Question/Advise to Shia

[Hadrami]

I know you guys love to talk all day & night getting emotional about secondary issues which wont exist unless you believe in your version of imamah. I had a feeling that the reason Imamah is the least discussed topic in this forum or any other online forum compare to other issues such as sahaba this or that, mutah, Ali vs Muawiyah etc is because you know imamah is so hard to defend. I personally think, its such a weak belief that you guys are often intentionally avoiding such an important topic.

Just look at several topics here, so many shia reply to it discussing this or that, but when theres a topic about why there were 14 different shia groups with different beliefs believing in different imam after hasan al-askari death, not a bloody single reply from shia trying to explain why it happened. Its unbelievable, why is that??!!

This should be the subject shia know the most & familiar with. Forget about muawiya RA vs ali RA or saqifa or who kill who etc. Without shia imamah belief ONLY THEN you can see all that from a different perspective and even realise many of those are just slanders

[Taha]

Just look at several topics here, so many shia reply to it discussing this or that, but when theres a topic about why there were 14 different shia groups with different beliefs believing in different imam after hasan al-askari death, not a bloody single reply from shia trying to explain why it happened. Its unbelievable, why is that??!!

It is because it is a historical fact and there's no use denying it.  It happened because there was no clear nass and so it was considered as a "period of confusion" by some of the great Shia scholars.  Even today some people doubt the existence of the son of Al-Askari and use this doubt as proof that that particular line of Imams was false (see what Waqifis and Ismailis have to say on the issue for example.  Waqifis believe in the Ghayba of Al Kazhim where as Ismailis believe that Imamate will always continue and if a line ends, that proves that the particular line was false.  Both groups justify their position, partly, by using the confusion after Al Askari as evidence.)

[Hadrami]

But its also a historical fact that the confusion didnt only happen then. It happened since after Ali Ra passed away. Even after jafar Rah died, THE MAJORITY of shia fuqaha & respected elders follow Abdullah not Musa. Dont you think its strange that they dont know? Or maybe its chosen by consensus back then?

[Hadrami]

It is because it is a historical fact and there's no use denying it.  It happened because there was no clear nass and so it was considered as a "period of confusion" by some of the great Shia scholars.  Even today some people doubt the existence of the son of Al-Askari and use this doubt as proof that that particular line of Imams was false (see what Waqifis and Ismailis have to say on the issue for example.  Waqifis believe in the Ghayba of Al Kazhim where as Ismailis believe that Imamate will always continue and if a line ends, that proves that the particular line was false.  Both groups justify their position, partly, by using the confusion after Al Askari as evidence.)

I forgot to mention, you do know that there were shia who belief in Ali's ghayba & several other imam not just Musa right? I've noted down some of the different Mahdi of early shias, so far I have found 11 different mahdi. InshaAllah will put the list here on on different thread.

[Hadrami]

sorry, my mistake, i have only found 10 mahdi. Speaking of Musa al-Kazim, Ja'far & Ismail were also believed to be Mahdi

[Taha]

But its also a historical fact that the confusion didnt only happen then. It happened since after Ali Ra passed away. Even after jafar Rah died, THE MAJORITY of shia fuqaha & respected elders follow Abdullah not Musa. Dont you think its strange that they dont know? Or maybe its chosen by consensus back then?

Most of those that followed Abdullah left him and went back to Al Kazhim when Abdullah died and it became apparent that he was a fasiq.  The reason they followed Abdullah was because they believed that it always had to go to the eldest son.  Interestingly, many twelver Shia say that Ismailis exist because of this belief (i.e. it has to be the eldest son) but this isn't true because in many cases the Ismaili Imamate passed to a younger son, there is actually a bit of evidence for nass going to Ismail and then changing to Al Kazhim after the former's apparent death.  This is where the concept of bada' comes into, the idea that Allah (s.w.t) is not all knowing but that a new event can manifest itself to him (naudhubillah).  And no, Imamate is not by consensus, it is by nass (as per Shia beliefs).  Although, nowadays, a lot of twelvers think that consensus matters in that they make takfir of non-twelver Shias (i.e. they think Sunnis are better than Ismailis and Waqifis).

