Peace. I wish to (as quickly as possible) share some ayat that I found very compelling in the discussion of wilayat and why it would not be left out on purpose. Perhaps we can use the Quran to explain almost everything about Islam long before resorting to hadith. “Verily it is honorable, in a Book hidden. Touch it not save the purified ones, sent down by the Lord of the Worlds” 56:79… who are the purified ones? “Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His permission?” 2:255 “They will have no power of intercession, except for someone who has an agreement with the most merciful” 19:87 “And mention when Abraham was tried by His Lord with commands and he fulfilled them. Allah said “Indeed, I will make you a leader (imam) for the people.’ Abraham said ‘and of my descendants?’ Allah said, ‘My covenant does not extend to the unjust’” 2:124 “He it is who brought the book down to you. Part of it consists of verses firm and categorical in meaning, these being the foundation of the book and part of others allegorical and meaning those in whose Hearts is a perversion and deviance follow only the metaphorical verses in order to create confusion and disorder while claiming to be interpreting those verses. Their interpretation is known however only to God and those firmly rooted in knowledge” 3:7 “Their prophet said to them, “God has appointed Saul to be your king.” They said, “How can he have authority over us, when we are more worthy of authority than he, and he was not given plenty of wealth?” He said, “God has chosen him over you, and has increased him in knowledge and stature.” God bestows His sovereignty upon whomever He wills. God is Embracing and Knowing.” 2:247 He who had knowledge from the Book said, “I will bring it to you before your glance returns to you.” And when he saw it settled before him, he said, “This is from the grace of my Lord, to test me, whether I am grateful or ungrateful. He who is grateful, his gratitude is to his own credit; but he who is ungrateful-my Lord is Independent and Generous.” 27:40 From only a few verses that discuss leadership we can see a trend that there is a criterion that is held in the scope of the covenant. Also we can see that there is a class of mysterious people who can intercede to God on behalf of others. It is true that there are no more prophets after Muhammad (a.s.) but we can see that there are intercessors. God reveals in the Quran that prophets chose their successors and each successor was tested and verified against this criterion (knowledge, purification and steadfastness in Allahs tests). So if the Quran reveals successorship, intercession and a standard for leadership to carry on the covenant, it is unlikely that it wouldn’t apply to the final messenger with the final covenant that would be the highest standard on the day of account. He else shall be in charge of the covenant other than those who have intercession and knowledge of the Book? I hope this little bit is as much use to you as it has been for me in your journey. Peace be upon you.

@@Tronmalik Thank you for your post! From the Shia perspective(s) there are surely many verses in the Quran that support their side of the argument, where Muhammed did appoint a successor and indeed this was Ali and his progeny. Now I understand from your verses here that you wish to address the more general topic of God appointing successors or leaders or assigning such authority onto people. The verses from the Quran that you have listed here do mention those kinds of topics. But even there, none of them are conclusive to the matter of political succession of Mohammed. Or of political succession in general. In fact, the verses very clearly connect God´s decision and the outcome of that decision. There is no lack of clarity or delay in the decision. It just is so and it is so because God says so, to put it bluntly. In the case of Muhammed and I do understand what you are saying in the light of the preceeding verses you quoted, you make the case that it must be that God then also appointed some successor with intercessionary powers, not Prophetic but intercessionary nonetheless, after Muhammed. He did do so before ergo, it must be so now. The closest the Shia perspective gets to supporting this particular claim is the verses from Surah Maidah about God having perfected the religion this day. But again, even then and very much in light of your own quoted verses where this appointment is crystal clear and understood by all and is a direct command by God rather than a whisper or private revelation to whatever Prophet or person in question who then has to convey the message to those around him, we are back to the lack of clarity. Was there indeed a successor appointed to the Prophet, was this understood by his contemporaries and was this appointment political or spiritual in nature and what does such appointment look like when the next transfer point comes as one dies or is incapacitated and the next takes over. You can see even among the Shia (which is why I wrote "perspectives" in the beginning) they are not in agreement. The Ismailis say Ismail ibn Jaafar takes over as the oldest and first born, but since he dies before his father, his younger brother Musa takes the torch according to the Ithna Ashari. Which of course begs the question of really? According to what order or command is this the case? Is it then yet another one of those whispers or private revelations that only the initated (and in this case they are intercessors rather than prophets) are privy to and through which we then learn what is the case? The revelations of the Quran were always quoted verbatim by Muhammed to those present who heard and listened and then wrote it down on whatever was available. If something was unclear they would ask Muhammed and he would do his best to explain. This is something all scholarship is in agreement on and is also the main reason why Sunnah and Hadith play such an important role as one of the verses of the Quran you quoted illustrate. The Quran alone is not always a clear recitation for Mankind. But here, in this case of political and/or spiritual succession of the Prophet, the matter was never clarified. And mind you, this goes just as much for the Sunni side of this matter by the way. They appointed Abu Bakr how? On what basis? And how was Omar then appointed? And after him, Osman? All different ways, all done not by public vote or grounding in revelation or clear Prophetic command/example or anything of that nature but by the very same privy council approach, some kind of exclusive group that claims special knowledge or special ability to see the truth (or hear the whispers of it) and make the best decisions. Neither the Sunni nor the Shia perspective on this is conclusive or final or well founded. The day they both understand this, embrace the doubt and uncertainty and emerge as aware beings into the darkness they both are fumbling around in under the pretense/delusion of certainty and clarity, that day they will begin to see the light of the principles and goals engendered in the Quran. Light that will guide them through the darkness. Never removing it, but guiding them as is truly the case that we all are mired in darkness and doubt and uncertainty. That type of certainty or removal of doubt does not truly exist for Man, only the guiding light through uncertainty and darkness. There is no removing of darkness and uncertainty and doubt in this life, there is but hope that we can find a guiding light through it. By recognizing this and embracing it can we truly begin to be the deserving human beings that are appointed to the Khilafa of Man and to begin to fulfill the command of upholding the Balance (Mizan). Thank you for reading.

