al-Suyuti, v1, p353, and also in v2
Majma' al-Zawa'id, al-Haythami, v9, p163
al-Fateh al-Kabir, al-Binhani, v1, p451
Usdul Ghabah fi Ma'rifat al-Sahaba, Ibn al-Athir, v2, p12
Jami' al-Usul, Ibn al-Athir, v1, p187
History of Ibn Asakir, v5, p436
al-Taj al-Jami' Lil Usul, v3, p308
al-Durr al-Manthoor, al-Hafidh al-Suyuti, v2, p60
Yanabi al-Mawaddah, al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, pp 38,183
Abaqat al-Anwar, v1, p16
and more
rjaff...@yahoo.com
Omar Mirza wrote:
>
> mypointo...@yahoo.com (mypointofview2002) wrote in message
news:<9hajpt$a6i$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>
> > omar...@yahoo.com (Omar Mirza) wrote in message
> > > One wonders why the Quran doesn't mention the Imamate either.
> >
> > Quran was compiled during the time of Umar: who had disobeyed a request
> > to bring pen and paper to the prophet just before his death so he could
make
> > a will to restate what he had declared earlier nominating Ali as his
successor.
>
> First of all, it's false that the Quran was compiled in the time
> of Umar.
here I agree. yet there are many reports crediting 'Umar with the
compilation of the Qur'an. Some reports credit it to Abu Bakr, some to
'Umar and some to 'Uthmaan.
the first three rulers did make efforts to distribute the Qur'an in its
correct form throughout the muslim lands but the compilation and
arrangement of the Qur'an was already complete before the Prophet's
demise (sawa).
There would be no sense in the Prophet saying that he is leaving two
things that if the Ummah follows; the Qur'an and the Ahlul-Bayt (as) if
the Qur'an was not already complete.
>As for the issue of the pen and the paper, Umar, who
> had accompanied the Prophet(s) for years understood the request to
> bring pen and paper NOT as a religiously binding command, but as a
> RECOMMENDATION, that is as a matter in which the Companions were given
> a choice. In this he followed his ijtihad, and he was concerned that
> the Prophet(s) would be put to a lot of hardship by having to dictate
> a document when he was so obviously suffering as a result of his
> illness. His actions were a result of his compassion for the
> Prophet(s), not a result of wilful disobedience.
I wonder if you are really convinced by this statement. Let us look at
some of the reports about the Raziyah Yawm al Khamees:
Book 013, Number 4016:
Ibn Abbas reported: When Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) was
about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house,
'Umar b. al-Kbattab being one of them. Allah's Apostle (may peace be
upon him) said: Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go
astray after that. Thereupon Umar said: Verily Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Qur'an
with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us. Those who were present
in the house differed. Some of them said: Bring him (the writing
material) so that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) may write a
document for you and you would never go astray after him And some among
them said what 'Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense
and began to dispute in the presence of Allah's Messenger (may peace be
upon him), he said: Get up (and go away) 'Ubaidullah said: Ibn Abbas
used to say: There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due to
their dispute and noise. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) could
not write (or dictate) the document for them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/013.smt.html#013.4016
in another report the Prophet responded:
He (the Holy Prophet) said: Leave me. I am better in the state (than the
one in which you are engaged).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/013.smt.html#013.4014
The Prophet said, "Leave me, for my present state is better than what
you call me for."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.716
"When the condition (i.e. health) of Allah's Apostle deteriorated, he
said, 'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may write something for you
after which you will never go astray.'The people differed in their
opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, They
said, 'What is wrong with him? Do you think he is delirious? Ask him (to
understand). The Prophet replied, 'Leave me as I am in a better state
than what you are asking me to do.'
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.393
This incident is indisputable because there have been several companions
who have narrated the incident including 'Umar himself. Here are some
more references:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death4.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death5.jpg
When the Prophet tells you to do something, regardless of whether it is
>
> > Taking human nature into account, do you think that umar would have
allowed
> > an any direct referance to Imamate of Ali in the Quran in light of the
above.
>
> A classic Shia move. When they don't find their favourite dogmas
> supported in the Quran, they assume that it was altered by the
> Companions.
I think you have misunderstood the brother.
Some people ask why Imam 'Ali's name is not mentioned clearly in the
Qur'an as the Prophet's successor and the reply is that if Imam 'Ali's
name was mentioned clearly in the Qur'an people would insist that it is
not a real verse but that it is only a hadeeth qudsi and a weak one at
that etc. Or they would say that the Prophet was speaking deleriously
and raving when he said that like they said of him on his death bed
Innarrajula layahjur was hasbunallah kitabullah!
> These are not facetious questions. May Allah guide both of us.
>
> > There are lot of indirect references to the Imamate of Ali in the Quran
for
> > those who are interested in the truth.
[5:55]Only Allah is your Wali and His Messenger and those who believe,
warmest regards,
ridwaan
>
> Name me three.
>
> Wa al-Salam,
>
> Omar
--
Mr Mahdi
>It has been my hope to write a substantive article, in
>particular on democracy, and I would not choose to confine myself by
>the demands of responding to Mr Mahdi.
Akhi, I have debated with people far more knowledgable and more famous than you
in this matter and your articles on the issue of democracy will be totally
predictable. In other words, I heard ALL the arguments and have refuted each
one of them on other lists such as the active Political Islam Discussion List
(PIDL) on Listbot.com. You got nothing on me akhi, and all the arguments for
participation are wholly and inherently flawed and weak. BTW, I am writing a
book Insha' Allah about issues such as Islam and democracy and I have heard all
the arguments. But the funny thing with you is that you don't try to bring
daleel unlike the others, yours is basically a "rational" and "self-interest"
based argument.
I am not saying that those who support participation in kufr political systems
have daleel (which they don't), but the point is efforts have been made to make
it appear that they are referring to the Quran and Sunnah.
>rather I trust in consensus, which goes beyond democracy and
>is, in my opinion, our surest guide to true guidance.
This is a PERFECT example of secularism in action. That is to say, the Quran
and Sunnah no longer becomes the criterion of right and wrong or Halaal and
Haraam, the people's opinion (consensus) is. For example, if the majority of
the people want to say that the Salaah is not Fard, then according to a
democracy, the people can override the rule of Allah. Also, Lomax wants to
negate the reality that the majority of the people can be wrong, like for
example, most people let's say 50 or 60 years ago in America didn't find the
racism to be appalling, but now, it seems to be the opposite. Now since when
did the "majority" became the criterion in Islam? Why do we even need Allah
when the "majority" somehow is always right?
So as in secularism, the people via consensus becomes the reference, not Allah
and His Messenger.
I can't find the ayah at this very moment but I recall it saying about follow
the desires of what most people want and their misguidance. I trust in Allah,
not in consensus that goes against what Allah and His Messenger said.
The Quran and Sunnah is the best guidance, not "consensus." If Lomax doesn't
like this, oh well, too bad.
>Were he the khalifah,
>assuming that his character had not changed, I would fear that I had
>made a terrible mistake in accepting Islam.
People should accept Isla for Allah and not for people. This is not
Christianity, you know.
Lomax has a history of playing innocent as well as ignorant. For example, he
defended Katz and said he was in a way "justified" in his attacks on Islam
because of what some Muslims allegedly did. Now he is trying to insist that
Katz is not an avowed enemy (which he is) and he seem to try to not mention his
earlier statements from him concerning why Katz was "justified" in attacking
Islam. Just like the whole Quran issue last year, Lomax caused a major storm
here and then he tried to defend himself by insisting he never said what he was
reported to of have said. He acts like all the heat he got from SEVERAL people
here (not just me) was totally unjustified and uncalled for.
>The former is simple ignorance, but I fear that the truth is the
>latter, which is a mark of kufr. Fear God, Mr Mahdi.
It seems like Lomax doesn't even know what kufr means. He thinks that denial
of truth is kufr, which is not, it is just denial. He needs to learn Arabic
and stop trying to bring us some Americanized Arabic (like for example, he
would called Br. Abu Jamal "shaikh" because since Abu Jamal is a few years
older than him, he thinks it is customary in Arabic to call even some who is
just a few years older than you "shaikh"). Kufr is disbelief in what Allah and
His Messenger have taught us, not someone who is in denial of something like
the meaning of "avowed". You don't even have a first year knowledge of Arabic
(which you admitted here) and yet you throw accusations of kufr without even
knowing what kufr means. I forgot, this is the same person who tried to teach
me and others on Quranic science and yet his level of Arabic is not even in the
first year. Wallahi, what should I called this? You accused me in your post
of being delusional, I say, that's the pot calling the kettle black! But you
have carte blanche, you can say these things while poor me must be censored by
a group who have vendetta against me.
At any rate, I am not in denial of anything, it seems you are and you need to
fear Allah.
>The term "American Islam," as Mr Mahdi is using it, is his invention.
Again, Lomax playing innocent and ignorant. He knows well what I mean by
"American Islam." Islam that is cut and pasted to be "politically correct" and
a tool for the Kuffar to use on the Muslims so the Muslims won't pose an
ideological threat. Lomax's Islam is say anywhere because he does not present
Islam on the level that it is, an ideological way of life that is contradiction
to every man-made way of life. His Islam is a religion that does not challenge
the authority that rules by kufr, nay, it in many cases actually complements
them and supports them.
Look at SRI and who moderates it. You think that SRI wants a moderator like
me, or a "Salafi"? Of course not, especially the former, since the latter is
too more of a religious movement instead of an ideological one.
And Lomax's comments on the Interfaith movement is again trying to play the
innocent role. He knows well what I am talking about, and Interfaith as I have
explained before is based on the premise that all religionists are believers
and we need to share similarities and not argue over difference. Da`wah is
never made because that would "offend" the Kuffar. I remember clearly Lomax on
this forum attacking me for calling Christians "Kuffar" and implied how
ignorant and selfish I was for saying such a thing. Then I presented the ayaat
>from the Quran and he kept quite after that, never apologizing (of course).
>I actually consider
>voting, under American conditions, an obligation, and it seems that
>the majority of Muslims here agree with me, at least among those that
>have any opinion on it.
Again, no daleel but his "daleel" is consensus and what he thinks is rational
and logical justification. Need I say more?
>I do wonder, however, what is "kufr politics" and is it different from
>other kinds of politics?
Come on akhi, what do you take me as? You know what I mean by kufr politics,
because I explained it here many of times and you even have responded many of
times. Why must you play this role of innocent and ignorant what you are
caught in a hole you can't get out?
I am waiting for your predictable and daleel-ness article on participation, and
I will easily refute it with no problem.
Have a nice day.
Mahdi Muhammad
http://members.xoom.com/mrmahdi/caliphate.html
rja...@my-deja.com
check the links and they work fine.
if you are using netscape then try highlighting the link and hitting enter if
you get a "page not found" or copying and pasting the link into the address bar
instead.
the links are jpegs of scanned pages. let me know if they still don't work and
i'll just email them to you.
if you interested in reading about it in English try:
http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter3/
or http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir
Logically it makes more sense to me that the Prophet would appoint then not
appoint especially as the 1st ruler appointed and the 2nd also made some type of
leadership arrangement.
I believe the text of Ghadeer Khumm is sufficiently clear. I find it unfair
that 'Ali was not even at Saqifah when Abu Bakr was elected among that small
group. 'Ali was taking care of the Prophet's burial and shrouding and prayer.
The method of Abu Bakr's selection was very tribalistic and quite foreign to the
sunni proposition of shura. 'Ali's reluctantance to offer his pledge to Abu
Bakr raises some questions too. Fatimah's burial at night while displeased with
Abu Bakr makes the situation more worrisome.
If we look at 5:3 (the verse of completion of religion) only the middle of the
verse, you can see some element of fear in the Prophet.
The Qur'an says that even in Madinah there were some very obstinate hypocrites.
Where they all disappeared to after the Prophet's demise, maybe you can tell me.
And from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there
are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in
hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice then
shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement 9:101
I hope you looked up the incident of 'Aqabah. When the Prophet was on his way
back from his last Hajj hypocrites tried to kill the Prophet by throwing a
boulder off a cliff. Then you read how some quarrelled over his death bed. Ibn
'Abbas called it Raziyyah Yawm al Khamees "The tragedy of Thursday". You are
aware of how the companions refused to go on the expedition of Usamah though the
Prophet ordered them and cursed those who lag. Only after the Prophet's demise
did they go while Abu Bakr and 'Umar stayed behind though they themselves were
specifically ordered by the Prophet to go with the exception of 'Ali (as).
It looks to me like the Prophet tried his best to set the ground work for the
Khilafah of 'Ali but he knew very well that 'Ali would be faced with some
serious opposition from both the Quraish and Ansaar.
This issue of the Prophet's foreknowledge of this fight for worldy position and
rank is well know. For example:
Volume 2, Book 23, Number 428:
Narrated 'Uqba bin 'Amir:
One day the Prophet went out and offered the funeral prayers of the martyrs of
Uhud and then went up the pulpit and said, "I will pave the way for you as your
predecessor and will be a witness on you. By Allah! I see my Fount (Kauthar)
just now and I have been given the keys of all the treasures of the earth (or
the keys of the earth). By Allah! I am not afraid that you will worship others
along with Allah after my death, but I am afraid that you will fight with one
another for the worldly things."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/023.sbt.html#002.023.428
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 374:
Narrated Uqba bin Amir:
Allah's Apostle offered the funeral prayers of the martyrs of Uhud eight years
after (their death), as if bidding farewell to the living and the dead, then he
ascended the pulpit and said, "I am your predecessor before you, and I am a
witness on you, and your promised place to meet me will be Al-Haud (i.e. the
Tank) (on the Day of Resurrection), and I am (now) looking at it from this place
of mine. I am not afraid that you will worship others besides Allah, but I am
afraid that worldly life will tempt you and cause you to compete with each other
for it." That was the last look which I cast on Allah's Apostle.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.374
Volume 8, Book 76, Number 578:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount." 'Abdullah added:
The Prophet said, "I am your predecessor at the Lake-Fount, and some of you will
be brought in front of me till I will see them and then they will be taken away
>from me and I will say, 'O Lord, my companions!' It will be said, 'You do not
know what they did after you had left.'
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/076.sbt.html#008.076.578
Book 21, Number 21.14.32:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah
that he had heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him
peace, said over the martyrs of Uhud, "I testify for them." Abu Bakr as-Siddiq
said, "Messenger of Allah! Are we not their brothers? We entered Islam as they
entered Islam and we did jihad as they did jihad." The Messenger of Allah, may
Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Yes, but I do not know what you will
do after me." Abu Bakr wept profusely and said, "Are we really going to out-live
you!"
