Kamal Haydari: Shias of first three centuries did not believe in infallibility

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Grand Ayatollah Kamal al-Haydari says the Shia of the first three centuries did NOT believe in the concept of INFALLIBILITY of the Imams. He provides evidence from Shia books.

All I can say is that this thread is filled with nonsense and lies. As for Sayyed Kamal Al-Haydari, many people have refuted his statements so I am sure this is just another one of those statements.

In anyway, we have sahih hadiths proving isma.

The renowned Shia scholar of Hadith al-Shaheed al-Thani says in his book “Haqaeq al-Iman” pages 150-152:

“What is apparent from the condition of their Shia who lived in their time and narrated from them the Ahadeeth may peace be upon them, that MANY OF THEM did not believe in their infallibility because it was hidden from them but they used to believe that the Imams were pious obedient scholars, anyone who follows their stories and narrations knows this”

Shia Allama Majlisi quotes Shaheed al thani  as saying:

جمعى از راويان كه در اعصار ايمه بوده‏اند از شيعيان اعتقاد بعصمت ايشان نداشته‏اند بلكه ايشان را از علماى نيكوكار ميدانسته‏اند چنانچه از رجال كشى ظاهر ميشود و مع ذلك ايمه (ع) حكم بايمان بلكه بعدالت ايشان ميكرده‏اند
Most of the Shia narrators around the Imams didn’t believe in their infallibility but considered them pious scholars only, as is clear from Rijal Kashi, and still the Imams would declare them faithful and even trustworthy. [Haqqul Yaqin, p. 544]

Zlatan I thought you were interested in posts related to the topic.

What Shahid Al-Thani (rah) says would make sense as he says it was hidden to them.

Shia narrators around the Imams didn't know about the attributes of Imamah, the qualities of Imams, supposedly people superior to Prophets. They didn't know the basics of Imamah. Quite Ironic.

So you in a way agree the topic and you should have no issues with the topic of the thread, and to claim out of ignorance that:

All I can say is that this thread is filled with nonsense and lies.

Yes they believed in Imamah, but the details of Imamah were hidden from them.  If it was hidden to them they are excused.

As for my statement, it wasn't directed at what Haydari claimed, it was directed at some of the claims attributed to the scholars, namely "rifts".

ok, So didn't they understand from Quran that Imams are infallible. I mean to them there was no evidence in Quran which proved infallibility.

And the later Shias who try to prove infallibility from Quran, are just fooling the people.

Well they may have even denied the infallibility of the Prophets. And it is also possible that they didn't understand the Verses in the Qur'an which some Shi'a say prove infallibility.

Sometimes the tafsir of the Imams is needed.

Fine. Now lets go down to some classical Shia scholars, do you think they were also unaware of tafseer of Quran done by Imams?

 Grand Shia sheikh sadooq in his book Uyun akhbarul riza- volume 2, page 193

وَفِي حَدِيث آخِرَ: إِنّ الإِمامَ مُؤَيِّد بِرُوحِ القُدُس وَبَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنِ اللَّه عَمُود مِن نُورٍ يَرى‏ فِيهِ أَعمال العِبادِ وَكُلَّما احتاجَ إِلَيْهِ، لِدِلالَةٍ اطلَعَ عَلَيْهِ وَيُبسِطَهُ فَيَعلَمُ وَيُقبَضُ عَنْهُ فَلا يَعْلَمُ.
وَالإمام يُولَدُ وَيَلِدُ، وَيَصِحُّ وَيَمرَضُ، وَيَأْكُلُ وَيَشْرَبُ وَيَبُولُ وَيَتَغَوَّط، وَيَنكِحُ وَيَنامُ وَيَنسى‏ وَيَسهُو، وَيَفرَحُ وَيَحزُنُ، وَيَضحَكُ وَيَبْكي وَيَحْيَى وَيَمُوتُ وَيُقبَرُ وَيَزارُ، وَيُحشَرُ وَيُوقَفُ، وَيُعرَضُ وَيُسأَلُ، وَيُثابُ وَيُكرَمُ، وَيَشفَعُ، وَدَلالَتُه فِي خِصلَتَيْنِ فِي العِلْمُ اِسْتِجابَة الدَّعْوَة وَكُلِّ ما أَخْبَر بِهِ مِنَ الحَوادِث الَّتِي تُحدَثُ قَبْلُ كُونِها فَذلكَ بِعَهْدِ مَعهُود إِلَيْهِ مِن رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ تَوارَثَهُ وَعَنْ آبائِهِ عَنْهُ‏ عَلَيْهِمُ السَّلاَمُ وَيَكُونُ ذلِكَ مِمَّا عَهِدَ إِلَيْهِ جِبْرَئِيل‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مِن عَلاّمِ الغُيُوبِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ.

