Shia & Finality of prophet-hood (SC thread)

[Hani]

Salam,


Read the first two pages of this:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235031228-do-shiites-believe-in-finality-of-prophethood/page-2


This guy really gave them a hard time and YES Shia do believe that Imams receive revelation. They just play on words and say Ilham or whatever nonsense excuses such as being able to see the angels or not.

[Hani]

OMG a Shia just said:

[Since when is receiving divine inspiration or revelation or visiting of angels an exclusive power of prophethood? What jahalah is that? If that is the claim here then there are hadiths in your "sahih" books which say that umar bin khatab could receive such things.]

See the Zandaqah?

They admit that Imams receive revelation, they just call it "Ilham", then they say that it reaches them in a different method (Such as not seeing the angel). As if the method of receiving revelation is what counts.

Then they keep giving examples of others of prophets, such as Asia or Mariyam. I can already tell you they aren't prophets since they weren't men, they weren't tasked with guiding humanity, following them is not obligatory, the messages they received from God were limited to their children and were cut-off from these messages, the words spoken to them are a miracles of their children the prophets etc... So I can prove a difference between Asia/Mariyam and the prophets, but Imams are just exact carbon copies.

[Hani]

Then this excuse:

((Narrated Abu Huraira: “The Prophet (pbuh) said, “Among the nation of Bani Israel who lived before you, there were men who used to be inspired with guidance though they were not prophets, and if there is any of such persons amongst my followers, it is ‘Umar.”(Sahih Bukhari, Volume ,5 Book 57, Hadith #28))

`Umar was not infallible, he didn't receive divine knowledge, if he happened to see a truthful vision or if an angel guided his tongue in a decision he said in one or two occasions, this does not mean he receives revelation. The meaning of Muhaddath does not exceed this.

Here's the explanation from Fath-ul-Bari:

قوله : ( محدثون ) بفتح الدال جمع محدث ، واختلف في تأويله فقيل : ملهم . قاله الأكثر ، قالوا : المحدث بالفتح هو الرجل الصادق الظن ، وهو من ألقي في روعه شيء من قبل الملأ الأعلى فيكون كالذي حدثه غيره به ، وبهذا جزم أبو أحمد العسكري . وقيل : من يجري الصواب على لسانه من غير قصد ، وقيل : مكلم أي تكلمه الملائكة بغير نبوة ، وهذا ورد من حديث أبي سعيد الخدري مرفوعا ولفظه قيل : يا رسول الله ، وكيف يحدث ؟ قال : تتكلم الملائكة على لسانه رويناه في " فوائد الجوهري " وحكاه القابسي وآخرون ، ويؤيده ما ثبت في الرواية المعلقة . ويحتمل رده إلى المعنى الأول أي تكلمه في نفسه وإن لم ير مكلما في الحقيقة فيرجع إلى الإلهام ، وفسره ابن التين بالتفرس ، ووقع في مسند " الحميدي " عقب حديث عائشة " المحدث : الملهم بالصواب الذي يلقى على فيه " وعند مسلم من رواية ابن وهب " ملهمون ، وهي الإصابة بغير نبوة " وفي رواية الترمذي عن بعض أصحاب ابن عيينة " محدثون يعني مفهمون " وفي رواية الإسماعيلي " قال إبراهيم - يعني ابن سعد راويه - قوله : محدث أي يلقى في روعه " انتهى ، ويؤيده حديث إن الله جعل الحق على لسان عمر وقلبه أخرجه الترمذي من حديث ابن عمر ، وأحمد من حديث أبي هريرة ، والطبراني من حديث بلال ، وأخرجه في " الأوسط " من حديث معاوية وفي حديث أبي ذر عند أحمد وأبي داود " يقول به " بدل قوله " وقلبه " وصححه الحاكم ، وكذا أخرجه الطبراني في " الأوسط " من حديث عمر نفسه

ٍSecondly, the narration doesn't even confirm that `Umar is a Muhaddath, it is similar to the narration that says "If there was a prophet after me it would be none other than `Umar."

^ Does this mean `Umar is a Prophet!?

[Hani]

The Sunni says:

((What evidence do you have that a Tablighi Prophet can bring new laws and the Imam cannot?  ))

The Shia responds:

((A prophet can abrogate a previous law without bringing a new book, and there is nothing intellectually stopping this.))

I say: The moment that Prophet changes the law of the past messenger, he becomes a Tashri`i prophet and ceases being a Tablighi prophet as per the definition of the scholars. This has nothing to do with your intellect, it's the scientific agreed upon definition.