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muwatta/021.mmt.html
This specific doubt of Abu Bakr is very curious. How did the Prophet know that
Abu Bakr would outlive him? Not all the companions outlived the Prophet after
Uhud.
One doesn't have to know much to realize that things were not fine and dandy
after the Prophet's demise. There were a lot of battles and much bloodshed.
'Ali against 'Aishah the first rulers daughter in the two battles of Jamal are
quite an embarrassement. Allah knows how many thousands of lives were wasted in
these wars.
Sayyid Tijani goes over a lot of such questions and answers that I think maybe
you would enjoy reading:
http://al-islam.org/ask/
Chapter Six.
wassalaam,
ridwaan
Imran Razi
> > had accompanied the Prophet(s) for years understood the request to
> > bring pen and paper NOT as a religiously binding command, but as a
> > RECOMMENDATION, that is as a matter in which the Companions were given
> > a choice. In this he followed his ijtihad, and he was concerned that
> > the Prophet(s) would be put to a lot of hardship by having to dictate
> > a document when he was so obviously suffering as a result of his
> > illness. His actions were a result of his compassion for the
> > Prophet(s), not a result of wilful disobedience.
>
> I wonder if you are really convinced by this statement.
I agree that Umar made a serious error in disobeying the Rasool, unless
there was clear consensus that the Rasool was in fact mad at the time,
which there was not. It's not the first time Umar was inclined to act
incorrectly; Umar was frequently wanting to kill people for the
slightest provocation, and the Rasool was constantly holding him back
and correcting him.
But I also agree with the some of the other brothers here that what's
done is done. Umar made an error, sincerely or insincerely -that's not
the issue - and we are all deprived of some guidance from the Rasool.
WHO KNOWS WHAT IT WOULD HAVE SAID? I don't see why we should assume
it was about political matters, much less about Ali's right to
political successorship? It is destroyed evidence, and all that is
left to us is speculation and argument.
wa salaam,
Imran Razi
Omar Mirza
repond to everything.
I had responded to Shi'i bitterness about Umar
> >As for the issue of the pen and the paper, Umar, who
> > had accompanied the Prophet(s) for years understood the request to
> > bring pen and paper NOT as a religiously binding command, but as a
> > RECOMMENDATION, that is as a matter in which the Companions were given
> > a choice. In this he followed his ijtihad, and he was concerned that
> > the Prophet(s) would be put to a lot of hardship by having to dictate
> > a document when he was so obviously suffering as a result of his
> > illness. His actions were a result of his compassion for the
> > Prophet(s), not a result of wilful disobedience.
>
> I wonder if you are really convinced by this statement.
Yes, brother, I am fully convinced by this statement.
Umar most certainly did not wilfully disobey a command of the
Prophet(s). He understood the Prophet(s) to be making an OFFER, and he
understood the words of the Prophet(s) to refer to a matter in which
the Companions were given a choice. The Prophet(s), on Umar's
understanding, was offering to do the Companions a FAVOUR by giving
them a document in writing, and thus alleviating some of their
concerns about the future. Umar, however, did not want to impose on
the Prophet(s) when he was in great pain, thinking it would be
improper to be putting the Prophet to so much trouble when he was in
that state, and given that complete guidance had already been given in
the Quran.
The Prophet(s) said "Umar does not take a road but that the Devil
takes another."
> This incident is indisputable because there have been several companions
> who have narrated the incident including 'Umar himself. Here are some
> more references:
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death1.jpg
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death2.jpg
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death3.jpg
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death4.jpg
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death5.jpg
These links were not accesible to me. Nobody disputes the incident,
only the Shia misunderstanding of it.
rjaffer has presented a number of reports of this incident, many of
which come from translations of dubious reliability. He commented
> When the Prophet tells you to do something, regardless of whether it is
> a religiously binding order or a so called recommended order one must
> obey.
Rubbish, there is no sin in disobeying a recommended order. That is
why it is recommended and not obligatory.
Furthermore there is no ijtihaad when the Prophet orders to do
> something.
Here, you've missed the point altogether. Umar did not see the words
as an order in the first place.
>he above reports
> explain that they differed in the presence of the Prophet and differing
> and raising voices in the presence of the Prophet is not allowed.
Some people were in the opinion of Ibn Abbas, acting badly on that
occasion, but not Umar, who merely was concerned for the Prophet(s).
The
> Prophet even said that I am in a better state then what you call me to.
> To say that the Prophet is Yahjur which means deleriously raving is
> extremely insulting.
No. It is a description of the Prophet's state, as perceived by some
there. People mentioned this because they did not want the Prophet(s)
to have to write a document in such a difficult condition.
> To say 'Umar excercised ijtihaad is a lame excuse. Ijtihaad is only
> when there is no verse or command for an incident and one uses ones best
> judgment in a given situation but here there was a direct order of the
> Prophet so how can there be ijtihaad?
Ijtihad is also exercsed in deciding what is a command and what is
not. Umar, a close friend of the Prophet(s) for many years, knew as
well as anyone what the Prophet(s) intended. He did not want the
Prophet(s) doing any favours when he was in that condition.
> It is like saying Iblees did ijtihaad by disobeying God's order to
> prostrate before Adam. After all Iblees was not an angel and the order
> was for angels not jinns. Maybe Iblees felt it was not religiously
> binding but only a divine recommendation.
If Iblees had believed this, he would have said so, and he would have
been pardoned. This is totally irrelevant.
> >
> > > Taking human nature into account, do you think that umar would have allowed
> > > an any direct referance to Imamate of Ali in the Quran in light of the above.
> >
> > A classic Shia move. When they don't find their favourite dogmas
> > supported in the Quran, they assume that it was altered by the
> > Companions.
>
> I think you have misunderstood the brother.
Most certainly I did not.
> Some people ask why Imam 'Ali's name is not mentioned clearly in the
> Qur'an as the Prophet's successor and the reply is that if Imam 'Ali's
> name was mentioned clearly in the Qur'an people would insist that it is
> not a real verse but that it is only a hadeeth qudsi and a weak one at
> that etc. Or they would say that the Prophet was speaking deleriously
> and raving when he said that like they said of him on his death bed
> Innarrajula layahjur was hasbunallah kitabullah!
The Quran was too well-known and too regularly recited for anyone to
get away with something like this. You yourself believe it had already
been compiled in the time of the Prophet(s), so how could doubts have
arisen about such critically important verses?
Perhaps you are saying that because people would have rejected verses
regarding the Imamate of Ali, Allah did not reveal them? Now that IS a
lame excuse!! Especially when we are dealing with such a central part
of the deen (according to the Shias) as the Imamate!!
If the Shia doctrine of the Imamate were true, it ought to be as
regularly mentioned in the Quran as other central aspects of iman,
like belief in angels etc.
> [5:55]Only Allah is your Wali and His Messenger and those who believe,
> those who
> keep up prayers and pay the poor-rate while they bow.
> see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/wali1.jpg
> and http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/wali2.jpg
Again these links were not accessible to me. The report that this was
revealed about Ali is weak, and the more probable report is that it
was revealed in connection with Ubada ibn al-Samit.
See, for example, www.ansar.org
rjaffer then quoted some verses from the Quran to prove the Imamate of
the Ahl ulBayt. Has he, however, considered what the top Sunni
scholars have said aboutthese verses?
> You will notice that the verses related to the Ahlul-Bayt in the Qur'an
> are almost camouflaged or encrusted in a shell if you would accept the
> term:
>
> [42:23]That is of which Allah gives the good news to His servants, (to)
> those
> who believe and do good deeds. Say: I do not ask of you any reward for
> it but
> love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of
> good
> therein; surely Allah is Forgiving, Gratefu
Brother, the normal translation is not "my relatives" but "love for
near relatives" . Brother, are you sure that "my" should be in there?
Be very sure, for there is no greater sin than tahrif of the Quran.
May Allah forgive you and me.
> BTW the asked what the opinion of Ibn 'Arabi was about the 12
> successors. Ibn Arabi (Muhyiddin Muhammad Ibn Ali Ibn Muhammad
> al-Arabi), al-
> Hanbali, in his book "Al-Futuhat al-Makkia" (Chapter 366) discusses a
> detailed account of the birth of al-Mahdi, son of al-Askari (AS), and
> of his re-appearance before the day of resurrection.
According to Ibn Arabo scholars, there are two versions of the
Futuhat, an authentic one, and an inauthentic one. The authentic one
does not contain the passages above, which appear to be a Shi'i
forgery.
> Lastly you are aware how the verse of completion of religion is
> incrusted inside 5:3
>
> I am still waiting on your comments about that unusual phenomenon.
Well, what are your thoughts about it?
Salams,
Omar
Omar Mirza
> >
> > > Taking human nature into account, do you think that umar would have allowed
> > > an any direct referance to Imamate of Ali in the Quran in light of the above.
> >
> > A classic Shia move. When they don't find their favourite dogmas
> > supported in the Quran, they assume that it was altered by the
> > Companions.
>
> I think you have misunderstood the brother.
>
> Some people ask why Imam 'Ali's name is not mentioned clearly in the
> Qur'an as the Prophet's successor and the reply is that if Imam 'Ali's
> name was mentioned clearly in the Qur'an people would insist that it is
> not a real verse but that it is only a hadeeth qudsi and a weak one at
> that etc. Or they would say that the Prophet was speaking deleriously
> and raving when he said that like they said of him on his death bed
> Innarrajula layahjur was hasbunallah kitabullah!
Is there any evidence that Umar said these words? Not in the Sahih
muslim ahadith you have referred me to.
All that Umar did was recommend that the Prophet(s) not be put to the
hardship of writing a document when he was in a state of great pain.
It was afterwards that other people started disputing. The document
was an optional matter, something the Prophet(s) offered as a favour
and a piece of advice. Remember, the Prophet(s) lived on after this
incident, and could easily have dictated it in public if he had chosen
to do so, or if it had been especially significant.
Nobody could possibly have gotten away with rejecting verses of the
Quran about Imam Ali. That is because the Prophet was commanded to
convey the message, and he would not have hesitated to convey the
verses in question and to make sure that they reached everyone.
Remember, the Prophet(s) was reciting the verses of the Quran on a
regular basis, and if there were verses about such a central matter as
the Imamate, they would certainly have become well known and he would
not have been hindered by a few people saying he was delirious. His
conveyance of the message was divinely protected, after all, and was
the most important task of his life.
The document was clearly NOT that important to the Prophet(s) as he
did not go back to the matter. Hence it's very likely that it was
merely an optional matter, something in which the Companions were
given a choice.
>
> > These are not facetious questions. May Allah guide both of us.
> >
> > > There are lot of indirect references to the Imamate of Ali in the Quran for
> > > those who are interested in the truth.
>
> [33:33]And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the
> displaying of the ignorance of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the
> poor-rate,
> and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only desires to keep away the
> uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a
> (thorough)
> purifying.
> [33:34]And keep to mind what is recited in your houses of the
> communications of
> Allah and the wisdom; surely Allah is Knower of subtleties, Aware.
These verses are very clearly referring to the wives of the
Prophet(s). The reason that the "people of the House" are addressed in
the masculine form is that the Prophet(s) is included along with them.
This is similar to the way that Ibrahim(as) and his wife are saluted
as "people of the House" elsewhere in the Quran. It is possible that
Ali et al. are included in the meaning of "people of the House" in
this verse, but they need not be.
The hadith you quoted may have exactly the opposite meaning from that
which Shias intend. It may be precisely because Ali and his family
were NOT intended in the verse above that the Prophet recited the
verse over them. He wanted them to share in the blessing as well,
because they were not already included in it. In one other version of
the hadith, this is very clear, although I can't find it right now.
Wa al-Salam,
Omar
Omar Mirza
> >
> > First of all, it's false that the Quran was compiled in the time
> > of Umar.
>
> here I agree. yet there are many reports crediting 'Umar with the
> compilation of the Qur'an. Some reports credit it to Abu Bakr, some to
> 'Umar and some to 'Uthmaan.
Yes, but the point is to pick the soundest reports and follow them.
The sound report on this issue is that mentioned by Bukhari, that the
Quran was first compiled in book form in the time of Abu Bakr.
Before that time it was completed in the breasts of the many who
had memorised it.
> the first three rulers did make efforts to distribute the Qur'an in its
> correct form throughout the muslim lands but the compilation and
> arrangement of the Qur'an was already complete before the Prophet's
> demise (sawa).
As I said above, it was complete and arranged in the breasts of those
who had memorised it. We know from Imam Bukhari that the first
official written compilation took place at the hand of Zaid ibn Thabit
under the orders of Abu Bakr, may Allah reward them both for their
services to Islam.
> This incident is indisputable because there have been several companions
> who have narrated the incident including 'Umar himself. Here are some
> more references:
> http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/death1.jpg
The website to which you referred me here is obviously not available.
At least I can't access it.
Still, I would like to write something that refutes once and for all
the Shia distortion of the events of that Thursday, so could you
please give me some other references? I have tried the al-islam.org
website but could find nothing.
I'm *really* interested in reports going back to Companions other than
Ibn Abbas.
Wa al-Salam,
Omar Mirza
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Despite the fact that the author of Sahih Muslim and many other Sunni
> traditionists have recorded the 'Qur'an and Ahlul-Bayt' tradition in
> their authentic books, it is regrettable that the majority of Sunnis are
> unaware of its existence at the best, or deny it at the worst. Their
> counter argument is that the most reliable tradition in this regard is
> the one recorded by al-Hakim in his al-Mustadrak, on the authority of
> Abu Huraira, attributing to the Messenger of Allah saying: "I leave
> amongst you two things that if you follow or act upon, you will not go
> astray after me: The Book of God and my Sunnah (traditions)."
Wa salaam
Not anybody in their right mind among the educated are unaware of the
narrations. There are two basic versions of the hadeeth:
‘I am going to leave in you two heavy burdens[1]. The first of
them is the Book of Allah in it is the true guidance and the light.
Therefore, hold fast to it’. Then he [i.e. the Prophet (pbuh)]
prompted and induced the Muslims to adhere to the Book of God. Then he
said: ‘And my household. I remind you of God in matters relating
to my household. I remind you of God in matters relating to my
household. I remind you of God in matters relating to my
household[2].’
As is obvious, there is not a single proof from this narration that
the ahl-bayt from a basic source of shareeah in this regard. The
objective of the Prophet (S) in mentioning his family is towards the
respect and attention that the ummah must pay towards them after He
(S) is gone, and nobody is left to look after them. This is clarified
in the hadeeth of Muslim, as related to Zayd bin Arqam when he defines
who ahl-bayt is in respect to zakaah. The Prophet (S) had forbidden
zakaah for his family and the connection is obvious.
