Theory of why God didn't explicitly name or designate Imams in clearest manner.

[Link]

Salam

I have some hypothesis reasons.

One reason can be that it exposes the jibt and taghut to believers in a better manner. While the Jibt and Taghut would have acknowledged Ali and the Imams, and there would be a no distinguishing line from the followers of the Jibt and Taghut and those who know the truth of Quran and are sincere to it, from the people of the Quran.  Today among Shiites, there is little distinguishing line because people don't reflect about what Quran says about leaders and great men followed that are not chosen by God.  So I would not have known probably if I didn't exercise my mind to reflection.



Another reason can be that Quran opens many doors for knowledge if people begin to reflect and let it interpret itself,  again, if he made the issue of succession explicit, people might argue that none of its implicit doors, doors that are open through unlocking themes and verses with respect to other verses are important.

Another reason might be that God doesn't want Quran to be just an issue Muslims feel it guides them but addresses all humans and attempts to guide people, that is why general concepts make more sense, link to the past to the present to the future theme makes more sense. In other words just as a non-Muslim is supposed to see the arguments in Quran, the same should be expected of Muslims.  It is not that blindness to Muslims is allowed and they need "clear designation" while non-Muslims are expected to see the reasoning of Quran.

Another reason can be that with just a little reflection by the mind and little reverence of God by the heart, everything in Quran comes together in clearest manner, and every verse begins to have a purpose and the implicit way it is shown because a testimony that it is the words of God and not of a human trying to make a theocratic monarchy or anything like that.

[Khaled]

Salam

I have some hypothesis reasons...

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

I think there are a lot of problems with your hypothesis, but I will highlight two.

Firstly, lets say I made the claim that I was the Mehdi and that the Qur'an testifies to this.  Then I quote verses that say "khalideen feeha" as evidence.  You will, rightly, claim that these verses have nothing to do with me and that my argument isn't very convincing.  I'll reply that you are just simply deluded by jinns and demons and you aren't seeing the hidden message in the Qur'an; that I'm the Mehdi.  You then ask me why Allah didn't just directly mention this instead of in this hidden way, and my response will be your post.  Notice how unconvincing this whole exchange was.

Secondly, the whole problem lies in the fact that Qur'an claims it is clear and has "tafseel" of every thing.  The Qur'an orders the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم to declare his message and not be scared of what might happen.  The Qur'an clearly instructs us to follow it is clear verses and leave off the ambiguous verses, which are meant to be read in light of the clear verses, i.e. the ones we don't disagree on.  Since the Imamah is not mentioned in the Qur'an clearly, then we cannot take an ambiguous verse about it and look for clear verses to support our case; because NONE exist.

I hope I made my second point clear, and I hope you address it إن شاء الله

[Link]

Salam

One of the most emphasized teachings in Quran, is for a people who become certain, the signs that God shows them is enough.  They grow in the certainty of course, but signs that should make them have faith, do so, and signs that should make them certain do so.

As for your first point, I am not saying Imammate is not clear in Quran nor that it can't be proven directly from it, but that why is not designated in the same way.

As for your second point, I think you misunderstand the issue of clear firm signs and unclear. Nothing in Quran is ambiguous in itself,  somethings unclear to person A maybe unclear to person B while somethings to person B maybe clear but unclear to person A.

That is nature of a book that contains all information pertaining to the guidance of humanity, which has no end.  Mohammad is the highest sky, so whatever knowledge he increases in, the rope of God connects to that, and the book of God hence contains knowledge that is yet not known but to God.

Of course there is some degrees of knowledge that ignorance of it is forgiven, but there is a level that on most humans, that they must reflect and reach.

Imammate is certainly a deep subject with many layers of understanding, but at least, people should disbelieve in Taghut and believe in the Authority of God designated to his chosen ones. The issue of succession in chosen families of the founders has been emphasized in a clear decisive manner.

My statement is not that it's not clear or manifest, it is more on the lines explaining the reason why it's not explicit in the sense Sunnis want it to be.

