Assalamu Alaikum I have a friend who doesn't beleive in the death penalty for apostasy, so I tried to convince him using the example of the Sahabah, that they fought the the apostate tribes, and forced them to convert to Islam and pay Zakah. However, he thinks that theses tribes (like Banu Hanifah) 'claimed to be muslim' (even though, they obviously weren't muslim as they had accepted a false prophet), which is why it was necessary to compel them into giving Zakah. In other words, he beleives that if they had explicitly renounced Islam, Abu Bakr RA would have had no option but to take Jizya from them. So what I'm looking for here, is authentic/sound narrations to prove that any of these tribes had explicitly renounced Islam or explicitly denied the shahadah becuase he thinks that these tribes still beleived Muhammad SAW to be a Messenger, just not the last Prophet (which is obviously also kufr, but not explicit). So can y'all find some please :)

The society of Muslims needs to be guided by caliph after prophet Mohammad (PBUH). Hence, after the death of holy prophet (PBUH), a caliph was assigned to guide and rule the Muslims. According to my findings in noble Qur'an, God has assigned the caliph. For example, Moses the prophet (PBUH) didn't ask people to form a Shura for choosing a successor when he left for Miqat. > Moses said: "O’ Allah) assign me a vizier from my family, (that is) my > brother Aaron (Haroon) ...,”(Allah) said: "We granted your requests, > O’ Moses.”(20:29-36) . Or in another verse, Allah the exalted, directly mentions the word "Caliph": > يَا دَاوُودُ **إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ خَلِيفَةً** فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ فَاحْكُم > بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تَتَّبِعِ الْهَوَىٰ فَيُضِلَّكَ عَن > سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ ۚ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَضِلُّونَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ > لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ بِمَا نَسُوا يَوْمَ الْحِسَابِ > > [We said], "O David, indeed **We have made you a successor** upon the > earth, so judge between the people in truth and do not follow [your > own] desire, as it will lead you astray from the way of Allah." > Indeed, those who go astray from the way of Allah will have a severe > punishment for having forgotten the Day of Account.(38:26) But I didn't find other clues mentioning the authority of the prophet or people. Please let me know if others except God has such an authority. Support your answer using Qur'an and Hadith.

We have sahih hadiths to learn authentic info about the life of the prophet, do we have something equivalent in authority and reliability for those four caliphs ?

Is Raza (permission) of authoritative leader/caliph/Imam required to lead prayers in Islam? Assuming the leader/Amir exists among us.

Assalam o Alaikum brothers, Someone just asked me a question, and to be frank, I didn't have a substantial reply. I'm also quiet confused now regarding this topic. I understand that Allah swt in surah Baqarah 2:30 speaks about creating a Khalifa (vicegerent) on the earth. This was prior to creating Adam (as). I understand that Allah Swt gave Adam (as) free will. Iblees (Laanatallah Alayhi) however, decieved Adam (as) to disobey Allah swt by eating from the forbidden tree. This is as I personally understand, the only reason for him to be expelled from heaven and sent down to earth. Now here is where I'm confused astagfirullah! If Allah swt even prior to creating Adam (as) had already decided to send Adam (as) to earth as seen in Surah Baqarah 2:30. Does this mean that Allah swt had pre destined Adam (as) to disobey? Because if He hadn't, and if Adam (as) wouldn't have disobeyed, he wouldn't be expelled from heaven right? Or would he be expelled regardless of his disobedience? To summarize, from what little I understand, Allah prior to creating Adam(as) willed to create a being whom he would place in the earth as a Khalifa. But the only way that Adam (as) would be expelled is by disobedience to Allah. So Adam (as) didn't really have a choice? And if Adam (as) didn't eat from the tree, would he still be in heaven?

What is the meaning of this hadith - “The caliphate will be for thirty years, then there will be a kingship after that.” [Collected by at-Tirmidhi (2226) who graded it ḥasan, as did Ibn Ḥajar in Muwāfaqat al-Khabar al-Khabar (1/141); Aḥmad (21969) and deemed ḥasan by al-Arna’ūṭ; Abu Dāwūd (4646) who deemed it ṣāliḥ (acceptable); and authenticated by al-Albani in Ṣaḥīḥ at-Tirmidhi and Ṣaḥīḥ Abu Dāwūd] Source is Yaqeen institute - https://yaqeeninstitute.org/mohammad-elshinawy/the-prophecies-of-prophet-muhammad/#ftnt31 Was Mu'awiyas rule considered a kingship? Also, up to al-Hasan, it was a 29 year rule, not 30 - is 30 years just a rounded number ?