This version of the hadeeth is found in the majority of authentic
works. The implication is very different from the second narration.
As regards the second narration:
I have left in you something, which if you strictly adhere to, you
shall never go astray – The book of God and my progeny –
i.e. my Ahl al-Bayet.
This has been narrated by Tirmidhi and ibn Hanbal with some minor
variations.
To quote:
"The first chain of narrators, as reported by Tirmidhi, includes Nasr
ibn Abd al-Rahmaan al-Koofi – Zayed ibn al-Hasan al-Anmaatiy
– Ja`fer ibn Mohammed – Mohammed ibn Ali ibn
Hussain…
The second person in the chain is Zayed ibn al-Hasan. Zahabiy in his
book “Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal” has quoted Abu Haatim as
saying that Zayed is ‘Munkir al-Hadith’ – i.e. Zayed
narrates repudiated and abominable narratives. Ibn Hajar has
considered him to be Dha`eef – i.e. a weak or an unreliable
narrator (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Even Tirmidhi, who has reported the
said narrative, does not consider it to be ‘Sahih’. On the
contrary, Tirmidhi, in his comments says that this narrative is
‘Hasan’ (which is less than ‘Sahih’) and is
Ghareeb – i.e. strange in its content and not widely recognized.
The second chain of narrators, as reported in Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
is: Al-Aswad ibn `aamir – Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi Shareek
– Al-Rakeen ibn al-Rabiy` -- Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan – Zayed
ibn Thaabit…
The second person in this chain is Shareek ibn Abd Allah ibn Abi
Shareek. Yahya ibn Sa`eed has considered him ‘extremely
unreliable’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Mohammed ibn Yahya says that
his father said: ‘I have noticed confusion in Shareek’s
principles’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Abd al-Jabbaar ibn Mohammed
says that once he asked Yahya ibn Sa`eed whether Shareek had become
confused in his last days, to which Yahya ibn Sa`eed replied:
“He (i.e. Shareek) was always confused” (Meezaan
al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn al-Mubaarak says: ‘Narratives of Shareek are
worthless’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Juzjaaniy says:
‘[Shareek had a] faulty memory, [was] confused [in] narrating,
[was] prejudiced’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibraheem ibn Sa`eed
al-Jauhariy says: ‘Shareek committed mistakes in four hundred
narratives’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn Mu`een says: When
Shareek’s narratives contradict with someone else’s, the
other person is preferable to me’ (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal).
The fourth person in this chain is Al-Qaasim ibn Hassaan. Bukhari
says: ‘His narratives are Munkar (i.e. repudiated and
abominable) and nothing is known about him’ (Meezaan
al-Ai`tidaal). Ibn al-Qattaan says: ‘nothing is known about
him’ (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb).
The third chain of narrators as reported in Tirmidhi is: Ali ibn
al-Munzir al-Koofiy – Mohammed ibn Fudhayl – Al-A`mash --
`Atiyyah – Abu Sa`eed.
The first and the second narrator in this chain i.e. Ali ibn al-Munzir
al-Koofiy and Mohammed ibn Fudhayl are both known to be Shi`ahs (i.e.
Shiites). It is an established principle of most of the scholars of
Hadith that if the content of a narrative is peculiar to a particular
school of thought (as is the case in this narrative), then such a
narrative would not be acceptable, if it is narrated by a person who
ascribes to such a school (Al-Kifaayah fi `ilm al-Riwaayah). Besides
this, Mohammed ibn Fudhayl is also criticized by Ibn al-Mubarak as not
being liked by his contemporaries. (Dhu`afaa al-`Uqayliy). Moreover,
Mohammed ibn Sa`d has said that ‘his narratives are not
considered by many to evidence a true saying of the Prophet
(pbuh)’ (Siyar A`laam al-Nubalaa).
The fourth narrator in this chain is `Atiyyah ibn Sa`d. Yahya ibn
Mu`een considers him to be dha`eef – i.e. unreliable (Al-Kaamil
fi al-Dhu`afaa). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that he incorrectly ascribes
narratives that he hears from al-Kalabiy to Abu Sa`eed (Al-Kaamil fi
al-Dhu`afaa). The same thing is reported by Ibn Hibbaan (Tehzeeb
al-Tehzeeb). Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that Sufiyaan al-Thauriy considered
him unreliable (Al-Kaamil fi al-Dhu`afaa). Ibn Hajar says that he
commits a lot of mistakes (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb). Al-Nasaaiy and ibn
Hibbaan consider him to be unreliable (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb). Abu Dawood
says: ‘He cannot be trusted’ (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb)."
As far as the rest of the versions, they all have present within them
narrators that have been strongly criticized by the hadeeth scholars.
So as we see, the point rjaffer is trying to make is totally
unsubstantiated by what he has said. There is versions of the Quran
and ahl-bayt, which nobody denies. But the same scholars criticize
the version above which rjaffer is attempting to use as proof that
ahl-bayt is a source of shareeah.
Wa salaam
GF Haddad
news:9h6g9s$elg$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> became the Khalifa. A tiny minority opposed that decision,
> most notably from those who opposed was Saad Ibn Ubidah(RA),
> who was one of the most prominent leaders of the Ansar.
> Saad refused to give his allegiance to Omar(RA), and
> in fact never did that.
How could he, if he died during Abu Bakr's caliphate? cf. al-Dhahabi, Siyar,
Fikr ed. 3:174.
Hajj Gibril
Abdalla Alothman
rja...@my-deja.com wrote in a message:
> I believe the text of Ghadeer Khumm is sufficiently clear. I find it unfair
> that 'Ali was not even at Saqifah when Abu Bakr was elected among that small
> group.
The shee'i who claims allegiance to Ali and the family of the Prophet (s)
has no chance to object, because his Imam gave his bay'ah to Abu Bakr
nevertheless. It doesn't matter if the shee'ah claim that he was forced
to give his bay'ah or otherwise. What matters is that he gave his bay'ah
and agreed to see Abu Bakr the Khaleefa. The shee'ah would rather believe
that Ali betrayed the ummah and withdrew from the rights given to him
by Allah (tt) and His messenger rather than accepting the fact that Ali
and Abu Bakr had a very natural relationship. Even if they disagreed once
or twice, brothers who live under the same roof disagree a lot more.
> Fatimah's burial at night while displeased with Abu Bakr makes the
> situation more worrisome.
This proves nothing. She probably didn't want the shee'i shirk, which
takes place in the graves of Al-Najaf and Mash-had, practiced around her
grave in the holy city of Madina. Not to mention that most of the graves
of the prophets of Allah (tt) are unknown.
> Sayyid Tijani goes over a lot of such questions and answers that I think maybe
> you would enjoy reading:
> http://al-islam.org/ask/
> Chapter Six.
Al-Tijaani was exposed and refuted by many Muslims. One of the best expositions
I listened to was a lecture by a scholar from Kuwait, Othman Al-Khamees. Othman
would play back a lecture from Tijaani where he would be reciting the Quran,
and then Othman would correct the aayaat for him. The guy doesn't even know
how to read the Quran, let alone the hadeeths of the Prophet (s). Even in his
tapes, the audience correct him when he reads the Quran (What a joke).
Most of the hadeeths presented by Tijaani are weak, fabricated, or suspicious
hadeeths. Just like what you present here. Othman's two tapes are called
"Al-Radd 'ala Al-Teejani." Anyone who has the chance to get those tapes should
do so. Furthermore, all of what Al-Teejani says about Ahl Al-Sunnah is pure
lies. He is only saying what applies to his Sufi Tareeqa (Al-Teejaniyya) before
he became a shee'i. Thus, his name, Al-Teejani, is relative to his Sufi
Tareeqa, just like there are many people with Al-Qaadiri as their last name,
to identify themselves with the honorable shaikh Abdilqader Al-Jeelani (Who
is innocent from what his followers say about him) and the Qaadiri Sufi
Tareeqa.
An online refutation to Al-Teejani, the liar, can be read at:
Salam,
Abdalla.
mar...@vom.com
since, in the first place, Mahdi has very little support for his
arguments (internally or for others), and, in the second place, he has
very little support from the participants on this newsgroup. Or
elsewhere, as far as I can tell.
mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
>As-salaamu `alaikum,
>
>>It has been my hope to write a substantive article, in
>>particular on democracy, and I would not choose to confine myself by
>>the demands of responding to Mr Mahdi.
>
>Akhi, I have debated with people far more knowledgable and more famous than you
>in this matter and your articles on the issue of democracy will be totally
>predictable.
If so, all the more reason why I should not write in response to him.
He already knows everything, it would seem from what he has said. He
is pretty explicit:
>In other words, I heard ALL the arguments and have refuted each
>one of them on other lists such as the active Political Islam Discussion List
>(PIDL) on Listbot.com.
Perhaps it is sad that Mr Mahdi's brilliance on that list will be lost
to the world if someone does not act to save it. First of all, the
list is not accessible to non-members. Secondly, listbot.com is
shutting down and by the end of this month all data will be
unavailable.
I'm reminded of a trick the infamous Senator McCarthy used to use. He
would stand up in front of Congress and proclaim "I have in my hand a
list of one thousand members of the Communist Party working in
Hollywood." Or something like that. He didn't have such a list, but he
could wave the paper around and it did have more impact than simply
claiming that there were so many. Dramatic.
Eventually, it caught up with him.
If Mr Mahdi has refuted all the arguments on that list, he has not
brought this refutation to this list. His arguments here have been
notably weak. But he uses a diversionary tactic. He may not intend it
that way, but that is how it turns out. When his makes an argument,
and it is weak, and it is challenged, he does not clarify the
argument; instead he attacks the questioner, he brings up many other
issues. If he has a daleel, let him bring it.
>You got nothing on me akhi, and all the arguments for
>participation are wholly and inherently flawed and weak.
My, he does think a great deal of himself. Nothing like a little
self-confidence to get you out of bed in the morning.
>BTW, I am writing a
>book Insha' Allah about issues such as Islam and democracy and I have heard all
>the arguments.
We can't wait. So we won't.
>But the funny thing with you is that you don't try to bring
>daleel unlike the others, yours is basically a "rational" and "self-interest"
>based argument.
This brings a story to mind.
A man had divorced his wife. Then he wanted to remarry her. A visiting
scholar heard about this, and gave the man a lecture, with proofs from
hadith with sanaad, Qur'aan including discussion of the abrogating and
the abrogated and the occasions of revelation, the whole nine yards,
that it was forbidden unless the wife first married someone else. He
ended with a summary, "Since you have divorced your wife and she has
completed her ^idda, it is haraam for you to remarry her, with only
the exception that she has married someone else and then he divorced
her. And then he went on about the conditions of this, the necessity
for consummation of the second marriage, the curse on a man who
marries a woman for that purpose, intending to divorce her, etc.
The man listened to all this, and when the scholar had finished, he
said "But I only divorced her once, and she has not completed her
^idda."
The scholar, quite accustomed to Muslims who argued with him, said, "I
gave you shari'a proofs, and you only bring to me reason and
self-interest. Where is your proof?"
>I am not saying that those who support participation in kufr political systems
>have daleel (which they don't), but the point is efforts have been made to make
>it appear that they are referring to the Quran and Sunnah.
I quite frequently refer to Qur'aan and Sunnah. But I don't
necessarily claim to be doing so; instead I simply state what is in
the Qur'aan and what is reported to us from the Prophet and his
companions. It is not a formal argument.
But look back at recent posts from Mahdi on these topics. He purports
to bring evidence, but, when one looks at it, the evidence does not
support the conclusions he takes from it. When this is pointed out to
him, he calls this "reason."
Yes, it is reason. To connect evidence with conclusion takes reason.
The only exception is when the evidence is fully explicit, and in the
matter under discussion, it is not explicit. I show that in another
recent post, how Mahdi takes ayaat refering to the fact that "the rule
belongs to Allah," and applies them to issues of practical sovereignty
by confusing ultimate wisdom and authority (hikmah) with
administrative practice, which is necessarily wielded by human beings.
Mahdi does not actually deny the legitimacy of human authority; he
would vest it in a khalifah. Yes, the khalifa is obligated to follow
the command of Allah; but so are we all. We either do it or we don't,
and he either does or he doesn't.
Now, typically I make narrow points. He never takes them and answers
them that way. Rather discussion is like a sword fight to him. Instead
of meeting a point and considering it, either accepting it or refuting
it, if it is a weak point for him he simply turns to something else.
Look back to see if he ever agreed with *any* point made on this topic
by me or anyone else with whom he argues. Even a stopped clock is
right twice a day; the fact that he never agrees is proof that he is
not after truth, he is after "victory."
He is after exactly what he thinks he has: superiority, victory over
everyone he thinks is wrong, and if anyone disagrees with him,
definitely he thinks they are wrong, he is not shy about this.
>>rather I trust in consensus, which goes beyond democracy and
>>is, in my opinion, our surest guide to true guidance.
>
>This is a PERFECT example of secularism in action.
And this is a perfect example of what Mahdi does.
>That is to say, the Quran
>and Sunnah no longer becomes the criterion of right and wrong or Halaal and
>Haraam, the people's opinion (consensus) is.
Mahdi does not understand what is said to him; rather he attempts to
fit it all within his preconceptions. He does not recognise the Sunnah
when it is presented to him unless it has a big flashing sign that
says "this is the Sunnah."
Consider this: "Had it come from any other than Allah, they would have
found with it much fault."
This verse is sometimes cited as a proof that the Qur'aan has no
fault. But that explanation ignores the context, and it is describing
the hypocrites. Because they want to appear as believers, when the
truth comes to them with a label on it: this is the Qur'aan and it is
>from Allah, they say, yes, we believe in this. But if the same truth
comes to them and, perhaps because it has been translated into another
language, or perhaps simply because it is coming from fitrah, they
find fault with it.
Consensus is ijmaa'. I did not say that it was the "people's opinion,"
though it is my view that if the people are excluded, the consensus is
defective. Certainly the consensus of the ignorant is covered by no
promise of infallibility. But surely Mahdi knows the hadith on which I
based what I wrote. Do I need to quote it?
I usually write for people who have some familiarity with the Qur'aan
and the Sunnah. I make allusions, I do not always cite authority. This
style is actually the style of the Prophet and of the salaaf, and we
find this style with al-Ghazali and many other early scholars. In
formal argument, citation is essential, and there is no substitute for
sound scholarship, but sound scholarship is not everything. There is
also heart.
And on matters regarding business and political authority, the
scholars often have much theory and little practice. When the scholars
consult the businessmen and the people of authority, and vice-versa,
then we have the possibility of true consensus.
But when one class of people allows itself to believe that it knows it
all, that it has figured it all out, and that its conclusions are
irrefutable, it is certainly in error deep.
