Concept of Imamah in Ahlul Sunnah

[Ijtaba]

Salaam.

In this forum the concept of Imamah in Shia Islam has been discussed a lot. Ahlul Sunnah criticises that Shi'i concept of Imamah is not found in al-Quran and Hadiths.

I want to know whether concept of Imamah exists in Ahlul Sunnah. If yes, then does such Imamah (Imamah according to Ahlul Sunnah) exists in al-Quran and Hadiths? And secondly what is difference between Imamah, Khilafah & Malookiyat (i.e. Kingship/Monarchy). Are they one & same or different in Ahlul Sunnah?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I want to know whether concept of Imamah exists in Ahlul Sunnah. If yes, then does such Imamah (Imamah according to Ahlul Sunnah) exists in al-Quran and Hadiths?

The term Imamah is a Broad term and is used for different positions. If you intend to ask regarding head of the state who runs its affairs, establishing the Islamic law and judging by the Shariah, then yes, the term Imamah can be used in the context too. And its same as Khilafah.

And since Imamah isn't a fuundamental principle in the view of Ahlesunnah, then there isn't any explicit verse or hadeeth which describes it. BUt one can find info about it in bits pieces, in Quraninc implicit verses and ahadeeth, which when gathered can give us a picture.

So which as aspect of Khilafah/Imamah you want to know? if everything, then its a though job, and it requires time to gather info, so may be someone else could help you. If you want to know about a specific aspect of Imamah/Khilafah then, you may ask.

And secondly what is difference between Imamah, Khilafah & Malookiyat (i.e. Kingship/Monarchy). Are they one & same or different in Ahlul Sunnah?

Imamah and Khilafah is answered, as for Kingship then, its when someone is appointed a ruler without the consultation of the people, in case there is no direct command from Allah about appointing him.

Wallahu alam.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Salaam.

In this forum the concept of Imamah in Shia Islam has been discussed a lot. Ahlul Sunnah criticises that Shi'i concept of Imamah is not found in al-Quran and Hadiths.

You were unfair in presenting the Sunni Case. You are making it to seem neutral. But the fact is that, Sunnis say that the Shia concept of Imamah is destroyed from Quran and ahadeeth. So don't try to hide the actual Sunni stance by saying, we just say Shia concept of Imamah is absent in Quran.

If you want to know how then refer this:

The Noble Quranic Verse Which Doomed Shi’ite Concept Of Imamate.
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/

[Ijtaba]

The term Imamah is a Broad term and is used for different positions. If you intend to ask regarding head of the state who runs its affairs, establishing the Islamic law and judging by the Shariah, then yes, the term Imamah can be used in the context too. And its same as Khilafah.

So according to you Imamah & Khilafah are one and same thing (i.e. they can be used interchangeably)

And since Imamah isn't a fuundamental principle in the view of Ahlesunnah, then there isn't any explicit verse or hadeeth which describes it. BUt one can find info about it in bits pieces, in Quraninc implicit verses and ahadeeth, which when gathered can give us a picture.

So on what basis do people call themselves Imam according to Ahlul Sunnah? For e.g. Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi, etc?

So which as aspect of Khilafah/Imamah you want to know? if everything, then its a though job, and it requires time to gather info, so may be someone else could help you. If you want to know about a specific aspect of Imamah/Khilafah then, you may ask.

I am talking about verses in Quran mentioning Imamah/Khilafah. Are those titles only restricted to Prophets or can non-Prophets also be appointed by ALLAH (SWT) as Imams and Khalifahs?

For e.g. ALLAH (SWT) appointed Nabi Adam (a.s) and Nabi Dawud (a.s) as Khalifahs of Earth and promised to make Righteous people as Khalifahs of Earth.

And ALLAH (SWT) made Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) as Imam of Mankind and promised Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) to make from his (a.s) progeny Imams of Mankind.

Imamah and Khilafah is answered, as for Kingship then, its when someone is appointed a ruler without the consultation of the people, in case there is no direct command from Allah about appointing him.

Wallahu alam.

ALLAH (SWT) has mentioned in al-Quran that it is ALLAH (SWT) who gives Kingdom to whomever HE (SWT) likes. How do you interpret this verse?

[Ijtaba]

You were unfair in presenting the Sunni Case. You are making it to seem neutral. But the fact is that, Sunnis say that the Shia concept of Imamah is destroyed from Quran and ahadeeth. So don't try to hide the actual Sunni stance by saying, we just say Shia concept of Imamah is absent in Quran.

