What is the basis of your doctrine of God's visibility, the Qur'an or Hadeeth? If it is the Qur'an, then provide us with the verse and justify the contradiction as God's words are devoid of any contradiction. If it is hadeeth, then present it in relation to the Qur'an.
Two questions need to be answered: Can Allah be Seen and Did Muhammad see his lord.
Lets answer the first question.
Can Allah be seen? Is it possible for him to be seen? The answer is yes, it is possible. However, is it possible to see him in this life with our very eyes? The answer is no.
The commentary of the verse that states that no vision can grasp God (6:103) says this....
Ibn A'lba said regarding this verse, it is in this life, narrated by Abi Hatim
This shows that it is not possible for vision (from our eyes) to grasp God in this life.
And Ibn Abbas said: “No vision can grasp him” in this life, and that the believers will see Him in the next life because Allah said so “That day will faces be resplendent, Looking toward their Lord”
وجوه يومئذ ناضرة الى ربها ناظرة (Surah 75:22-23)
Reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas as well and he said: The meaning that the vision of the hearts cannot grasp Him, is that a person’s mind cannot grasp Him in order to comprehend Him. “There is none like unto him” (Surah 42:11) and he said: The meaning is that the visions created here on earth, however he can create for those who want his generosity a vision and comprehension in order to see Him just like he did for Muhammad peace be upon him.
Some of them said: The heart (of the Prophet) has seen the Lord of The Worlds and they said that He (God) made his vision in his heart so he saw him with his heart and he did not see him with his eyes.
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0347:
Suhaib reported the Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: When those deserving of Paradise would enter Paradise, the Blessed and the Exalted would ask: Do you wish Me to give you anything more? They would say: Hast Thou not brightened our faces? Hast Thou not made us enter Paradise and saved us from Fire? He (the narrator) said: He (God) would lift the veil, and of things given to them nothing would he dearer to them than the sight of their Lord, the Mighty and the Glorious.
Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0349:
Abu Haraira reported: The people said to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him): Messenger of Allah, shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection? The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Do you feel any trouble in seeing the moon on the night when it is full? They said: Messenger of Allah, no. He (the Messenger) further said: Do you feel any trouble in seeing the sun, when there is no cloud over it? They said: Messenger of Allah. no. He (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily you would see Him like this (as you see the sun and the moon)...
So basically as we can see, it is possible to see God but it is impossible that our vision could encompass him.
Book 001, Number 0337:
It is narrated on the authority of Masruq that he said: I was resting at (the house of) 'A'isha that she said: O Abu 'A'isha (kunya of Masruq), there are three things, and he who affirmed even one of them fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I asked that they were. She said: He who presumed that Muhammad (may peace be upon him) saw his Lord (with his ocular vision) fabricated the greatest lie against Allah. I was reclining but then sat up and said: Mother of the Faithful, wait a bit and do not be in a haste. Has not Allah (Mighty and Majestic) said:" And truly he saw him on the clear horizon" (al-Qur'an, lxxxi. 23) and" he saw Him in another descent" (al-Qur'an, iiii. 13)? She said: I am the first of this Ummah who asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said: Verily he is Gabriel. I have never seen him in his original form in which he was created except on those two occasions (to which these verses refer) ; I saw him descending from the heaven and filling (the space) from the sky to the earth with the greatness of his bodily structure. She said: Have you not heard Allah saying." Eyes comprehend Him not, but He comprehends (all) vision. and He is Subtle, and All-Aware" (al-Qur'an, v. 104)? (She, i. e. 'A'isha, further said): Have you not heard that, verily, Allah says:" And it is not vouchsafed to a human being that Allah should speak unto him otherwise than by revelation, or from behind a veil, or that He sendeth a messenger (angel), so that he revealth whatsoever He wills. Verily He is Exalted. Wise" (al. Qur'an, xii. 51) She said: He who presumes that the Messengerof Allah (may peace be upon him) concealed anything, from the Book, of Allah fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. Allah says:" O Messenger! deliver that which has been revealed to thee from thy Lord, and if thou do (it) not, thou hast not delivered His message" (al-Qur'an, v. 67). She said: He who presumes that he would inform about what was going to happen tomorrow fabricates the greatest lie against Allah. And Allah says" Say thou (Muhammad): None in the heavens and the earth knoweth the unseen save Allah" (al-Qur'an, xxvii 65).
