Can you please ask Sheikh why Sheikh Asif mohsini in mujam ahadess al mutabara authenticates shaqshaqiya???

@@intazario We asked our Sayyid, and he responded by saying that Shaykh Asif Muhsini acknowledged that the Sanad of the sermon is weak due to Ikrimah. But then he said that it has other chains, so those portions of the sermon which appear in all the chains can be authenticated on that basis. In addition to this, he noted that there is eloquence in the sermon so we can assume it could have been from Imam Ali (as). So all in all, he admitted to its weakness, but said we can authenticate some select portions. Our Sayyid said he also regards one portion as being amenable to authentication and that is the part that has Imam Ali (as) saying: أما والذي فلق الحبة.... But overall, because of the weaknesses associated with this sermon, we can't really base too tall claims on it, and we can only accept those parts of it which are in line with the established Sirah of Amirul Mumineen (as).

@@Al-Islaah Thank you so much for the reply. I am sunni and I love the research of Dr Sayyed Ali hur. I would really love to know other ways of getting in touch after finishing all the KZfaq content, for other content or a question that I can ask him. Jazakallah khayran

Doesn’t the Quran say to follow the sahaba and to not have grudges against them?

@@HanaBaba-mo9yv which verse says that?

​@@mohibali7357 multiple verses actually tell us to follow the way of the believers sabeel Al momineen and immitate muhajireen and ansar ittaba 9:100 Qur'an never says follow ahlul bayt. The hadith simply tells us to honour Ahlul bayt for there connection to the prophet and love them. Nowhere does any hadith say take only knowledge from ahlul bayt they themselves leaned from non ahlul bayt too. The sahabah are eye witnesses the imams after Hussain alaihisalam are not eye witnesses.

So following the Sahaba a, some of who were Hypocrites is ok to follow(Quran) , but not the prophet's family. Are you serious? @@LadooCrew

@@mohibali7357 why are all Shias one track thought process do you guys not have the ability to think? I replied to your contentions you just switched topic. So repent for your earlier accusations. Nowhere in the Qur'an are any sahabah termed hypocrites that's you not knowing the Book of Allah that's most Shias for you on the contrary the Qur'an highly praises the companions so did the Shia Imams. Al Qur'an 48:29 Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those with him are firm with the disbelievers1 and compassionate with one another. You see them bowing and prostrating2 ˹in prayer˺, seeking Allah’s bounty and pleasure. The sign ˹of brightness can be seen˺ on their faces from the trace of prostrating ˹in prayer˺. This is their description in the Torah.3 And their parable in the Gospel is that of a seed that sprouts its ˹tiny˺ branches, making it strong. Then it becomes thick, standing firmly on its stem, to the delight of the planters4-in this way Allah makes the believers a source of dismay for the disbelievers.5 To those of them who believe and do good, Allah has promised forgiveness and a great reward." These are the companions those " with him" it finishes shiaism!!! the Qur'an calls them the best community ummah. 3:110 You are the best community ever raised for humanity-you encourage good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are faithful, but most are rebellious." But as always Allah and his messenger teach us one thing about them but Shias another based on what weak history with lying Shia narrators !!! it's like Shias think they know better then Allah and we seek refuge in Allah from satan and his minions. The Prophets family are companions too those that saw him but your imams after imam Hussain all of them are NOT equal to the companions as they are NOT eye witness and we can prove this from Qur'an. "And why should you not spend in the cause of Allah, while Allah is the ˹sole˺ inheritor of the heavens and the earth? Those of you who donated and fought before the victory ˹over Mecca˺ are unparalleled. They are far greater in rank than those who donated and fought afterwards.1 Yet Allah has promised each a fine reward. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do." 57:10 Clear as daylight verses no massiv tafseer and Shia style emotional gymnastics needed. I invite you to repentance and accept true Islam shiaism is falsehood and emotional unproven theories I have lived it I too was where you are now. Don't let a zakir ruin it for you . Peace be upon the followers of true guidance.

Me too I love these guys...can you help to follow authentic shia fiqh

A sixteenth century book all fabrications the imams children's and followers never knew who the next imam was at each imams death or most of them hence so many Shia sects were formed. Listen to the video

Lol😂

Walaykum Salaam Your accusations are unfounded and based on not watching these episodes in full. If you want to object, at least take the trouble to watch the full presentation so that your arguments and objections have some weight. You accuse our respected Sayyids of cherry picking hadiths which suit their narrative and not being fair enough to present the narrations that oppose our narratives. If you had watched the above video till the end, you would see that the respected Sayyidayn address and discuss the opposing narrations (see Timestamp of 1:21:00) as part of their refutation of Clip 11 of Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani (in which he claims that Imam Ali (as) in Nahjul Balagha said he was chosen by Allah). Those who have bothered to watch the detailed explanation and response to these unreliable sermons have liked it so much that they have cut this part of our video and uploaded it as an independent stand alone video as you can see below: Najh Al Balagha Sermon 164, 152 and 97 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mrWnl8Jm1r3Wo30.html So after this, how can you accuse us of not covering the evidence of the other side? It is you, dear, who stand accused of not fairly and sincerely engaging with the material our channel is presenting. If you say: why don’t you accept the claims Sayyid Nakshawani is basing on these sermons, we say: the answer has been given by our Sayyids. No one accepts every sermon or narration in Nahjul Balagha as being fully authentic and reliable, not even the traditional scholars. There is no Book other than the Quran that is 100 percent authentic and reliable, so it is only natural that scholars will have to pick and choose which narrations to accept and which ones to reject based on the methodologies they follow. You claim to be a Twelver, but whether you realise it or not, you are yourself rejecting so many of the narrations in the Twelver Imami corpus that claim all sorts of Khurafaat and nonsensical anti-Quranic things like Tahrif al Quran (i.e. that the Quran has not been preserved fully). Yet you accept many of the other narrations in your corpus which suit your current day belief and narrative. So would you call yourself a cherry-picker? Because, if we take your understanding of cherry picking and what a cherry picker is, then you yourself qualify as a bigger cherry picker than both us and the traditional Twelver combined. This is because you say “I am a twelver and will say I certainly do not agree with the mainstream Twelver belief”. So there you go: you just admitted that you yourself cherry pick stuff from Twelverism that you like and which makes sense you while rejecting so much other stuff that mainstream Twelvers believe in, because you don’t fancy it, and it doesn’t make sense to you, and this is why you do not agree with mainstream Twelver belief despite identifying as a Twelver. So your whole religious identity is based on cherry picking and selectively choosing stuff from Twelversim while rejecting and disagreeing with most of its mainstream beliefs. And yet, you have a problem with our scholars if they accept and reject narrations from Twelverism based on Quran and established realities of history? When you yourself are picking and choosing stuff from Twelversim, how can you throw stones at others while living in such a giant glass house yourself? Let’s highlight for you another example of your cherry picking: You mentioned how you “admire both the family and the companions”, and you went on to say “the companions of the prophet are the greatest of nations.” If you are saying this as a Twelver, you just proved yourself to be a master cherry picker because the traditional Twelver view based on innumerable narrations in the Imami corpus is what Ayatullah Ali Namazi Shahroudi says in his book “Mustadrakat ‘Ilm-ul-Rijal” 1/67 where he writes: ‘We conclude from the big quantity of [Shia] narrations declaring that all companions are apostates except three or four, that the general rule for every companion who remained alive after the Prophet (ﷺ) and did not become a martyr in his time, is that they are apostates for placing the non-chosen leader (means Abu Bakr) in authority over the chosen leader (means ‘Ali), or impious sinners for their shortcomings when it came to supporting him (means ‘Ali), thus it is not possible to assume the reliability of any of them except through a specific divine text.” End Quote So there you go: you just called a community of apostates, as per traditional Twelver Imami belief, the “greatest nation” MashaaAllah. And you just confessed to admiring apostates when you said you admire the companions. You need to broaden your study, and deepen your insight. When that happens you will understand and appreciate the reality is that there is no scholar or lay person who can afford to accept every narration in any corpus, Twelver or otherwise. This is so because all learned scholars acknowledge the presence of fabrications and unreliable narrations in the corpus. The Twelver corpus itself has multiple narratives floating in it, some are authentically traceable to the Imams (as) while others are from the Ghulat. So in line with the instructions of our Imams (as), we have to pick what agrees with the Quran and established Sunnah, and reject what disagrees with it. That’s what our Al Islaah scholarship does. Whereas it is the traditional apologists and polemicists who cherry pick whatever suits their inherited Ghuluww based narrative from the corpus without checking it against the Quran, while suppressing the anti Ghuluw narrative in the corpus from the public. Our respected Ustaadh Dr. Sayyid Ali Hur Kamoonpuri delivered a short talk burying this myth that Al Islaah is interested in cherry picking and laid it to rest long back. It would be beneficial for you to watch his clarification and response entitled “Are we cherry picking OR are we separating the good cherries from the rotten ones | Dr. Syed Ali Hur kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m9OYgdqKsdOcpYU.html He explains in it how the Twelver Imami corpus is riddled with the fabrications of the Ghulat, so one has to use the Quran and Ilmur Rijal to sift out the good cherries from the bad cherries, and this is what he and the rest of us at Al Islaah do. We pick the Quran verified authentic narrations from the corpus, while rejecting the rest. If you want to call this cherry picking, then that’s your call. Another video that will open your mind and broaden your horizons to the multiple narratives that exist within contemporary Twelver Imami Shiism is this good one from Sayyed Ammar Nakshawani himself: It was originally titled: Cherry Picking our Shiism kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jcd-mpNn097HlIk.html This will help you understand that every Twelver is forced to be a cherry picker by default, because you have so many opposing and contradictory narratives within the Twelver Imami sectarian Hadith corpus (undoubtedly due to the huge amount of fabricated narrations inserted by the Ghulat) that you have no choice but to accept some and reject others, because you can’t accept so many contradictory narratives at the same time and retain your sanity. Besides, Twelver Imami sect has gone through so many phases and had different movements inside it which had mutually opposing beliefs which lay people like you don’t know. Each movement promoted narrations and narratives which supported its viewpoints, and this is why if you study the Imami history in depth you will see how messy it is. The following article would be a good place to start: shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/08/early-imami-subgroups-and-beliefs/ shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/12/a-reevaluation-of-hisham-b-hakams-subsect-in-the-earliest-days-of-imamism/ shiismandislamichistory.wordpress.com/2020/06/15/the-theology-of-the-shia-in-the-time-of-imam-sadiq-a/ They talk about all the different sub sects of Shias during Imam Al Sadiq’s (as) time. All of these subsects claimed to be Imamis yet had different beliefs and cursed each other, introduced Hadiths into the books which made allegations about other groups. Some of these groups had ghaali beliefs, some didn’t. But they all left their messy and contradictory claims inside the Imami corpus. So today’s Twelver has to pick and choose which claim to accept, and if he accepts one, he has to reject the other. For example, some of these early Imamis believed God is a body while others rejected this belief. So you have to pick and choose here. We choose to side with the group that said He isn’t a body because that is what the Quran and authentic teachings of the Ahlul Bayt (as) support. But what do we do with narrations in our corpus claiming that Allah is a body? And that He even comes down from heaven on special occasions like Arafah seated on a white camel with parted hair? We reject them and declare them fabrications upon the Imams (as). But sadly, for people like you, that makes us cherry pickers! Even though, little do you realise, that if this is what is cherry picking, then you are as much of a cherry picker as we are, perhaps even greater! At least, we have a firm and robust methodology for what we select, because we apply the Quran as per the teaching of the Ahlul Bayt (as), whereas you haven't shared your methodology.