19-2 In another tradition we read, “The Imam is certified by the Holy Spirit. There is a column of light between him and God through which he sees the deeds of the people. He is informed about what he needs by it. Sometimes that light is shined at him and he gets to know (what he must become aware of). And sometimes it is taken away and thus he will not know (what he needs not know). “The Imam is born. He also has children. He gets ill and he gets cured. He eats and drinks. He urinates and defecates. He gets married. He sleeps.He forgets and he makes mistakes. He gets happy and sad. He laughs and cries. He lives and then dies. He is buried and the people go to visit his shrine. He is resurrected and questioned. He is rewarded and honored. He intercedes. There are two important signs for him: his knowledge and the fulfillment of his prayers. He has heard the news that he gives about the events in the future from his grandfathers from the Prophet of God (s). The Prophet of God (s) has heard them from Gabriel. Gabriel has heard them from the Almighty God.

Shia Shiekh Mufeed states:
إن جميع أنبياء الله – صلوات الله عليهم – معصومون من الكبائر قبل النبوة وبعدها وما يستخف فاعله من الصغائر كلها، وأما ما كان من صغير لا يستخف فاعله فجائز وقوعه منهم قبل النبوة وعلى غير تعمد وممتنع منهم بعدها على كل حال، وهذا مذهب جمهور الإمامية، والمعتزلة بأسرها تخالف فيه.
“All of Allaah’s Prophets are protected against major sins before and after prophethood; and from minor sins that make their doer considered astray. As to the minor sins whose doer is not considered astray, it is possible that they are done by the Prophets before prophethood, as non-deliberate acts, but they do not occur after prophethood in any situation. And this is the madhhab of the majority of Imaamee. And the mu`tazilah people oppose (us) in this.” [“Awael Al-Maqalat fee Al-Mazhab wa Al-Mukhtarat”]

[Hani]

In order to show the value of what the statements of Murtada and Shahid-Thani, it is as if Christians today admit to Muslims that the majority of early Christians did not view `Isa (as) as God. Similarly, Twelvers admitting that the majority of `Ali's army or the Shia of the first centuries believing Ja`far and co to be knowledgeable scholars is tantamount to saying "Our belief was not common or practiced upon even by our own community" which boosts the common Sunni narrative and makes Twelverism appear like a fabrication.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Grand Ayatollah Kamal al-Haydari says the Shia of the first three centuries did NOT believe in the concept of INFALLIBILITY of the Imams. He provides evidence from Shia books.

All I can say is that this thread is filled with nonsense and lies. As for Sayyed Kamal Al-Haydari, many people have refuted his statements so I am sure this is just another one of those statements.

In anyway, we have sahih hadiths proving isma.

The renowned Shia scholar of Hadith al-Shaheed al-Thani says in his book “Haqaeq al-Iman” pages 150-152:

“What is apparent from the condition of their Shia who lived in their time and narrated from them the Ahadeeth may peace be upon them, that MANY OF THEM did not believe in their infallibility because it was hidden from them but they used to believe that the Imams were pious obedient scholars, anyone who follows their stories and narrations knows this”

Shia Allama Majlisi quotes Shaheed al thani  as saying:

جمعى از راويان كه در اعصار ايمه بوده‏اند از شيعيان اعتقاد بعصمت ايشان نداشته‏اند بلكه ايشان را از علماى نيكوكار ميدانسته‏اند چنانچه از رجال كشى ظاهر ميشود و مع ذلك ايمه (ع) حكم بايمان بلكه بعدالت ايشان ميكرده‏اند
Most of the Shia narrators around the Imams didn’t believe in their infallibility but considered them pious scholars only, as is clear from Rijal Kashi, and still the Imams would declare them faithful and even trustworthy. [Haqqul Yaqin, p. 544]

Zlatan I thought you were interested in posts related to the topic.

