TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: Farid on June 13, 2015, 09:23:20 PM
-
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235030701-debate-invitation/#entry2811471
Discuss.
Maybe someone else will step up this time.
-
Why don't you debate me after Ramadan?
-
Ameen stepped forward LoooL!!!
-
The SC threads prove WHY debating on our "Nasibi" forum is MUCH BETTER, we don't delay posts and approve them only after we check their content, that's a form of censorship, we don't allow people to interfere in a 1 on 1 debate whereas they're saying they won't stop this.
-
They don't want to debate 1 on 1 because truth will be known much better - they want it open so that their members derail the discussion with their copy-pastes and off-topic comments.
-
lol AMEEN hahahahhahah, the only thing he will do is put 3 question marks after every sentence.
-
Lol! Qaim says you are not sincere. This is the same brother who said Taqiyyah can be used in non-death situations to cover up the real teaching of the 12er Shia madhab. Also, this brother Qaim when he gave dawah to another brother I know, he told him that the 12 Calipahs ahadith is a mutawatir.
Let's also not forget when he joined kr-hcy he used a Kfc logo. Does this look like sincerity ?
-
Here is Darth Vader's ironic comment.
This is a perfectly natural human practice, hiding the truth when knowing it, and that is why Quran warns of it multiple times.
But the Quran never talks about the 12 Imams. On the contrary we are Kaffirs or monafiqs for not accepting the dawah of fallible 12ers.
-
Excuses,
Excuses everywhere.
I suggest Al Hassan of TS / Mujtaba on SC steps up
-
I suggest Al Hassan of TS / Mujtaba on SC steps up
I second this. I respect this brother a great deal and I think his level is closer to that of Farid. This would be a debate worth reading, inshallah.
-
The second debate is happening here it seems:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235030721-circular-reasoning-of-twelvers/page-2
To easily refute al-Hasan's argument, he says that we refute their interpretation of the Hadith of the 12 Imams based on our "Sunni understanding" of Imamah.
He writes:
((In summary, the crux of the article's argument is that it tries to disprove the idea that the Hadith of the 12 caliphs cannot be used to refer to the 12 Aimmah of the Twelver Shi'a. The reasoning and arguments used is based on the Sunni understanding of Khilafah, that is - one of the attributes of the Khalif is to have a political role in governing affairs of the Islamic state and since all of the Imams with the exception of 'Ali did not possess this role then the Hadith cannot refer to them.))
He further writes:
((such reasoning is not objective and cannot be used since it's based on the subjective Sunni understanding of the attributes of the Khalif that is defined within Sunnism))
Truth is, this is incorrect, we refute their interpretation not using the "Sunni understanding" but rather the understanding of the Arabs at the time. For the Arabs at the time, leadership (Imamah) did not mean what the Twelvers define Imamah to be. For the Arabs, leadership had nothing to do with a certain man's progeny aside from the rest of his tribe, nor that the leader is infallible, nor that a man has to be directly connected to god so that he may lead, nor that the leader has absolute religious authority because they had priests and men of religion to take care of that aspect (Those who took care of the Ka`bah).
Arabs understood Imamah the way we understand it, they didn't understand the unique Shiite definition of Imamah, heck some tribes asked the Prophet (saw) to grant them leadership after his death and in return they'll believe in his message but he refused, in other words they had no clue about the Shiite version of Imamah.
He writes:
((Furthermore, the Khalif according to our understanding is the inheritor of the prophet's authority on religious matters and a source of guidance for the people of his time. Whether or not he gains access to political authority does not negate his position that as the prophet's Khalifah on earth and that the people can refer back to him for guidance.))
So al-Hasan's argument falls when it is clear that no Arab in Jahiliyyah shares their view, and we know that this narration was aimed at the Arabs and it addressed the Arabs of that time.
When the Prophet (saw) says that after him Islam will be fortified and strong during the rule of twelve chiefs, no Arab will understand what al-Hasan wrote above. Rather, they will think of what resembles a tribal leader.