Ibn Hajr answers the claim that ‘Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about the meaning of the verse, upon which he asserted that he saw Jibrael. He writes that ‘Aisha asked about the verse ‘And surely he saw him on the bright horizon’. This verse is undoubtedly referring to the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) vision of Jibrael. This is because this actual verse is from Surah Takvir , verse 19-23, which does refer to Jibrael. Allah says in the Qur’an,
‘This [Qur’an] is the word (brought) by an honoured Messenger- who is powerful and dignified with the Lord of the Mighty Throne- There he is the obeyed one (of the angels) and trustworthy. And this companion of yours is not mad. And surely he saw the messenger on the bright horizon.’ (Takvir 19-23)
So Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) thought, due to this, that it was Gabriel whom the Prophet saw during the night of miraj. She didn't got the knowledge that the Prophet (peace be upon him) saw Allah Almighty also.
Book 001, Number 0341:
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Dharr: I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him): Did you see thy Lord? He said: He is a Light;. how could I see Him?
Book 001, Number 0342:
Abdullah b. Shaqiq reported: I said to Abu Dharr: Had I seen the Messenger of Allah, I would have asked him. He (Abu Dharr) said: What is that thing that you wanted to inquire of him? He said: I wanted to ask him whether he had seen his Lord. Abu Dharr said: I, in fact, inquired of him, and he replied: I saw Light.
The thing is , our vision can indeed not encompass God, but it doesn't mean that we will not be able to even see God at all. The whole story lies in the word , encompass. Everyone agrees that eyes can't encompass Him, i.e Allah Almighty. If someone understands it, than he will understand that there is no difference between Quran and hadith.
Despite the fact that you do not regard the companions as infallible and accept the notion of them committing sins, you consider it wrong to criticise them due to the respect you afford them. You regard their holiness to be in keeping evil off them, which proves the fact that, for the honour of a respectable and dignified personality it is necessary that he is kept away from sins and treated as immune from defects. This concept is infallibility in all but name. Then what objection do you have in considering the holy prophet as infallible when you consider it a sin to call his companions as sinners and reject the infallibility of the holy prophet himself?
A good Muslim will respect his father and mother, knowing fully well that they are not infallibles, and knowing fully well that they do commit mistake every day. If someone tells him that his mother is fat, he will dislike such person even though what he said was a matter of fact. The reason is that guy does't know how much the mother has sacrificed for that person. He will not tolerate such guys. Does that mean the person is considering her mother infallible? Know that it is not necessary to give respect to a person that he should be infallible.
You don't know anything about the sacrifices of the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him). You think that it was only Prophet (peace be upon him) and Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) who defeated an army of 1000 kuffar in Badar, 3000 in Uhud, 10000 in Khandaq, and more 100000 in the latter fights. You think that the person who had to keep hungry for many days because of being Muslims were hypocrites, you think that the people who were torchered and humiliated in the streets of Mecca everyday were hypocrites, you think that the people who were stoned and whipped and laid on burning sand in the deserts of Arabia in summer at full noon and huge stones were placed on them so that they leave Islam were a bunch of hypocrites who later apostated, and only three of all those people remained Muslims after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him), i.e Miqdad ,Salman and Abu Dhar (may Allah be pleased with him) , amongst whom Salman (may Allah be pleased with him) hadn't even face these torchers at the hands of the people of Mecca because he embraced Islam later. Don't you know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn't leave these companions till his death and even he died in the residence of Aisha and the companions didn't leave him even after his death and now they are buried near eachother?
Their sacrifices for Islam , you can't even imagine, because your heart if filled with their hatred, and you have been blinded by this hatred. Which of the sacrifices of the companions will you ignore? Know that two persons alone can't fight an army of 1000, 3000 or 10000 or 100000, if your mind is working , you will realize that the other companions who were with the Prophet (peace be upon him) at this harsh times had faith thousands of times more than you and your forefathers, the shias of Kufa, Iraq, who ran away, leaving ahlelbayt at the mercy of the 4000 soldiers of ibn ziyad, even though they were four times more than them.
Infallibility unlimited for shia scholars:
4. Doctrine Concerning the Position of mujtahid
We believe that a fully qualified mujtahid is a representative of the Imam, in the case of the latter’s absence. Thus he is an authority over Muslims and he performs the functions of the Imam as regards judgement and administration among the people. Because of this, Imam Ja’far as Sadiq said:
To deny the authority of a mujtahid is to deny the authority of the Imam, and to deny tile authority of the Imam is to make an objection to the authority of Allah. and this is tantamount to polytheism (shirk).
Therefore the qualified mujtahid is not only one who issues fatwas, but he also has general authority over Muslims who must consult him if they require judgement, this being obtainable only from him. It is correspondingly wrong for anyone to give judgement except him or one who is appointed by him, as no-one can pass sentence without his permission. Also, all that which belongs to the Imam should be given to the mujtahid.
Such authority has been bestowed upon the qualified mujtahid by the Imam so that he may represent him in his absence; hence he is known as the representative of the Imam (na’ ib al-imam).
