TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: Link on October 24, 2016, 06:54:55 PM
-
I don't have much time these days..
Premise A is: "Quran is clear in that Ulil-Amr are divinely appointed leaders, the wage verses emphasize on sticking to the family of Mohammad, and the Quran as well as Ghadeer Declaration is clear in regard to appointing Imam Ali and the family of Mohammad as Authorities and Guides"
Premise B: "The matter of there being 12 Successors exactly is clear and manifest"
Premise c: "The names of the 12 Successors are exactly as Shiites believe them to be".
I will be arguing A implies (B and C)
That is to say if A is true, then both B and C is true.
Another way to look at it is if either the matter of 12 successors is not clear or the names of the 12 successors are not exactly as Shiite believe them to be, then A is not true.
Look forward to anyone who wants to discuss this issue in the debate section.
-
Your issue is you type ten paragraphs as an argument that isn't even worth one sentence, we've debated with you a couple of times, you need an essay to try and make a point.
The best that you can do is write down your essay and hope someone will be bothered to read it.
-
I don't have much time these days..
Premise A is: "Quran is clear in that Ulil-Amr are divinely appointed leaders, the wage verses emphasize on sticking to the family of Mohammad, and the Quran as well as Ghadeer Declaration is clear in regard to appointing Imam Ali and the family of Mohammad as Authorities and Guides"
Premise B: "The matter of there being 12 Successors exactly is clear and manifest"
Premise c: "The names of the 12 Successors are exactly as Shiites believe them to be".
I will be arguing A implies (B and C)
That is to say if A is true, then both B and C is true.
Another way to look at it is if either the matter of 12 successors is not clear or the names of the 12 successors are not exactly as Shiite believe them to be, then A is not true.
Look forward to anyone who wants to discuss this issue in the debate section.
Logically speaking, I can't see how you can argue based on "if A is true, both B & C are true" without bringing other daleel naql into your argument.
-
I don't have much time these days..
Premise A is: "Quran is clear in that Ulil-Amr are divinely appointed leaders, the wage verses emphasize on sticking to the family of Mohammad, and the Quran as well as Ghadeer Declaration is clear in regard to appointing Imam Ali and the family of Mohammad as Authorities and Guides"
Premise B: "The matter of there being 12 Successors exactly is clear and manifest"
Premise c: "The names of the 12 Successors are exactly as Shiites believe them to be".
I will be arguing A implies (B and C)
That is to say if A is true, then both B and C is true.
Another way to look at it is if either the matter of 12 successors is not clear or the names of the 12 successors are not exactly as Shiite believe them to be, then A is not true.
Look forward to anyone who wants to discuss this issue in the debate section.
Logically speaking, I can't see how you can argue based on "if A is true, both B & C are true" without bringing other daleel naql into your argument.
That is one major issue of course always: Even Premise A is not clear-cut, and there is an enormous amount of ancillary evidence [logical and textual] to contradict Premise A, so no point going to Premises B and C.
-
That is one major issue of course always: Even Premise A is not clear-cut, and there is an enormous amount of ancillary evidence [logical and textual] to contradict Premise A, so no point going to Premises B and C.
Very true indeed.
But that's what we can deduce from Link's statement as well even though he didn't mention it that way i.e. if he fail to prove A to be true, then B & C aren't true.
I'm more interested to see how he could explain that B & C are true just because of A is true without bringing in other daleel into his argument.
-
Typical shia deviated logic. He wants to debate and deceive rather than follow the truth. A, B, and C is not Islam, neither is Z. You need to follow Islam by following the Quran and Sunnah. Read books on how a non-Muslim comes to Islam is your best bet for success.
-
I don't have much time these days..
Premise A is: "Quran is clear in that Ulil-Amr are divinely appointed leaders, the wage verses emphasize on sticking to the family of Mohammad, and the Quran as well as Ghadeer Declaration is clear in regard to appointing Imam Ali and the family of Mohammad as Authorities and Guides"
Read the whole verse. It gives us room to disagree with Ulil Amr if their view doesn't confirm with the Sunnah. As for Ghadir and Ali, Ali never referenced Ghadir or Dawah al Ashira to tell the ummah he is the Calipah. Also, majority of the Muslims who made him a Calipah accepted the previous Calipahs as rulers. Ali never told them that they can only give him bayah if they reject the 3 then they can only accept him as a Calipah.