And in that sense going back to the first point, disbelievers are never sastified with the proofs presented. They always raise the bar. So whatever clarity there is, it would only cause more disbelief and more severe level of it.

That is because what is sufficient proof should suffice the truth seeker provided he truly is seeking the truth. And there is ample evidence for Ali and Imams both in Quran and Sunnah.

[Khaled]

Salam

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته

One of the most emphasized teachings in Quran, is for a people who become certain, the signs that God shows them is enough.  They grow in the certainty of course, but signs that should make them have faith, do so, and signs that should make them certain do so.

Agree wholeheartedly.

As for your first point, I am not saying Imammate is not clear in Quran nor that it can't be proven directly from it, but that why is not designated in the same way.

I'm not really sure you have properly responded to my first point.  My first point is that I claim I'm the Mehdi and that the Qur'an testifies to this, it even says my name in several places.  The reason it wasn't stated outright was because *insert your OP*.

The point I'm making is ANYTHING can be justified this way.  I personally believe ayah (40:46) is speaking about the Punishment of the Grave.  Let's say you deny it, can I truly now say you are misguided because "signs in the Qur'an should be enough?"  It's not a convincing argument, rather, merely a cop out.  That's an ambiguous verse because multiple interpretation can made of it; either I a) support my argument with a clear Qur'anic verse, or b) convince you that the ahadeeth I'm using to interpret these verses are accurate.  Since we disagree on b), we should then stick to a); especially if the goal is to follow the "themes" of the Qur'an.

As for your second point, I think you misunderstand the issue of clear firm signs and unclear. Nothing in Quran is ambiguous in itself,  somethings unclear to person A maybe unclear to person B while somethings to person B maybe clear but unclear to person A.

Incorrect, when we have a disagreement on the meaning of a verse, that makes it ambiguous and requires a clear verse to explain it.  What's even more problematic, is that, for the exception of (42:23), I don't believe any of the ayat Shi'as bring as evidence for Imamah are even possible to interpret as such.  As for (42:23), the only problematic issues is that there are some Companions who understood that verse as "loving my family."  Personally, I don't think the Arabic helps that interpretations, but that's another time and place.

Imammate is certainly a deep subject with many layers of understanding, but at least, people should disbelieve in Taghut and believe in the Authority of God designated to his chosen ones.

My copy of the Qur'an says we should disbelieve in Taghut and believe in Allah, and whoever does so "then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break."

The issue of succession in chosen families of the founders has been emphasized in a clear decisive manner.

My statement is not that it's not clear or manifest, it is more on the lines explaining the reason why it's not explicit in the sense Sunnis want it to be.

It's not explicit in the sense ANY non-Shi'i would want it to be.  I would argue, that there is NO way a person who does not already believe in Shi'asm could read the Qur'an and come away with ANY sort of understanding of Imamah, any emphasis on the the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's family (except maybe his wives), that there are infallible non-Prophets, nor would they understand that the Muslim Ummah must be ruled by an infallible leader.

And in that sense going back to the first point, disbelievers are never sastified with the proofs presented. They always raise the bar. So whatever clarity there is, it would only cause more disbelief and more severe level of it.

I'm not a disbeliever بارك الله فيك.  I am sincere seeker of truth who loves Allah, His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم and the believer that's proceeded me in faith.  The fact that you always resort to this line of reasoning, as well as accusing anyone you're debating with of being possessed, shows just how weak your line or reasoning is.

That is because what is sufficient proof should suffice the truth seeker provided he truly is seeking the truth. And there is ample evidence for Ali and Imams both in Quran and Sunnah.

Don't agree, that's why we are having this discussing, and that's why you opened up this thread.  There isn't explicit evidence by your own admission, therefore, you can't use ambiguous verses to prove your belief; especially if this is an issue of Usool al-Din, since the clear verses are the "umm" or the "usool" or the "foundations" for the ambiguous verses.

