TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => General Sunni-Shia => Topic started by: Nameless servant on September 05, 2018, 07:52:57 AM
-
I can't get rid of the feeling that there is some kind of truth to the Imamate. The Quran verse in 33:33 tells us that Allah wishes to purify ahlul bayt. We can see from Sunni hadiths that this clearly included Fatima Ali and the Has brothers. We can also see from the Hadith where Abu bakr makes Fatima angry due to inheritance issue that Ali surely believed he was the rightful caliph. Then we can see that Muawiyah is a traitor to Islam when he wrongfully takes the caliph away and gives it to his son. I don't care what any of you say Muawiyah is the son of Muhammad worst enemy and yazid was clearly a denier as well who wages war on the pure Husain. So don't try to convince me that Muawiyah has any interest in Allah. Like father like son as far as I see it.
To me it makes sense that after Muhammad dies there must be righteous Decendant. To me it serves as proof that Muhammad was truly s prophet that his descendants were righteous and pure. I think the purity given in 33:33 proves that we should have held the first 3 in higher regard and it was a betrayal of Islam for the caliphs to oppose these guys.
After Jesus left his apostles in the book of acts received the Holy Spirit and were able to speak in foreign languages. I don't see why the decendants of Muhammad wouldn't also receive the Holy Spirit.
I think there is some truth to Shias. That being said, the only thing that can convince me not to be Shia is if somebody knows some strange hadiths In al Kafi that might convince me otherwise.
-
I can't get rid of the feeling that there is some kind of truth to the Imamate. The Quran verse in 33:33 tells us that Allah wishes to purify ahlul bayt. We can see from Sunni hadiths that this clearly included Fatima Ali and the Has brothers. We can also see from the Hadith where Abu bakr makes Fatima angry due to inheritance issue that Ali surely believed he was the rightful caliph. Then we can see that Muawiyah is a traitor to Islam when he wrongfully takes the caliph away and gives it to his son. I don't care what any of you say Muawiyah is the son of Muhammad worst enemy and yazid was clearly a denier as well who wages war on the pure Husain. So don't try to convince me that Muawiyah has any interest in Allah. Like father like son as far as I see it.
To me it makes sense that after Muhammad dies there must be righteous Decendant. To me it serves as proof that Muhammad was truly s prophet that his descendants were righteous and pure. I think the purity given in 33:33 proves that we should have held the first 3 in higher regard and it was a betrayal of Islam for the caliphs to oppose these guys.
After Jesus left his apostles in the book of acts received the Holy Spirit and were able to speak in foreign languages. I don't see why the decendants of Muhammad wouldn't also receive the Holy Spirit.
I think there is some truth to Shias. That being said, the only thing that can convince me not to be Shia is if somebody knows some strange hadiths In al Kafi that might convince me otherwise.
As you have mentioned Muawiyah and Yazeed there is absolutely no truth in Caliphate. It was a disaster and brought about disaster right from the very start. It brought nothing but bloodshed among Muslims by Muslims killing Muslims. As far as the first three Caliphs are concerned nobody is against them which how it is made to look like. It's the system of Caliphate we oppose. And it wasn't even legitimate to begin with since it wasn't conducted properly. Saqifa wasn't a public gathering or event.
-
I can’t get rid of the thought that Imamate is a man made concept devoid of any real proof or evidence from the Quran and authentic sunna, Quran verse 33/33 STARTS with the wives and INCLUDES the wives whom Allah swt will be pleased with if they stay righteous.
We can clearly deduce from authentic hadith that Abu Bakr Siddiqui ra rectified with Fatima ra before she passed away ..........“When Fatima became ill, Abu Bakr came to her and asked for permission to enter. So Ali said, ‘O Fatima, this is Abu Bakr asking for permission to enter.’ She answerd, ‘Do you want me to give him permission?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So she allowed him (to enter), and he came in seeking her pleasure, so he told her: ‘By Allah, I only left my home and property and my family seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger and you, O Ahlel Bayt.’ So he talked to her until she was pleased with him.”
Ali at gave bayah finally with all his heart and without no conditions to Abu Bakr siddique ra.
Ameer muawaiya ra is no traitor to Islam but his differences were based on the martyrdom of Uthman ghani ra and he wanted justice.
He did put yazid in power but you cannot blame one person for the crimes of another, yazid was wrong and is nowhere near his father.
To me it makes sense Allah swt left of choosing a leader (without divine intervention or any person divinely chosen) to the people to choose themselves and we use the shura mutual consultation as it is in the Quran to choose and decide without having to come up with fake stories and outside ideas to think it should be divine appointment. The first 3 were chosen according to the wishes and desires of Allah swt and His prophet saw, it was a thing ordained.
Prophethood ended and no more divine revelations and no more miracles as the Quran is clear on that, jibrail as only comes to prophets and no one else, no such thing as a Holy Spirit for a Muslim, not a good example.
Alkafi is full of unauthentic made up stuff I am pretty sure brothers in here have vast knowledge from that book and will help you in regards to the fake stuff within that book.
As for the TROLL........that system is backed up by shura which is mentioned in the Quran.
You haven’t ANY evidence from the Quran to back your divine Imamate even months after being asked making divine appointment look as if it was a new thing added centuries later.
😊
-
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.
Explain to me the rules and regulations of Shura and the procedure and method of how it should be conducted. And thirdly why wasn't the first, second and third selected in this way?
Shura was no where to be seen or heard of be it Saqifa or anywhere else. 😊
-
To me it makes sense that after Muhammad dies there must be righteous Decendant. To me it serves as proof that Muhammad was truly s prophet that his descendants were righteous and pure. I think the purity given in 33:33 proves that we should have held the first 3 in higher regard and it was a betrayal of Islam for the caliphs to oppose these guys.
No it was not a betrayal. After Uthmaan's rule when the people came to Ali and tried to give him bayah he pulled back and told the Muslims to appoint another leader. So for leadershipship to work you need large supporters. What Ali experienced in arbitration was 10x worst than what Hussain faced in Karbala. So if he become the first calipah what makes you think this would not have at that time?
After Jesus left his apostles in the book of acts received the Holy Spirit and were able to speak in foreign languages. I don't see why the decendants of Muhammad wouldn't also receive the Holy Spirit.
Are they referred to as Messiah? No. Messiah means being touched by the hoy spirit. If we use the 12er Shia logic than what the point of Prophethood? In 12er Imamate everything you say is equal wahi, but Prophets have to wait for wahi? It makes no sense.
I think there is some truth to Shias. That being said, the only thing that can convince me not to be Shia is if somebody knows some strange hadiths In al Kafi that might convince me otherwise.
There is no such thing as 12 imams. In al Kafi, Imam Jafar goes hides his Imamate because among the 100,000 Shias who claimed to support him, he said he couldn't even find 17. Therefore he supposedly became silent. Its strange the first 3 imams claimed the Caliphate through bayah and not divine appointment, and the remaining 9 did taqiyyah?
-
As you have mentioned Muawiyah and Yazeed there is absolutely no truth in Caliphate. It was a disaster and brought about disaster right from the very start. It brought nothing but bloodshed among Muslims by Muslims killing Muslims. As far as the first three Caliphs are concerned nobody is against them which how it is made to look like. It's the system of Caliphate we oppose. And it wasn't even legitimate to begin with since it wasn't conducted properly. Saqifa wasn't a public gathering or event.
Yah it was supposedly such a big disaster that in your view Allah chose 9 Imams after 3 and those Imams supposedly went under taqiyyah. To top it up it historical disaster still make the 12th remain in gaiyba.
-
I can't get rid of the feeling that there is some kind of truth to the Imamate. The Quran verse in 33:33 tells us that Allah wishes to purify ahlul bayt. We can see from Sunni hadiths that this clearly included Fatima Ali and the Has brothers. We can also see from the Hadith where Abu bakr makes Fatima angry due to inheritance issue that Ali surely believed he was the rightful caliph. Then we can see that Muawiyah is a traitor to Islam when he wrongfully takes the caliph away and gives it to his son. I don't care what any of you say Muawiyah is the son of Muhammad worst enemy and yazid was clearly a denier as well who wages war on the pure Husain. So don't try to convince me that Muawiyah has any interest in Allah. Like father like son as far as I see it.
To me it makes sense that after Muhammad dies there must be righteous Decendant. To me it serves as proof that Muhammad was truly s prophet that his descendants were righteous and pure. I think the purity given in 33:33 proves that we should have held the first 3 in higher regard and it was a betrayal of Islam for the caliphs to oppose these guys.
After Jesus left his apostles in the book of acts received the Holy Spirit and were able to speak in foreign languages. I don't see why the decendants of Muhammad wouldn't also receive the Holy Spirit.
I think there is some truth to Shias. That being said, the only thing that can convince me not to be Shia is if somebody knows some strange hadiths In al Kafi that might convince me otherwise.
On a personal level, this is really a very simple matter.
If you run a business and need to step outside for a moment, what’s the first thing you do? You appoint someone to run it in your place.
Every single organization or group of people like a sports team to a government has a leader, coach, captain etc. This is simply how human social dynamic is structured.
So during the prophet’s whole life, he ordained everything by the will of Allah. Going to war and then making peace and conquering Mecca were not the whims of a single man but divine decree.
So why then would the most vital issue of who would be first in command after the prophet, would be selected by majority when NOTHING during prophet's time was decided by a majority?
And the answer for some people is very simple.
A jealous petty human being usurped the rightful heir and denied the prophet a chance to transcribe his last will and testament because he knew what the prophet was going to say.
-
On a personal level, this is really a very simple matter.
If you run a business and need to step outside for a moment, what’s the first thing you do? You appoint someone to run it in your place.
Every single organization or group of people like a sports team to a government has a leader, coach, captain etc. This is simply how human social dynamic is structured.
So during the prophet’s whole life, he ordained everything by the will of Allah. Going to war and then making peace and conquering Mecca were not the whims of a single man but divine decree.
So why then would the most vital issue of who would be first in command after the prophet, would be selected by majority when NOTHING during prophet's time was decided by a majority?
And the answer for some people is very simple.