-
Tomorrow back to work, no more participation, :(
-
Don't worry, everyone has to work ;p
-
BTW: guys do you see the result of having an open topic at SC? It becomes a mess.
-
Haydar Husayn says:
Ok, so here we have the assumption that we should expect to find the names of the Imams in the Qur'an. Why should that be so? Do we ever find in the Qur'an any prophet or divinely appointed personality making a claim to authority based on explicit scriptural evidence? The only one I'm aware of that would even come close is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), who the Qur'an claims is referenced in previous scriptures.
It should be, because they are the ones this Ummah(nation) is supposed to believe in and follow. This is why the Prophet this Ummah was supposed to believe in and follow was mentioned by name. Whereas, most of the Prophets of past weren't mentioned by name, because there was no need for this Ummah to know their identity inorder to believe and follow them. We just believe that they were the prophets sent to previous nations. Hence quran just asks us to believe in the previous Prophets. But unfortunately for the shias neither the Quran names the supposed Imams to be believed in and followed nor, even asks to believe in Imams after Muhammad(saw).
You then want us to prove things about our sect from your sources, using this biased system, which you seem to think is objective just because it was created with great care and detail. How is that going to work?
Thats ironic, you judged our system as biased, but you still want us to believe in narrations gathered by the followers of the same system, from which you try to prove your belief. If those who made the system and follow it were biased(cause the system would be biased if it was made by biased people) then how come you find the many evidences in their books which you believe are in your support?
What was easy for those supposed biased people:
To exclude all those reports which they found were not in favour of their belief and just put an end to misconceptions that those reports could raise. Or include them in their books , so as to be judge by a biased system, giving an open opportunity to the opponents to misuse those reports, ignoring the system to verify those reports?
-
@Hani, please add quote block for each paragraph you're refuting for easier reading
-
Haydar Husayn says:
Ok, so here we have the assumption that we should expect to find the names of the Imams in the Qur'an. Why should that be so? Do we ever find in the Qur'an any prophet or divinely appointed personality making a claim to authority based on explicit scriptural evidence? The only one I'm aware of that would even come close is Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), who the Qur'an claims is referenced in previous scriptures.
It should be, because they are the ones this Ummah(nation) is supposed to believe in and follow. This is why the Prophet this Ummah was supposed to believe in and follow was mentioned by name. Whereas, most of the Prophets of past weren't mentioned by name, because there was no need for this Ummah to know their identity inorder to believe and follow them. We just believe that they were the prophets sent to previous nations. Hence quran just asks us to believe in the previous Prophets. But unfortunately for the shias neither the Quran names the supposed Imams to be believed in and followed nor, even asks to believe in Imams after Muhammad(saw).
That's a good point bro, its easier for us to believe & follow them when their names is clearly mentioned. Isa AS mentioned who's next so no wonder the Jews, Christians were waiting for him. It's strange that we are suppose to believe in 12 and yet not even 1 name can be found in al-Qur'an when shia says believing in them is the difference between iman & kufr. But say, even when 1 name is mentioned the 12ers still can't claim they are upon the truth compare to other shia sects.
-
It's in the quran of Fatima dude, with tafsir and tawil etc ;) you forgot ? lol
A fundamental creed of shiism is absent from Quran and no way to prove it except using qiyas (weird), but it looks like this qiyas isn't possible since the earlier generations of prophet's and their followers had different situations and conditions etc.
-
Assalaamu alaikum. ameen is jumping there on sc forum with question marks ! And challenging farid there. If some one can take a look there !
Shukran.
-
He doesn't debate. He just keeps beating around the Bush and always rejects every proof yiu show even if you show over 30 opinions of their scholars on the age of Aisha (ra) when she married ( around 9) or other things which are common in books of Shia but uncommon to Shia laymen.
-
@furkhan absolutely i agree what you said about him ! Thats why there too i used to tease him with ??¿¿¿?? < such question marks. Which he dropped for sometime and again picked up ! Very funny and illogical guy he is.
-
Bro dahkhun don't you see?......don't u realise bro?....... When the sc chatters get issued a SERIOUS challenge ......who do they throw in the lions den???