If you want to know how then refer this:

The Noble Quranic Verse Which Doomed Shi’ite Concept Of Imamate.
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/

Its better not to assume things and blame others for dishonesty as you don't have knowledge about people's intentions and it's only ALLAH (SWT) who has knowledge of people's intentions.

[Ijtaba]

If you want to know how then refer this:

The Noble Quranic Verse Which Doomed Shi’ite Concept Of Imamate.
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/

I read the article and did not find anything which would make me believe that concept of Shi'i Imamat is false (or doomed)

The author argues that Shi'i concept of non-Prophet being Masum (infallibility) does not exist but in Sahih Bukhari there is hadith which clearly mentions about non-Prophet being Masum.

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 306:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

The Prophet 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.' "

Ahlul Sunnah believes their Rulers (Imams, Khalifas, Ameers, Kings) were all non-Masum i.e. they were not protected by GOD against group advising them to do evil and exhorting them to do evil.

Lastly, the author mentions about Ulil-Amr. The author misunderstood the concept of Shi'i Imamah. We shias believe that at one time there can be only one Imam. Only after the Imam (a.s) dies he (a.s) is replaced by his (a.s) brother (a.s) or son (a.s) as Imam.

I want to know who according to Ahlul Sunnah are Ulil-Amr? During the lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w.w) was he (s.a.w.w) alone the ruler of Muslim Ummah or were more than one ruler? There is hadith of Prophet (s.a.w.w) which mentions of ruler besides him (s.a.w.w).

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me."

References:
    al-Bukhari Book of Judgments #251
    al-Bukhari 7137
    Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 251
    Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book of Judgments, Hadith 251

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

So according to you Imamah & Khilafah are one and same thing (i.e. they can be used interchangeably)

In context to the what I said then yes.

So on what basis do people call themselves Imam according to Ahlul Sunnah? For e.g. Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafi, etc?

The problem here is that, you make such foolish arguments, that they put me in a dilemma that whether I should answer such arguments or just ignore them, like i do most of the time, when you argue out of your ignorance, and lack of understanding.

Anyways, I have some free time, so I'll entertain this unworthy arguments. They were spiritual Imams, not political ones. If you read my comment carefully, I clearly stated that the term Imam is quite broad and is used for different position. Even the leader of a prayer in congregation is called Imam. Now your silly argument demands a counter question, on what basis Shia call some people Imam, example Imam Khomeini.

I am talking about verses in Quran mentioning Imamah/Khilafah. Are those titles only restricted to Prophets or can non-Prophets also be appointed by ALLAH (SWT) as Imams and Khalifahs?

For e.g. ALLAH (SWT) appointed Nabi Adam (a.s) and Nabi Dawud (a.s) as Khalifahs of Earth and promised to make Righteous people as Khalifahs of Earth.

If you mean divine appointment, then I disagree with you. These verses you mention are talking about Qadr of Allah. And in this context, every ruler whether good or bad was appointed by Allah.

For example we read in quran:

(It is We Who portion out between them their livelihood in this world, and We raised some of them above others in ranks, so that some may employ others in their work.) (Quran 43:32).

If you are working as a manager in a company, then even that position of authority is given to you
by Allah, but that doesn't mean its divine appointment.

I can quote a lot of Sunni and Shia hadeeth, but I'll keep them for some other time. Let's see some verses of Quran:

THESE VERSES OF QURAN SHOWS THAT DISBELIEVERS WERE MADE KHULAFA(plural of Khalifa).

Said the eminent ones who DISBELIEVED among his people, "Indeed, we see you in foolishness, and indeed, we think you are of the liars."(7:66) [Hud] said, "O my people, there is not foolishness in me, but I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds." (7:67). I convey to you the messages of my Lord, and I am to you a trustworthy adviser.(7:68). Then do you wonder that there has come to you a reminder from your Lord through a man from among you, that he may warn you? And remember when HE MADE YOU KHULAFA after the people of Noah and increased you in stature extensively. So remember the favors of Allah that you might succeed.(7:69)

Similar can be found when we read the verse where Allah said , He made or appointed Imams who invite to hell fire.
And We appointed them leaders(IMAMS) who invite unto the (Hell) Fire and on the Day of Judgment they shall not be helped.(28:41, Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli).

As for  the verse regarding Adam(as) you are referring then, it's actually not a divine appointment rather it mentions the Qadr of Allah. Check out the response of the Angels.