[Hani]

Link, can you show us the example of a single person in the history of mankind, who is not a Twelver Shia, who read the Qur'an then deduced from it that God appointed 12 infallible leaders to lead Muslims after Muhammad (saw).

JUST ONE WOULD BE ENOUGH.

I add, if you cannot provide ONE example. Please tell us, what is the significance of this failure to find ONE person in mankind's entire history.

[muslim720]

Theory?  It is a necessity for Imamat to be explicitly mentioned if we are to be held accountable for believing or not believing in it.  Theory, HA!

[Link]

Salam

Khaled, I think I need to clarify. What I meant is the clearest manner in the way Sunnis advocate, of course, there is no doubt in my mind God could have been more clear and explicit. I do believe Imammate is in Quran in a clear enough manner, and that is why I stated for the truth seeker clear enough indications are enough while for the opposer, it doesn't matter, they will find reasons to disbelieve. We agreed on that.

As for disagreements making a verse unclear, I disagree, clarity and unclearness is subjective, the Quran says "nay it is clear signs in the hearts of those who possess knowledge" and talked about the trial of what Iblis suggests and casts regarding the desire of each Prophet, thereby some going astray and having hard hearts, and some believing.

If you reflect, things that are unclear to others will become clear to you. Still, there are things clear to others due to their reflection unclear to you. It doesn't make unclear merely because not everyone understands proofs and clear signs of Quran.

@Hani, Quran reminds people thought there would be no trial in the past and their hearts became blind, and it was due to breaking a covenant regarding their Messengers and Leaders, mainly the Twelve Successors of their founding Captain and Navigator.  I don't really understand too much of the nature of how people become so utterly blind to clear things in Quran, but I know there is SIHR in this world and WASWAS takes on forms of locks, it seeks to keep you from reflecting properly.

I don't know how I easily defeat these locks now, but part of maybe, because I realized I was possessed by demons and sorcery on me, was another level so much so it made me insane, that I had no choice, but to fight to restore my sanity and health.

[Khaled]

Salam

Khaled, I think I need to clarify. What I meant is the clearest manner in the way Sunnis advocate, of course, there is no doubt in my mind God could have been more clear and explicit. I do believe Imammate is in Quran in a clear enough manner, and that is why I stated for the truth seeker clear enough indications are enough while for the opposer, it doesn't matter, they will find reasons to disbelieve. We agreed on that.

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

I'm real confused by your post.  The "clearest manner" in a way Sunnis advocate?  It is the way ANY one reading the Qur'an that doesn't already believe in Imamate would advocate.  The level of clarity for it to be the foundation of your faith has to be beyond doubt; or else the Qur'an is NOT clear.  For example, I make the claim that belief in Allah, angels, scriptures, prophets, the Day of Judgement, Heaven and Hell, are all fundamental beliefs in Islam and whoever doesn't believe in these things is not a believer.  Now imagine if there wasn't a SINGLE muhkam verse to support this view.  Imagine if every time I was asked for evidence, I'd say "well you don't understand it because you want to disbelieve" "you are possessed by Jin" "You worship the Taghut."  The reality is, if you are reading the Qur'an attentively, you don't need knowledge of hadeeth, tafseer, or the Arabic language to find these fundamentals of faith.  The claim I make, is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe in Imamah if you don't already believe in it, and then look for it in the Qur'an.

As for disagreements making a verse unclear, I disagree, clarity and unclearness is subjective, the Quran says "nay it is clear signs in the hearts of those who possess knowledge" and talked about the trial of what Iblis suggests and casts regarding the desire of each Prophet, thereby some going astray and having hard hearts, and some believing.

That still doesn't change the the Qur'an tells us to return the unclear verses back to the clear ones.  I don't need to convince anyone of the articles of faith I mentioned earlier, because they are so clear in the Qur'an, no two people can disagree with it. The "evidence" used to support Imamah is without a doubt, mutashabih/unclear at best.  I repeat, there is no way you can read the ayat Shi'as use as proof without preconceived notions and come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as Imamah in Islam.   However, almost all the articles of faith I mentioned can be found in the first two pages of the Qur'an!  And they are not even full pages!