A jealous petty human being usurped the rightful heir and denied the prophet a chance to transcribe his last will and testament because he knew what the prophet was going to say.
Stupid analogy because it wasn’t business or sports, you don’t appoint leaders you elect leaders have you seen democracy at work? Even in sports actually you have an election to select a leader you do know like in Fifa presidential election?......there was an election like we do with shura, you have no clear proofs so the best you can do is resort to analogy and even that doesn’t help you, how bad is that?
Anyway here is an authentic hadith
A woman came to the Prophet (ﷺ) who ordered her to return to him again. She said, “What if I came and did not find you?” as if she wanted to say, “If I found you dead?” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “If you should not find me, go to Abu Bakr.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 3659
So why not Ali ra?
The answer is very very simple at the time after prophet saw passed away there were certain converts new to the religion started rumours of divinity to human beings and associating it to the family of the prophet saw even though the family never adopted such ideas trying to create divisions within the ummah, Ali ra exiled or executed one guy who started it off and the rest popped there heads out centuries later after the imams passed away and lies and false statements were being attributed to the imams just to prop up an alien concept of divine rule without clear proofs, it’s simple history, well known in Islam.
-
Stupid analogy because it wasn’t business or sports,
it's a pity you feel it this way. i'm only stating a fact how human social dynamic is structured - by having a leader. you don’t appoint leaders you elect leaders have you seen democracy at work? Even in sports actually you have an election to select a leader you do know like in Fifa presidential election?......there was an election like we do with shura, you have no clear proofs so the best you can do is resort to analogy and even that doesn’t help you, how bad is that?
.
.
aahh...a never ending polemic. give it a rest and let's move on. :(
-
On a personal level, this is really a very simple matter.
If you run a business and need to step outside for a moment, what’s the first thing you do? You appoint someone to run it in your place.
Every single organization or group of people like a sports team to a government has a leader, coach, captain etc. This is simply how human social dynamic is structured.
it's a pity you feel it this way. i'm only stating a fact how human social dynamic is structured - by having a leader.
But when it comes to their 12th Imam, it is all okay to overlook all the things that you have said above. When it comes to their 12th imam, it is okay not to have the leader leading the ummah nor for him to appoint anybody to lead while he is away. And it is okay too that the leader is away for more than 11 centuries!
Why the double standard?
So during the prophet’s whole life, he ordained everything by the will of Allah. Going to war and then making peace and conquering Mecca were not the whims of a single man but divine decree.
So why then would the most vital issue of who would be first in command after the prophet, would be selected by majority when NOTHING during prophet's time was decided by a majority?
That is not entirely correct. There were a number of instances where the Prophet (saw) made some of his (saw) decisions after consultation with his (saw) companions even though his (saw) initial thinking was different. One incident that immediately comes to my mind is the selection of the location for the battle of Uhud.
And the answer for some people is very simple.
A jealous petty human being usurped the rightful heir and denied the prophet a chance to transcribe his last will and testament because he knew what the prophet was going to say.
I don't really understand when people keep using this argument. If it was publicly announced in Ghadeer to more than hundred thousand people as Twelvers claimed, does it make any sense to say that Umar tried to stop it on that Thursday night?
-
it's a pity you feel it this way. i'm only stating a fact how human social dynamic is structured - by having a leader. aahh...a never ending polemic. give it a rest and let's move on. :(
But it sounds stupid I am stating a fact you the people choose a leader and not the divine, I mean there is no mention or proof of such a leader unless you wanna do gymnastics with words of ayahs otherwise it’s your own analogy which sounds stupid.
Well please do give it a rest you are the one coming with your analogy that doesn’t even seem right I am only answering your analogy which is far from the truth.
-
a person goes by a nick "vanezilla" posted on r/islam
https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/9b0ywx/differences_between_sunni_and_shia/
with the ending sentence "I hope nobody gets offended as I didn't have any bad intentions.".
some1 suggested "If you're looking for an unbiased source, try r/shia" but was cautioned by
If you go to a Shia they will have their "bias".
If you go to a Sunni they will have their "bias".
Generally the best way to come at this, is to hear what each side has to say and formulate an opinion based on what you think is closer to the way Prophet Muhammad SAW practiced Islam.
He finally ended up on https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/9b1xw8/differences_between_sunni_and_shia/
one guy responded with
Listen man. It’s very simple. If you run a business and need to step outside for a moment, what’s the first thing you do? You appoint someone to run it in your place.
Every single organization or group of people like a sports team to a government has a leader, coach, captain etc. This is simply how human social dynamic is structured. So during the prophet’s whole life, he ordained everything by the will of Allah. Going to war and then making peace and conquering Mecca were not the whims of a single man but divine decree.
So why then would the most vital issue of who would be first in command after the prophet, why the hell would it be selected by majority when NOTHING during prophets time was decided by a majority.
And the answer is very simple.
A jealous petty human being usurped the rightful heir and denied the prophet a chance to transcribe his last will and testament because he knew what the prophet was going to say.
and his response was "That indeed does make a lot of sense........".
I meant no disrespect to bros Abu Muhammad and Mythbuster1, for not answering your posts directly.
May Allah guides us all to the straight path.
-
a person goes by a nick "vanezilla" posted on r/islam
https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/9b0ywx/differences_between_sunni_and_shia/
with the ending sentence "I hope nobody gets offended as I didn't have any bad intentions.".
some1 suggested "If you're looking for an unbiased source, try r/shia" but was cautioned by
He finally ended up on https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/9b1xw8/differences_between_sunni_and_shia/
one guy responded withand his response was "That indeed does make a lot of sense........".
I meant no disrespect to bros Abu Muhammad and Mythbuster1, for not answering your posts directly.
May Allah guides us all to the straight path.
There is no disrespect in your response, brother.
Normally, Twelver Shia do not go beyond Ali when when discussing about logic of having successor after Prophet (saw).
If you know that "vanezilla" guy, why don't you throw that 12th imam thingy and see whether he can "make a lot of sense" out of that.
-
But it sounds stupid I am stating a fact you the people choose a leader and not the divine, I mean there is no mention or proof of such a leader unless you wanna do gymnastics with words of ayahs otherwise it’s your own analogy which sounds stupid.
Well please do give it a rest you are the one coming with your analogy that doesn’t even seem right I am only answering your analogy which is far from the truth.
Why doesn't it seem right and why do you think it is far from the truth?
-
Why doesn't it seem right and why do you think it is far from the truth?
Go away TROLL, if you don’t understand then learn some knowledge I have repeated it many times now shoo.
-
Go away TROLL, if you don’t understand then learn some knowledge I have repeated it many times now shoo.
"This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed my favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion"
Qur'an, 5:3
When and why was this verse revealed? What exactly happened on this particular day that religion was PERFECTED and favours were COMPLETED? 😊
Here's another translation of the verses,
This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion"
What happened on this day that before this day Islam was but it hadn't been PERFECTED yet, favours were but they weren't COMPLETED yet and Islam was but it hadn't been fully APPROVED yet?
-
"This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed my favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion"
Qur'an, 5:3
When and why was this verse revealed? What exactly happened on this particular day that religion was PERFECTED and favours were COMPLETED? 😊
Here's another translation of the verses,
This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion"
What happened on this day that before this day Islam was but it hadn't been PERFECTED yet, favours were but they weren't COMPLETED yet and Islam was but it hadn't been fully APPROVED yet?
I'm guessing you are going to somehow connect it to the idea that "Islam was perfected by making Ali (ra) an infallible leader". Do you genuinely believe in such far-fetched interpretations?
-
I'm guessing you are going to somehow connect it to the idea that "Islam was perfected by making Ali (ra) an infallible leader". Do you genuinely believe in such far-fetched interpretations?
I absolutely knew someone would say that. I'm not interested in what you think of me and my belief, what I want to know is WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT! If it's not too difficult for you. You definitely know how to save yourselves. You know the techniques. 😀
-
I absolutely knew someone would say that. I'm not interested in what you think of me and my belief, what I want to know is WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT! If it's not too difficult for you. You definitely know how to save yourselves. You know the techniques.
If you allow room for this much "eisegesis" (look it up on dictionary) in a text, then you can make it mean just about anything you would want it to mean. Not surprising, I mean, if you head over to anti-majos videos on youtube, you will see plenty of such "eisegesis" where pretty much anything in the Quran is "interpolated" (look it up on dictionary) to somehow be talking about Ali (ra) [Not necessarily saying that you endorse the shias showcased in anti-majos videos]. I am just flabbergasted how someone can insert so much extraneous substance into a text and not realize it. I guess I am witnessing the power of psychological conditioning.
What I make of it? I don't have to make anything of it. The verse is very clear and self-explanatory. You may want to look up what "perfecting/completing" actually means. When you perfect/complete something, the last bit that you complete it with does not necessarily have to be a special bit. When you construct a building and you put the last brick in it to complete it, that last brick is not necessarily any different from the very first brick. You just finish it off. The first brick is as important as the last brick to "perfect" the construction. Simple language. If the architect/workers go, "OK, here, after putting the last brick, the building is completed/perfected today", and you ask "well, what special thing did you do today and not before/what special brick did you put today and not before that it is now completed?", you are going to make a fool out of yourself.
It takes an incredible amount of desperation with all kinds of extraneous ideas to come up with the understandings you have about simple texts.
-
If you allow room for this much "eisegesis" (look it up on dictionary) in a text, then you can make it mean just about anything you would want it to mean. Not surprising, I mean, if you head over to anti-majos videos on youtube, you will see plenty of such "eisegesis" where pretty much anything in the Quran is "interpolated" (look it up on dictionary) to somehow be talking about Ali (ra) [Not necessarily saying that you endorse the shias showcased in anti-majos videos]. I am just flabbergasted how someone can insert so much extraneous substance into a text and not realize it. I guess I am witnessing the power of psychological conditioning.
What I make of it? I don't have to make anything of it. The verse is very clear and self-explanatory. You may want to look up what "perfecting/completing" actually means. When you perfect/complete something, the last bit that you complete it with does not necessarily have to be a special bit. When you construct a building and you put the last brick in it to complete it, that last brick is not necessarily any different from the very first brick. You just finish it off. The first brick is as important as the last brick to "perfect" the construction. Simple language. If the architect/workers go, "OK, here, after putting the last brick, the building is completed/perfected today", and you ask "well, what special thing did you do today and not before/what special brick did you put today and not before that it is now completed?", you are going to make a fool out of yourself.
