I feel like there is some truth to the imamate

[iceman]

"The irony is  even such that when Sunni's ask Shia's why do you ask from Ali directly if he is dead, the standard answer is 'his death does not prevent him from hearing me and helping me with my problem'. If you ask them, 'what is it that Ali can't do and al Mahdi can do during his absence?', they are so utterly confused because they don't dare to claim that, God forbid, Ali can't  do something, yet they must somehow maintain that the existence of al Mahdi is necessary despite his absence. This is what I would say, not having reasonable grounds for your beliefs"

The irony is that we don't ask from Ali direct but we ask from Allah direct just as you ask from someone by saying "in the name of or for the sake of" Who is very dear to them. All you need to do is get your information and facts right then you won't have a problem understanding.

[wannabe]

Actually we don't know much about them, but that is irrelevant anyway. And I said the Prophet (ﷺ) was both, I didn't say what he was first and foremost, because that is also irrelevant. The point is, he is succeeded in some roles and he is not succeeded in others, so it doesn't matter what is first. If that ends with his death, then his next role becomes important
I think there are reports of Hamza leading Ali during the Prophet's lifetime and also during the conquest of Mecca he was led.
As I said, the nuance is in what a person is last in certain roles he has. Sunni's do not believe the Prophet (ﷺ) has a Khalifa as much as Shia's do not believe in a Khalifa while al Mahdi is not present. We only believe that a person should take over some duties the Prophet (ﷺ) had, like leading the prayers in the Prophet's Mosque, leading the armies, collecting zakat etc. This is exactly the same as Shia's believe about al Mahdi during his absence, unless you want to claim that these duties should not be performed. So it's simply not true what you claim, that is why whenever someone asks 'why did the Prophet no deal with such an important matter', it is important to hear from him to know why al Mahdi didn't do either during his 1000 year disappearance.

You are ignoring my main point and commenting on my side point. You have not answered my main issue with such claims. Again, for argument's sake, we accept the necessity of the existence of an Imam and we accept al Mahdi as our Imam and we accept that his presence is not necessary and we accept that he can disappear for as long as he finds necessary. The issue is, when he decides to leave, why does he inform us on such an important matter?

As for your side point, the same can be argued about non-existence. I can simply claim :
The irony is  even such that when Sunni's ask Shia's why do you ask from Ali directly if he is dead, the standard answer is 'his death does not prevent him from hearing me and helping me with my problem'. If you ask them, 'what is it that Ali can't do and al Mahdi can do during his absence?', they are so utterly confused because they don't dare to claim that, God forbid, Ali can't  do something, yet they must somehow maintain that the existence of al Mahdi is necessary despite his absence. This is what I would say, not having reasonable grounds for your beliefs.

