TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => General Sunni-Shia => Topic started by: zaid_ibn_ali on April 20, 2017, 12:56:11 PM
-
Is it permissable to argue with any of the 'infallible Imams' according to shia?
-
Is it permissable to argue with any of the 'infallible Imams' according to shia?
I don't believe there is an issue with having a discussion with the Imams (as) in a respectful manner without any rudeness.
-
But many discussions involve disagreement & dispute.
Is it okay in regards to the Imams?
-
But many discussions involve disagreement & dispute.
Is it okay in regards to the Imams?
Can you give me examples?
-
The narrations in Al Kafi indicate that Zurara argued with the Imam on the Araf.
-
But many discussions involve disagreement & dispute.
Is it okay in regards to the Imams?
Can you give me examples?
There are quite a few examples as the brother rationalist has pointed out one of them.
So tell me is arguing with the Imam permissable or not?
Is one a muslim who dares argue with the Imam?
-
But many discussions involve disagreement & dispute.
Is it okay in regards to the Imams?
Can you give me examples?
There are quite a few examples as the brother rationalist has pointed out one of them.
So tell me is arguing with the Imam permissable or not?
Is one a muslim who dares argue with the Imam?
One is not allow to disobey the Imam if he orders them to do something, or to believe in something.
-
If you are arguing with someone then chances are you are not obeying them on whatever you are arguing with them on.
How can someone argue or disagree with an infallible?
Either they didn't see the imam as infallible and thus felt it valid to disagree with them or they were just disobedient.
Both these cases are kufr in shia belief right?
-
If you are arguing with someone then chances are you are not obeying them on whatever you are arguing with them on.
How can someone argue or disagree with an infallible?
Either they didn't see the imam as infallible and thus felt it valid to disagree with them or they were just disobedient.
Both these cases are kufr in shia belief right?
If someone disobeys the Imam not due to religious reasons, but due to worldly reasons, some Shi'i ulama may not consider them as kuffar.
-
Thank you, well that destroys the shia view of 'the calamity of thursday' incident involving Umar.
Back to the topic, such a person who argues with the Imam is not an obedient follower & not righteous. As the Imam is gods divinely appointed infallible leader on earth.
What that leaves is either these people never saw the Imam as being infallible or they were not true obedient followers.
Neither looks good for your cause.
-
Thank you, well that destroys the shia view of 'the calamity of thursday' incident involving Umar.
Back to the topic, such a person who argues with the Imam is not an obedient follower & not righteous. As the Imam is gods divinely appointed infallible leader on earth.
What that leaves is either these people never saw the Imam as being infallible or they were not true obedient followers.
Neither looks good for your cause.
Actually your attempt to compare the two incidents makes me think you didn't read over what I said in my previous comment.
1) There is a debate whether disobeying the Imams (as) = kufr. If it is done on religious grounds, not for worldly reasons, it may as well be.
2) Those who disputed with the Prophet in the Calamity of Thursday did not do so on worldly grounds. But even if we were to say they did, it still proves an issue with their iman even if we say they didn't become disbelievers.
Sayyed Al-Khoei for instance didn't consider Abu Bakr and Umar to be disbelievers (thahiran) because he said they usurped the khilafa for worldly reasons.
-
Its funny that you can't accept the pridicament of the behaviour of the so called companions of the Imams. So much so that you have tried to explain between religious & wordly reasons etc lol.
Zurarah etc held no worldly positions so you gonna now make a new excuse?
-
Its funny that you can't accept the pridicament of the behaviour of the so called companions of the Imams. So much so that you have tried to explain between religious & wordly reasons etc lol.
Zurarah etc held no worldly positions so you gonna now make a new excuse?
Lol. Well done but you have yet to bring any proof of such arguments with the exception of Zurarah (ra).
But we can see that the Imams (as) praised Zurarah (ra), so there was no way he was a kafir as you are trying to connect.
-
Its funny that you can't accept the pridicament of the behaviour of the so called companions of the Imams. So much so that you have tried to explain between religious & wordly reasons etc lol.
Zurarah etc held no worldly positions so you gonna now make a new excuse?