When a conclusion is clear, it is clear; but when what was clear turns
into a veil, into a way of avoiding seeing what *else* is clear, it
becomes nothing other than kufr.
Mahdi wants to use the word kufr in a technical sense. I prefer the
Qur'aanic sense. But more on that at another time, if God wills.
Since Mahdi has completely misunderstood what was said, has failed to
recognise the allusion to the Sunnah, the rest of what he wrote, in
context, is nonsense. It may be true, in itself, but it is
misdirected, as if a man was asked, what is the way to the city? and
he answers, eggs are twelve to a dozen.
Yes, they are.
> For example, if the majority of
>the people want to say that the Salaah is not Fard, then according to a
>democracy, the people can override the rule of Allah.
No, that is according to fools. If you have a society of fools, they
will agree on foolishness. But our community is not a society of
fools.
Mahdi presents examples like this, examples that completely miss the
point, and then he thinks that he has conclusively refuted everything
that might contradict his argument.
All this is visible, not just to me, but to many. It is like a man who
boasts about his skill in writing, when everyone can see that it is
sloppy and full of errors. If anyone tells him, he sees them as his
enemy, and if people do not tell him, he takes this as confirmation of
his prowess.
The proof of sound argument is that it convinces many of those who
originally did not accept it, who even fought against it. Islam is
like this. Mahdi's writings are not. Are there any examples?
>Also, Lomax wants to
>negate the reality that the majority of the people can be wrong,
Mahdi imagines that he knows what I want. He's not even close. This is
not a boast, it is not anything special that one man does not know the
understandings and intention of another twice his age.
The majority of the people can be wrong. Why would I want to negate
that. But "consensus" does not refer to "majority." Consensus refers
to general agreement, in English. Ijmaa implies that all those
knowledgeable about a subject agree on it. It may be necessary to
allow isolated exceptions, perhaps there is a scholar, for example,
who is so biased on a point that he will not surrender to the truth
about it. But even one exception makes the validity of ijmaa suspect.
>like for
>example, most people let's say 50 or 60 years ago in America didn't find the
>racism to be appalling, but now, it seems to be the opposite.
Fortunately. But Mahdi, who was not around 50 to 60 years ago -- I
was, does not know how people thought. I'd say that most people
thought racism appalling then, though the proportion varied
geographically and culturally, and many were ignorant as to the extent
of racism unless they were directly involved or affected by it.
Certainly society has shifted, and, in this case, it has shifted to
the better. People are more aware of racism, more ready to recognise
it, more willing to confront it and not to simply maintain an
embarassed silence in the face of it.
>Now since when
>did the "majority" became the criterion in Islam?
Well, the Shi'a don't think that it ever did.
The consensus of the informed is not infallible, but it is more
infallible than the opinion of any individual; this is why it is
forbidden to reject the consensus, why it can be considered apostasy
to do so. The agreement of the majority is more fallible, but even
that is more likely to be correct than the opinion of the majority,
which is why we are advised to stay with the majority. That is, if we
are ahl us-sunnah wa 'l-jamaa'. How would Mahdi translate jamaa'?
This is utterly and completely clear, as far as I can see. What will
Mahdi make of it?
>Why do we even need Allah
>when the "majority" somehow is always right?
Notice that he is putting "majority" in quotes, as if that is what I
wrote. I did not write "majority," rather I wrote "consensus." And I
did not say that the consensus is always right; but it is reported
that the Prophet said something quite equivalent to that:
my people will not agree on an error.
>So as in secularism, the people via consensus becomes the reference, not Allah
>and His Messenger.
I'm not sure what secularism is. As an "ism" it is already suspect.
I once was asked by a professor, quite a famous man, actually, -- a
Muslim -- to write something on the sacred and the secular.
I wrote, as I recall, "Our task is the sanctification of the secular
and the humanization of the sacred." Later, I found that he gave this
to his students as a saying to think about.
By secular, there, I meant everyday life in what might be considered
its non-religious aspects. In reality, of course, there are no
non-religious aspects to life. How we do everything we do is a matter
of religious concern. But this does not mean that it is all to be
governed by rigid rules: thus the humanization of the sacred is
essential.
Our prophet, SAS, frequently advised people to not be too hard, to not
make religion into something difficult. And that, too, is a big
subject.
But it bears on this matter. The opinions of people like Mahdi -- he
is not utterly alone! -- make the practice of Islam difficult. They
cut the Muslims off from society as a whole. Obviously, surrendering
to kufr is not acceptable, but making every ruling harsh is not piety,
as it pretends. I have heard that when the Prophet started travelling
with his companions in Ramadan, and they stopped to set up camp, some
of his followers kept on fasting and some broke the fast. It is
apparent that both of these courses were acceptable. But the ones who
kept on fasting were too weak to help much with setting up camp. The
ones who broke the fast did all the work. The Prophet said, "Those who
broke the fast got all the reward today."
>I can't find the ayah at this very moment but I recall it saying about follow
>the desires of what most people want and their misguidance. I trust in Allah,
>not in consensus that goes against what Allah and His Messenger said.
How do you know what Allah and his Messenger said?
As to what Allah said, we have it through consensus. As to what the
Messenger said, we have the best and most sound of it through
consensus.
What would serve Mahdi would be if he could learn to think in a
different way. He does not need to abandon his opinions, but he does
need to learn to set them aside, to think, when someone presents an
argument, "How could this be right," instead of "How can I refute
this?" If he considers carefully, and he cannot find a way that it
could be right, he should still know that being unable to find a way
is a sign of incapacity, not of strength.
Mahdi has a conception of democracy, and, if democracy were as he
conceives, he would be right. He then applies this rightness to what
others say, and makes them wrong by means of it. It is in *this* that
he is wrong, for he does not understand them. If he were to stay with
what he knows, he would do much better.
>The Quran and Sunnah is the best guidance, not "consensus." If Lomax doesn't
>like this, oh well, too bad.
If Mahdi does not recognise the sunnah, too bad. Indeed.
>>Were he the khalifah,
>>assuming that his character had not changed, I would fear that I had
>>made a terrible mistake in accepting Islam.
>
>People should accept Isla for Allah and not for people. This is not
>Christianity, you know.
It isn't?
I didn't accept Islam for Allah. Ultimately, I accepted Islam because
I had no choice. I *recognised* Islam, and as part of this
recognition, I knew that those who recognise and who continued to
conceal what they recognised were on the path to the fire. So if I
were to say that I accepted Islam *for* someone, it would be for
myself. "and you do not spend except for yourselves," i.e., what you
spend in the way of Allah is for your own benefit. Allah doesn't need
it.
>Lomax has a history of playing innocent as well as ignorant.
I do like to play. It's something I have kept from my childhood.
Playing ignorant is especially fun. Mahdi might like to try it some
time. I don't mean concealing the truth, I just mean pretending that
one is not the most intelligent person on earth, the most brilliant
debater, the most throughly familiar with all the arguments; and then
one can ask "innocent" questions. Its called the Socratic method.
The fact is that no matter how smart we are, we can still be wrong.
And so playing ignorant, properly done, is allowing ourselves to at
least pretend that we have something to learn. One of the benefits is
that if, while we are pretending, a conclusive argument arises that
shows that we were, in fact, wrong in what we thought was true -- and
which we were pretending not to believe -- we do not have the
embarassment of demonstrating our arrogance in front of the people.
Especially for a man, it can be very, very hard to back down once one
has so publically committed oneself. Given how deeply Mahdi has dug
this hole, it would be a miracle if he manages to extract himself; but
we can still pray for it.
Throughout these recent threads, Mahdi proclaims that I believe this
or that or that I am promoting this or that. He imagines this. I
examine issues, only occasionally do I promote conclusions. I report
facts. Mahdi takes the report of a fact as an argument for conclusions
that he thinks the fact would support if true. So he then must deny
the fact. It's a serious trap.
Here is a suggestion for Mahdi. If he thinks I am wrong, that I have
misjudged him, how about a similar idea to what I suggested with
Jeremiah, was it today? Is there anyone whom he trusts who would give
him counsel, and who would arbitrate disputes?
I have some people in mind, but it is up to Mahdi.
> For example, he
>defended Katz and said he was in a way "justified" in his attacks on Islam
>because of what some Muslims allegedly did.
I did not defend Katz. I pointed out the etiology of Katz's
involvement in soc.religion.islam. It makes what Katz did
understandable to me, perhaps this could be called a justification.
But the original cause of a thing and the cause of its maintenance are
not necessarily the same. Katz was defending Christianity in his first
appearances here. And much of his work has been to refute certain
false arguments made against Christianity by Muslims. Yes, some of us
use false arguments to promote the truth.
And some of us become enraged when it is pointed out that our
arguments are false. It's a personal issue....
>Now he is trying to insist that
>Katz is not an avowed enemy (which he is)
for someone who has just popped into this discussion, Mahdi called
Katz an "avowed enemy of Islam." Because I am trying to encourage
Mahdi to become more careful about how he writes, because caution
befits the believers and because lack of caution causes one's writing
to be full of errors, which, even if what one is trying to prove is
true, can discredit the argument and make the true appear false, I
pointed out that an 'avowed enemy" is one who openly and explicitly
says "I am an enemy of Islam." I think the root of the word is from
taking a vow of opposition. Since I have never read or heard Katz
admit to being an "enemy of Islam," I questioned what Mahdi wrote.
Another writer here -- one of the few who appears to defend Mahdi --
faulted me for nitpicking. She knew that I was right, but she thought
that it was pedantic. "Nitpicking" means to point out minor,
inconsequential errors. It would be nitpicking, except that my point
is exactly demonstrated by the fact that Mahdi still thinks that I was
wrong, and he once again repeated the claim which was questioned. Now,
if, anywhere, Katz has announced that he is an enemy of Islam, it
would be easy for Mahdi to establish the point, if it is important to
him.
I *never* wrote that Katz is *not* an avowed enemy of Islam. I did
write that, from my direct contact with him, I would be surprised if
he said what he would have to say to become an "avowed" enemy.
Mahdi is using the word "avowed" as if it means "strong" or
"dedicated" or "determined," or something like that. That is not what
it means.
My point is that Mahdi thinks he can win arguments about democracy and
the khalifah system, when he does not know what is going on in front
of him. He thinks he is refuting arguments, when he does not
understand them at all.
He *imagines* that he understands what I am writing. Now, it is quite
common that we imagine we understand what others are saying when, in
fact, we do not. But most people are protected by a general good
opinion of others. It's called husnu z-zann, that when we speculate
about others, we imagine good of them. But one who does not understand
others, and who imagines that what they are saying is evil, and they
persist in this even when the other clearly shows that they have been
misunderstood, is in serious condition, in need of a spiritual doctor.
Unfortunately, such a person is not likely to make a good choice of
doctor, and he is not even likely to recognise that he needs one. He
is more likely to associate with people who will reinforce what he
believes. If he were turn to Allah, to recognise that he is in need of
guidance, that he does *not* have all the answers, especially on an
issue that was considered difficult by Abu Bakr, RA, that the very
fact that he would say such a thing is proof of his need, he would
find in Allah more than he ever dreamed was possible.
My general advice to the believers is to become familiar with the
Book. Learn it, read it again and again, use it in your salaat,
reflect on it standing, sitting, and lying down, soak yourself in it.
>and he seem to try to not mention his
>earlier statements from him concerning why Katz was "justified" in attacking
>Islam. Just like the whole Quran issue last year, Lomax caused a major storm
>here and then he tried to defend himself by insisting he never said what he was
>reported to of have said. He acts like all the heat he got from SEVERAL people
>here (not just me) was totally unjustified and uncalled for.
Mahdi's memory is distorted. But, look, if I said something in
writing, and then denied that I said it later, it would be extremely
easy to demonstrate the fact. Mahdi never did that. What he did was to
take something I said, *translate* it into what he thought it meant,
through his nasty habit of sharr' uz-zann, and then claim that this is
what I said. Not what I actually said, but what he thought I said.
I am *very* careful what I write about the Qur'aan. I have been given
certain knowledge about some aspects of the Qur'aan that are not
commonly understood by the multitude. They are generally understood by
the scholars, I am not claiming some special knowledge, and it is a
very narrow field, which is why, as a non-scholar, I manage to know
something about it; I have simply spent a lot of time with it. If
Mahdi wants to insist on this point, he is going to continue to look
like one who makes claims without proof unless he comes up with the
quotation from me and shows where I denied it.
Otherwise he is either blind or bluffing. Bluffing in a matter
accusing another of kufr -- and the things that he claims I said would
amount to kufr had I said them -- is a serious sin.
>>The former is simple ignorance, but I fear that the truth is the
>>latter, which is a mark of kufr. Fear God, Mr Mahdi.
>
>It seems like Lomax doesn't even know what kufr means. He thinks that denial
>of truth is kufr, which is not, it is just denial.
One who thinks that denial of truth is not a "mark of kufr" may be
carrying the Qur'aan, but he is like a donkey carrying books.
But I don't think that Mahdi is carrying any books.
>He needs to learn Arabic
>and stop trying to bring us some Americanized Arabic (like for example, he
>would called Br. Abu Jamal "shaikh" because since Abu Jamal is a few years
>older than him, he thinks it is customary in Arabic to call even some who is
>just a few years older than you "shaikh").
I developed this habit from those whom others call shuyukh and who
call *me* shaykh perhaps because I am older than them.
I called Abu Jamal shaykh partly to emphasise that he was much older
than the others who were arguing with him on sri-awareness, yet they
did not call him shaykh. He was also much more knowledgeable than
them, and he also was given the authority of an amiyr. Now, perhaps Mr
Mahdi can tell us what the correct usage of shaykh is (though I think
it varies somewhat from place to place. In Morocco, one might say Sidi
-- for sayyidiy or sayyidinaa) instead of Shaykh, though that does not
imply age but only respect. And then there is Sidi Shaykh, which
implies both;
I do spend some time with scholars, and they use these polite forms
with me. I do not take it as meaning that I am superior, rather I take
it as a mark of their character, not necessarily of mine.
> Kufr is disbelief in what Allah and
>His Messenger have taught us, not someone who is in denial of something like
>the meaning of "avowed".
First of all, I said that denial was a mark of kufr, not that denial
was kufr. But the difference is academic. What Allah and his Messenger
have taught is is truth, and were it not truth, it would not be kufr
to disbelieve it. Denial of minor truths, if any truth is to be
considered minor, is a minor sin, but it is of the same *kind* as
denial of major truths, and a habit of denial of small truths is a
great danger, because it easily leads to denial of what is more
important.