(30. And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) khalifa  on earth. '' They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You. '' He (Allah) said: "I know that which you do not know. '')

The Angels knew very well that Allah was not taking about divinely appointed caliphs/Imams when he said I will make Khalifa on the earth. If Khalifa stood for divinely appointed imams/caliphs then the Angels would have committed blasphemy as per shia belief by asking this question. Because shias preach that Imams were created before the Angels, And the Imams taught Angels how to worship and other deeds. But here we have Angels suggesting that the Imams will do mischief on earth and will shed blood.

And ALLAH (SWT) made Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) as Imam of Mankind and promised Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) to make from his (a.s) progeny Imams of Mankind.

Here it's not in the context of head of state or a ruler, rather its about making them spiritual examples for the mankind, which makes their followership beyond the Ummah they were sent to.

ALLAH (SWT) has mentioned in al-Quran that it is ALLAH (SWT) who gives Kingdom to whomever HE (SWT) likes. How do you interpret this verse?

The same way you interpret this Shia hadeeth.

عنه، عن ابن محبوب، عن إسحاق بن عمار، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إن الله عزوجل أوحى إلى نبي من أنبيائه في مملكة جبار من الجبارين أن ائت هذا الجبار فقل له: إنني لم أستعملك على سفك الدماء واتخاذ الاموال وإنما استعملتك لتكف عني أصوات المظلومين، فاني لم أدع ظلامتهم وإن كانوا كفارا
It is narrated from him (narrator of the Hadith above) from ibn Mahbub from Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar from abu ‘Abd Allah(as), who has said the following: “Allah, sent revelations to one of His prophets who lived in the time of an oppressive and tyrannical ruler. It said, ‘Tell this tyrant, “I have not given you this opportunity to shed blood and seize properties. I have given you this opportunity only that you hold back the voices of the oppressed from coming to Me. I will not allow any oppression without justice being served, even though they (the oppressed) might be unbelievers.’” (Al-Kafi, vol 2, page 334, H 2649, CH 132, h 14;  Majlisi graded it as Muwathaq(reliable) in Miraat ul uqool, vol 10, page 303]

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Its better not to assume things and blame others for dishonesty as you don't have knowledge about people's intentions and it's only ALLAH (SWT) who has knowledge of people's intentions.

Judgements are made on actions that are apparent. So did I.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

I read the article and did not find anything which would make me believe that concept of Shi'i Imamat is false (or doomed)

You need to read it multiple times to understand the arguments made, because as i experienced your understanding is toooo weak.

The author argues that Shi'i concept of non-Prophet being Masum (infallibility) does not exist but in Sahih Bukhari there is hadith which clearly mentions about non-Prophet being Masum.

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 306:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

The Prophet 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.' "

Ahlul Sunnah believes their Rulers (Imams, Khalifas, Ameers, Kings) were all non-Masum i.e. they were not protected by GOD against group advising them to do evil and exhorting them to do evil.

1.There is no infallibility discussed in this hadeeth.

The hadeeth says:{“But the protected person (against such evil advisors) is the one protected by Allah.” }
This doesn’t mean that Caliphs are protected from every kind of sin. Because if we read the context of the hadeeth then we can clearly see that the protection mentioned there is regarding the specific issue that was mentioned, that is, from the advice of the evil advisers. Allah(swt) would protect that person from the advices of evil advisers, but this doesn’t mean protection from sins or mistakes they would commit. Thus trying to prove infallibility from this report is a failed attempt.

Moreover, the best explanation of a hadeeth is from a similar authentic hadeeth which would further elaborate the issue. Thus here is a similar authentic report which explains this issue.

إذا أراد الله بالأمير خيرا جعل له وزير صدق : إن نسي ذكره وإن ذكر أعانه وإذا أراد به غير ذلك جعل له وزير سوء : إن نسي لم يذكره وإن ذكر لم يعنه
Mother of believers `Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported: The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said, “When Allah desires good for a ruler, He appoints for him a sincere adviser who will remind him if he forgets and helps him if he remembers. When Allah wishes for him the contrary, He appoints for him a bad adviser who will not remind him if he forgets, nor will he help him if he remembers.”
source: al-Albani said “SAHIH” in Sahih al-Jami`.

So from this similar authentic report we came to know that , Allah doesn’t says that all the Caliphs will be protected from such advisers.

We would like to give a small example to further simplify this:

If an Arab got attacked by a group of evil men while walking in the street, and suddenly out of nowhere a police patrol car shows up just on time to save him from their harm, That Arab would say: “`Asamani Allahu minhum.” “عصمني الله منهم”.