If you reflect, things that are unclear to others will become clear to you. Still, there are things clear to others due to their reflection unclear to you. It doesn't make unclear merely because not everyone understands proofs and clear signs of Quran.

If something is clear to me and its unclear to another Muslim, then it is not a foundations of faith, and the evidence I use is not muhkam, no matter what it may seem to me.  Another Muslim won't disagree with me about belief in Allah, angels, scriptures, prophets, Last Day etc.  But they will disagree about the Names and Attributes, Punishment of the Grave, Dajjal and other non-fundamental issues.  Therefore, belief in Punishment of the Grave CANNOT be an Asl of the Deen because there aren't any muhkam verses to support that belief, no matter how clear it may appear to me.

@Hani, Quran reminds people thought there would be no trial in the past and their hearts became blind, and it was due to breaking a covenant regarding their Messengers and Leaders, mainly the Twelve Successors of their founding Captain and Navigator.  I don't really understand too much of the nature of how people become so utterly blind to clear things in Quran, but I know there is SIHR in this world and WASWAS takes on forms of locks, it seeks to keep you from reflecting properly.

I don't know how I easily defeat these locks now, but part of maybe, because I realized I was possessed by demons and sorcery on me, was another level so much so it made me insane, that I had no choice, but to fight to restore my sanity and health.

Brother, the problem with your argument here is it is seems as if you think EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH is blind to what you seem to see in the Qur'an.  Even the greatest Shi'i scholars of all-time don't understand the concept of Imamah like you.  I say, and I mean in this in all sincerity, that you've misguided yourself.  That instead of just taking the Qur'an for what it is and understanding what its trying to tell you directly; you're trying to by pass that and look at the hidden meanings when its clear you haven't reflected on the apparent meanings first.

[Link]

Salam

Anyone can make up their own rules and conjecture about it.

Most religions believe in Prophets but not on reasoning Quran proves Prophets or else they would reject the Taghut and believe in the current guidance of God based on proofs.

As for belief in Prophets, there is clear explanation to that, yet most Muslims despite what Quran says don't believe all Prophets came with scriptures from God.

Most scholars including Sunni and Shiites, believe most Prophets despite the way they are defined by Quran don't have holy books and that only a few of them had books.

So I don't think majority of Muslims actually believe in Prophets, they believe in divinely appointed leaders without revelation, call them Prophets, and then deny the need of that with sealing revelation with respect to Mohammad.

That is called contradiction at a fundamental level of belief, to advocate a need of something and then advocate the ending of it.

See my thread about how belief in a degree of Tahreef can be kufr for more details on this subject.

[Khaled]

Most scholars including Sunni and Shiites, believe most Prophets despite the way they are defined by Quran don't have holy books and that only a few of them had books.

So I don't think majority of Muslims actually believe in Prophets, they believe in divinely appointed leaders without revelation, call them Prophets, and then deny the need of that with sealing revelation with respect to Mohammad.

*sigh* unfortunately you ignored all my points and just started a new discussion.  خير إن شاء الله.

The fact that you make takfeer of the overwhelming majority of Muslims because they have a different understanding than you (which you don't understand apparently) just shows the level of misguidance you have reach, with all due respect.  ALL Muslims believe all Prophets have scriptures, they just don't all necessarily believe they always brought new ones.  A Prophet can preach from a previous scripture without getting new scriptures; just like he can preach from a previous sharee'ah without introducing a new one.

Now, can you please address at least one point I made in my previous post?  بارك الله فيك

[Link]

Most scholars including Sunni and Shiites, believe most Prophets despite the way they are defined by Quran don't have holy books and that only a few of them had books.

So I don't think majority of Muslims actually believe in Prophets, they believe in divinely appointed leaders without revelation, call them Prophets, and then deny the need of that with sealing revelation with respect to Mohammad.