What Mahdi is doing with this 'avowed' thing is refusing to accept
true counsel from a believer. He may know Arabic better than I (though
I don't think he knows Qur'aanic Arabic better than I, he shows little
sign of it, and little familiarity with the Book), but he does not
know English better than I. When I advise him as to the meaning of a
word in English, and he continues to stubbornly used the word in a way
that makes what he says false according to standard English, he is not
just denying the meaning of that word, he is denying the honesty of a
Muslim. And that is a serious matter.
The kaafiruwn deny the truth; they deny small truths and they deny
large truths, they deny anything that interferes with their
imagination of security-in-themselves, of their prowess, of their
freedom from responsibility, and so on.
This is a very important point. It's not just about the meaning of a
word!
>You don't even have a first year knowledge of Arabic
>(which you admitted here) and yet you throw accusations of kufr without even
>knowing what kufr means.
Mahdi is in error. I wrote, at some time or other, and perhaps this is
what he is thinking of, that I have never taken a course in Arabic.
But my knowledge of *Qur'aanic* Arabic is far more comprehensive than
many students of Arabic after much more than one year. I do read the
Qur'aan with understanding -- it seems to me -- which even native
Arabic speakers sometimes have difficulty doing.
Mahdi imagines that one must know Arabic to know what kufr is. Kufr is
a word used in the Qur'aan, and when it is used in context, especially
repeatedly, one does not need a dictionary to know what it means.
Indeed, the dictionaries were compiled from the study of usage. What
one needs is a knowledge of the subject matter, and what is the
subject matter of the Qur'aan. It is life. One who knows life will
recognise the truth of the Qur'aan, if it is opened to them. Arabic is
helpful for this, but it is not essential. What is essential is the
grace of God as manifest in an open heart. If one's heart is open, the
book will be open.
For definitive interpretation, especially of fine points that are not
extensively repeated in the Book, one does need all the tools of
Arabic scholarship, and even then it can be difficult and
controversial. But kufr is a fundamental concept in the Book, it is
described and mentioned over and over in many different ways.
>From what he has written, I can confidently say that Mahdi does not
know what kufr means. If he were to consider the possibility that he
still has something to learn, he might be able to remedy this
situation. But it is in God's hands.
>I forgot, this is the same person who tried to teach
>me and others on Quranic science and yet his level of Arabic is not even in the
>first year.
I don't normally teach. I report. Mahdi does not understand the
difference. One does not have to be of *any* particular level to
report, if one knows how to be honest. One who does not know how to be
honest is in danger even if he knows every word and detail.
I've been studying Arabic for almost thirty years. Not full-time, to
be sure. But there have been periods when it has been three to four
hours a day. I have about ten percent of the Book by heart, and a
familiarity with the rest of it. Not a comprehensive knowledge, and I
still use tools like concordances, dictionaries, grammars, etc.
But the facts I reported about the Qur'aan, which Mahdi denied, were
true, I can say on certainty about some of it, and the rest is a
matter of consensus among the scholars. Not the common people, who can
rather easily err on matters like this, as Mahdi has noted; and in
this respect he is one of them. Or has he read the Tashkent mus-haf?
Has he studied the various readings? Does he know the extent and
limits of identity between the readings?
When a certain Christian fanatic -- it took a fanatic to do this --
poured over the Tashkent to find errors in it, and he reported what
looked like errors to him, Mahdi questioned whether or not the Arabic
that the Christian had published was even from the Tashkent. Anyone
who knows the Tashkent would have recognised it immediately, and
anyone who had access to the Tashkent could easily verify that this
Christian was not forging the text he was working with. He *was*
making gross errors in interpreting what he found, but he wasn't
lying. He really thought he had found something important; instead, he
was only reporting what our scholars knew all along: there are
variations in the Tashkent and, indeed, there are variations among all
the readings. Does this mean that the Qur'aan has been changed? No.
But when I agreed that there were variations, Mahdi claimed that I had
said that the Qur'aan had been changed. And I denied that, because I
did not say that and I do not believe that. And this, too, is a big
question that could be the subject of a book in itself.
Above, Mahdi notes that I got in trouble with SEVERAL people over what
I had written about the Qur'aan. Yes, and Mahdi should remember what
he wrote about the majority. Now, I did not get into trouble with a
majority, I got into trouble with an ignorant minority. I did get a
piece of mail from one man who was not ignorant, who was concerned
that maybe I was saying something incorrect about the Qur'aan. When I
answered him confirming what I had meant, he was satisfied, as I
recall.
>Wallahi, what should I called this? You accused me in your post
>of being delusional, I say, that's the pot calling the kettle black!
Fine. Perhaps the pot is black. I can't see the pot, it's the way
these eyes are arranged; what I can see is the kettle, and it is
black. I did not "accuse" Mahdi of being delusional, I reported it. I
can clearly see it. If it were a crime to be delusional, one could
call it an accusation, but it is not a crime, indeed, it can exculpate
one. But there is culpable delusion, which is delusion stubbornly
maintained, and it is this I fear for Mahdi.
Jeremiah might take a look at this, by the way. What does he see with
respect to what I say about Mahdi?
>But you
>have carte blanche, you can say these things while poor me must be censored by
>a group who have vendetta against me.
One of the unfortunate side-effects of kufr is paranoia. "They think
every hand is against them."
>At any rate, I am not in denial of anything, it seems you are and you need to
>fear Allah.
I'm in denial of plenty, and I stand in need of guidance. Yes, I need
to fear Allah.
>>The term "American Islam," as Mr Mahdi is using it, is his invention.
>
>Again, Lomax playing innocent and ignorant. He knows well what I mean by
>"American Islam." Islam that is cut and pasted to be "politically correct" and
>a tool for the Kuffar to use on the Muslims so the Muslims won't pose an
>ideological threat.
Obviously, if this is "American Islam," I am against it. But the
description, I fear, is paranoid. On the other hand the opinion that
there is such a plot is held by some very bright people.
>Lomax's Islam is say anywhere because he does not present
>Islam on the level that it is, an ideological way of life that is contradiction
>to every man-made way of life.
I am sure that I do not present Islam as it deserves to be presented.
I do not hold such a negative opinion of man, however. Some of what we
make is, indeed, in contradiction with Islam, fa gharrahum ^an
diynihim maa kaanu yaftaruwn.
But "taste what you have made" is something said to the believers as
well as to the people of denial. It is when we invent in contradiction
to the truth, in confusing speculation with knowledge, that we are in
such danger.
>His Islam is a religion that does not challenge
>the authority that rules by kufr, nay, it in many cases actually complements
>them and supports them.
I would hope not. But I would hope that when those who have not yet
accepted Islam "rule" by what is true and good, that they will be
complemented and supported by Islam.
"Rule," by the way, in western society, is something that only applies
to courts, where law is interpreted. A mayor does not "rule" the city,
he simply administers it. When there is disagreement as to what the
law requires, such disagreement is submitted to the courts, and they
"rule."
If they "rule" by the truth, their ruling will be in accord with
Islam, even if they never heard of it. And if they "rule" by
falsehood, they could have been Muslim for a thousand years, their
ruling will contradict Islam.
>Look at SRI and who moderates it. You think that SRI wants a moderator like
>me, or a "Salafi"? Of course not, especially the former, since the latter is
>too more of a religious movement instead of an ideological one.
Actually, I do want such a moderator. Not like Mahdi, because he does
not know how to follow rules and authority, odd for one who is
promoting the khalifah, or perhaps it is not so odd. He desperately
needs discipline, and the khalifah would indeed provide him with an
opportunity at that.
>And Lomax's comments on the Interfaith movement is again trying to play the
>innocent role. He knows well what I am talking about, and Interfaith as I have
>explained before is based on the premise that all religionists are believers
>and we need to share similarities and not argue over difference.
Not all "religionists" are believers. Of them, some believe and some
disbelieve, and, had Allah willed, they would not have disagreed.
>Da`wah is
>never made because that would "offend" the Kuffar.
That's not my Islam. I've offended plenty of kaafiruwn.... But I've
also been able to bring a few closer to Islam. Remember, 'Umar was a
kaafir and an enemy of Islam.
>I remember clearly Lomax on
>this forum attacking me for calling Christians "Kuffar" and implied how
>ignorant and selfish I was for saying such a thing. Then I presented the ayaat
>>from the Quran and he kept quite after that, never apologizing (of course).
Actually, I'm pretty sure I've commented on that ayaat and its
context, but perhaps it was not at that time. If Mahdi thinks that he
has made an important point and it has been ignored, he should know
several things:
(1) Silence on a newsgroup is not an indication of consent. It might
just mean that the writer had something else to do. Some of us do have
wives and children and jobs and even other study in which to engage.
And grandchildren, in my case.
(2) Even more, silence in response is not an indication of victory. It
may means that the others have simply given up trying to argue with
such a stubborn and foolish writer. Or they are following the counsel
of Allah and the example of the ^ibaadu r-raHmaan.
>>I actually consider
>>voting, under American conditions, an obligation, and it seems that
>>the majority of Muslims here agree with me, at least among those that
>>have any opinion on it.
>
>Again, no daleel but his "daleel" is consensus and what he thinks is rational
>and logical justification. Need I say more?
I did not attempt to prove it, and I did not assert consensus. And I
did not give rational and logical justification. I merely noted my
opinion, leaving a proof, if necessary, to another time. To note that
an opinion is held by the majority is not a proof, but it does place a
burden of proof on those who wish to establish and promulgate a
minority opinion, especially that a thing which is approved by the
majority is haraam, which is what Mahdi is doing.
So, yes, he need to either say more or to shut up.
>>I do wonder, however, what is "kufr politics" and is it different from
>>other kinds of politics?
>
>Come on akhi, what do you take me as?
I don't want my post rejected. I do get cut a bit of slack, not that I
should, but that is the reality of human relationships, but I don't
want to push it.
>You know what I mean by kufr politics,
No, I don't.
>because I explained it here many of times and you even have responded many of
>times. Why must you play this role of innocent and ignorant what you are
>caught in a hole you can't get out?
Perhaps Mahdi was less successful in his explanations than he
imagines, perhaps I have a bad memory for what he has written, having
stuffed my head with Qur'aan as well as suffering from the memory
phenomena of age. I am giving Mahdi an opportunity to carefully
explain a thing. If he simply wants to reply with bluff and arrogance,
that's his business.
>I am waiting for your predictable and daleel-ness article on participation, and
>I will easily refute it with no problem.
Suppose I were Satan himself. Would you be so confident that you could
easily refute what he writes with no problem? And if I am deluded as
you think, would I not be susceptible to his influence?
I am not confident of my ability to refute *anyone*, even where I am
one of the most knowledgeable in the world on a subject; I think there
is one such subject. I *am* confident of the ability of the Truth to
win in the end, but I know that this does not mean that individuals
win, for all of us are subject to delusion.
What I write is predicable to Mahdi because he does not read what I
write; rather he reads what he imagines, and his imagination is quite
predictable.
He has shown us much more of himself that he imagines is visible. It
is a case study in kufr and kubriyya, pride. I'm not calling him a
kaafir, for a kaafir is someone whose kufr dominates; further, it is a
legal category with consequences and thus should not be used unless
one also intends to apply it legally. I'm merely using the opportunity
to bring certain phenomena to our attention, and to warn Mahdi about
those tendencies within him which will lead him to the fire if he
continues in them. Every believer is subject to this danger; the
majority exempts the prophets.
rjaff...@yahoo.com
hope you are well.
you may download a book from http://rafed.net/ftp/tafser.html
namely albayan fi tafsir al qur'an (one volume) by the late Sayyid al
Khoei. it has a detailed investigation of the reports of the collection
of the Qur'an, when and how. if i have time i will quote some parts
>from it.
the jist of it is that there are reports attributing the completion of
the Qur'an to Abu Bakr in his rule, 'Umar in his rule and 'Uthman in his
rule. Then there are reports stating that the Prophet collected the
complete Qur'an in book form in his own life time. As the former all
conflict and there are many proofs that the Qur'an was already complete
in book form in the Prophet's time the former reports must all be
rejected as they clash with eachother and the latter accepted.
a report in Bukhari credits 'Umar in the time of Abu Bakr with the
compilation of the Qur'an. according to that report among various
conflicting reports the Prophet did not collect the Qur'an. But the
Prophet completed the whole Qur'an in book form before his demise.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.301
".' I said, 'How dare I do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?'
'Umar said, By Allah, it is something beneficial.' "?
> The website to which you referred me here is obviously not available.
> At least I can't access it.
> I'm *really* interested in reports going back to Companions other than
> Ibn Abbas.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/index.html
has some examples of such reports, namely death1.jpg to death5.jpg
I don't know why you still can't access the links. Each image is about
75k each. If you want I can email them to you.
In another post you mentioned:
>The Prophet(s) said "Umar does not take a road but that the Devil
>takes another."
Remember Satan made their (sinful) acts seem alluring to them, and said:
"No one among men can overcome you this day, while I am near to you":
But when the two forces came in sight of each other, he turned on his
heels, and said: "Lo! I am clear of you; lo! I see what ye see not; Lo!
I fear Allah: for Allah is strict in punishment." 8:48
The verse shows that the human is sometimes so audacious that he treads
a path that even Satan is afraid to tread. I am sorry but I find what
'Umar did at the Prophet's deathbed hard to excuse. The Prophet says
"let me leave in written form for you something that if you follow you
will never go astray and 'Umar says no?
Please, how can you excuse 'Umar for that?
> > When the Prophet tells you to do something, regardless of whether it is
> > a religiously binding order or a so called recommended order one must
> > obey.
>
> Rubbish, there is no sin in disobeying a recommended order. That is
> why it is recommended and not obligatory.
The Prophet is on his death bed for God's sake and he wants to leave a
writting which would protect the Ummah from ever straying if they follow
that advise and you say it is a recommended order? Did the Prophet say
it is only recommended?
If a father had seven sons and on his death bed he said let me write for
you something that would protect my sons from ever fighting and
disuniting and one son says no our father is ill and speaking
deleriously, who would you blame if the sons starting fighting and
became disunited after the father's death but that son?
Look if the Prophet said "go plant a tree over there" and you took it as
a recommended order and disobeyed like 'Umar, I can understand your
excuse if you believe that violating recommended orders of the Prophet
is not a sin.
But when it comes to religous instruction such as writing something that
would prevent the Ummah from straying I can not find an excuse in that.
here are some verses that say that obeying the Prophet is obligatory and
it doesn't make any conditions like recommended or whatever. If you can
prove to me from the Qur'an that disobeying the Prophet in so called
recommended commands is ok please do so.