I forgot to mention, you do know that there were shia who belief in Ali's ghayba & several other imam not just Musa right? I've noted down some of the different Mahdi of early shias, so far I have found 11 different mahdi. InshaAllah will put the list here on on different thread.

I didn't know anybody believed in Ali's ghaybah.  If the idea of ghaybah is so prominent even early on, it must have some good foundations, right?

sorry, my mistake, i have only found 10 mahdi. Speaking of Musa al-Kazim, Ja'far & Ismail were also believed to be Mahdi

It's Muhammad b. Ismail, bro.  There are narrations about the 7th Imam being Al Qaim and Ismailis number Imams differently.  Bohras consider Ali to be the Wasi and not an Imam, they number Hasan as the first.  Nizaris believe that Hasan was not a permanent Imam, but a helper Imam since they believe Imamate has to pass through descent and not from brother to brother.  Muhammad b. Ismail is the 7th Imam for all Ismailis and he is the one that people thought was in ghaybah.


Edit: sorry for weird font.  A bunch of my text got shrunk down to a tiny size and I couldn't figure out how to fix it so I changed the entire thing to Ariel pt 12.

[Hadrami]

Most of those that followed Abdullah left him and went back to Al Kazhim when Abdullah died and it became apparent that he was a fasiq.  The reason they followed Abdullah was because they believed that it always had to go to the eldest son.  Interestingly, many twelver Shia say that Ismailis exist because of this belief (i.e. it has to be the eldest son) but this isn't true because in many cases the Ismaili Imamate passed to a younger son, there is actually a bit of evidence for nass going to Ismail and then changing to Al Kazhim after the former's apparent death.  This is where the concept of bada' comes into, the idea that Allah (s.w.t) is not all knowing but that a new event can manifest itself to him (naudhubillah).  And no, Imamate is not by consensus, it is by nass (as per Shia beliefs).  Although, nowadays, a lot of twelvers think that consensus matters in that they make takfir of non-twelver Shias (i.e. they think Sunnis are better than Ismailis and Waqifis).

Still doesn't explain why the MAJORITY of shia scholars & respected elders followed him instead of Musa. Where was the nass?? Is it possible the scholars & respected shia didnt know?

I didn't know anybody believed in Ali's ghaybah.  If the idea of ghaybah is so prominent even early on, it must have some good foundations, right?

Yes Ali was also in ghayba. You can say it has good foundation or its not an exclusive shia belief. al-Nawbakhti said Ibn Saba & his companions were the first who believed in the end of imamah & it stopped with Ali's ghayba.

It's Muhammad b. Ismail, bro.  There are narrations about the 7th Imam being Al Qaim and Ismailis number Imams differently.  Bohras consider Ali to be the Wasi and not an Imam, they number Hasan as the first.  Nizaris believe that Hasan was not a permanent Imam, but a helper Imam since they believe Imamate has to pass through descent and not from brother to brother.  Muhammad b. Ismail is the 7th Imam for all Ismailis and he is the one that people thought was in ghaybah.

I know Muhammad bin Ismail is one of those 10 Mahdi I found, but Ismail is also considered as Mahdi.

[Taha]

Still doesn't explain why the MAJORITY of shia scholars & respected elders followed him instead of Musa. Where was the nass?? Is it possible the scholars & respected shia didnt know?

As far as I know, there was no nass for Abdullah, not even a fabricated nass.  Maybe someone more knowledgeable can answer.  And yes, it's very possible.  That's one of my doubts about tashayyu`.  Supposedly we have hadeeths that name all 12 Imams coming from the Holy Prophet (sawa) but there was always confusion upon the death of an Imam.  Either that hadeeth is false and/or unknown at that point, or the companions of the Imams were just as wicked as we claim the companions of the Prophet (sawa) were, which would basically destroy any Shia hadeeth science.

