Why are Shia refusing to debate Farid? The Video will explain!

[iceman]

Whatever the matter is, rest assured it has nothing to do with your concept of Imamah.

You can pose a thousand questions, as is the Shia main discussion tactic, but you cannot twist it enough to fit your Imamah paradigm.

The Prophet (saw) did not speak English.  Maybe you can ask for a refund from, or file a complain to, Allah (swt) in the Hereafter.

...and the Ibadis, Nation of Islam, Zaidis, Ismailis, and many more!

As I said, the 12 leaders may have came and gone, may not have came at all and some may have came while the remaining are yet to rule.  The very necessity that they must rule rules out 10 of your Imams (ra).

Answering by posing questions!  I wonder if Shias make good lawyers.

Yes, Allah (swt) chose them; the Prophets (asws) sent to them did not ask for special favors toward their own families.  And if Allah (swt) could vouch for their families, was it so hard for Him to do the same for the family of the Prophet (saw)?  However, we see that Allah (swt) says nothing about the family of Muhammad (saw) which means you should reflect on the same points you bring forth to counter my arguments with.

"Whatever the matter is, rest assured it has nothing to do with your concept of Imamah."

We've heard this many times over and over again. Then what's it got to do with?

"You can pose a thousand questions, as is the Shia main discussion tactic, but you cannot twist it enough to fit your Imamah paradigm."

There are no tactics on our behalf. And we don't need to do any twisting.

"The Prophet (saw) did not speak English.  Maybe you can ask for a refund from, or file a complain to, Allah (swt) in the Hereafter."

Stop being childish and grow up.

"and the Ibadis, Nation of Islam, Zaidis, Ismailis, and many more!"

In the Hadith the number 12 was mentioned. Those who exceed this need to take a look at themselves.

"As I said, the 12 leaders may have came and gone, may not have came at all and some may have came while the remaining are yet to rule.  The very necessity that they must rule rules out 10 of your Imams (ra)."

Take a look at your objection based on assumption,

"the 12 leaders may have came and gone, may not have came at all and some may have came while the remaining are yet to rule."

You're all over the place. This is confusion based on doubts which you need to answer and clear by looking into things and come up with a firm argument only then refutation from you is accepted and taken seriously.

"Answering by posing questions!  I wonder if Shias make good lawyers."

Thanks for the comuniments. Well you've been struggling with us for the past 1400 years so we haven't done too bad.

[Mythbuster1]

[quote author=iceman link=topic=2184.msg22342#msg22342 date=1523787172

Thanks for the comuniments. Well you've been struggling with us for the past 1400 years so we haven't done too bad.


[/quote]


Struggling??? Lol you are one joker gotta give it to ya.

My friend you have struggled to find 1 clear verse about divine Imamate you have nothing but vague verses that you extrapolate I even challenged you and you couldn’t come up with any verse only for you to say you are blind to see.....LOL.

1400 years and there is nothing still to show for Shiism especially from the Quran or from the sunnah, only things shias stand out for is BACKSTABBING starting from the first fitna through to ghenghis Khan Whom you sided with through to the crusades and now with Iraq you have always been the enemy in our midst you will let Muslims be killed coz they don’t believe in your man made theory of divine Imamate it’s clear to see.

Remember for  1400 years you have been following not the Quran nor the sunnah but some man made theory of divine Imamate based of some guy who thought up the idea.

Balls in your court prove with a clear verse or your just a trash talker with no evidences but theories made up.

Now that is bad.....very very bad following stuff that’s not in the Quran ......astaghfirullah very bad.

[MuslimK]

Iceman your arguments are weak.

[muslim720]

We've heard this many times over and over again. Then what's it got to do with?

As said previously, it has nothing to with your concept of Imamah.  What it has got to do with is none of your business; our narration and you cannot use it as your crutches. 

There are no tactics on our behalf. And we don't need to do any twisting.

Then please tell us the timelines for the ruling period of your Imams (ra) starting with Imam Hussain (ra) all the way down to the 12th one.  More bite, less bark!

Stop being childish and grow up.

Ijtaba wanted the Prophet (saw) to use the word "dominant" so I had to inform him that he (saw) did not speak English.  It is not my fault your brother has idiotic demands.

In the Hadith the number 12 was mentioned. Those who exceed this need to take a look at themselves.

The Ibadis, Nation of Islam, Zaidis, Ismailis and the rest have all misused this tradition.  While you try to fit yourself by number (saying that you have 12 Imams), they have their own spin on the hadith.  Bottom line, your misguidance is no different than theirs when it comes to this narration.

You're all over the place. This is confusion based on doubts which you need to answer and clear by looking into things and come up with a firm argument only then refutation from you is accepted and taken seriously.

What is wrong with my assessment?  I believe, in the words of the Prophet (saw), that Islam will remain triumphant until 12 leaders have ruled.  Whether they have all ruled, some of them have ruled, or none of them, makes no difference.  What we know for sure is that 10 out of your 12 Imams (ra) did not rule so this hadith can never be applied to them.

Just to show you how desperate you are, a sick mind can compile a list of 12 rulers and even include Yazeed (la) in it (by the virtue of the fact that he ruled) whereas you cannot do it with 10 of your Imams (ra).  Textually, if one plays your game, one can apply this narration to Yazeed (la) more than he can apply it to Imam Hussain (ra) or the remaining 9 Imams (ra).  This was to show you the level of weakness and desperation your madhhab resorts to!

Thanks for the comuniments. Well you've been struggling with us for the past 1400 years so we haven't done too bad.

Apparently, Shias are also not good at spelling.  We have also been struggling with Jews, Christians, Atheists, etc for the past 1400 years.  According to your logic, they must "haven't done too bad" either.

[Ijtaba]

Whatever the matter is, rest assured it has nothing to do with your concept of Imamah.

Then what is the "matter"? You keep dodging the question because you made a bluff when you said that I purposely inserted in parentheses the word Islam.

If you are truthful then tell me what the matter is being talked about in the hadith if its not Islam/Religion/Caliphate?

The Prophet (saw) did not speak English.  Maybe you can ask for a refund from, or file a complain to, Allah (swt) in the Hereafter.

Stop being childish. (By the way, I meant the word,"Religion" and not the word,"dominant")

Read following hadiths:

It has been reported on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said:

I went with my father to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and I heard him say: This religion would continue to remain powerful and dominant until there have been twelve Caliphs. Then he added something which I couldn't catch on account of the noise of the people. I asked my father: What did he say? My father said: He has said that all of them will be from the Quraish.

Reference : Sahih Muslim 1821 f
In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 10
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4482

It has been narrated on the authority of Amir b. Sa'd b. Abu Waqqas who said:

I wrote (a letter) to Jabir b. Samura and sent it to him through my servant Nafi', asking him to inform me of something he had heard from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He wrote to me (in reply): I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say on Friday evening, the day on which al-Aslami was stoned to death (for committing adultery): The Islamic religion will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled over by twelve Caliphs, all of them being from the Quraish. also heard him say: A small force of the Muslims will capture the white palace, the police of the Persian Emperor or his descendants. I also heard him say: Before the Day of Judgment there will appear (a number of) impostors. You are to guard against them. I also heard him say: When God grants wealth to any one of you, he should first spend it on himself and his family (and then give it in charity to the poor). I heard him (also) say: I will be your forerunner at the Cistern (expecting your arrival).

Reference : Sahih Muslim 1822 a
In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 11
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4483

...and the Ibadis, Nation of Islam, Zaidis, Ismailis, and many more!

The hadith is talking about 12 unknown individuals. What I meant was that all people are confused as to their identities except Twelver Shias because the number 12 (Muslim Rulers) is reminiscent with Shias 12 (Imams) As we twelver shias believe in 12 Imams who are Rulers according to us so we are not confused as to the identities of 12 unnamed individuals in the hadith.

The problem or doubt would only arise for us (Twelver Shias) if there are any other sect/group who claim that they also believe in 12 rulers only and say their 12 Rulers are different from Shias 12 Imams. Only then deniers and doubters would have valid argument against us regarding this hadith.