What Shahid Al-Thani (rah) says would make sense as he says it was hidden to them.

Shia narrators around the Imams didn't know about the attributes of Imamah, the qualities of Imams, supposedly people superior to Prophets. They didn't know the basics of Imamah. Quite Ironic.

So you in a way agree the topic and you should have no issues with the topic of the thread, and to claim out of ignorance that:

All I can say is that this thread is filled with nonsense and lies.

Yes they believed in Imamah, but the details of Imamah were hidden from them.  If it was hidden to them they are excused.

As for my statement, it wasn't directed at what Haydari claimed, it was directed at some of the claims attributed to the scholars, namely "rifts".

ok, So didn't they understand from Quran that Imams are infallible. I mean to them there was no evidence in Quran which proved infallibility.

And the later Shias who try to prove infallibility from Quran, are just fooling the people.

Well they may have even denied the infallibility of the Prophets. And it is also possible that they didn't understand the Verses in the Qur'an which some Shi'a say prove infallibility.

Sometimes the tafsir of the Imams is needed.

Fine. Now lets go down to some classical Shia scholars, do you think they were also unaware of tafseer of Quran done by Imams?

 Grand Shia sheikh sadooq in his book Uyun akhbarul riza- volume 2, page 193

وَفِي حَدِيث آخِرَ: إِنّ الإِمامَ مُؤَيِّد بِرُوحِ القُدُس وَبَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنِ اللَّه عَمُود مِن نُورٍ يَرى‏ فِيهِ أَعمال العِبادِ وَكُلَّما احتاجَ إِلَيْهِ، لِدِلالَةٍ اطلَعَ عَلَيْهِ وَيُبسِطَهُ فَيَعلَمُ وَيُقبَضُ عَنْهُ فَلا يَعْلَمُ.
وَالإمام يُولَدُ وَيَلِدُ، وَيَصِحُّ وَيَمرَضُ، وَيَأْكُلُ وَيَشْرَبُ وَيَبُولُ وَيَتَغَوَّط، وَيَنكِحُ وَيَنامُ وَيَنسى‏ وَيَسهُو، وَيَفرَحُ وَيَحزُنُ، وَيَضحَكُ وَيَبْكي وَيَحْيَى وَيَمُوتُ وَيُقبَرُ وَيَزارُ، وَيُحشَرُ وَيُوقَفُ، وَيُعرَضُ وَيُسأَلُ، وَيُثابُ وَيُكرَمُ، وَيَشفَعُ، وَدَلالَتُه فِي خِصلَتَيْنِ فِي العِلْمُ اِسْتِجابَة الدَّعْوَة وَكُلِّ ما أَخْبَر بِهِ مِنَ الحَوادِث الَّتِي تُحدَثُ قَبْلُ كُونِها فَذلكَ بِعَهْدِ مَعهُود إِلَيْهِ مِن رَسُولَ اللَّهِ‏ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ تَوارَثَهُ وَعَنْ آبائِهِ عَنْهُ‏ عَلَيْهِمُ السَّلاَمُ وَيَكُونُ ذلِكَ مِمَّا عَهِدَ إِلَيْهِ جِبْرَئِيل‏ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مِن عَلاّمِ الغُيُوبِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ.

19-2 In another tradition we read, “The Imam is certified by the Holy Spirit. There is a column of light between him and God through which he sees the deeds of the people. He is informed about what he needs by it. Sometimes that light is shined at him and he gets to know (what he must become aware of). And sometimes it is taken away and thus he will not know (what he needs not know). “The Imam is born. He also has children. He gets ill and he gets cured. He eats and drinks. He urinates and defecates. He gets married. He sleeps.He forgets and he makes mistakes. He gets happy and sad. He laughs and cries. He lives and then dies. He is buried and the people go to visit his shrine. He is resurrected and questioned. He is rewarded and honored. He intercedes. There are two important signs for him: his knowledge and the fulfillment of his prayers. He has heard the news that he gives about the events in the future from his grandfathers from the Prophet of God (s). The Prophet of God (s) has heard them from Gabriel. Gabriel has heard them from the Almighty God.