It takes an incredible amount of desperation with all kinds of extraneous ideas to come up with the understandings you have about simple texts.
A simple question and I got an essay on this, that and the other. So what was the last brick? When was this or these verse/s revealed and why? Whether religion was PERFECTED or COMPLETED but by what?
"The first brick is as important as the last brick to "perfect" the construction. Simple language"
Yeh, so why are you getting all hyped up about it. What was this last brick that was so important just as the first?
-
A simple question and I got an essay on this, that and the other. So what was the last brick? When was this or these verse/s revealed and why? Whether religion was PERFECTED or COMPLETED but by what?
"The first brick is as important as the last brick to "perfect" the construction. Simple language"
Yeh, so why are you getting all hyped up about it. What was this last brick that was so important just as the first?
Well, the analogy was that in constructing a building, the last brick is the same as the first brick; the fourth brick is the same as the ninth brick; all of them are the same as any other brick out of millions of bricks that were used to construct the building. Every brick plays their role in the same way as part of the building. You seemed to suggest that, when something is said to be "completed", it must inherently mean that the last bit of it outweighs every other preceding bit of it in importance, and that the last bit inherently carries a special significance. I gave you an analogy saying that is not at all the case.
"What was this last brick that was so important just as the first?" - Nothing. The 114,516th brick is equally important as the last brick brick, as the first brick, as any other brick out of millions of bricks that make up the building. Every brick plays their role as part of the building equally importantly. What is important is that it is completed, not that there is a special bit or event at the end right before completion that stands apart from other preceding bits.
I wonder how you have a conversation with your mum at home.
Mum: "OK, the food is complete. Everybody at the table please."
You: "Mum, what happened on the last minute that before this minute food was but it hadn't been COMPLETED yet?"
Mum: "Umm, are you OK? I just said I finished cooking, come to eat"
-
Well, the analogy was that in constructing a building, the last brick is the same as the first brick; the fourth brick is the same as the ninth brick; all of them are the same as any other brick out of millions of bricks that were used to construct the building. Every brick plays their role in the same way as part of the building. You seemed to suggest that, when something is said to be "completed", it must inherently mean that the last bit of it outweighs every other preceding bit of it in importance, and that the last bit inherently carries a special significance. I gave you an analogy saying that is not at all the case.
"What was this last brick that was so important just as the first?" - Nothing. The 114,516th brick is equally important as the last brick brick, as the first brick, as any other brick out of millions of bricks that make up the building. Every brick plays their role as part of the building equally importantly. What is important is that it is completed, not that there is a special bit or event at the end right before completion that stands apart from other preceding bits.
I wonder how you have a conversation with your mum at home.
Mum: "OK, the food is complete. Everybody at the table please."
You: "Mum, what happened on the last minute that before this minute food was but it hadn't been COMPLETED yet?"
Mum: "Umm, are you OK? I just said I finished cooking, come to eat"
"Well, the analogy was that in constructing a building, the last brick is the same as the first brick; the fourth brick is the same as the ninth brick; all of them are the same as any other brick out of millions of bricks that were used to construct the building. Every brick plays their role in the same way as part of the building"
And I absolutely agree. But you've got to keep in mind that when it comes to construction or cooking we're not dealing with material or cooking but infact principles regarding construction and ingredients regarding cooking. You've got the wrong end of the stick.
-
Back at the verse/s in question, it starts off with "ALYAUMA meaning TODAY" What exactly happened on that particular day? I've asked you this before, when and why was this/these verse/s revealed? What's the Ahle Sunnah perspective?
-
"This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed my favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion"
Qur'an, 5:3
When and why was this verse revealed? What exactly happened on this particular day that religion was PERFECTED and favours were COMPLETED? 😊
Here's another translation of the verses,
This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion"
What happened on this day that before this day Islam was but it hadn't been PERFECTED yet, favours were but they weren't COMPLETED yet and Islam was but it hadn't been fully APPROVED yet?
DO READ THE FULL VERSES PLEASE!
The verse is about haram and halal not some mystery divine leader.
Why do you make stuff up?
You use verses that are for wives to try and prove of some mystery divinity leadership, you use verse that are for prophets and apply them to normal humans who Allah swt hasn’t chosen or in your case PROMOTED😂😂😂 ( that still kills me I love that response), and now you are using a part of a verse again and ADDING your own take on it without evidence or proof to lead you to such a thing (divine imarmite).
You are useless you can’t even bring one CLEAR verse you have FAILED as a Shiite you can’t even EXPLAIN divine imarmite and now you want to move on and ask me more questions???
A TRUE TROLL 👍👍
Until you can prove it CLEAR then we can move on and I will answer you, so stop the trolling troll my answers to others is none of your business, I will only reply back until you read the Quran and show me the verse that trumps shura, I told you shura is a noose round your neck you cannot shake it off or even speak ill of it as can be seen by your abysmal responses.
-
But when it comes to their 12th Imam, it is all okay to overlook all the things that you have said above. When it comes to their 12th imam, it is okay not to have the leader leading the ummah nor for him to appoint anybody to lead while he is away. And it is okay too that the leader is away for more than 11 centuries!
This is and will always remain the achilles' heel of any such argument.
On a personal level, this is really a very simple matter.
If you run a business and need to step outside for a moment, what’s the first thing you do? You appoint someone to run it in your place.
Not comparable. If you really want an analogy, take one from the Prophet (ﷺ):
Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Everyone of you is a guardian and everyone of you is responsible (for his wards). A ruler is a guardian and is responsible(for his subjects); a man is a guardian of his family and responsible (for them); a wife is a guardian of her husband's house and she is responsible (for it), a slave is a guardian of his master's property and is responsible (for that). Beware! All of you are guardians and are responsible (for your wards).
So the ruler has a need for appointing a successor after his death as much as a husband has a need for appointing a next husband for his wife.
-
This is and will always remain the achilles' heel of any such argument.
Not comparable. If you really want an analogy, take one from the Prophet (ﷺ):
So the ruler has a need for appointing a successor after his death as much as a husband has a need for appointing a next husband for his wife.
"So the ruler has a need for appointing a successor after his death as much as a husband has a need for appointing a next husband for his wife."
What a ridiculous example. First construction and cooking and now husband and wife. 😑 This is becoming a joke.
-
"So the ruler has a need for appointing a successor after his death as much as a husband has a need for appointing a next husband for his wife."
What a ridiculous example. First construction and cooking and now husband and wife. 😑 This is becoming a joke.
I agree, that's why I said "If you REALLY want one". Every other example else is more ridiculous.
-
By the way, feel free to use any example that suits you, as long as you don't forget to include al Mahdi in your example. Please show us how al Mahdi was a proper husband, football coach, business tycoon, president or gangster kingpin for that matter.
-
There is no disrespect in your response, brother.
sorry for the delay.
sure glad you feel like so.
Normally, Twelver Shia do not go beyond Ali when when discussing about logic of having successor after Prophet (saw).
it seems to me, 1 argument put forward is like this:
if one believes in the 1st imam, it makes sense to inquire further who's the next (2nd) imam.
if one believes in the 1st and 2nd imams, it makes sense to inquire further who's the next (3rd) imam.
i hope you get the drift.
if one believe in the 1st eleven imams, it makes sense to inquire further who's the next (12th) imam.
i'm sure bro iceman/ijtaba can provide a more satisfactory answer.
If you know that "vanezilla" guy, why don't you throw that 12th imam thingy and see whether he can "make a lot of sense" out of that.
No, i don't know him/her.
with regards to 12th imam, here's an excerpt from Al Kafi V 1 – The Book Of Divine Authority CHAPTER 41 H 4
....Then He has said in another part of His book, "Guard yourselves against discord among yourselves so that it will not mislead anyone of you, especially the unjust, and know that God's retribution is most severe." (8:25). It is about the Night of Determination. He has also said in His book, "Muhammad is only a Messenger. There lived other Messengers before him. Should (Muhammad) die or be slain, would you then turn back to your pre-Islamic behavior?
Whoever does so can cause no harm to God. God will reward those who give thanks." (3:144)
In the verse He has said that when Muhammad will die the opposition to the command of Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, will say , "The Night of Determination has gone along with the Messenger of Allah." This is the first calamity that has befallen them exclusively. With this they returned back to their old ways. Had they not said so, it would have been necessary to believe that Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, has His commands on that Night. Once they would affirm and acknowledge the command (delegation of Divine authority) it would have become necessary to believe in the existence of the man who possesses Divine authority."
i also read in PooyaTafsirQuranSurah71-114.pdf:
The night of qadr is in the month of Ramadan. See Baqarah: 185 and Dukhan: 1 to 3 wherein it is stated that the whole Quran was revealed in this night. The descension of the angels and the spirit is a regular occurrence since the creation of Allah till the day of resurrection, and the place of descent is a thoroughly purified heart (Ahzab: 33). Therefore there should be such a purified heart in existence at all times.
Imam Muhammad bin Ali al Baqir said:
"Present this surah as a decisive argument for the continuity of the divine vicegerency on the earth."
thus, i think shia believes "kulli amri" in the verse ([Shakir 97:4] The angels and Gibreel descend in it by the permission of their Lord for every affair), came down for Rasul Allah, during his lifetime. After his demise, it comes for the imams.
all i'm saying, they do have grounds for their belief.
bro iceman/ijtaba
i don't see shia using this argument on the internet. any reason for it? or maybe i didn't look hard enough!
ps: in tafsir ibn kathir, concerning the verse 97:4, i read
.
.
Qatadah and others have said,
"The matters are determined during it, and the times of death and provisions are measured out (i.e., decided) during it.''
-
If you allow room for this much "eisegesis" (look it up on dictionary) in a text, then you can make it mean just about anything you would want it to mean. Not surprising, I mean, if you head over to anti-majos videos on youtube, you will see plenty of such "eisegesis" where pretty much anything in the Quran is "interpolated" (look it up on dictionary) to somehow be talking about Ali (ra) [Not necessarily saying that you endorse the shias showcased in anti-majos videos]. I am just flabbergasted how someone can insert so much extraneous substance into a text and not realize it. I guess I am witnessing the power of psychological conditioning.
