Why Muhammad Did NOT Choose a Successor
David / Amicus
places and for all people under all circumstances. "One size does not
fit all". Islam is adaptable regardless if the form of government is a
monarchy, oligarchy or democaracy. Islam has thrived under all three.
So long as a Muslim is allowed to freely practice his religion the form
of government he lives under is not important. I think that Muhammad
made a wise choice in not choosing a successor to head the ummah. If he
did Islam would be constricted to having to always maintain one
particular type of government which would be a detriment to the
religion.
Moataz Emam
> made a wise choice in not choosing a successor to head the ummah. If he
> did Islam would be constricted to having to always maintain one
> particular type of government which would be a detriment to the
> religion.
Absolutely! Also note that none of his male children survived. Some
scholars believe that God intended that because otherwise Muslims would
be tempted to consider his male children as prophets too, like the
Biblical prophets who were from the same line. And of course a woman
prophet is unheard of :-)
--
Moataz H. Emam
rj...@mailandnews.com
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."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.325
I find it odd that according to Umar the Prophet appointed no one yet the
first ruler of the muslims does the opposite of what the Prophet allegedly
did. If the Prophet appointed no one why did Abu Bakr appoint someone? why
didn't he do as the Prophet allegedly did (leave the matter undecided)?
If Abu Bakr was intelligent and insightful enough to see the dire need of
appointing a sucessor and leader for the Ummah how is it possible that Allah
and His Messenger be negligent concerning such a dire need? The fact that
Abu
Bakr saw that need shows that it is impossible that the Prophet not see the
need.
To leave the Ummah without specifying a leader would be tantamount
to leaving the Ummah in utter chaos. When the Prophet explained the most
minute details of everything from
how to brush ones teeth to the prerequisites of a judge in a court of law how
can it be that he would remain silent
concerning the most important detail which is leadership of the Ummah?
Even the second ruler recognized that the question of successorship was of
paramount importance in Islam.
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#020.4485
Anyone who has studied the Seerah of the Prophet will realize that any time
he sent a group of companions on a mission he would always appoint one of
them as their leader; anytime he left Madinah he would appoint someone to be
in charge during his absence.
When he leaves temporarily he always appoints a person to be in charge so how
could he leave this world permanently and leave no one in charge?
It doesn't make sense. The Prophet did appoint someone to be in charge and
that was 'Ali bin Abi Talib at Ghadeer Khumm.
Even just a few days before his demise he attempted to send the bulk of the
companions under the leadership of Usama so that the Imamat of 'Ali would get
established easily but the companions disobeyed him. They didn't go.
As soon as the Prophet dies a few persons literally leave the Prophet's body
unwashed and buried to attend to more important matters, Khilafah, while 'Ali
is left to tend to the Prophet's funeral arrangements.
When 'Ali is finished with washing and and burying the Prophet they come to
him with the news of their decision on who is the new ruler of the muslims.
This without even consulting 'Ali or anything like that. Does that sound
fair to you.
History is a witness that 'Ali refused to pledge allegiance to their new
ruler for no less than 6 months. Some historians say that 'Ali never pledged
allegiance to Abu Bakr at all.
So did the Prophet appoint a leader for the Ummah? The sunnis say no while
we say, "Of course he did. The evidence for that is literally overwhelming."
see http://al-islam.org/ask/6.html for Thirty Questions and Answers which are
indispensable for every researcher of the truth concerning this matter.
salaam,
Ridwaan
Aaliyah Olson-Ahmed
I can see your point Moataz and David, but part of me also asks why he
wouldn't leave one since Abu Bakr left one, and Omar did too. Why not
Muhammad????
Aaliyah
Moataz Emam
Because in addition to having been a political leader, Mohammed was a
prophet of God. If he appointed a successor, that successor would be in
both leadership AND prophethood, or at least mistaken to be. In other
words, we would have had a Pope on our hands. This is something that
Mohammed knew is totally against Islam. Now even if Mohammed appointed a
successor, say a righteous man like Abu-Bakr who would not claim
prophethood, Abu-Bakr would appoint someone and someone would appoint
someone until someone :-) eventually claims prophethood because he is
the appointed successor of an appointed successor in a chain that ends
with Mohammed himself.
Another reason is that Mohammed, in my view, wanted to confirm that
Islam does NOT provide a particular system of government. Islam sets the
foundations of democracy - Shura, but does not say what kind of
government we should have. If Mohammed appointed a successor, he would
have automatically set a system and all Islamic countries from then on
would have had to follow it. This is something that Islam left for us.
So, a republic, a democratic monarchy, a federal republic or a
democratic caliphate (the four righteous Caliphs) are all acceptable
forms under Islam.
Omar and Abu Bakr knew that there would be no controversy. Their
successors would be as non-prophets as they were.
--
Moataz H. Emam
David / Amicus
family to be his successors. Then one needs to explain why it ended
after only 12 successors?
The caliphate is not of divine origin. It was necessary at the time but
as histiory has shown it is not a permanrent institution.
IMO Muhammad did at least indirectly choose Abu Bakr to be his
successor. Near the end when Muhammad was too ill to lead the prayers
he chose Abyu Bakr to take his place. And after his passing to whom did
the ummah turn to for leadership and guidance? Abu Bakr!
Abdullah
Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote in message news:<ahd8ka$d2c$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> As Islam is the final religion it is to be for for all time and in all
> places and for all people under all circumstances. "One size does not
> fit all". Islam is adaptable regardless if the form of government is a
> monarchy, oligarchy or democaracy.
>Islam has thrived under all three.
> So long as a Muslim is allowed to freely practice his religion the form
> of government he lives under is not important.
By now I understand you are not out to research and investigate
looking for the truth, rather you make a comment or two, and when your
comments based on little or no insight are refuted thouroughly you
don't reply to them, but pop up with a new thread and make a new
statement of the abovementioned type.
First of all, there is, according to Sunnis no other islamically valid
system of governance other than Caliphate - if they exist, they are
not islamic.
Sahih Muslim contains ahadith containting for example that, even if
two people remain on earth, one of them will be the Caliph from
Quraish. That is another tribal-racial requirement which is the result
of Abu Bakr's statement in the Saqifah that the Caliph should be from
Quraish and the Ansar are ministers (vazirs).
Secondly, according to many Sunni scholars it is obligatory on the
community as a whole to establish the Caliphate. It is obligatory to
follow the caliph, because, theologians such as Tahawi in his Aqeedah
al-Tahawiyyah say, obeying the Caliph is considered as obeying God.
Even if he is unjust he is to be obeyed. Some scholars even quote
hadith that even if he abuses you and steals from you, you are to obey
him. Rebellion is frowned upon, and not allowed.
Moataz Emam
> The caliphate is not of divine origin. It was necessary at the time but
> as histiory has shown it is not a permanrent institution.
You are right. Islam does not say what sort of government we should
have, it only says that it should be a just government built on
democracy (Shura).
> IMO Muhammad did at least indirectly choose Abu Bakr to be his
> successor. Near the end when Muhammad was too ill to lead the prayers
> he chose Abyu Bakr to take his place. And after his passing to whom did
> the ummah turn to for leadership and guidance? Abu Bakr!