Bringing Ibadis, Nation of Islam, Zaidis, Ismailis, and many more against us regarding this hadith (which has specifically mentioned 12 Rulers) is worthless argument. Mention a group/sect which believes in 12 rulers like Twelver Shias only then it is a argument worth looking.

As I said, the 12 leaders may have came and gone, may not have came at all and some may have came while the remaining are yet to rule.  The very necessity that they must rule rules out 10 of your Imams (ra).

Answer me how many Prophets have ruled during their Prophethood?

Muslims believe that Prophets were Rulers during their time. In same way as Prophets ruled during their time we Twelver Shias believe our Imams ruled during their time.

Answering by posing questions!  I wonder if Shias make good lawyers.

I don't know about the being lawyers but we Twelvers al-Hamdu LILLAH do make good Muslims, Momins and Muttaqi.

Yes, Allah (swt) chose them; the Prophets (asws) sent to them did not ask for special favors toward their own families.  And if Allah (swt) could vouch for their families, was it so hard for Him to do the same for the family of the Prophet (saw)?  However, we see that Allah (swt) says nothing about the family of Muhammad (saw) which means you should reflect on the same points you bring forth to counter my arguments with.

What? 

Your saying you never heard about any Virtue(s) of Family of Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w)? 

I am really disappointed 

[muslim720]

Then what is the "matter"?

We know that the words "matter", "religion" and "Islam" have been used in variant forms of this hadith.  What I had an issue with, and still oppose, is your insertion of the word "Islam" after the word "matter" in the following version of this narration: This matter will not end until the passing of twelve caliphs.

Al-Islam.org inserted the word "life" after the word "matter".  What you, and Al-Islam.org, are doing is that you are trying to give the impression that this hadith makes the existence and triumph of Islam (and life, in the case of Al-Islam.org) contingent upon these 12 leaders when the take-home message from this hadith is that Islam will remain glorious until 12 men have ruled, whoever they may be.

You keep dodging the question because you made a bluff when you said that I purposely inserted in parentheses the word Islam.

You inserted an accepted meaning - the word "Islam" having been used in other variants - to give a whole new meaning to the overall message of the hadith.

If you are truthful then tell me what the matter is being talked about in the hadith if its not Islam/Religion/Caliphate?

The Prophet (saw) was telling us that Islam would remain in a state of glory until the rule of 12 leaders have passed.  Are you incapable of reading a text for what it is without imposing your own interpretations upon it?

Stop being childish. (By the way, I meant the word,"Religion" and not the word,"dominant")

Oh, we will come to the word "dominant" and expose another one of your mistakes.

Read following hadiths:

It has been reported on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said:

I went with my father to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and I heard him say: This religion would continue to remain powerful and dominant until there have been twelve Caliphs. Then he added something which I couldn't catch on account of the noise of the people. I asked my father: What did he say? My father said: He has said that all of them will be from the Quraish.

You ask me to read the hadiths when you should be the one to read them because a page ago (see post # 18) you said, "The Prophet (s.a.w.w) could simply had said, 'Religion would be dominant until coming of the Hour' " and we see that the Prophet (saw) did say "dominant" (at least in translation). 

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

The hadith is talking about 12 unknown individuals. What I meant was that all people are confused as to their identities except Twelver Shias because the number 12 (Muslim Rulers) is reminiscent with Shias 12 (Imams) As we twelver shias believe in 12 Imams who are Rulers according to us so we are not confused as to the identities of 12 unnamed individuals in the hadith.

Their identities is an unimportant fact; only the misguided sects have busied themselves with their identities.  The Prophet (saw) would have named them if their identities were of any importance. 

The problem or doubt would only arise for us (Twelver Shias) if there are any other sect/group who claim that they also believe in 12 rulers only and say their 12 Rulers are different from Shias 12 Imams. Only then deniers and doubters would have valid argument against us regarding this hadith.

Actually, as per the apparent text of this narration, one can include Yazeed (la) among the 12 leaders far more easily than you can include Imam Hussain (ra) and the other 9 Imams (ra).  The text necessitates that these 12 must rule!

Bringing Ibadis, Nation of Islam, Zaidis, Ismailis, and many more against us regarding this hadith (which has specifically mentioned 12 Rulers) is worthless argument. Mention a group/sect which believes in 12 rulers like Twelver Shias only then it is a argument worth looking.

Wikipedia lists over 120 Imams for the Zaidis alone; they have come up with ten times the number of your Imams (ra).  It makes me laugh to see you stick to the apparent text of the hadith when it comes to the number "12" but ignore the other apparent textual bit which necessitates that the 12 must rule.

Answer me how many Prophets have ruled during their Prophethood?

The Qur'an does not say that Prophets (asws) must rule; the Sunnah does not say so either.  In the case of the Hadith of 12 Leaders, the Prophet (saw) has clearly stated that Islam would remain triumphant until 12 Leaders have ruled.  Try again!

I don't know about the being lawyers but we Twelvers al-Hamdu LILLAH do make good Muslims, Momins and Muttaqi.

lol, I nearly fell off my chair

What? 

Your saying you never heard about any Virtue(s) of Family of Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w)? 

I am really disappointed 

I did not deny the virtues of the family of the Prophet (saw).  When you brought up the Qur'anic praise for Aale Ibrahim (asws) and Bani Isra'il, I reminded you that you cannot find such a thing for the family of the Prophet (saw) in the Qur'an.  Do you have any clear cut verse which says that Allah (swt) chose the family of the Prophet (saw) above every one?

[Ijtaba]

We know that the words "matter", "religion" and "Islam" have been used in variant forms of this hadith.  What I had an issue with, and still oppose, is your insertion of the word "Islam" after the word "matter" in the following version of this narration: This matter will not end until the passing of twelve caliphs.

Al-Islam.org inserted the word "life" after the word "matter".  What you, and Al-Islam.org, are doing is that you are trying to give the impression that this hadith makes the existence and triumph of Islam (and life, in the case of Al-Islam.org) contingent upon these 12 leaders when the take-home message from this hadith is that Islam will remain glorious until 12 men have ruled, whoever they may be.

According to you, I believe that existence and triumph of Islam is contingent upon the 12 unnamed Rulers mentioned in the hadith whereas you believe that Islam will remain glorious until 12 men have ruled. What's the difference between my and your view? We both believe that Islam will remain glorious until 12 men have ruled. Then what's the disagreement?

You inserted an accepted meaning - the word "Islam" having been used in other variants - to give a whole new meaning to the overall message of the hadith.

The Prophet (saw) was telling us that Islam would remain in a state of glory until the rule of 12 leaders have passed. Are you incapable of reading a text for what it is without imposing your own interpretations upon it?

What new meaning was given to the overall message of the hadith by inserting an accepted meaning - the word "Islam"? I fail to understand what you are trying to convey as I also agree that Prophet (s.a.w.w) was telling us that Islam would remain in a state of glory until the rule of 12 leaders have passed.

Oh, we will come to the word "dominant" and expose another one of your mistakes.

You ask me to read the hadiths when you should be the one to read them because a page ago (see post # 18) you said, "The Prophet (s.a.w.w) could simply had said, 'Religion would be dominant until coming of the Hour' " and we see that the Prophet (saw) did say "dominant" (at least in translation). 

I think you didn't understand me... what I meant was that Prophet (s.a.w.w) could simply had said, "Religion would be dominant until coming of the Hour" and nothing else. He (s.a.w.w) should not had said that religion would be dominant until there have been 12 Rulers because no till now knows according to you (and many others) who those 12 unnamed rulers are but as for the Religion everyone knows Religion refers to Islam.

Their identities is an unimportant fact; only the misguided sects have busied themselves with their identities.  The Prophet (saw) would have named them if their identities were of any importance. 

Actually, as per the apparent text of this narration, one can include Yazeed (la) among the 12 leaders far more easily than you can include Imam Hussain (ra) and the other 9 Imams (ra).  The text necessitates that these 12 must rule!

Wikipedia lists over 120 Imams for the Zaidis alone; they have come up with ten times the number of your Imams (ra).  It makes me laugh to see you stick to the apparent text of the hadith when it comes to the number "12" but ignore the other apparent textual bit which necessitates that the 12 must rule.