*sigh* unfortunately you ignored all my points and just started a new discussion.  خير إن شاء الله.

The fact that you make takfeer of the overwhelming majority of Muslims because they have a different understanding than you (which you don't understand apparently) just shows the level of misguidance you have reach, with all due respect.  ALL Muslims believe all Prophets have scriptures, they just don't all necessarily believe they always brought new ones.  A Prophet can preach from a previous scripture without getting new scriptures; just like he can preach from a previous sharee'ah without introducing a new one.

Now, can you please address at least one point I made in my previous post?  بارك الله فيك

I addressed it. Prophethood which is defined in Quran is not properly believed in by most people.  So according to you, belief in Prophet is ambiguous.

If it doesn't matter what Prophets real roles are, than the same can be said about Ulil-Amr. We all believe in Ulil-Amr in Quran, but what role they really play we differ on, and who they are we differ on.

But we know the disagreement on Ulil-Amr is fundamental, and I argue belief in Prophets role with respect to revealing scriptures and being leaders who guide by God's command is fundamental to understanding the Seal of Prophethood, the protection of Quran and the belief in Ulil-Amr.

But it's not my fault you don't digest my points. Not everything can be blamed on the conveyer, sometimes no matter how numerous, the receivers are the problem. They don't want to digest information.

So now that Prophethood and belief in that by your terms is ambiguous, let us discuss the proofs for Prophethood? Is that ambiguous to or clear? Because I believe once you find the proofs for them you will see the same proofs were advocating family of Mohammad as true Leaders, Kings, Captains, Witnesses, Guides, and Navigators!

[Khaled]

I addressed it. Prophethood which is defined in Quran is not properly believed in by most people.  So according to you, belief in Prophet is ambiguous.

Not its not, it is clear-cut without a shadow of a doubt.  However, we can disagree about roles they may play.  We all agree that they are the ultimate authority of all things religion according to the Qur'an.  Wether they had scriptures or sharee'ah is irrelevant and doesn't change their authority in the slightest.  Since whether or not each prophet brought a new scripture in the Qur'an is mutashabih, and there are no muhkam verses to return the matter back to, then it becomes just like the concept of Imamah, something that cannot be a fundamental element of the religion according to the Qur'an (3:5)

If it doesn't matter what Prophets real roles are, than the same can be said about Ulil-Amr. We all believe in Ulil-Amr in Quran, but what role they really play we differ on, and who they are we differ on.

We disagree not only on the role they play, but we disagree on whether they are infallible or not, and whether they have authority in all things religion.  Therefore, since this verse is ambiguous, we need to return it back to a muhkam verse.  Since there is no muhkam verse, then...

But we know the disagreement on Ulil-Amr is fundamental, and I argue belief in Prophets role with respect to revealing scriptures and being leaders who guide by God's command is fundamental to understanding the Seal of Prophethood, the protection of Quran and the belief in Ulil-Amr.

Yet all Muslims belief that they are unequivocal leaders who guide by God's command, you are just now accusing mainstream Muslims of kufr without any actual evidence to support your view.  Nothing new honestly.

But it's not my fault you don't digest my points. Not everything can be blamed on the conveyer, sometimes no matter how numerous, the receivers are the problem. They don't want to digest information.

Ironic, considering I address everything you say point by point, while you just gloss over my posts and start a new topic every time you reply.

So now that Prophethood and belief in that by your terms is ambiguous, let us discuss the proofs for Prophethood? Is that ambiguous to or clear? Because I believe once you find the proofs for them you will see the same proofs were advocating family of Mohammad as true Leaders, Kings, Captains, Witnesses, Guides, and Navigators!

Belief in Prophethood is definitely not ambiguous by any stretch of the imagination, and whoever doesn't believe in it is a kafir.  Evidence for Prophethood and that they rule by God's command is clear cut in the Qur'an through muhkam verses.  Belief in some aspects of Prophethood (such as if there is a difference between a Messenger and a Prophet, does each Prophet bring new scripture/sharee'ah etc) ARE ambiguous, and therefore not a foundation of faith according to (3:5).