Perhaps you are right. Perhaps in a way Mohammed did hint at Abu Bakr,
not in so many words but with some actions towards the end of his life.
After Mohammed died, while he was still lying in Ayesha's bed, the
Muslims gathered in "Saqifa Bani Sa'da" and an argument started on who
should lead them. They would have fought each other if Omar Ibn
AlKhattab (the second caliph, whose wisdom was rivaled only by his
temper) arose and reminded everyone that Mohammed asked Abu Bakr to lead
the prayers when he was weak (only the previous day) so it is Abu Bakr
who should be Caliph. If Omar had not mentioned that, the different
clans would probably have warred with other, and the newly founded state
would have easily collapsed.
So apparently Mohammed chose to hint at Abu Bakr to avoid a war after he
dies, without explicitly appointing him to leave the matter with the
Muslims to deal with on their own.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Samata Ullah
>looking for the truth, rather you make a comment or two,
David is very curious, I like his inquisitiveness.
He is a non-Muslim so one should understand his curiosity mixed with polemic
sort of posts.
2.190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress
limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/
http://hindudharma.t35.com
http://galileo.spaceports.com/~samy/
Samata Ullah
>From: Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
>Date: 23/07/2002 07:07 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ahirr1$1sg$1...@samba.rahul.net>
>
>
>
>The caliphate is not of divine origin. It was necessary at the time but
>as histiory has shown it is not a permanrent institution.
I don't believe that to be true. It all depends on how ypu define what a
Caliphate is, thus a modern Caliph can be the same as any democratic nation but
as long as he imposes Shariah law.
>IMO Muhammad did at least indirectly choose Abu Bakr to be his
>successor. Near the end when Muhammad was too ill to lead the prayers
>he chose Abyu Bakr to take his place.
That is excellent reasoning, it was seen by the Prophet (saw) that a person who
is de facto Imam of a prayer is the leader of the nation, so after he (saw) was
ill, who was the vice-president?
Excellent, you made a good point.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> 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."
> http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.325
>
> I find it odd that according to Umar the Prophet appointed no one yet the
> first ruler of the muslims does the opposite of what the Prophet allegedly
> did. If the Prophet appointed no one why did Abu Bakr appoint someone? why
> didn't he do as the Prophet allegedly did (leave the matter undecided)?
>
This is another example of the shia myths:
When ill-health overtook Abu Bakr and the time of his death
approached, he summoned 羨bdu'l-Rahman Ibn 羨wf and said: 禅ell me
about 繕mar Ibn Khattab'. 羨bdu'l-Rahman replied: 塑ou are asking me
about something of which you know better'. Abu Bakr said: 羨lthough
[this is correct yet I want your opinion]'. 羨bdu'l-Rahman answered:
腺y God! he is even better than the opinion you hold about him'. Then
he [Abu Bakr] called 繕thman Ibn 羨ffan and asked him: 禅ell me about
繕mar Ibn Khattab'. 繕thman replied: 塑ou know him better than us'.
Abu Bakr said: 全till! O Abu Abdullah! [I want your opinion]'. [At
this] 繕thman answered: 選ndeed, in my opinion his inner self is
better than his outer self and no one among us can parallel him'. (Ibn
Sa疎d, Al-Tabaqatu'l-Kubra, vol. 3, [Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1960], p. 199)
And he, besides these two, consulted Abu'l-A層ar Sa訴d Ibn Zayd and
Usayd Ibn Al-Hudayr as well as other big leaders of the Ansar and the
Muhajirun, so Usayd said: 選ndeed after you O Abu Bakr! I consider him
the best. He is happy on happy occasions and sad on sad occasions. His
inside is better than his outside. No one is more suited to bear the
burden of this Khilafat'. (Ibn Sa疎d, Al-Tabaqatu'l-Kubra, vol. 3,
[Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1960], p. 199)
It becomes quite clear that Abu Bakr (R) consulted the people in
regards to who he was about to appoint. Thus, we find that the will
of the respected among the Muhajireen and Ansar were consulted to
determine the choice of Abu Bakr (R).
Abu Bakr (R) then made a will expressing whom he desired to be made
khaleepha. This was than presented before the people:
Will you pledge allegiance to the person in whose favour a will has
been made in this letter. The people said: 塑es'. (Ibn Sa疎d,
Al-Tabaqatu'l-Kubra, vol. 3, [Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1960], p. 200)
So we find that the people were consulted and the decision was not
binding on the ummah. Then ibn Saad says:
All accepted and agreed to pledge allegiance to 繕mar. Then Abu Bakr
called 繕mar in solitude and gave him whatever advice he wanted to.
(Ibn Sa疎d, Al-Tabaqatu'l-Kubra, vol. 3, [Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1960], p.
200)
So it becomes quite evident that once again the decision of the people
was consulted, and nothing was binding on them. "The believers run
their affairs through mutual consultation."
David / Amicus
today? Why did it cease with the end of the Ottomans? And the Ottomans
were Turks not Qu'raysh. If the caliph had to be from among the
Qu'raysh didn't that end with the Abbasids centuries ago?
I'm a Catholic (convert) and one of the reasons is because I believe the
papacy is a divine institution ordered and established by Christ. I can
trace / point out Pope after Pope unbroken back to Christ. If the
papacy were to end then that would be proof that the Catholic Church is
false and Christ is a liar when He said He would build His Church upon
Peter the Rock and that gates of hell would never prevail.
When I first began to study Islam I thought that the caliphate (from a
Muslim perspective) was like the papacy a divine necesity / institution
established by God through Muhammad. But I have learned otherwise.
Muslims have gotten along just fine without the caliphate. It is a man
made institution that was needed following the death of Muhammad to hold
the ummah together and it worked well for the first 4 caliphs.
Moataz Emam
> Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote in message news:<ahd8ka$d2c$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> > As Islam is the final religion it is to be for for all time and in all
> looking for the truth, rather you make a comment or two, and when your
David/Amicus actually always posts interesting points and arguments. He
is always respectful of Islam and I personally enjoy reading and
responding to his posts.
> First of all, there is, according to Sunnis no other islamically valid
> system of governance other than Caliphate - if they exist, they are
> not islamic.
That is nonsense. I am a Sunni and I challenge you to show me a
single Quranic verse that dictates on us what kind of government we
should have. And do not tell me it is in the Hadith. I assume that such
an issue is important enough for God to include it in the Quran itself.
It is certainly more important than the rules of inheritence which are
detailed in the Quran.
> Sahih Muslim contains ahadith containting for example that, even if
> two people remain on earth, one of them will be the Caliph from
> Quraish. That is another tribal-racial requirement which is the result
> of Abu Bakr's statement in the Saqifah that the Caliph should be from
> Quraish and the Ansar are ministers (vazirs).
I see! So you are saying that today all Muslims should erect a Caliphate
and the Caliph must be from Quraish? According to many scholar these
fabricated hadiths
and rules have been added in the middle ages by scholars in the pay of
many Caliphs in order to justify any particular Caliph's usurping of
power. See, for example, the writings of Said AlAshmawy and Farag Fouda
(the last was murdered for his views, killed by people who say as you
say) and the references therein.