Shia Shiekh Mufeed states:
إن جميع أنبياء الله – صلوات الله عليهم – معصومون من الكبائر قبل النبوة وبعدها وما يستخف فاعله من الصغائر كلها، وأما ما كان من صغير لا يستخف فاعله فجائز وقوعه منهم قبل النبوة وعلى غير تعمد وممتنع منهم بعدها على كل حال، وهذا مذهب جمهور الإمامية، والمعتزلة بأسرها تخالف فيه.
“All of Allaah’s Prophets are protected against major sins before and after prophethood; and from minor sins that make their doer considered astray. As to the minor sins whose doer is not considered astray, it is possible that they are done by the Prophets before prophethood, as non-deliberate acts, but they do not occur after prophethood in any situation. And this is the madhhab of the majority of Imaamee. And the mu`tazilah people oppose (us) in this.” [“Awael Al-Maqalat fee Al-Mazhab wa Al-Mukhtarat”]

As for Shaykh Al-Saduq, he is reporting a hadith and it is not a statement concerning his belief. But even if we assume that he believes in what reported above, then he is not denying the fact that the Imams (as) are infallible from sin. It is clear Al-Saduq believed in isma, however some might say he had shadh views regarding it that contradict isma (according to some). But as you see, there is no doubt in the isma from sins.

As for Shaykh Al-Mufid's view, this again is a disagreement over the principles of isma. There is no doubt the Shi'a were in debates over isma, just as the Sunnis are still in debates over many aqa'id including Tawheed.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

In order to show the value of what the statements of Murtada and Shahid-Thani, it is as if Christians today admit to Muslims that the majority of early Christians did not view `Isa (as) as God. Similarly, Twelvers admitting that the majority of `Ali's army or the Shia of the first centuries believing Ja`far and co to be knowledgeable scholars is tantamount to saying "Our belief was not common or practiced upon even by our own community" which boosts the common Sunni narrative and makes Twelverism appear like a fabrication.

First of all Shahid Al-Thani's (rah) statement is simply a statement. Shaykh Al-Mohsin debates it here, I would recommend you read:

http://www.almohsin.org/?act=artc&id=329

Secondly, I don't suppose you know that alot of Bani Israel had doubts over Tawheed and Prophethood even whilst in the presence of a Prophet of Allah and witnessing miracles? Just because the majority practice something else that does not mean that the uncommom narrative is incorrect.

[Hani]

In order to show the value of what the statements of Murtada and Shahid-Thani, it is as if Christians today admit to Muslims that the majority of early Christians did not view `Isa (as) as God. Similarly, Twelvers admitting that the majority of `Ali's army or the Shia of the first centuries believing Ja`far and co to be knowledgeable scholars is tantamount to saying "Our belief was not common or practiced upon even by our own community" which boosts the common Sunni narrative and makes Twelverism appear like a fabrication.

First of all Shahid Al-Thani's (rah) statement is simply a statement. Shaykh Al-Mohsin debates it here, I would recommend you read:

http://www.almohsin.org/?act=artc&id=329

Secondly, I don't suppose you know that alot of Bani Israel had doubts over Tawheed and Prophethood even whilst in the presence of a Prophet of Allah and witnessing miracles? Just because the majority practice something else that does not mean that the uncommom narrative is incorrect.

So are the majority of Shia hypocrites like banu Isra'il who saw miracles and never believed them? What kind of efforts did the Imams make to convince these followers?

Secondly, a similar statement is recorded by al-Murtada (who is very well read) saying the early Shia and `Ali's companions, majority of them preferred Abu Bakr and `Umar. (Which means that he wasn't infallible in their views either).

A study of Shia narrations and the behavior of the Imam's companions clearly show this. (That's where Murtada & Shahid Thani got from in the first place) A study of Shia narrations also shows nobody knew the numbers or names of the Imams. (This is another topic but you get the idea, if not I'll quote some)

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

In order to show the value of what the statements of Murtada and Shahid-Thani, it is as if Christians today admit to Muslims that the majority of early Christians did not view `Isa (as) as God. Similarly, Twelvers admitting that the majority of `Ali's army or the Shia of the first centuries believing Ja`far and co to be knowledgeable scholars is tantamount to saying "Our belief was not common or practiced upon even by our own community" which boosts the common Sunni narrative and makes Twelverism appear like a fabrication.

