Anyone want to debate me on this premise?

[Link]

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.

[Hani]

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.

[Abu Muhammad]

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.

[MuslimAnswers]

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.

[Abu Muhammad]

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.

[ummahboard.com]

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.

[Rationalist]

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?

[omar111]

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)

[Link]

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.

[Rationalist]

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.

[Link]

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.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

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.

[ummahboard.com]

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

[Abu Muhammad]

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.

[omar111]

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..

[Link]

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.

[Abu Muhammad]

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.

[MuslimK]

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

[glorfindel]

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.

[Link]

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.