Yup u guessed it they throw a great debator like AMEEN hahahahaha, honestly that's what I have noticed from years on both sites
A guy who thinks Quran is useless, ASTAGHFIRULLAH
And they wanna debate??
Lol
-
brother Dahkun, don't waste your time on SC.
-
Bro dahkhun don't you see?......don't u realise bro?....... When the sc chatters get issued a SERIOUS challenge ......who do they throw in the lions den???
[yes brother i had seen and realised, but not all of them are bad ! Bro i had also given the example there, elephant v/s ant=ameen ! Then after that he lost his mental balance and tricked].
Yup u guessed it they throw a great debator like AMEEN hahahahaha, honestly that's what I have noticed from years on both sites
[hahahaa, great debator !]
A guy who thinks Quran is useless, ASTAGHFIRULLAH
And they wanna debate??
[its funny ! Lol]
Lol
so that guy thinks Quran is useless ! MaazAllah.
-
brother Dahkun, don't waste your time on SC.
brother furkan, iam trying my best, InshaAllah ! But to be frank i was not wasting my time totally over there.
-
Ameen stepped forward LoooL!!!
ROFL.
Ameen, couldn't debate with a school kid.
-
I see that the sources to be relied upon, playing a major role in the topic of circular reasoning. This is important for this issue:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/why-islamic-teachings-should-never-be-taken-from-shia-sources/
-
السلام عليكم to all
This is a counter response to br. Hani's response to my initial post that just came to my attention.
The second debate is happening here it seems:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235030721-circular-reasoning-of-twelvers/page-2
Truth is, this is incorrect, we refute their interpretation not using the "Sunni understanding" but rather the understanding of the Arabs at the time. For the Arabs at the time, leadership (Imamah) did not mean what the Twelvers define Imamah to be. For the Arabs, leadership had nothing to do with a certain man's progeny aside from the rest of his tribe, nor that the leader is infallible, nor that a man has to be directly connected to god so that he may lead, nor that the leader has absolute religious authority because they had priests and men of religion to take care of that aspect (Those who took care of the Ka`bah).
So al-Hasan's argument falls when it is clear that no Arab in Jahiliyyah shares their view, and we know that this narration was aimed at the Arabs and it addressed the Arabs of that time
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly here so correct me if I didn't.
Nevertheless, are you asserting that the leadership should be understood based on how the Arabs traditionally understood it from their forefathers during the times of Jahliyah? If so, then this is not valid - due to the fact that whatever understanding of leadership that the Arabs before Islam had is irrelevant considering that Islam came to replace many aspects of their lives - including how they should establish the leadership according to Allah's command and not via their way that they traditionally inherited from their forefathers. In other words, Islam came to replace many aspects of the lives of the Arabs who lived in Jahliyah - whether it's on how to correctly eat and drink, worship Allah as well as how to acknowledge leadership from an Islamic perspective. Therefore, if the Khilafah from the Imami perspective(i.e the divine appointment of the Khalif) came to replace the form of leadership that they incorporated during the Jahilyah, then this form they incorporated during Jahiliyah and their understanding of it becomes redundant and insignificant since Islam came to abrogate it.
Moreover, if you instead meant that the understanding of leadership should be based on the Arabs after the coming of Islam, i.e the Sahaba, then this still doesn't all add up to some extent. This is considering that the Ansar at Saqifah initially believed they had a share in the Khilafah despite the fact that those same Ahadith state that the Khulafah of the twelve and the Khilafah in general is only from Quraysh. In other words, if the knowledge on the nature and form of Khalifah was firmly established among the companions - why then did some of the Ansar not consider that the Khilafah is only for Quraysh when they secretly arranged the Saqifa of Banu Sa'idah to appoint Sa'ad b. 'Ubadah as their leader? Otherwise, if you believe that they had knowledge of the leadership being restricted to Quraysh and insist on that, then you would be indirectly implying that they deliberately disobeyed the prophetص on that issue by arranging the Saqifa of Banu Sa'ida to appoint Sa'ad b. 'Ubadah as their leader.