First of all Shahid Al-Thani's (rah) statement is simply a statement. Shaykh Al-Mohsin debates it here, I would recommend you read:

http://www.almohsin.org/?act=artc&id=329

Secondly, I don't suppose you know that alot of Bani Israel had doubts over Tawheed and Prophethood even whilst in the presence of a Prophet of Allah and witnessing miracles? Just because the majority practice something else that does not mean that the uncommom narrative is incorrect.

So are the majority of Shia hypocrites like banu Isra'il who saw miracles and never believed them? What kind of efforts did the Imams make to convince these followers?

Secondly, a similar statement is recorded by al-Murtada (who is very well read) saying the early Shia and `Ali's companions, majority of them preferred Abu Bakr and `Umar. (Which means that he wasn't infallible in their views either).

A study of Shia narrations and the behavior of the Imam's companions clearly show this. (That's where Murtada & Shahid Thani got from in the first place) A study of Shia narrations also shows nobody knew the numbers or names of the Imams. (This is another topic but you get the idea, if not I'll quote some)

The point was if something is uncommon or unpopular that doesn't make it invalid. It is clear that the Imams (as) were practicing taqiyya therefore they didn't announce their infallibility in such a public manner. Therefore this belief was hidden to alot of Shi'a.

[Hani]

The point was if something is uncommon or unpopular that doesn't make it invalid. It is clear that the Imams (as) were practicing taqiyya therefore they didn't announce their infallibility in such a public manner. Therefore this belief was hidden to alot of Shi'a.

Oh I agree, uncommon doesn't mean invalid. Yet, a belief that is common, accepted and practiced among Muslims is often legitimate and A LOT less likely to be FABRICATED than an uncommon, un-accepted and non-practiced belief.

The vast bulk of early Muslims perform prayer, it was and still is common and accepted; most likely prayer is a legitimate and authentic part of Islamic faith.

A small minority of late Muslims believe Mirza Ghulam is a prophet, it was not accepted by early Muslims and uncommon among later Muslims; most likely Ghulam's prophet-hood is not a part of Islamic faith.

So here you have two layers:

A- It is not-accepted by majority of Muslims.

B- It was uncommon in early Shia community.

Therefore, it is VERY likely not part of authentic Islamic-faith.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

The point was if something is uncommon or unpopular that doesn't make it invalid. It is clear that the Imams (as) were practicing taqiyya therefore they didn't announce their infallibility in such a public manner. Therefore this belief was hidden to alot of Shi'a.

Oh I agree, uncommon doesn't mean invalid. Yet, a belief that is common, accepted and practiced among Muslims is often legitimate and A LOT less likely to be FABRICATED than an uncommon, un-accepted and non-practiced belief.

The vast bulk of early Muslims perform prayer, it was and still is common and accepted; most likely prayer is a legitimate and authentic part of Islamic faith.

A small minority of late Muslims believe Mirza Ghulam is a prophet, it was not accepted by early Muslims and uncommon among later Muslims; most likely Ghulam's prophet-hood is not a part of Islamic faith.

So here you have two layers:

A- It is not-accepted by majority of Muslims.

B- It was uncommon in early Shia community.

Therefore, it is VERY likely not part of authentic Islamic-faith.

So if most of the Ummah is wrong that is a strong argument? That makes me think, before Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab popped on the scene (some call him a mujaddid apparently one comes every century or so) it seemed most mainstream Muslims were leaning towards Sufi views. And this is before the strong new Salafi movement gained millions of followers. What if someone, in say, Egypt, made the exact same arguments you make today? How would you reply?

[Hani]

So if most of the Ummah is wrong that is a strong argument? That makes me think, before Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab popped on the scene (some call him a mujaddid apparently one comes every century or so) it seemed most mainstream Muslims were leaning towards Sufi views. And this is before the strong new Salafi movement gained millions of followers. What if someone, in say, Egypt, made the exact same arguments you make today? How would you reply?

It's not that the nation was "sinking in Shirk & innovation" until the savior Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab came to save them. This isn't true at all, it's mostly that Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab was way too strict and his party made Takfir on those who oppose them in anything which led to blood-shed. There were a ton of scholars before and after him that had millions of followers and had sound views and respectable positions.

