Anyone want to debate me on this premise?

[Hani]

There he goes again with that same pathetic argument, saying that it's better for it to be implicit rather than explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an.

You put your brains on backwards. Seriously, which dumb Shia scholar brainwashed you? He did a good job whoever he is as you seem to see black as white and white as black.

You can't even prove it for ONE IMAM (`Ali) you want to prove it for 11 others now? I hope the most useless leader in the history of mankind is willing to help you smart boy.

[Link]

There he goes again with that same pathetic argument, saying that it's better for it to be implicit rather than explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an.

Hani calling an argument pathetic, doesn't do away with the validity or soundness of an argument. Neither you repeating Ali's divine leadership position is not in Quran or Sunnah, do away with it being there.

You very well know the flow leading up to Ulil-Amr and after. You know about the wage verses. You know the true meaning of thaqalain and Ali Mawla. You know the hadithal manzilah and it's true meaning.

It's time to enjoin truth on yourself and leave rebellion.

Fall in love with Ali and the Imams from his offspring and submit to the true position they have.

[Abu Muhammad]

Bro Link, let me summarize what we have been discussing thus far:

- Your argument in the very 1st post was that by proving A is right, then B & C must be right.

- I argued back that you will never ever do that without bringing in other evidences besides A to prove B & C are right. I also disagreed with you by stating that proving A alone to be right could also lead to a different conclusion such as Ismai'li and Waqifi beliefs.

- Then you said you have "hidden premises" that you haven't shown and you listed them.

- Then I said that you have proven me right by bringing other evidences i.e. the "hidden premises" into your argument. That was what I argued earlier. I reiterate that you will never ever prove A is right without bringing in other evidences besides A to prove B & C are right.

Then you said:

In logic, if you prove a chain A->B->C->D, the you can summarize it into A->D. Now sometimes, how A->D would not be obvious without investigating the chain.

..................
..................

So obviously my premise I was trying to prove is not an obvious premise in itself, but if you fill out a chain....you get A->E sort of thing, were A-> B, B->C and C->D and D->E sort of thing.

And now I said:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THAT YOU NEED TO BRING IN OTHER EVIDENCES (i.e. THOSE IN THE CHAIN) TO PROVE YOUR EARLIER 1ST POST PREMISES OF B & C TO BE RIGHT. THAT WAS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL THIS WHILE.

Frankly speaking, I don't really understand what was going on in your head. You had written twice without realizing that you were actually supporting my argument  and not yours. By that, I think I have no other reasons to keep prolong this particular argument on logic.

Now, please prove your case in a CLEAR, UNAMBIGOUS and CONCISE manner.

GOOD LUCK.

[Hani]

Hani calling an argument pathetic, doesn't do away with the validity or soundness of an argument. Neither you repeating Ali's divine leadership position is not in Quran or Sunnah, do away with it being there.

Alright, present one solid argument that can't be argued so we may follow your so called guidance. So far all I have from you here is that God intentionally kept the number of Imams vague in the Qur'an so that evil-doers won't claim their status.

This being a pathetic argument by consensus of intellectuals.

I hope this won't be your only argument in this thread.

[Link]

It's ironic, because Farid present this exact argument. He just presented in the inverse, he presented in a way that went like "If the rest of the 11 Imams cannot be proven manifestly so without circular reasoning,  then Shiism is essentially false, and all the talk of Ahlulbayt in Quran or Ali's position become useless, showing that Shias never had the right interpretation". I am paraphrasing how he presented the argument, but that was the basis.

You all agree, but if you flip the same premise, you get what I get. This shows how bias you people are. You support an argument when it is used to support your cause, but when the same argument proves something else that supports a sect, you abandon it.

The exact same premise, but I flip the contra positive. You guys didn't even need anything of the chain leading to the conclusion with Farid.

It's the exact same argument. I have just used it now to prove other things, that divisions would of occured in the past for example after other founding Prophets.

