I feel like there is some truth to the imamate

[Nameless servant]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[Mythbuster1]

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.
😊

[iceman]

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. 😊

[Rationalist]

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?

[Rationalist]

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.

[wannabe]

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.

[Mythbuster1]

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.

[wannabe]

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. 

[Abu Muhammad]

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?

[Mythbuster1]

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.

[wannabe]

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.

[Abu Muhammad]

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.

[iceman]

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?

[Mythbuster1]

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.

[iceman]

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?

[Equate]

"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?

[iceman]

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. 😀

[Equate]

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.

[iceman]

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?