I feel like there is some truth to the imamate

[Abu Muhammad]

[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.

[wannabe]

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. 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.

[iceman]

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. 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.

[iceman]

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.😊

[iceman]

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?

[iceman]

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?

[GreatChineseFall]

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. 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.

[GreatChineseFall]

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

[GreatChineseFall]

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?

[iceman]

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 😊

[GreatChineseFall]

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 😊

[iceman]

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.

[wannabe]

 

He is both

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.

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.

[wannabe]

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.

[wannabe]

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.

[wannabe]

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.

[GreatChineseFall]

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.

[iceman]

😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

[GreatChineseFall]

😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊

[GreatChineseFall]

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.