> Secondly, according to many Sunni scholars it is obligatory on the
> community as a whole to establish the Caliphate. It is obligatory to
Right! Many Sunni scholars like the immenant Mullah Mohammed Omar of the
distinguished Taliban, Sheikh Ossama Bin Ladin, Sheikh Omar AbdelRahman
and many others of Islam's greatest scholars, right?
> follow the caliph, because, theologians such as Tahawi in his Aqeedah
> al-Tahawiyyah say, obeying the Caliph is considered as obeying God.
I do not believe that there is someone who actually
believes in views such as these. Even the people who lived in the times
these
fabriacted rules were written did not believe in them and saw them as
they are, political tools. Refer to the writings of the aforementioned
historians.
> Even if he is unjust he is to be obeyed. Some scholars even quote
> hadith that even if he abuses you and steals from you, you are to obey
> him. Rebellion is frowned upon, and not allowed.
You must be kidding! Please tell me you are kidding. May I remind you
with Abu Bakr's speach when he was chosen Caliph in Saqifah Bani Se'dah,
I quote:
"O Men! Here I have been assigned the job of being a ruler over you
while I am not the best among you. If I do well in my job, help me. If I
do wrong, redress me. Truthfulness is fidelity, and lying is treason.
The weak shall be strong in my eyes until I restore to them their lost
rights, and the strong shall be weak in my eye until I have restored the
rights of the weak from them. No people give up fighting for the cause
of God but God inflicts upon them abject subjection; and no people give
themselves to lewdness but God envelops them with misery. Obey me as
long as I obey God and His Prophet. But if I disobey God's command or
His Prophet's, then no obedience is incumbent upon you. Rise to your
prayer, that God may bless you."
--
Moataz H. Emam
Alf
saying and action would be recorded. If indeed prophet Muhammad
explicitly chose a successor, we will have a hadist that says a leader
must choose a successor to his liking as prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
did.
"Moataz Emam" <em...@physics.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:ahl0cp$l5n$1...@samba.rahul.net...
<snip>
Moataz Emam
> So it becomes quite evident that once again the decision of the people
> was consulted, and nothing was binding on them. "The believers run
> their affairs through mutual consultation."
Absolutely Assim. Thank you for the quotes you gave. This is indeed what
happened. The first four Caliphs used the principles of Shura in the way
they understood them. To us, in modern terms, this is democracy which is
what Islam advocates.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Moataz Emam
> papacy is a divine institution ordered and established by Christ. I can
> trace / point out Pope after Pope unbroken back to Christ. If the
Hold on a second here David. I understand that the papacy can be traced
to the deciples, not Christ. That is why there is more than one pope
today. The first Catholic pope was Peter. The Coptic pope in Egypt
traces his ancestry to Mark. Am I wrong?
> When I first began to study Islam I thought that the caliphate (from a
> Muslim perspective) was like the papacy a divine necesity / institution
> established by God through Muhammad. But I have learned otherwise.
> Muslims have gotten along just fine without the caliphate. It is a man
> made institution that was needed following the death of Muhammad to hold
> the ummah together and it worked well for the first 4 caliphs.
That is absolutely correct. The Muslim equivalent of papacy is not the
Caliphate, but rather the Imam concept, which, as you know, is a Shi'a
concept
--
Moataz H. Emam
rj...@mailandnews.com
>
>
> When I first began to study Islam I thought that the caliphate (from a
> Muslim perspective) was like the papacy a divine necesity / institution
> established by God through Muhammad. But I have learned otherwise.
> Muslims have gotten along just fine without the caliphate. It is a man
> made institution that was needed following the death of Muhammad to hold
> the ummah together and it worked well for the first 4 caliphs.
salaam/hello,
The Khilafah may be a man made institution in sunni islam but according to
shi'i islam is it a divine institution. The people don't have a say on who
should be the successor of the Prophet. Only God chooses who it is that
will represent Him, just like Prophethood. The people have no say in the
matter.
If the Khaleefah was the representative of the people it makes sense that
the people should choose who should represent them but the Khaleefah is not
the representative of the people. The Khaleefah is the representative of
God hence only God can choose who should represent Him, not the people.
Even the Qur'an is clear that only He choose His Khaleefah; see examples of
Adam, Abraham and David in the Qur'an.
The sunnis are fond of quoting 42:38 to justify their position on Khilafah:
Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct)
their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on
them for Sustenance; 42:38
The problem is that the verse says "Their Affair" not "The Affair of God".
Hence the verse has no bearing on Khilafah whatsoever.
The verse 42:38 is talking about personal affairs. As for affairs of God,
the people have absolutely no say in the matter. See for example:
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. They conceal within their souls what they would not reveal
to you 3:154
Thy Lord does create and choose as He pleases: no choice have they (in the
matter): Glory to Allah! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to
Him)! 28:68
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. 33:36
The believers consult eachother in personal affairs but matter of God,
Halaal and Haraam have nothing to do with consultation. We have no choice
but to obey God in those matters. There are no ifs or buts about it.
Now all muslims are agreed upon the fact that the Prophet said he would have
12 successors. This is recorded by Bukhari, Muslim also. See;
I will just quote the last paragraph from the book which serves as a
summary:
"One of the points in the traditions mentioned above is that each of the
twelve will be from the Quraysh. After them there will be chaos. Another
point is that the religion will remain established till the twelve Caliphs
of Quraysh are present. When they die, the earth will swallow its
inhabitants.
The above two points thus prove that after the twelve Caliphs of the Holy
Prophet (s.a.w.s.) the earth will be destroyed.
Therefore it is necessary that one of these twelve successors should have
such a long life that it should surpass the age of this earth.
This is exactly how it happened. The Twelfth successor of the Holy Prophet
(s.a.w.s.) was bestowed with a long life. He is Al-Mahdi Muhammad ibn Hasan
Al Askari (a.s.).
The traditions discussed in this treatise prove the Imamat of these Twelve
Noble Personalities. Not anyone else."
Abdullah
Moataz Emam <em...@physics.umass.edu> wrote in message news:<ahnkpr$dk8$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>
> David/Amicus actually always posts interesting points and arguments. He
> is always respectful of Islam and I personally enjoy reading and
> responding to his posts.
>
As long as he agrees with you they are interesting ofcourse.
>
> That is nonsense. I am a Sunni and I challenge you to show me a
> single Quranic verse that dictates on us what kind of government we
> should have. And do not tell me it is in the Hadith. I assume that such
> an issue is important enough for God to include it in the Quran itself.
> It is certainly more important than the rules of inheritence which are
> detailed in the Quran.
Sorry, what YOU say has no value in order to make something Sunnite.
What is important is what the Sunni scholars believe in. You have
little or no knowledge of that apparently.
It is obligatory that only ONE caliph exists as well. Sahih Muslim:
Book 20, Number 4568:
It has been narrated on the authority of Aba Sa'id al-Khudri that the
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When oath of
allegiance has been taken for two caliphs, kill the one for whom the
oath was taken later.