salam bro
i'm not claiming anything. i'm just sharing shia's POV, taken from "Imamate, The Vicegerency of the Prophet (S)", so as to lessen the hatred among muslims.  .
Here's the relevant extract, as an evidence.
.
.
.
It will save time if we explain at the outset the basic cause of the differences concerning the nature and character of the Imamate and caliphate. What is the primary characteristic of the Imamate? Is an Imam, first and foremost, the ruler of a kingdom? Or is he, first and foremost, the representative of Allah and vicegerent of the Prophet?
As the Imamate and caliphate is generally accepted as the successorship of the Prophet, the above questions cannot be answered until a decision is made on the basic characteristics of a prophet. We must decide whether a prophet is, first and foremost, the ruler of a kingdom or the representative of Allah.
We find in the history of Islam a group which viewed the mission of the Holy Prophet as an attempt to establish a kingdom. Their outlook was material; their ideals were wealth, beauty and power.
They, naturally, ascribed the same motives to the Holy Prophet. 'Utbah ibn Rabi'ah, the father-in-law of Abu Sufyan, was sent to the Holy Prophet to convey the message of the Quraysh: "Muhammad! If you desire power and prestige, we will make you the overlord of Mecca.
Do you desire marriage into a noble family? You may have the hand of the fairest maiden in the land.
Do you desire hoards of silver and gold? We can provide you with all these and even more.
But you must forsake these nefarious preachings which imply that our forefathers who worshipped these dieties of ours were fools."
The Quraysh were almost certain that Muhammad (S) would respond favourably to this offer. But the Holy Prophet recited surah 41 in reply which, inter alia, contained the following warning:
But if they turn away, then say: "I have warned you of a thunderbolt (of punishment) like the thunderbolt of the 'Ad and the Thamud " (41: 13)
'Utbah was overwhelmed by this clear warning. He did not accept Islam, but advised the Quraysh to leave Muhammad (S) alone to see how he could fare with other tribes. The Quraysh claimed that he was also bewitched by Muhammad (S).
Thus he wanted to leave Muhammad (S) to other tribes. On the other hand when the Prophet immigrated to Medina and the Quraysh waged war upon war, the other tribes thought it advisable to leave Muhammad (S) to his own tribe. 'Amr ibn Salamah, a companion of the Prophet, states: "The Arabs were waiting for the Quraysh to accept Islam. They used to say that Muhammad (S) should be left to his own people. If he would emerge victorious over them, he was undoubtedly a true prophet. When Mecca was conquered, all the tribes hastened to accept Islam."
Thus according to them, victory was the criterion of truth! If Muhammad (S) would have been defeated, he would have been considered a liar!
.
.
.
The view that his sacred mission was nothing but a worldly affair was repeatedly announced by Abu Sufyan and his clan. At the time of the fall of Mecca, Abu Sufyan left Mecca to discern the strength of the Muslim army. He was seen by the uncle of the Prophet, 'Abbas, who took him to the Holy Prophet and advised the Prophet that he be given protection and shown respect, in order that he may accept Islam. To summarize the event, 'Abbas took Abu Sufyan for a review of the Islamic army. He pointed out to Abu Sufyan eminent personalities from every clan who were present in the army. In the meantime, the Holy Prophet passed with his group which was in green uniform. Abu Sufyan cried out: "O ‘Abbas! Verily your nephew has acquired quite a kingdom! “‘Abbas said: "Woe unto thee! This is not kingship; this is Prophethood".
.
.
.
If that is the view held by any Muslim, then he is bound to equate the Imamate with rulership. According to such thinking, the primary function of the Prophet was kingship, and, therefore, anyone holding the reins of power was the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet.
But the problem arises in-that more than ninety per cent of the prophets did not have political power; and most of them were persecuted and apparently helpless victims of the political powers of their times. Their glory was not of crown and throne; it was of martyrdom and suffering.
If the primary characteristic of prophethood is political power and rulership, then perhaps not even 50 (out of 124,000) prophets would retain their divine title of nabiyy.
Thus it is crystal-clear that the main characteristic of the Holy Prophet was not that he had any political power, but that he was the Representative of Allah. And that representation was not bestowed on him by his people; it was given to him by Allah Himself.
Likewise, his successor's chief characteristic cannot be political power; but the fact that he was the Representative of Allah. And that representation can never be bestowed upon anyone by his people; it must come from Allah Himself. In short, if an Imam is to represent Allah, he must be appointed by Allah.

[Abu Muhammad]

Thus it is crystal-clear that the main characteristic of the Holy Prophet was not that he had any political power, but that he was the Representative of Allah. And that representation was not bestowed on him by his people; it was given to him by Allah Himself.
Likewise, his successor's chief characteristic cannot be political power; but the fact that he was the Representative of Allah. And that representation can never be bestowed upon anyone by his people; it must come from Allah Himself. In short, if an Imam is to represent Allah, he must be appointed by Allah.

If the main characteristic was not political but divinely Representative of Allah, why a big fuss and hoo haa to the extend that declaring Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman as munafiq or even kafir? Did the 3 sahabas ever claim to be the real Representative of Allah (by Twelvers' standard) instead of Ali?