If the identities is unimportant then the number specified 12 is important because according to the hadith Islam will remain in a state of glory until the rule of 12 leaders have passed.

Ruling is important according to you. Let me ask you a question. Can a Ruler of Muslim Ummah rule without following Islamic Laws and Commandments? Yazid (l.a) did things which were against Quran and Sunnah... so is his ruler-ship valid?

Even if Muslim Ummah be ruled by thousand Unrighteous Rulers (who rule without following Rules and Regulations of Islam) then those Rulers ruler-ship is invalid. Those rulers are illegitimate Rulers who have snatched forcefully authority from Righteous Rulers.

The Qur'an does not say that Prophets (asws) must rule; the Sunnah does not say so either.  In the case of the Hadith of 12 Leaders, the Prophet (saw) has clearly stated that Islam would remain triumphant until 12 Leaders have ruled.  Try again!

It has been narrated by Abu Huraira that the Prophet (may pceace be upon him) said:

Banu Isra'il were ruled over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him; but after me there is no prophet and there will be caliphs and they will be quite large in number. His Companions said: What do you order us to do (in case we come to have more than one Caliph)? He said: The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others. Concede to them their due rights (i. e. obey them). God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1842 a
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 71
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4543

I did not deny the virtues of the family of the Prophet (saw).  When you brought up the Qur'anic praise for Aale Ibrahim (asws) and Bani Isra'il, I reminded you that you cannot find such a thing for the family of the Prophet (saw) in the Qur'an.  Do you have any clear cut verse which says that Allah (swt) chose the family of the Prophet (saw) above every one?

You mean to say that GOD praises Family of Ibrahim (a.s) and Bani Israel but does no such thing for the Family of Mohammed (s.a.w.w)? May I know the reason why does GOD not praise the Family of Imam-ul-Anbiya (s.a.w.w) but praises the Family of Anbiya (a.s)?

[muslim720]

According to you, I believe that existence and triumph of Islam is contingent upon the 12 unnamed Rulers mentioned in the hadith whereas you believe that Islam will remain glorious until 12 men have ruled. What's the difference between my and your view? We both believe that Islam will remain glorious until 12 men have ruled. Then what's the disagreement?

Re-quoted for emphasis so that you can read it one more time: "What you, and Al-Islam.org, are doing is that you are trying to give the impression that this hadith makes the existence and triumph of Islam (and life, in the case of Al-Islam.org) contingent upon these 12 leaders when the take-home message from this hadith is that Islam will remain glorious until 12 men have ruled, whoever they may be."

What new meaning was given to the overall message of the hadith by inserting an accepted meaning - the word "Islam"? I fail to understand what you are trying to convey as I also agree that Prophet (s.a.w.w) was telling us that Islam would remain in a state of glory until the rule of 12 leaders have passed.

Please read above.  If you are still confused, think along the lines of your belief that the world cannot remain without an Imam.  Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

I think you didn't understand me... what I meant was that Prophet (s.a.w.w) could simply had said, "Religion would be dominant until coming of the Hour" and nothing else.

But Islam, in general, and Muslims have not remained dominant (from day one till now) so why would the Prophet (saw) say such a thing?

He (s.a.w.w) should not had said that religion would be dominant until there have been 12 Rulers because no till now knows according to you (and many others) who those 12 unnamed rulers are but as for the Religion everyone knows Religion refers to Islam.

Your false assumptions and weak belief have led you to believe that you could better phrase it than the Prophet (saw).  He (saw) could have said it any way and you would have still found it next to impossible for your belief (of 12 Imams) to fit into it.

If the identities is unimportant then the number specified 12 is important because according to the hadith Islam will remain in a state of glory until the rule of 12 leaders have passed.

When did the rule of Imam Hussain (ra) pass?  How about the rule of Imam Zain ul-Abideen (ra)?  Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (ra)?  Imam Jaffar as-Sadiq (ra)?  Imam Musa al-Kadhim (ra)?  Please list the timelines going down to the last one.

Ruling is important according to you. Let me ask you a question. Can a Ruler of Muslim Ummah rule without following Islamic Laws and Commandments? Yazid (l.a) did things which were against Quran and Sunnah... so is his ruler-ship valid?

It is not about the validity of the rule; it has to do with whether a person was in a ruling position or not.  Yazeed (la) ruled the Muslim ummah!  Equally difficult for you to stomach is the fact that Imam Hassan (ra) trusted his father, Muawiya, with the affairs of the Muslims and handed him the Caliphate.  So while you will busy yourself with validity (which is completely off-tangent), your own second Imam (ra) considered Muawiya's rule to be valid and hence, I can cite Muawiya to be one of the 12 leaders whereas you cannot even vouch for Imam Hussain (ra).

Even if Muslim Ummah be ruled by thousand Unrighteous Rulers (who rule without following Rules and Regulations of Islam) then those Rulers ruler-ship is invalid. Those rulers are illegitimate Rulers who have snatched forcefully authority from Righteous Rulers.

The hadith does not comment on the righteousness or unrighteousness of the 12 leaders; it only states that Islam will remain triumphant until 12 leaders, all from Quraish, have ruled.

It has been narrated by Abu Huraira that the Prophet (may pceace be upon him) said:

Banu Isra'il were ruled over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him; but after me there is no prophet and there will be caliphs and they will be quite large in number. His Companions said: What do you order us to do (in case we come to have more than one Caliph)? He said: The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others. Concede to them their due rights (i. e. obey them). God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1842 a
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 71
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4543

Never in my life have I been presented proofs by Shias to substantiate Shia beliefs in one matter that do not shatter their claims (in other matters).  It has always been the case.  Shias present proof to substantiate one of their beliefs but their own proof refutes so many of their other beliefs, on many levels.

1.  My original statement was that "The Qur'an does not say that Prophets (asws) must rule; the Sunnah does not say so either."  The hadith you have presented does not necessitate that Prophets (asws) had to rule, unlike the hadith of 12 Leaders. 

2.  The hadith you have presented is using the term "rule" in conjunction with Prophets (asws) sent to Banu Isra'il in a metaphorical sense.  In the case of the hadith of 12 Leaders, these individuals must rule.  That is, they need to be in a position to govern the ummah (righteous or not).

3.  Let us analyze the following portion of your own presented hadith, "there will be caliphs and they will be quite large in number".  According to the Prophet (saw), there would be Caliphs, not Imams.  Furthermore, they (Caliphs) would be quite large in number.  Therefore, the number 12 is no longer special and its elite status goes right out of the window.

4.  Let us analyze the other statement of the Prophet (saw), "The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others".  This proves that leaders are not appointed by Allah (swt) but are chosen by people.  And for the virtue of having been pledged allegiance to before Imam Ali (ra), the first three Rightly-Guided Caliphs (ra) have supremacy over Imam Ali (ra).

5.  Lastly, the Prophet (saw) said, "God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them" which means that these leaders may or may not be righteous (because Allah will question them on their affairs in regards to the Muslims).

You mean to say that GOD praises Family of Ibrahim (a.s) and Bani Israel but does no such thing for the Family of Mohammed (s.a.w.w)?

Do you have a clear-cut Qur'anic verse praising the family of the Prophet (saw) like this one: "Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of 'Imran over the worlds" (Qur'an 3:33)

May I know the reason why does GOD not praise the Family of Imam-ul-Anbiya (s.a.w.w) but praises the Family of Anbiya (a.s)?

You need to question Allah (swt), not me!

[muslim720]

You mean to say that GOD praises Family of Ibrahim (a.s) and Bani Israel but does no such thing for the Family of Mohammed (s.a.w.w)? May I know the reason why does GOD not praise the Family of Imam-ul-Anbiya (s.a.w.w) but praises the Family of Anbiya (a.s)?

Ayatollah Murtada Al-Qazwini comments on the verse "Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of 'Imran over the worlds" (Qur'an 3:33) and answers your question.

PS - I hope you did not send salawaat after listening to that kufr (like the listeners in the video).

[Ijtaba]

So the gloriousness of Islam is contingent upon these 12 men rulership? After the these 12 men have ruled what would happen to the gloriousness of Islam?