[Link]

Khaled, the way you define Prophethood is the same way I defined Imammate.  If Imammate is proven to be continuous need of humans, than it is kufr to believe in that in the past, but not in the future.

And there is clear verses defining scriptures revealed to be a role of all those who were sent in the past. It says in Suratal Nahl "with scriptures..." and before that stated, "We did not send before you except men who revealed to...." and there other verses explaining this.

The truth is the only reason why Sunnis didn't advocate this, is because of their desires to do away with divine leadership of the family of Mohammad to be defined the same way as Prophethood defined by them.

And the only reason Shiites didn't see this is because of their cowardly weak stance they take with regards to Sunnis, not realizing their enemies and the most fundamental enemies of God, the Quran and Ahlulbayt (as) and so they cave in to too many Sunni views out there. And that is one reason and the other is because there are deceivers among us, that won in propaganda.

[Khaled]

Khaled, the way you define Prophethood is the same way I defined Imammate.  If Imammate is proven to be continuous need of humans, than it is kufr to believe in that in the past, but not in the future.

So we can take two things from this; you define Imamate the same way mainstream Muslims define Prophethood.  And you believe that it has been proved that we need a continuous need for Imamate.  I say, there is no evidence WHATSOEVER for any kind of need for imamate, let a lone continuous need for it.  Therefore, since you are making this positive claim, you need to prove it, while all I need to do is deny it.

And there is clear verses defining scriptures revealed to be a role of all those who were sent in the past. It says in Suratal Nahl "with scriptures..." and before that stated, "We did not send before you except men who revealed to...." and there other verses explaining this.

Scriptures don't have to be new ones.

The truth is the only reason why Sunnis didn't advocate this, is because of their desires to do away with divine leadership of the family of Mohammad to be defined the same way as Prophethood defined by them.

The entire Muslim (non-Shi'i world) did this?  I'm really amazed by your imagination.  Muslims don't believe in divine leadership for them to define it like Prophethood.

And the only reason Shiites didn't see this is because of their cowardly weak stance they take with regards to Sunnis, not realizing their enemies and the most fundamental enemies of God, the Quran and Ahlulbayt (as) and so they cave in to too many Sunni views out there. And that is one reason and the other is because there are deceivers among us, that won in propaganda.

May Allah forgive you, you have really gone off the deep end

[Link]

I say, there is no evidence WHATSOEVER for any kind of need for imamate, let a lone continuous need for it.

Since our definition of Imammate and Prophethood is the same you are essentially saying there is no need of Prophethood in the first place.  Start reflecting and digesting than output or else it is an endless debate.

And even if both of us define them differently, the fact is all Prophets were leaders as well, and you are saying their leadership was not needed in the past.

Therefore, since you are making this positive claim, you need to prove it, while all I need to do is deny it.

False, I don't need to prove it when according to Quran, the conveying of the proof is upon him, as is the proof, as is the showing way, as is the guidance, as is creating and choosing leaders for us.

But I have shown this multiple times in multiple threads.

Scriptures don't have to be new ones.

If you read the nature of the Surahs in Quran, they are snap shots in time, while apply to all times, they are snapshots of time context place. The same is true of all revelations in the past and the nature of scripture.

They are never just bringing exact same words of a revelation in the past. That is stupid to believe about God frankly and doing so is just showing how weak the position of your has become.

[Khaled]

Since our definition of Imammate and Prophethood is the same you are essentially saying there is no need of Prophethood in the first place.  Start reflecting and digesting than output or else it is an endless debate.

Disagree, I believe we need Prophethood since Prophets teach what God wants from us.  This is unlike an Imam, who teaches us about God after we have already believed in his Prophet.  I don't believe there is a reason for an infallible Imam, nor do I believe there is any evidence for in the Qur'an.  On the other hand, I do believe we need a Prophet and I believe the evidence for it is crystal-clear in the Qur'an.  Do you see the difference?