Regardless, one can still argue that Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab's scenario is still different than the above. In that, the man simply reformed or renewed things that were already widespread and accepted. So, the belief that no partners must be associated with God and no worship should be given to others, is recorded in all early Islamic books, widespread, accepted and practiced by the entirety of the early Muslim community.

This makes what he called for a part of Islamic-faith.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

So if most of the Ummah is wrong that is a strong argument? That makes me think, before Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab popped on the scene (some call him a mujaddid apparently one comes every century or so) it seemed most mainstream Muslims were leaning towards Sufi views. And this is before the strong new Salafi movement gained millions of followers. What if someone, in say, Egypt, made the exact same arguments you make today? How would you reply?

It's not that the nation was "sinking in Shirk & innovation" until the savior Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab came to save them. This isn't true at all, it's mostly that Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab was way too strict and his party made Takfir on those who oppose them in anything which led to blood-shed. There were a ton of scholars before and after him that had millions of followers and had sound views and respectable positions.

Regardless, one can still argue that Ibn `Abdul-Wahhab's scenario is still different than the above. In that, the man simply reformed or renewed things that were already widespread and accepted. So, the belief that no partners must be associated with God and no worship should be given to others, is recorded in all early Islamic books, widespread, accepted and practiced by the entirety of the early Muslim community.

This makes what he called for a part of Islamic-faith.

I would argue similar things, I would say things such as isma were recorded and narrated and are available today in Shi'i hadith corpus. Whether the majority heard of it or not is irrelevant as long as it is clear that it is in our texts.

[Hani]

What's recorded in your texts is that most of them did not believe it, this is reflected by the narrations themselves. This hints that whatever reports you have are later fabrications as they oppose the general condition of the Shia at the time and the vast bulk of Hadiths.

Let me add, you can't claim Tawatur in anything because you don't even have enough books. The main Shia Hadithi sources that are accepted by your scholars aren't much. You basically take 99% of the beliefs from two authors, Kulayni and Saduq, as for Tusi he just quotes from the first two.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Well they may have even denied the infallibility of the Prophets. And it is also possible that they didn't understand the Verses in the Qur'an which some Shi'a say prove infallibility.

Sometimes the tafsir of the Imams is needed.

So please share with us the Tafseer of those verses which Shia use for infallibility from the reliable sayings of Imam.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Well they may have even denied the infallibility of the Prophets. And it is also possible that they didn't understand the Verses in the Qur'an which some Shi'a say prove infallibility.

Sometimes the tafsir of the Imams is needed.

So please share with us the Tafseer of those verses which Shia use for infallibility from the reliable sayings of Imam.

I like this hadith on wilaya:

`Ali b. Ibrahim from his father from ibn Abi `Umayr from `Umar b. Udhayna from Zurara, al-Fudayl b. Yasar, Bukayr b. A`yan, Muhammad b. Muslim, Burayd b. Mu`awiya and Abu’l Jarud together from Abu Ja`far عليه السلام.

He said: The wilaya of `Ali was an order from Allah عز وجل to His messenger, and He revealed upon him, “Verily your guardian is Allah, His messenger, and those who believed – who stand in prayer and give the zakat…” (5:55). And He made the wilaya of the Possessors of the Command (ulu ‘l-amr) obligatory, and they did not understand what it was; so Allah ordered Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله to interpret [and clarify] the wilaya to them, just as he interpreted salat, zakat, sawm, and Hajj. When Allah gave that [order] to him, the chest of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله tightened, and he feared that they would apostatize from their religion and bely him – so his chest tightened. He consulted his Lord عز وجل, so Allah عز وجل inspired to him, “O Messenger, preach what is revealed to you from your Lord. If you do not preach, it will be as though you have not conveyed My Message, and Allah will protect you from the people”. (5:67) So he executed the command of Allah تعالى ذكره and declared the wilaya of `Ali عليه السلام on the day of Ghadeer Khumm. He called for a congregational prayer and commanded the people to bear testimony and inform the absent.