>
> I see! So you are saying that today all Muslims should erect a Caliphate
> and the Caliph must be from Quraish? According to many scholar these
> fabricated hadiths
> and rules have been added in the middle ages by scholars in the pay of
> many Caliphs in order to justify any particular Caliph's usurping of
> power. See, for example, the writings of Said AlAshmawy and Farag Fouda
> (the last was murdered for his views, killed by people who say as you
> say) and the references therein.
>
*I* do not believe in this, I am quoting what Ahl al-Sunnah Wa'al
Jama'ah believes in. If you are trying to create your own Madhhab,
fine. But don't try to make it Sunnism, because it isn't.
What "fabricated" hadith? The hadith is from Bukhari, narrated by
'Umar, about Abu Bakr. The sanad is perfect and not a single Sunni
scholar has ever found fault in it.
> > Secondly, according to many Sunni scholars it is obligatory on the
> > community as a whole to establish the Caliphate. It is obligatory to
>
> Right! Many Sunni scholars like the immenant Mullah Mohammed Omar of the
> distinguished Taliban, Sheikh Ossama Bin Ladin, Sheikh Omar AbdelRahman
> and many others of Islam's greatest scholars, right?
No, not according to them, but according to the Prophetic hadith in
Sahih Muslim (the 2nd most authentic Sunni book), wherein he says:
Book 20, Number 4476:
It has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that the Messenger
of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: The Caliphate will remain among
the Quraish even if only two persons are left (on the earth).
>
> I do not believe that there is someone who actually
> believes in views such as these. Even the people who lived in the times
> these
> fabriacted rules were written did not believe in them and saw them as
> they are, political tools. Refer to the writings of the aforementioned
> historians.
Frankly, I don't care whether you believe in them or not. We are
discussing Sunnis here, not your self-made Madhhab. You can go read
one of the earliest Sunni theologians, Shaykh Tahawi, who writes in
his Aqeedah al-Tahawiyah:
"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 must be kidding! Please tell me you are kidding. May I remind you
> with Abu Bakr's speach when he was chosen Caliph in Saqifah Bani Se'dah,
Unfortunately I am NOT kidding. Such hadith do exist.
> I quote:
>
> "O Men! Here I have been assigned the job of being a ruler over you
> while I am not the best among you. If I do well in my job, help me. If I
> do wrong, redress me. Truthfulness is fidelity, and lying is treason.
> The weak shall be strong in my eyes until I restore to them their lost
> rights, and the strong shall be weak in my eye until I have restored the
> rights of the weak from them. No people give up fighting for the cause
> of God but God inflicts upon them abject subjection; and no people give
> themselves to lewdness but God envelops them with misery. Obey me as
> long as I obey God and His Prophet. But if I disobey God's command or
> His Prophet's, then no obedience is incumbent upon you. Rise to your
> prayer, that God may bless you."
You can't "pick and choose" what you think is good. That's why
scholars exist. They are experts in this. But, as I said, I am not
arguing anything in this Inter-Sunni conflict. I am airing the BELIEFS
of Sunnism. You seem to either have no knowledge of it, or you seem to
find these beliefs uncomfortable.
Anyhow, I wish the knowledglable Sunnis would speak up, because that
would be better. Your populistic claims about democracy etc., are
false and against the core of Sunnism.
Moataz Emam
> Even the Qur'an is clear that only He choose His Khaleefah; see examples of
> Adam, Abraham and David in the Qur'an.
Let me understand your post: Are you arguing that the Khaleefah, in the
sense of a ruler of Muslims as opposed to prophets, is a successor to
God himself? If you are, then you are wrong. History proves you wrong.
Abu Bakr's speach after he got voted Khaleefah proves you wrong. The
sayings of the other three Kholafaa Rashideen proves you wrong. It was
not until the Abbassid Caliphs that the Khaleefah started claiming he
was the successor of God himself. "Ana Rabakom Al A'la" [I am your
higher god/lord], said Caliph ElMansour ElAbbassi, I believe.
> The verse 42:38 is talking about personal affairs. As for affairs of God,
> the people have absolutely no say in the matter. See for example:
I agree, but WHO decides what are the affairs of God? Not you I hope.
God ruled the believers directly via His prophets and during their
lifetimes only. After Mohammed died, the Muslims were left to their own.
God spoke to them directly no more. God gave us the Quran and Sunna. In
them there is nothing to indicate what kind of government whatsoever we
are supposed to follow, and certainly nothing that would give divine
authority to a political leader. Even the famous verse that commands us
to "obey God, obey the prophet and those in charge (olee al almr
menkom)" does not give divine authority to them, but rather sets the
standards for dicipline and heirarchy. In 42:38 and other verses, the
rules are set for Shura (democracy, basically).
> Thy Lord does create and choose as He pleases: no choice have they (in the
> matter): Glory to Allah! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to
> Him)! 28:68
Exactly, same for successors of God! What are you trying to do,
introduce papacy into Islam?
> 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. 33:36
Exactly, in the matters that God and his messenger have decided. And
they have not mentioned anything about Khelafah.
> The believers consult eachother in personal affairs but matter of God,
> Halaal and Haraam have nothing to do with consultation. We have no choice
> but to obey God in those matters. There are no ifs or buts about it.
Agreed.
> Now all muslims are agreed upon the fact that the Prophet said he would have
> 12 successors. This is recorded by Bukhari, Muslim also. See;
I have yet to actually meet a Muslim who agrees on that, never mind.
The web site you give quotes the hadith:
The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "The [Islamic] religion will
continue until the Hour (day of resurrection), having twelve
Caliphs for you, all of them will be from Quraysh."
Which is a misstranslation, since the translator ommitted the word "OR"
in Arabic. It should read:
The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "The [Islamic] religion will
continue until the Hour (day of resurrection), OR having twelve
Caliphs for you, all of them will be from Quraysh."
In any case, interpretting these Hadiths the way you do (assuming that
they correct) is contradictory to the Quran, since in the Quran God has
not imposed any of these "Khaleefah from Quraish rules". If it did, then
the argument the Muslims had in Saqifah Bani Sa'dah would be
meaningless. And that was only hours after Mohammed died.
There are two interpretations I have read: The first is that these are
predictions as opposed to things imposed on us. The second is that they
are not correct Hadiths, but fabricated later to give divine authority
to some Caliph or another who came later. Again, read the references I
gave in another post in this thread. They give details to this.
> Therefore it is necessary that one of these twelve successors should have
> such a long life that it should surpass the age of this earth.
> This is exactly how it happened. The Twelfth successor of the Holy Prophet
> (s.a.w.s.) was bestowed with a long life. He is Al-Mahdi Muhammad ibn Hasan
> Al Askari (a.s.).
WHAT? What is this talking about? Who is this Al Askari? How is his life
longer than the age of the earth? What are you talking about?
I quote from the web site you gave:
"The Twelfth Imam
Al Hujjat Muhammad ibn al-Hasan (a.s.)
Mother: Ummul Walad Narjis alias Saiqal
Kunniyat (Patronymic): Abu 'Abdullah, Abu al-Qasim
Laqab (Title): Al-Qaim, Al-Muntazar, Al-Khalaf, Al-Mahdi,
Sahib al-zamaan.
Birth: He was born at Samarrah in the year 255 A.H. He is the
last Imam (a.s.) and he is alive and hidden."