Please read above.  If you are still confused, think along the lines of your belief that the world cannot remain without an Imam.  Hopefully that clarifies it for you.

But isn't it belief of Muslims that world cannot remain without Muslims i.e. when no Muslim remains on Earth then GOD would sent the Hour?

But Islam, in general, and Muslims have not remained dominant (from day one till now) so why would the Prophet (saw) say such a thing?

 

What? Islam did not see its dominance in the time period of so-called Rightly Guided Caliphs, the rule of Abdul Aziz of Banu Ummayah, the Golden Age of Islam?

Kindly tell me when would Islam see its glorious & dominant period?

Your false assumptions and weak belief have led you to believe that you could better phrase it than the Prophet (saw).  He (saw) could have said it any way and you would have still found it next to impossible for your belief (of 12 Imams) to fit into it.

Prophet (s.a.w.w) was eloquent and his (s.a.w.w) sayings are perfect. We Twelver Shias have got no confusion regarding 12 Caliphs hadith as we Twelver Shias believe our 12 Imams to be Caliphs of Messenger of ALLAH (s.a.w.w). It is non-Twelver Shias who are confused about this hadith as its been more than 1400 years and they still cannot figure out (identify) who these 12 rulers are.

When did the rule of Imam Hussain (ra) pass?  How about the rule of Imam Zain ul-Abideen (ra)?  Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (ra)?  Imam Jaffar as-Sadiq (ra)?  Imam Musa al-Kadhim (ra)?  Please list the timelines going down to the last one.

They ruled in the same way as Prophets of Bani Israel ruled (metaphorically) 

It is not about the validity of the rule; it has to do with whether a person was in a ruling position or not.  Yazeed (la) ruled the Muslim ummah!  Equally difficult for you to stomach is the fact that Imam Hassan (ra) trusted his father, Muawiya, with the affairs of the Muslims and handed him the Caliphate.  So while you will busy yourself with validity (which is completely off-tangent), your own second Imam (ra) considered Muawiya's rule to be valid and hence, I can cite Muawiya to be one of the 12 leaders whereas you cannot even vouch for Imam Hussain (ra).

You got me on this one.

Nabi Musa (a.s) made Nabi Haroon (a.s) his Caliph but people chose Samiri (l.a) as their guide & followed him (l.a). Nabi Haroon (a.s) did nothing when he saw Bani Israel falling in idolatry. Maybe Nabi Haroon (a.s) trusted Samiri (l.a) with the affairs of Bani Israel and let Samiri (l.a) take over the ruling of Bani Israel.

The hadith does not comment on the righteousness or unrighteousness of the 12 leaders; it only states that Islam will remain triumphant until 12 leaders, all from Quraish, have ruled.

But when will Islam see it being triumph as from day 1 till now Muslims haven't see any dominance. And why Islam remain triumph during leadership of Qurayshi leaders? Why not Islam remaining triumph during leadership of other tribes?

Never in my life have I been presented proofs by Shias to substantiate Shia beliefs in one matter that do not shatter their claims (in other matters).  It has always been the case.  Shias present proof to substantiate one of their beliefs but their own proof refutes so many of their other beliefs, on many levels.

1.  My original statement was that "The Qur'an does not say that Prophets (asws) must rule; the Sunnah does not say so either."  The hadith you have presented does not necessitate that Prophets (asws) had to rule, unlike the hadith of 12 Leaders.

So you're saying during the era of Prophets (a.s) of Bani Israel it was not necessary that Prophets (a.s) must rule... May I know at that time on whom it was necessary to rule because no nation can survive without a ruler.

And secondly if it wasn't necessary that Prophets (a.s) must rule then why did they choose rulership? They (a.s) could have remained away from rulership.

2.  The hadith you have presented is using the term "rule" in conjunction with Prophets (asws) sent to Banu Isra'il in a metaphorical sense.  In the case of the hadith of 12 Leaders, these individuals must rule.  That is, they need to be in a position to govern the ummah (righteous or not).

How did you reach to such conclusion? Prophets ruled metaphorically. Nabi Musa (a.s), Nabi Dawud (a.s), Nabi Sulayman (a.s), Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w) ruled metaphorically. Nice observation.

3.  Let us analyze the following portion of your own presented hadith, "there will be caliphs and they will be quite large in number".  According to the Prophet (saw), there would be Caliphs, not Imams.  Furthermore, they (Caliphs) would be quite large in number.  Therefore, the number 12 is no longer special and its elite status goes right out of the window.

So this hadith has abrogated 12 Caliph hadith?

4.  Let us analyze the other statement of the Prophet (saw), "The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others".  This proves that leaders are not appointed by Allah (swt) but are chosen by people.  And for the virtue of having been pledged allegiance to before Imam Ali (ra), the first three Rightly-Guided Caliphs (ra) have supremacy over Imam Ali (ra).

- Abu Bakr was chosen by people... then why did Imam Ali (a.s) & Zubayr say it hurted them that they weren't consulted?

- Which people chose Umar?

- Again which people chose Uthman?

- Yes Imam Ali (a.s) was chosen by people.

- Which people chose Muawiya & Yazid?

- Which people chose Banu Umayah & Banu Abbas

5.  Lastly, the Prophet (saw) said, "God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them" which means that these leaders may or may not be righteous (because Allah will question them on their affairs in regards to the Muslims).

What will happen to Unrighteous Rulers on the Day of Judgement?

Do you have a clear-cut Qur'anic verse praising the family of the Prophet (saw) like this one: "Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of 'Imran over the worlds" (Qur'an 3:33)

What can I say... Imam ul Anbiya (s.a.w.w) Parents (a.s) , Uncle Abu Talib (a.s) and Grandparents (a.s), Great Grandparents (a.s) will be in hell... Imam ul Anbiya (s.a.w.w) Family members are not even mentioned in the Quran except for the wives of Prophet (s.a.w.w). I guess Nasibis would be happy to know about this so-called fact of Imam ul Anbiya (s.a.w.w) ancestors (a.s) & family members (a.s)

[Ijtaba]

Ayatollah Murtada Al-Qazwini comments on the verse "Indeed, Allah chose Adam and Noah and the family of Abraham and the family of 'Imran over the worlds" (Qur'an 3:33) and answers your question.

PS - I hope you did not send salawaat after listening to that kufr (like the listeners in the video).

During the time of Prophets (a.s) of Bani Israel, they (Prophets a.s) could not save Taurat & Injeel from corruption. During the time of Prophet Mohammed (s.a.w.w) he (s.a.w.w) did not compile the Quran in one book form neither did Imam Ali (a.s) care to compile Quran in one book form after Prophet (s.a.w.w).

It was only Abu Bakr & Umar whose hearts somehow ALLAH (SWT) had opened to compile the Quran in one book form when many Hafidh were dying in Battle of Yamama.

[muslim720]

So the gloriousness of Islam is contingent upon these 12 men rulership? After the these 12 men have ruled what would happen to the gloriousness of Islam?

Splitting hair must be a Shia specialty!  The glory of Islam is not dependent on these 12 leaders; it is only referring to a time period.

But isn't it belief of Muslims that world cannot remain without Muslims i.e. when no Muslim remains on Earth then GOD would sent the Hour?

We are not discussing the belief of Muslims.  We are discussing fringe elements within a minority Muslim group such as life or the world or the entire religion coming to an end when there are no "Divinely Appointed" "infallible" Imams left.

What? Islam did not see its dominance in the time period of so-called Rightly Guided Caliphs, the rule of Abdul Aziz of Banu Ummayah, the Golden Age of Islam?

That is one acceptable opinion and if we were to go with your assessment, we can say that the rule of these 12 leaders (mentioned in the hadith), in other words, that time period, has already passed.

Prophet (s.a.w.w) was eloquent and his (s.a.w.w) sayings are perfect. We Twelver Shias have got no confusion regarding 12 Caliphs hadith as we Twelver Shias believe our 12 Imams to be Caliphs of Messenger of ALLAH (s.a.w.w). It is non-Twelver Shias who are confused about this hadith as its been more than 1400 years and they still cannot figure out (identify) who these 12 rulers are.