I would like to know the difference Between a wilaya and a khilafa, since both have a leader who should be listened and obeyed as long as they are muslim and both of them rule over a specific landmass,

A hadith in sahih Bukhari says- > The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Authority of ruling will remain with Quraish, even if only two of them remained." > >حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْوَلِيدِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَاصِمُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبِي، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏ "‏ لا يَزَالُ هَذَا الأَمْرُ فِي قُرَيْشٍ، مَا بَقِيَ مِنْهُمُ اثْنَانِ ‏"‏‏ . > >‏ > Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3501 In-book reference : Book 61, Hadith 11 USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 4, Book 56, Hadith 705 Does that mean a caliph can be only from a qurayish tribe?

The Caliphs conquered non-muslim lands who didn't speak arabic and I assume there must have been conversions during this time as well. So, did the friday khutbah take place in arabic there or was it in the local language? For example: Umar RA conquest of Persia here > Caliph Umar ordered a full invasion of the Sasanian empire in 642, > which led to the complete conquest of the Sasanians around 651. According to here , Arabic was not a language in this empire

Why has Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan who clearly did not follow the path of Rasulullah and the 4 rightly guided Caliphs in his reign, did many Haram things openly and named his successor his son Yazid unlawfully (which later resulted in the murder of Ahl ul Bayt and the Battle of Harra in Madinah) find a high status in the Sunni school of thought. Are most people ignorant of his doings or they think that he was forgiven?

There is a Sahih Hadith stating the names of ten (10) people who the Prophet (SA) stated that they will be in Paradise. These names include the names of four righteous caliphs, Abu Bakar RA, Umer RA, Uthman RA and Ali RA among others. Please see this question for details about the Hadith I am talking about... Now, from the questions on this website, I have got the impression that Shias believe that Abu Bakar RA and Umer RA did many wrong things against Ahl ul Bayt. So, my question is: 1. Do Shia believe that these three righteous caliphs will end up in Paradise? 2. Do they believe that this Hadith is not correct? If they do believe this, what are the reasons behind this belief? 3. Do they believe that Prophet (S.A.)'s judgement was wrong? Or is there a 4th dimension to this that I am missing?

I asked in history stackexchange. Sunni source is that the first four Chaliphs are "properly" elected. However, some Syiah disagree. This one says, for example, https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58430/did-ali-say-that-only-muhammads-descendants-can-rule?noredirect=1#comment176183_58430 > In reference to comments, the idea that the first three caliphs were > "elected" is also contested. **If the electoral excludes some of the > most prominent companions of the Prophet and involves coercion, it > can't be called an "election"** and this was the case for Saqifa the > first "election" which was more like a factional coup d'état. The > second caliph was also appointed not elected. You may want to post a > separate question on this but you can also consult Madelung's > comprehensive account of post-prophetic politics. So in case of Abu Bakr, it seems that some prominent companions are not excluded. Is there a reasoanable reason why they're not included? What coercion he's talking about? The reason I asked this is because in politic, this is a very normal game. Suharto, for example, is always "elected". By who? By MPR. Who elect members of MPR? About 50% is chosen by Suharto. So in a very good sense, the whole thing is just a show. Suharto isn't really elected. He just elect himself by electing those who will elect him in MPR. So who elect Abu Bakr? Same trick? He's elected by consensus among those who like him?

In this Hadith it is mentioned that Abu bakr RA sent armies into ash-Shaam: >Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that **Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending armies to ash-Sham**. He went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of one of the battalions. It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, "Will you ride or shall I get down?" Abu Bakrsaid, "I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of mine to be in the way of Allah." >Then Abu Bakr advised Yazid, "You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a people who have shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.
"I advise you ten things:
Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly."
**[ [Sunnah Ref: Muwatta Maalik 21/10](https://sunnah.com/urn/509710) ]** Can someone tell me the name(s) of these wars in which Abu Bakr dispatched these armies to Syria and the reason for these wars?