What I make of it? I don't have to make anything of it. The verse is very clear and self-explanatory. You may want to look up what "perfecting/completing" actually means. When you perfect/complete something, the last bit that you complete it with does not necessarily have to be a special bit. When you construct a building and you put the last brick in it to complete it, that last brick is not necessarily any different from the very first brick. You just finish it off. The first brick is as important as the last brick to "perfect" the construction. Simple language. If the architect/workers go, "OK, here, after putting the last brick, the building is completed/perfected today", and you ask "well, what special thing did you do today and not before/what special brick did you put today and not before that it is now completed?", you are going to make a fool out of yourself.
It takes an incredible amount of desperation with all kinds of extraneous ideas to come up with the understandings you have about simple texts.
IMO, we lay the last brick, hence we have completed the building.
we make the building f.e self-sustaining and self-healing and ....(like the movie skyscraper 2018?), hence we have perfected it.
https://wikidiff.com/complete/perfect
-
I agree, that's why I said "If you REALLY want one". Every other example else is more ridiculous.
You need to look at what we're discussing and the nature of it and take it seriously just as the companions did at the demise of the Prophet s.a.w, that there should be someone incharge to govern and handle the Muslim affairs.
I'm trying to establish that Muhammad s.a.w didn't pass away leaving such an important matter without being addressed. You're trying to establish that he s.a.w did but the companions were worried and concerned about so they did what they had to do.
-
By the way, feel free to use any example that suits you, as long as you don't forget to include al Mahdi in your example. Please show us how al Mahdi was a proper husband, football coach, business tycoon, president or gangster kingpin for that matter.
You should be at a circus or pantomime, this is a discussion forum. I don't know what you think it is 😊
-
Forget about the first or last Imam, Imamah, occultation or hiding or anything else you have in mind, the main issue is, did the Prophet s.a.w have worries and concerns about who is going to govern the Muslims and handle their affairs or not? That's what we need to look at and establish the fact whether YES or NO.
Yes consensus (Shura) is in the Qur'an but what is it for? Where does it say that such an important matter was left to the Ummah by means of consensus? And if we still believe in this then why wasn't it followed?
There was no Shura in Saqifa to begin with if you look at the reason and nature of Saqifa. And Abu Bakr named and appointed his successor and Umar took a different turn in how the third Caliph should be selected.
Yes we bag on about Shura but why wasn't it used to select/elect? What was the method and procedure concerning Shura and what are the principles and rules and regulations concerning it? Still hasn't been touched on.
-
You need to look at what we're discussing and the nature of it and take it seriously just as the companions did at the demise of the Prophet s.a.w, that there should be someone incharge to govern and handle the Muslim affairs.
I'm trying to establish that Muhammad s.a.w didn't pass away leaving such an important matter without being addressed. You're trying to establish that he s.a.w did but the companions were worried and concerned about so they did what they had to do.
Just an advice. Every time you throw these kind of statements, please apply the same to your 12th imam. Or else, people will call it as "double standard"...
-
Just an advice. Every time you throw these kind of statements, please apply the same to your 12th imam. Or else, people will call it as "double standard"...
They can't call it a double standard because how is it a double standard? Thanks for the advice but what's your point? Every time I throw these kind of statements you boys are too hesitant to address them. You look for counter arguments just to avoid addressing them.
-
You need to look at what we're discussing and the nature of it and take it seriously just as the companions Shia did at the demise of the Prophet s.a.w ghayba of al Mahdi, that there should be someone incharge to govern and handle the Muslim affairs.
I'm trying to establish that Muhammad s.a.w didn't pass al Mahdi didn't hide away leaving such an important matter without being addressed. You're trying to establish that he s.a.w did but the companions Shia were worried and concerned about so they did what they had to do.
Forget about the first or last Imam Prophet, Imamah Prophethood, occultation or hiding Shura or election/selection or anything else you have in mind, the main issue is, did the Prophet s.a.w al Mahdi have worries and concerns about who is going to govern the Muslims and handle their affairs or not? That's what we need to look at and establish the fact whether YES or NO.
-
it seems to me, 1 argument put forward is like this:
if one believes in the 1st imam, it makes sense to inquire further who's the next (2nd) imam.
if one believes in the 1st and 2nd imams, it makes sense to inquire further who's the next (3rd) imam.
i hope you get the drift.
if one believe in the 1st eleven imams, it makes sense to inquire further who's the next (12th) imam.
i'm sure bro iceman/ijtaba can provide a more satisfactory answer.
This isn't about the appointment of the twelfth Imam, we accept his appointment (for argument's sake) and we pledged allegiance to him ( for argument's sake), the question is when it is necessary for him to leave, why doesn't he appoint someone to take care of the affairs of the Ummah like the Prophet (ﷺ) when he left for Tabuk and let Ali be in charge of Medina. So trying to prove the Imamate of the twelfth has no application here, it is not what is in question.
-
You should be at a circus or pantomime, this is a discussion forum. I don't know what you think it is 😊
Again, I could agree with the statement that whoever seriously use these kinds of examples should be at a circus or a pantomime.
-
What a lovely joke. I'll give you 10 out of 10 for it. At least you're useful at something😊
-
What a lovely joke. I'll give you 10 out of 10 for it. At least you're useful at something😊
Again, I could agree that this is an appropriate response to people who seriously argue this way.
-
[Quote from: iceman on September 29, 2018, 09:44:54 AM]
You need to look at what we're discussing and the nature of it and take it seriously just as the companions Shia did at the demise of the Prophet s.a.w ghayba of al Mahdi, that there should be someone incharge to govern and handle the Muslim affairs.
I'm trying to establish that Muhammad s.a.w didn't pass al Mahdi didn't hide away leaving such an important matter without being addressed. You're trying to establish that he s.a.w did but the companions Shia were worried and concerned about so they did what they had to do.
[Quote from: iceman on September 29, 2018, 10:14:22 AM]
Forget about the first or last Imam Prophet, ImamahProphethood, occultation or hidingShura or election/selection or anything else you have in mind, the main issue is, did the Prophet s.a.w al Mahdi have worries and concerns about who is going to govern the Muslims and handle their affairs or not? That's what we need to look at and establish the fact whether YES or NO.
SPOT ON, brother GreatChineseFall...
What a lovely joke. I'll give you 10 out of 10 for it. At least you're useful at something😊
That was no joke. That EXACTLY the "double standard" I meant.
-
Don't get me wrong, bro. i'm not trying to prove shiism is right or otherwise. From what little reading i've done, all i'm saying is that they have ground for their belief.
This isn't about the appointment of the twelfth Imam, we accept his appointment (for argument's sake) and we pledged allegiance to him ( for argument's sake), the question is when it is necessary for him to leave, why doesn't he appoint someone to take care of the affairs of the Ummah like the Prophet (ﷺ) when he left for Tabuk and let Ali be in charge of Medina. So trying to prove the Imamate of the twelfth has no application here, it is not what is in question.
[i think your premise is not quite right. One way of reading it is: The Prophet saw left Ali in Medinah to let the ummah knows Ali is the leader after him saw. the 12th imam has no need to do this since there will be no successor for him].
Anyway....the detail is:
the 12th imam is the last in line; there will be no successor for him. with regards to not being physically accessible to mankind, you can read up the article the necessity for the existence of Imam Mahdi (https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/necessity-existence-imam-al-mahdi). the article will answer The opponents of Shi’a protest that although Shi’a consider the Imam necessary in order to expound the injunctions and verities of religion and to guide the people, the occultation of the Imam is the negation of this very purpose, for an Imam in occultation who cannot be reached by mankind cannot be in any way beneficial or effective. The opponents argue that if God wills to bring forth an Imam to reform mankind, He is able to create him at the necessary moment and does not need to create him thousands of years earlier.
With regards to the Prophet saw, this is what i know so far.
Some believe, caliphate succeeded the Prophet saw.
Some believe, imamate succeeded the Prophet saw.
This happened some 1400 years ago.
Today, a newly converted muslim has 2 options.
1. Ignore/forget all the differences that have occurred through out the history and concentrate on doing good deeds as prescribed by
[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;
2. If he/she feels otherwise, then investigate without prejudice, what is the truth.
Under option 2, the pertinent question to ask: Is a Prophet, first and foremost, a ruler of a kingdom or a representative of Allah.
If the primary function of a prophet is kingship then anyone holding the reins of power after him, is his rightful successor.
If the primary function of a prophet is as a representative of Allah, then his rightful successor must also be a representative of Allah. This representation can never be bestowed upon anyone by his people; it must come from Allah Himself. In short, if a successor is to represent Allah, he must be appointed by Allah.
Allahu a'lam.
-
Don't get me wrong, bro. i'm not trying to prove shiism is right or otherwise. From what little reading i've done, all i'm saying is that they have ground for their belief.[i think your premise is not quite right. One way of reading it is: The Prophet saw left Ali in Medinah to let the ummah knows Ali is the leader after him saw. the 12th imam has no need to do this since there will be no successor for him].
Anyway....the detail is:
the 12th imam is the last in line; there will be no successor for him. with regards to not being physically accessible to mankind, you can read up the article the necessity for the existence of Imam Mahdi (https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/necessity-existence-imam-al-mahdi). the article will answer With regards to the Prophet saw, this is what i know so far.
Some believe, caliphate succeeded the Prophet saw.
Some believe, imamate succeeded the Prophet saw.
This happened some 1400 years ago.
Today, a newly converted muslim has 2 options.
1. Ignore/forget all the differences that have occurred through out the history and concentrate on doing good deeds as prescribed by
[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;
2. If he/she feels otherwise, then investigate without prejudice, what is the truth.
Under option 2, the pertinent question to ask: Is a Prophet, first and foremost, a ruler of a kingdom or a representative of Allah.
If the primary function of a prophet is kingship then anyone holding the reins of power after him, is his rightful successor.