In English this means “Allah protected me from them.” or “Allah prevented me from them” because `Ismah means protection simply or prevention. So this narration you quoted simply means in Arabic that Allah will protect the good ruler from the evil opinions of his advisers.

Here is it’s meaning from “Lisan al-`Arab”:
العِصْمة في كلام العرب: المَنْعُ.
وعِصْمةُ الله عَبْدَه: أن يَعْصِمَه مما يُوبِقُه. عَصَمه يَعْصِمُه عَصْماً: منَعَه ووَقَاه.

Easy examples to illustrate:
من حفظ عشر آيات من أول سورة الكهف عصم من فتنة الدجال
Abu al-Darda’ (ra) narrates: The Prophet (SAWS) says: “He who memorizes the first ten verses from Surat al-Kahf, Allah will protect/prevent(`Asamahu) him [from being harmed by] the Fitnah of al-Dajjal.
source: Sahih Muslim.

من قرأ آيةَ الكُرسيِّ . و وأوَّلَ حم المؤمنُ ، عُصِمَ ذلِك اليومَ من كلِّ سوءٍ
Abu Huraira (ra) narrates: The Prophet (SAWS) said: “He who recites Ayat-ul-Kursi. and the beginning of Ha-Meem al-Mu’min, he will be prevented/protected(`Usima) from any evil on that day.”
source: al-Futouhat al-Rabbaniyyah.

So infallibility in the understanding and language of the Arabs is one thing, and infallibility which the Shias talk about is a completely different matter altogether.

Moreover, had it been that Ali(ra) was appointed as Caliph as ‘you’ wants to portray, then there weren’t any advisers of Ali(ra) during the period when Abubakr(ra), Umar(ra) and Uthman(ra) ruled the Ummah, infact Ali(ra) was himself their adviser, which the hadeeth signifies.

Taken from:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/part-2-a-multi-angular-refutation-of-shiite-views-on-ulil-amr/

Lastly, the author mentions about Ulil-Amr. The author misunderstood the concept of Shi'i Imamah. We shias believe that at one time there can be only one Imam. Only after the Imam (a.s) dies he (a.s) is replaced by his (a.s) brother (a.s) or son (a.s) as Imam.

This argument clearly demonstrates two things, one is that that you haven't read the article, and other is that you are extremely poor in understanding. Let me quote an extract from the same article again:

And when there comes to them news of security or fear they spread it abroad; and if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it, and were it not for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, you would have certainly followed the Shaitan save a few. [Quran 4:83]

Response:

(b). The verse quoted actually back fires the Shia belief, because it says in Arabic minhum(مِنْهُمْ) =among them. The word “Minhum” at the end signifies a group out of the whole. Which implies that among “Ulil Amr” are some who would know, meaning:

{…if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them, those among them who can search out the knowledge of it would have known it…}

If the people referred the matter to those in authority from among them, then those among THEM who can draw correct conclusions would have known it. MEANING, among those in authority are THOSE who can draw correct conclusions, therefore a group from those in authority may not necessarily draw correct conclusions. Which means not necessarily all Ulil-Amr would know how to deal with the issue. Which conflicts with infallibility.

(c). This verse is like a probability, having a conditional particle (لَوْ/if), which says, {“if they had referred it to….would have known it”}. This conditional statement is made in the context of people who had spread confidential news or rumors, and it reprimands them for their action and suggests what they should have done. It means this verse was revealed in reference to events that occurred in the past, and then it suggests people that they should have referred the Messenger and those in authority(Ulil Amr) during those events in the past. This implies that, even during those events before the verse revealed, Ulil Amr(those in authority) were present around people, so that people could refer them.

The problem that rises now is that even though Quran suggested that, people should have referred Ulil Amr(those in authority) during those events that occurred in the past, however Shias themselves claim that when one Imam is in authority then the other Imam even if present, isn’t in authority. In other words, only one Imam can be in divine authority at a time. So, if Prophet(SAWS) as an Imam(leader) was in divine authority then Ali(RA) can’t possess divine authority. Likewise, if Ali(RA) is in divine authority then Hassan(RA) and Hussain(RA) won’t be in divine authority. But Quran says that, during those events that occurred in the past, Ulil Amr(those in authority) alongside Prophet(SAWS) were present, so that people could refer them. So how could Multiple people possess divine authority at a time? During those events, only Prophet(SAWS) possessed divine authority, there cannot be anyone else alongside Prophet(SAWS) who possessed divine authority over people. Or if supposedly Ali(RA) held divine authority as one of Ulil Amr{Ulil Amr is plural not singular}, then Hasan(RA) or Hussain(RA) cannot possess divine authority alongside Ali(RA). Therefore, the only reasonable explanation left is, Ulil Amr(those in authority) mentioned in the verse were neither divinely appointed nor they possessed divine authority.