Arabs understood Imamah the way we understand it, they didn't understand the unique Shiite definition of Imamah, heck some tribes asked the Prophet (saw) to grant them leadership after his death and in return they'll believe in his message but he refused, in other words they had no clue about the Shiite version of Immamah
That is correct. Similarly as stated in the Quran, just as Banu Israel initially asked to choose their own King to rule them but Allah corrected their questioning by informing them that only He chooses their leader. Likewise for some of the companions of the prophet who were not as aware on the Nass of the A'immah thought that anyone can have the right to become Khalif and were eventually corrected by the prophet. Also, among those companions who asked him were not even from Quraysh to begin with so clearly they had not been informed on the nature of the Khilafah as of yet from the time they asked the prophet. Not to mention that the Quranic narrative on Khilafah gives an understanding that the Khalif is always appointed by Allah, but never by the people - as I roughly explained on post# 75 of the SC Circular reasoning of Twelvers thread.
When the Prophet (saw) says that after him Islam will be fortified and strong during the rule of twelve chiefs, no Arab will understand what al-Hasan wrote above. Rather, they will think of what resembles a tribal leader
Now to the crux of the points raised by those three articles and specifically this one being the most critical:
http://twelvershia.net/2015/05/12/hadith-of-twelve-caliphs/
"Islam will stay in a state of glory until the passing of twelve caliphs"
My issue with the standard Sunni understanding of those specific Ahadith containing the contexts you mentioned and the ones in the article is that arguably - this understanding of the can still be problematic from a Sunni perspective for Sunnis just as they can be for Imamis. In other words, assuming a Sunni viewpoint and considering Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Mau'wiyia to be among the 12 - I'm not convinced to believe that during the reign of some of these leaders where wide scales of civil wars occurred between the Muslims was a time of glory for the Muslim Ummah based on the Sunni understanding of what is implied by such glory in the contexts of this report. In fact, any orientalist that examined the historical events which occurred after the death of Uthman will argue that Islam from that point dramatically underwent into decline in it's progress and the affairs of the Muslims was much less in quality than it was during the time of the prophet. Ideally, a state of glory for the Islamic state would not have the first civil wars between Muslims take place in it, companions killing each other during wars(Siffen and Jamal) or one companion establishing his authority in Damascus(Mau'wiyia) while the other in Kufa('Ali) for the reason being that the one in Damascus refuses to give Bay'ah for the one Kufa due to some difference they had.
Nevertheless, it could be argued that a more acceptable understanding of the Hadith can be interpreted to mean that the glory of Islam that started from the time of the prophet will continue to pass down during the reign of those 12 Khulafah where they have passed down this glory by succeeding the prophet in his authority(i.e the glory being them acting as the Hujjah on earth - preserving the deen and passing it down to the succeeding Khalif without it being cut from any external factors where the Sunnah of the passed down completely becomes lost and not accessible for the future generations).
Also for any future responses, I will not be responding to them until after Shahr Ramadhan.
وعليكم السلام
-
Quick Counter-response to counter-response:
You said:
((Nevertheless, are you asserting that the leadership should be understood based on how the Arabs traditionally understood it from their forefathers during the times of Jahliyah?))
Yes, who do you think the message was aimed at? Hindu culture? Persian culture? Of course it's Arabic terms and expressions that are recognized by Arabs.
You wrote:
(( If so, then this is not valid - due to the fact that whatever understanding of leadership that the Arabs before Islam had is irrelevant considering that Islam came to replace many aspects of their lives))
It most certainly is valid as opposed to what you wrote my friend. Does the narration we're discussing explain to them what is the nature of this new unheard of Imamah? If not (and it doesn't) then you can't blame a single Arab who understood it as we did.
Bring us a version of this narration where your version of Imamah is being explained to these Tribal Arabs so they may understand what sets it apart from whatever they were familiar with.
The rest of your "counter-response" is filler content with no value.
-
Yes, who do you think the message was aimed at? Hindu culture? Persian culture? Of course it's Arabic terms and expressions that are recognized by Arabs.