Lol. Well done but you have yet to bring any proof of such arguments with the exception of Zurarah (ra).
But we can see that the Imams (as) praised Zurarah (ra), so there was no way he was a kafir as you are trying to connect.
.
Zurarah is one of your major narrators.
What kind of person argues with the divinely appointed leader?
Its one or the other. Either the Imams were not divinely infallible or zurarah is not a true follower.
-
Its funny that you can't accept the pridicament of the behaviour of the so called companions of the Imams. So much so that you have tried to explain between religious & wordly reasons etc lol.
Zurarah etc held no worldly positions so you gonna now make a new excuse?
Lol. Well done but you have yet to bring any proof of such arguments with the exception of Zurarah (ra).
But we can see that the Imams (as) praised Zurarah (ra), so there was no way he was a kafir as you are trying to connect.
.
Zurarah is one of your major narrators.
What kind of person argues with the divinely appointed leader?
Its one or the other. Either the Imams were not divinely infallible or zurarah is not a true follower.
Or Zurarah made a mistake and the Imams (as) didn't consider it kufr.
-
Its funny that you can't accept the pridicament of the behaviour of the so called companions of the Imams. So much so that you have tried to explain between religious & wordly reasons etc lol.
Zurarah etc held no worldly positions so you gonna now make a new excuse?
Lol. Well done but you have yet to bring any proof of such arguments with the exception of Zurarah (ra).
But we can see that the Imams (as) praised Zurarah (ra), so there was no way he was a kafir as you are trying to connect.
.
Zurarah is one of your major narrators.
What kind of person argues with the divinely appointed leader?
Its one or the other. Either the Imams were not divinely infallible or zurarah is not a true follower.
Or Zurarah made a mistake and the Imams (as) didn't consider it kufr.
I don't by that. Quarrelling with gods divinely appointed leader is proof of disease in the heart.
Of course you could just accept that the Imams were fallible.
-
Its funny that you can't accept the pridicament of the behaviour of the so called companions of the Imams. So much so that you have tried to explain between religious & wordly reasons etc lol.
Zurarah etc held no worldly positions so you gonna now make a new excuse?
Lol. Well done but you have yet to bring any proof of such arguments with the exception of Zurarah (ra).
But we can see that the Imams (as) praised Zurarah (ra), so there was no way he was a kafir as you are trying to connect.
.
Zurarah is one of your major narrators.
What kind of person argues with the divinely appointed leader?
Its one or the other. Either the Imams were not divinely infallible or zurarah is not a true follower.
Or Zurarah made a mistake and the Imams (as) didn't consider it kufr.
I don't by that. Quarrelling with gods divinely appointed leader is proof of disease in the heart.
Of course you could just accept that the Imams were fallible.
No they were infallible and Zurarah made a mistake. How about that? How simple and logical does that sound?
-
Or an Imam arguing with an Imam?
و في الصحيح، عن زرارة قال: كنت قاعدا عند أبي جعفر عليه السلام و ليس عنده غير ابنه جعفر عليه السلام فقال: يا زرارة إن أبا ذر و عثمان تنازعا على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و آله و سلم فقال عثمان كل مال من ذهب أو فضة يدار به و يعمل به فيتجر به ففيه الزكاة إذا حال عليه الحول، فقال أبو ذر (أما- خ ل) ما يتجر به أو دير و عمل به فليس فيه زكاة، إنما الزكاة فيه إذا كان ركازا أو كنزا موضوعا، فإذا حال عليه الحول ففيه الزكاة فاختصما في ذلك إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و آله و سلم قال فقال: القول ما قاله أبو ذر،
فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام لأبيه عليه السلام، ما تريد إلا أن تخرج مثل هذا فيكف الناس أن يعطفوا على فقرائهم و مساكينهم؟
فقال: إليك عني لا أجد منها بدا
[In the Sahih, from Zurarah that he said: I was sitting with abu Ja’far (as) at his place, and there was no one present except his son Ja’far (as), so he said: “O Zurarah, abu Dharr and ‘Uthman disputed during the days of the Prophet (SAWS), ‘Uthman said: All money from gold or silver that the people use and work with in trade, they must pay Zakat for it if one year passes. abu Dharr replied: The money you work with in trade and such then you must not pay Zakat from it, but if it was stored and unused and one year passes then one must pay its Zakat. So they went to the Prophet (SAWS) to solve their dispute and he told them: the saying of abu Dharr is correct.”
abu ‘Abdullah Ja’far (as) said to his father al-Baqir (as): “Why would you bring something like this up? How will the Muslims have kindness and sympathy for the poor and weak among them?”
al-Baqir (as) replied: “Stay away from me, I found it obligatory!”]
