Rasul-Allah (saw) and the divine order of Imamah

[Hani]

Read it here please:
http://twelvershia.net/2014/11/01/rasul-allah-saw-and-the-divine-order-of-imamah/


I'd love to get some Shia opinions on this if possible, maybe you guys can post it on facebook.

[MuslimK]

Salam Alaikum,

Please write these sentences in bold for easy reading:

Let us begin with the religious Imamah:

Next, we speak also briefly about the political Imamah:

[Hani]

How about your opinion bro?

[MuslimK]

I haven't read it completely. I will give my opinion later, insha'Allah.

[Hadrami]

Simply appointing a religious authority will not get the job done, it will only be effective if his authority was established in the lands otherwise it is useless. Allah wished for Islam to be the final message for humanity, and he wished for it to be victorious and apparent over all other religions:

The scholars of Madhabi Tashayyu` often argue in their books of philosophy, that the blame does not fall upon Allah or the hidden Imam, the blame falls on the nation for rejecting him and not supporting him. We reply: This is unacceptable, for if Allah truly wished to hand this hidden Imam such a great responsibility, then it is also incumbent upon Allah to grant him the means of establishing himself and exercising his authority on the ground

Question for shias:
- Didn't shia say it's lutf? Does this mean this lutf never happened FULLY to political imamah (Ali decades late, Hasan didn't completed his) & as for religious imamah, this one has stopped happening for 1179H years.
- Does it mean if the nation preventing imam to pray then he can leave praying? Im making the comparison with praying, since imamah is also the backbone of religion. So if he doesn't pray, we can blame other too? If i was a shia and lazy to pray, id ask that question to my syaikh
- Why can't mahdi, instead of ran away to save his life, just migrate somewhere else? Just go to china or somewhere, anywhere unreachable by his enemy. If someone told me I can't pray here & im too weak to fight, i'll just go somewhere else and pray. Its such a simple & easy solution. Why shia scholars love to make things difficult for their followers?

I've got so many question in my head. What do shias think about those questions? Don't shy away. Give it your best shot.

[Hani]

Didn't shia say it's lutf? Does this mean this lutf never happened FULLY to political imamah (Ali decades late, Hasan didn't completed his) & as for religious imamah, this one has stopped happening for 1179H years.

No brother, the Lutf is incomplete, this system that was founded for religious preservation and is represented by the person of the Imam is incapable of handling any of the tasks that it was given. This is due to the fact that God never granted him the means to succeed in his mission like He previously granted Muhammad (saw) the means of success.


Imamah is a sad lonely concept and the people who believe in it after thoroughly thinking about it are not intelligent.

[Hadrami]

Didn't shia say it's lutf? Does this mean this lutf never happened FULLY to political imamah (Ali decades late, Hasan didn't completed his) & as for religious imamah, this one has stopped happening for 1179H years.

No brother, the Lutf is incomplete, this system that was founded for religious preservation and is represented by the person of the Imam is incapable of handling any of the tasks that it was given. This is due to the fact that God never granted him the means to succeed in his mission like He previously granted Muhammad (saw) the means of success.


Imamah is a sad lonely concept and the people who believe in it after thoroughly thinking about it are not intelligent.

Yes, thats my point, its like shia is saying the lutf applies only to 2 out of 12 imam politically, and out of that 2, it wasnt even completed. So where is the reality of this lutf? Is it just suppose to be a theory & doesnt have to be proven? And then this last one hasnt done both ever since he was invented/born.

[Hani]

I added this new note to the article, please take it into consideration:

[Note*: When we wrote Bahrayn above we never meant the island known as the kingdom of Bahrayn in our days, but rather a large area that composes eastern Arabia and includes the regions known in our days as Qatar, Kuwayt, Emirates and Northern Oman. Whenever Rasul-Allah (saw) and the Caliphs mention the word “Bahrayn” they are always referring to eastern Arabia and not the island.]


I first read this in a book and then things started making a lot more sense to me whenever I read the word "Bahrayn" in Hadith.

[Husayn]

Great article bro Hani - I really do envy your attention to detail.