Please start with the points I have highlighted from the narration (you quoted) found in Sahih Muslim.  Imamah, and nearly all your beliefs built around that concept, run contradictory to what the Prophet (saw) said (regarding Caliphs and leadership after him).

They ruled in the same way as Prophets of Bani Israel ruled (metaphorically) 

You could argue that but for the Hadith of 12 Leaders to be applied to your 12 Imams (ra), they must have all had to be in a governing, ruling position in actuality, not metaphorically.

You got me on this one.

Nabi Musa (a.s) made Nabi Haroon (a.s) his Caliph but people chose Samiri (l.a) as their guide & followed him (l.a). Nabi Haroon (a.s) did nothing when he saw Bani Israel falling in idolatry. Maybe Nabi Haroon (a.s) trusted Samiri (l.a) with the affairs of Bani Israel and let Samiri (l.a) take over the ruling of Bani Israel.

You are equating a time period when the door to Prophethood was open to the time period after the final Prophet (saw).  Whereas in the narration you quoted from Sahih Muslim, it is clear that the Prophet (saw) said, "but after me there is no prophet and there will be caliphs and they will be quite large in number", therefore, at the very least, you would have to discard the number 12.

The Prophet (saw) also vouched for Muslims choosing their own leader by saying, "The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others." 

Lastly, the Prophet (saw) also shattered the false notion that leaders after him must be infallible by saying, "God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them."

But when will Islam see it being triumph as from day 1 till now Muslims haven't see any dominance.

Didn't you just say that Islam was dominant during the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, the time of Abdul Aziz and Golden Age of Islam?  You are putting forth questions without realizing that you are contradicting yourself.

So you're saying during the era of Prophets (a.s) of Bani Israel it was not necessary that Prophets (a.s) must rule...

What I am saying is that only a person who has ruled the Islamic ummah - that is, held the role of a Caliph - is qualified to be included in the discussion of Hadith of 12 Leaders, as per the explicit text of the hadith.

How did you reach to such conclusion? Prophets ruled metaphorically. Nabi Musa (a.s), Nabi Dawud (a.s), Nabi Sulayman (a.s), Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w) ruled metaphorically. Nice observation.

Prophets Dawood (asws) and Sulayman (asws) were also kings, therefore, they ruled and so did our Prophet (saw) because he (saw) presided over the Islamic ummah.  Yet, there were prophets who did not rule.  Rule, in a material sense, is not a necessity for one to be a prophet; however, the Hadith of 12 Leaders makes it mandatory for the 12 to have had ruled (in the worldly sense).

So this hadith has abrogated 12 Caliph hadith?

Idiot of the highest order!  Just question after question.  Bro, snap out of your Husseiniyat trance where they narrate to you stories of debates in which a Shia, by posing one question, destroyed all opponents.  The Hadith of 12 Leaders has nothing to do with leadership and succession so how can the hadith you quoted (from Sahih Muslim) abrogate or supplement it.  This while the hadith you quoted (from Sahih Muslim) has to do with succession and it clearly rejects your most fundamental beliefs regarding succession, namely Imamah.

- Abu Bakr was chosen by people... then why did Imam Ali (a.s) & Zubayr say it hurted them that they weren't consulted?

Allah (swt) chose Adam (asws)...then why did the angels feel like they deserved vicegerency?

- Which people chose Umar?

Please familiarize yourself with the election of Umar (ra) before posing questions.  According to the Prophetic hadith, Muslims can choose their leader and Muslims chose Umar (ra).

- Again which people chose Uthman?

Dumbness detected!

- Which people chose Muawiya & Yazid?

Dumbness reaching a new peak!

- Which people chose Banu Umayah & Banu Abbas

Dumbness meter shattered by this new level stupidity!

What will happen to Unrighteous Rulers on the Day of Judgement?

Why are you asking me the fate of unrighteous rulers?  I don't know my own fate and you want me to seal the fate of others.

[Hani]

Let's keep it civil brothers.

[Ijtaba]

Before answering you post... I would like to quote a saying which totally fits you:

"Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident"

Splitting hair must be a Shia specialty!  The glory of Islam is not dependent on these 12 leaders; it is only referring to a time period.

What would happen after that time-period to the gloriousness of Islam?

We are not discussing the belief of Muslims.  We are discussing fringe elements within a minority Muslim group such as life or the world or the entire religion coming to an end when there are no "Divinely Appointed" "infallible" Imams left.

Yes it is our Twelver Shias belief that Life & World & Entire Religion would come to an end when there are no "Divinely Appointed" "infallible" Imams left.

That is one acceptable opinion and if we were to go with your assessment, we can say that the rule of these 12 leaders (mentioned in the hadith), in other words, that time period, has already passed.

If they have passed and the time period has already passed... so are now we are living in turmoil?

Please start with the points I have highlighted from the narration (you quoted) found in Sahih Muslim.  Imamah, and nearly all your beliefs built around that concept, run contradictory to what the Prophet (saw) said (regarding Caliphs and leadership after him).

And how is that? Our Aimmah (a.s) ruled Muslim Ummah in the same way as Prophets (a.s) ruled Bani Isra'il.

You could argue that but for the Hadith of 12 Leaders to be applied to your 12 Imams (ra), they must have all had to be in a governing, ruling position in actuality, not metaphorically.

So you're saying they (i.e. 12 Rulers) should rule like Nimrod, Firawn, Romans, etc and not like Prophet (a.s) of Bani Isra'il (whom you consider ruled metaphorically)?

Firawn was ruling over Bani Isra'il and Romans were ruling over Bani Isra'il whereas Nabi Musa (a.s) and Nabi Isa (a.s) were ruling over Bani Isra'il.

I consider rule of Nabi Musa (a.s) and Nabi Isa (a.s) as legitimate and rule of Firawn & Romans illegitimate.

You are equating a time period when the door to Prophethood was open to the time period after the final Prophet (saw).  Whereas in the narration you quoted from Sahih Muslim, it is clear that the Prophet (saw) said, "but after me there is no prophet and there will be caliphs and they will be quite large in number", therefore, at the very least, you would have to discard the number 12.

In time period when the door to Prophethood was open... were people living in different world as to the time period after the final Prophet (s.a.w.w)?

Aimmah (a.s) followed Sunnah of Nabi Haroon (a.s) when people left them (a.s) and followed others. They (a.s) did not cause differences in Muslim Ummah as Nabi Haroon (a.s) did not cause differences in Bani Isra'il even when Bani Isra'il were falling into Shirk.

The Prophet (saw) also vouched for Muslims choosing their own leader by saying, "The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others." 

Lastly, the Prophet (saw) also shattered the false notion that leaders after him must be infallible by saying, "God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them."

Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Allah never sends a prophet or gives the Caliphate to a Caliph but that he (the prophet or the Caliph) has two groups of advisors: A group advising him to do good and exhorts him to do it, and the other group advising him to do evil and exhorts him to do it. But the protected person (against such evil advisors) is the one protected by Allah.' "

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 7198
In-book reference: Book 93, Hadith 59
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 306

Prophets (a.s) and Caliphs (a.s) who are Masum are the ones chosen by ALLAH (SWT) to rule over HIS (SWT) people. Why would ALLAH (SWT) let Non-Masum Caliphs (who are not protected by evil advisors) to rule over Muslim Ummah?

Didn't you just say that Islam was dominant during the time of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, the time of Abdul Aziz and Golden Age of Islam?  You are putting forth questions without realizing that you are contradicting yourself.

I wasn't saying that but I was asking you that in a way of sarcasm.

What I am saying is that only a person who has ruled the Islamic ummah - that is, held the role of a Caliph - is qualified to be included in the discussion of Hadith of 12 Leaders, as per the explicit text of the hadith.

Aimmah (a.s) ruled Muslim Ummah like Prophets (a.s) ruled Bani Isra'il.

Prophets Dawood (asws) and Sulayman (asws) were also kings, therefore, they ruled and so did our Prophet (saw) because he (saw) presided over the Islamic ummah.  Yet, there were prophets who did not rule.  Rule, in a material sense, is not a necessity for one to be a prophet; however, the Hadith of 12 Leaders makes it mandatory for the 12 to have had ruled (in the worldly sense).