-
Or an Imam arguing with an Imam?
و في الصحيح، عن زرارة قال: كنت قاعدا عند أبي جعفر عليه السلام و ليس عنده غير ابنه جعفر عليه السلام فقال: يا زرارة إن أبا ذر و عثمان تنازعا على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و آله و سلم فقال عثمان كل مال من ذهب أو فضة يدار به و يعمل به فيتجر به ففيه الزكاة إذا حال عليه الحول، فقال أبو ذر (أما- خ ل) ما يتجر به أو دير و عمل به فليس فيه زكاة، إنما الزكاة فيه إذا كان ركازا أو كنزا موضوعا، فإذا حال عليه الحول ففيه الزكاة فاختصما في ذلك إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و آله و سلم قال فقال: القول ما قاله أبو ذر،
فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام لأبيه عليه السلام، ما تريد إلا أن تخرج مثل هذا فيكف الناس أن يعطفوا على فقرائهم و مساكينهم؟
فقال: إليك عني لا أجد منها بدا
[In the Sahih, from Zurarah that he said: I was sitting with abu Ja’far (as) at his place, and there was no one present except his son Ja’far (as), so he said: “O Zurarah, abu Dharr and ‘Uthman disputed during the days of the Prophet (SAWS), ‘Uthman said: All money from gold or silver that the people use and work with in trade, they must pay Zakat for it if one year passes. abu Dharr replied: The money you work with in trade and such then you must not pay Zakat from it, but if it was stored and unused and one year passes then one must pay its Zakat. So they went to the Prophet (SAWS) to solve their dispute and he told them: the saying of abu Dharr is correct.”
abu ‘Abdullah Ja’far (as) said to his father al-Baqir (as): “Why would you bring something like this up? How will the Muslims have kindness and sympathy for the poor and weak among them?”
al-Baqir (as) replied: “Stay away from me, I found it obligatory!”]
I knew someone would bring this up. The matn seems extremely strange to me.
-
Or an Imam arguing with an Imam?
و في الصحيح، عن زرارة قال: كنت قاعدا عند أبي جعفر عليه السلام و ليس عنده غير ابنه جعفر عليه السلام فقال: يا زرارة إن أبا ذر و عثمان تنازعا على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و آله و سلم فقال عثمان كل مال من ذهب أو فضة يدار به و يعمل به فيتجر به ففيه الزكاة إذا حال عليه الحول، فقال أبو ذر (أما- خ ل) ما يتجر به أو دير و عمل به فليس فيه زكاة، إنما الزكاة فيه إذا كان ركازا أو كنزا موضوعا، فإذا حال عليه الحول ففيه الزكاة فاختصما في ذلك إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و آله و سلم قال فقال: القول ما قاله أبو ذر،
فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام لأبيه عليه السلام، ما تريد إلا أن تخرج مثل هذا فيكف الناس أن يعطفوا على فقرائهم و مساكينهم؟
فقال: إليك عني لا أجد منها بدا
[In the Sahih, from Zurarah that he said: I was sitting with abu Ja’far (as) at his place, and there was no one present except his son Ja’far (as), so he said: “O Zurarah, abu Dharr and ‘Uthman disputed during the days of the Prophet (SAWS), ‘Uthman said: All money from gold or silver that the people use and work with in trade, they must pay Zakat for it if one year passes. abu Dharr replied: The money you work with in trade and such then you must not pay Zakat from it, but if it was stored and unused and one year passes then one must pay its Zakat. So they went to the Prophet (SAWS) to solve their dispute and he told them: the saying of abu Dharr is correct.”
abu ‘Abdullah Ja’far (as) said to his father al-Baqir (as): “Why would you bring something like this up? How will the Muslims have kindness and sympathy for the poor and weak among them?”
al-Baqir (as) replied: “Stay away from me, I found it obligatory!”]