Premise B: "The matter of there being 12 Successors exactly is clear and manifest"
None of the 12 imams numbered themselves 1 to 12. How can it be clear?
Premise c: "The names of the 12 Successors are exactly as Shiites believe them to be".
Shias in the past split into many many sects. Even today there is more than one Shia sect.
Look forward to anyone who wants to discuss this issue in the debate section.
If it was clear why does taqiyyah exist in the matter of Imamate?
-
If the names of 12 Successors were clear, why Jaffar nominated Ismael?
الإمام يعرف الإمام الذي من بعده فيوصي إليه
The Imām knows the one who will be the Imām after him, and so he passes his inheritance on to him.
Imām Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq, (Al-Kulayni [d. 941], Usūl al-Kāfi Vol. 1, p. 277)
Ja‘far ibn Muhammad designated (ashāra ila) the Imamat of his son Isma‘il ibn Ja‘far.
Hasan ibn Musa al-Nawbakhti (d. before 922), Firaq al-Shi’a, ed. Ritter, Istanbul 1931, p. 55)
Ja‘far ibn Muhammad designated (ashāra ila) the Imamat of his son Isma‘il ibn Ja‘far.
al-Qummi (d. 914), (Kitab al-maqālat wa’l-firaq, ed. Muhammad J. Mashkur, Tehran, 1963, 78)
-
A contra positive you can make from the 1st statement is:
"If the matter of there being exactly 12 Successors is not clear and manifest or the Imams are not exactly as the Shiites believe, then the Quran is not clear the Ulil-Amr are the Imams or not clear that the wage verses emphasize on sticking to the family of Mohammad or is not clear in regarding to appointing Imam Ali and the family of Mohammad as guides"
And I think you guys would agree with this premise?
Well it's the exact same as the opening premise. It's just it's contra positive.
-
And I think you guys would agree with this premise?
Well it's the exact same as the opening premise. It's just it's contra positive.
Its not even the issue of it being clear. Its not in the Quran,, nor is it a mutawatir hadith and the Imams you number 1-12 never told the ummah they are imam so and so number. Even in your books they supposedly concealed this idea of Imamate.
-
Its not even the issue of it being clear. Its not in the Quran,, nor is it a mutawatir hadith and the Imams you number 1-12 never told the ummah they are imam so and so number. Even in your books they supposedly concealed this idea of Imamate.
We are not discussing the truthfulness of A or B or C. What I am arguing is A -> (B and C).
Which is the same as: (not B or not C )-> not A.
We are looking at that premise. Do you agree or disagree with that?
No more avoiding the topic and trying to discuss the truthfulness of A or B or C. We are simply looking a logical relationship between A and B.
And I will elaborate why, once people tell me whether they agree or disagree with the premise.
-
Lol you have just been told its not mentioned in the Quran yet you are still banging on about your silly equations.
I wonder if this person pretends to be a shia just to embarass shia & wind people up.
Troll.
-
Try some of these
Algebra Formulas
aman=am+naman=am+n
Quadratic Formula
For an equation of the form ax2+bx+c=0ax2+bx+c=0, you can solve for x using the Quadratic Formula:
x=−b±b2−4ac−−−−−−−√2a
x=−b±b2−4ac2a
Binomial Theorem
(a+b)1=a+b(a+b)1=a+b
Difference of Squares
a2−b2=(a−b)(a+b)a2−b2=(a−b)(a+b)
Rules of Zero
a0 is undefined (you can't do it)
They are more authentic
-
We are not discussing the truthfulness of A or B or C. What I am arguing is A -> (B and C).
Which is the same as: (not B or not C )-> not A.
We are looking at that premise. Do you agree or disagree with that?
No more avoiding the topic and trying to discuss the truthfulness of A or B or C. We are simply looking a logical relationship between A and B.
And I will elaborate why, once people tell me whether they agree or disagree with the premise.
Disagree with your logic. Even though (for argument sake) that premise A is correct (A'udzubillahi min dzalik), it doesn't neccessarily lead to both of your premises B and C to be correct. Ismai'li and Waqifi might also argue that premise A will lead to their own respective beliefs to be correct and not the Twelvers.