Taken from:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/

I want to know who according to Ahlul Sunnah are Ulil-Amr? During the lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w.w) was he (s.a.w.w) alone the ruler of Muslim Ummah or were more than one ruler? There is hadith of Prophet (s.a.w.w) which mentions of ruler besides him (s.a.w.w).

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me."

References:
    al-Bukhari Book of Judgments #251
    al-Bukhari 7137
    Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 251
    Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book of Judgments, Hadith 251

Pick any Sunni Tafseer of the verse and read it yourself. Sunni don't believe that Ulil Amr means only the Supreme leader. Its abroad term which encompasses anyone in authority, it could be a governor, it could be a leader of an army, etc.

[Rationalist]

Lastly, the author mentions about Ulil-Amr. The author misunderstood the concept of Shi'i Imamah. We shias believe that at one time there can be only one Imam. Only after the Imam (a.s) dies he (a.s) is replaced by his (a.s) brother (a.s) or son (a.s) as Imam.

Refer to the 3 min mark of clip below. This Zakir says the succeeding Imam is an Imam during predecessor Imamate.

[muslim720]

The author argues that Shi'i concept of non-Prophet being Masum (infallibility) does not exist but in Sahih Bukhari there is hadith which clearly mentions about non-Prophet being Masum.

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 306:
Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

The Prophet 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.' "

Since when did "protected" become synonymous with "infallible"?

I want to know who according to Ahlul Sunnah are Ulil-Amr? During the lifetime of Prophet (s.a.w.w) was he (s.a.w.w) alone the ruler of Muslim Ummah or were more than one ruler? There is hadith of Prophet (s.a.w.w) which mentions of ruler besides him (s.a.w.w).

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me, and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me."

References:
    al-Bukhari Book of Judgments #251
    al-Bukhari 7137
    Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 251
    Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 9, Book of Judgments, Hadith 251

When the Muslims would go to battles and wars, the Prophet (saw) would leave behind a "leader" for those staying behind.  At other times, he (saw) would appoint a general, or a "leader", for the dispatched Muslim army.  So I do not see how this hadith justifies the notion that there was another ruler present alongside with the Prophet (saw).  In fact, and here is where Ijtaba missed out on opening a bigger can of worms, the narration does not even necessitate (or make it mandatory) for the Prophet (saw) to appoint a ruler after himself.  Thought I should shut that argument down before it is even presented.

[iceman]

Since when did "protected" become synonymous with "infallible"?

When the Muslims would go to battles and wars, the Prophet (saw) would leave behind a "leader" for those staying behind.  At other times, he (saw) would appoint a general, or a "leader", for the dispatched Muslim army.  So I do not see how this hadith justifies the notion that there was another ruler present alongside with the Prophet (saw).  In fact, and here is where Ijtaba missed out on opening a bigger can of worms, the narration does not even necessitate (or make it mandatory) for the Prophet (saw) to appoint a ruler after himself.  Thought I should shut that argument down before it is even presented.

"When the Muslims would go to battles and wars, the Prophet (saw) would leave behind a "leader" for those staying behind.  At other times, he (saw) would appoint a general, or a "leader", for the dispatched Muslim army"

And when he was about to pass away he didn't bother to name and appoint anyone where and when most needed.
 
How astonishing!

[muslim720]

And when he was about to pass away he didn't bother to name and appoint anyone where and when most needed.
 
How astonishing!

You have me cornered!  Oh boy!  But I hope we are not conflating leaving someone behind to protect the women, elderly and children with leaving someone in charge of the affairs of the ummah because they are not one in the same.  Also, during one of the dispatches, the Prophet (saw) named three Sahaba (ra) to lead the army.  If all three were to die, the Prophet (saw) instructed the army to pick their own leader (to lead the army).

There is just as much precedence for election as there was for appointment so what is your point now that you have been refuted?

[iceman]

You have me cornered!  Oh boy!  But I hope we are not conflating leaving someone behind to protect the women, elderly and children with leaving someone in charge of the affairs of the ummah because they are not one in the same.  Also, during one of the dispatches, the Prophet (saw) named three Sahaba (ra) to lead the army.  If all three were to die, the Prophet (saw) instructed the army to pick their own leader (to lead the army).