Prophet Mohammed (s.a.w.w) never said in that hadith that there were prophets (a.s) who did not rule Bani Isra'il but the hadith is clear that Prophets (a.s) did rule Bani Isra'il.

Idiot of the highest order!  Just question after question.  Bro, snap out of your Husseiniyat trance where they narrate to you stories of debates in which a Shia, by posing one question, destroyed all opponents.  The Hadith of 12 Leaders has nothing to do with leadership and succession so how can the hadith you quoted (from Sahih Muslim) abrogate or supplement it.  This while the hadith you quoted (from Sahih Muslim) has to do with succession and it clearly rejects your most fundamental beliefs regarding succession, namely Imamah.

For me the Hadith of 12 Leaders has everything to do with the number of Legitimate Rulers in Islam to rule over Muslim Ummah.

Allah (swt) chose Adam (asws)...then why did the angels feel like they deserved vicegerency?

This is what Shias are saying from the beginning... ALLAH (SWT) chooses Caliph and not the people. End of debate.

Please familiarize yourself with the election of Umar (ra) before posing questions.  According to the Prophetic hadith, Muslims can choose their leader and Muslims chose Umar (ra).

It has been reported on the authority of Ibn 'Umar who said:

I entered the apartment of (my sister) Hafsa. She said: Do yoa know that your father is not going to nominate his successor? I said: He won't do that (i. e. he would nominate). She said: He is going to do that. The narrator said: I took an oath that I will talk to him about the matter. I kept quiet until the next morning, still I did not talk to him, and I felt as if I were carryint, a mountain on my right hand. At last I came to him and entered his apartment. (Seeing me) he began to ask me about the condition of the people, and I informed him (about them). Then I said to him: I heard something from the people and took an oath that I will communicate it to you. They presume that you are not going to nominate a successor. If a grazer of camels and sheep that you had appointed comes back to you leaving the cattle, you will (certainly) think that the cattle are lost. To look after the people is more serious and grave. (The dying Caliph) was moved at my words. He bent his head in a thoughtful mood for some time and raised it to me and said: God will doubtlessly protect His religion. If I do not nominate a successor (I have a precedent before me), for the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not nominate his successor. And if I nominate one (I have a precedent), for Abu Bakr did nominate. The narrator (Ibn Umar) said: By God. when he mentioned the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and Abu Bakr, I (at once) understood that he would not place anyone at a par with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and would not nominate anyone.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1823 b
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 14
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4486

Umar was nominated by Abu Bakr and not elected by people (i.e. Muhajirun and Ansar)

Dumbness detected!

Dumbness reaching a new peak!

Dumbness meter shattered by this new level stupidity!

No reasonable answer so resorted to personal insults.

Why are you asking me the fate of unrighteous rulers?  I don't know my own fate and you want me to seal the fate of others.

Narrated Ma'qil:

I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "Any man whom Allah has given the authority of ruling some people and he does not look after them in an honest manner, will never feel even the smell of Paradise."

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 7150
In-book reference: Book 93, Hadith 14
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 264

Narrated Ma'qil:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "If any ruler having the authority to rule Muslim subjects dies while he is deceiving them, Allah will forbid Paradise for him."

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 7151
In-book reference : Book 93, Hadith 15
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 265 

[muslim720]

Before answering you post... I would like to quote a saying which totally fits you:

"Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident"

Insult is when you put someone down.  I only gave a fair assessment on your understanding and discussion skills.

What would happen after that time-period to the gloriousness of Islam?

Here is another example of arguing for argument's sake or sheer lack of intelligence.  Why are you concerned with happens after that time period?  Your take-home message from the hadith, and our discussion, should be that the Hadith of 12 Leaders does not apply to the concept of Imamah or your Imams (ra).

Yes it is our Twelver Shias belief that Life & World & Entire Religion would come to an end when there are no "Divinely Appointed" "infallible" Imams left.

THANK YOU!  Finally you have surprised me with an honest, intelligent response.  Now it is time for you to acknowledge the fact that when you introduce the word "Islam" in the text of the hadith, by putting it in parentheses after the word "matter" - or the insertion of the word "life" after the word "matter" in the case of Al-Islam.org - you are imposing your own beliefs upon the hadith.

If they have passed and the time period has already passed... so are now we are living in turmoil?

Irrelevant to your claims and my counter rebuttal.  What you should engrave on your heart is that the hadith has nothing to do with your Imams (ra) because the text necessitates that these 12 Leaders must rule (in the worldly, material sense).

And how is that? Our Aimmah (a.s) ruled Muslim Ummah in the same way as Prophets (a.s) ruled Bani Isra'il.

The text, for the tenth time, requires the 12 Leaders to rule in the worldly, material sense.

So you're saying they (i.e. 12 Rulers) should rule like Nimrod, Firawn, Romans, etc and not like Prophet (a.s) of Bani Isra'il (whom you consider ruled metaphorically)?

Bravo for selective listing!  To rule (in a worldly, material sense) is to rule whether it be like Nimrod, Firawn, Romans or Thalut (asws), Dawood (asws) or Sulaiman (asws).  While their principles differed, the former three ruled over a population just like the latter three; the common denominator among the six is the fact that they ruled over a population in a worldly, material sense (although the latter three were upon Islam while the former three were upon kufr and misguidance).

Firawn was ruling over Bani Isra'il and Romans were ruling over Bani Isra'il whereas Nabi Musa (a.s) and Nabi Isa (a.s) were ruling over Bani Isra'il.

I consider rule of Nabi Musa (a.s) and Nabi Isa (a.s) as legitimate and rule of Firawn & Romans illegitimate.

We are not talking about legitimacy of rule here.  The needle on the recently refurbished dumbness meter is jumping around, again!

In time period when the door to Prophethood was open... were people living in different world as to the time period after the final Prophet (s.a.w.w)?

I can't even....I mean the sheer stupidity and desperation to run away from the crux of the matter.

Prophets (a.s) and Caliphs (a.s) who are Masum are the ones chosen by ALLAH (SWT) to rule over HIS (SWT) people.  Why would ALLAH (SWT) let Non-Masum Caliphs (who are not protected by evil advisors) to rule over Muslim Ummah?

The problem is that you quote hadiths in isolation, disregarding the chapter headings they fall under.  Having said that, a better question you should ask is, "why would Imam Hassan (ra), a 'Divinely Appointed Infallible' Imam, let a fallible person (like Muawiya) rule over Muslim Ummah"? 

Aimmah (a.s) ruled Muslim Ummah like Prophets (a.s) ruled Bani Isra'il.

You can continue to reiterate that until you find solace but the Hadith of 12 Leaders necessitates that the 12 individuals rule in a worldly, material sense.

For me the Hadith of 12 Leaders has everything to do with the number of Legitimate Rulers in Islam to rule over Muslim Ummah.

Again with the legitimacy argument!  You are beyond a troll, I think.

This is what Shias are saying from the beginning... ALLAH (SWT) chooses Caliph and not the people. End of debate.

When Adam (asws) was chosen as Allah's vicegerent on earth, were there any other humans around?  No!  Allah (swt), by choosing Adam (asws), chose mankind as His vicegerent on earth (over other creations).  You cannot dispute the fact that mankind has ruled the earth ever since Adam (asws).

Your understanding of basic Islam is flawed beyond repair.

Umar was nominated by Abu Bakr and not elected by people (i.e. Muhajirun and Ansar)

Your damage control has turned you to desperation.  This is an entirely different discussion which has no scope within ours.

No reasonable answer so resorted to personal insults.

Honestly, I am convinced that you and Iceman cannot distinguish between "reasonable" and "nonsense".

Narrated Ma'qil:

I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "Any man whom Allah has given the authority of ruling some people and he does not look after them in an honest manner, will never feel even the smell of Paradise."

Narrated Ma'qil:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "If any ruler having the authority to rule Muslim subjects dies while he is deceiving them, Allah will forbid Paradise for him."