Your next accusation is: “You cannot simply pick one person in a chain and dismiss the entire Hadith or sermon as if that sermon or Hadith was ONLY narrated through that one person or chain.” Our response: Show us where have we done that? None of the narrations our Sayyidayn have rejected in the above video can be found with an alternative authentic chain. If you have an alternative authentic chain, bring it forward so that we may see if you are truthful in your claim. Otherwise, making unfounded accusations, without evidence, is something any person can do, but it is not the way of the sincere seeker of truth. Next, you claim we are Zaydi Shias. You should apologise to the Zaidis for they would be most upset and insulted by your false claim. Today’s sectarian Zaydis follow the later Jaroodi doctrine, and thus firmly believe in the Divine Appointment and Infallibility of the first three Imams (as), which as you know, we don’t. So if you were well versed in Zaydism, especially its later day Jaroodi variant, you would know that we cannot be labeled Zaydis. Our reality is that we trace our roots back to the earliest Shia of Imam Ali (as) who were not a religious sect Aslan, but a movement for social justice which rallied behind Imam Ali (as) and supported him in political matters. To find out more about this movement and how it is different from later sectarian Shiism, we recommend a detailed lecture entitled: Political Shias VERSUS Theological/Sectarian Shias | What's the Difference? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/orp1pNVjx9TGlWg.html As for your suggestion that we should formally debate a Twelver scholar because we might be misrepresenting them, we would have you know that our respected Sayyid issued an open invite for both dialogue and debate with the traditional Twelver scholarship. It was addressed to the World Federation, the Africa Federation as well as AFTAB which have the strongest teams of traditional scholars at their disposal. You can find the link to it here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l8ClYKthteC-nKM.html Sadly the traditional side chickened out from the challenge and shied away from responding to it, because they know fully well that we are not misrepresenting the Twelver sources, but rather exposing hidden truths which they don’t want the public to find out. This is why they have said they will only agree to an engagement behind closed doors, because they do not want the public to catch wind of the giant holes in the traditional narrative which are most certainly going to be exposed in such an engagement. But if you know of a qualified Twelver scholar willing to engage with us on a public forum in a fairly moderated debate, do let us know so that we may proceed to facilitate it because we are most eager to engage scholars with opposing views, and the only reason why we are forced to do one-sided refutations is because the traditional scholars are too scared and terrified to appear on a one to one direct engagement with our scholarship. You claim it is “absurd to state that the prophet has appointed many companions to various posts and relate that to the appointment at Ghadeer Khum”. Our response is: You are taking our response out of context. It was Sayyid Ammar who made the claim that because the appointment of Imam Ali (as) happened during the time of the Prophet (Saww), therefore it is part of the Usool Deen and Aqeedah. So our Sayyid responded by pointing out that if mere appointment during the lifetime of the Prophet (Saww) qualifies that appointment to become part of the Usool Din, then how would you exclude all the other political, military and administrative appointments which the Prophet (Saww) made during his lifetime - from the Usool Din and from Aqeedah? So in reality, it was Sayyid Ammar’s point which was absurd, not the response our Sayyid gave to it. As for Imam Ali (as), we maintain he was the most superior after the Prophet (Saww) and most deserving of leading the Ummah after him. But this is just our political historical reading which we do not artificially insert into the Din, because this has got nothing to do with the Din, nor is it mandated by Allah in the Quran or by the Messenger (Saww) as an article of faith. Our Sayyid never claimed Ayah Tatheer is ONLY about wives. He pointed out how in light of the context, it is impossible to exclude the wives without doing violence to the Quranic text. The Quran refers to the wife of Ibrahim (as) as his Ahlul Bayt, so there is no way to exclude wives from it. The Prophet (Saww) going to the house of Fatimah (as) and greeting its inmates as Ahlul Bayt for six months proves that they are definitely from the Ahlul Bayt, but it doesn’t disprove the wives from being Ahlul Bayt as well. If I have two brothers, and greet one by saying Salaam oh you member of my family, it doesn’t mean the other brother is not a member of my family. So the only one whose claim sounds absurd, if you take the full context of 33: 33, is you. We have no interest in excluding the Twelvers from Islamic unity. But in order for Twelver to achieve true meaningful unity with the Ummah, they will have to get rid of their Khuraafaat, Ghuluww and fabrications. The Sunni scholars at first refused to have talks with Twelver scholars in the 20th century because they said you people believe in Tahreef, and we can’t talk to people who believe in Tahreef. So the Shia scholars spearheaded a campaign to reform Tahreef and they got rid of it. But they need to continue the effort, and weed out all other unIslamic beliefs, practices and rituals if they desire meaningful unity and brotherhood within the Ummah.

Allahu Akbar. That’s you analogy? If I have two brothers and give my Salams to one it doesn’t exclude my other brother? What is the entire Hadith of Al Kisa? Is it ONLY that he greeted the ahlul bayt by referring to them as his ahlul bayt? Or does hadith not state that Umm Salamah asked to join under the Kisa and the prophet (as) told her she is good but this was reserved for these 5? May Allah guide us all.