Yes Ali was also in ghayba. You can say it has good foundation or its not an exclusive shia belief. al-Nawbakhti said Ibn Saba & his companions were the first who believed in the end of imamah & it stopped with Ali's ghayba.

Didn't Ali kill Ibn Saba for his shirk?  And how can anyone believe in the Ghaybah of Ali?  He was clearly murdered by a khariji in retaliation for his fighting and killing that person's family in the Battle of Nahrawan. Or do they believe that his death was staged?

I know Muhammad bin Ismail is one of those 10 Mahdi I found, but Ismail is also considered as Mahdi.

I was unaware.  I really look forward to reading your findings inshallah.

[Hadrami]

As far as I know, there was no nass for Abdullah, not even a fabricated nass.  Maybe someone more knowledgeable can answer.  And yes, it's very possible.  That's one of my doubts about tashayyu`.  Supposedly

Still that explanation doesnt make sense, because at the end of the day the majority of shia scholars DID believe he was the true imam. Why did they believed in him in the first place? Or did those shia scholars just followed their desire or they were completely ignorant scholars who didn't know the instruction of their imam or maybe they chosed Abdullah based on consensus? Could it be that because the majority believed he is fit to be imam, so done deal. When he died, majority chosed the next one, Musa. If that's the case it support Sunni view that the majority of shia back then were political not religious group. This is shia of Jafar mind you, the person who shia claimed to be the founder of their ja'fari madhab. And the shia fuqaha, his own student & followers, who should know better made a monumental mistake of choosing a wrong imam?? Weird right?

we have hadeeths that name all 12 Imams coming from the Holy Prophet (sawa) but there was always confusion upon the death of an Imam.  Either that hadeeth is false and/or unknown at that point, or the

It is unbelievable if there was hadith mentioning their name that shia fuqaha didn't know or could not tell the difference between Abdullah & Musa.

companions of the Imams were just as wicked as we claim the companions of the Prophet (sawa) were, which would basically destroy any Shia hadeeth science.

About wicked companion of Imam, farid is in the process of compiling an article on how some imam testified that his "companions" (those who claimed to narrate shia ahadith) were liars.

Didn't Ali kill Ibn Saba for his shirk?  And how can anyone believe in the Ghaybah of Ali?  He was clearly murdered by a khariji in retaliation for his fighting and killing that person's family in the Battle of Nahrawan. Or do they believe that his death was staged?

One of the 14 groups from shia of Hasan al-Askari believed he died, but then back to life and then dissapeared. Maybe those who believed in Ali's ghayba has similar belief.

I was unaware.  I really look forward to reading your findings inshallah.[/font][/size]

Im looking forward to Farid's research of imam's companion

[Husayn]

Supposedly we have hadeeths that name all 12 Imams coming from the Holy Prophet (sawa) but there was always confusion upon the death of an Imam.

I believe Al-Khoei declared these all to be fabricated after the emergence of the ithna 'ashari sect, long after al-'Askaris death.

[Taha]

Still that explanation doesnt make sense, because at the end of the day the majority of shia scholars DID believe he was the true imam. Why did they believed in him in the first place? Or did those shia scholars just followed their desire or they were completely ignorant scholars who didn't know the instruction of their imam or maybe they chosed Abdullah based on consensus? Could it be that because the majority believed he is fit to be imam, so done deal. When he died, majority chosed the next one, Musa. If that's the case it support Sunni view that the majority of shia back then were political not religious group. This is shia of Jafar mind you, the person who shia claimed to be the founder of their ja'fari madhab. And the shia fuqaha, his own student & followers, who should know better made a monumental mistake of choosing a wrong imam?? Weird right?