You shot yourself in the foot again by quoting more than you should have!  Watch how your own proof backfires against you.  According to this report, one can see that Allah (swt) can give authority of ruling over people to someone who "does not look after them in an honest manner".  Therefore, Allah (swt) can give the authority to "non-masum" individuals.

Hence your point - "Why would ALLAH (SWT) let Non-Masum Caliphs (who are not protected by evil advisors) to rule over Muslim Ummah?" - is shattered.

Furthermore, this hadith weakens the case for your concept of Imamah.  If you hold on to the fact that it says that "Allah can give authority", we see that it can even go to fallible individuals, so your Imams (ra) - by your own set standards - are ruled out.

[Ijtaba]

Here is another example of arguing for argument's sake or sheer lack of intelligence.  Why are you concerned with happens after that time period?  Your take-home message from the hadith, and our discussion, should be that the Hadith of 12 Leaders does not apply to the concept of Imamah or your Imams (ra).

And to whom does Hadith of 12 Leaders apply? To Muawiya, Yazid, Banu Ummayah, Banu Abbas, the Ottomans? If your answer would be yes then please provide evidence (for your answer).

THANK YOU!  Finally you have surprised me with an honest, intelligent response.  Now it is time for you to acknowledge the fact that when you introduce the word "Islam" in the text of the hadith, by putting it in parentheses after the word "matter" - or the insertion of the word "life" after the word "matter" in the case of Al-Islam.org - you are imposing your own beliefs upon the hadith.

According to you by putting the word "Islam" and "life" after the word "matter" Twelver Shias belief is imposed upon the hadith... then can you be kind enough to enlighten me what "matter" was being discussed in the hadith if the matter wasn't Islam (or life)? If you yourself don't know what the "matter" is being talked about in the hadith then just say so rather than avoid the question.

Irrelevant to your claims and my counter rebuttal.  What you should engrave on your heart is that the hadith has nothing to do with your Imams (ra) because the text necessitates that these 12 Leaders must rule (in the worldly, material sense).

The text, for the tenth time, requires the 12 Leaders to rule in the worldly, material sense.

And how would that worldly & material rule be?

Let me guess, the worldly & material rule should be like Ruler staying in his luxurious palace having courtiers praising him day & night. The ruler snatching people's property illegally and killing all those who rebel against him and punishing those who oppose him and I can go on and on but I guess you get the picture.

Well sorry to say our Aimmah (a.s) rule wasn't worldly and materialistic. And I believe that those 12 Rulers mentioned in hadith wouldn't be ruling worldly and materialistically because during their ruler-ship Islam will be glorious.

Bravo for selective listing!  To rule (in a worldly, material sense) is to rule whether it be like Nimrod, Firawn, Romans or Thalut (asws), Dawood (asws) or Sulaiman (asws).  While their principles differed, the former three ruled over a population just like the latter three; the common denominator among the six is the fact that they ruled over a population in a worldly, material sense (although the latter three were upon Islam while the former three were upon kufr and misguidance).

What about the rest of Prophets (a.s) of Bani Isra'il? Didn't Nabi Musa (a.s), Nabi Haroon (a.s), Nabi Isa (a.s) and the rest of Prophets (a.s) rule Bani Isra'il? The hadith which I quoted clearly states that Prophets (a.s) ruled Bani Isra'il.

We are not talking about legitimacy of rule here.  The needle on the recently refurbished dumbness meter is jumping around, again!

Why do you always keep dumbness meter handy? To measure your dumbness when you can't find reasonable answers to the questions posed to you

Only legitimate Rulers are those chosen & approved by GOD. So my needle would always go towards Rightful & Righteous Rulers

I can't even....I mean the sheer stupidity and desperation to run away from the crux of the matter.

Got no response so resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Your response shows your level of intelligence. The period of Nabi Musa (a.s) and period after Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w) has got nothing to do with the example I gave. Imam Ali (a.s) & Aimmah (a.s) followed Nabi Haroon (a.s) example when people left Aimmah (a.s) and followed others instead of them (a.s)

The problem is that you quote hadiths in isolation, disregarding the chapter headings they fall under.  Having said that, a better question you should ask is, "why would Imam Hassan (ra), a 'Divinely Appointed Infallible' Imam, let a fallible person (like Muawiya) rule over Muslim Ummah"?

Kindly enlighten the readers with the context of the hadith with the chapter heading it is falling under.

Imam Hassan (a.s) made peace with Muawiya because of latter's greediness for caliphate who at any cost wanted rulership even if that meant Islam facing great loss through in-fighting and killing between Muslims. In order to stop such madness of Muawiya, Imam Hassan (a.s) made peace treaty with Muawiya.

You can continue to reiterate that until you find solace but the Hadith of 12 Leaders necessitates that the 12 individuals rule in a worldly, material sense.

12 Rulers hadith necessitate that all 12 rulers rule with justice and equity.

Again with the legitimacy argument!  You are beyond a troll, I think.

Look who's talking. By your illogical and foolish arguments the definition of troll perfectly fits you.

Oh that Ruler has to rule in worldly and material sense... If 12 leaders have to rule like Talut (a.s), Nabi Dawud (a.s) & Nabi Sulaiman (a.s) then this argument is not in your favor as all 3 of them (a.s) were Masum and for the 12 Rulers hadith you are including non-Masum rulers.

When Adam (asws) was chosen as Allah's vicegerent on earth, were there any other humans around?  No!  Allah (swt), by choosing Adam (asws), chose mankind as His vicegerent on earth (over other creations).  You cannot dispute the fact that mankind has ruled the earth ever since Adam (asws).

When choosing Adam (a.s) as Caliph GOD did not take opinion of Masum creatures (i.e. Angels) so how is it possible that GOD leave the matter of Caliphate to non-Masum creatures (i.e. Humans)

Your damage control has turned you to desperation.  This is an entirely different discussion which has no scope within ours.

You said something about Umar being elected. I gave you a narration where it is clearly stated that Umar was nominated by Abu Bakr and no mention of election is made. Your response instead of being reasonable was just ad hominem.

Honestly, I am convinced that you and Iceman cannot distinguish between "reasonable" and "nonsense".

I feel sad that your intelligence level has dropped to such level that you cannot differentiate between "reasonable" & "nonsense." Now I understand why your responses are nonsensical to the arguments presented and you often have to resort to ad hominem attacks so as to gain confidence that you refuted the argument.

You shot yourself in the foot again by quoting more than you should have!  Watch how your own proof backfires against you.  According to this report, one can see that Allah (swt) can give authority of ruling over people to someone who "does not look after them in an honest manner".  Therefore, Allah (swt) can give the authority to "non-masum" individuals.

Hence your point - "Why would ALLAH (SWT) let Non-Masum Caliphs (who are not protected by evil advisors) to rule over Muslim Ummah?" - is shattered.

Furthermore, this hadith weakens the case for your concept of Imamah.  If you hold on to the fact that it says that "Allah can give authority", we see that it can even go to fallible individuals, so your Imams (ra) - by your own set standards - are ruled out.

GOD'S Covenant of Leadership does not include Unjust People. Only Masums (a.s) have been given authority by GOD to Rule HIS Creation.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The simplest proof that, the twelve Caliphs mentioned in the hadeeth can never be Shia Imams is that, Prophet(saws) in another authentic hadeeth said that After him Caliphate on Manhaj Nabuwwah would be for 30years, then there will be kingship. Similarly, there are other authentic ahadeeth which state that after Prophethood there will be Caliphate on Manhaj Nabuwwah , then there will be kingship, etc.

So, it’s quite simple that the Caliphs mentioned in the hadeeth of twelve Caliphs  weren’t Shia Imams but rather Caliphs who ruled and during whose rule Islam is in a state of glory. Notice it doesn’t says Muslims would be in a state of glory but it says Islam will be in a state of glory. Islam if is meant as Shiism then it wasn’t in a state of glory. As per Shia perspective, The Imams and his followers were rather oppressed and had to dissimulate about their beliefs, and was preached secretly.

And it’s futile to discuss about their identity. It isn’t a matter of faith to know their identity. Proving that they weren’t to be Shia Imams is sufficient.