I fell into the rabbit hole of Al-Islaah mate. I started questioning my own beliefs yeah? But the more I studied, the more I realized that these guys are bought and paid for by the English government mate. There’s a lot of that around here. They are the “shia version” of the Salafist movement. No shia scholar will debate them because they don’t understand Arabic and their lack of knowledge/understanding of the language hinders their capabilities

Notice the similarities between them and the salafis. These guys are attacking the most prevalent Shia sect (twelvers) and their most prominent lecturer (sayed ammar) and actually calling all of them kuffar. EXACTLY like the Takfiris of the salafis/wahhabis

Looks like these two unproffesionaps are paid.

Why didn’t Ali RA took back the land if Abu bakr as Siddiq RA snatched the land naudubillah?

​@@HH-er4qhhe is now vanished 😂😂😂

true. is getting annoying

I have said it many times, they need to replace him with someone competent.

Thank you for your very kind words. Our scholarship is profoundly appreciative of the work Shaykh al-Sayyid Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy al-Husayni and other Sunni scholars like him have done to promote a historically balnaced and authentic understanding of the Ahlul Bayt (as) - free from exaggerations and unIslamic ideas. May Allah Accept your Duas for us, and bless you.

Immate is real. Guidance hasn't come to these two.

The "kum" is there because the word "Ahl" is masculine (mudhakkar). Even if all your family members were hypothetically women, when you call them "ahl", you would still use masculine pronouns, because of this particular word. If you know Urdu, it's like the word "khaandaan".

Brother you don't understand. What do you mean not complicated. The christians and the jews went wrong. Allah has given us the purified alhuk bayt and they have to be purified.

Yes it has been established in your sunni ahadeeth at ghadheer khum You carry worshiping your Umar and abu bakra. That is a lie sheik. Your sunni ahadeeths mention the 12 imams and the final will be imam al mahadi. Not professional these two.

Yes rasoollah did tell you in bukhari and muslim who the 12 are and he said from Ali to imam Al Mahadi.

All the Sadaat in this video are Shia. The only difference is that Ustaadh Dr. Syed Ali Hur and Ustaadh Sayyid Raza Rizvi promote the non sectarian Shiism of the first generation which was what the first generation of Sahaaba and Tabieen who supported Imam Ali (as) were upon, whereas Dr. Sayyid Ammar Nakshawani is more wedded to the later day sectarian Shiism.

these are wahabis wearing shia turbans and have trimmed their beards. they have zero knowledge and same accusations as the wahabi/salafi sect.

@@mohammadismail5925 That is exactly my aim. It is also why I am glad I found Al Islaah. But instead of criticizing the beliefs of Shias straight away or right off the bat, I am trying to learn as much as I possibly can about the Qur'an and Hadith.

Walaykum Salaam. You can check out the following detailed session: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nbqirJOc1d3Pk2Q.html

Its appointment

It's not divine appointment it's simply friendship to the believers it's dhanni evidence and the ahlul bayt never used it as an argument these are all twelvers lies to cover up hundreds of other lies.

@@inityoIf it was divine appointment Imam Ali (as) would have used that argument against those who “Took his caliphate” the caliphate of Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه happened and Imam Ali (as) didn’t oppose it so its clear this is valid

It was a divine appointment. Don't believe these two.

​@@LadooCrewmore like sunni lies.

Our Ustaadh Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri and Ustaadh Sayyid Raza Rizvi did a very insightful and trenchant analysis of this concept of 12 rulers in the Hadith, where it came from and how it was appropriated by the Twelver Imamiyyah at a later stage. You can access their brilliant analysis from here: Episode Title: Who Fabricated the Attack on Sayyida Fatema (as)? Link: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bqx7n7xlyt-blnU.html Ideally, we’d recommend you watch the whole episode, but if you want to zoom in straight to the part where they discuss this particular aspect, you can start from the Timestamp of 58:11 and listen all the way up to 1: 47: 11. In addition to this, our Ustaadh Shaykh Mohammad Sharifi has also undertaken his own independent Tahqiq (research) into the 12 Caliph Hadith. Here are his conclusions: The report of the twelve rulers (by number) is not authentic for the Shīʿa, not even from a single chain! And its primary transmitter in the works of “Ahl al-Sunnah” is Jābir b. Samurah. ♦ - As for Jābir b. Samura there are implications regarding his personage: 🔴 - He is Pro-Umayyad 🔴 - All those who narrate from him are Shāmīs (from the Levant i.e Nawāṣib) 🔴 - He was six, or seven years old when he supposedly heard this Ḥadīth 🔴 - It is entirely solitary in transmission, meaning no one has ever narrated such a narration from the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ besides him. 🔷 - Rather, it is a Nāṣibī Ḥadīth par excellence! Fabricated to prop up the Umayyad rulers and justify their unjust rule. This has been confirmed by the foremost and pre-eminent Sunni Ḥadīth critic and Rijāl expert in our contemporary time, al-Sayyid al-ʿAllāmah al-Sharīf ʿAddāb Maḥmoud al-Ḥusaynī. You may refer to his discussion with ʿAllamah Aḥmad al-Kātib which we are linking for you here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/r7-SZM6lz9mzfJc.html In summary, the 12 ruler Hadith was never used by any Imāmī sect up until the post-occultation period, ask yourself if this Ḥadīth had any significance why is it that it was never utilized? It is clearly because this concept of the “12” came when the 11th Imām died without a son, and the Imāmīyah couldn’t say it was Badāʾ again. The reason is because there were no longer any sons to predicate Imāmah to, unlike the cases of Aḥmad b. Mūsā al-Kāẓim, ʾIsmāʿīl b. Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, and others. Therefore, the Imāmīyah saw that since they cannot plead Badāʾ, due to their Imām dying such as ʾIsmāʿīl b. Jaʿfar. Or, due to their Imām participating in a Zaydī revolt such as Aḥmad b. Mūsā al-Kāẓim; they resorted to plugging in the age old concept of occultation. For, it was either to choose between occultation, or capitulation. This certainly served the corrupt powers at the time, for it was a concept which supported political quietism, and was the superior form of anti-rebellion. One is invited to compare this to the Umayyad promotion of beliefs such as determinism. Thereafter, they are invited to see how these so called Khawāṣ who the Imāms themselves cursed occupied such close stations that actively benefited the Abbasids.

Only prophets are chosen ? 2:247 Talut AS was made a king over an army by Allah was he a prophet you jahiyl?

The fact that Imam Ali (as) gave Bayah to Abu Bakr is not something our respected Sayyid has come up with on his own. This is also supported by the statement of Imam Ali (as) in his own letter to some of his Shia which will be presented on this channel in the future. This fact is also supported by the narration of Imam al-Baqir (as) in Al-Kafi. Furthermore, it has been confirmed by high ranking and high profile Twelver Imami scholars like Grand Ayatullah Shaykh Muḥammad Ḥusayn Āl Kāshif al-Ghiṭāʾ (d. 1954 CE/1373 AH), one of the highest ranking Twelver Imāmī jurists of his time in Iraq. As for why Imam Husain (as) did not give Bayah to Yazid, it is because his rise to the Caliphate was a clear violation to the treaty Moaviah had signed with Imam al-Hasan (as). In Irshad of Shaykh Mufid, it is clearly mentioned that when Imam Hasan (as) returned to his Creator, the Shia of Kufa wrote to Imam Husayn (as) asking him to rise up against Moaviah, but Imam Husayn (as) cited the treaty signed with Imam Hasan (as) and pointed out that he did not want to violate it, but promised them that he would look into the matter after Moaviah died. So Imam Husain (as) did not do the opposite of what his father did. Imam Husain (as) rose against someone whose appointment to the Caliphate came as a clear violation to the treaty signed with Imam Hasan (as), whereas there was no such treaty in Imam Ali's (as) time. Imam Ali (as) only gave Bayah to Abu Bakr to protect the unity of Islam as the grand Maraje have clarified. We leave you with the statement of Ayatullah Aal Kashif al-Ghitaa who wrote: “Then, when he (i.e. Imam ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib (as)) saw that his staying back and withholding the oath of allegience would cause division within Islam, which would not be mended, and a breach that would not be fixed, and everyone knows that ʿAlī did not seek the Caliphate out of a desire for political authority, nor out of an aspiration for kingdom, domination, or any other selfish or self-serving motive. His famous conversation with Ibn ʿAbbās at Dhī Qār is known. Rather, he merely intended to strengthen Islam, expand its scope, reinforce its foundations, establish justice, and exterminate falsehood. And when he (i.e. Imam ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib (as)) saw that those who came to power, i.e. the First and Second Caliphs, exerted their utmost in spreading the word of Tawḥīd (Islamic Monotheism), preparing the armies, expanding conquests, and that they did not act with selfishness or unilateralism, he swore allegiance to them and made peace with them. He then refrained from demanding what he considered to be his right (i.e. the Caliphate), out of a desire to protect Islam from having its unity splintered, its cohesiveness broken, and people returning back to their prior state of Jāhiliyyah (age of pre-Islamic ignorance).”