`Umar b. Udhayna said: All except Abu’l Jarud said:

And Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: And an obligation would be revealed after the other, and the wilaya was the final obligation, so Allah عز وجل revealed, “Today I have perfected for you your religion and completed my favour…” (5:3). Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: Allah عز وجل says: I will not reveal to you any obligation after this – I have completed for you the obligations. (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 753)

(hasan) (حسن)

Hadith taken from ShiaChat, translated by a brother on there.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

What's recorded in your texts is that most of them did not believe it, this is reflected by the narrations themselves. This hints that whatever reports you have are later fabrications as they oppose the general condition of the Shia at the time and the vast bulk of Hadiths.

Let me add, you can't claim Tawatur in anything because you don't even have enough books. The main Shia Hadithi sources that are accepted by your scholars aren't much. You basically take 99% of the beliefs from two authors, Kulayni and Saduq, as for Tusi he just quotes from the first two.

So you forget about our usool then?

[Hani]

I like this hadith on wilaya

And Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: And an obligation would be revealed after the other, and the wilaya was the final obligation, so Allah عز وجل revealed, “Today I have perfected for you your religion and completed my favour…”

You know what the issue is with narrations like this one? Forget about chains and whatnot, this is saying that `Ali's Wilayah (leadership) was revealed as the last order from God (this event was in the final days).

To your average Shia, this isn't an issue... until you show him the PLENTIFUL narrations found in his own books where the Prophet (saw) announces `Ali's Wilayah BEFORE this event took place.

This causes two issues:

A- The verse would make no sense {If you do not announce then you have not delivered} since he announced it countless times before.

B- The statement attributed to aba Ja`far "Wilayah was the last revealed obligation" this means that all those tens/hundreds of narrations before it where the Wilayah was revealed and announced are lies. (Which casts doubts on the reliability of all these narrators in the first place).

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I like this hadith on wilaya

And Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: And an obligation would be revealed after the other, and the wilaya was the final obligation, so Allah عز وجل revealed, “Today I have perfected for you your religion and completed my favour…”

You know what the issue is with narrations like this one? Forget about chains and whatnot, this is saying that `Ali's Wilayah (leadership) was revealed as the last order from God (this event was in the final days).

To your average Shia, this isn't an issue... until you show him the PLENTIFUL narrations found in his own books where the Prophet (saw) announces `Ali's Wilayah BEFORE this event took place.

This causes two issues:

A- The verse would make no sense {If you do not announce then you have not delivered} since he announced it countless times before.

B- The statement attributed to aba Ja`far "Wilayah was the last revealed obligation" this means that all those tens/hundreds of narrations before it where the Wilayah was revealed and announced are lies. (Which casts doubts on the reliability of all these narrators in the first place).

I don't agree. It could simply that this was the day that wilaya was announced as a faridha to the people, and before that it was not a faridha.

If you read the start of the hadith, it already implies that the wilaya of Ameer Al-Mu'mineen was confirmed by Allah through the Qur'an : Ayah 5:5

[Hani]

I don't agree. It could simply that this was the day that wilaya was announced as a faridha to the people, and before that it was not a faridha.

If you read the start of the hadith, it already implies that the wilaya of Ameer Al-Mu'mineen was confirmed by Allah through the Qur'an : Ayah 5:5

Illogical, how is the first time the Prophet (saw) said: "Your leader after me is `Ali" this wasn't a Faridhah but the second time it suddenly became Faridah?

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I don't agree. It could simply that this was the day that wilaya was announced as a faridha to the people, and before that it was not a faridha.

If you read the start of the hadith, it already implies that the wilaya of Ameer Al-Mu'mineen was confirmed by Allah through the Qur'an : Ayah 5:5

Illogical, how is the first time the Prophet (saw) said: "Your leader after me is `Ali" this wasn't a Faridhah but the second time it suddenly became Faridah?

After re-reading the hadith, it makes sense to me and I believe it may answer your question. The bold part is where I think your question is answered:


He said: The wilaya of `Ali was an order from Allah عز وجل to His messenger, and He revealed upon him, “Verily your guardian is Allah, His messenger, and those who believed – who stand in prayer and give the zakat…” (5:55). And He made the wilaya of the Possessors of the Command (ulu ‘l-amr) obligatory, and they did not understand what it was; so Allah ordered Muhammad صلى الله عليه وآله to interpret [and clarify] the wilaya to them,  just as he interpreted salat, zakat, sawm, and Hajj. When Allah gave that [order] to him, the chest of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله tightened, and he feared that they would apostatize from their religion and bely him – so his chest tightened.