I think the reason that most people went to Abdullah was because he was the eldest living son and a lot of people thought that the Imamate would pass to the eldest son since it had done so up to that point (apart from Hasan to Husayn).  I didn't realize there were scholars of Shi'ism back then, I thought the first scholars came about when the 12th went into occultation.  What's the point of a scholar when you have an infallible Imam guiding you?  I don't think it is majority rules, because the majority had to have a reason to have their opinions.  Maybe the lesser followers and laypeople followed the majority, but there had to be a reason for going with Abdullah.  I also believe that Abdullah claimed the Imamate out of greed, so they probably assumed that eldest son claiming Imamate was a pretty sure thing; they probably didn't think he was a liar at the time.  And yes, I agree that Shiism started out as a political dispute and religious differences came later.  A lot of Shia say that it was religious from the beginning but I don't think so since, for example, some of the Sunni Imams were students of Ja'far Al Sadiq.  If they had legitimate religious differences and hated each other, they wouldn't have learned from him.  Yeah, it is pretty weird.  But Shias of all people should know that the majority isn't always right, amirite?

It is unbelievable if there was hadith mentioning their name that shia fuqaha didn't know or could not tell the difference between Abdullah & Musa.

Yeah, that's what I was saying.  Either the hadeeth was fabricated after all 12 Imams had already happened or they were completely ignorant of it.  I tend to think the first.

About wicked companion of Imam, farid is in the process of compiling an article on how some imam testified that his "companions" (those who claimed to narrate shia ahadith) were liars.

I can't wait to read it inshallah.

One of the 14 groups from shia of Hasan al-Askari believed he died, but then back to life and then dissapeared. Maybe those who believed in Ali's ghayba has similar belief.

That's possible, but I've never heard of this group.  Can you show more details?

I believe Al-Khoei declared these all to be fabricated after the emergence of the ithna 'ashari sect, long after al-'Askaris death.

Thanks brother.  This was along my line of thinking, but I lack anywhere near the level of knowledge that Al Khu'i had, so this is great that he said so. 

[Hadrami]

I think the reason that most people went to Abdullah was because he was the eldest living son and a lot of people thought that the Imamate would pass to the eldest son since it had done so up to that point (apart from Hasan to Husayn).

Taha, Imamah is THE foundation of shia belief, we're not talking about small issue here. How can it be so vague, unknown & confusing even to shia scholars? We're not talking about ordinary people or laymen. They are SHIA'S CREAM OF THE CROP, Ja'far shia who were considered scholars & respected elders. Why did those scholars waited until Abdullah died before they recognised Musa? Can't they just ask Musa? Do you realise how many excuses you have given those scholars who made MONUMENTAL & BLASPHEMOUS mistake of choosing to follow a wrong Imam?

So far youve given them excuses such as:
- they didn't know he was a fasiq
- he was the eldest son
- there was no nass
If only you've given the sahaba just 1 excuse.

I didn't realize there were scholars of Shi'ism back then, I thought the first scholars came about when the 12th went into occultation.  What's the point of a scholar when you have an infallible Imam guiding you?  I don't think it is majority rules, because the majority had to have a reason to have their

Its common sense that no one can be everywhere at the same time. Even Rasulullah shallallahu alaihi wasallam told the sahaba to go to Abu Bakar RA in case they couldnt find him, but that doesn't mean he has to be infallible. Sahaba were sent to places to teach Islam, not just imam. Even shia narration support this view, although ironically it contradicts shia belief (Hani explains it here - http://twelvershia.net/2014/12/20/issues-of-ghaybah-part-11/).

In short, Imam said his shia can ask for rulings from shia who have narrated his hadith and studied what is haram & halal. He gave them authority to do so, so they can be called scholars right?

opinions.  Maybe the lesser followers and laypeople followed the majority, but there had to be a reason for going with Abdullah.  I also believe that Abdullah claimed the Imamate out of greed, so they probably assumed that eldest son claiming Imamate was a pretty sure thing; they probably didn't think he was a liar at the time.

This is what i find really objectionable about shiaism. Why dont you blame the shia scholars who should've known better, instead of saying Abdullah was a greedy liar or Ja'far, 11th Imam brother was also greedy liar or Zayd bin ali this or that etc. Maybe you can even blame Musa for saying nothing eh?

Why shia always have to do this, instead of trying to see maybe there were other reason, eq the ahlulbait did not believe there was such thing as divine imamah. You see what this imamah belief has done? Even the family of imam werent spared of curse & slander just to save shia belief, let alone the sahaba.