@@Al-Islaah Means Imam Ali went against Quran… and Imam Hussein AS did not want the unity?

islah.platform@gmail.com

Thanks for alerting us to this. But we noticed, he corrected it again in the next sentence.

@@Al-Islaah Yes, I know. No problem. Sayyid is not infallible lol

The Prophet (S) leaving behind a successor for the poitical leadership of Muslims is different from divine appointment that is also considered to be a pillar of faith/deen and a requirement for salvation.

Will you even blame Allah for the same Naudhubillah? Why was Rasool Allah s.a.w.w the last Prophet? Why did Prophethood not continue? And how has Imam Mahdi contributed for the past 1100 or so years? Attributing lies to Allah is a grave sin. The Zakireen have fooled us enough. Now with literature available so openly, truth cannot be hidden.

@@SyedAliAbbasBilgrami These people keep repeating the same faulty flawed logic and reasoning that they have learnt from the manaabir (pulpits). How can the Prophet (S) not leave a successor? (While many prophets themselves did not leave any successors that we know of). How can we be asked to obey fallibles? (While Ulil Amr-those given authority by the Prophet (S) during his government in Medina were fallible). How can Allah not have a hujjah on earth at all times? (While Qur'an and Sunnah are proof enough of Islam. You were not invited to Islam by the 12th Imam). PS: Is there a way to connect with you?

​@@mhholmezThere is no proof in Qur'an for imamah polytheism...There is Caliphate after prophet and Qur'an also talk about khalifa not imam and various Hadiths of prophet SAW about Caliphate..why not leave a successor? The prophet himself wanted the muslim community to choose the successor after him and his prophecy clearly says there will be disagreements but at the end Caliphate will be ruled for 30 years and after that fitnah will appear among muslims... Prophet was not a king who will choose from his family if it was the case Allah let prophet's son to be alive so that he will lead the Ummah but Allah tested him with hardship... Prophet SAW is infallible not Ali radiallah...An infallible man receive divine revelation from allah...do you believe ali Radiallahuanhu received divine revelation.. Because according to your beliefs Imams are infallible and receive divine revelations from Allah? This aqeeda contradicts the basic essence of Qur'an...

@@Anarchist369totally and utterly untrue there’s as much clear evidence for Khilafa as there is for imammah in the Quran

Barelwis do ghulu on ahlulbayt. Maybe worse than twelver shias

Sunnis do understatement in regards to Ali (as)

Who?

He's speaking HAQ. And this is not because of Muharram which the Shias love (Yes, we know, Shias have nothing to do with other months of Islamic calendar). This was a lecture specifically addressing Ghadeer and the claim of Divine Imamah.

@@SyedAliAbbasBilgrami Is there a way to connect with you?

Your argument is absurd and indicative of weak intellect. If you claim we are supposed to go to the Quran and Sunnah directly, and not to the Ulil Amr, then what are the Ulil Amr needed for? Isn't the claim of the sect that we need the 12 Imams to establish the Quran and Sunnah and interpret it for us? Well, if the 12 Imams are the ultimate interpreters of the Quran and Sunnah, the Ayah should be ordering us to go to them in disputes, as the Quran and Sunnah is open to interpretation, and different people will interpret them differently. Going back to the Prophet directly was possible during his lifetime, so that's why the verse says you refer the dispute to him, and the Prophet indeed used to judge disputes. The Sirah is full of this. But after the Prophet (Saww) who do we turn to for dispute resolution. You are saying we should go directly to the Quran and Sunnah, and not to the Ulil Amr. But that is not the stance of your sect, so are you sure you are not the confused weak minded charlatan you are accusing others of being?

@@Al-Islaah " You are mixing things up, The verse is perfect, it already, clearly says, OBEY them (Allah, Prophet pbuh & Ulil Amr [Imams]), So your objection does not make sense, as we have already been commanded to obey/follow them, NO EXCEPTION. It doesn’t just say refer the dispute to the Prophet pbuh, it starts with Allah, why did you skip that? How do I go to Allah? Can I speak to him like people use to speak with the Prophet pbuh. Now I cant even go to the Prophet pbuh? So your interpretation isn’t correct. It only makes sense when it means refer it back to Quran and the Sunnah. Well according to your interpretation, this verse doesn’t mean anything anymore as you cannot turn to anyone for dispute resolution now? The verse, as I have said before is very clear, if there is a dispute, refer back to Allah & Prophet pbuh, How? through Quran and Sunnah obviously, there is no other way. Your objection, why doesn’t it say Ulil Amr, it’s simply because the Ulil Amr themselves followed the Quran and Sunnah and we have already been told to obey them. It’s very simple, no need to twist the words of Allah.

@@dannyman005 We never said the verse if imperfect. It's your twisted interpretation of it and erroneous sectarian understanding of it that artificially seeks to introduce imperfection to it. You say the verse asks us to refer the disputes first to Allah. So how are the believers supposed to go to Allah? Answer: By going to the one who receives Wahiy from Allah and conveys His verdicts to the people on His behalf, i.e. the Messenger of Allah (Saww). But the important thing is that the verse doesn't say refer the disputes to the Ulil Amr, because the people the Prophet (Saww) was vesting with authority in his lifetime often ended up abusing that authority, and they were prone to mistakes, so this is why they were removed from being the ultimate arbitrators of disputes. With regard to your claim that "Your objection, why doesn’t it say Ulil Amr, it’s simply because the Ulil Amr themselves followed the Quran and Sunnah and we have already been told to obey them", it is wrong. The Prophet (Saww) himself always followed the Quran and implemented his own Sunnah, and we have already been told to obey him in the first part of the verse, so by your twisted interpretation, he should also have been removed from the clause "but if you have dispute, then refer it back to Allah and the Messenger" because he also only follows the Quran and implements the Sunnah just like the Ulil Amr. By your standard, there is no difference between the Messenger and the Ulil Amr in this sense, because both follow the Quran and implement the Sunnah. So you have failed to explain and account for why one entity (i.e. the Messenger) that follows the Quran and implements the Sunnah has been included in the second clause of the verse which has to do with dispute resolution, and why the other entity (i.e. the Ulil Amr) which also follow the Quran and implement the Sunnah have been excluded. Our Sayyid's explanation is the only one that makes perfect sense. The word Ulil Amr in Arabic means those who are in positions of power and authority. The Prophet (Saww) appointed many people to such posts to ensure smooth functioning of his government. But such people were not infallible and very much prone to abusing their power. So as a default the believers were asked to obey those in power because without that basic obedience the government of the Prophet would fail to function. But they were also given the right to challenge those in power and bring them to the Prophet (Saww) in case the believers felt they were crossing a line, and the believers did exercise this freedom as you will see from the books of Sirah. They reported Khalid bin Walid, for example to the Prophet (Saww) and refused to obey his unjust orders, and neither Allah or the Messenger condemned them for that, because the understanding was that the Ulil Amr only deserve to obeyed so long as they stand true to the Quran, Sunnah, and requirements of moral behaviour. If they deviate or take an unjust decision, the believers are always free to dispute and challenge that, and in such an event, it would be foolish to say that "if you have a dispute, then refer it back to the Ulil Amr", because the Ulil Amr would themselves be party to the dispute, so it would be wrong and unjust to make them the ultimate and supreme judges of disputes which they are a party to themselves. Hope you understand the flaw in your interpretation in light of this very simple observation. The verse is really straight forward and easy to understand. The only reason why you seem to falling into fallacies is because your are superimposing sectarian reading into it, but that sectarian reading is a later development that does not fit with the verse, as should be obvious to the diligent and sharp student of the Quran.