If the primary function of a prophet is as a representative of Allah, then his rightful successor must also be a representative of Allah. This representation can never be bestowed upon anyone by his people; it must come from Allah Himself. In short, if a successor is to represent Allah, he must be appointed by Allah.
Allahu a'lam.
Jazakallah brother for having and developing an open mind. I'm not saying accept Shiaism by believing in Imamah nor will I say reject Sunnism by denouncing Caliphate. Have an open mind about things with a pure heart and good intentions to just seek the truth and nothing but the truth and you will see how Allah guides you along the way to the truth.
These people have a mindset to begin with and they don't want to compromise on that by developing an open mind. This is the only problem with them.
-
Ok, I ask or comment and you rather than answering and addressing you come up with counter arguments. If I do that then you have a problem with it, but if you do it then that seems to be OK and fine. 😕 Not to worry, I'll address your comment. You can run but I won't let you hide behind these gimmicks.😊
-
Al Mahdi and the occultation or hiding as you put it. OK, the Bible was revealed upon Prophet Jesus a.s., now after the book was fully and completely revealed an incident took place where Prophet Jesus a.s. was arrested, imprisoned and then put to capital punishment and the capital punishment at the time was crucifixion. Nothing was said to his followers or his nation were not informed about anything unusual or extraordinary about this unfortunate event.
But what, 500 years later or so Muhammad s.a.w was told to go to the Christian community and tell them that 'he wasn't murdered and neither was he crucified but God had uplifted him' actually let me pull the verses out and I'll take it from there.
Let's look at Surih 4 verse 157
Translation of A.Yusuf Ali
"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not"
Now why didn’t Allah say anything or give any indication in the Bible concerning this? Surely we should ask and question ourselves regarding this. But we don't, but why? Why leave it 5 to 600 years later? Or if Jesus a.s. was the last Prophet and Bible was the last book then what, would we still believe in the crucifixion and doubt and mock those who didn't?
-
Surah 4, verse 157.
"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain."
Why 5 to 600 years later, why not mention in the Bible itself? Were the Christians left in the dark for 5 to 600 years? Why don't you ask and ponder over this?
-
Don't get me wrong, bro. i'm not trying to prove shiism is right or otherwise. From what little reading i've done, all i'm saying is that they have ground for their belief.
No problem, I just would like to point out that there are a lot of beliefs that may have grounds, but what matters is if you have reasonable grounds for your beliefs. I claim that this is not the case if you force yourself to be inconsistent or apply double standards.
[i think your premise is not quite right. One way of reading it is: The Prophet saw left Ali in Medinah to let the ummah knows Ali is the leader after him saw. the 12th imam has no need to do this since there will be no successor for him].
That would not make sense considering the Prophet (ﷺ) left many people in charge of Medina at different times.
Anyway....the detail is:
the 12th imam is the last in line; there will be no successor for him.
That is what Sunni's believe about the Prophet (ﷺ), so how is this any different?
with regards to not being physically accessible to mankind, you can read up the article the necessity for the existence of Imam Mahdi (https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia-ahlul-bayt-dilp-team/necessity-existence-imam-al-mahdi). the article will answer
With all due respect, again, this isn't about the existence of al Mahdi or the necessity of the existence of an Imam. We already accept that (for the sake of argument). It's as if you are asking me why the Prophet (ﷺ) didn't appoint anyone to succeed him and I respond by giving you proofs of his Prophethood or bring arguments for the necessity of the existence of Prophets among mankind! It is totally irrelevant and doesn't make sense.
(Btw, as a side point, arguing for the necessity of the existence of an Imam doesn't argue in favor of the permissibility of the absence of an Imam)
2. If he/she feels otherwise, then investigate without prejudice, what is the truth.
Under option 2, the pertinent question to ask: Is a Prophet, first and foremost, a ruler of a kingdom or a representative of Allah.
He is both
If the primary function of a prophet is kingship then anyone holding the reins of power after him, is his rightful successor.
If the primary function of a prophet is as a representative of Allah, then his rightful successor must also be a representative of Allah. This representation can never be bestowed upon anyone by his people; it must come from Allah Himself. In short, if a successor is to represent Allah, he must be appointed by Allah.
Allahu a'lam.
You are forgetting the option that he is both and that he is succeeded as a ruler and has no successor as a representative of Allah, as Prophethood has ended.
-
Ok, I ask or comment and you rather than answering and addressing you come up with counter arguments. If I do that then you have a problem with it, but if you do it then that seems to be OK and fine. 😕 Not to worry, I'll address your comment. You can run but I won't let you hide behind these gimmicks.😊
Again, I could agree that someone who responds in such a manner, is trying to run
-
Al Mahdi and the occultation or hiding as you put it. OK, the Bible Qur'an was revealed upon Prophet Jesus a.s Muhammad (ﷺ)., now after the book was fully and completely revealed an incident took place where Prophet Jesus a.s. was arrested, imprisoned and then put to capital punishment al Mahdi sent signed letters to his Representative and the capital punishment basic assumption of everyone at the any time was is crucifixion that signatures don't change. Nothing was said to his followers or his nation were not informed about anything unusual or extraordinary about this unfortunate event.
But what, 500 250 years later or so Muhammad s.a.w the Representative of al Mahdi was told to go to the Christian Shi'i community and tell them that 'he wasn't murdered and neither was he crucified but God had uplifted him' 'al Mahdi's signature has changed after the death of his previous Representative' actually let me pull the verses out and I'll take it from there.
Let's look at Surih 4 verse 157
Translation of A.Yusuf Ali
"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not"
Now why didn’t Allah say anything or give any indication in the Bible Qur'an concerning this? Surely we should ask and question ourselves regarding this. But we don't, but why? Why leave it 5 to 600 250 years later? Or if Jesus a.s. was as Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is the last Prophet and Bible Qur'an was the last book then what, would we still believe in the crucifixion original signature of al Mahdi and doubt and mock those who didn't?
-
Because he didn't give it in the Bible either. So it's not necessary that it has to be in the Qur'an. If it's not mentioned in the Bible then it doesn't have to be in the Qur'an 😊 If you can't prove it from the Bible then you can't expect it from the Qur'an. You need to deliver before you demand 😊
-
Because he didn't give it in the Bible Torah either. So it's not necessary that it has to be in the Qur'an Bible. If it's not mentioned in the Bible Torah then it doesn't have to be in the Qur'an Bible 😊 If you can't prove it from the Bible Torah then you can't expect it from the Qur'an Bible. You need to deliver before you demand 😊
-
And I've just delivered it. You prove what I've asked and I'll prove what you've asked. You want to play silly, then play silly.
-
He is both2. If he/she feels otherwise, then investigate without prejudice, what is the truth.
Under option 2, the pertinent question to ask: Is a Prophet, first and foremost, a ruler of a kingdom or a representative of Allah.
124,000 Prophets. How many were rulers of a kingdom? 5 or 10? Even if there were 100 of them, this still represents 0.08% of Prophets were rulers of a kingdom.
thus to belief a Prophet is, first and foremost, a representative of Allah is well-grounded on fact and more sensible, to me.
-
No problem, I just would like to point out that there are a lot of beliefs that may have grounds, but what matters is if you have reasonable grounds for your beliefs. I claim that this is not the case if you force yourself to be inconsistent or apply double standards.
All muslims believe in the finality of Prophet Muhammad saw. There will be no more prophets after him saw.
Some muslims believe caliphate succeeded the Prophet saw. Fine with me.
Some muslims believe imamate succeeded the Prophet saw. Fine with me.
Some muslims believe the 12th imam is the last imam - no successor for him. Also fine with me.
All has their own hadith and tafsir to backup their claims.
That is what Sunni's believe about the Prophet (ﷺ), so how is this any different?Anyway....the detail is:
the 12th imam is the last in line; there will be no successor for him.
All muslims believe Prophet Muhammmad saw is the final prophet.
the difference is that some muslims believe caliphate succeeded the Prophet saw while some others believe imamate succeeded the Prophet saw, while shia believe there is no successor to the 12th imam.
-
That would not make sense considering the Prophet (ﷺ) left many people in charge of Medina at different times.
I suspect on these many different times, imam ali was always with the Prophet, outside of Medina. one can read the situation like this. The Prophet saw was telling the ummah:
1. The importance of having a leader.
2. Imam ali was never meant to be led by others after the Prophet saw. At least this is what i know, what had happened during the Prophet's life time: None ever became a leader for imam ali except the Prophet saw himself.
-
With all due respect, again, this isn't about the existence of al Mahdi or the necessity of the existence of an Imam. We already accept that (for the sake of argument). It's as if you are asking me why the Prophet (ﷺ) didn't appoint anyone to succeed him and I respond by giving you proofs of his Prophethood or bring arguments for the necessity of the existence of Prophets among mankind! It is totally irrelevant and doesn't make sense.
(Btw, as a side point, arguing for the necessity of the existence of an Imam doesn't argue in favor of the permissibility of the absence of an Imam)with regards to not being physically accessible to mankind, you can read up the article the necessity for the existence of Imam Mahdi. the article will answer
from the article itself:
In answer to this, it must be said that such people have not really understood the meaning of the Imam, for the duty of the Imam is not only the explanation of the religious sciences and external guidance of the people. In the same way that he has the duty of guiding men outwardly, the Imam also bears the function of "Walayah”and the internal guidance of human.
The divinely appointed Imam directs human’s spiritual life and orients the inner aspect of human action toward God. Clearly, his physical presence or absence has no effect in this matter. Imam is the representative of Allah (Khalifatullah) on the earth, and is His vice-regent.
Is this the truth? i don't know.
But i know that if there's less hatred among muslims, the world is going to be a better place to live in for everbody.
-
And I've just delivered it just as much as you have delivered it. You prove what I've asked and I'll prove what you've asked. You want to play silly, then play silly.
-
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
-
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
-
124,000 Prophets. How many were rulers of a kingdom? 5 or 10? Even if there were 100 of them, this still represents 0.08% of Prophets were rulers of a kingdom.
thus to belief a Prophet is, first and foremost, a representative of Allah is well-grounded on fact and more sensible, to me.