To you it is not God that nominates people for the post of Imamah or Khilafah but it is based on the choice of human beings that is why the doctrine of Imamah does not form part of your Islamic doctrine. When Khilafah does not have a religious place to you at all, but you regard it as something outside of the Deen then why do you constantly engage in debates with the Shi'a on this? Is this not a contradiction? Why do you not confine political issues to politics only?
We are not interested in engaging in debates with shias, but these are shias whose whole basis is based on proving the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as non Muslims and than to say things about Ali which were not in him, so that somehow he could be given the title of infallible. Stop talking ill about the wives and other companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) , but how can you do this? Your whole faith lies on it.
If Khilafah or Imamah is a matter of religion then as per the Qur'an, the Sunnah of God does not change. Therefore, beginning with Adam (as) through to the prophet Isa (as), name any prophet after whom one of his companions had been chosen as his vicegerent without gap, depriving the members of that prophet's household of the same right.
If none of the prophets preceding the holy prophet had a vicegerent who wasn't from his near of kin then why was the Sunnah of Allah (swt) changed in relation to Rasulullah (s)? Refer us to the verse and a hadith of commentary to prove such a change.
To claim that all the prophets had vicegrants who were from their household requires an evidence, which has not been provided by Shias. Rather there is a narration mentioned by Majlisi in his book 'Hayat ul Quloob' which shows the names of three vicegrants of Prophet Moses.
According to a tradition of Shaykh Tabarsi, the people of The Israelites left the city to save themselves from the epidemic. Some said they left the city due to war. Some said they belonged to the family of Hizqil the third Khalifah of Musa. The first was Yusha‘ ibn Nun, the second Kalab bin Yuqanna and the third Hizqil known as Ibn Al Majus because in his old age his mother beseeched Allah for a son and Allah fulfilled her wish and Hizqil was born.https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol-1-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/account-hizqil
While Moses belonged to the tribe of Levi, Yusha' belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, the house of Joseph. So we can safely say that a vicegrant or a successor doesn't need to be from the household of a Prophet. He can be from an entirely different tribe. This shows that the Shia logic is totally wrong, and against the scripts.
The slogans "Naara Takbeer Allahu Akbar, Naara Risaalat Ya Rasoolullah and Naara Hayderi Ya Ali" have been in practice for centuries but just recently you have introduced a new one "Naara Khilafat Haq Chaar Yaar" which signifies that only those four personalities have the right over the post of Khilafat. Mulla Ali Qari in Sharh Fiqh Akbar, Page 176, considers Yazeed Bin Muawiyah as the sixth Khalifah of the holy prophet. What about the rest of khalifahs of Khilafah? Did the holy prophet not state that there will be twelve khalifahs? Mention their names.
Please see our article "Imamate; The perfection of Deen"
Forget about the slogans, there are thousands of slogans and if someone say that "Pakistan zindabad" it doesn't mean that he says only Pakistan zindabad and the rest murdabad. Don't get so childish.
Our mothers and sisters will proclaim their God is Allah, their apostle the holy Prophet and their Maula, Ali (as) but none of them would dare proclaim 'Our Four Rightful Men' out of modesty considering it as an abuse. Then tell us, is this slogan for men only or for both men and women?
Note: The original slogan in Urdu, uses the work "Yaar", which can also be used as "very close friends". In India & Pakistan, therefore women hesitate to use this slogan.
The slogan is Haq chaar yaar, that is "the right of the four friends" , it doesn't mean our friends, but the four people who were friends of one another.
Anyhow, the funny thing is that shias also think of the hesitation of the women. Lol can you or any Pakistani or Indian shia publish a single mutah card of their daughter or sister like they publish marriage cards? I am asking you to publish only one such mutah card for your sister or daughter and distribute it. Dude mutah is a fundamental part of your faith and in your faith, it has huge reward, but you Pakistani and Indian shias feel so much ashamed of doing it that you can't publish a single mutah card of your sister or daughter or mother?
It is reported in the traditions that a sword was brought for Ali (as) from heaven, angels came down to earth to assist Hadhrath Fatima (as) in revolving the grinding stones (chakki) in cookery, Ridhwan had appeared in the form of a tailor and brought clothes for Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as), could you please refer to any hadeeth wherein even one sock is reported to have been revealed for Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and their like.
What is your position regarding the faith of Hadhrath Fatima (sa)?
MashaAllah we respect both the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Ahlelbayt (may Allah be pleased with them) and don't doubt their faith. They were great Muslims and no Muslim from the present age can claim to have better faith than them.
If she was a Mu'menah then is it permissible to obey her or not? When every companion is Adil ( Just ), is following one of them a way of salvation?
Indeed, it is permissible to obey her, if her claim was correct. But as far as Fadak is concerned, her claim was not correct and this is the thing she herself accepted.