And even if both of us define them differently, the fact is all Prophets were leaders as well, and you are saying their leadership was not needed in the past.

I am definitely not saying that nor did I imply it.  And I will reiterate; ALL MUSLIMS believe that the Prophets were rules who ruled by God's command and that we need them.  The belief for an Imam AFTER the Prophet is where you and I disagree.  You need to prove that, you don't need to prove that Prophets were leaders.  ALL MUSLIMS agree with that despite your claim.

False, I don't need to prove it when according to Quran, the conveying of the proof is upon him, as is the proof, as is the showing way, as is the guidance, as is creating and choosing leaders for us.

But I have shown this multiple times in multiple threads.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here, let alone how you showed it in multiple threads...

If you read the nature of the Surahs in Quran, they are snap shots in time, while apply to all times, they are snapshots of time context place. The same is true of all revelations in the past and the nature of scripture.

They are never just bringing exact same words of a revelation in the past. That is stupid to believe about God frankly and doing so is just showing how weak the position of your has become.

I never claimed that they bring the same exam words of revelation in the past.  Where did I say that?  I say not every Prophet has to bring new scriptures; he could be preaching from the same ones that came before him.  Try to understand what people are saying to you before you respond and accuse others of kufr

[Link]

1. No I don't see the difference in the way you are defining it.

2. A contradiction...you believe we need leaders from God and than believe we don't need leaders from God. It is rather upon you to show why the exception.  Otherwise all the same reasoning proving Messengers and that they were sent to be obeyed by God's permission proves Ulil-Amr and exactly who they are.

3. There are many proofs in Quran and Sunnah. But I am not going to bring all these proofs in this thread.

4. Then you are defining them with the same role of Leaders from God as Shiites define Imams.  And we are back to square one.

[Link]

I believe Messengers had these components.

Revelation from God in form of scripture.
Leadership.
Conveyance of God's Authority and establishing it.
Associates of Navigators in their cause, successors/predecessors.
Being Signs and Names of God.
Witnesses to humans.
Lights in darkness.

The Quran with respect to Resalah says when "Amrallah" came, all the time. So when Authority of God was established, through clear conveying of the proof.

And God to prove the need of Messengers says "it is upon God to provide conveying proof" .

But what is that proof and what is the purpose, "so we follow God's Ayat".

All these roles were emphasized.

When sealing Prophethood, there is no more scripture. This is a huge thing. We all have to understand and explain, why all this emphasis on Prophets but than make it end.

And it's all about unity and uniting people on the truth and rope of God.

The rope of God is always a leader coupled with a recitation from him. Only we know no more recitations.

So the Quran is different in that in must guide in all places and times to the end of day of judgement.

But does this ending do away with Leadership, does it do away with Captains navigating towards justice, does it do away with need of a group that convey and explain eloquently the words of their founders due a knot they had on their tongue due to propaganda from ignorance by people?

All this cannot be done away with.    Does a door from other than God become the means to God now?

Does all of sudden we don't need chosen Kings from God because God is not the true King because he sealed revelations.


My way is consistent. The reason for ending revelations is because it is all moving to the climax, mainly the Mahdi, from Ahlulbayt of Mohammad and Ali.

Fatima's grandson promised by the Prophet.

This is the purpose, so Prophet is obeyed, so Prophet is the judge the ruler, the leader who brings us forth from darkness, this is the purpose of successors and why Wilayah of Ali is so important.

Because in ending revelation,  obedience to the Prophet was the purpose, and so if you read Ulil-Amr and other verses all in context of proving ISlam and what Islam is, then it is clear.

And the context of Ulil-Amr is about religious leadership, the false and the true, the family of Abraham vd clergy of Jews and Christians, it is clear, and they are the envied people in 4:54 with no shadow of a doubt.

But you don't see the contradiction you can't end leadership, but you can end revelations only because the Quran is still here and hasn't dissapppeared, if it did, then believing end of Prophethood would be kufr.