The more you talk, the more confusion pop-up.

[wannabe]

Another way of perceiving the matter could be as follows:
When we accept that the Prophet saw is first and foremost, a representative of Allah rather than  a ruler of a kingdom, then it's logical and sensible to accept that his rightful successors are first and foremost a representative of Allah rather than a ruler of a kingdom.

We read in the Quran, believers  are commanded not to obey a sinner.
[Shakir 76:24] Therefore wait patiently for the command of your Lord, and obey not from among them a sinner or an ungrateful one.

In fact, believers are commanded to
1. obey Allah and Rasul
2. obey Allah and obey Rasul
3. obey Allah and obey Rasul and Ulil Amri.

With regards to the above commands, the main characteristic of believers is to say: we hear and obey, as per verse

[Shakir 2:285] The messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers; We make no difference between any of His messengers; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course.

AFAIK, i've yet to come across  a verse commanding/urging/permitting a mukmin to become a caliph or an imam. in fact the Quran warned about misleading the others, like so:
[Shakir 16:25] That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear.
Allahu a'lam.

[GreatChineseFall]

The irony is that we don't ask from Ali direct but we ask from Allah direct just as you ask from someone by saying "in the name of or for the sake of" Who is very dear to them. All you need to do is get your information and facts right then you won't have a problem understanding.

Some shia's do

[GreatChineseFall]

salam bro
i'm not claiming anything. i'm just sharing shia's POV, taken from "Imamate, The Vicegerency of the Prophet (S)", so as to lessen the hatred among muslims.  .

I understand you are sharing the Shia POV, I am just criticizing it and when I say "you", I don't mean you specifically but whoever makes that argument. If you want to lessen the hatred, you can advise people not to misrepresent others as for example the article does.

As for the argument in the article, it is extremely weak. They just make claims. You talk about roles or functions, they talk about characteristics, I don't see the connection. If I say Obama's role was first and foremost to be a black president and only secondary to that he had a role as being a role model for humans then it doesn't make sense to me to claim that his successor MUST also be a black president. Because being black is a characteristic and not a role. And only if that characteristic is NECESSARY for performing that role, then you would expect a successor to be black.

Being a representative of Allah is not a role, it is a characteristic
Being appointed by Allah is not a role, it is a characteristic
Receiving revelation is not necessarily a role, to relay such revelation IS.
Leading the armies is a role
Collecting zakat is a role
Leading the people in prayers is a role

Another way of perceiving the matter could be as follows:
When we accept that the Prophet saw is first and foremost, a representative of Allah rather than  a ruler of a kingdom, then it's logical and sensible to accept that his rightful successors are first and foremost a representative of Allah rather than a ruler of a kingdom.

There is no logic in this, WHY? It maybe sensible to you that all the sub-commanders of the representative of Allah are themselves representatives of Allah, but that doesn't make it so.

AFAIK, i've yet to come across  a verse commanding/urging/permitting a mukmin to become a caliph or an imam.

Good, so who should lead the armies now to defend our lands? who should distribute zakat? As long as you or shia's or whoever avoid answering this, these kind of statements will never be taken seriously

[wannabe]

... You talk about roles or functions, they talk about characteristics, I don't see the connection.

taken from the article itself, page 5/58
If that is the view held by any Muslim, then he is bound to equate the Imamate with rulership. According to such thinking, the primary function of the Prophet was kingship, and, therefore, anyone holding the reins of power was the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet.

If I say Obama's role was first and foremost to be a black president and only secondary to that he had a role as being a role model for humans then it doesn't make sense to me to claim that his successor MUST also be a black president. Because being black is a characteristic and not a role. And only if that characteristic is NECESSARY for performing that role, then you would expect a successor to be black.

islam has nothing to do with democracy, according to the article.

