Musa Al Kazhim didn't actively proclaim the Imamate while Abdullah was alive (as far as I know), so asking him would have been of little consequence. And you are right, Imamate is the foundation of Shia belief, but I do have a question. Sunnis believe that the Shia Imams were righteous people and that we rawafid have attributed lies to them, right? If you believe that people such as Musa Al Kazhim were righteous, why do you think he never denied the Imamate, why did he never criticize people for making such mistakes, why didn't he tell people to stop attributing such things to him, etc.? And if he did, please show me.
Youre missing a point here, instead of asking whether Musa denied shia claim or not, first you should ask this. If Musa was a righteous and divine religious guide for the ummah, do you think he would let the majority of his best followers, the scholars & respected shia including his own brother to do something which was blasphemous according to shia belief? It doesnt make sense.
As for Sunni, it does make sense, because him & his father didnt believe in that, so:
- anyone can choose themselves no divine intervention, in this case the majority followed Abdullah
- musa didn't have to tell shia to follow him
- abdullah didn't have to tell those who follow him to follow his brother instead
- ja'far didnt have to tell his shia to follow Musa
- etc
But from a shia perspective, everything is one big pile of mess and confusion one after another since Ali RA’s death. Now youve added another excuse or reason (if you prefer that word), "musa didn't actively proclaim his imamah"
These are your previous reasons:
- they didn't know Abdullah was a fasiq, greedy, liar
- he was the eldest son
- there was no nass
and now musa didn't actively proclaim his imamah
It means:
- jafar also didn't actively tell his shia to follow musa after him
- other ja'far children couldn't care less or didnt know about it
- etc
I'm not giving them excuses, I'm just trying to explain what they did. I don't believe their were either righteous or unrighteous, I don't know enough to make such a judgment. The Sunni Sahabah, though, I do believe were unrighteous. But if it can be proven otherwise, I will change my views. I just asked a brother for evidence of Aisha's repentance, for example, on another thread.
Of course you wont say majority of shia scholars were blasphemous by following a greedy, liar imam, it will look bad on shia belief if even imam knowledgeable companion were clueless & misguided.
Its amazing how its so easy for shia to believe Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam companions (who have fought for him with their reputation, wealth & blood since the very beginning such as Abu Bakar & Umar) were misguided and yet go the extra mile to protect Jafar companions whom you yourself said followed a fasiq, greedy & liar imam. Allah didn't praise Ja'far companion, but muhajirin remember?
If somebody followed Abdullah when they knew that Musa Al Kazhim was the Imam, then I will certainly blame
them. But Abdullah *was* a greedy liar as far as I am aware. Do you believe differently? As for blaming Musa, I don't think that applies. The Abbasids were murdering anyone that they thought could possibly be the Imam, so it seems reasonable that he wouldn't be proclaiming it from the tops of buildings. In fact, I've heard that a fake nass was given for Ismail b. Jafar in order to protect Musa. When Ismail died, for example, the Abbassid caliph went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that he was really dead and not alive. Same when Musa was killed, he hung the dead body on a bridge to make sure everyone saw his death.
You said that Musa didnt actively proclaim his imamah. If that is the case, why not put some blame on him too? He let majority of shia went astray, he hid the truth. Imagine how many of those shia died before Abdullah passed away. They end up followed a fasiq, liar & greedy imam, but Musa let them misguided when he suppose to be their guide.
Can one prove that the Imams didn't believe in the Imamate when they themselves taught it?
Don't you think all those confusions are enough proofs that imam never taught shia version of imamah? Its a bit much to say they did when we see its confusion after confusion after confusion, since Ali's RA until al-Askari death. Ironically, Hasan al-askari who majority of his shia believed didnt have a son + ghayba, which in essence is the opposite of imamah, rescued shia from further confusion in the long run. Even that, at first his shia were also confused and divided into 14 different groups.
It's not really that unbelievable considering the political climate at the time.
This confusion also happened when & after Ali RA/Hasan RA had their khilafah & big armies. How come shia still chosed wrong imam back then? It has nothing to do with them being weak or because of political climate preventing them to declare it, they went to war remember. Shia believe they are THE guide, but fact are they let their follower to be misguided and confused (again alhamdulillah Sunni didn't believe that). Anyway, i think ive made my self quite clear and explain some of the negative consequences if you believe in shia imamah. So this will be the end of my post in regards to this confusion issue.
Thanks bro, but I think you misunderstood. You PM'd me the info about the Hasan Al Askari group. I was asking about the group that believed in the ghaybah of Ali. Sorry for the confusion.
OK, next time inshaAllah