@@seletarroots3258 Hello. Your argument is not resonating very strongly with me, as a Shia. In one paragraph, you advocate for the sunnah, saying they are the interpretations and tafsirs of the Qur'an. But then you ignore the sunnah of both Sunni and Shi'i texts to say that there is a successor after the Prophet. Which successor and how is it chosen? That depends on the school of thought. But undoubtedly, there is a successor. This lecture, by Ammar Nakshawani, spent a considerable amount of time dissecting Qur'an verses showing the support of Imam Ali AS' caliphate, by seeing how relevant it was to the time period and why it was chosen to be sent down at a specific time. Your rebuttal to this is "it's not clear enough". I argue it is. Your other argument is that Shi'i texts differ as to who the successor of the Prophet is. Not entirely true. Every sect of Shi'ism (including Isma'ilis) takes Imam Ali AS to be the successor of the Prophet, which is what "Ghadir Khumm" was all about. In any case, a successor is clearly laid out. But, for the sake of the argument, let's say that there was no successor after the Prophet. Does that make sense? For 1400 years of life to flourish after the Prophet's death and for Islam to just not be dichotomized or usurped or reduced in some way, shape, or regard? I'm not sure if you're a Muslim and just a Qur'anist, or just a Non-Muslim, but you need authorities afterwards to ensure the smooth transition of Islam into a turbulous time after the final Prophet's death. Sunnis believe this was through the first 3 caliphs (which eventually failed), and then afterwards was brought about by some tyrannical dictators. Shias believe the 12th Imam is still alive and is in occultation, free to guide those who see it.

@@TheEntireCircus05 "But, for the sake of the argument, let's say that there was no successor after the Prophet. Does that make sense?" Why is this unfathomable to you? I see you tried to present ideas and arguments for this quality but thought you could develop that further. I am curious to understand this. Why would there have to be a successor to the Prophet and his mission of guiding people to righteousness? And to be clear, I am not arguing for a successor to anybody. Perhaps I was imprecise earlier. My position is that I argue against the idea that there is only one understanding of the matter at hand. As a Shia you might have one understanding. As Sunni loyal to the Umayya tribe, another. As a Sunni not loyal with the Banu Umayya, you would of course have a different opinion. As an Ismaili you might agree with the other Shia up to a point and then diverge with regards to sucession. And so on. Which clearly leaves us with division as an inheritance. More or less in line with the concerns you raised toward the end of your post. Arranging society of humans into the best version of it in terms of justice and fluorishing of humans and lessening of suffering and protection of the rights of the orphans and other weak or unprotected and the preservation of property are all goals common to all forms of government or other organising efforts by Man. In this endeavour, principles and clearly stated goals are what mainly serve as guides and consensus and agreement (cooperation if you will) are what then allow for said principles and goals to be acted upon and brought into reality. I see no reason that Islam would be exempt from this and instead require a (divinely appointed?) "babysitter" who not only inherits the position but then allows it to continue to be inherited along the male line. On pain of death to anybody who says otherwise. Perhaps it worked for a while and then time came to change it to something else, entirely. While remaining true to the goals, mind you. If only its proponents had been wise enough to understand this in time I think the development in the Muslim majority world, Shia and Sunni, would have looked quite different to the dismal picture we see today... What matters in our discussion is the ideas and their quality. Not who you or I are.