​@@Al-Islaah 1.)You said: By going to the one who receives Wahiy from Allah and conveys His verdicts to the people on His behalf, i.e. the Messenger of Allah (Saww). Reply: You had to made this up because of your flawed logic. Even now, there was no need for Allah in the verse, could’ve just said refer to the Prophet pbuh directly. 2.)You said: But the important thing is that the verse doesn't say ……….. (i.e. the Messenger) that follows the Quran and implements the Sunnah ………. Reply: Implements the Sunnah? Nice try, Sunnah isn’t Quran 2.0 that the Prophet pbuh himself is following. It’s his actions and whatever he told us. So your cope is flawed. Whatever actions/words Prophet pbuh does, is making Sunnah, while Ulil Amr are FOLLOWING that sunnah. There is a VERY BIG distinction and it does not negate what I initially said, which was, Ulil Amr do not need to be in the second sentence as they follow the Sunnah. Prophet pbuh however, does not FOLLOW any sunnah, his actions are creating Sunnah. Finally: Your interpretation, that it’s asking people, who have ‘ANY DISPUTE’, to physically go and talk to ALLAH and Prophet pbuh - just does not make sense. With Allah, you had to come up with a cope that it just means, talk to the Prophet pbuh. Secondly, according to your logic this verse was time bound and is now effectively abrogated as no one can talk to Allah and the Prophet pbuh anymore. You claim that your interpretation is clear & simple, yet you have to write a whole story to make sense of it. See what clarity and simplicity means:- O you who have believed, obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. (Follow these three - very simple to understand) Now the second line : If you are in dispute over any matter, refer it to God and the Messenger, if you truly believe in God and the Last Day: (You have ANY DISPUTE, refer to Quran and Sunnah - Very simple to understand) I don’t need to write a whole story book, to change the meaning of the sentence or anything any person can understand what it says. You said: “it would be foolish to say that "if you have a dispute, then refer it back to the Ulil Amr", because the Ulil Amr would themselves be party to the dispute” WHERE IN THE VERSE DOES IT SAY, If you have dispute WITH THE Ulil Amr? You are one superimposing your interpretation to it.

@@dannyman005 1. Allah routinely adds His name with the Prophet throughout the Quran. This is done to show that the Messenger (Saww) derives his authority from Allah. If you are ignorant of Quranic stylistics and rhetorical patterns, that's your problem, not ours. 2. The Prophet himself follows the Wahiy of Allah, both Quranic and extra Quranic. The Quran repeatedly instructs him to say: "Say I follow nothing except the Wahiyy that comes to me from my Lord". So he is a follower of that Wahiy, and as he follows is, Sunnah comes into being. So your original point still remains invalid. If the Prophet merely follows Allah's Wahiyy, and does nothing from his own whim, then according to you, his name could also have been omitted because, as per the Quran, he is merely a follower of the Wahiyy that comes from Allah. Yet Allah mentioned him in the second clause of the verse, but omitted the Ulil Amr, even though both are equally bound to follow the Wahiy that comes from Allah. 3. You contradict yourself. On the one hand, you interpret referring the matter back to Allah and His Messenger as "physically go and talk to ALLAH and Prophet pbuh". But today since we can't do that, you introduce your own cope, that it means go to Quran and Sunnah. But how can someone talk to Quran and Sunnah? You say how can someone talk to Allah? Well, how can someone talk to Quran? And how can we talk to Sunnah? Because your understanding of "referring back something" is that it means to talk, well, you can't talk to the Quran and Sunnah either. Besides, where does it say in the verse that you should refer the matter back to the Quran and Sunnah? The text doesn't say that. It says: refer the matter back to Allah and His Messenger. But since we don't have direct access to them, you are saying referring back the matter to Allah and the Messenger means referring it back to the Quran and Sunnah today. So you yourself accept that there are implications to the text which are not necessarily clearly spelt out in the translation but understood by applying common sense. In the same way, Allah has said "Ulil Amri Minkum" in the verse which means "those vested with authority FROM AMONG YOU". So that means Ulil Amr are from among the community of believers. They are not some external third party. Then Allah says: If you differ AMONG YOURSELVES, so how can you exclude Ulil Amr from this when Allah has already stated that Uilil Amr are FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. So naturally when He says when you dispute among yourselves, that is inclusive of any dispute you have with the ULIL AMR because they are from among you as per the clear text of the verse. So your whole point and misunderstanding of this verse is invalid. So that is the silencing answer to your final question: "WHERE IN THE VERSE DOES IT SAY, If you have dispute WITH THE Ulil Amr? You are one superimposing your interpretation to it." The verse itself has clarified that Ulil Amr are from among the believers, so if they have a dispute with the Ulil Amr, they are basically having a dispute among themselves as far as the Arabic of the Quran is concerned. As for why we have to write a detailed answer despite the verse being very simple, it's simple. The verse is very easy to understand, but to explain it to a stubborn sectarian mind, you really have to exert yourself and give detailed explanations, otherwise the person is unable to see the truth, and even after all the effort, the insincere person will still find a way to avoid admitting the truth. Also our response is made more lengthy by the fact that we have to respond to your false claims and misunderstandings, so Brandolini's law, applies. The law states: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."

they are not shias from any angle anyways so why not.

@@techblokk8537 you Shias need these guidelines honestly.

Read the same verse in full, you will see it is talking about the Book of deeds. In the Arabic of the Quran, Imam also means Book.

Stop cutting and pasting and read the Quran in its full context.

Lol

I think he is a shia. Who said there is only one type of Shia? Why so ignorant?

He certainly knows the books of the Shia better than most online Shia speakers

Counter him on things he has spoken. People who can't speak on the topic at hand do personal attacks.

@@SyedAliAbbasBilgrami Bro, these ignoramuses and their ad hominem! 😂 Can't refute the argument so attack the person. 😂

Allah (SWT) has forbidden us from joining any sect in religion in the Quran. He has called us Muslimeen and Mumineen. Shiism is the name we only give to our reading of Post Prophetic history, but that has got nothing to do with our religious belief and Aqidah. Unfortunately, Sunnism is itself a reaction to the many different sects and movements that emerged in the early history. In order to oppose those sects and movements, the pioneers of Sunnism overreacted and added the opposite of their claims to the religious belief system of Islam, thereby inflating it and making it larger, bigger and more complex than the original simple easy to understand Aqidah and articles of Iman which Allah bound this Ummah by in verses such as 02: 177, 285; 04: 136 of the Quran, and it is those additions which distinguish Sunni Islam from the Islam of the time of the Prophet (Saww). Those additions include, but are not limited to: Belief in the Khulafaa Rashideen as a requirement of Iman Adalat al Sahaba Qadhaa & Qadar (Determinism and Predestination) - Uncreatedness of Quran - Ru’yatul Allah Beatific Vision (seeing Allah on the day of judgment) - Impermissibility of rising up against tyrant Muslim rulers so long as they establish prayer - Confinement of the Khilafah/Imamah to Quraish - Second Coming & Return of Isa bin Maryam (as) It won’t be so bad, relatively speaking, if Sunnis were to believe in these things due to being convinced by the dhanni evidence for them in their sectarian corpus, but for them to expect the entire Muslim Ummah to believe in them, and to regard those who don’t as deviant and misguided is unjust and unfair, because the evidence for all these later additions is purely Dhanni (conjectural and speculative) and not Qatiyy (certain and definitive), since Allah (SWT) never included them in the lists He provided us with of the articles of faith in the Quran. Therefore, it is unjust to impose these beliefs on the entire Ummah and to expect them to believe in them, because if we give every sect the right to impose the dhanni narrations and Ahadith it has in its corpus on the entire Ummah, it would only result in mass Takfeer and excommunication of huge swathes of Muslims from the folds of Islam, Iman, and the brotherhood of the Ummah. The Shia Zaydis, Ithna Asheris, and Ibadhis would have to expel the Ahlu Sunnah from Islam if they were to bind them by the dhanni narrations in their corpus. So all in all, it would be chaos. The only solution is to only impose what’s Qatiyy from the Quran on the Ummah, while giving people the freedom to have their own personal readings, interpretations and inclinations when it comes to dhanni matters that Allah has not made a big deal of in the Quran. In any case, without accepting what the Sunnis added to the Islam of the Quran, you can’t really be a bonafide Sunni, at least not in the sectarian sense. And this is why, our scholarship cannot be rightly labeled as Sunni. As for the label “Shia:, our scholars are only comfortable with this label being used to describe their political reading of history. But Shiism is not their religious identity. Only Islam is. As they maintain “Muslim” and “Mumin” are the only religious labels Allah approved for our Ummah. And thus we must stick to these, and not promote sectarianism for that is rebellion against Allah’s Vision in the Quran. As for collaborating with others, our scholars are prepared to work with anyone who is working for furthering the interests of Islam, but they are after the pleasure of Allah, not the acceptance of sectarian minded people. So if any Muslim scholars or Du’aat are unwilling to work with them because they don’t accept later additions, then the problem is in those Du’aat. These Du’aat would not be willing to work with the Ahlul Bayt Sahaaba also if they witnessed their times, because the Ahlul Bayt and Sahaaba also didn’t believe in these later additions.