Am I understanding right? Is this person alive and well? Is he 1200
years old? Would you mind producing him? I would like to meet him and
ask him some questions about what he lived through during those
centuries.
--
Moataz H. Emam
David / Amicus
kind. Isn't their position that the Imamate is what God had ordained to
govern the ummah? That's why they (the Shi'ites) can say "OK Ali can be
the fourth caliph because that really doesn't mean anything. The real
truth is that Ali is the first Imam and was from the moment Muhammad
died".
But the question needs to be answered why God permitted the Imamate to
end after only only 12???
rj...@mailandnews.com
I think you would find "Man and Universe" by Murtaza Mutahhari interesting
reading. Please see
http://al-islam.org/universe/index.htm
Chapters 30-38, specifically chapter36 which is titled "Imamat in the Quran "
With some patience, another great book that explains the Shi'ite Belief of
Imamat/Khilafat can be viewed at
http://www2.mozcom.com/~habib/islamstu.htm particularly chapter 7.
I hope you get the time to look over them
Moataz Emam wrote:
> Let me understand your post: Are you arguing that the Khaleefah, in the
> sense of a ruler of Muslims as opposed to prophets, is a successor to
> God himself?
The Shi'ite position on Khilafah is different from the Sunnite in several ways.
In Sunnism the Khalifah is a temporal ruler but in Shi'ism the Khalifah is meant
to be both a temporal and spiritual leader, a master of both exoteric and esoteric
dimensions of the religion and yes the true representative of God on earth in the
same way the Adam was the Khaleefah appointed by God on earth and Ibraheem was
made an Imam for mankind.
And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a
khalifah, they said: What! wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in it
and shed blood, and we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness? He said:
Surely I know what you do not know. 2:30
And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he
fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an Imam to the Nations." He pleaded: "And
also (Imams) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the
reach of evil-doers." 2:124
O David! We did indeed make thee a khalifah on earth: so judge thou between men in
truth (and justice): Nor follow thou the lusts (of thy heart), for they will
mislead thee from the Path of Allah: for those who wander astray from the Path of
Allah, is a Penalty Grievous, for that they forget the Day of Account. 38:26
> > The verse 42:38 is talking about personal affairs. As for affairs of God,
> > the people have absolutely no say in the matter. See for example:
>
> I agree, but WHO decides what are the affairs of God?
Before Prophet Muhammad there was a seperation between temporal and spiritual
leadership (with a few exceptions such as Dawood (as)). Prophet Muhammad merged
temporal and spiritual leadership together in his person. It makes sense that his
successor be likewise, the best of temporal and spiritual leaders, a real Imam for
mankind just like the Prophet except for Prophethood. We believe that 'Ali and
his 11 successors are exactly that. Perfect Imams.
The Prophet already made clear that Khilafah was a matter of God and not a matter
of the people. It makes sense that that Prophet specify who should lead the Ummah
after himself and that is exactly what he did at Ghadeer Khumm and several other
places, concerning the mastership of Amir al Mumineen 'Ali bin Abi Talib (as).
For the Prophet to leave Imamat/Khilafat undecided is unbelievable to me. It is
like the captain of a ship leaving his vessel in the middle of the ocean without
specifying who should lead the crew or a teacher walking out of a classroom and
leaving the students to decide who should teach the remainder of the semester.
The Prophet was the most intelligent man who walked the earth. To leave a nation
without any instruction whatsoever about who must lead them after himself is
unrealistic.
> > Thy Lord does create and choose as He pleases: no choice have they (in the
> > matter): Glory to Allah! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to
> > Him)! 28:68
>
> Exactly, same for successors of God! What are you trying to do,
> introduce papacy into Islam?
Call it whatever you like but in our view the people have no right to elect the
representative of God and His Messenger. Only God chooses who represents Him and
His Messenger.
>
>
> > 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. 33:36
>
> Exactly, in the matters that God and his messenger have decided. And
> they have not mentioned anything about Khelafah.
And that is exactly where we disagree. We believe that they Have mentioned
everything we need about Khilafah while you believe that they not mentioned
anything about Khilafah.
>
>
> > The believers consult eachother in personal affairs but matter of God,
> > Halaal and Haraam have nothing to do with consultation. We have no choice
> > but to obey God in those matters. There are no ifs or buts about it.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Now all muslims are agreed upon the fact that the Prophet said he would have
> > 12 successors. This is recorded by Bukhari, Muslim also. See;
>
> I have yet to actually meet a Muslim who agrees on that, never mind.
The Prophet mentioning that he will have 12 successors is Mutawatir in our
collections of hadeeth and possibly likewise in yours. Maybe you haven't met a
muslim who agrees on it because the muslims you meet aren't following the proper
instructions left by the Prophet?
> The web site you give quotes the hadith:
>
> The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "The [Islamic] religion will
> continue until the Hour (day of resurrection), having twelve
> Caliphs for you, all of them will be from Quraysh."
> In any case, interpretting these Hadiths the way you do (assuming that
> they correct) is contradictory to the Quran, since in the Quran God has
> not imposed any of these "Khaleefah from Quraish rules". If it did, then
> the argument the Muslims had in Saqifah Bani Sa'dah would be
> meaningless. And that was only hours after Mohammed died.
The hadeeth in question does not contradict the Qur'an. If you believe so please
quote the verse you think it contradicts.
And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he
fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an Imam to the Nations." He pleaded: "And
also (Imams) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the
reach of evil-doers." 2:124
The 12 Imams from the progeny of Prophet Muhammad are all from Quraysh and they
are also the descendants of Ibraheem. Don't you mentioned "Aali Muhammad and Aali
Ibraheem in your daily Salaat? If so what do you think the significance of that
is?
Don't you find it strange that the Prophet tells everyone that he will have 12
successors from Quraysh but no one asks him what their names are or more specific
details?
But I do agree that the the arguments at Saqifah Bani Sa'dah had nothing to do
with the Islam of Prophet Muhammad (sawa). It was a pure Jahiliyyah tribal
gathering of people thirsty for power. see:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/043.sbt.html#003.043.642
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/057.sbt.html#005.057.019
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/082.sbt.html#008.082.817
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.326
Do you really see anything Islamic in the way things took place at Saqifah Bani
Sa'dah?
>
>
> There are two interpretations I have read: The first is that these are
> predictions as opposed to things imposed on us. The second is that they
> are not correct Hadiths, but fabricated later to give divine authority
> to some Caliph or another who came later. Again, read the references I
> gave in another post in this thread. They give details to this.
If it is a prediction then the Prophet was wrong because according to the sunnis
there have been more than 12 successors. Only the 12er Shi'ah believe in 12
successors to the Prophet.
The traditions are not fabrications. The Prophet mentioning that he will have 12
successors is Mutawatir in our collections of hadeeth and possibly likewise in
yours. They are mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim and I haven't read of any
traditionalist who contested its authenticity.
>
> > Therefore it is necessary that one of these twelve successors should have
> > such a long life that it should surpass the age of this earth.
> > This is exactly how it happened. The Twelfth successor of the Holy Prophet
> > (s.a.w.s.) was bestowed with a long life. He is Al-Mahdi Muhammad ibn Hasan
> > Al Askari (a.s.).