But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits
will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a
humiliating punishment. 4:14
It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been
decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their
decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a
clearly wrong Path. 33:36
(It is) only a delivering (of communications) from Allah and His
messages; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger surely he shall
have the fire of hell to abide therein for a long time. 72:23
He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah: But if any turn away, We have
not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds). 4:80
Lastly I don't know if you are aware but 'Umar and Abu Bakr already were
warned in the past no to even raise their voices in the Prophet's
presence lest they be destroyed.
Volume 9, Book 92, Number 405:
Narrated Ibn Abi Mulaika:
Once the two righteous men, i.e., Abu Bakr and 'Umar were on the verge
of destruction (and that was because): When the delegate of Bani Tamim
came to the Prophet, one of them (either Abu Bakr or 'Umar) recommended
Al-Aqra' bin Habis At-Tamimi Al-Hanzali, the brother of Bani Majashi (to
be appointed as their chief), while the other recommended somebody else.
Abu Bakr said to 'Umar, "You intended only to oppose me." 'Umar said, "I
did not intend to oppose you!" Then their voices grew louder in front of
the Prophet whereupon there was revealed: 'O you who believe! Do not
raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet..a great reward.'
(49.2-3) Ibn Az-Zubair said, 'Thence forward when 'Umar talked to the
Prophet, he would talk like one who whispered a secret and would even
fail to make the Prophet hear him, in which case the Prophet would ask
him (to repeat his words)."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/092.sbt.html#009.092.405
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.370
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.368
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.653
yet before the Prophet's death bed some companions among whom was 'Umar
al Khattab did it again? Even after the warning in 49:3?
O Ye who believe! Put not yourselves forward before Allah and His
Messenger; but fear Allah: for Allah is He Who hears and knows all
things.
O ye who believe! Raise not your voices above the voice of the Prophet,
nor speak aloud to him in talk, as ye may speak aloud to one another,
lest your deeds become vain and ye perceive not. 49:3
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were
some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said,
"Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go
astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the
Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in
the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the
Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go
astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and
cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated
'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that
Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them
because of their disagreement and noise."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/070.sbt.html#007.070.573
Seeraj
I don't have the reference you are indicating handy at this
moment. Maybe I have confused something, but I still feel that
I had seen something to the effect of what I said. I have little
possibility at this time to verify the matter, so I would appreciate
it if you, or others, would find out.
W'assallam,
Seeraj
> Hajj Gibril
rjaff...@yahoo.com
> Not anybody in their right mind among the educated are unaware of the
> narrations. There are two basic versions of the hadeeth:
>
> ‘I am going to leave in you two heavy burdens[1]. The first of
> them is the Book of Allah in it is the true guidance and the light.
> Therefore, hold fast to it’. Then he [i.e. the Prophet (pbuh)]
> prompted and induced the Muslims to adhere to the Book of God. Then he
> said: ‘And my household. I remind you of God in matters relating
> to my household. I remind you of God in matters relating to my
> household. I remind you of God in matters relating to my
> household[2].’
>
> As is obvious, there is not a single proof from this narration that
> the ahl-bayt from a basic source of shareeah in this regard.
'alaykum salaam Asim,
we don't say that the Ahlul-Bayt are a basic source of Shareeah. we say
that the Prophet left the book of Allah and a teacher for it. The book
he left is the Qur'an and the teachers he left are the twelve Imams from
the Ahlul-Bayt (as). We believe that this view is in harmony with 4:59
[4:59]O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in
authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it
to Allah
and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is
better and
very good in the end.
As you can see from 4:59 there are only two primary sources for the
Shareeah, the word of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. The people
of Authority in 4:59 are to be obeyed as they base their judgement
purely on teh word of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger. There is
one more verse in the Qur'an that clarifies who the Ulul Amr are namely
verse 83 of the same Surah:
[4:83]And when there comes to them news of security or fear they spread
it
abroad; and if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in
authority
among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it
would have
known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy,
you
would have certainly followed the Shaitan save a few.
Now coming back to the hadeeth in Sahih Muslim, allow me to quote for
those that may not be as educated as you, mashaallah:
Book 031, Number 5920:
Yazid b. Hayyan reported, I went along with Husain b. Sabra and 'Umar b.
Muslim to Zaid b. Arqam and, as we sat by his side, Husain said to him:
Zaid. you have been able to acquire a great virtue that you saw Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) listened to his talk, fought by his
side in (different) battles, offered prayer behind me. Zaid, you have in
fact earned a great virtue. Zaid, narrate to us what you heard from
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). He said: I have grown old and
have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I
remembered in connection with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him),
so accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not
compel me to do that. He then said: One day Allah's Messenger (may peace
be upon him) stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as
Khumm situated between Mecca and Medina. He praised Allah, extolled Him
and delivered the sermon and. exhorted (us) and said: Now to our
purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger
(the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call,
(would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty
things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance
and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He
exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The
second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to
the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members
of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon
he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members
of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And
he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of
'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and
the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the
acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/031.smt.html#031.5920
There are two things to keep in mind concerning this tradition. First
of all Zaid b. Arqam clarifies for us that the Prophet said this at
Khumm. This is very significant. In order to understand more about this
incident we must look at other tradition narrated about Ghadeer Khumm.
Miraculously there are about 100 different seperate chains of authority
related to Ghadeer Khumm. No other hadeeth from the Prophet has such
tawatur as the tradition related to Ghadeer Khumm. A wonderful site on
the internet has already collected a lot of information about Ghadeer
Khumm and that site is http://al-islam.org/ghadir
Second important thing is to notice in which chapter Muslim put this
tradition. He put this tradition in the chapter of the Merits of 'Ali
(as).
Now if we except Asim's attempt of interpretation please tell me how his
interpretation counts as a virtue of 'Ali (as)?
If what the Prophet meant is that the Ummah has the burden of taking
care of the Prophet's family how is that a virtue of 'Ali (as)?
When the Prophet said he is leaving the Qur'an obviously he meant that
the muslim's should follow the Qur'an. The proof of that is his words
"in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of
Allah and adhere to it". He said that the Qur'an is one of the two
weighty things. Then he said that the 2nd weighty thing is the
Ahlul-Bayt emphasising this 3x.
How can one justly interpret this to mean that we should follow the
Qur'an and take care of his family? It does not flow with the context
of the hadeeth. The Prophet meant that we should follow the Qur'an and
the Ahlul-Bayt (as). This is obvious.
If the Prophet meant that we should take care of his family then
obviously his wives deserve more than anybody else to be taken care of
as they can not marry anyone after the Prophet. Is this clear?
However Zaid says that the wives are not his Ahlul-Bayt here. Therefore
this interpretation of Asim does not make any sense as the wives deserve
more than others to be taken care of especially as 'Ali and his
descendants were strong and healthy people. They don't need to be
looked after by anyone. It is an insult to the Prophet to think that he
should favor his descendants over others. Yes the Ahlul-Bayt are not
allowed to take Zakaat but Asim forgets that the Ahlul-Bayt have a share
in the Khumus. Unfortunately Abu Bakr during his rule deprived the
Ahlul-Bayt of the Share of Khumus the Prophet used to allocate to them.
Then 'Umar and 'Uthmaan followed in Abu Bakr's footsteps in this regard.
I would really like to hear from Asim what his interpretation has to do
with a virtue of 'Ali (as).
Lastly we have to look at the politic context when Zaid said what he
said. He was living during the rule of the Umayyad's who killed Imam
Husayn and his Ahlul-Bayt. Zaid was living in a dangerous time. In
fact Zaid was present in the court of 'Ubaydullah bin Ziyaad when the
head of Husayn was brought on a plate to him. Ibn Ziyaad stated hitting
the lips of Husayns with a stick and the courageous Zaid said, "lift
this stick from the lips of Husayn as I witness that I saw the Prophet
kissing these very lips of Husayn!"
This is why Zaid may have included the descendant's of Aqueel, Ja'far
and 'Abbas in his clarification of who the Ahlul-Bayt are. It was a
fearful political time. But Abul Husain Muslim bin al-Hajjaj
al-Nisapuri knew exactly what Ziad was implying (ra) and that is why he
included this tradition among the virtues of 'Ali (as).
If we except Asim's attempt of interpretation it will leave absolutely
no virtue for 'Ali. It is an unjust appoach to ignore all the other
traditions about Ghadeer Khumm and then interpret this one tradition
according to ones fancy. May Allah forgive and guide.
salaam,
ridwaan
rjaff...@yahoo.com
Abdalla Alothman wrote:
> The shee'i who claims allegiance to Ali and the family of the Prophet (s)
> has no chance to object, because his Imam gave his bay'ah to Abu Bakr
> nevertheless.
The Shi'ah don't believe that 'Ali ever gave his bay'ah to Abu Bakr.
The sources that say that he did so are only sunni sources and even then
those sources say that he did so after 6 months.
If one objectively ponders on this theory of 6 months it doesn't make
sense. We all know that one who dies not acknowledging the Imam of his
time dies an unbeliever. Could it be imagined that if 'Ali died within
that 6 months he would die a disbeleiver? Fatimah died 3 months after
the Prophet (sa) and she not only didn't give allegiance to Abu Bakr but
she died angry at him being buried at night as a sign of protest.
So didn't 'Ali know that if he died within that 6 months he would die an
unbeliever? You think 'Ali would take a chance like that unless he
clearly knew who the Imam of the time really was? He himself was the
appointed successor of the Prophet (sawa). 'Ali was a man of
principles. He wouldn't withhold bay'ah even a day let alone 6 months
unless he knew there was something wrong with the Khilafah of Abu Bakr.
After 6 months he wouldn't change his mind either.
>It doesn't matter if the shee'ah claim that he was forced
> to give his bay'ah or otherwise. What matters is that he gave his bay'ah
> and agreed to see Abu Bakr the Khaleefa.
Brother you don't seem to understand the Shi'ah arguments on this
issue. I suggest you read the 3rd sermon of Nahj al Balaagah and then
read the Shi'ah commentary of it:
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/
best regards,
ridwaan
Omar Mirza
wa's-salam
>you may download a book from http://rafed.net/ftp/tafser.html
>namely albayan fi tafsir al qur'an (one volume) by the late Sayyid al
>Khoei. it has a detailed investigation of the reports of the collection
>of the Qur'an, when and how. if i have time i will quote some parts
>>from it.
A confused book. I read it in English translation. Khui's grasp on hadith
sciences is very weak, as you can see in his attempts to assess the
characters
of the ten major reciters. He seems ignorant of even the basic principles of
assessing the reliability of a reporter of hadith.
It is sufficient for me that many scholars far better qualified in these
matters
than Khui, such as Suyuti and Ibn Hajar, have agreed that the first
official
written compilation was done in Abu Bakr's time.
I had quoted, without the exact wording, a statement of the Prophet(s) about
Umar:
>>The Prophet(s) said "Umar does not take a road but that the Devil
>>takes another."
Ridwan responded with a classic piece of Shia misdirection and confusion:
>Remember Satan made their (sinful) acts seem alluring to them, and said:
>"No one among men can overcome you this day, while I am near to you":
>But when the two forces came in sight of each other, he turned on his
>heels, and said: "Lo! I am clear of you; lo! I see what ye see not; Lo!
>I fear Allah: for Allah is strict in punishment." 8:48
>
>The verse shows that the human is sometimes so audacious that he treads
>a path that even Satan is afraid to tread.
The brother is here hoping to suggest to the reader that the Prophet's(s)
statement is in fact an indication that Umar habitually chose actions so
sinful that even the Devil would not do them. Of course, he dare not say
this
openly and clearly, as it would be ridiculous for the Prophet(s) to accept
such a man into his close circle of friends and even to marry his daughter
when there was no political advantage to be gained by such a marriage. And
it
would be ridiculous for Ali to marry his daughter to such a man.
Some versions of the above hadith give the correct interpretation of why the
Devil take a path other than that of Umar: "The Devil is afraid of Umar."
I am sorry but I find what
>'Umar did at the Prophet's deathbed hard to excuse. The Prophet says
>"let me leave in written form for you something that if you follow you
>will never go astray and 'Umar says no?
>Please, how can you excuse 'Umar for that?
By paying attention to the context, which shows that the Prophet's statement
was only an offer, not a command. For example, in one of the reports in
Bukhari, the Prophet(s) says "Leave me. The state I am in is better than
what
you are asking me to do."
Have you ever wondered, brother, what the Prophet(s) had been asked to do by
the Companions?
Omar
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Mirza
> he died during Abu Bakr's caliphate? cf. al-Dhahabi, Siyar,
>Fikr ed. 3:174.
This is overlooked by Wilferd Madelung, who tries to insinuate that Sad ibn
Ubadah was killed by Umar in secret.
Madelung's book "The Succession to Muhammad" is very popular among the Shia
nowadays. Like many Shia arguments, it is based on weak reports.
Abdullah
> >salaam,
>
> wa's-salam
>
>
> >you may download a book from http://rafed.net/ftp/tafser.html
> >namely albayan fi tafsir al qur'an (one volume) by the late Sayyid al
> >Khoei. it has a detailed investigation of the reports of the collection
> >of the Qur'an, when and how. if i have time i will quote some parts
> >>from it.
>
> A confused book. I read it in English translation. Khui's grasp on hadith
> sciences is very weak, as you can see in his attempts to assess the
> characters
> of the ten major reciters. He seems ignorant of even the basic principles of
> assessing the reliability of a reporter of hadith.
He has written a 22-volume work on Rijal, and so if he "seems
ignorant" then Ibn Hajar and Suyuti are ten steps below that.
I think this hadith from Sahih Muslim suffices.
Book 019, Number 4349:
It is reported by Zuhri that this tradition was narrated to him by
Malik b. Aus who said: Umar b. al-Khattab sent for me and I came to
him when the day had advanced. I found him in his house sitting on his
bare bed-stead, reclining on a leather pillow. He said (to me): Malik,
some people of your tribe have hastened to me (with a request for
help). I have ordered a little money for them. Take it and distribute
it among them. I said: I wish you had ordered somebody else to do this
job. He said: Malik, take it (and do what you have been told). At this
moment (his man-servant) Yarfa' came in and said: Commander of the
Faithful, what do you say about Uthman, Abd al-Rabman b. 'Auf, Zubair
and Sa'd (who have come to seek an audience with you)? He said: Yes,
and permitted them. so they entered. Then he (Yarfa') came again and
said: What do you say about 'Ali and Abbas (who are present at the
door)? He said: Yes, and permitted them to enter. Abbas said:
Commander of the Faithful, decide (the dispute) between me and this
sinful, treacherous, dishonest liar. The people (who were present)
also said: Yes. Commander of the Faithful, do decide (the dispute) and
have mercy on them. Malik b. Aus said: I could well imagine that they
had sent them in advance for this purpose (by 'Ali and Abbas). 'Umar
said: Wait and be patient. I adjure you by Allah by Whose order the
heavens and the earth are sustained, don't you know that the Messenger
of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:" We (prophets) do not have any
heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"? They said:
Yes. Then he turned to Abbas and 'Ali and said: I adjure you both by
Allah by Whose order the heavens and earth are sustained, don't you
know that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said:" We do
not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in) charity"?