And yes, I agree that Shiism started out as a political dispute and religious differences came later.  A lot of Shia say that it was religious from the beginning but I don't think so since, for example, some of the Sunni Imams were students of Ja'far Al Sadiq.  If they had legitimate religious differences and hated each
other, they wouldn't have learned from him.  Yeah, it is pretty weird.

True, Ja'far would have never learned from non ahlulbait as well if that was the case.

But Shias of all people should know that the majority isn't always right, amirite?

Let me rephrase your sentence, if the majority were shia scholars & respected elders, its unbelievable that Ja'far did not tell them about Musa or Musa himself did not informed them of his imamah, amirite?

That's possible, but I've never heard of this group.  Can you show more details?

InshaAllah i'll PM the info

[Taha]

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.

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.

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.

Can one prove that the Imams didn't believe in the Imamate when they themselves taught it?

It's not really that unbelievable considering the political climate at the time.

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.

[Note to Taha: sorry the quote is gone in this post. I made a mistake of clicking modify instead of quote when trying to reply to this post]

[Ameen]

I know you guys love to talk all day & night getting emotional about secondary issues which wont exist unless you believe in your version of imamah. I had a feeling that the reason Imamah is the least discussed topic in this forum or any other online forum compare to other issues such as sahaba this or that, mutah, Ali vs Muawiyah etc is because you know imamah is so hard to defend. I personally think, its such a weak belief that you guys are often intentionally avoiding such an important topic.

Just look at several topics here, so many shia reply to it discussing this or that, but when theres a topic about why there were 14 different shia groups with different beliefs believing in different imam after hasan al-askari death, not a bloody single reply from shia trying to explain why it happened. Its unbelievable, why is that??!!

This should be the subject shia know the most & familiar with. Forget about muawiya RA vs ali RA or saqifa or who kill who etc. Without shia imamah belief ONLY THEN you can see all that from a different perspective and even realise many of those are just slanders

You said,

"Imamath is the least discussed topic on this forum or any other online forum",

Brother this is not true. Shia Imamath is the most discussed topic. It's the main major difference between Shias and Sunnis.

You said,

"Because you know Imamath is so hard to defend",

Brother if Imamath was so difficult to explain and hard to defend then you wouldn't be having much Shias to begin with. Also you wouldn't have people turning towards this sect. And most of all anti Shias wouldn't be spending so much energy, effort and time trying to prove this ideology wrong. They wouldn't be giving this matter so much attention.

Rather than "Imamath is so hard to defend", It's actually "Imamath is so hard to prove false and wrong". If you think it's such a weak belief then why are people spending so much energy, effort and time trying to prove it wrong, when it should be an easy case to deal. It should be done and dusted but people are still struggling to prove it wrong. Nobody is avoiding anything or anyone, so please bring it on what ever you need to. Do not hesitate.

Let me clear your misunderstanding and misconception that there isn't 14 different Shia groups. There are or might be several different groups who all claim to be Shia but definitely not 14 different Shia groups. I don't blame you for thinking this way because "Ahle Sunnah" means "people of the Sunnah" and " Wal Jama'ah" means "and company".

Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah are groups/parties with difference in schools of thought, political movements, belief, faith, thought, opinion and point of view, all put together under one banner and one name and that is again "the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah". This is who and what you are and belong to, so you see and view others as the same.

[Hadrami]

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

[Taha]

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.

Hypothetically, if Musa Al Kazhim (a.s) was the divine religious guide for Muslims and had knowledge of the unseen (as per Shia beliefs), then it makes perfect sense.  He knew that `Abd Allah would die soon and that if he opposed him during his lifetime, it would have caused a great controversy and split in the Ummah (again).