I'm about half way through, but I've read several interesting arguments that I've never heard of or thought of before, specifically your analysis of Hadith ath-Thaqalayn.

You raise a good point, in that the Prophet (SAWS) instructed the Muslims to take care of the Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt. It raises an important question, specifically - if Ahlul Bayt (specifically 'Ali (RA)) were supposed to be the leaders of the people, then why would the Prophet (SAWS) instruct the Muslims to take care of them? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the Prophet (SAWS) have instructed Ahlul Bayt to take care of the Muslims?

[Hani]

Great article bro Hani - I really do envy your attention to detail.

Barak-Allahu feek brother, most of this is not from my pocket but I took a lot from scholars, books and researchers.


InshaAllah soon I'll try to write something answering the apparently logical question of:


"Why Rasul-Allah (saw) never appointed a leader?"


Although before I write a refutation of that, I'd love to hear answers by you guys to this seemingly logical question.

[Husayn]

Great article bro Hani - I really do envy your attention to detail.

Barak-Allahu feek brother, most of this is not from my pocket but I took a lot from scholars, books and researchers.


InshaAllah soon I'll try to write something answering apparently logical question of:


"Why Rasul-Allah (saw) never appointed a leader?"


Although before I write a refutation of that, I'd love to hear answers by you guys to this seemingly logical question.

Yes, I used to use this argument alot back in the days. It would be the first argument I'd make to a Sunni.

This question is thought of as a trump-card by Shiites. They believe that Ahlul Sunnah have no answer to it. They even compare it with leaving a will. They'll say, "Doesn't the Qur'an order a Muslim to leave a will? Then how can the Prophet (saws) not have left a will?" As if leaving a will has anything to do with appointing a leader. A will is a personal document, setting out one's affairs. Well, we know that the Prophet (saws) did indeed leave a will, and he still didn't appoint a successor in it.

The overriding argument that the Shiites make is, "How can the Prophet not have left a successor? Why would he leave the people after him without any leadership?" The point that they try to make is that by not appointing a successor the Prophet (saws) failed in his mission, and let the religion be corrupted at the end.

Well, to this I say that the Shiites cannot have their cake and eat it too. How so? Well:

Shiites claim that he appointed 'Ali (ra) as his successor. Well, we know that 'Ali (ra) was not accepted as the successor after the Prophet (saws). So we are left with the following conclusions:

a) All the Muslims were unaware that 'Ali (ra) was appointed the successor. If so, the Prophet (saws) failed in delivering the message. He clearly did a poor job in informing the Muslim masses of 'Ali (ra)'s appointment.

b) The Muslims did know about 'Ali (ra)'s appointment, but they all rejected it. If so, the Prophet (saws) failed in his mission. He failed to reform the Arabs, and at the end of it the Muslims whom the Prophet (saws) spent decades educating abandoned his religion the moment he died. This ofcourse is the belief of the Shiites, because they cannot possibly accept option a). If Shiites want to believe that 'Ali (ra) was the appointed successor, then they must believe that basically all the Muslims after the Prophet (saws)'s death were hypocrites, apostates and kuffar.

I mean, how can we possibly consider the Prophet (saws) to have been a successful Messenger if this is the case? Was Prophethood just about delivering a message, or was it about changing the people? Clearly the people were not changed, and clearly they did not respect the Prophet (saws). This ofcourse flies in the face of all the facts that we possess.

Did the Prophet (saws) appoint a leader?

ANSWER: NO, THE PROPHET (SAWS) DID NOT SPECIFY WHO WOULD LEAD THE MUSLIMS AFTER HIM.

This was not his mission. His mission did not include appointing a successor, because he cannot have a successor. He is the last of the Prophets. I do not believe the term "khalif" is rightfully translated as "successor". It is better translated as "deputy" or something similar.

His mission was to deliver the message, to reform the people and the society, teach them halal & haram, teach them the compulsory and recommended acts, inform them of the Day of Judgement and so on.

The point of his mission is that if he is successful in teaching the people, then the people should be able to take care of themselves after him. This includes choosing a suitable leader.

Infact, the Prophet (saws) did teach the people about leadership.