>
> WHAT? What is this talking about? Who is this Al Askari? How is his life
> longer than the age of the earth? What are you talking about?
You might be amazed to learn that there is also a lot of Sunni documentation on
the 12th Imam. See:
http://al-islam.org/encyclopedia/chapter2/
>
> Am I understanding right? Is this person alive and well? Is he 1200
> years old? Would you mind producing him? I would like to meet him and
> ask him some questions about what he lived through during those
> centuries.
Are you aware that according to the Quran (see 29:14), Prophet Noah has just been
prophet for 950 years? His age should have been even more than that because we
should add his age before prophethood to the above number.
Do you agree that Prophet Jesus (AS) is still alive? He is, in fact, 2002 years
old by now. Of course, he is not living on the earth. He is rather in the heavens,
and according to the Muslim's belief, he will come back to the earth, and will
pray behind Imam al-Mahdi (AS).
Do you agree that al-Khidr (AS) is still alive? Quran mentions the story of his
meeting with Prophet Moses (AS). He existed before the time of the Prophet Moses
(AS), and as such, al-Khidr (AS) is now more than 3000 years old!
Book 041, Number 7017:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) one
day gave a detailed account of the Dajjal and in that it was also included: He
would come but would not be allowed to ether the mountain passes to Medina. So he
will alight at some of the barren tracts near Medina, and a person who would be
the best of men or one from amongst the best of men would say to him: I bear
testimony to the fact that you are Dajjal about whom Allah's Messenger (may peace
be upon him) had informed us. The Dajjal would say: What is your opinion if I kill
this (person), then I bring him back to life; even then will you harbour doubt in
this matter? They would say: No. He would then kill (the man) and then bring him
back to life. When he would bring tha@ person to life, he would say: By Allah, I
had no better proof of the fact (that you are a Dajjal) than at the present time
(that you are actually so). The Dajjal would then make an attempt to kill him
(again) but he would not be able to do that. Abu Ishaq reported that it was said:
That person would be Khadir (Allah be pleased with him).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/041.smt.html#041.7017
http://islam.web1000.com/inquiry-almahdi.htm also answers some question about the
Mahdi.
salaam,
Ridwaan
MahmudTaha
asked:
>... Are you arguing that the Khaleefah, in the sense of a ruler of
>Muslims as opposed to prophets, is a successor to God himself?
At least there is evidence that the early Caliphs used the title "khalifatu
llahi", "vicar of Allah", as far as I know.
Peace,
Mahmud K. Taha
Moataz Emam
> And that is exactly where we disagree. We believe that they Have mentioned
> everything we need about Khilafah while you believe that they not mentioned
> anything about Khilafah.
All right. I will file everything you said so far as differences between
Sunni and Shi'a philosophy, so I won't argue (even though I am tempted)
but answer me this:
There is a misstranslation in the Hadith in the Shi'a web site you
referred to. The word "Aw" meaning "Or" is omitted. Please comment on
that:
> > The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "The [Islamic] religion will
> > continue until the Hour (day of resurrection), having twelve
> > Caliphs for you, all of them will be from Quraysh."
> Do you really see anything Islamic in the way things took place at Saqifah Bani
> Sa'dah?
I take the argument at the Saqifah to mean that Mohammed did not clearly
appoint a successor. This is very important to my belief. Because it
means that we are left to organize our political affairs on our own.
Anyway, we are not going to settle a 1000 year old dissagreement between
Sunnis and Shi'a here, but I am truly curious about what you believe
since this is my first truly Sunni-Shi'a dialogue. I have Shi'a friends
but we never discussed these issues. Do all Shi'a's believe as you do?
> Are you aware that according to the Quran (see 29:14), Prophet Noah has just been
> prophet for 950 years? His age should have been even more than that because we
> should add his age before prophethood to the above number.
Yes, but Noah was a messenger of God, his longevity was a miracle. Since
we believe (both of us?) that Mohammed was the last prophet, there
should not be any further miracles, any way, it is easy to prove, kindly
produce this Askari gentleman.
> Do you agree that Prophet Jesus (AS) is still alive? He is, in fact, 2002 years
> old by now. Of course, he is not living on the earth. He is rather in the heavens,
> and according to the Muslim's belief, he will come back to the earth, and will
> pray behind Imam al-Mahdi (AS).
I do not agree that he is alive in the human sense of the word, no. But
I agree that all who go to God are alive in a sense. Of course there is
debate whether God raised Jesus in the flesh or in the spirit, but the
point is Jesus is Jesus, a prophet. What applies to him is an exception
not a rule. You are using arguments that apply to prophets and applying
them to a non prophet. Unless we disagree on this also, neither Ali nor
any of the other 12 were messengers of God.
"And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: "They are
dead." Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not."
> Do you agree that al-Khidr (AS) is still alive? Quran mentions the story of his
> meeting with Prophet Moses (AS). He existed before the time of the Prophet Moses
> (AS), and as such, al-Khidr (AS) is now more than 3000 years old!
The Quran does not say that he is still alive. Where is he? If there is
a true messenger of God around these days why doesn't he show up? I
would follow him, provided he convinces me he is who he says he is. If
Jesus truly comes back, I will certainly follow him.
You still have not told me why this 12th Imam does not show himself.
Where is he? What has he been doing all these centuries? What is he
waiting for? If he is trully a Khalifah, why isn't he ruling us now? I
am not trying to be sarcastic, I am seriously asking.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Moataz Emam
> At least there is evidence that the early Caliphs used the title "khalifatu
> llahi", "vicar of Allah", as far as I know.
Not the first four. Some Abbasid Caliphs did claim that. The historical
discussions I read were that many Hadith were specifically fabricated
for these particular guys.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Moataz Emam
> But the question needs to be answered why God permitted the Imamate to
> end after only only 12???
I was wondering the same thing. But according to "rj110" and the web
site http://al-islam.org/twelve/ the last 12th is still around. This is
the first time I hear of this. I wonder if all Shi'a believe that.
--
Moataz H. Emam
vmi...@yahoo.com
The Shi'ah do believe in a 12th Imam who exists in a
state of (major) occultation.
He is the Imam Mahdi who will return in latter days to rescue
muslims. I guess we will only know when, and if, the Mahdi shows
up.
(Personally, I am non-committal on this Mahdi concept. I neither
affirm it, nor do I think it impossible. Whether or not he comes,
I do not believe him to be the 12th Imam that the Shiah believe in.
Also, there is some controversy among muslim scholars as to whether
the 11th Imam even had a son. The Shi'ah obviously beleive that
he did, but that he disappeared (minor occulation) at a very very
young age. During the minor occultation, people had indirect access
to him through a limited number of Qa'ims. He is even supposed to
have reviewed Kulayni's work "usul al Kafi", and approved it as
sufficient (kafi) for "our" Sh'iah. Later on, for reasons unknown,
he went into major occultation and was no longer accessible to
anyone. As one can see, being in occultation from a very very young
age, he did not marry; consequently had no children. Hence, the
Imamate got capped at 12).