This shows a number must be clarified among past Prophets, always must be. It's also irrational to suggest that God randomly picks numbers, and given he emphasized on a number in Quran, and Prophet alludes to it in hadiths, it's time to stop being rebellious and think about the issue.

[Hani]

Dude who cares about Farid, we're not a seven headed hydra, I didn't read what Farid wrote I'm only addressing you. So far all you said that God made the issue of Imamah intentionally unclear to avoid having evil men abuse it. I think you shot yourself in the leg by saying this, please make A SOLID argument already the suspense is killing me.

(If you need 2 pages to start, I can only imagine ur argument takes 10 pages.)

[Abu Muhammad]

What Farid said was Twelvers can never been proven from the Quran since no names of the imams were mentioned in the Quran. Not even Sunni hadith. Not even logic. Your only source is Twelver hadith. He then made his case by saying that if you are a Twelver, then you are following a circular reasoning:

"One cannot be a Twelver unless he accepts Twelver hadith sources. One cannot accept Twelver hadith sources unless he becomes a Twelver."

I don't really understand what biasness you are accusing us for. Essentially, Farid's argument is not the exact argument as yours as per what you claimed. Not even in inverse form..

It's ironic, because Farid present this exact argument. He just presented in the inverse, he presented in a way that went like "If the rest of the 11 Imams cannot be proven manifestly so without circular reasoning,  then Shiism is essentially false, and all the talk of Ahlulbayt in Quran or Ali's position become useless, showing that Shias never had the right interpretation". I am paraphrasing how he presented the argument, but that was the basis.

You all agree, but if you flip the same premise, you get what I get. This shows how bias you people are. You support an argument when it is used to support your cause, but when the same argument proves something else that supports a sect, you abandon it.

The exact same premise, but I flip the contra positive. You guys didn't even need anything of the chain leading to the conclusion with Farid.

It's the exact same argument. I have just used it now to prove other things, that divisions would of occured in the past for example after other founding Prophets.

This shows a number must be clarified among past Prophets, always must be. It's also irrational to suggest that God randomly picks numbers, and given he emphasized on a number in Quran, and Prophet alludes to it in hadiths, it's time to stop being rebellious and think about the issue.

Here Farid's statement I copied from his thread in Shiachat as a comparison to what you claimed that you paraphrased his argument:

"Some of the brothers have been curious about the Imamah of the Twelve and why I have chosen it as a debate topic. As we can see from my debate with Abu Hadi, the way to prove the Imamah of the Twelve can only be done with the usage of Shia hadiths.

It is impossible to know who the Imams were from the Qur'an, since their names aren't included.

It is impossible to know the Imams from Sunni hadith since there is no evidence of appointment of the Imams in Sunni hadith.

There is no evidence of the Imams from using logic alone, since one needs evidence of appointment to accept their Imamah. One cannot be born in the desert and contemplate the stars, then start believing in the Imams.

The ONLY evidence of the Imamah of the Twelve is through Shia hadith.

This means that if you are a Twelver, then you are following a circular reasoning.

One cannot be a Twelver unless he accepts Twelver hadith sources.

One cannot accept Twelver hadith sources unless he becomes a Twelver."

[Abu Muhammad]

By the way, please respond to bro Hani's request since that is the main discussion of this thread. He has already requested you twice to give some SOLID arguments. Mine is only "side" discussion.

[Link]

Implied in his argument is that if there was non circular proof for Imammate of particular Imams, then general appointment of Imammate would be false.

This is implied. So he is making the case that it cannot be that Imammate is in Quran while there is no non-circularing proofs for particular Imam.

Khair you guys acknowledge that much.

I just take it then the same is true of nations before. It would not be sufficient to say there are Messengers to follow after Moses in Bani-Israel for example, without some proof that is not circular.

It makes sense in their case, that God would have given them a number for how many Leaders would lead them after Moses for their boat of salvation.