You wrote:
(( If so, then this is not valid - due to the fact that whatever understanding of leadership that the Arabs before Islam had is irrelevant considering that Islam came to replace many aspects of their lives))
It most certainly is valid as opposed to what you wrote my friend. Does the narration we're discussing explain to them what is the nature of this new unheard of Imamah? If not (and it doesn't) then you can't blame a single Arab who understood it as we did.
Bring us a version of this narration where your version of Imamah is being explained to these Tribal Arabs so they may understand what sets it apart from whatever they were familiar with.
The Arabs didn't know tawheed or nubuwwah and the Qur'an corrected their understanding of it; why not do the same for the Imamah?
-
Yes, who do you think the message was aimed at? Hindu culture? Persian culture? Of course it's Arabic terms and expressions that are recognized by Arabs.
You wrote:
(( If so, then this is not valid - due to the fact that whatever understanding of leadership that the Arabs before Islam had is irrelevant considering that Islam came to replace many aspects of their lives))
It most certainly is valid as opposed to what you wrote my friend. Does the narration we're discussing explain to them what is the nature of this new unheard of Imamah? If not (and it doesn't) then you can't blame a single Arab who understood it as we did.
Bring us a version of this narration where your version of Imamah is being explained to these Tribal Arabs so they may understand what sets it apart from whatever they were familiar with.
The Arabs didn't know tawheed or nubuwwah and the Qur'an corrected their understanding of it; why not do the same for the Imamah?
Qur'an corrected the Tawheed, they were mostly polytheists whether Pagans or Jews.
As for Nubuwwah, Arabs were very familiar with it, Qur'an didn't need to explain the idea of Nubuwwah.
As for the Shiite concept of Imamah, completely ignored, such that religious rulings must ONLY be taken from the Imam of the time, which Arab knew this? Nobody did and the Qur'an (And Hadith) never explained anything in this regard.
-
As for Nubuwwah, Arabs were very familiar with it, Qur'an didn't need to explain the idea of Nubuwwah.
That's not true akhi, the Meccans didn't know Nubuwwah either; the Ansar on the other hand had a decent idea of it because they lived with Jews.
-
السلام عليكم to all
"Islam will stay in a state of glory until the passing of twelve caliphs"
My issue with the standard Sunni understanding of those specific Ahadith containing the contexts you mentioned and the ones in the article is that arguably - this understanding of the can still be problematic from a Sunni perspective for Sunnis just as they can be for Imamis. In other words, assuming a Sunni viewpoint and considering Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Mau'wiyia to be among the 12 - I'm not convinced to believe that during the reign of some of these leaders where wide scales of civil wars occurred between the Muslims was a time of glory for the Muslim Ummah based on the Sunni understanding of what is implied by such glory in the contexts of this report. In fact, any orientalist that examined the historical events which occurred after the death of Uthman will argue that Islam from that point dramatically underwent into decline in it's progress and the affairs of the Muslims was much less in quality than it was during the time of the prophet. Ideally, a state of glory for the Islamic state would not have the first civil wars between Muslims take place in it, companions killing each other during wars(Siffen and Jamal) or one companion establishing his authority in Damascus(Mau'wiyia) while the other in Kufa('Ali) for the reason being that the one in Damascus refuses to give Bay'ah for the one Kufa due to some difference they had.
Walaikum Salam,
Yes, there were some civil wars but Islam and Muslims were still dominant in the world. Can we compare any other period in Islamic history with that period?
-
السلام عليكم to all
"Islam will stay in a state of glory until the passing of twelve caliphs"
My issue with the standard Sunni understanding of those specific Ahadith containing the contexts you mentioned and the ones in the article is that arguably - this understanding of the can still be problematic from a Sunni perspective for Sunnis just as they can be for Imamis. In other words, assuming a Sunni viewpoint and considering Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali and Mau'wiyia to be among the 12 - I'm not convinced to believe that during the reign of some of these leaders where wide scales of civil wars occurred between the Muslims was a time of glory for the Muslim Ummah based on the Sunni understanding of what is implied by such glory in the contexts of this report. In fact, any orientalist that examined the historical events which occurred after the death of Uthman will argue that Islam from that point dramatically underwent into decline in it's progress and the affairs of the Muslims was much less in quality than it was during the time of the prophet. Ideally, a state of glory for the Islamic state would not have the first civil wars between Muslims take place in it, companions killing each other during wars(Siffen and Jamal) or one companion establishing his authority in Damascus(Mau'wiyia) while the other in Kufa('Ali) for the reason being that the one in Damascus refuses to give Bay'ah for the one Kufa due to some difference they had.