@@Al-Islaah So is raza a follower of Imam Ali or Abubakar?

@@Al-Islaah While all that you have xplained is fine, one has to either follow the Ahlulbayt or the Shaykhain. One cannot follow both as there are different versions of Islam. The followers of Ahlulbayt perform wudu a bit different, they pray salat with their hands by their side, They prostate on dust or clay tablet. Most of the ones who do not follow the Ahlulbayt have a different way to do Wudu, they cross their hands in salaat and prostrate on carpet or nay material. So who if you wnat to follow both, whose rules do you follow? Our Prophet taught us one method to do things not both.

@@mohibali7357 The Shaykhayn do not have any book of Fiqh attributed to them. They were political leaders who led the Ummah, and the Ahlul Bayt (as) praised their rule overall, so we follow the Ahlul Bayt (as) in this. In Fiqh, the Sunnis follow transmissions of Sahaaba and often give them precedence over transmissions from Ahlul Bayt (as). Whereas we give precedence to the transmissions of the Ahlul Bayt (as) in Fiqh and give them precedence over other sources. So we pray with our hands unfolded, but we don't see any problem with prostrating over carpet as we have authentic narration from Imam Ridha (as) permitting that.

@@mohibali7357 He is a follower of Imam Ali (as). But because Imam Ali (as) made peace with Abu Bakr and gave him the Bayah, he also is with Imam Ali (as) in this and stands by it.

That's as true of him as it is other popular preachers...

Ammar is genuine.

@@msakan5638 no he is not. From day one it was all about making a career and an income. His own life is anything but holy. Don’t get me wrong, I’m totally unholy but that’s why I walked away from that life.

Ammar Nakshwani is the Man! Look at how many views he has. How many people revert to Islam because of his lectures. Real Snake oil sellers are those that are dividing people with Fitna

@@cmsacademy1673you’re right. I don’t know if you know but in the past he was controversial bcos in one of his Muharram lectures he said the ppl who invite him to do lectures should pay him a lot bcos he has family to take care of. Lol. That’s enough to know his intentions. He wants to charge for whatever talks he does. It’s shameful but these are only 10 days he can definitely get a regular job to feed his family.

Shaykh Yasir al Qadhi, who is as orthodox as Sunni scholar as you will ever get, acknowledged Shaykh Yahya Ninonowi as a leading Sunni scholar in the following video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mcCRrbJqzNCVm2g.html Do listen to the intro as well as the lecture that follows, for both are indeed beneficial. There is no such thing as a Tafdheeli Shia. All Shias are Tafdheelis. In fact, the vast majority of people from the tribe of the Prophet (Saww), i.e. the Banu Hashim, believed in Tafdheel of Imam Ali (as) over everyone else after the Prophet (Saww) to the extent that Ibrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh al-Ḥajjī said to al-Imām al-Shāfiʿī: I have never seen a Hāshimī favoring Abā Bakr, and ʿUmar (may Allāh be pleased with them) over ʿAlī (may Allāh ennoble his face) except for you. 📕 - Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrāh li-Subkī: 2/113. We would recommend you go through the following article by our the learned Shaykh Mohammad al-Sharifi as it will serve as food for thought in this regard: The Superiority of Amīr al-Muʾminīn over the Entirety of the Companions per the Salaf The companion Abū al-Ṭufayl ʿĀmmir b. Wāthala al-Laythī favored Amīr al-Muʾminīn over Abū Bakr, and ʿUmar. It has been recorded in al-ʾIṣāba by Ibn Ḥajar: He would recognize the virtue of Abī Bakr, and ʿUmar. However, he would advance ʿAlī. 📚- al-ʾIṣāba fī Tamyyīz al-Ṣaḥāba. al-Albānī attributed for many among the Salaf the favoring of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, upon him be peace, over Abī Bakr, and ʿUmar. He said in commentary over what Mūsā b. Qayṣ al-Ḥaḍramī was accused of, of rafḍ when he professed greater love for Amīr al-Muʾminīn, upon him be peace, than that for Abī Bakr, and ʿUmar: This - even if we don’t agree with him on it - is not rafḍ, for many among the Salaf favored ʿAlī. Therefore, this cannot be used as criticism against him. 📚 - Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍaʿīfa: 13/881. Abū Bakr al-Bāqilānī says: The preference of ʿAlī, May Allāh be pleased with him, is widespread among many of the companions. Such as what is narrated from ʿAbdullāh b. ʿAbbās, Ḥuḍayfa b. al-Yamān, ʿAmmār, Jābir b. ʿAbdullāh, Abī al-Haytham b. al-Tīhān, and others. 📚 - Manāqib Aʾimma al-Arbaʿa: 294. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said regarding the disagreement between the Salaf in preference between ʿAlī, and Abū Bakr. He said: The Salaf have also differed in preference between ʿAlī, and Abī Bakr. 📚 - al-ʾIṣtīʿāb fī Maʿrifat al-Aṣḥāb: 3/1116. And Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: It has been narrated from Salmān, Abī Ḍarr, al-Miqdād, Khabāb, Jābir, Abī Saʿīd al-Khudrī, and Zayd b. Arqam that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, Allāh is pleased with him, is the first to have become Muslim, and they have favored him over other than him. 📚 - al-ʾIṣtīʿāb fī Maʿrifat al-Aṣḥāb: 3/1090. al-Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār - from the Muʿtazila - said regarding the preference over Abī Bakr, and ʿUmar: As for preferring Amīr al-Muʾminīn, upon him be peace, it is narrated from al-Zubayr, Ḥuḍayfa b. al-Yamān, Jābir b. ʿAbdullāh, ʿAmmār, Salmān, Abī Ḍarr, al-Miqdād, a group from among the Tabaʿīn, and those after them. Such as, Mujāhid, Salma b. Kahīl, and al-Ḥakm. 📚 - al-Mughnī: 20/112. Ibn Abī al-Ḥadīd al-Muʿtazīlī said regarding the favoring of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, upon him be peace, over anyone besides him: As for the position of preference, it is an early saying. Many from among the companions, and Tabaʿīn have held to it. From the companions: ʿAmmār, al-Miqdād, Abū Ḍarr, Salmān, Jābir b. ʿAbdullāh, ʾUbay b. Kaʿb, Ḥuḍayfa, Burayda, Abū ʾAyūb, Sahl b. Ḥanīf, ʿUthmān b. Ḥanīf, Abū al-Haytham b. al-Tīhān, Khuzayma b. Thābit, Abū al-Ṭufayl, ʿAmmir b. Wāthala, al-ʿAbbās b. ʿAbd al-Muttalib, his sons, the entirety of Banū Hāshim, and the entirety of the sons of ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib. 📚 - Sharḥ Nahj al-Balāgha: 20/221. As such, ʾIbrāhīm b. ʿAbdullāh al-Ḥajbī stated when addressing al-Imām al-Shāfīʿī may Allāh have mercy on him: ((I have never seen a Hāshimī advance Abā Bakr, and ʿUmar [in preference] ahead of ʿAlī , Allāh is pleased with him, besides you!)). 📚 - Ṭabaqāt al-Subkī: 1/194. Ibn Ḥazm said: ((The Muslims have differed as to who the most superior of people after the Prophets, upon them be peace is; some of Ahl al-Sunnah, some of the Muʿtazila, some of the Murjīʾa, and the entirety of the Shīʿa have said that the most superior from the nation after the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ is ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. We have narrated this saying from the saying of some of the companions, may Allāh be pleased with them, and from a group of the Tābīʿīn, and jurists. The entirety of the Khawārij, some of Ahl al-Sunnah, some of the Muʿtazila, and some of the Murjīʾa have held that the most superior of the companions after the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ are Abū Bakr, and ʿUmar)). 📚 - al-Faṣl fī al-Milal: 4/90. Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ashʿarī said: Zayd b. ʿAlī favored ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib over the entirety of the companions of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ. 📚 - Maqālāt al-Islāmīyīn: 65. al-Imām Zayd b. ʿAlī responded to the Qurayshians who mentioned the superiority of Abī Bak by sending them some poetic verses: ‎ومَنْ فَضّل الأقوامَ يَومَاً بِرَأيهِ ‎فَإنّ عَليّاً فَضّلته المَناقبُ Who chose to favor the people by his opinion Verily ʿAlī was favored by his virtues 📚 - Transmitted by Ibn ʿAṣākir. And in the famous report from al-Imām Abī Muḥammad al-Ṣibt al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī, upon them be peace, when his father was martyred: Yesterday a man has departed from among you, none from the predecessors advanced him, nor any from those who shall succeed will reach him [in virtue]. 📚 - al-Mustadrak ʿAlā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn. Note: All the narrators of this sermon are from the Ahl al-Bayt. Abū Ḥayān al-Tawḥīdī said: ((On the ring of al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥusayn b. Zayd [b. ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn] [was inscribed,] I have chosen Allāh alone, Muḥammad His servant, and ʿAlī after him. He said: I have taken it from the saying of Allāh (the Glorious, and Exalted): {Whoever allies themselves with Allāh, His Messenger, and fellow believers, then it is certainly Allāh’s party that will prevail} [5:56]. 📚 - al-Baṣāʾr wa-l Ḍaḳāʾr: 5/179. al-Thaʿlabī transmitted with His chain: It was narrated to us from ʿAlī b. Mūsā al-Riḍhā, [he said] it was narrated to me by my father Mūsā b. Jaʿfar, [he said] it was narrated to me by my father Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad, he said: ((The engraving on the ring of my father Muḥammad b. ʿAlī [is]: My expectation regarding Allāh is good… And of the trustworthy Prophet… And of the Waṣī (vicegerent), the one of generosity… And al-Ḥusayn, and al-Ḥasan)). 📚 - Tafsīr al-Thaʿlabī: 8/311. ʿUbaydullāh b. Mūsā al-ʿAbsī (d. 219 AH) said regarding the creed of a large group from among the Salaf of the first three generations: Nobody doubted that ʿAlī was more superior than Abī Bakr, and ʿUmar. 📚 - Tārīkh Ibn Maʿīn: 1/159. Ibn Ḥazm al-Ḍāhirī said: It has been narrated that ʿAmmār b. Yāsir, and al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib favored Amīr al-Muʾminīn, upon him be peace, over Abī Bakr, and ʿUmar. 📚 - al-Faṣl: 4/106. al-Ḥakam b. ʿUtayba al-Kindī (d. 113 AH), Shuʿba said: al-Ḥakam used to favor ʿAlī over Abī Bakr, and ʿUmar. 📚 - Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalā: 5/209.