There is just as much precedence for election as there was for appointment so what is your point now that you have been refuted?

Cornered?😊 No one can corner someone with your nature and stance 😀

"If all three were to die, the Prophet (saw) instructed the army to pick their own leader (to lead the army)"

"INSTRUCTED THE ARMY" So that would be the army, meaning the heads of the army. What if only three members of the army rushed off to lets say Saqifa, not to choose the head of the army but to stop something TERRIBLE from happening and coincidently they decided to choose the head of the army there just among themselves and the rest of the army and the heads didn't have a damn clue about it.

This would be fine according to you, if the three individuals were extremely dear to you then you wouldn't care. You'd be hellbent in justifying this, wouldn't you.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

"When the Muslims would go to battles and wars, the Prophet (saw) would leave behind a "leader" for those staying behind.  At other times, he (saw) would appoint a general, or a "leader", for the dispatched Muslim army"

And when he was about to pass away he didn't bother to name and appoint anyone where and when most needed.
 
How astonishing!

He thought of appointing even in that situation but he was informed that the one whom he wanted to appoint, would eventually be appointed by the believers, hence he decided not to do so, that’s why Khilafah after him didn’t become kingship.

[muslim720]

Cornered?😊 No one can corner someone with your nature and stance 😀

Got your stupid smileys out of the way, you 12 year old girl?

"INSTRUCTED THE ARMY" So that would be the army, meaning the heads of the army. What if only three members of the army rushed off to lets say Saqifa, not to choose the head of the army but to stop something TERRIBLE from happening and coincidently they decided to choose the head of the army there just among themselves and the rest of the army and the heads didn't have a damn clue about it.

I have a better scenario for you to ponder over.  Assuming the Prophet (saw) appointed a leader after him, someone actually ordained by Allah (swt), but two of them shun responsibility.  One gives bayyah to Abu Bakr (ra), another gives his "Divinely Ordained" right to Muawiya and a 12th one that has completely ran off into hiding, absolving himself from all responsibilities?  Would you stand by such "appointed" leaders?  They behaved like anything but "appointed".

Having said that, I can see how Saqifa has deeply scarred you for life.

This would be fine according to you, if the three individuals were extremely dear to you then you wouldn't care. You'd be hellbent in justifying this, wouldn't you.

If three fallible individuals (ra) can coerce an entire nation, and in the process also subdue three living "infallible" Imams (ra), then they must be some men of valor who deserve the utmost respect and support.  Add to this the fact that their action have inflicted lifelong wounds upon imbeciles like you and it is twice the barakah.

[Ijtaba]

The problem here is that, you make such foolish arguments, that they put me in a dilemma that whether I should answer such arguments or just ignore them, like i do most of the time, when you argue out of your ignorance, and lack of understanding.

Anyways, I have some free time, so I'll entertain this unworthy arguments. They were spiritual Imams, not political ones. If you read my comment carefully, I clearly stated that the term Imam is quite broad and is used for different position. Even the leader of a prayer in congregation is called Imam. Now your silly argument demands a counter question, on what basis Shia call some people Imam, example Imam Khomeini.

My arguments are all reasonable but it is you who don't have answers so you resorted to personal insults. I won't be responding to such nonsense in future. I will only be responding to arguments presented.

As for Abu Hanifa & Shafi being spiritual leaders... can you quote any verse from Quran or give any hadith stating that there can exist Spiritual Leaders? Aren't Abu Hanifa & Shafi, etc Ulemas? Isn't Imam/Caliph a political leader and Ulemas spiritual leaders or are the words "Imam" and "Ulema" also interchangeable?

About person leading prayer in congregation then Yes he is called Imam but I am talking about Imams mentioned in Quran and hadiths in the context of ruler.

If you mean divine appointment, then I disagree with you. These verses you mention are talking about Qadr of Allah. And in this context, every ruler whether good or bad was appointed by Allah.

Clearly define to me what do you understand by "divine appointment" because according to my understanding divine appointment means "to be appointed by GOD."

I can quote a lot of Sunni and Shia hadeeth, but I'll keep them for some other time. Let's see some verses of Quran:

THESE VERSES OF QURAN SHOWS THAT DISBELIEVERS WERE MADE KHULAFA(plural of Khalifa).