He himself appointed people to rule when he left a place. The Shiites take this as a lesson that he must have left a successor, and the argument is "If he appointed someone in his place when he left a town, how can he not have appointed someone when he left the people for good!?!".

As usual, the Shiites muddle up and confuse the issue, as is typical of extremists.

The lesson that they should take, instead, is that when the Prophet acted as a leader, he was demonstrating how a person should lead. Appointing a representative when he left a town was indeed emulated by the Khalifs after him - by appointing governers and deputies to represent them.

We know that the Prophet (saws) would allow the companions to convey their opinions in certain matters. Such as the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, when the companions argued, or the Battle of the Trench, when they recommended building a ditch and other similar cases.

What does this show?

To the Shiites, ofcourse, any arguing that the companions did is evidence that they are kuffar who liked to argue with the Prophet. As usual, the extremist and nonsensical conclusion.

Rather, it shows that the Prophet (saws) encouraged consultation and a spirit of community. He was teaching the Muslims to govern their affairs through consultation and as a community.

Long story short, what did the Muslims do when the Prophet (saws) died? Did they kill each other of leadership and destroy Islam?

No - they elected the best man amongst them, and then the best man after him, and they strengthened Islam and made the Ummah into a superpower.

So did the Prophet (saws) fail in his mission? On the contrary, he succeeded as no Prophet succeeded before him, and we Muslims will never achieve the power that we once had until we emulate those who the Prophet (saws) taught with his own hands.


----

That's my rambling answer, I look forward to the more scholarly and academic answer from Hani.

[Hani]

MashaAllah, that's a pretty big part of the answer, the rest is just a lot more clarifications but this is good enough as an answer.


Insha-Allah I'll be quoting some of what you wrote here as a part of a bigger article.




(Would I be right if I guessed that you never wrote this now? And that you copied it from a more complete piece you're working on?)

[Hadrami]

Its good to quote answer from former shia. I assume many shias would have many questionabout their imamah, but then the extremist one will consider it as waswas & ignore it instead of genuine questions.

Bro husayn, when are you gonna head up north?

[Husayn]

MashaAllah, that's a pretty big part of the answer, the rest is just a lot more clarifications but this is good enough as an answer.


Insha-Allah I'll be quoting some of what you wrote here as a part of a bigger article.




(Would I be right if I guessed that you never wrote this now? And that you copied it from a more complete piece you're working on?)

Yes... but unfortunately the "more complete piece" is still largely in my head 

Its good to quote answer from former shia. I assume many shias would have many questionabout their imamah, but then the extremist one will consider it as waswas & ignore it instead of genuine questions.

Bro husayn, when are you gonna head up north?

Soon akhi soon!

[MuslimK]

Masha'Allah! Just finished reading the article. Learned new stuff.

The article says:

big Imami Shia scholars in the past such as Tabrasi and Murtada both said that the text of Ghadeer is not a clear text for appointment, other Shia scholars said that those who never understood what the Shia understand from this text are excused, obviously since it isn’t clear.

Any online link/reference to their statement?

[Hani]

@Khurasani,

Murtada in al-Shafi and Tabrasi in I`lam al-Wara. As for those who excused those who never understood it, it is almost every Shia scholar who does not consider Imamah from Usool al-Deen (For Taqiyyah purposes of course).

[Ebn Hussein]

Great article bro Hani - I really do envy your attention to detail.

Barak-Allahu feek brother, most of this is not from my pocket but I took a lot from scholars, books and researchers.


InshaAllah soon I'll try to write something answering apparently logical question of:


"Why Rasul-Allah (saw) never appointed a leader?"


Although before I write a refutation of that, I'd love to hear answers by you guys to this seemingly logical question.

Yes, I used to use this argument alot back in the days. It would be the first argument I'd make to a Sunni.

This question is thought of as a trump-card by Shiites. They believe that Ahlul Sunnah have no answer to it. They even compare it with leaving a will. They'll say, "Doesn't the Qur'an order a Muslim to leave a will? Then how can the Prophet (saws) not have left a will?" As if leaving a will has anything to do with appointing a leader. A will is a personal document, setting out one's affairs. Well, we know that the Prophet (saws) did indeed leave a will, and he still didn't appoint a successor in it.