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
rj...@mailandnews.com
Moataz Emam wrote:
> There is a misstranslation in the Hadith in the Shi'a web site you
> referred to. The word "Aw" meaning "Or" is omitted. Please comment on
> that:
http://al-islam.org/twelve/2.htm
perhaps a better translation would be "or" as on the msa website:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/020.smt.html#020.4483
when we take all 10 or so traditions into consideration they all basically say the same
thing. the laa yazaal...hatta...aw construction is pretty tricky. The other traditions
on the page help us understand this one clearer. I don't think their choice of
translation though takes away from the general meaning.I take the argument at the Saqifah
to mean that Mohammed did not clearly
> appoint a successor. This is very important to my belief. Because it
> means that we are left to organize our political affairs on our own.
> Anyway, we are not going to settle a 1000 year old dissagreement between
> Sunnis and Shi'a here, but I am truly curious about what you believe
> since this is my first truly Sunni-Shi'a dialogue. I have Shi'a friends
> but we never discussed these issues. Do all Shi'a's believe as you do?
Yes all the Shi'ah believe as I do, as far as I know. A pretty thorough explanation of
Saqifah can be found at:
http://islam.web1000.com/Origins-Development.htm
If you get a chance to go through the chapter on Saqifah there please share your
impressions.
> Yes, but Noah was a messenger of God, his longevity was a miracle. Since
> we believe (both of us?) that Mohammed was the last prophet, there
> should not be any further miracles, any way, it is easy to prove, kindly
> produce this Askari gentleman.
Perhaps we should start on defining exactly what is a miracle and what isn't. In my
belief every existing living creature on earth is a miracle. I don't believe miracles
stopped after Prophet Muhammad. Miracles take place every moment. If Allah wills to
prolong the life of an individual for 1000years or more that is up to Him. I don't see
that as an impossibility. Nothing in the Qur'an says that no one after Noah will have a
life long as his or longer than his does it?
> You are using arguments that apply to prophets and applying
> them to a non prophet. Unless we disagree on this also, neither Ali nor
> any of the other 12 were messengers of God.
It seems to me that you are arguing using an unestablished premise. Who says that
non-prophets can't have long life spans? Can you prove this? We do agree of course that
'Ali and his 11 successors were not Messengers of God nor Prophets. They were Imams.
Imam is a very high rank. For example in 1:124 Ibraheem was already a Messenger of God
before he was bestowed the rank of "Imam".
And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he
fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an Imam to the Nations." He pleaded: "And
also (Imams) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the
reach of evil-doers." 2:124
Imam is a higher rank than Messenger. Some Messengers were Imams and Some Imams were not
Messengers but Imam is actually a greater rank than Messenger. Our Prophet Muhammad
(sawa) was both the greatest Messenger and also the greatest Imam.
>
> You still have not told me why this 12th Imam does not show himself.
> Where is he? What has he been doing all these centuries? What is he
> waiting for? If he is trully a Khalifah, why isn't he ruling us now? I
> am not trying to be sarcastic, I am seriously asking.
I will try to answer this question as briefly as possible but first consider the below
traditions from Bukhari and Muslim.
Volume 9, Book 89, Number 254:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "This matter (caliphate) will remain with the Quraish even if
only two of them were still
existing."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/089.sbt.html#009.089.254
Book 020, Number 4476:
It has been narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (may peace
be upon him) said: The Caliphate will remain among the Quraish even if only two persons
are left (on the earth),
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/020.smt.html#020.4476
The earth must always have a Divinely Appointed Khaleefah, a specific representative of
God at all times. Adam was as such:
And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a
khalifah, they said: What! wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in
it and shed blood, and we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness? He said:
Surely I know what you do not know. 2:30
The earth must always have some people on it who fulfill the exact and real purpose of
the creation of Mankind even if it is only one person and that person doesn't have to be a
Prophet but he must be an Imam. So long as that single person fulfills the real purpose
of the creation of mankind that one person is enough to keep the earth existing. Abraham
was called an Imam in the Qur'an but he was also called an Ummah at the same time.
Lo! Abraham was a nation obedient to Allah, by nature upright, and he was not of the
idolaters; 16:120
Abraham, because he was fulfilling the purpose of creation he took the place of the whole
of humanity.
He said: My Lord! because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil)
fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate
Except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones.
(Allah) said: "This (way of My sincere servants) is indeed a way that leads straight to
Me. 15:39-41
Please notice in the verse that Allah calls these servants the "Straight Path". These
persons don't necessarily have to be Prophets or Messengers of Allah but they must be
Mukhlaseen.
Even the devil admitted that even he himself can not cause them to deviate hence Allah
Himself has called them the straight path to Him.
There must always exist such a person on earth and that person today is the 12th Imam, the
Mahdi and he is alive. It is the very existence of the Mahdi that prevents the earth from
collapsing. He is the perfect man, the Khaleefah of Allah on earth and His Hujjah.
If the Imam doesn't exist then the Straight Path doesn't exist. We always pray to God to
lead us to the Straight Path without realizing that that straight path is represented by
the persons as clarified in 15:39-41 and Surah Fatihah itself.
All the 11 Imams before the Mahdi were killed either by sword or poison. The reason for
his occultation "Ghaybah" is that if he were killed the earth would seize to exist.
The two traditions I started with from Bukhari and Muslim hint at this and also there are
a few at
http://al-islam.org/twelve/
The 12th Imam still plays a great role in esoteric guidance. Some also go further and say
that his occultation is a trial on the believers. Other traditions say that we won't
really understand the wisdom of his occultation until he reappears exactly the same way
that Musa couldn't understand the wisdom of the actions of KhiDr until KhiDr at the end
told him the reasons for the 3 things he did as mentioned in 18:65
The primary function of the Khaleefah is not rulership as the sunnis believe. We have
traditions in our books that when the Prophet Muhammad (sawa) was asked what the benefit
of the 12th Imam would be if he dissappears he replied "The believers will surely benefit
>from the Mahdi during his dissappearance just as people benefit from the Sun though it is
covered by the clouds."
A good booklet that goes into more detail about this topic is
Al-Imam al-Mahdi, The Just Leader of Humanity
http://al-islam.org/mahdi/nontl/Toc.htm
Ridwaan
MahmudTaha
answered:
>MahmudTaha wrote:
>> At least there is evidence that the early Caliphs used the title "khalifatu
>> llahi", "vicar of Allah", as far as I know.
>
>Not the first four. Some Abbasid Caliphs did claim that.
According to my memory it were exactly the early Caliphs who used the title
"khalifatu llahi", "vicar of Allah". I have to look where I got this from.
>The historical discussions I read were that many Hadith were specifically
>fabricated for these particular guys.
I, too, wouldn't give much credit to the Hadith. The evidence I remember to
have read about was archeological or documental.
Please be a bit patient, Moataz!
Peace,
Mahmud K. Taha
sh...@al-qaeda.com
> You mention the first three caliphs then conveniently discount the 4th
> caliph, Ali? Why? Have you not read about events at Ghadir when The
> Holy Prophet selected Ali to be his successor?
Astaghfirullah - my intention was not to discount 'Ali. Although I was
slightly off-topic, my post was not regarding who was or was not
selected to be the successor of the the Messenger of Allah, sallalhu
alayhi wasalam; my post was to say it is the Sunnah to select one
leader, to give examples of how leaders are selected, and point out
one problem with Republicanism or any other pseudo-democracy.