And they say: "Why was not this Qur'an revealed to a man of importance in the two towns?" ( 43
:31 )
So not only was the Supreme Head of the Islamic State appointed without the consultation of the people, but in fact it was done against their expressed wishes. The Holy Prophet is the highest authority of Islam: he combines in his person all the functions of legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government; and he was not elected by the people.
Nor is it, for that matter, a government 'for the people'. The Islamic system, from the beginning to the end, is 'for Allah'. Everything must be done 'for Allah'; if it is done 'for the people', it is termed 'hidden polytheism'. Whatever you do-whether it is prayer or charity, social senice or family function, obedience to parents or love of neighbour, leading in prayer or deciding a case, entering into war or concluding a peace-must be done with "qurbatan ila'llah", to become nearer to Allah, to gain the pleasure of Allah. In Islam; everything is for Allah.
In short, the Islamic form of government is the government of Allah, by the representative of Allah, to gain the pleasure of Allah.

There is no logic in this, WHY? It maybe sensible to you that all the sub-commanders of the representative of Allah are themselves representatives of Allah, but that doesn't make it so.

let's say X is a representative of Allah. Logically, all the sub-commanders of X are representative of X.  The sub-commanders will also be representative of Allah, if X will not act by his own desire, but by Allah's command.
If we reject X, then there's no sense in talking about the X's sub-commanders.

Good, so who should lead the armies now to defend our lands? who should distribute zakat?

the ruling government, as always till present time.
with regards to the occultation, page 30/58

.
.
"He will be followed by his son whose name and patronym (kunyah) will be the same as mine. He will be Hujjatu-llah (Proof of Allah) on the earth and Baqiyyatu-llah (the one spared by Allah to maintain the cause of faith) among mankind. He will conquer the whole world from east to west. So long will he remain hidden from the eyes of his followers and friends that the belief in his imamah Will remain only in those hearts which have been tested by Allah for faith. "
Jabir said: "O Messenger of Allah! Will his followers benefit from his seclusion?
The Prophet said "Yes! by Him Who sent me with prophethood! They will be guided by his light, and benefit from his wilaayah (love; authority) during his seclusions just as people benefit from the sun even when-it is hidden in a cloud O Jabir! This is from the hidden secrets of Allah and the treasured knowledge of-Allah. So guard it except from the people (who deserve to know ).

is this something impossible to happen? If this is Allah's will, who are we to object?
i am just a layman, trying to live up to:
1. [Shakir 3:103] And hold fast by the covenant of Allah all together and be not disunited,
2. [Shakir 6:159] Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did.
3. [Shakir 5:48] And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;

[GreatChineseFall]

the ruling government, as always till present time.

I don't understand, which government? How will they be appointed?

I'll respond to the rest later in sha' Allah

[iceman]

Some shia's do

SOME Shias do, what SOME? Now if I put something forward that only SOME Sunnis do and try to paint a picture that, this is what Sunnis are all about, what would you make of it or how would you take it? It shouldn't be about what some do or say or don't do or say, it should be about the principles and core beliefs.Otherwise you're a propagandist!

[wannabe]

I don't understand, which government? How will they be appointed?

I'll respond to the rest later in sha' Allah

up until 1922, we had khalifah (Ottoman Empire). Today, we have nation states. Life goes on as usual, i guess.

[GreatChineseFall]

up until 1922, we had khalifah (Ottoman Empire). Today, we have nation states. Life goes on as usual, i guess.

I asked who SHOULD lead the armies, not who does DOES. Are you saying the Ottomans SHOULD be our leaders up until 1922? Are you saying Abu Bakr SHOULD lead our armies? That pretty much makes you a Sunni.

[wannabe]

I asked who SHOULD lead the armies, ....

up until 1922, we had khalifah (Ottoman Empire). Today, we have nation states. Life goes on as usual, i guess.

I don't understand, which government? How will they be appointed?

the ruling government, as always till present time.