This way they don't have to argue for each book attributed to each Messenger when the final successor among Bani-Israel leaves.

Then it makes sense that God would give them clear decisive proof regarding the authority and affair of Islam, and we see in Quran that Allah did manifest the number of leaders.

By induction, because this rule is true of each nation with founding a Prophet, in the past, they too would of been told the number of Imams and leaders to succeed the founding Prophet.

The number is 12 in Quran. And it was emphasized to Bani-Israel even with twelve rivers splitting from staff of Moses stricking a rock, and emphasizing each people knew it's drinking place.
Verily among the people of Moses were a people who guided to the truth and thereby did justice.
Surely he appointed them Imams who Guide by his command.

Since the principle is proven, we know that God would have to clarify a number for our nation as well, and also due to there being no more revelations, the names of these 12 should be named by Rasool.

The Quran emphasized on 12 for a reason as well. Just as it emphasized on leadership for a reason. Just as it emphasized on chosen families and their purity for a reason.

You can be frustrated by how God speaks or you can listen closely, and then see how he is emphasizing to people of various religions.

Quran is not just simply here to prove Imammate to Sunnis, it's here to give perception and insight about it to all humanity.

[Abu Muhammad]

Is that what you call a SOLID proof? I think Ahmadiyyah has a "more solid" one than yours. At least, the name Ahmad is clearly stated in the Quran and foretold by Isa a.s. to come.

[Link]

Is that what you call a SOLID proof? I think Ahmadiyyah has a "more solid" one than yours. At least, the name Ahmad is clearly stated in the Quran and foretold by Isa a.s. to come.

Bro your sect has no proofs there is no Imams and successors to the Messenger. So all you have is denying what other sects present as proofs.

Do you think God wants his religion to be such that it cannot be directly proven but must constantly re-asses the evidence of others.

This is one reason why God made it clear that there is no Prophets after Mohammad. So we don't have to assess the proofs of every religion that claims a Prophet after Mohammad.

Where is the verses that state there are no chosen leaders after Mohammad?

There are none, so you are required to asses the proofs of others claiming there are some. Whether it's proof in Quran or in hadiths or in reason.

Just think about that, why didn't God say there are no more chosen leaders, like the way he stated there is no more Prophets after Mohammad.

If Sunnism was the truth, then God made a path of uncertainty, one that has to constantly re-asses proofs in Quran and ahadith.

So either God had to say there are no more Imams after Mohammad or appointed Imams and clarified the matter. We know it's the former, so it's definitely the latter.

You take your denial as proof something is unclear, but we know everyone does that, Jews, Christians, Deist,  Athiest, Hindus, etc....

Denial of Quranic wonders, does not make them disappear, but to that person's heart. The same is true of the proofs of Wilayah of Imams.

You cannot make Ahlulbayt disappear from Quran by sheer denial, just as the signs in the souls and proofs of God don't disappear when an Athiest denies God and his signs and light of his holy names.

[Abu Muhammad]

Bro your sect has no proofs there is no Imams and successors to the Messenger. So all you have is denying what other sects present as proofs.

Do you think God wants his religion to be such that it cannot be directly proven but must constantly re-asses the evidence of others.

This is one reason why God made it clear that there is no Prophets after Mohammad. So we don't have to assess the proofs of every religion that claims a Prophet after Mohammad.

Where is the verses that state there are no chosen leaders after Mohammad?

There are none, so you are required to asses the proofs of others claiming there are some. Whether it's proof in Quran or in hadiths or in reason.

Just think about that, why didn't God say there are no more chosen leaders, like the way he stated there is no more Prophets after Mohammad.

If Sunnism was the truth, then God made a path of uncertainty, one that has to constantly re-asses proofs in Quran and ahadith.

So either God had to say there are no more Imams after Mohammad or appointed Imams and clarified the matter. We know it's the former, so it's definitely the latter.