I just saw your reply , please allow us ahlus sunnah to state who is orthodox and who is not. Yasir qadhi is not an orthodox Sunni scholar he is a very controversial man he's from the najdi dawah they are certainly not mainstream nor the salafiyah and he is not considered an authority by mainstream orthodox ahlus sunnah any institution of repute will confirm this. Yahaya ninowi is a tafdheeli, and yes 💯% there is something called tafdheeli Shia . We use this term for those.who pose as Sunnis but follow many Shia narratives and hold a position of tafdheel e Ali. Many of our ulema have written about them for hundreds of years most notable is the works of Shah Abdul Aziz.. yahaya nonowi is controversial for many aspects. Just like main stream majority of Shias would consider you guys as controversial. As your views are neither rmainstream nor supported by any Shia marja. The opinions and quotes you gave are simply out of context sorry to say that's a standard Shia problem when quoting our sources we have mutawatir narrations!!!! from Ali RadhiAllah an himself and his children advocating tafdheel e shaykhain we have ijma on this. All our scholars you mentioned are agreed upon this it's a unambiguous position of ahlus sunnah ( ibn hazm again controversial, we don't derive aqeeda from mere narations we have a very developed complex and the pioneers in hadith sciences of rijal. A mere statement is nothing unless the chian is scrutinized. Shias do not understand our position on tafdheel. We believe in juzvi fazila for many companions including sayyiduna Ali and others. Just like for example Bilal is the muazzin , hanzala was washed by the angels khuzaima has two testimonies compared to one, sayyida Fatima RadhiAllah anha is the Child of RasulAllah salallahualaihiwaalihiwasalam even sayyiduna Ali does not have this merit.These are merits not shared by any other. But in terms of kasrat e thawab we hold by agreement the shaikhain as most afdhal and that is what we have narrated from ahlul bayt too. Minhaj Al talbiyeen ( a book on discussion of divisions ) and other works you mentioned merely discuss the topic. We have the ijma of the sahabah and the very statements of Ali RadhiAllah an mass transmitted and those from his children. All our four imams of fiqh and the ones of aqeeda are in complete agreement upon this. The way you threw names in the comment I could qoute zaidis , Ismailis twelvers , shaikhis and jumble them all as the Shia view that is essentially what you did above.

@@LadooCrew We would request you to please let the community of the Ahlu Sunnah decide who is orthodox and who is not rather than impose your own uninformed isolated opinion on them. Shaykh Yasir al Qadhi is the Imam of one of the largest Masaajid of Ahlu Sunnah in the US. So would you say all those hundreds of thousands of Ahlu Sunnah are Shias? The Shias would thank you for increasing their population so drastically, but you would be factually wrong. You are also factually wrong about Shaykh Yasir al Qadhi being a man representing the Najdi Dawah. He left that Dawah long back. It seems you don't follow his content so you are still in the dark about his move away from Najdi Dawah to mainstream orthodox Sunnism. He has even done a refutation and expose of the Najdi Dawah as part of his Library chat, which you can access from here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mrikjKZ7nMipZX0.html So it seems like despite being from Shia backgrounds, we have a better sense of things on the Sunni side than you. There is no such thing as a Tafdheeli Shia. Every Shia is Tafdheeli by default. So it's as redundant an expression as "Sunni who loves Abu Bakr". The correct term for those Sunnis who follow many Shia narratives and hold a position of Tafdheel e Ali is Tafdheeli Sunni. Many Barelwi Sunnis and Sufi Sunnis come under this category, and you can say they have Tashayyu in them, but no respectable academic scholar will classify them as Shias. Labels that lay people like you develop for them have no value. Because many lay people from the Tafdheeli Sunni side would call people like you Nasibi Umawis and refuse to accept you as Sunni, but you wouldn't accept that, would you? Similarly they wouldn't accept your labels as well, so the best approach is to take an academic approach to such things rather than an offensive one. As for Tafdheel of Ali, we shared an article that highlighted amany different opinions. You got fixated on Ibn Hazm. Even though he was a Sunni, if you find him controversial, you can ignore his view. But you still have to deal with non controversial Sunni authorities. So what are you going to do about them? Expel them from Sunnisism as well? What do you say about the following statements from non-controversial recognized Sunni authorities: The companion Abū al-Ṭufayl ʿĀmmir b. Wāthala al-Laythī favored Amīr al-Muʾminīn over Abū Bakr, and ʿUmar. It has been recorded in al-ʾIṣāba by Ibn Ḥajar: He would recognize the virtue of Abī Bakr, and ʿUmar. However, he would advance ʿAlī. 📚- al-ʾIṣāba fī Tamyyīz al-Ṣaḥāba by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani What do you say about the above Sahaabi? If he came today, would you label him a deviant? And what about Ibn Hajar Asqalani? Is he a deviant also for acknowledging this? If you think we are quoting out of context, you please clarify the context. Merely accusing someone of quoting out of context is something anyone can do. We can say that the statement of Ali (as) which you are referring to which indicates Afdhaliyyah of Shaykhayn is taken out of context. You see now how easy it is to make claims. Proving them is the hard part, and we challenge you to prove that Ibn Hajar is wrong about the Sahaabi Abū al-Ṭufayl ʿĀmmir b. Wāthala al-Laythī. Similarly, we also challenge you to prove al-Albānī's honest admission that many among the Salaf favoured Amīr al-Muʾminīn Ali bin Abi Talib, upon him be peace, over Abī Bakr, and ʿUmar. He wrote in commentary over what Mūsā b. Qayṣ al-Ḥaḍramī was accused of, of rafḍ when he professed greater love for Amīr al-Muʾminīn, upon him be peace, than that for Abī Bakr, and ʿUmar: "This - even if we don’t agree with him on it - is not rafḍ, for many among the Salaf favored ʿAlī. Therefore, this cannot be used as criticism against him." 📚 - Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍaʿīfa: 13/881. Is this statement also out of context, or is it that every statement which goes against your preconceived sectarian whims, desires and fancy is all of a sudden "out of context"? Abū Bakr al-Bāqilānī says: The preference of ʿAlī, Allāh is pleased with him, is widespread among many of the companions. Such as what is narrated from ʿAbdullāh b. ʿAbbās, Ḥuḍayfa b. al-Yamān, ʿAmmār, Jābir b. ʿAbdullāh, Abī al-Haytham b. al-Tīhān, and others. 📚 - Manāqib Aʾimma al-Arbaʿa: 294. Is this also out of context? Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said regarding the disagreement between the Salaf in preference between ʿAlī, and Abū Bakr. He said: The Salaf have also differed in preference between ʿAlī, and Abī Bakr. 📚 - al-ʾIṣtīʿāb fī Maʿrifat al-Aṣḥāb: 3/1116. And Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said: It has been narrated from Salmān, Abī Ḍarr, al-Miqdād, Khabāb, Jābir, Abī Saʿīd al-Khudrī, and Zayd b. Arqam that ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib, Allāh is pleased with him, is the first to have become Muslim, and they have favored him over other than him. 📚 - al-ʾIṣtīʿāb fī Maʿrifat al-Aṣḥāb: 3/1090. Are all these statements and honest admissions by the great Sunni Maliki scholar Ibn Abdil Barr also out of context? If so please enlighten us on their context and how that changes their obvious implications which we are pointing to. Or was Ibn Abdil Barr also a non Sunni according to you? I think the issue with less learned people such as yourself is that you are unaware of the vast diversity within the Sunni tradition. We would recommend you increase your reading of Sunni sources, especially earlier ones, many of your myths and misconceptions will get dispelled, and you will realise things are not as black and white within Sunnism as you imagine when your study is shallow.