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 suspect on these many different times, imam ali was always with the Prophet, outside of Medina. one can read the situation like this. The Prophet saw was telling the ummah:
1. The importance of having a leader.
2. Imam ali was never meant to be led by others after the Prophet saw. At least this is what i know, what had happened during the Prophet's life time: None ever became a leader for imam ali except the Prophet saw himself.
I think there are reports of Hamza leading Ali during the Prophet's lifetime and also during the conquest of Mecca he was led.
All muslims believe in the finality of Prophet Muhammad saw. There will be no more prophets after him saw.
Some muslims believe caliphate succeeded the Prophet saw. Fine with me.
Some muslims believe imamate succeeded the Prophet saw. Fine with me.
Some muslims believe the 12th imam is the last imam - no successor for him. Also fine with me.
All has their own hadith and tafsir to backup their claims.All muslims believe Prophet Muhammmad saw is the final prophet.
the difference is that some muslims believe caliphate succeeded the Prophet saw while some others believe imamate succeeded the Prophet saw, while shia believe there is no successor to the 12th imam.
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.
from the article itself:
In answer to this, it must be said that such people have not really understood the meaning of the Imam, for the duty of the Imam is not only the explanation of the religious sciences and external guidance of the people. In the same way that he has the duty of guiding men outwardly, the Imam also bears the function of "Walayah”and the internal guidance of human.
The divinely appointed Imam directs human’s spiritual life and orients the inner aspect of human action toward God. Clearly, his physical presence or absence has no effect in this matter. Imam is the representative of Allah (Khalifatullah) on the earth, and is His vice-regent.
Is this the truth? i don't know.
But i know that if there's less hatred among muslims, the world is going to be a better place to live in for everybody.
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 duty of the Imam is not only the explanation of the religious sciences and external guidance of the people. In the same way that he has the duty of guiding men outwardly, the Imam also bears the function of "Walayah”and the internal guidance of human.
The divinely appointed Imam directs human’s spiritual life and orients the inner aspect of human action toward God. Clearly, him being alive or dead has no effect in this matter. Imam is the representative of Allah (Khalifatullah) on the earth, and is His vice-regent.
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 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.
-
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. ;D.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. ;D.
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
-
... 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;
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :(
-
.....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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Check out this column on my website:
Jafar al-Sadiq's Denial of Imamate (http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com/2018/10/jafar-al-sadiqs-denial-of-being-imam.html)
In summary, sayyidina Ja'far al-Sadiq رضى الله عنه denied being an Imam according to Shiite Hadith:
عَنْ سَعِيدٍ السَّمَّانِ قَالَ كُنْتُ عِنْدَ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) إِذْ دَخَلَ عَلَيْهِ رَجُلَانِ مِنَ الزَّيْدِيَّةِ فَقَالَا لَهُ أَ فِيكُمْ إِمَامٌ مُفْتَرَضُ الطَّاعَةِ قَالَ فَقَالَ لَا
Sa‘id al-Samman who said: “I was in the presence of Abu Abdillah (Ja’far al-Sadiq alayhis-salam) when two men from the Zaydiya entered upon him. They both asked, “Is there among you an Imam obedience to whom is obligatory.” (Ja’far al-Sadiq) said: “No.” (al-Kafi v.1 p.168)
In fact, not only did Ja'far al-Sadiq deny Imamate for himself, he affirmed that the true Imam of his time was Imam Zayd b. Ali Zayn ul-Abidin رضى الله عنهما
"A group of them had gone to Ja'far b. Muhammad b. Ali and said to him: "Zayd b. Ali is among us, asking us to give him the oath of allegiance. Do you think it right that we should do so?" Ja'far said to them: "Yes, give your oath of allegiance to him, for by God, he is the most excellent of us. He is our master and the best of us."
(History of Tabari v.26 p.38)
Therefore, the so-called Ja'fari Shiites should at the very least convert to Zaydi Shiites, because according to their sixth Imam Ja'far, he himself was not the real Imam, but it was Imam Zayd who was the true Imam of his time.
-
The truth will hurt him the guy is already hurt by saqifa that he is debating with 2 posters already and you are the 3rd I believe, on divine Imamate!........shura has broken the dream of his divine leadership chosen by god.
-
The truth will hurt him the guy is already hurt by saqifa that he is debating with 2 posters already and you are the 3rd I believe, on divine Imamate!........shura has broken the dream of his divine leadership chosen by god.
The truth doesn't hurt me because I'm willing to accept and embrace it. Saqifa is most certainly not the truth because it was just an unfortunate and regrettable incident which shouldn't have taken place and people shouldn't have accepted it.
Shura hasn't broken anything because all you know is SHURA. That's what you yapp on about but you can't move forward from that particular word about how, when, where and any method, procedure or principles regarding it. 😆
-
Check out this column on my website:
Jafar al-Sadiq's Denial of Imamate (http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com/2018/10/jafar-al-sadiqs-denial-of-being-imam.html)
In summary, sayyidina Ja'far al-Sadiq رضى الله عنه denied being an Imam according to Shiite Hadith:
عَنْ سَعِيدٍ السَّمَّانِ قَالَ كُنْتُ عِنْدَ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ( عليه السلام ) إِذْ دَخَلَ عَلَيْهِ رَجُلَانِ مِنَ الزَّيْدِيَّةِ فَقَالَا لَهُ أَ فِيكُمْ إِمَامٌ مُفْتَرَضُ الطَّاعَةِ قَالَ فَقَالَ لَا
Sa‘id al-Samman who said: “I was in the presence of Abu Abdillah (Ja’far al-Sadiq alayhis-salam) when two men from the Zaydiya entered upon him. They both asked, “Is there among you an Imam obedience to whom is obligatory.” (Ja’far al-Sadiq) said: “No.” (al-Kafi v.1 p.168)
In fact, not only did Ja'far al-Sadiq deny Imamate for himself, he affirmed that the true Imam of his time was Imam Zayd b. Ali Zayn ul-Abidin رضى الله عنهما
"A group of them had gone to Ja'far b. Muhammad b. Ali and said to him: "Zayd b. Ali is among us, asking us to give him the oath of allegiance. Do you think it right that we should do so?" Ja'far said to them: "Yes, give your oath of allegiance to him, for by God, he is the most excellent of us. He is our master and the best of us."
(History of Tabari v.26 p.38)
Therefore, the so-called Ja'fari Shiites should at the very least convert to Zaydi Shiites, because according to their sixth Imam Ja'far, he himself was not the real Imam, but it was Imam Zayd who was the true Imam of his time.
First of all one needs to look carefully and examine the material you've put forward, how exact it is to the actual reference and also how authentic and true it is. This is what applies to you and what you also expect. Any material I put forward you're quick to challenge it.
Now the contradiction in the material you've put forward.
"two men from the Zaydiya entered upon him. They both asked, “Is there among you an Imam obedience to whom is obligatory.” (Ja’far al-Sadiq) said: “No.”
They asked and what was Jaffar's answer,
"NO".
Now take a look at the following and notice the contradiction,
"In fact, not only did Ja'far al-Sadiq deny Imamate for himself, he affirmed that the true Imam of his time was Imam Zayd b. Ali Zayn ul-Abidin رضى الله عنهما"
First Jaffar denied Imamah, take a look at this,
"Check out this column on my website:
Jafar al-Sadiq's Denial of Imamate (http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com/2018/10/jafar-al-sadiqs-denial-of-being-imam.html)"
Notice the end bit in case you've missed it,
"Jafar al-Sadiq's Denial of Imamate[/url]"
First denial of Imamah then Jaffar was asked,
"Is there among you an Imam obedience to whom is obligatory.”
He replied "NO". Then Jaffar is affirming that the true Imam of his time was Imam Zayd b. Ali Zayn ul-Abidin رضى الله عنهما
SERIOUSLY.
-
First of all one needs to look carefully and examine the material you've put forward, how exact it is to the actual reference and also how authentic and true it is. This is what applies to you and what you also expect. Any material I put forward you're quick to challenge it.
Now the contradiction in the material you've put forward.
"two men from the Zaydiya entered upon him. They both asked, “Is there among you an Imam obedience to whom is obligatory.” (Ja’far al-Sadiq) said: “No.”
They asked and what was Jaffar's answer,
"NO".
Now take a look at the following and notice the contradiction,
"In fact, not only did Ja'far al-Sadiq deny Imamate for himself, he affirmed that the true Imam of his time was Imam Zayd b. Ali Zayn ul-Abidin رضى الله عنهما"
First Jaffar denied Imamah, take a look at this,
"Check out this column on my website:
Jafar al-Sadiq's Denial of Imamate (http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com/2018/10/jafar-al-sadiqs-denial-of-being-imam.html)"
Notice the end bit in case you've missed it,
"Jafar al-Sadiq's Denial of Imamate[/url]"
First denial of Imamah then Jaffar was asked,
"Is there among you an Imam obedience to whom is obligatory.”
He replied "NO". Then Jaffar is affirming that the true Imam of his time was Imam Zayd b. Ali Zayn ul-Abidin رضى الله عنهما
SERIOUSLY.
I think you have a poor comprehension of Arabic. The Hadith I quoted is from Asul al-Kafi, you can see the photo scan through that link to my website (http://Forbidden_Link/2018/10/jafar-al-sadiqs-denial-of-being-imam.html).
I also quoted the Arabic matn. Please read it again or try to understand what it means. The two individuals from the Zaydiya entered into the presence of Jafar al-Sadiq and Sa'id al-Samman. They asked "Is there an Imam among you to whom obedience is owed?"
The Arabic word افيكم "is there among you". They are not asking if there is an Imam in general, they are asking is there an Imam among you, meaning in this gathering which we have entered.
So there is no contradiction. You simply misunderstood the question of the two individuals from the Zaydiyya because you didn't carefully read the Arabic matn or you lack comprehension of it.
-
The truth doesn't hurt me because I'm willing to accept and embrace it. Saqifa is most certainly not the truth because it was just an unfortunate and regrettable incident which shouldn't have taken place and people shouldn't have accepted it.
Shura hasn't broken anything because all you know is SHURA. That's what you yapp on about but you can't move forward from that particular word about how, when, where and any method, procedure or principles regarding it. 😆
What bout promotion???