[Ijtaba]

The simplest proof that, the twelve Caliphs mentioned in the hadeeth can never be Shia Imams is that, Prophet(saws) in another authentic hadeeth said that After him Caliphate on Manhaj Nabuwwah would be for 30years, then there will be kingship. Similarly, there are other authentic ahadeeth which state that after Prophethood there will be Caliphate on Manhaj Nabuwwah , then there will be kingship, etc.

Please provide the hadiths.

According to those hadiths would Caliphate on Manhaj Nabuwwah be for 30 years only or after Kingship there would again be Caliphate? If Caliphate would be for 30 years only then only 4 (or 5) Caliphs have ruled. So what about remaining 8 (or 7) Caliphs?

So, it’s quite simple that the Caliphs mentioned in the hadeeth of twelve Caliphs  weren’t Shia Imams but rather Caliphs who ruled and during whose rule Islam is in a state of glory. Notice it doesn’t says Muslims would be in a state of glory but it says Islam will be in a state of glory. Islam if is meant as Shiism then it wasn’t in a state of glory. As per Shia perspective, The Imams and his followers were rather oppressed and had to dissimulate about their beliefs, and was preached secretly.

And it’s futile to discuss about their identity. It isn’t a matter of faith to know their identity. Proving that they weren’t to be Shia Imams is sufficient.

Its futile to discuss about their identity because for the past 1400 years people are still confused as to who those 12 unnamed Rulers are (whereas we Twelver Shias are not in state of confusion as we believe those 12 unnamed Rulers are our 12 Imams a.s)

Define what does "glory of Islam" means according to you because during the rule of Umar he was killed in the Masjid, during the rule of Uthman he was killed in his home, during the rule of Imam Ali (a.s) many Muslims were killed during battles of Muslims with each other and Imam Ali (a.s) was also killed in the Masjid. According to Ahlul Sunnah no such things/events happened during the rule of Prophet (s.a.w.w)

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Please provide the hadiths.

The hadeeth narrated by Safeenah (radiallaahu anhu), that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

خلافة النبوة ثلاثون سنة ثم يؤتي الله الملك من يشاء

The Prophetic khilaafah will last for thirty years. Then Allaah will give the dominion to whomever He wills. Reported by Abu Dawud and al-Haakim. Saheeh al-Jaami’ as-Sagheer (no. 3257) declared Saheeh by Imaam al-Albaani.

Also reported by Safeenah, the saying of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam):

الخلافة بعدي في أمتي ثلاثون سنة ثم ملك بعد ذلك

The khilaafah after me in my Ummah will last for thirty years. Then there will be kingship after that. Reported in the Musnad Imaam Ahmad, by at-Tirmidhi, Musnad Abi Ya’laa, and Ibn Hibbaan. Saheeh al-Jaami’ as-Sagheer (no. 3341) declared Saheeh by Imaam al-Albaani.

From Hudhayfah that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

تكون النبوة فيكم ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله إذا شاء أن يرفعها ، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة ، فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله إذا شاء أن يرفعها ، ثم تكون ملكا عاضا ، فيكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله إذا شاء أن يرفعها ، ثم يكون ملكا جبريا ، فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها إذا شاء أن يرفعها ، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة ، ثم سكت

The Prophethood will remain amongst you for as long as Allaah wills it to be. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be the khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. And it will last for as long as Allaah wills it to last. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be biting kingship, and it will remain for as long as Allaah wills it to remain. Then Allaah will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be tyrannical (forceful) kingship and it will remain for as long as Allaah wills it to remain. Then He will raise it when He wills to raise it. Then there will be a khilaafah upon the Prophetic methodology. Then he (the Prophet) was silent.Reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud. Silsilah as-Saheehah of Imaam al-Albani (1/34 no. 5) and it is Saheeh.


تكون النبوة فيكم ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج النبوة ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون ملكا عاضا ، فتكون ما شاء الله أن تكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون ملكا جبرية فيكون ما شاء الله أن يكون ، ثم يرفعها الله – تعالى – ، ثم تكون خلافة على منهاج نبوة . ثم سكت . . .
الراوي: النعمان بن بشير المحدث: الألباني – المصدر: تخريج مشكاة المصابيح – الصفحة أو الرقم: 5306
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده حسن

Al-Nauman ibn Basheer told us: The Prophet PBUH said: ‘Prophethood will remain in you for as long as God decides for it to remain and then God will remove it when He decides to remove it. After Prophet hood, there will be a Caliphate on the style of prophethood and it will exist for as long as God decides for it to exist, then He will remove it when He decides to remove it. Then there will be a kingdom in which people will face trials and tribulations and it will continue to exist for as long as God decides for it to exist. Then He will remove it, when He decides to remove it. After this, there will be an oppressive kingdom and it will continue to exist for as long as God decides for it to exist. Then He will remove it, when He decides to remove it. Then there will once again be a rule on the style of prophet hood. After saying this, the Prophet (pbuh) was silent.’
source: Takhreej Mishat al Masabih #5306.
grading: Isnad hasan

According to those hadiths would Caliphate on Manhaj Nabuwwah be for 30 years only or after Kingship there would again be Caliphate? If Caliphate would be for 30 years only then only 4 (or 5) Caliphs have ruled. So what about remaining 8 (or 7) Caliphs?

From where did you get that 7 are remaining ?  The hadeeth of twelve Caliphs isn’t related to the hadeeth about Caliphate on manhaj Nabuwwah.

Its futile to discuss about their identity because for the past 1400 years people are still confused as to who those 12 unnamed Rulers are (whereas we Twelver Shias are not in state of confusion as we believe those 12 unnamed Rulers are our 12 Imams a.s)

Read your own history, how Shias disputed regarding the identity of Imams after almost death of every Imam. They had no idea that Imams would be twelve, hence they thought some other imams  were the Mahdi.

Read reports about seventh imam being the Qa’im
http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/06/29/the-imams-were-only-seven-and-not-twelve/

Define what does "glory of Islam" means according to you because during the rule of Umar he was killed in the Masjid, during the rule of Uthman he was killed in his home, during the rule of Imam Ali (a.s) many Muslims were killed during battles of Muslims with each other and Imam Ali (a.s) was also killed in the Masjid. According to Ahlul Sunnah no such things/events happened during the rule of Prophet (s.a.w.w)

Your understanding is faulty. Martyrdom of Ruler/caliph won’t effect the glory of Islam. Glory of Islam as in shariah being properly  implemented, as it should deserves to be, etc.

[Ijtaba]

From where did you get that 7 are remaining ?  The hadeeth of twelve Caliphs isn’t related to the hadeeth about Caliphate on manhaj Nabuwwah.

Narrated Safinah:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Caliphate of Prophecy will last thirty years; then Allah will give the Kingdom of His Kingdom to anyone He wills.

Sa'id told that Safinah said to him: Calculate Abu Bakr's caliphate as two years, 'Umar's as ten, 'Uthman's as twelve and 'Ali so and so. Sa'id said: I said to Safinah: They conceive that 'Ali was not a caliph. He replied: The buttocks of Marwan told a lie.

Grade : Hasan Sahih (Al-Albani)   
Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 4646
In-book reference : Book 42, Hadith 51
English translation : Book 41, Hadith 4629

Only 4 Caliphs are mentioned.

How would you reconcile above hadith with hadith where only 12 Rulers are mentioned?

Read your own history, how Shias disputed regarding the identity of Imams after almost death of every Imam. They had no idea that Imams would be twelve, hence they thought some other imams were the Mahdi.

Read reports about seventh imam being the Qa’im
http://www.twelvershia.net/2015/06/29/the-imams-were-only-seven-and-not-twelve/

Then why did Twelver Shias stop at Twelfth Imam (a.s)? Why not stop at Eleventh Imam (a.s)?

Your understanding is faulty. Martyrdom of Ruler/caliph won’t effect the glory of Islam. Glory of Islam as in shariah being properly  implemented, as it should deserves to be, etc.

Would Muslims fighting and killing each other (during the rule of 4th Caliph) effect the glory of Islam?