Good, so who should lead the armies now to defend our lands? who should distribute zakat?

..not who does DOES. Are you saying the Ottomans SHOULD be our leaders up until 1922? Are you saying Abu Bakr SHOULD lead our armies? That pretty much makes you a Sunni.

sorry bro
that's all i have.
IMO, we should concentrate more on finding solutions to ummah's problems rather than participating in a contest of throwing stones at each other. 

[wannabe]

.....That pretty much makes you a Sunni.

i missed this part.
Sunni, Shia or whatever is not particularly important to me.

[Shakir 30:31] .....and be not of the polytheists
[Shakir 30:32] Of those who divided their religion and became sects, every sect rejoicing in what they had with them.

More important is to know what we are upon is the path of our salvation and not of our destruction.
We supplicate to Allah for steadfastness in our sectarian belief: perhaps in it is our destruction and we think therein is our salvation.

[Shakir 17:11] And man prays for evil as he ought to pray for good, and man is ever hasty.

i've looked up its tafsir from various sources
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2765
https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/17.11

and i think, thus far, this is the most encompassing (at least in my mind):
‘From Al-Sadiq asws : ‘And recognize the path of your salvation and your destruction, lest you supplicate to Allah azwj for something, perhaps in it is your destruction and you think that therein is your salvation. Allah azwj the Exalted Said: And the human being supplicates [17:11] – the Verse’’.

At the end of the day, this should sufficed as a reminder to every follower.

[Shakir 2:167] And those who followed shall say: Had there been for us a return, then we would renounce them as they have renounced us. Thus will Allah show them their deeds to be intense regret to them, and they shall not come forth from the fire.
[Shakir 39:18] Those who listen to the word, then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding.

with that, i bid farewell to all brothers and sisters on this forum.
May Allah guides us all to the straight path.
Wassalaamu'alaikum.

[Cherub786]

Prove to me straight and direct from the Qur'an that the Ummah had the right to choose a leader for themselves and a successor to Muhammad s.a.w. by means of Shura.

We must first discuss who the burden of proof is upon. Should we prove that the Ummah had the right to choose a leader after the death of the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه or do you (Shi'ah) have to prove that there is an institution after Prophethood called Imamate that is divinely appointed by Allah? Logically, the burden of proof is on you, because we are not making a religious claim. We are simply saying that after the Finality of Prophethood the Muslims revert back to a normal form of government that is not an Article of the Religion like Prophethood. And in a normal form of government it is ideal that the ruler is elected through public consultation, but there are other forms of ordinary government like monarchy and dictatorship, which, while not ideal, are nonetheless valid forms of government. This is the point you are not comprehending, because in Sunni Islam we don't believe in a theocracy, meaning priestly rule or rule by divinely appointed Imams, since we find no proof for such an institution in the Quran.
Therefore, we cannot be expected to prove something that is ordinary and default form of normal government. It is you who are claiming that the Muslims are meant to be governed by a divine institution of Imamate that succeeds Prophethood. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove this divine institution from the Quran.

[iceman]

We must first discuss who the burden of proof is upon. Should we prove that the Ummah had the right to choose a leader after the death of the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه or do you (Shi'ah) have to prove that there is an institution after Prophethood called Imamate that is divinely appointed by Allah? Logically, the burden of proof is on you, because we are not making a religious claim. We are simply saying that after the Finality of Prophethood the Muslims revert back to a normal form of government that is not an Article of the Religion like Prophethood. And in a normal form of government it is ideal that the ruler is elected through public consultation, but there are other forms of ordinary government like monarchy and dictatorship, which, while not ideal, are nonetheless valid forms of government. This is the point you are not comprehending, because in Sunni Islam we don't believe in a theocracy, meaning priestly rule or rule by divinely appointed Imams, since we find no proof for such an institution in the Quran.
Therefore, we cannot be expected to prove something that is ordinary and default form of normal government. It is you who are claiming that the Muslims are meant to be governed by a divine institution of Imamate that succeeds Prophethood. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to prove this divine institution from the Quran.