Walaikum Salam,
Yes, there were some civil wars but Islam and Muslims were still dominant in the world. Can we compare any other period in Islamic history with that period?
Don't forget the hadeeth says "Islam will stay in glory until the passing of the twelve caliphs." And yet according to him, Islam was never in a state of glory while the twelve caliphs (that he believes in) have come and gone.
-
As for Nubuwwah, Arabs were very familiar with it, Qur'an didn't need to explain the idea of Nubuwwah.
That's not true akhi, the Meccans didn't know Nubuwwah either; the Ansar on the other hand had a decent idea of it because they lived with Jews.
I think the Mekkans know it because the Mekkans traveled around and weren't clueless nor were they restricted to their city. They also get a lot of pilgrims from the peninsula who tell them things. If you read the Seerah, you realize that they knew exactly what Muhammad ibn `Abdillah (saw) was speaking when he mentioned "prophet-hood".
-
Don't forget the hadeeth says "Islam will stay in glory until the passing of the twelve caliphs." And yet according to him, Islam was never in a state of glory while the twelve caliphs (that he believes in) have come and gone.
Although Islam was very strong politically in spite of some internal struggles that happened and the Muslims felt strong and safe in their lands throughout the entire period of banu Umayyah almost, yet I disagree with Farid's interpretation that this is the "glory of the state". I say glory here meant the condition of the religion, not the politics, the first 12 rulers ruled in the time of the first couple of generations of Muslims and these generations were the most pious and sincere and they had the least bit of innovations in the history of this faith.
look at the comments section of our article to learn more about what I'm saying:
http://twelvershia.net/2015/05/16/who-are-the-twelve-caliphs-shia-view/
Quote:
[Politics aside, even as a religious condition, Islam and its role in people’s lives and its purity during the rule of the first couple of rulers was much better than those that came after them. I refer you to the narration which states: “The best of generations is mine, then those after them, then those after them…” They are “best” in their faith and its purity and sincerity, the more time passes the more innovations appear and the weaker it becomes in people’s hearts until they become like the foam on the surface of the sea. In other words, Islam will be strongest when it is strong in people’s hearts and this is what makes it in a state of glory. I add, the narration doesn’t state that Islam will never be glorious ever again after the 12, it can attain an ephemeral state of glory at certain times in certain parts of the world but never as before.]
-
To the debaters over there on SC forum sunnis/shias ! Right now i have been on suspention till 22nd june end.
InshaAllah ! will catch you guys soon. In a different method. If you can peep in this TS forum.
W/s
-
As for Nubuwwah, Arabs were very familiar with it, Qur'an didn't need to explain the idea of Nubuwwah.
That's not true akhi, the Meccans didn't know Nubuwwah either; the Ansar on the other hand had a decent idea of it because they lived with Jews.
I think the Mekkans know it because the Mekkans traveled around and weren't clueless nor were they restricted to their city. They also get a lot of pilgrims from the peninsula who tell them things. If you read the Seerah, you realize that they knew exactly what Muhammad ibn `Abdillah (saw) was speaking when he mentioned "prophet-hood".
This can also be added by the fact that Waraqah ibn Nawfal (RA) and Zaid ibn Amr (RA) who were the most prestige of the Hunafah made it clear to the Quraish many times that they have rejected the teachings and religion of Ibrahim (AS).
And, considering lineage was everything back in those days no doubt they knew there was something unique and special about their forefather Ibrahim (AS). His feet were still near the Ka'bah at the time, so they must've know what a Prophet was or had some idea t least.