They (too) said: Yes. (Then) Umar said: Allah, the Glorious and
Exalted, had done to His Messenger (may peace be upon him) a special
favour that He has not done to anyone else except him. He quoted the
Qur'anic verse:" What Allah has bestowed upon His Apostle from (the
properties) of the people of township is for Allah and His Messenger".
The narrator said: I do not know whether he also recited the previous
verse or not. Umar continued: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be
upon him) distrbuted among you the properties abandoned by Banu Nadir.
By Allah, he never preferred himself over you and never appropriated
anything to your exclusion. (After a fair distribution in this way)
this property was left over.
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) would meet from its
income his annual expenditure, and what remained would be deposited in
the Bait-ul-Mal. (Continuing further) he said: I adjure you by Allah
by Whose order the heavens and the earth are sustained. Do you know
this? They said: Yes. Then he adjured Abbas and 'All as he had adjured
the other persons and asked: Do you both know this? They said: Yes. He
said: When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) passed away,
Abu Bakr said:" I am the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may
peace be upon him)." Both of you came to demand your shares from the
property (left behind by the Messenger of Allah). (Referring to Hadrat
'Abbas), he said: You demanded your share from the property of your
nephew, and he (referring to 'Ali) demanded a share on behalf of his
wife from the property of her father. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with
him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had said:"
We do not have any heirs; what we leave behind is (to be given in)
charity." So both of you thought him to be a liar, sinful, treacherous
and dishonest. And Allah knows that he was true, virtuous, well-guided
and a follower of truth. When Abu Bakr passed away and (I have become)
the successor of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and
Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him), you thought me to be a liar,
sinful, treacherous and dishonest. And Allah knows that I am true,
virtuous, well-guided and a follower of truth. I became the guardian
of this property. Then you as well as he came to me. Both of you have
come and your purpose is identical. You said: Entrust the property to
us. I said: If you wish that I should entrust it to you, it will be on
the condition that both of you will undertake to abide by a pledge
made with Allah that you will use it in the same way as the Messenger
of Allah (may peace be upon him) used it. So both of you got it. He
said: Wasn't it like this? They said: Yes. He said: Then you have
(again) come to me with the request that I should adjudge between you.
No, by Allah. I will not give any other judgment except this until the
arrival of the Doomsday. If you are unable to hold the property on
this condition, return it to me.
So Abbas and 'Ali think of Abu Bakr and 'Umar as this (in addition to
Abbas' thoughts of 'Ali):
Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (may
peace be upon him) had said:" We do not have any heirs; what we leave
behind is (to be given in) charity." <<So both of you thought him to
be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.>> /.../ When Abu Bakr
passed away and (I have become) the successor of the Messenger of
Allah (may peace be upon him) and Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with
him), <<you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and
dishonest.>>
Need I say more?
Let me just ask a question to all people who call themselves muslims
regardless of sect, grouping or party affiliations, and who say God
did not decree a successor for the Prophet:
In Islam, God has decreed very exact rules for everything. For
example, for Salat, you need a correct Wudhu, and this means you have
to do it in a correct order, amoung of water, way to do etc., and if
you don't do it correctly your Salat will not be accepted. This is
such a small thing. He could have given us the choice of washing our
hands, arms, feets and faces etc the way we wanted, and it would not
have been any fatal issue.
Now this same God who is so careful and exact with small things such
as this, suddenly contradicts His earlier attitude, and in such a
crucial issue like the successorship of the Prophet, which the
muslims' faith depend upon since he would be running their affairs and
enforcing the religion, and says "Do as you wish". Now God did not
allow us free choice when we wash ourselves before Salat, and that
issue does not kill anyone. But when it comes to Caliphate, where
thousands if not millions have been killed or killing others for it,
God does not give any directions or rules or regulations or nothing
about it. This is not acceptable to intelligence.
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> wa's-salam
>
>
> >you may download a book from http://rafed.net/ftp/tafser.html
> >namely albayan fi tafsir al qur'an (one volume) by the late Sayyid al
> >Khoei. it has a detailed investigation of the reports of the collection
> >of the Qur'an, when and how. if i have time i will quote some parts
> >>from it.
>
> A confused book. I read it in English translation. Khui's grasp on hadith
> sciences is very weak, as you can see in his attempts to assess the
> characters
> of the ten major reciters. He seems ignorant of even the basic principles of
> assessing the reliability of a reporter of hadith.
>
> It is sufficient for me that many scholars far better qualified in these
> matters
> than Khui, such as Suyuti and Ibn Hajar, have agreed that the first
> official
> written compilation was done in Abu Bakr's time.
>
Wa salaam
With all due respect to Brother Umar, the reports which attempt to
prove that the Quran was officially compiled contradicts the Quran in
its entirety. The first revelation of the Quran alludes to the
protection of the Quran in book form. By the time of the death of the
Prophet (S), the transmission of the Quran had already taken place all
over Arabia and to claim its compilation was completed after the death
of the Prophet (S) is absurd. The Quran itself refers to its
compilation as being DIVINE and by God himself. To even claim that
the Prophet (S) did not take measures to preserve the order and
structure of the Quran in written form is beyond reason.
Verily, upon Us is its COLLECTION and recital. So when We have recited
it, follow this recital [of Ours]. Then upon Us is to explain it.
(75:17-19)
The Prophet (S) was so explicit in NUMEROUS authentic narrations for
the preservation of the Quran that he forbade writing even his sayings
for fear that they would mix up with the Quran. It was made clear in
the Hajj when the various tribes of Arabia had all stood before the
Prophet (S) that the Quran was their in entirety.
"I have left you something, which if you hold steadfast to, you will
never fall into error: the Book of Allah and my established practice."
Various hadeeth books including Muslim and Bukhari narrate that the
complete mushaf was tied to the pillar known as "Ustuwanah-i-Mushaf".
Bukhari refers to some Companions who COMPILED the Quran, including
Ubay Ibn Ka‘ab, Mu‘adh Ibn Jabal, Zayd Ibn Thabit and Abu
Zayd from the Ansar.
In Hakim's Mustadarak it says "We used to COMPILE the Qur’an
>from small scraps in the presence of the Messenger."
Besides getting into a detailed discussion about the alleged narration
that the Quran was compiled based upon the death of many haffiz in the
Battle of Yamamah, their are a few points worth noting to its
incredulousness:
1. The narration claims that the Prophet (S) never compiled the
Quran. This contradicts the Quran and in fact numerous narrations
proving the contrary.
2. The Quran was the primary impetus of the spread of Islam. It was
the book which humbled the Quraysh to their knees and caused thousands
to convert to Islam. To claim the Sahabah were not knowledgable about
the importance of the compilation of the Quran is absurd to the
utmost.
3. There were ONLY 40 companions that were killed and ALL of the
names have been recorded by the historians. ONLY ONE of them was a
famous compiler of the Quran, Salim (R).
4. The person who is alleged to have been charged the task was Zayd
ibn Thabit (R). There were many OLDER Companions (R) alive at the
time who witnessed the whole revelational period, including Muadh ibn
Jabal, Abdullah ibn Masood, and Ubayy ibn Kaab.
5. The narrations contradict themselves alleging various verses being
found with particular people. It is alleged that nobody had been
aware of this fact until they found them with Khuzaymah Ansari (R).
This is absurd.
6. This report is weak. It has been alleged to have been narrated
through only ONE chain for its first three generations. To claim that
it as a historical fact is absurd.
7. None of the narrations is lacking the personality of ibn Shihab
Zuhri.
8. Tabari and ibn Saad make no mention of this event and they have
thoroughly discussed the lives of Abu Bakr and the revolt of
Musaylimah (R).
9. The Muatta, the earliest hadeeth book present, makes no mention of
the report, and even Imam Muslim does not mention the report.
Finally, the Quran had already been perpetuated all across the lands.
Its transmission had been ongoing and its recitation in the masjids
was a divinely ordained process. The protection of the book is in
Divine Hands.
mypointofview2002
>
> By paying attention to the context, which shows that the Prophet's statement
> was only an offer, not a command. For example, in one of the reports in
> Bukhari, the Prophet(s) says "Leave me. The state I am in is better than
> what you are asking me to do."
If you feel comfortable with the excuse to justify a wrong that was done,
than so be it. I respect your view and you have to respect my view that
Umar's action were an act of sin. He may have been a good Khalif but that is
not the issue.
Prophet Mohammed was a secular leader and also a religious leader.
Abu Bakar assumed the secular leadership but not the religious leader-
ship. The religious leadership can only be assumed by members of the
household of prophet who were purified by Allah himself, that is why we
muslims are commended by Allah to show love for Ahl Al-Bait.
Somehow need for a spritual guide has been lost in strugle for material
gain.
Salam
mypointofview2002
Omar Mirza
Abdal Aziz Sachedina) as follows:
>> A confused book. I read it in English translation. Khui's grasp on hadith
>> sciences is very weak, as you can see in his attempts to assess the
>> characters
>> of the ten major reciters. He seems ignorant of even the basic principles
of
>> assessing the reliability of a reporter of hadith.
Brother Abduallah responded with
>He has written a 22-volume work on Rijal, and so if he "seems
>ignorant" then Ibn Hajar and Suyuti are ten steps below that.
Brother, if the 22 volume work is based on the same ignorance of elementary
principles of rijal criticism that he displayed in his discussions of the
ten
reciters, then those 22 volumes are a big waste of paper.
As for Ibn Hajar and Suyuti, nobody in this century could hope to come close
to them for their knowledge of Islamic sciences. For one thing they were
huffaz, and such people no longer exist.
Omar Mirza
>> It's not the first time Umar was inclined to act
>> >incorrectly; Umar was frequently wanting to kill people for the
>> >slightest provocation, and the Rasool was constantly holding him back
>> >and correcting him.
And I had commented
>> "Actions are judged by intention."
Brother Imran responded with
>Still not a good excuse for poor judgment and poor action. As I tell
>my son, stop making excuses and learn from your mistakes. Good advice
>for all of us, including Umar.
I think this discussion has now missed the point. The Shia use the
narration
about the events of Thursday to claim Umar wilfully disobeyed the
Prophet(s),
thereby making it easier to claim that he wilfully disobeyed the Prophet(s)
in
the matter of the khilafa. I say both claims are false, and cotradict what
we
know of the character of Umar, who has never been claimed to be infallible,
only an outstanding, upright, and devoted Muslim who sacrificed his whole
life
to the service of Allah.
I had commented, on the issue of Muslims being deprived of guidance by the
events of Thursday.
>> Remember guidance also entails obligation, and obligation means a burden.
We
>> have also been saved, perhaps, from heavy burdens.
>
>Given the tragic history that ensued and the deplorable condition we
>Muslims are in, I would have taken my chances with the burdens.
Brother, the heavier our burdens, the worse is our punishment for not
keeping
to them. Allah's laws are inexorable, and if the Prophet(s) had given out
guidance in that document, we would have failed to comply with them, and
then
we would have faced not only the many horrors you described in your message,
but also heavy extra punishment from Allah in this life and the next.
This is why the Prophet(s)did not appoint a successor. When he was asked to,
he refused, and said that if he appointed a successor, some Muslims would
rebel against him, and then punishment would descend upon them, even in this
life (transmitted by Suyuti.)
The Prophet(s) knew Muslims would eventually fight over the caliphate
whether
he appointed a successor or not. He therefore spared us from having to face
punishment for disobeying him, in addition to the misery we have created for
ourselves by our quest for worldly things.
Salams,
Omar
Omar Mirza
> So Abbas and 'Ali think of Abu Bakr and 'Umar as this (in addition to
> Abbas' thoughts of 'Ali):
>
> [snip]<<So both of you thought him to
> be a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest.>>[snip] <<you thought me to be a liar, sinful, treacherous and
> dishonest.>>
>
> Need I say more?
These were only opinions that Ali held for a certain period of time.
He was not infallible. He did not continue to hold this opinion in the
long run, as is shown by the fact that he named two of his children
Abu Bakr and Umar, and he married his daughter to Umar. He also said,
in a narration that is mutawatir from him in Kufa, that "The best of
this Umma after its Prophet(s) are Abu Bakr and Umar."
But when it comes to Caliphate, where
> thousands if not millions have been killed or killing others for it,
> God does not give any directions or rules or regulations or nothing
> about it. This is not acceptable to intelligence.
The Prophet(s) did not appoint a succesor because he knew that people
would kill each other over the caliphate even if he did appoint
someone. In that case, the Umma would face not only killing, as a
result of their quest for power, but also punishment according to the
laws of Allah for disobedience to the Prophet(s) and the Prophet's(s)
representatives. Out of mercy, he lightened our burdens, and did not
impose the obligation of following one particular leader, and so saved
many of us from the consequences of our sinfulness.
Omar Mirza
> than so be it. I respect your view and you have to respect my view that
> Umar's action were an act of sin>
I do NOT respect your view that Umar's actions were an act of sin.
That view is BASELESS.
The Prophet(s) merely made an OFFER, in response to an earlier
request of the Companions, to give them a piece of writing they could
refer to after he died. Umar thought this request was inappropriate,
given the Prophet's(s) illness, and so he told the other Companions
"The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran. The Book of
Allah is sufficient for us."
After a dispute broke out, the Prophet(s) said "Leave me, the state I
am in is better than what you are asking me to do." i.e. Being alone
resting in my ill state is better than dictating the document you
asked of me.
rjaff...@yahoo.com
> These were only opinions that Ali held for a certain period of time.
> He was not infallible.
This incident took place at least 5 years after the demise of the
Prophet (sawa). If 'Ali (as) still believed 5 years after the Prophet
that 'Umar was a liar, sinful, treacherous and dishonest then it is
highly unlikely to me that he would suddenly change his mind. The
Prophet said that 'Ali is with the truth and the truth is with 'Ali
(as). The truth does not change. The Prophetic tradition is a clear
enough sign for me of 'Ali's infallible judgement. Furthermore if you
read the context of revelation of 33:33 you will see that 'Ali was among
the purified mentioned in the verse. There is no dispute about it among
the traditionalists of both schools.