Wikipedia seems to say so > After Ali's death, Kufi Muslims pledged allegiance to his eldest son > Hasan without dispute, as Ali on many occasions had declared that just > People of the House of Muhammad were entitled to rule the Muslim > community. At this time, Muawiyah held both the Levant and Egypt > and, as commander of the largest force in the Muslim Empire, had > declared himself caliph and marched his army into Iraq, the seat of > Hasan's caliphate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali That seems like the cornerstone of the Shia beliefs right? Is this something the Sunnis believe in too? This question is reasked here https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58430/did-ali-say-that-only-muhammads-descendants-can-rule

Shia and Sunni disagreed on some important things. Shia thinks that Muhamad select Ali as a caliph. Sunni thinks no. In fact, an answer in this stackexchange, says that Muhammad actually primed Abu Bakr as next caliph. It seems that they agree on one thing. Ali didn't agree to support Abu Bakr from the beginning. It took a few months before that to happens. What happened? The Shia version is that Ali feels that Abu Bakr is an usurper. What's the Sunni version?

The society of Muslims needs to be guided by caliph after Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). Hence, after the death of holy prophet (PBUH), a caliph was assigned to guide and rule the Muslims. According to my findings in noble Quran, God has assigned the caliph. For example, Moses the prophet (PBUH) didn't ask people to form a shura for choosing a successor when he left for miqat. > Moses said: "O’ Allah) assign me a vizier from my family, (that is) my > brother Aaron (Haroon) ...,”(Allah) said: "We granted your requests, > O’ Moses.”(20:29-36) . Or in another verse, Allah the exalted, directly mentions the word "Caliph": > يَا دَاوُودُ **إِنَّا جَعَلْنَاكَ خَلِيفَةً** فِي الْأَرْ‌ضِ فَاحْكُم > بَيْنَ النَّاسِ بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا تَتَّبِعِ الْهَوَىٰ فَيُضِلَّكَ عَن > سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ ۚ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَضِلُّونَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّـهِ > لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ شَدِيدٌ بِمَا نَسُوا يَوْمَ الْحِسَابِ > > [We said], "O David, indeed **We have made you a successor** upon the > earth, so judge between the people in truth and do not follow [your > own] desire, as it will lead you astray from the way of Allah." > Indeed, those who go astray from the way of Allah will have a severe > punishment for having forgotten the Day of Account. (38:26) But I didn't find other clues mentioning the authority of the prophet or people. Please let me know if others except God has such an authority. Support your answer using Quran and Hadith.

Why did the grandson of the Prophet, Hossein Ibn Ali , not accept Yazid ibn Muawiya as a caliph?

Assuming a caliph has been appointed for Muslims (like this one ), is it obligatory for a Muslim to pledge allegiance to a caliph if he is uncertain? from what I read in hadiths: Ali did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr for a full 6 months and also there were some tribes who did not pay allegiance. Also during the time of Husain there were many pious people who did not pledge alligience to any person , neither Husain nor Yazid ,so the question is it Ok to go without pledge of allegiance and die in that state assuming that a khalifa exists ?

In this hadith of the pond of Khumm, it shows that Ali is shown to be said that he is the master of whom the Prophet was the master of: > O people, Allah the Most Kind the Omniscient has told me that no > apostle lives to more than half the age of him who had preceded him. I > think I am about to be called (to die) and thus I must respond. I am > responsible and you are responsible, then what do you say?' They said, > 'We witness that you have informed, advised and striven. May Allah > bless you.' He said, 'Do you not bear witness that there is no god but > Allah and that Muhammad is His servant and Apostle, and that His > Heaven is true, His Hell is true, death is true, the Resurrection > after death is true, that there is no doubt that the Day of Judgment > will come, and that Allah will resurrect the dead from their graves?' > They said, 'Yes, we bear witness.' He said, 'O Allah, bear witness.' > Then he said, 'O people, Allah is my Lord and I am the lord of the > believers. I am worthier of believers than themselves. Of whomsoever I > had been Master (Mawla), Ali here is to be his Master.[a] O Allah, be > a supporter of whoever supports him (Ali) and an enemy of whoever > opposes him and divert the Truth to Ali.' If it is, what is Sunni view on it because Shia believe it to be the Prophet choosing Ali to be his successor.

As far as I know, Sunni believe in Caliphate, and Shia believe in Imamate. My question is that: What is the difference between **Imamate** and **Caliphate**?