"We must first discuss who the burden of proof is upon."

The burden of proof is upon both.

"Should we prove that the Ummah had the right to choose a leader after the death of the Prophet s.a.w"

You need to prove why the Prophet s.a.w didn't bother to address such an important matter, either naming and appointing someone to govern after him or putting some kind of governing structure in place or even an indication of what should happen after him.

"or do you (Shi'ah) have to prove that there is an institution after Prophethood called Imamate that is divinely appointed by Allah?"

Both need to prove their position and stance.

"because we are not making a religious claim"

But you are making a civil claim based on the Qur'an by consultation (Shura) which does make it a religious claim.

But just tell me about the civil claim, consultation (shura). Surely there should be a procedure and method to go by along with principles as well as rules and regulations, shouldn't they? Or does anything and everything fall into Shura?

"We are simply saying that after the Finality of Prophethood the Muslims revert back to a normal form of government"

Revert back to? Excuse me, what do you exactly mean by this?

"And in a normal form of government it is ideal that the ruler is elected through public consultation"

Ok, like I said there must be a method and procedure along with principles as well as rules and regulations one must follow and adhere to.

"because in Sunni Islam we don't believe in a theocracy, meaning priestly rule or rule by divinely appointed Imams, since we find no proof for such an institution in the Quran"

Ok point taken. So what do you exactly believe in and why? This burden of proof is  upon you.

"Therefore, we cannot be expected to prove something that is ordinary and default form of normal government."

Why not? There has to be a reason and justification for everything. Check and balance!

[Cherub786]

The burden of proof is upon both.

That is illogical, and it is against the principle of debate too. The burden of proof is never on both sides in a dispute where one side is affirming something and the other side is negating it. You are affirming that after the cessation of Prophethood, there is a divinely appointed institution called Imamate which Muslims must obey not only in secular matters but religious matters too. We, the Sunni side, are simply negating this claim of yours. ِLogically and based on well known principles of debate, the burden of proof is upon you to prove your claim about this divinely appointed institution. We are not obligated to prove something doesn't exist. Now if you do prove this divinely appointed institution of Imamate you automatically win the argument. Until you do so, our position will be assumed to be the correct one.

You need to prove why the Prophet s.a.w didn't bother to address such an important matter, either naming and appointing someone to govern after him or putting some kind of governing structure in place or even an indication of what should happen after him.

This is called the logical fallacy of "circular argument". You must first prove your premise, i.e., that the issue of governance after the cessation of Prophethood is a religious matter and not a secular one. That the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't give any explicit instruction regarding his succession simply means that it isn't a religious matter but a secular one.

Both need to prove their position and stance.

Again, this an absurd and illogical notion that both sides are obligated to prove their position, when one side (Shi'a) is affirming something additional in the Religion while the other side (ahl as-Sunna) is negating its existence.

If you debate a Christian, is the burden of proof on you to disprove that Jesus is God, or is the burden of proof on the Christians to prove he is God?

But you are making a civil claim based on the Qur'an by consultation (Shura) which does make it a religious claim.

We are not making any claim, only negating yours that after Prophethood there is an additional divine institution which Muslims are just as obligated to follow and believe in as the institution of Prophethood. This is a religious debate and not a civil one. If it was a civil debate then it makes no sense to bring the Quran into it.

But just tell me about the civil claim, consultation (shura). Surely there should be a procedure and method to go by along with principles as well as rules and regulations, shouldn't they? Or does anything and everything fall into Shura?

Shura merely means consultation. There is no detailed instruction on its "procedure and method", meaning any procedure or method which fits the definition of consultation is valid.

"We are simply saying that after the Finality of Prophethood the Muslims revert back to a normal form of government"

Revert back to? Excuse me, what do you exactly mean by this?