@@seletarroots3258 A successor has been needed for every time across all times and eras. If, by what your argument seems to be implying, Islam as a religion did not need to be supervised by a "babysitter" (in your words), then it could have been sent down from the get-go as a complete manuscript to guide Prophet Adam AS for all times and eras. In fact, they wouldn't have even needed any Prophet, because the teachings of the Qur'an are laid out in plain view for everyone to follow. However, it is clear that man will always go astray without some form of guide to do as the Qur'an says -- "enjoin the good and forbid the evil". Let's say, hypothetically, Islam did not have any sort of leadership. You would have to accept that, not even 50 years after the Prophet dies, his grandson and his family are brutally massacred on the Tenth of Muharram at the Battle of Karbala by the rulers of the time for no other reason than tyranny, evil, and corruption. Islam was always meant to be sent down as an exemption from tyrannical ruling. Not inclusive within the ruling. While I'd love to agree with you on how the onus is on mankind to enjoin good and prosperity for their fellow men in their neighborhoods (after all, the man who exemplified that the most after the Prophet was arguably Imam Ali AS), the reality is that it's just not realistic. Prophet Moses AS ascended to Mount Sinai for twenty days and his people started worshipping a golden cow. Chapter 2 Surah 30 of the Qur'an shows the angels are TERRIFIED of the idea of God sending down a species on Earth that is capable of such havoc. "They said, 'Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we exalt You with praise and declare Your perfection?'2 He [Allāh] said, 'Indeed, I know that which you do not know.'" As a pre-emptive, God says in the same verse, "And [mention, O Muḥammad], when your Lord said to the angels, 'Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority.'" Prophets and Imams were sent down to guide mankind and interpret for them the verses of the Qur'an. Mankind is sinful. That hasn't changed before the Prophet Muhammad PBUH and after him. But these Godsent vicegerents aren't. Without them, the world would have gone to chaos millennia ago. And with the world modernizing at incredible paces, a ruler would be needed now more than ever to ensure the survival of the true essence of Islam. Middle Eastern rulers are in cahoots with enemies of Islam. Saudi Arabia is becoming increasingly liberal every day. No country is really standing up for Palestine -- except Shia Iran, with the guidance of the 12th Imam, Imam Mehdi AS, Peace and Blessings be upon the Prophet and his household.

He is giving a lecture to Shia Muslims and it’s being recorded, it’s not direct to Sunni brothers so he doesn’t need to give his references cuz it’s takes too long to do that. He gets his information from Houzzah which is like a degree in Islamic Studies, so he can make a whole lecture about a historical event to Muslims and maybe give one or two references if he feels like he needs to. Let’s be honest you’re just calling him a liar because what he is saying is shocking to your ears but don’t be subjected to one narrative. At the end of the day you can’t deny that the wife of the prophet went against Amir Al mumineen. In a Sunnis eyes it’s confusing that Mother of the believers is against the fourth rightly guided, so you’re like who is right, but if you study it you’d clearly understand which side was good.

That’s a fiqh issue bro. It’s like me saying your not Muslim because you eat anything under the water, cuz my scholars say that not everything under the water is halal . Tell me why tattoos are haram, give me a fundamental reason or evidence from anywhere saying that tattoos is haram and the reason for it being haram. You don’t even know what is on his tattoos, if it’s Islamic or not. Plus you’re literally judging a book by its cover.

@@A.A471 why tatoo is haram? Because you're changing the natural creation of Allah that is why,, truly Shia is not Muslims 😏😏😏😏

@@relaxman8076 So when somone changes the colour of the hair or puts contact lenses that have colour, is that haram too ?

This is my point, that you don’t have a clear understanding or knowledge of Isalmic law to tell me yourself that it’s haram or not, go to a scholar who has spent his most of his life studying Islamic law and then tell me this. This is not something like alcohol or pork where it’s been made clear in the Quran that these things are haram, but tattoo isn’t one of them. So don’t associate tattoos with haram. And to let you know I personally don’t agree with tattoos but I’m not saying it’s haram because my scholar said there isn’t enough evidence to conclude it’s haram. But you don’t even have one your just basing it off your personal opinion.

Yazid sympathizer detected, opinion rejected. If you have anything of value to say (which clearly you don't), you are welcome to come say it. Other than that, stop being the jahil you are and take your nonsense elsewhere.

The irony here actually is that you think you got it right when in reality you're coming to videos discuss historical figures crucial to Islam. Didn't expect anything better from a Bakri shill.