The overriding argument that the Shiites make is, "How can the Prophet not have left a successor? Why would he leave the people after him without any leadership?" The point that they try to make is that by not appointing a successor the Prophet (saws) failed in his mission, and let the religion be corrupted at the end.

Well, to this I say that the Shiites cannot have their cake and eat it too. How so? Well:

Shiites claim that he appointed 'Ali (ra) as his successor. Well, we know that 'Ali (ra) was not accepted as the successor after the Prophet (saws). So we are left with the following conclusions:

a) All the Muslims were unaware that 'Ali (ra) was appointed the successor. If so, the Prophet (saws) failed in delivering the message. He clearly did a poor job in informing the Muslim masses of 'Ali (ra)'s appointment.

b) The Muslims did know about 'Ali (ra)'s appointment, but they all rejected it. If so, the Prophet (saws) failed in his mission. He failed to reform the Arabs, and at the end of it the Muslims whom the Prophet (saws) spent decades educating abandoned his religion the moment he died. This ofcourse is the belief of the Shiites, because they cannot possibly accept option a). If Shiites want to believe that 'Ali (ra) was the appointed successor, then they must believe that basically all the Muslims after the Prophet (saws)'s death were hypocrites, apostates and kuffar.

I mean, how can we possibly consider the Prophet (saws) to have been a successful Messenger if this is the case? Was Prophethood just about delivering a message, or was it about changing the people? Clearly the people were not changed, and clearly they did not respect the Prophet (saws). This ofcourse flies in the face of all the facts that we possess.

Did the Prophet (saws) appoint a leader?

ANSWER: NO, THE PROPHET (SAWS) DID NOT SPECIFY WHO WOULD LEAD THE MUSLIMS AFTER HIM.

This was not his mission. His mission did not include appointing a successor, because he cannot have a successor. He is the last of the Prophets. I do not believe the term "khalif" is rightfully translated as "successor". It is better translated as "deputy" or something similar.

His mission was to deliver the message, to reform the people and the society, teach them halal & haram, teach them the compulsory and recommended acts, inform them of the Day of Judgement and so on.

The point of his mission is that if he is successful in teaching the people, then the people should be able to take care of themselves after him. This includes choosing a suitable leader.

Infact, the Prophet (saws) did teach the people about leadership.

He himself appointed people to rule when he left a place. The Shiites take this as a lesson that he must have left a successor, and the argument is "If he appointed someone in his place when he left a town, how can he not have appointed someone when he left the people for good!?!".

As usual, the Shiites muddle up and confuse the issue, as is typical of extremists.

The lesson that they should take, instead, is that when the Prophet acted as a leader, he was demonstrating how a person should lead. Appointing a representative when he left a town was indeed emulated by the Khalifs after him - by appointing governers and deputies to represent them.

We know that the Prophet (saws) would allow the companions to convey their opinions in certain matters. Such as the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, when the companions argued, or the Battle of the Trench, when they recommended building a ditch and other similar cases.

What does this show?

To the Shiites, ofcourse, any arguing that the companions did is evidence that they are kuffar who liked to argue with the Prophet. As usual, the extremist and nonsensical conclusion.

Rather, it shows that the Prophet (saws) encouraged consultation and a spirit of community. He was teaching the Muslims to govern their affairs through consultation and as a community.

Long story short, what did the Muslims do when the Prophet (saws) died? Did they kill each other of leadership and destroy Islam?

No - they elected the best man amongst them, and then the best man after him, and they strengthened Islam and made the Ummah into a superpower.

So did the Prophet (saws) fail in his mission? On the contrary, he succeeded as no Prophet succeeded before him, and we Muslims will never achieve the power that we once had until we emulate those who the Prophet (saws) taught with his own hands.


----

That's my rambling answer, I look forward to the more scholarly and academic answer from Hani.

Mashaallah bro! Why don't you add some thoughts and tell Hani to put it on the twelvershia.net website, you as a Ex-Shia saying these words full of logic and wisdom will have an even bigger impact on the reader.