You take your denial as proof something is unclear, but we know everyone does that, Jews, Christians, Deist,  Athiest, Hindus, etc....

Denial of Quranic wonders, does not make them disappear, but to that person's heart. The same is true of the proofs of Wilayah of Imams.

You cannot make Ahlulbayt disappear from Quran by sheer denial, just as the signs in the souls and proofs of God don't disappear when an Athiest denies God and his signs and light of his holy names.

Bro Link, the statement below is suffice to answer all of your 11-paragraph mumbling:

"For Ahlus Sunnah, Al-Quran is silent with regard to the leadership after Prophet s.a.w."

Period.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Link, your entire arguement is a fallacy.
Tell me one thing, did Zurara the biggest narrator of your shia hadith know who the Imam of his time was?
Your arguement that the number of imams are 12 & there names are known falls flat on its face.
Your greatest narrator of hadith & so called biggest shia companion of Imam Jafer As Sadiq didn't know the names of the Imams.

[Link]

You are going to have make a choice.

Is there such thing as insignificant verse in Quran?
Is there any verse which the Quran leaves unclear or does it explain each verse?
Is there anything stated in a verse that is insignificant?

Keep in mind, God is choosing out of infinite words, it's not like us, we chose words, but are limited in imagination.

When he says something, it's like a chosen Prophet. It's not just some words. It is WORDS. Important chosen words.

Start to read Quran with a little fear of who chose these words, and everything becomes easier.

With a little awe and reverence, thinking, why and what purpose do these particular words serve in the Surah and within the whole Quran? What is it that I don't understand of these words and their significance, instead of saying "obviously they are insignificant or unclear if they don't mean anything significant or clear to me" type mentality.

There is nothing insignificant in Quran. Each word has been placed in a wise manner.   Nothing in it is to belittled.

The verses are significant. Instead of saying how God would of spoken, just look at how he has spoken and try to appreciate.

[Rationalist]

You are going to have make a choice.

Is there such thing as insignificant verse in Quran?
Is there any verse which the Quran leaves unclear or does it explain each verse?
Is there anything stated in a verse that is insignificant?

Keep in mind, God is choosing out of infinite words, it's not like us, we chose words, but are limited in imagination.

When he says something, it's like a chosen Prophet. It's not just some words. It is WORDS. Important chosen words.

Start to read Quran with a little fear of who chose these words, and everything becomes easier.

With a little awe and reverence, thinking, why and what purpose do these particular words serve in the Surah and within the whole Quran? What is it that I don't understand of these words and their significance, instead of saying "obviously they are insignificant or unclear if they don't mean anything significant or clear to me" type mentality.

There is nothing insignificant in Quran. Each word has been placed in a wise manner.   Nothing in it is to belittled.

The verses are significant. Instead of saying how God would of spoken, just look at how he has spoken and try to appreciate.

Are you aware of the terms Muhkamat and Mutashabihat?

[Link]

Are you aware of the terms Muhkamat and Mutashabihat?

What is unclear to us varies. But whatever is unclear from Quran is not to be followed. However the whole of Quran is meant to be followed. So it's not that there exist verses that are to be ignored and not followed.

It is the case however that we aren't suppose to make invalid interpretations that have no light from Quran and reason, and are not verified by Quran.

This is not an excuse to ignore any verse from Quran and make it insignificant.  The Quran itself is all light, all of it's verses are manifesting clarifying signs of guidance and indications of the true path.

It's upon us to reflect. If all of Quran didn't require us to think, the Quran wouldn't emphasize to reflect. It's not the case only verses that don't require reflection are to be followed.

Neither is it the case that all the lessons learned from reflecting over verses are to not to be followed.

It is the case that every verse in Quran is significant and clear through itself. And it's place in the Surahs and Quran is clear with reflection.

That is why Quran says "Rather it is clear signs in the hearts of those given knowledge".

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Link:

I ask you again did zurara ibn ayan know who was the Imam of the time?