I knew someone would bring this up. The matn seems extremely strange to me.
I could agree it's somewhat strange, but I wouldn't say extremely strange up to the point of declaring it unauthentic. Zurarah could simply be not mentioning some details out of respect for Abu Ja'far or Abu Abdillah that put them in a bad light. Or he could not mention some things that put himself in a bad light.
How is it extremely strange?
-
Or an Imam arguing with an Imam?
و في الصحيح، عن زرارة قال: كنت قاعدا عند أبي جعفر عليه السلام و ليس عنده غير ابنه جعفر عليه السلام فقال: يا زرارة إن أبا ذر و عثمان تنازعا على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و آله و سلم فقال عثمان كل مال من ذهب أو فضة يدار به و يعمل به فيتجر به ففيه الزكاة إذا حال عليه الحول، فقال أبو ذر (أما- خ ل) ما يتجر به أو دير و عمل به فليس فيه زكاة، إنما الزكاة فيه إذا كان ركازا أو كنزا موضوعا، فإذا حال عليه الحول ففيه الزكاة فاختصما في ذلك إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و آله و سلم قال فقال: القول ما قاله أبو ذر،
فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام لأبيه عليه السلام، ما تريد إلا أن تخرج مثل هذا فيكف الناس أن يعطفوا على فقرائهم و مساكينهم؟
فقال: إليك عني لا أجد منها بدا
[In the Sahih, from Zurarah that he said: I was sitting with abu Ja’far (as) at his place, and there was no one present except his son Ja’far (as), so he said: “O Zurarah, abu Dharr and ‘Uthman disputed during the days of the Prophet (SAWS), ‘Uthman said: All money from gold or silver that the people use and work with in trade, they must pay Zakat for it if one year passes. abu Dharr replied: The money you work with in trade and such then you must not pay Zakat from it, but if it was stored and unused and one year passes then one must pay its Zakat. So they went to the Prophet (SAWS) to solve their dispute and he told them: the saying of abu Dharr is correct.”
abu ‘Abdullah Ja’far (as) said to his father al-Baqir (as): “Why would you bring something like this up? How will the Muslims have kindness and sympathy for the poor and weak among them?”
al-Baqir (as) replied: “Stay away from me, I found it obligatory!”]
I knew someone would bring this up. The matn seems extremely strange to me.
I could agree it's somewhat strange, but I wouldn't say extremely strange up to the point of declaring it unauthentic. Zurarah could simply be not mentioning some details out of respect for Abu Ja'far or Abu Abdillah that put them in a bad light. Or he could not mention some things that put himself in a bad light.
How is it extremely strange?
Imams (as) arguing is extremely strange to me as a Shi'i.
-
Imams (as) arguing is extremely strange to me as a Shi'i.
Well, there might be a way out. It could be that Zurarah had an argument with one of the Imams and uses the other Imam supporting his view and portraying it as if they had an argument. The downside is accepting that Zurarah. at least didn't view them as infallible, and additionally, that he is a liar who lied upon the Imams.
Another thing is when discussing with shi'i's about sunni texts, that:
(1) whenever something positive is mentioned about for example Abu Bakr and Umar, it is obviously fabricated as it supports their view
(2) whenever something negative is reported, it is obviously true as why would they fabricate something like that?
(3) whenever something positive is reported about Ali, it is obviously true
(4) whenever something negative is reported about him, it is obviously as they were trying to fabricate lies against him
Likewise, you must conclude the same about this narration, what benefit is there in fabricating this unless it is something like above mentioned?
-
Imams (as) arguing is extremely strange to me as a Shi'i.
Well, there might be a way out. It could be that Zurarah had an argument with one of the Imams and uses the other Imam supporting his view and portraying it as if they had an argument. The downside is accepting that Zurarah. at least didn't view them as infallible, and additionally, that he is a liar who lied upon the Imams.