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

I am a bit confused by what you mean here.  If he and his father (Ja'far Al Sadiq) didn't believe in this, why do we have so many hadeeths attributed to them that proclaim it?  Al Kafi, for example, is 2-3 times as large as Al Bukhari and the vast majority of narrations go back to Muhammad Al Baqir, Ja'far Al Sadiq, Musa Al Kazhim, and Ali Al Rida (asws).  Is it even fathomable that every single one of these was forged?  I don't think so, personally.  Can you demonstrate that these 4 people did not believe they were divinely appointed Imams?  There's tons of evidence in Shia books to support that they did believe in it and teach it.

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"

It is true though.  It's not meant to excuse those that followed the wrong Imam, it's just an explanation as to why it happened.

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

Ja'far had to be absolutely secretive about the next Imam after him.  Otherwise, the `Abbasids would have killed his successor as quickly as they could have.  Do you know of what happened with Ismail b. Ja'far died?  The Abbasids went through every possible precaution to make 100% sure that Ismail had died (because there was rumors circulating that he would be the next Imam, so they had a vested interest in making sure he was dead).


As for the other children of Ja'far Al Sadiq, I am not knowledgeable on.  I only know of Ismail, Abdullah, and Musa. 

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.

If it can be proven that all of those that followed Abdullah *knew* that Musa Al Kazhim was the next Imam but instead followed Abdullah instead, I will be the first to curse them as blasphemers.  The problem is, they probably really didn't know and how can we blame people for ignorance?  It wasn't their fault that Abbasid persecution forced Ja'far to hide the next Imam's designation.

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?

I never said the companions of Ja'far Al Sadiq were all righteous.  There is a hadeeth that the companions of Husayn (a.s) were righteous but I don't know of any such thing about the companions of the other Imams.

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.

If Musa really has knowledge of the unseen and guidance from Allah, who are we to question his wisdom?

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.

For now, let's focus on the early Imams (up to Ali Al Rida or so) since I have very little knowledge about that latter ones.  As for these confusions being enough proof that the Imams never taught Imamate, I don't think so.  I see things differently.  I recognize how intense and vile Abbasid persecution was.

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.

What do you mean they had big armies?  When `Ali fought with Muawiyah, they arbitrated and most of `Ali's army abandoned him in retaliation.  Hasan never had an army because Muawiyah and Yazeed made damn good sure that no member of the Ahl Al Bayt would ever oppose them again.  Even by the time of Husayn, there were only 70 people willing to fight with him.

[Hadrami]

Like i said in my last post, i wont go any further in discussing why this confusion happened. Looking at all your reasons, I can summarise all to just 1, Imam did Taqiyah. Everytime contradictions, confusions & misguidance happened because of imam's words or actions, shia can always fall back on Taqiyah reason to save the day

[Ameen]

All you brothers just come up with is allegations and accusations. You run around on assumptions. Either you are a Takfeeri or you are in Taqiyya. That's just about it. This is all you come out with. Who is what and what is who, you seem to know better and you seem to know it all. This is exactly what IGNORANCE is all about! What more can I say.

[Taha]

Like i said in my last post, i wont go any further in discussing why this confusion happened. Looking at all your reasons, I can summarise all to just 1, Imam did Taqiyah. Everytime contradictions, confusions & misguidance happened because of imam's words or actions, shia can always fall back on Taqiyah reason to save the day

Imams practicing taqiyyah is mutawatir.  Or do you not believe it?  Can you come up with a better explanation?

[Hadrami]

Like i said in my last post, i wont go any further in discussing why this confusion happened. Looking at all your reasons, I can summarise all to just 1, Imam did Taqiyah. Everytime contradictions, confusions & misguidance happened because of imam's words or actions, shia can always fall back on Taqiyah reason to save the day

Imams practicing taqiyyah is mutawatir.  Or do you not believe it?  Can you come up with a better explanation?

Well shia believe hadith which mentioned the name of all 12 imam is also mutawwatir. So? Hey, if you want to believe they are taqiyah freak, its up to you, but I see them as honest, brave & honourable people who would never let the ummah let alone his students misguided even for a second.

To say they were righteous guide but then also believe they mixed truth & falsehood which caused confusion in religion is an oxymoron (eq righteous liar)