[Hani]

The Hadith is saying, God revealed the Wilayah which is this verse:

{“Verily your guardian is Allah, His messenger, and those who believed – who stand in prayer and give the zakat…” (5:55)}

He made the Wilaya of the Possessors of the Command (Ulu ‘l-amr) obligatory through it BUT Then it says:

And they did not understand what it was so God asked him to clarify that this was regarding `Ali.

This means, a vague verse was revealed which needed explanation since `Ali's name was nowhere in sight. So this happens:

"When Allah gave that [order] to him, the chest of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله tightened, and he feared that they would apostatize from their religion and bely him"

This means, he knew the moment he would tell them that this verse was regarding political authority and that it was referring to `Ali, they'd be outraged.

This to me still solves nothing from the objection because:

A- Many events took place years before the above-mentioned verses where Wilayah was revealed. (Things were thus revealed after it by consensus so there's a contradiction when they say it was the last duty revealed)

B- The Wilayah was clarified in many events before the above-mentioned scenario. (Therefore, it should have been already clear and not tied to a random verse)

I mean let me give you a sample,

 يزيد بن قعنب قال: كنت جالساً مع العباس بن عبد المطلب رضي الله عنه وفريق من بني عبد العزى بإزاء بيت الله الحرام إذ أقبلت فاطمة بنت أسد ... قال يزيد بن قعنب: فرأيت البيت قد انشق عن ظهره ودخلت فاطمة فيه وغابت عن أبصارنا ... وكان صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم يلي أكثر تربيته، وكان يطهر علياً في وقت غسله، ويوجره اللبن عند شربه، ويحرك مهده عند نومه، ويناغيه في يقظته، ويحمله على صدره ورقبته، ويقول: هذا أخي وولي وناصري، وصفي، وذخري، وكهفي، ومهري، ووصيي، وزوج كريمتي، وأميني على وصيتي، وخليفتي

This is Yazid sitting with a group of Arabs before prophet-hood, he narrates to people how Bint Asad gave birth and how the Prophet (saw) used to hold him all the time and describe him as his Khalifah, his Wali-ul-Amr and his Wasi.

Again, this is BEFORE prophet-hood, the books are filled with such material.

And in early prophet-hood you have material like this,

رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم دعا بني عبد المطلب وهم يومئذٍ أربعون رجلاً، فيهم أعمامه: أبو طالب، وحمزة، والعباس، وأبو لهب، وكان قد أولَم لهم، وبعد أن أكلوا وشربوا،قال: يا بني عبد المطلب، إني قد جئتكم بخير الدنيا والآخرة، وقد أمرني الله أن أدعوكم إليه، فمن يجيبني إلىهذا الأمر ويؤازرني يكن أخي ووزيري ووصيي ووارثي وخليفتي من بعدي؟ فأحجم القوم جميعاً إلا علياً قال:أنا يا نبي الله، فأخذ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم برقبته، وقال: هذا أخي ووزيري ووصيي ووارثي وخليفتي من بعدي، فاسمعوا له وأطيعوا

Casual Companions narrating that the Prophet (saw) invited his family and ordered them to obey `Ali as he described him as his Wasi, his Wazir and his Khalifah after him. These people didn't even believe in Muhammad (saw) let alone `Ali.

Without prolonging, I wish to ask: How clear are such public announcements? Doesn't seem like Wilayah was the final order, seems like a it was a habit for him to announce `Ali's Wilayah regularly.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Well they may have even denied the infallibility of the Prophets. And it is also possible that they didn't understand the Verses in the Qur'an which some Shi'a say prove infallibility.

Sometimes the tafsir of the Imams is needed.

So please share with us the Tafseer of those verses which Shia use for infallibility from the reliable sayings of Imam.

I like this hadith on wilaya:

Brother, please pay attention to the request I made, since our discussion was revolving around infallibility and that many close Shia narrators around the Imams didn't believe in infallibility, nor did they believe that the verses of Quran proves infallibility of Imams, hence I asked you for Tafseer of Imam from reliable source which explains the verse of Quran which Shia use for infallibility, where in we find Shia Imam explains that verse to mean his infallibility.

So please quote me such a tafseer.