Another thing is when discussing with shi'i's about sunni texts, that:
(1) whenever something positive is mentioned about for example Abu Bakr and Umar, it is obviously fabricated as it supports their view
(2) whenever something negative is reported, it is obviously true as why would they fabricate something like that?
(3) whenever something positive is reported about Ali, it is obviously true
(4) whenever something negative is reported about him, it is obviously as they were trying to fabricate lies against him
Likewise, you must conclude the same about this narration, what benefit is there in fabricating this unless it is something like above mentioned?
Because infallibility is from the dharooriyat of the madhab. There is no doubt about it in our minds.
It is like the issue of sahw an-nabi, although it came from sahih chains many ulama rejected it because they said it contradicts infallibility.
-
Because infallibility is from the dharooriyat of the madhab. There is no doubt about it in our minds.
It is like the issue of sahw an-nabi, although it came from sahih chains many ulama rejected it because they said it contradicts infallibility.
But the dharooriyat are determined from sahih narrations, so how can the sahih-ness of a narration be determined by checking the dharooriyat?
Also, are you referring to the all the rijs kind of evidences or the isma ones? I have never heard a convincing case for rijs and as far as isma is concerned, they can still be considered protected even if they argue. It's just not the kind of infallibility what is commonly believed nowadays.
By the way, shi'i scholars have found a way of a accepting it and said that it was due to taqiyyah and I gave you another option of accepting the narration without accepting fallibility.
-
Because infallibility is from the dharooriyat of the madhab. There is no doubt about it in our minds.
It is like the issue of sahw an-nabi, although it came from sahih chains many ulama rejected it because they said it contradicts infallibility.
But the dharooriyat are determined from sahih narrations, so how can the sahih-ness of a narration be determined by checking the dharooriyat?
Also, are you referring to the all the rijs kind of evidences or the isma ones? I have never heard a convincing case for rijs and as far as isma is concerned, they can still be considered protected even if they argue. It's just not the kind of infallibility what is commonly believed nowadays.
By the way, shi'i scholars have found a way of a accepting it and said that it was due to taqiyyah and I gave you another option of accepting the narration without accepting fallibility.
Yes, and one of the dharooriyat is isma.
As for rijs, as you probably know, we Shi'a believe Ayat Al-Tathir was revealed for the Ahlulbayt. And it mentions rijs.
What is the other option?
-
Because infallibility is from the dharooriyat of the madhab. There is no doubt about it in our minds.
It is like the issue of sahw an-nabi, although it came from sahih chains many ulama rejected it because they said it contradicts infallibility.
But the dharooriyat are determined from sahih narrations, so how can the sahih-ness of a narration be determined by checking the dharooriyat?
Also, are you referring to the all the rijs kind of evidences or the isma ones? I have never heard a convincing case for rijs and as far as isma is concerned, they can still be considered protected even if they argue. It's just not the kind of infallibility what is commonly believed nowadays.
By the way, shi'i scholars have found a way of a accepting it and said that it was due to taqiyyah and I gave you another option of accepting the narration without accepting fallibility.
Yes, and one of the dharooriyat is isma.
As for rijs, as you probably know, we Shi'a believe Ayat Al-Tathir was revealed for the Ahlulbayt. And it mentions rijs.
What is the other option?
What is Ar-rijs as per Imams? Sins? If not then it can't be a proof for infallibility.
-
Yes, and one of the dharooriyat is isma.
I don't understand, I asked an open question, what do you mean "yes"?
But the dharooriyat are determined from sahih narrations, so how can the sahih-ness of a narration be determined by checking the dharooriyat?
As for rijs, as you probably know, we Shi'a believe Ayat Al-Tathir was revealed for the Ahlulbayt. And it mentions rijs.
I know, but I mean there has never been a convincing case for rijs meaning any major sin, minor sin and mistake
What is the other option?
Well, there might be a way out. It could be that Zurarah had an argument with one of the Imams and uses the other Imam supporting his view and portraying it as if they had an argument. The downside is accepting that Zurarah. at least didn't view them as infallible, and additionally, that he is a liar who lied upon the Imams.
It would also explain the lack of details from Zurarah's part