Here is an example from Sahih Muslim:
Book 031, Number 5955:
'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out
one norning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there
came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped hitn under it, then came Husain and he
wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima
and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it
and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from
you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/031.smt.html#031.5955
When Allah says Innamaa yuridullah, the Innamaa is emphetic and means
'only' indeed it means there can be no doubt that Allah has purified the
5 under the Prophet's mantle; Muhammad, 'Ali, Fatimah, Hasan and Husayn
(salaam 'alayhim).
It seems that you are bent on defending your school regardless of
consequence and without question. Well, good luck to you. If it turns
out in the end that you were wrong and undoubtedly you are, you will
have to face some serious repercussions on the last day.
He did not continue to hold this opinion in the
> long run, as is shown by the fact that he named two of his children
> Abu Bakr and Umar, and he married his daughter to Umar.
Please be serious. according to Dhahabi in his "Tajreed Asmaa al
Sahaabah" there were no less
that 29 'Umars among the companions, 18 'Uthmaans and 6 Abu Bakrs. That
shows
that those were very common names in those days.
Furthermore Abu Bakr was also a popular Kunya, not a first name, meaning
father of a virtuous daughter (literally virgin), Abu Bakr's real name
was
'Ateeq.
Here is an interesting incident that helped convinced me about the
Wilayat of 'Ali (as).
Some nobles of Quraish came to the Prophet (before the conquest of
Mecca) and said:
Some of our slaves have run away from us and have taken refuge with
you. they have no understanding of your religion nor any real desire to
really become muslims. They are our property and you must give them
back to us.
The Prophet consulted Abu Bakr and Abu Bakr said, they are speaking the
truth, so the Prophets face changed.
The Prophet consulted Umar and Umar said, they are speaking the truth,
so the Prophets face grew more read.
Then the Prophet said:
"Oh Quraish if you do not desist I will send one against you who will
strike your necks with a sword, he is one who Allah has tested his heart
for real faith."
Abu Bakr asked, is it I oh Messenger of Allah? The Prophet said, No.
Umar asked, is it I oh Messenger of Allah? The Prophet said, No but it
is the mender of the sandle.
They turned around and saw that 'Ali was mending the sandle of the
Prophet (sawa).
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/sandle1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/sandle4.jpg
As recorded by Tirmidhi, Nisaboori in his Mustadrak of Bukhari and
Muslim and others.
In another incident the Prophet said, "among you there is One who will
fight for the ta'weel of the Qur'an just as I fought for its tanzeel.
Abu Bakr and Umar asked whether they are the ones but the Prophet said
no. It is the mender of the sandle (Kaasif al Na'l) and they saw that
'Ali was behind him mending his sandle that had broken. The narrator
says that he came to 'Ali to give him the good news but it was as if he
already knew.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/sandle2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/sandle3.jpg
Previously I had mentioned that it was in fact Abu Bakr and 'Umar that
the first verses of surah hujuraat were revealed about, they are the
ones that raised their voices above the Prophet's voice and the verse
came down to rebuke them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.653
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.368
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/092.sbt.html#009.092.405
Narrated Abdullah bin Az-Zubair:
A group of Bani Tamim came to the Prophet (and requested him to appoint
a governor for them). Abu Bakr said, "Appoint Al-Qaqa bin Mabad." Umar
said, "Appoint Al-Aqra' bin Habeas." On that Abu Bakr said (to 'Umar).
"You did not want but to oppose me!" 'Umar replied "I did not intend to
oppose you!" So both of them argued till their voices grew loud. So the
following Verse was revealed:
[49:1]O you who believe! be not forward in the presence of Allah and His
Messenger, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is
Hearing,
Knowing.
[49:2]O you who believe! do not raise your voices above the voice of the
Prophet, and do not speak loud to him as you speak loud to one another,
lest
your deeds became null while you do not perceive.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.370
Now here is the point:
The very next verse mentions a different category of companions and they
are:
[49:3]Surely those who lower their voices before Allah's Messenger are
they
whose hearts Allah has proved for guarding (against evil); they shall
have
forgiveness and a great reward.
An observation:
If it could be decided on this issue of
merit alone who do you believe would be more worthy of being Imams of
the Ummah after the Prophet's demise (sawa)?
1.Those who raised their voices above the Prophet's and were rebuked
or
2.Those that lowered their voices in the Presence of the Prophet and
were praised?
Ironically the majority of the muslims in the world say no it ought to
be the ones that were rebuked!
So who is the one who lowers his voice? Who is the one whose heart
Allah
has proved for guarding against evil? Please name me a person in that
second category.
You must admit that 'Umar and Abu Bakr were not in the second category
as undoubtedly they were in the first category.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/sandle1.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/sandle4.jpg
It is 'Ali (qad imtaHanallahu qalbahu lil Eemaan), the mender of the
Prophet's sandle.
The Prophet said about 'Ali (imtahanallahu qalbahu lil eemaan) and what
a tremendous sign of his superiority above the others.
Lastly have you not pondered the well known tradition from the Prophet
(sawa) about the 4 persons that Allah informed the Prophet through
Gabriel that He loves? Were Abu Bakr and 'Umar among those four?
Is is narfated in the Sunan of Ibn Majah, Tirmidhi as well as the
Mustadrak of Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (sawa) said:
Allah has informed me that there are four persons among my companions
that Allah loves and He has ordered me to love them. Paradise longs for
them. IN Tabrani and Haythami's narration it explains that Abu Bakr and
'Umar were there and then the Prophet said to 'Ammar "Oh 'Ammar, Allah
has made you know who the munaafiqeen are."
The four persons that I have been ordered to loved are "Ali and he
repeated the name of 'Ali three times and the other three companions are
Miqdaad, Salmaan Farsi and Abu Dharr.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/hubb1.jpg
The Prophet said in his supplication "Oh bring to me the Most Beloved of
your creatures to eat with me."
the word is AHabbi
Khalqika ilayk meaning the 'MOST Beloved of Your creation' as narrated
in the Sunan of Tirmidhi:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2291/tayr.jpg
Then 'Ali came and ate with the Prophet (sawa). Can there be any doubt
that the most beloved person of God's creatures deserves to be the
leader after the Prophet (sawa)? Can there be any doubt after knowing
this?
I would have to be a real fool or a hypocrite to choose any other path.
salaam,
RiDwaan
salaam,
He also said,
> in a narration that is mutawatir from him in Kufa, that "The best of
> this Umma after its Prophet(s) are Abu Bakr and Umar."
>
> But when it comes to Caliphate, where
> > thousands if not millions have been killed or killing others for it,
> > God does not give any directions or rules or regulations or nothing
> > about it. This is not acceptable to intelligence.
>
> The Prophet(s) did not appoint a succesor because he knew that people
> would kill each other over the caliphate even if he did appoint
> someone. In that case, the Umma would face not only killing, as a
> result of their quest for power, but also punishment according to the
> laws of Allah for disobedience to the Prophet(s) and the Prophet's(s)
> representatives. Out of mercy, he lightened our burdens, and did not
> impose the obligation of following one particular leader, and so saved
> many of us from the consequences of our sinfulness.
--
Abdullah
>
> These were only opinions that Ali held for a certain period of time.
> He was not infallible. He did not continue to hold this opinion in the
> long run, as is shown by the fact that he named two of his children
> Abu Bakr and Umar, and he married his daughter to Umar. He also said,
> in a narration that is mutawatir from him in Kufa, that "The best of
> this Umma after its Prophet(s) are Abu Bakr and Umar."
He was indeed infallible, and in what way was 'Umar sinful,
treacherous and a liar? Does a muslim call his brother with these
things? Obviously it was not some small mistake or a minor point, but
it must have a been a great thing that he called him sinful,
treacherous and a liar. [By the way, some of the Sunni 'Ulama say some
shias are kafir for calling Sahaba these things, so you agree that
'Ali either was a huge fasiq for calling Abu Bakr and 'Umar this, or
Kafir according to some other Sunni 'ulama?]
>
>
> But when it comes to Caliphate, where
> > thousands if not millions have been killed or killing others for it,
> > God does not give any directions or rules or regulations or nothing
> > about it. This is not acceptable to intelligence.
>
>
> The Prophet(s) did not appoint a succesor because he knew that people
> would kill each other over the caliphate even if he did appoint
> someone. In that case, the Umma would face not only killing, as a
> result of their quest for power, but also punishment according to the
> laws of Allah for disobedience to the Prophet(s) and the Prophet's(s)
> representatives.
I am amazed that you censor the Sahaba and lower the degree of God and
His Prophet in order to protect them. How can you claim to be a
muslim, when muslims claim "Islam is a complete way of life", whereas
it lacks the most fundamental thing, namely a system of appointing
successors declared by God and His Prophet, accoding to your view? God
makes rules for everything but suddenly just ignores one of the most
important parts for the well being of Ummah, namely the Leader?
Your reasoning is not logical. The Prophet declared alot of things,
and fought many wars and battles, to establish the religion. And then
he was allegedly suddenly too afraid to appoint a successor because he
knew people would kill eachother for it. This doesnt make any sense!
> Out of mercy, he lightened our burdens, and did not
> impose the obligation of following one particular leader, and so saved
> many of us from the consequences of our sinfulness.
Please dear brother look at what you are writing. If you are sunni,
then you must know that it is obligatory to follow the Caliph. This is
even if he is unjust! Read Aqeedat ut-Tahawiyyah, one of the ealiest
books of Aqidah for Sunnis:
"72. We do not recognize rebellion against our Imam or those in charge
of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them,
nor do we withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them
is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and therefore obligatory
as long as they do not order to commit sins. We pray for them right
guidance and pardon from their wrongs."
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=AQD04&articleID=AQD040002&articlePages=5
You say the Prophet did not impose the obligation of following a
particular leade, whereas Ahlus Sunnah say it is obligatory to follow
the Caliph, and it is part of of obedience to God, even if this Caliph
is unjust. So you are saying Ahlus Sunnah made obligatoy something the
Messenger of God did not. In that case, they have innovated in
religion and as the famous hadith goes, "Every innovation leads to the
Fire".
GF Haddad
caliphate cf. al-Dhahabi, Siyar, Fikr ed. 3:174. This is also in Tarikh
Khalifa ibn Khayyat (1:117), and both mention also, alternately, the year 15
which would be in `Umar's caliphate. And Allah knows best.
Hajj Gibril
mypointofview2002
> > If you feel comfortable with the excuse to justify a wrong that was done,
> > than so be it. I respect your view and you have to respect my view that
> > Umar's action were an act of sin>
>
>
> I do NOT respect your view that Umar's actions were an act of sin.
>
> That view is BASELESS.
>
> The Prophet(s) merely made an OFFER, in response to an earlier
> request of the Companions, to give them a piece of writing they could
> refer to after he died. Umar thought this request was inappropriate,
> given the Prophet's(s) illness, and so he told the other Companions
> "The Prophet is seriously ill, and you have the Quran. The Book of
> Allah is sufficient for us."
Umar was present at Ghadeer Khumm when our prophet declared the position
of Ali. And in my opinion Umar was afraid that the khalifat would go to
Ali if the prophet was given a chance to write a will.
Seccessor to the prophet should have been someone capable of leading
community both in worldly affairs and religious affairs just like our
prophet. No other candidate except Ali qualified for that position.Why ?
Allah through our prophet purified him, which made him the perfect candiate
to succeed our prophet.
By disobeying the prophet, he disobeyed Allah. A word from
prophet's mouth is a command for a true beleiver. No excuses.
To say the book of Allah is sufficient then why do you tie it with sunnah.
It seems majority of the muslims do not beleive the the book is sufficient
as the book is tied to Sunnah ; so Umar must have been wrong.
once again : A WORD FROM OUR HOLY PROPHET'S MOUTH IS A COMMAND FOR
A TRUE BELIEVER. NO EXCUSES. To say a request from from our prophet
can be disobeyed is very very very sad.
Aziz Mboya
There are a number of passages from the Quran which the Imams interpret
as references to them and their successorship to Muhammad. How are these
passages explained from a Sunni perspective? For example below.
|3:102 O ye who believe! Fear God as He should be feared, and die not except
| in a state of Islám.
|
|3:103 And hold fast, all together, by the rope [cord] which God (stretches out
| for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with
| gratitude God's favour on you; for ye were enemies and He joined
| your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and
| ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it.
| Thus doth God make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided.
|
|3:104 Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is
| good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They
| are the ones to attain felicity.
|
|3:105 Be not like those who are divided amongst themselves and fall into
| disputations after receiving Clear Signs: For them is a dreadful
| penalty,-
|
|3:106 On the Day when some faces will be (lit up with) white, and some
| faces will be (in the gloom of) black: To those whose faces will
| be black, (will be said): "Did ye reject Faith after accepting it?
| Taste then the penalty for rejecting Faith."
|
|3:107 But those whose faces will be (lit with) white,- they will be in
| (the light of) God's mercy: therein to dwell (for ever).
|
|3:108 These are the Signs of God: We rehearse them to thee in Truth: And
| God means no injustice to any of His creatures.
|-- The Qur'an: 3 - AL-I-IMRAN,
Below Imam Ali affirms that the righteous shall follow him - the rope (cord)
referred to above.
|The truth is Mine and certitude is at My side. Leadership is Mine and
|the righteous shall follow Me. I am the first to acknowledge faith, the
|Cord of God that shall not be broken, the One who will raise the world
|to justice even as it hath been brought low by oppression. I am the
|companion of Gabriel and the archangel Michael is beside Me. I am the
|tree of guidance, and the essence of righteousness. I shall gather
|together the world of creation through the Word of God that gathers
|together all things. I give life unto humanity and I am the treasury of
|all divine commands. To Me hath been given the Luminous Pen and the
|Crimson Camel.
|-- Imam Ali, Khutbat'ul-Iftikhár (The Sermon of Glorification)
Below Muhammad instructs his followers about apostles who will come from
amongst them and rehearse his signs. This can also be inferred to be
another reference to the Imams who promoted his teachings.
|7:35 O ye Children of Adam! whenever there come to you apostles from amongst
| you, rehearsing My signs unto you,- those who are righteous and mend
| (their lives),- on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.
|
|7:36 But those who reject Our signs and treat them with arrogance,- they are
| companions of the Fire, to dwell therein (for ever).
|-- The Qur’án: 7 - AL-A`ARAF
By the way, I am not a Muslim, but read these from books and sources
on Shi'i Islam.
Regards,
Aziz
AbuFour
I am not familiar with it nor its source--and certainly aspects of it--Gabriel
being beside him and so forth--run counter to what Muhammad, saw, taught), the
"rope" that is referred to in no way seems to of necessity refer to an
individual and/or group of individuals, rather to the faith of Islam itself.
As far as the second quote from the Quran, I believe that is understood in the
"past perfect" tense; what I mean is that it is refering to those present and
prior to Muhammad (saw).