Said the eminent ones who DISBELIEVED among his people, "Indeed, we see you in foolishness, and indeed, we think you are of the liars."(7:66) [Hud] said, "O my people, there is not foolishness in me, but I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds." (7:67). I convey to you the messages of my Lord, and I am to you a trustworthy adviser.(7:68). Then do you wonder that there has come to you a reminder from your Lord through a man from among you, that he may warn you? And remember when HE MADE YOU KHULAFA after the people of Noah and increased you in stature extensively. So remember the favors of Allah that you might succeed.(7:69)

Khulafa means successors. According to the verse you quoted it can be clearly seen that Disbelievers (i.e. People of Hud a.s) were Khulafa of Disbelievers (i.e. People of Noah a.s)

What we shias are saying is that only Masum (i.e. Imam a.s) can be Khalifa or Masum (Prophet a.s)

Similar can be found when we read the verse where Allah said , He made or appointed Imams who invite to hell fire.
And We appointed them leaders(IMAMS) who invite unto the (Hell) Fire and on the Day of Judgment they shall not be helped.(28:41, Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli).

How can GOD appoint dead people as Imams? I thought only living people were appointed as Imams. Can you enlighten me as to how did Pharoah become leader inviting people to Hell-fire after his death?

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

And Pharaoh said, "O eminent ones, I have not known you to have a god other than me. Then ignite for me, O Haman, [a fire] upon the clay and make for me a tower that I may look at the God of Moses. And indeed, I do think he is among the liars." And he was arrogant, he and his soldiers, in the land, without right, and they thought that they would not be returned to Us. So We took him and his soldiers and threw them into the sea. So see how was the end of the wrongdoers. And We made them leaders inviting to the Fire, and on the Day of Resurrection they will not be helped. (28:38-41)

As for  the verse regarding Adam(as) you are referring then, it's actually not a divine appointment rather it mentions the Qadr of Allah. Check out the response of the Angels.

(30. And (remember) when your Lord said to the angels: "Verily, I am going to place (mankind) khalifa  on earth. '' They said: "Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks and sanctify You. '' He (Allah) said: "I know that which you do not know. '')

The Angels knew very well that Allah was not taking about divinely appointed caliphs/Imams when he said I will make Khalifa on the earth. If Khalifa stood for divinely appointed imams/caliphs then the Angels would have committed blasphemy as per shia belief by asking this question. Because shias preach that Imams were created before the Angels, And the Imams taught Angels how to worship and other deeds. But here we have Angels suggesting that the Imams will do mischief on earth and will shed blood.

If by the words "Khalifa tul Ardh" non-Masum humans are meant then as can be seen from the verse that Angels prediction about non-Masum humans came to be true because non-Masum Kings/Leaders did do mischief on earth and shed blood. So how do you interpret the verse quoted by you i.e. why did GOD prefer non-Masum Humans over Masum Angels?

Here it's not in the context of head of state or a ruler, rather its about making them spiritual examples for the mankind, which makes their followership beyond the Ummah they were sent to.

So you mean Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) and Imams from his (a.s) progeny were spiritual leaders and not political leaders? So following you logic can Ahlul Sunnah apply this concept to our 12 Imams i.e. they are spiritual leaders like Nabi Ibrahim (a.s)?

The same way you interpret this Shia hadeeth.

عنه، عن ابن محبوب، عن إسحاق بن عمار، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: إن الله عزوجل أوحى إلى نبي من أنبيائه في مملكة جبار من الجبارين أن ائت هذا الجبار فقل له: إنني لم أستعملك على سفك الدماء واتخاذ الاموال وإنما استعملتك لتكف عني أصوات المظلومين، فاني لم أدع ظلامتهم وإن كانوا كفارا
It is narrated from him (narrator of the Hadith above) from ibn Mahbub from Ishaq ibn ‘Ammar from abu ‘Abd Allah(as), who has said the following: “Allah, sent revelations to one of His prophets who lived in the time of an oppressive and tyrannical ruler. It said, ‘Tell this tyrant, “I have not given you this opportunity to shed blood and seize properties. I have given you this opportunity only that you hold back the voices of the oppressed from coming to Me. I will not allow any oppression without justice being served, even though they (the oppressed) might be unbelievers.’” (Al-Kafi, vol 2, page 334, H 2649, CH 132, h 14;  Majlisi graded it as Muwathaq(reliable) in Miraat ul uqool, vol 10, page 303]

Why did GOD knowing beforehand that a person would become oppressive and tyrant ruler give him rulership? GOD could have given rulership to Prophet instead of that oppressive and tyrant person. Following muslim720 logic of blaming Imam Hassan (a.s) for Muawiya's actions (during rulership) by giving latter the rulership can GOD be blamed (GOD Forbid) for the actions of oppressive and tyrant king as it was GOD who had given that person rulership in the first place?