@@Al-Islaah you don't even know me yet your are being rude and condescending and I am restraining myself from speaking back in like manner. Firstly I am fully aware of Yasir qadhis stances I said " from the najdi dawah" as he was hailed from there he studied in Medina university he is still salafi per se. Hence I mentioned salafi straight after.. mainstream vast majority of Sunni Muslims are ashari maturidi and we have complete consensus of tafdheel e shaikhain by all four of our imams. So perhaps you should take some of your own advice. I never called Yasir a Shia so don't worry your numbers are not growing :) shad opinions mean nothing when against the ijma. As for barelvis Sufis who hold such views we call them out and do not consider them ahlus sunnah. Imam Ahmed Raza discusses tafdheeliya in his fatwa rizviya very openly and says they are not Sunnis. So again Shia selective reading sorry to say. As.for all your quotes totally out of context and I've explained them in there first comment you don't understand the difference of mutlaq Min kulli wajuh and juzvi fazila hence you are unable to grasp the Sunni position. All of the scholars you mentioned believes in tafdheel e shaikhain so do the imams of the madhab as ibn hajar is shafi. And like I said this is common Shia tactics you get various factions of ahlus sunnah deobandies barelvis ahlul hadith jumble them all into one we don't need to do that with you we'd just qoute various ayatullah hundreds and you guys be like " well we don't believe that , if we jumbled all the Shias sects and decisions into one imagine the chaos we can show. Yasir qadhi has said much more controversial statements like on LGBTQ like on Qur'an etc he is not reliable for us and only for his followers. Please keep replies to minimum when you write a book I am forced to reply in similar length. I will reiterate when Ali is mass reported from that he considers shaikhain afdhal any other gymnastics after that is of little value.

@@LadooCrew We do not mean to be rude or condescending, but we feel you are being rude and condescending towards Shaykh Yasir al Qadhi when you seek to expel him from Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah without appreciating that there is diversity and a great range of opinions in Sunnism. We ourselves don't agree with many of his views, but we still respect him as a towering and learned scholar of the Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaa'ah. The fact that some later say Sunni groups have consensus on Tafdheel of Shaykhayn does not help if major figures among the Salaf maintained Tafdheel of Ali (as) as the evidence we shared shows. Your attempt to artificially introduce the claim of Juzi Afzaliyyah into the context doesn't work because there is no indication of that in the quotations. So you are trying to artificially superimpose something onto those texts that is simply not found in them. We challenge you to show us where in the text does it say that the Tafdheel these Salaf believed in for Ali (as) was Juzwi, and not Kulli! The quotations we shared with you clearly state that some Sahaaba and Tabieen considered Ali to be superior to the Shaykhyan, and there is no evidence in those passages of this being Juzi. If it was Juzi, the authors would clarify that, but they don't because they know that these Sahaaba and Tabieen believed in Afdhaliyyah of Ali (as) Mutlaqan over everyone after the Prophet (Saww). Now you say all the scholars we quoted from believe in Tafdheel of Shaykhayn, and we agree. We are not concerned with the personal opinions of these scholars on Tafdheel, but rather with what they tell us, based on their research, about the views of the Sahaaba and the Tabieen, and they are clear in admitting that Sahaaba and Tabieen had no consensus on Afdhaliyyah of Shaykhyan, because some of them believed in Afdhaliyyah of Ali (as). So you are free to believe in Afdhaliyyah of Shaykhayn, but you have no grounds to impose it on the rest of the Ummah, because Sahaaba and Tabieen didn't have Ijmaa on it. As for the mass reports from Ali that he considers Shaykyahn Afzal, then it has been mass reported from Abu Bakr that he openly said after assuming Khilafah ولست بخيركم I am not the best or most superior among you. This means he knew of others in the Ummah at the time who were superior to him, due to which he had to admit he was not the best among them. Thus, he himself did not believe in his own Afdhaliyyah, so of what use is the Ijmaa of some later scholars? So, if you accept Abu Bakr as truthful, you can't accept his Afzaliyyah, and Umar already said Abu Bakr is Afzal to him, so if Abu Bakr is admitting there are better and more superior people to him in the community, then that would apply to Umar as well since he already admitted Abu Bakr's superiority over himself, and you have no route to establish Afdhaliyyah of Shaykhayn after this except gymnastics.

Walaykum Salaam You can access our Urdu content from the following links: Entire Muharram Majalis Series on “Preparing for the Hereafter” by Maulana Dr. Sayyed Qasim Mujtaba Kamoonpuri: kzfaq.info/sun/PLtu4Nz3xrIMLxwzc0ZdFB0keD689E8YK4 Series on Impermissibility of Dua and Istighatha to Ghayr Allah across Ghayb by Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri [URDU] Debate Offer Reply to Open Message of Mufti Fazal Hamdard on SHIRK | By Dr. Syed Ali Hur kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fNdifpV-m7expac.html [URDU] Mufti Fazal Refutes himself on Calling those in the Graves | Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qNyHf7Vjs8zUlnk.html [URDU] Ayate Wasila Ka Sahih Matlab | Quran 05: 35 | Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y66RpraL0rC8qok.html [URDU] Ahlul Bayt (ع) aur Shirk Ka Hukm Shiyon Par | Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rsiJoKSkvqzLXZ8.html [URDU] Kya Rizq Ahle Bayt (AS) ke Zariye Milta Hai? | Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b7tynblhsdSqnY0.html [URDU] Imam Raza (as) Ki unse Dua Karne Walo se Ilaane Baraa'at | Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri kzfaq.info/get/bejne/faeYmrSDppmqZmQ.html [URDU] Awlad Ke liye Pareshan Logon Ke liye Imam Reza ka Qurani Nuskha | Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri kzfaq.info/get/bejne/f81pnJalnbCRnas.html Wahhabiyat Ke Tag Ke Dar Se Tawhid Na Choriye! | Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eLN6f7Jos7mWdoE.html Series by Ustaadh Sayyid Ali Abidi kzfaq.info/sun/PLtu4Nz3xrIMJ8C4zpNjc2zUhHy6wQnYit Additional Lectures by Maulana Dr. Sayyed Qasim Mujtaba Kamoonpuri: Message to Dar es Salaam Jamaat and the entire Khoja Shia Community living around the World | URDU kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rrF9hrOCxr2qeqM.html Lecture on: Zakaat - The Forgotten Obligation | Urdu kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZtSqrK2jtZ_TmWg.html Urdu Lecture by Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri on: Kya Aimmah (as) ko Ilmul Ghayb hota hain? | Dr. Syed Ali Hur Kamoonpuri kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jZuSZale09K8n40.html Understanding the Original Sunnah by by Sheikh Saqalain Abbas Alavi kzfaq.info/sun/PLtu4Nz3xrIMKi3VYKwzsXOeG4c8WjacTu&feature=shared