[Hani]

The number is 12 in Quran. And it was emphasized to Bani-Israel even with twelve rivers splitting from staff of Moses stricking a rock, and emphasizing each people knew it's drinking place.
Verily among the people of Moses were a people who guided to the truth and thereby did justice.
Surely he appointed them Imams who Guide by his command.

That's it? Yallah, bro Yallah.. take your twelve rivers and run back to shiachat hop hop...

Bro your sect has no proofs there is no Imams and successors to the Messenger. So all you have is denying what other sects present as proofs.

Abu Bakr is an Imam and successor to the Messenger (saw). How'd you get this one wrong? Or is it that your brain registers vague codes and refuses to acknowledge clear historical facts?

Then it makes sense that God would give them clear decisive proof regarding the authority and affair of Islam

It's so decisive and clear that we don't have this verse in the Qur'an: "`Ali and his descendants are the 12 leaders of your nation."

^ That'd be clear and decisive.

Why'd He give them clear and decisive yet not offer your sect what's clear and decisive?

By induction, because this rule is true of each nation with founding a Prophet, in the past, they too would of been told the number of Imams and leaders to succeed the founding Prophet.

No not really, that's not the rule. If things ran by these rules then `Isa (as) would have been succeeded by his descendant instead of a gap and Muhammad (saw) would've been succeeded by a prophet as well, Yahya (as) would've been victorious over his enemies like Dawud (as), for Banu Isra'il prophets and kings were from different families whereas Sulayman (as) was prophet & king at the same time etc... There's major differences between each Prophet's time and events than the rest, don't go making up rules.

Just as it emphasized on chosen families and their purity for a reason

Okay, let's say prophets were all direct descendants of eachother (which isn't true by consensus), Muhammad (saw) is the last prophet and he is not to be succeeded by another from his family (which is why his kids died). End of story.

Where is the verses that state there are no chosen leaders after Mohammad?

Where is the verse that says our leaders must be chosen in the first place? Don't jump from A to C while skipping B. The norm and the habit among human beings is that leaders aren't divinely selected, none of the leaders living at the time whether the good ones like the King of Abyssinia or the Bad ones like abu Jahl where chosen and people understood this, now you want to talk to these people as if the opposite is the norm and you ask them to bring evidence to oppose something nonexistent? Unacceptable.

If Sunnism was the truth, then God made a path of uncertainty, one that has to constantly re-asses proofs in Quran and ahadith.

Actually we're all quite certain there are no chosen leaders, Sunnah Salafies Sufies Mu`tazilah Khawarij Philosophers Jahmiyyah  etc... only your small cult of nobodies thinks otherwise and you guys couldn't even agree on who your Imams were at one point.

[Rationalist]

Are you aware of the terms Muhkamat and Mutashabihat?

What is unclear to us varies. But whatever is unclear from Quran is not to be followed. However the whole of Quran is meant to be followed. So it's not that there exist verses that are to be ignored and not followed.

It is the case however that we aren't suppose to make invalid interpretations that have no light from Quran and reason, and are not verified by Quran.

This is not an excuse to ignore any verse from Quran and make it insignificant.  The Quran itself is all light, all of it's verses are manifesting clarifying signs of guidance and indications of the true path.

It's upon us to reflect. If all of Quran didn't require us to think, the Quran wouldn't emphasize to reflect. It's not the case only verses that don't require reflection are to be followed.

Neither is it the case that all the lessons learned from reflecting over verses are to not to be followed.

It is the case that every verse in Quran is significant and clear through itself. And it's place in the Surahs and Quran is clear with reflection.

That is why Quran says "Rather it is clear signs in the hearts of those given knowledge".

There is no such thing as 12 imams in the Quran. Taair al Quds is no longer a 12er Shia, and neither is Macisaac. They were among the most knowledgeable 12ers. In the end they figured out the concept of 12 imams is all made up.