I have not heard of the events at Ghadir in which you purport (this is
not an attack - don't know how to word it with more niceity) the
Messenger of Allah, sallalahu alayhi wasalam, selected 'Ali to be his
successor. Why do you say 'Ali was appointed, but then later in your
post say 'Ali was not desirous of the Caliphate when Abu Bakr was made
Caliph? I do not discredit 'Ali, but I agree with 'Umar's suggestion
to make Abu Bakr the first Caliph because they did not believe the
Messenger of Allah ta'ala had selected a successor, but he, sallalahu
alayhi wasalam, had appointed Abu Bakr Imam of the Salat when he,
sallalahu alayhi wasalam, fell ill.
"I am the youngest of you. I may be a boy, my feet may not be strong
enough but, O Messenger of Allah, I shall be your helper. Whoever
opposes you, I shall fight him as a mortal enemy." -words of 'Ali as
he stood with the Prophet, sallalhu alayhi wasalam, before the Quraish
(before they had accepted Islam).
> > We have three excellent models for selecting a leader in the examples
> > of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman.
> >
> > From "Tartheeb ul Madharik wa Takreeb al Masalik" second volume by
> > classical scholar Qadi Iyad:
> >
> > Malik's student Mashab asked Malik who was superior after Rasulullah?
> > He replied Abu Bakr. Then someone asked him, 'Then who'. Malik replied
> > Umar. 'Then' Malik replied 'Uthman'. When asked 'Then' Malik said
> > 'people's view then differed', these are the beloved of Rasulullah
> > (sallalahu alayhi wasalam), Abu Bakr was made the Imam of Salat by
> > Rasulullah (sallalahu alayhi wasalam), Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr
> > and Umar made a 6 man Shura and people chose Uthman, after that the
> > people stalled. In another narration Malik had stated whoever was
> > desirous of the Caliphate ('Ali) cannot be superior to one who did not
> > want it (Abu Bakr).
>
> Huh? I can understand the logic when it comes to Abu Bakr as he was
> made Imam of Salat by the Prophet, but how does Abu Bakr appointing
> Umar, or Umar making a six man shura make the latter two the most
> superior after the Prophet?
The first part of that blockquote is a narriation of what Imam Malik
said in response to the question of who was superior. The second part
(these are the beloved...) is Qadi Iyad's commentary telling how the
first three Caliphs were selected. The last part (in another
narration....) is Malik again.
I suspect that Imam Malik was saying the people stalled because Uthman
was assasinated. Some of the Muslims at that time believed 'Ali was
behind it, others did not believe that - they differed. I have no
position on that becuase it would be difficult for me to know, and I
see no benefit in trying to take a position.
I'm probably to blame for the misunderstanding of my intention (as my
point was offtopic from the other posts in this thread). I quoted Qadi
Iyad (who quoted Malik) because it shows how the first three Caliphs
were selected (before Uthman was murdered). I was not supporting (and
I am not now opposing) the position of Malik on who was superior after
the Prophet, sallalhu alayhi wasalam. I included the second narriation
about being desirous of the Caliphate to support my position that
democracies and semi-democracies would ensure the least pious among us
would come to power. (I also included it because it was in the same
paragraph as the first narriation.)
--
'..And Allah is with as-Sabirun (the patient).'
ALI
> Astaghfirullah - my intention was not to discount 'Ali. Although I was
> slightly off-topic, my post was not regarding who was or was not
> selected to be the successor of the the Messenger of Allah, sallalhu
> alayhi wasalam; my post was to say it is the Sunnah to select one
> leader, to give examples of how leaders are selected, and point out
> one problem with Republicanism or any other pseudo-democracy.
In my humble opinion you did effectively discount Ali, if not
intentionally then at least by omission.
> I have not heard of the events at Ghadir in which you purport (this is
> not an attack - don't know how to word it with more niceity) the
> Messenger of Allah, sallalahu alayhi wasalam, selected 'Ali to be his
> successor.
My brother, if you go to the following hotlink you will find the names
of 154 published books, nearly all (if not all) written by Sunni
authors, that contain details of the events at Ghadir. These books
are not obscure tracts or written by little known reporters, rather
major pieces of work (i.e Musnad of Ibn Hanbal, Sunan of Ibn Majah,
Bukhari, a-Suyuti, Tirmidhi etc.):
http://www.al-islam.org/ghadir/books.asp?s=death&tl=0&view=p
> Why do you say 'Ali was appointed, but then later in your
> post say 'Ali was not desirous of the Caliphate when Abu Bakr was made
> Caliph?
Because the two things are completely different. Abu Bakr was made
Caliph by the people around him, Ali was appointed Imam of the Ummah
by the Prophet(S). Even when Ali did become Caliph it was at the
insistence of the people around him, not because he was desirous of
it.
> I do not discredit 'Ali, but I agree with 'Umar's suggestion
> to make Abu Bakr the first Caliph because they did not believe the
> Messenger of Allah ta'ala had selected a successor, but he, sallalahu
> alayhi wasalam, had appointed Abu Bakr Imam of the Salat when he,
> sallalahu alayhi wasalam, fell ill.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. How on Earth was Umar of
the opinion that Muhammad (S) had not appointed a successor when over
100,000 people had been present at Ghadir on the way back from the
Prophets (S) last Hajj, and amongst the first people to congratulate
Ali on his being appointed successor were Talha, Zubayr, Abu Bakr and
Umar?
Also, you can't have it both ways when it comes to the question of
Muhammad appointing a successor. The title of your posting is "Why
Muhammad Did NOT Choose a Successor", yet you intimate that because
Abu Bakr led prayers this was somehow a sign, a hint, an indication,
whatever, that the Prophet(S) wishes him to be leader after his death.
> I suspect that Imam Malik was saying the people stalled because Uthman
> was assasinated. Some of the Muslims at that time believed 'Ali was
> behind it, others did not believe that - they differed. I have no
> position on that becuase it would be difficult for me to know, and I
> see no benefit in trying to take a position.
I have never read or heard of anyone intimating that Ali could
possibly have been behind the death of Uthman. Please provide me with
references for this.
We can't change history but I believe that we have an obligation to
present the facts in as honest and truthful a manner as possible.
History shows the Prophet (S) appointed Ali as his successor at
Ghadir. Surely he would not leave the Ummah leaderless and at risk of
become fractious? If Muslims at the time had adhered to the words of
the Prophet(S) then we wouldn't have had such a divisive and tragic
schism.
ALI
alizamaa...@gmail.com
about the event of Ghadir? When the prophet said he leaves behind the Qura=
n and Ahle Bayte? Then the verse came out about the religion being complete=
when Ali (as) was called the mawla of the Muslim ummah. Why are people so =
blind? Look at ayat e waliyah. It talks about Ali (as). Abu bakr was not su=
ppose to be leading prayers. He was suppose to be in battle and fight in a =
war! Do you guys not know history? Abu bakr and umar didn't want to fight u=
nder usama. A commander the Prophet Muhammed appointed in that battle. Look=
into the Quran and your own Sunni ahdiths. You will see your answers.