Simple. In the presence of a living Prophet, Believers are obligated to obey all his commandments. The Prophet can either be the direct ruler himself, or delegate authority to someone he appoints or approves of, as in the case of Prophet Samuel delegating authority to Saul, appointing him as king.
But in the absence of a prophet, there is no other divinely appointed institution which the people are obligated to be governed by.

"And in a normal form of government it is ideal that the ruler is elected through public consultation"

Ok, like I said there must be a method and procedure along with principles as well as rules and regulations one must follow and adhere to.

Not from a religious, Islamic perspective. It is a civil or secular matter, worthy of a debate for sure but here is not the place.

"because in Sunni Islam we don't believe in a theocracy, meaning priestly rule or rule by divinely appointed Imams, since we find no proof for such an institution in the Quran"

Ok point taken. So what do you exactly believe in and why? This burden of proof is  upon you.

Wrong again. We have nothing to prove. It is you who must prove your religious claim that there is a divinely appointed institution called Imamate. We will believe it too if you are able to prove its existence from the sacred texts or divine revelation.

"Therefore, we cannot be expected to prove something that is ordinary and default form of normal government."

Why not? There has to be a reason and justification for everything. Check and balance!

Only if you first acknowledge that it is not a religious matter but a secular one. Once you acknowledge that the leadership and governance is a secular matter, then sure we can debate which kind of government is ideal. That would of course be a non-religious debate, and there is lot of diversity of opinion within humanity itself on the issue.
However, the problem for you is once you enter into this debate it means you have waived your prior belief in the divine institution of Imamate to discuss what kind of non-religious form of government there should be.

[iceman]

That is illogical, and it is against the principle of debate too. The burden of proof is never on both sides in a dispute where one side is affirming something and the other side is negating it. You are affirming that after the cessation of Prophethood, there is a divinely appointed institution called Imamate which Muslims must obey not only in secular matters but religious matters too. We, the Sunni side, are simply negating this claim of yours. ِLogically and based on well known principles of debate, the burden of proof is upon you to prove your claim about this divinely appointed institution. We are not obligated to prove something doesn't exist. Now if you do prove this divinely appointed institution of Imamate you automatically win the argument. Until you do so, our position will be assumed to be the correct one.

This is called the logical fallacy of "circular argument". You must first prove your premise, i.e., that the issue of governance after the cessation of Prophethood is a religious matter and not a secular one. That the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم didn't give any explicit instruction regarding his succession simply means that it isn't a religious matter but a secular one.

Again, this an absurd and illogical notion that both sides are obligated to prove their position, when one side (Shi'a) is affirming something additional in the Religion while the other side (ahl as-Sunna) is negating its existence.

If you debate a Christian, is the burden of proof on you to disprove that Jesus is God, or is the burden of proof on the Christians to prove he is God?

We are not making any claim, only negating yours that after Prophethood there is an additional divine institution which Muslims are just as obligated to follow and believe in as the institution of Prophethood. This is a religious debate and not a civil one. If it was a civil debate then it makes no sense to bring the Quran into it.

Shura merely means consultation. There is no detailed instruction on its "procedure and method", meaning any procedure or method which fits the definition of consultation is valid.

Simple. In the presence of a living Prophet, Believers are obligated to obey all his commandments. The Prophet can either be the direct ruler himself, or delegate authority to someone he appoints or approves of, as in the case of Prophet Samuel delegating authority to Saul, appointing him as king.
But in the absence of a prophet, there is no other divinely appointed institution which the people are obligated to be governed by.

Not from a religious, Islamic perspective. It is a civil or secular matter, worthy of a debate for sure but here is not the place.

Wrong again. We have nothing to prove. It is you who must prove your religious claim that there is a divinely appointed institution called Imamate. We will believe it too if you are able to prove its existence from the sacred texts or divine revelation.

