Style of criticizing the second category of conjectures...

Style of criticizing the second category of conjectures Absurd claim of ‘gradual withdrawal of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) from Caliphate and overlooking it’ although after passing of some months in the Caliphate of Abu Bakr can be evaluated in the following two ways: A) Criticism and analysis of ‘False narrations about the willful allegiance of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) to Abu Bakr after six months’.

[1] B) Criticism and analysis of ‘Conjectures regarding the co-operation of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) with Caliphs’. [2] Third Category: Conjectures that claim ‘Absence of plan of right of Caliphate and not proving the School of Imamate’. These conjectures, sometimes are posed in an indirect way and under the ‘conjectures of two previous categories’ and sometimes also regarding ‘refusal to prove the Alawi Imamate and Wilayat’ .

The aim of posing such types doubts is ‘To invite Shias to observe silence from planning discussions related to Caliphate and hip of Amirul Momineen (a.s.)’.

Style of criticizing the third category of conjectures Absurd claims of ‘Refusal of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) from plan of the right of Caliphate and his remaining silent from explaining the School of Imamate’ can be criticized on the basis of ‘debates of Amirul Momineen Ali (a.s.)’ with support of ‘statements of His Eminence (a.s.) in the matter of his severe struggle of having his claim recorded in History’. [3] [1] Refer: Ali Labbaf: A Victim Lost in Saqifah, Vol.

4, Section 1, Discourse 4 [2] In the discussions after this writing, we shall criticize and investigate these objections. [3] In addition to criticism of the conjecture “Absence of demanding the right of Caliphate” related to the conjectures of first type we will also refute the supposition of “Lack of Did Amirul Momineen (a.s.) Leave Caliphate and Overlook his Rights?

Analyses of unity-seekers regarding the political and social stances of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) after passing away of Prophet are quite untrue and far from reality because they have compared it to ‘silence’. The prime aim of those who inject this suspicion about the silence is to interpret it to effect of foregoing his right and overlooking to demand it. They sketch in a way that the reader concludes that His Eminence (a.s.) did not take any action against usurpation of his right.

He also impeded others to take any action in this respect.