-
An argument begs the question when it makes use of a premise that no one who didn't already accept the conclusion would believe. Simply put, an argument begs the question when it reasons in a circle or presupposes the truth of the very thing it's trying to prove.
So your argument is circular..
-
We are not discussing the truthfulness of A or B or C. What I am arguing is A -> (B and C).
Which is the same as: (not B or not C )-> not A.
We are looking at that premise. Do you agree or disagree with that?
No more avoiding the topic and trying to discuss the truthfulness of A or B or C. We are simply looking a logical relationship between A and B.
And I will elaborate why, once people tell me whether they agree or disagree with the premise.
Disagree with your logic. Even though (for argument sake) that premise A is correct (A'udzubillahi min dzalik), it doesn't neccessarily lead to both of your premises B and C to be correct. Ismai'li and Waqifi might also argue that premise A will lead to their own respective beliefs to be correct and not the Twelvers.
Ok. So here is the hidden premises that I didn't show.
1. If Allah clarified Succession and Leadership, he should also have a firm manifest proof of which sect that believe in Imammate is right.
2. It would be incumbent upon him to clarify the number and names as that the only way to have a manifest proof of which sect that believes in Imammate is right.
3. The only number given in ahadith attributed to the Prophet with names is 12 and the only names that correspond to that is 12 Imams.
4. The same is true of all nations before, they would have to know how many chosen leaders succeed their founding Prophet even if those leaders are Prophets themselves.
5. The only possible number shown in the past regarding succession and covenant, is twelve.
6. Hence it follows, if God clarified the issue of leadership and succession, it would be Twelver Shiism that is correct.
-
You said:
Ok. So here is the hidden premises that I didn't show.
1. If Allah clarified Succession and Leadership, he should also have a firm manifest proof of which sect that believe in Imammate is right.
2. It would be incumbent upon him to clarify the number and names as that the only way to have a manifest proof of which sect that believes in Imammate is right.
3. The only number given in ahadith attributed to the Prophet with names is 12 and the only names that correspond to that is 12 Imams.
4. The same is true of all nations before, they would have to know how many chosen leaders succeed their founding Prophet even if those leaders are Prophets themselves.
5. The only possible number shown in the past regarding succession and covenant, is twelve.
6. Hence it follows, if God clarified the issue of leadership and succession, it would be Twelver Shiism that is correct.
Let me remind you of your premises:
Premise A is: "Quran is clear in that Ulil-Amr are divinely appointed leaders, the wage verses emphasize on sticking to the family of Mohammad, and the Quran as well as Ghadeer Declaration is clear in regard to appointing Imam Ali and the family of Mohammad as Authorities and Guides"
Premise B: "The matter of there being 12 Successors exactly is clear and manifest"
Premise C: "The names of the 12 Successors are exactly as Shiites believe them to be".
You went on saying that if "A is true, then both B & C are true".
Having stated that in your opening post, now you have to bring in "hidden premises" to prove your case? Man, you have just proved my 1st post below was correct instead.
Logically speaking, I can't see how you can argue based on "if A is true, both B & C are true" without bringing other daleel naql into your argument.
Never ever by proving your above premise A alone to be correct, your premises B & C shall be correct without you to depend on other dalil to prove their correctness (as what you did by bringing in Hadith of 12 Caliphs to argue the correctness of premise B).
Note: I'm arguing from logic point of view.
-
3. The only number given in ahadith attributed to the Prophet with names is 12 and the only names that correspond to that is 12 Imams.
4. The same is true of all nations before, they would have to know how many chosen leaders succeed their founding Prophet even if those leaders are Prophets themselves.
5. The only possible number shown in the past regarding succession and covenant, is twelve.
6. Hence it follows, if God clarified the issue of leadership and succession, it would be Twelver Shiism that is correct.
You are mistaken. There is a reason tens of Shia sects appeared in history each claiming to be following the true divine Imams. They all had different number of Imams. They attributed their claims to Ahlulbayt. They still exist today. See the Zaydis, the Ismailis etc.
Even in twelver sources there are evidences that Imams are SEVEN not twelve and that's what the Waqifa sevener Shias use in their arguments against twelvers.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140515050818/http://www.tashayyu.org/hadiths/nusrat
-
Ok. So here is the hidden premises that I didn't show.
1. If Allah clarified Succession and Leadership, he should also have a firm manifest proof of which sect that believe in Imammate is right.