Only if you first acknowledge that it is not a religious matter but a secular one. Once you acknowledge that the leadership and governance is a secular matter, then sure we can debate which kind of government is ideal. That would of course be a non-religious debate, and there is lot of diversity of opinion within humanity itself on the issue.
However, the problem for you is once you enter into this debate it means you have waived your prior belief in the divine institution of Imamate to discuss what kind of non-religious form of government there should be.

The proof of burden on us has been addressed many times over. The problem from your side is that you won't accept or consider anything at all. Why? It is perfectly understandable that if you do then Saqifah is absolutely jeopardised and the reputation of the Shaykhain goes completely straight out of the window. Your side have to desperately protect and defend this. And this is where your side's confrontational stance comes from.

[iceman]

Numerous verses in the Noble Qur’an refer to the fact that throughout history Allah alone has the right to ordain an imam (leader) or khalifah for mankind – some of them are as follows:

And remember when your Lord said to the angels, ‘Verily, I am going to place [for mankind] a successor (khalifah) on the earth.

O David! Verily We have placed you as a successor (khalifah) on the earth, so judge between men with truth and justice, and follow not your desires, for they will mislead you from the path of Allah.

And remember when the Lord of Abraham tried him with certain commands which he fulfilled. Allah said to him, ‘Verily I am going to make you a leader (imam) for mankind.’ Abraham said, ‘And (what about) my offspring?’ Allah said, ‘My providence (does not) includes the wrongdoers.

And We made from among them leaders (imams), giving guidance under Our command, when they were patient and believed with certainty in Our proofs and evidence.

These verses clarify that not just anyone is entitled to assume the office of leadership or the imamah and one who qualifies for this is the one who Allah examines and he fulfills Allah’s test. In particular, the Noble Qur’an in the above verse of 2:124 stresses very clearly that the wrongdoers (dhalimeen) are forbidden from assuming the leadership of the believers.

Yet, does Islamic history show this command to have been carried out? How many caliphs and sultans during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods were corrupt and did not practice Islam properly, yet they were leaders of the Muslim nation?

Succession, khilafah or imamah, is appointed solely by Allah whenever it is mentioned in the Noble Qur’an. In the school of Ahlul Bayt, the khilafah refers not only to temporal power and political authority over the people but more importantly, it indicates the authority to do so. This authority must be from Allah since Allah attributes governing and judgment to Himself.

[Cherub786]

Numerous verses in the Noble Qur’an refer to the fact that throughout history Allah alone has the right to ordain an imam (leader) or khalifah for mankind – some of them are as follows:

This is a fallacious argument because you are trying to prove a broad principle (that all leadership must be divinely appointed by Allah in order to be valid) by quoting specific instances where Allah appointed a leader for the people.

In order to disprove you from the Quran, one simply has to cite an example of a leader or king that was not divinely appointed but whose authority is recognized nonetheless. So I shall draw attention to the king of Egypt, under whose government the prophet Joseph عليه السلام was a minister. That king of Egypt was not divinely appointed by Allah, nonetheless, the prophet Joseph acknowledged his authority and even served in his government as minister.
This demolishes the Imamiya theory that leadership or government has to be divinely appointed in order to be legitimate.

And I can quote to you several examples from the Sirah of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم who acknowledged the authority of different kings and rulers who were not divinely appointed to their respective positions.

[Cherub786]

In particular, the Noble Qur’an in the above verse of 2:124 stresses very clearly that the wrongdoers (dhalimeen) are forbidden from assuming the leadership of the believers.

The type of Imamate spoken of in 2:124 does not mean that the temporal authority of other rulers and kings is invalid because they are dhaalimeen. Rather, it means that any specific instance in which a leader is divinely appointed by Allah means that leader cannot be a dhaalim.

As I have acknowledged, we do not dispute that Allah may divinely appoint a leader to guide the people, and there are specific instances in history where He has done so. But we dispute that it is a principle that all leadership and government must be divinely appointed in order to be valid.