Are you gonna show us the method, when how procedure or principle?
Saqifa really has decreased your brain cells.😉
-
What bout promotion???
Are you gonna show us the method, when how procedure or principle?
Saqifa really has decreased your brain cells.😉
What about promotion? Here it is again just to knock you out one more time,
Was Abraham promoted, was he demoted or was he given a title and grade of a similar nature and level?😊
Go on, knock yourself out over it 😆
"Saqifa really has decreased your brain cells."
I've said and put plenty forward on Saqifa. By all means do jump in if you feel like you have it. I don't think you've got what it takes to discuss and debate. That's why you come out with taunts and tantrums.
-
I think you have a poor comprehension of Arabic. The Hadith I quoted is from Asul al-Kafi, you can see the photo scan through that link to my website (http://Forbidden_Link/2018/10/jafar-al-sadiqs-denial-of-being-imam.html).
I also quoted the Arabic matn. Please read it again or try to understand what it means. The two individuals from the Zaydiya entered into the presence of Jafar al-Sadiq and Sa'id al-Samman. They asked "Is there an Imam among you to whom obedience is owed?"
The Arabic word افيكم "is there among you". They are not asking if there is an Imam in general, they are asking is there an Imam among you, meaning in this gathering which we have entered.
So there is no contradiction. You simply misunderstood the question of the two individuals from the Zaydiyya because you didn't carefully read the Arabic matn or you lack comprehension of it.
"The Hadith I quoted is from Asul Al-Kafi"
First of all is it a HADITH you quoted or is it a NARRATION you quoted? Do you know the difference between HADITH and NARRATION? Lets settle this first.
Secondly Asul Al-Kafi, is everything in this book Shia belief? Do you believe that everything the author mentioned in the book is part of the author and Shia belief?
We are Isna Ashar and we believe Jaffar Al Sadiq was our 6th Imam. And you bring a narration out of Al Kafi that contradicts our belief and you want us to believe that? What do you think we are, STUPID.
Doesn't this tell you that, if this material that you've put forward is exactly like that in Al-Kafi then wouldn't this mean that the author has mentioned quite a few things in his book as collection of different narrations and arguments rather than part of his belief.
If you have a Sunni author/writer and what ever they've mentioned in their book are we suppose to assume everything in that book is part of the Sunni belief and faith?
You really need to think about this seriously and shake off those double standards or you (Sunnis) having different set of Principles and standards when it comes to us.
-
First of all is it a HADITH you quoted or is it a NARRATION you quoted? Do you know the difference between HADITH and NARRATION? Lets settle this first.
This is your attempt at an immaterial diversion. It is a Hadith of your 6th Imam, which in principle is meant to be authoritative for you since you believe the 12 Imams are infallible guides, protected from Allah from every sin and error in their actions and sayings.
Secondly Asul Al-Kafi, is everything in this book Shia belief? Do you believe that everything the author mentioned in the book is part of the author and Shia belief?
Tell me how did this book come to have the title "al-Kaafi" (The Sufficient)? Do you know the story behind that?
Who said the following?
كافٍ لشيعتنا
"Sufficient for our Shi'a" ??
We are Isna Ashar and we believe Jaffar Al Sadiq was our 6th Imam. And you bring a narration out of Al Kafi that contradicts our belief and you want us to believe that? What do you think we are, STUPID.
You would be stupid to have a preconceived belief without any proof to back it up. If your own 6th Imam is denying he is an Imam, perhaps its time to re-evaluate your belief rather than try to shove that Hadith under the rug.
If you have a Sunni author/writer and what ever they've mentioned in their book are we suppose to assume everything in that book is part of the Sunni belief and faith?
We don't believe our Sunni authors and writers are infallible. For us only Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is infallible in conveying the Deen. Don't compare apples to oranges. The Hadith of your 6th Imam from a text which your 12th Imam allegedly said is "sufficient for our Shi'a" you have no choice but to accept this Hadith.
-
This is your attempt at an immaterial diversion. It is a Hadith of your 6th Imam, which in principle is meant to be authoritative for you since you believe the 12 Imams are infallible guides, protected from Allah from every sin and error in their actions and sayings.
Tell me how did this book come to have the title "al-Kaafi" (The Sufficient)? Do you know the story behind that?
Who said the following?
كافٍ لشيعتنا
"Sufficient for our Shi'a" ??
You would be stupid to have a preconceived belief without any proof to back it up. If your own 6th Imam is denying he is an Imam, perhaps its time to re-evaluate your belief rather than try to shove that Hadith under the rug.
We don't believe our Sunni authors and writers are infallible. For us only Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم is infallible in conveying the Deen. Don't compare apples to oranges. The Hadith of your 6th Imam from a text which your 12th Imam allegedly said is "sufficient for our Shi'a" you have no choice but to accept this Hadith.
Don't dance around this. If you can't answer or address then at least be honest about it. What does Hadith mean;
Hadith
noun
a collection of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad s.a.w which, with accounts of his daily practice (the Sunna), constitute the major source of guidance for Muslims apart from the Koran.
Hadith is the saying of the Prophet s.a.w through a narrator or chain of narrators. The one you've quoted isn't a hadith but a saying of Jaffar Al Sadiq or it is assumed that it's from him.
". It is a Hadith of your 6th Imam"
No it isn't from our 6th Imam. Many things in history are wrongly and falsely attributed to them. History has been distorted and messed about by those in authority and power just to undermine and camouflage the truth.
And to keep the Ummah misinformed and misguided about the Ahle Baith and the 12 Imams. This has been going on for sometime and started off at Saqifa. Yes Saqifa was the birth place of such propaganda.
"which in principle is meant to be authoritative for you since you believe the 12 Imams are infallible guides, protected from Allah from every sin and error in their actions and sayings"
It's got nothing to do with infallibility. You mention something from Al-Kafi which absolutely and completely contradicts our belief and faith. I challenge that this is from the 6th Imam. Just because it's in Al-Kafi doesn't mean it's the belief of the author/writer and is our view when it contradicts our belief.
"Tell me how did this book come to have the title "al-Kaafi" (The Sufficient)? Do you know the story behind that?
Who said the following?
كافٍ لشيعتنا
"Sufficient for our Shi'a" ??"
And how does the above mean that everything in Al-Kafi is part or should be part of our belief and faith? What was the belief of the author/writer of Al-Kafi? Was he not an Isna Ashar?
Our book is the Qur'an and we believe in it 100%. We have no belief as such about any other book as the Sunnis do. Example, 'Haza Sehih Bukhari Baad Az Kitab e Bari' you know what that means?
-
Don't dance around this. If you can't answer or address then at least be honest about it. What does Hadith mean;
Hadith
noun
a collection of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad s.a.w which, with accounts of his daily practice (the Sunna), constitute the major source of guidance for Muslims apart from the Koran.
Hadith is the saying of the Prophet s.a.w through a narrator or chain of narrators. The one you've quoted isn't a hadith but a saying of Jaffar Al Sadiq or it is assumed that it's from him.
Okay, for the sake of argument it's not a Hadith but a saying of your 6th Imam. The question is, if it is a saying of your 6th Imam is authoritative for you or not?
Hadith in Arabic simply means utterance. That's the linguistic meaning of the word. In our terminology, it usually refers to an utterance of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, but it can refer to the utterance of anyone. So no need for you to play this game of semantics, you understand my point, you are trying to divert the issue in order to escape having to answer.
No it isn't from our 6th Imam. Many things in history are wrongly and falsely attributed to them. History has been distorted and messed about by those in authority and power just to undermine and camouflage the truth.
How are you so sure it isn't from your 6th Imam? Will you be the one to arbitrarily decide and judge what your own Imams said? Do you have any grasp of logic or how to debate?
So you say this narration contradicts your preconceived belief so it must be a fabrication. Do you know what a circular argument is?
And to keep the Ummah misinformed and misguided about the Ahle Baith and the 12 Imams. This has been going on for sometime and started off at Saqifa. Yes Saqifa was the birth place of such propaganda.
So your own book al-Kafi is propaganda? Did any Sunni have a hand in writing al-Kafi?
It's got nothing to do with infallibility. You mention something from Al-Kafi which absolutely and completely contradicts our belief and faith. I challenge that this is from the 6th Imam. Just because it's in Al-Kafi doesn't mean it's the belief of the author/writer and is our view when it contradicts our belief.
Why are you challenging me? I challenge you to prove this isn't a saying of your 6th Imam, unless you disown al-Kafi and say you reject that book altogether. On what basis will you reject this saying. "It contradicts our belief", that's called circular reasoning. You have to do better than that.
Our book is the Qur'an and we believe in it 100%.
Does the Qur'an say Jafar al-Sadiq is the Sixth Imam? Please quote me the Ayah.
-
Don't dance around this. If you can't answer or address then at least be honest about it. What does Hadith mean;
Hadith
noun
a collection of traditions containing sayings of the prophet Muhammad s.a.w which, with accounts of his daily practice (the Sunna), constitute the major source of guidance for Muslims apart from the Koran.
Hadith is the saying of the Prophet s.a.w through a narrator or chain of narrators. The one you've quoted isn't a hadith but a saying of Jaffar Al Sadiq or it is assumed that it's from him.
Your ignorance is mind-blowing: a hadeeth for the shi'a is the saying of a ma'soom, not just what is reported from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم. The fact that you don't know this basic fact just has me scratching my head as to why I'm wasting my time responding to you.
No it isn't from our 6th Imam. Many things in history are wrongly and falsely attributed to them. History has been distorted and messed about by those in authority and power just to undermine and camouflage the truth.
And to keep the Ummah misinformed and misguided about the Ahle Baith and the 12 Imams. This has been going on for sometime and started off at Saqifa. Yes Saqifa was the birth place of such propaganda.
So this hadeeth was made up by Sunnis and added to al-Kafi to undermine and camouflage the truth? Do you honestly read what you post before posting it?
It's got nothing to do with infallibility. You mention something from Al-Kafi which absolutely and completely contradicts our belief and faith. I challenge that this is from the 6th Imam. Just because it's in Al-Kafi doesn't mean it's the belief of the author/writer and is our view when it contradicts our belief.