2. It would be incumbent upon him to clarify the number and names as that the only way to have a manifest proof of which sect that believes in Imammate is right.
3. The only number given in ahadith attributed to the Prophet with names is 12 and the only names that correspond to that is 12 Imams.
4. The same is true of all nations before, they would have to know how many chosen leaders succeed their founding Prophet even if those leaders are Prophets themselves.
5. The only possible number shown in the past regarding succession and covenant, is twelve.
6. Hence it follows, if God clarified the issue of leadership and succession, it would be Twelver Shiism that is correct.
1. If Allah has clarified leadership and succession it does not follow that he would provide a proof for which sect is correct, rather it would be upon the sect to provide it's own proofs for showing that it is in alignment to the words of Allah. Case in point, where Allah has specifically stated the issues of the religion (Prayer, Fasting, Hajj) no people from the people who face the Qiblah dispute that these are actions that are supposed to be obeyed; we disagree on everything else - including leadership and succession ergo this was not clarified.
2. No it would not - Allah doesn't mention the names of all the prophets nor the various revelations that they received ('aliehum as-salam) yet it is incumbent upon all to believe in them.
3. There is a Hadith in Bukhari where the propher (sal allahu 'aliehi wa salem) says: "The Israelites used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number." the word فيكثرون is used which signifies a great number not 5, 7 or 12.
4,5&6. If your only criteria is that there is a hadith which says 12 and you believe in 12, it is a poor argument to be sure - for argument sake today I now accept 12 Imams from Quraish here are their names:
1. Ali ibn Abi-Talib
2. Al-Hasan
3. Al-Hussayn
4. Mohammed ibn Hanafiyya
5. Ali ibn Al-Husayn (Zayn Al-Abideyn)
6. Zayd ibn Ali (Ash-Shaheed)
7. Jafar ibn Mohammed (As-Sadiq)
8. Mohammed ibn Abdullah ibn Hasan ibn Al-Hasan (An-Nafs Az-Zakiyya.)
9. Abdullah ibn Jafar (Al-Aftah)
10. Mohammed ibn Jafar (Ad-Dibaj)
11. Musa ibn Jafar (Al-Kadhim)
12. Jafar ibn Ali (brother of Hasan Al-Askari) - 'Aliehum As-Salam.
All the above are from Quraish and also the family of the prophet (sal allahu 'aliehi wa salem), just in case that is going to be your next criteria - how are they disqualified from this hadith? Or any of the other 'Alids and truth lovers who rose and fought for the pleasure of Allah?
Regards,
Glorfindel.
-
Never ever by proving your above premise A alone to be correct, your premises B & C shall be correct without you to depend on other dalil to prove their correctness (as what you did by bringing in Hadith of 12 Caliphs to argue the correctness of premise B).
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.
In my case, I say, if God appointed the family of Mohammad in Quran and appointed them as leaders, it would be incumbent upon him and his Messenger to clarify the specific leaders he intends and their number. And to prove that we can simply say it is incumbent upon God to manifest and clarify who he meant or otherwise appointed the Imams in Quran would be in vain. He always put's a clear proof.
The same however is true of nations before. For example, Bani-Israel, they were appointed Prophets in succession to Moses, it was incumbent upon God to give them clear guidance regarding the authority, and not just be general. So we see in Quran he specifically manifested to them that the boat of salvation would have Twelve Captains after Moses. Now they also had books and revelations, that manifested them, because they were Messengers. The same is not true of our Imams so they need to be named from before hand or otherwise as you said, how would we distinguish between other claim of numbers or Nass reported from Imams by liars. The way to distinguish it would to be put their number in Quran implicitly, if it was explicit, every misguided sect would of claimed the same amount of leaders. The implicit means Imams can manifest the light to the followers and Allah can through inspiring reflection in seekers of truth manifest the number. The 2nd issue is their names being known before hand is important, and only ONE set of ahadith exist with naming ALL Imams from Rasool and with only one number, that being 12.
The other issue with Quran number of 12, is that God doesn't tell us irrelevant facts to our guidance, and rather he is manifesting that he picked a number and it has some wisdom for it in the past, so we can expect to see it now.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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".
-
Link:
I ask you again did zurara ibn ayan know who was the Imam of the time?
-
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.
-
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.