[Ijtaba]

Judgements are made on actions that are apparent. So did I.

Never expected such arrogance. I leave this matter to ALLAH (SWT) to decide between us on the Day of Judgement.

[Ijtaba]

1.There is no infallibility discussed in this hadeeth.

The hadeeth says:{“But the protected person (against such evil advisors) is the one protected by Allah.” }
This doesn’t mean that Caliphs are protected from every kind of sin. Because if we read the context of the hadeeth then we can clearly see that the protection mentioned there is regarding the specific issue that was mentioned, that is, from the advice of the evil advisers. Allah(swt) would protect that person from the advices of evil advisers, but this doesn’t mean protection from sins or mistakes they would commit. Thus trying to prove infallibility from this report is a failed attempt.

Moreover, the best explanation of a hadeeth is from a similar authentic hadeeth which would further elaborate the issue. Thus here is a similar authentic report which explains this issue.

إذا أراد الله بالأمير خيرا جعل له وزير صدق : إن نسي ذكره وإن ذكر أعانه وإذا أراد به غير ذلك جعل له وزير سوء : إن نسي لم يذكره وإن ذكر لم يعنه
Mother of believers `Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported: The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) said, “When Allah desires good for a ruler, He appoints for him a sincere adviser who will remind him if he forgets and helps him if he remembers. When Allah wishes for him the contrary, He appoints for him a bad adviser who will not remind him if he forgets, nor will he help him if he remembers.”
source: al-Albani said “SAHIH” in Sahih al-Jami`.

So from this similar authentic report we came to know that , Allah doesn’t says that all the Caliphs will be protected from such advisers.

If your understanding is to be taken then I want to know why would GOD protect good ruler from evil advisors but not from the ruler's own incorrect judgments/decisions? If evil advisors were to give good ruler some suggestions regarding decisions/judgments to make regarding some matter then GOD would protected good ruler from acting on those suggestions but on the other hand if evil advisors had not given suggestions to good ruler and good ruler acted on his own behalf and gave judgments/decisions (which were same as evil advisors had suggested) then GOD would not had protected good ruler as such judgments and decisions were to be counted as mistakes of good ruler?

Moreover, had it been that Ali(ra) was appointed as Caliph as ‘you’ wants to portray, then there weren’t any advisers of Ali(ra) during the period when Abubakr(ra), Umar(ra) and Uthman(ra) ruled the Ummah, infact Ali(ra) was himself their adviser, which the hadeeth signifies.

Did Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman act on all the advises given by Imam Ali (a.s)?

I thought Abu Bakr's adviser was Umar and Uthman's adviser was Marwan.

This argument clearly demonstrates two things, one is that that you haven't read the article, and other is that you are extremely poor in understanding. Let me quote an extract from the same article again:
Taken from:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/the-noble-quranic-verse-which-doomed-shiite-concept-of-imamate/

Imam Ali (a.s) during the time of Prophet's (s.a.w.w) rulership was like Nabi Haroon (a.s) was during the time of Nabi Musa's (a.s) rulership.

Imam Jafar as Sadiq (a.s) during the Imamat of Mohammed Baqir's (a.s) was like Nabi Yaqoob (a.s) during the Nabi Ishaq's (a.s) Imamat.

Pick any Sunni Tafseer of the verse and read it yourself. Sunni don't believe that Ulil Amr means only the Supreme leader. Its abroad term which encompasses anyone in authority, it could be a governor, it could be a leader of an army, etc.

I got it. You believe Ulil Amr can be more than one people at one time i.e. Caliph/King, governor, leader of an army etc.

[iceman]

He thought of appointing even in that situation but he was informed that the one whom he wanted to appoint, would eventually be appointed by the believers, hence he decided not to do so, that’s why Khilafah after him didn’t become kingship.

"but he was informed that the one whom he wanted to appoint, would eventually be appointed by the believers"

Are you serious. He wasn't appointed by the believers because all the believers were busy mourning the Prophet s.a.w and with his funeral arrangements.

The three of them rushed off as soon as they knew what the heads of the Ansar were up to.

There was no selection or election process of any kind taking place. So his (Abu Bakr) appointment wasn't legitimate to begin with.

All that comes out of this discussion from your side is how and in what way can we justify Saqifa. How can you hold on to Saqifa which is something wrong from the very start and to begin with.

"but he was informed"

Informed by whom? 😊