Read that sentence back to yourself and tell me how absurd that sounds?
And how does the above mean that everything in Al-Kafi is part or should be part of our belief and faith? What was the belief of the author/writer of Al-Kafi? Was he not an Isna Ashar?
Our book is the Qur'an and we believe in it 100%. We have no belief as such about any other book as the Sunnis do. Example, 'Haza Sehih Bukhari Baad Az Kitab e Bari' you know what that means?
No one with a sense of academic honestly believes everything in Bukhari and Muslim is authentic. The fact that you repeat this tired trope just shows you don't have anything to say about the narration, so you just reject it and throw everything by the kitchen sink hoping something sticks.
However, here are some quotes about the books from your major scholars (and not some random transliterated Urdu slogan) that you are so quick to reject:
Shaikh al-Hur al-Aamili said, "The authors of the 4 Books of shia have testified that the Hadiths of their books are accurate (saheeh) , firm and well conducted from the roots that all shia agreed on , and if you consider those scholars (the authors of the four books) are reliable then you must accept their sayings and their narrations . " [Al-wasa’el, vol. 20, p. 104]
Abd al-Husayn Sharaf al-Din al-Musawi said: "Al-Kafi, Al-Istibsaar, Al-Tahzeeb and Mun La Yahduruhu Al-faqeeh are Mutawatirah and agreed on the accuracy of its contents (the Hadiths), and Al-Kafi is the oldest, greatest, best and the most accurate one of them.“ [The book of Al-Muraja'aat (A Shi'i-Sunni dialogue), Muraj'ah No. 110]
Al-Tabrosi (aka, Tabarsi) said:"Al-Kafi among the 4 shia books is like the sun among the stars, and who looked fairly would not need to notice the position of the men in the chain of hadiths in this Book, and if you looked fairly you would feel satisfied and sure that the hadiths are firm and accurate."[Mustadrak al-Wasail, vol. 3, p. 532]
-
Okay, for the sake of argument it's not a Hadith but a saying of your 6th Imam. The question is, if it is a saying of your 6th Imam is authoritative for you or not?
Hadith in Arabic simply means utterance. That's the linguistic meaning of the word. In our terminology, it usually refers to an utterance of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, but it can refer to the utterance of anyone. So no need for you to play this game of semantics, you understand my point, you are trying to divert the issue in order to escape having to answer.
How are you so sure it isn't from your 6th Imam? Will you be the one to arbitrarily decide and judge what your own Imams said? Do you have any grasp of logic or how to debate?
So you say this narration contradicts your preconceived belief so it must be a fabrication. Do you know what a circular argument is?
So your own book al-Kafi is propaganda? Did any Sunni have a hand in writing al-Kafi?
Why are you challenging me? I challenge you to prove this isn't a saying of your 6th Imam, unless you disown al-Kafi and say you reject that book altogether. On what basis will you reject this saying. "It contradicts our belief", that's called circular reasoning. You have to do better than that.
Does the Qur'an say Jafar al-Sadiq is the Sixth Imam? Please quote me the Ayah.
"The question is, if it is a saying of your 6th Imam is authoritative for you or not"
It's not a saying of our 6th Imam. We don't believe it is because it contradicts our belief as well as the belief of the author/writer of the book.
"So no need for you to play this game of semantics, you understand my point, you are trying to divert the issue in order to escape having to answer"
I'm not playing games here just pointing out a flaw in your post and belief. Hadith is a saying of the Prophet s.a.w and no one else. It's just as simple as that. Why don't you boys just accept where you're wrong rather than putting up an arrogant and stubborn stance.
"you are trying to divert the issue in order to escape having to answer"
That's the tactics of you boys. That's your way, not mine. 😊
"How are you so sure it isn't from your 6th Imam? Will you be the one to arbitrarily decide and judge what your own Imams said? Do you have any grasp of logic or how to debate?"
What is the belief and faith of Isna Ashar? What was the belief and faith of the author/writer of Al-Kafi? 😊
"So you say this narration contradicts your preconceived belief so it must be a fabrication. Do you know what a circular argument is?:
Why don't you tell me.
"So your own book al-Kafi is propaganda? Did any Sunni have a hand in writing al-Kafi?"
It's not our own book. Our own book is the Qur'an. Can you prove to me that what's in that book is the faith and belief of the author/writer?
"Does the Qur'an say Jafar al-Sadiq is the Sixth Imam? Please quote me the Ayah"
Does the Qur'an tell you how many raka'ah you need to pray for Salah Al Fajr? 😊 I can give you plenty as such 😆
-
It's not a saying of our 6th Imam. We don't believe it is because it contradicts our belief as well as the belief of the author/writer of the book.
Circular argument.
Okay, tell me what is the source of your belief? Did you get it out of thin air or do you have a textual basis for all your metaphysical doctrines?
What is the belief and faith of Isna Ashar? What was the belief and faith of the author/writer of Al-Kafi? 😊
Give me the textual foundation for your Ithna Ashari beliefs, if it is not al-Kafi then what is it.
If you say it is the Quran, then show me the belief in Imamate, Ismah of 12 Imams, names of 12 Imams, designation of 12 Imams straight from the Quran.
"So you say this narration contradicts your preconceived belief so it must be a fabrication. Do you know what a circular argument is?:
Why don't you tell me.
"a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."
Your conclusion is that this narration of your 6th Imam is false because it contradicts your Ithna Ashari beliefs. Your Ithna Ashari beliefs are the premise. You cannot prove the conclusion without first proving the premise (Ithna Ashari beliefs).
It's not our own book. Our own book is the Qur'an. Can you prove to me that what's in that book is the faith and belief of the author/writer?
Then should I assume that all your Ithna Ashari beliefs are laid out clearly and explicitly in the Quran?
Does the Qur'an tell you how many raka'ah you need to pray for Salah Al Fajr? 😊 I can give you plenty as such 😆
Another self-contradiction! You just said your book is the Quran and you discount al-Kafi. Now you are telling me the Quran is not sufficient because it doesn't clearly state the number of rakaat?
Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
-
It's not a saying of our 6th Imam. We don't believe it is because it contradicts our belief as well as the belief of the author/writer of the book.
One of your main problem is you speak without knowledge. This hadeeth is considered authentic, but is considered taqiyyah or tawriayh, and in fact is considered evidence because the point of the hadeeth is to show that Ja'far as-Sadiq رحمه الله had the weapons and other things inherited from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and not Zayd رحمه الله. Here is the source:
http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/1122_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%AC-%D9%A1/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_280
Am I being cheeky by linking you to something I know you can't read? ;D
I'm not playing games here just pointing out a flaw in your post and belief. Hadith is a saying of the Prophet s.a.w and no one else. It's just as simple as that. Why don't you boys just accept where you're wrong rather than putting up an arrogant and stubborn stance.
Nope, a hadeeth is also what has been reported on the authority of the 12 Imams according to the 12er madhhab.
https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB_%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A9
Now, will you "just accept where you're wrong rather than putting up an arrogant and stubborn stance"?
It's not our own book. Our own book is the Qur'an. Can you prove to me that what's in that book is the faith and belief of the author/writer?
"Does the Qur'an say Jafar al-Sadiq is the Sixth Imam? Please quote me the Ayah"
Does the Qur'an tell you how many raka'ah you need to pray for Salah Al Fajr? 😊 I can give you plenty as such 😆
As brother Cherub786 already pointed out the hilarious contradiction here بارك الله فيه, there is actually something else going on here that's just as funny. This terrible argument of the number of rak'aat not being mentioned in the Qur'an is actually ripped off from a made up narration (or hadeeth according to 12ers) reported on the authority of Ja'far رحمه الله found in al-Kafi!! ;D
-
One of your main problem is you speak without knowledge. This hadeeth is considered authentic, but is considered taqiyyah or tawriayh, and in fact is considered evidence because the point of the hadeeth is to show that Ja'far as-Sadiq رحمه الله had the weapons and other things inherited from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and not Zayd رحمه الله. Here is the source:
http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/1122_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%AC-%D9%A1/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_280
Am I being cheeky by linking you to something I know you can't read? ;D
Nope, a hadeeth is also what has been reported on the authority of the 12 Imams according to the 12er madhhab.
https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB_%D8%B9%D9%86%D8%AF_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A9
Now, will you "just accept where you're wrong rather than putting up an arrogant and stubborn stance"?
As brother Cherub786 already pointed out the hilarious contradiction here بارك الله فيه, there is actually something else going on here that's just as funny. This terrible argument of the number of rak'aat not being mentioned in the Qur'an is actually ripped off from a made up narration (or hadeeth according to 12ers) reported on the authority of Ja'far رحمه الله found in al-Kafi!! ;D
Lets take this step by step. What was the faith and belief of the author/writer of Al-Kafi, before this book and after this book?
Hadeeth or Hadith, which ever way you want to spell it, is nothing other than the saying of the Prophet s.a.w. And this can be through one, two, three or a chain of narrators.
Hadith, Arabic Ḥadīth also spelled Hadīt, record of the traditions or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, revered and received as a major source of religious law and moral guidance, second only to the authority of the Qurʾān, the holy book of Islam.
-
Lets take this step by step. What was the faith and belief of the author/writer of Al-Kafi, before this book and after this book?
First step, read what is written to you...
One of your main problem is you speak without knowledge. This hadeeth is considered authentic, but is considered taqiyyah or tawriayh, and in fact is considered evidence because the point of the hadeeth is to show that Ja'far as-Sadiq رحمه الله had the weapons and other things inherited from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and not Zayd رحمه الله. Here is the source:
http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%A8/1122_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%AE-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%AC-%D9%A1/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9_280
Am I being cheeky by linking you to something I know you can't read? ;D
Hadeeth or Hadith, which ever way you want to spell it, is nothing other than the saying of the Prophet s.a.w. And this can be through one, two, three or a chain of narrators.
Hadith, Arabic Ḥadīth also spelled Hadīt, record of the traditions or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, revered and received as a major source of religious law and moral guidance, second only to the authority of the Qurʾān, the holy book of Islam.
LOL, how is this a response to what I wrote to you? A hadeeth is what has been related from an infallible according to the 12er madhhab; are you not a 12er? Wow...