Sunni vs Shia debate on Imamah

[MuslimK]

One of the main differences, if not the main difference, between Sunni and Shia schools is imamah. This is an attempt to debate the proof of imamah in the one text that both Sunnis and Shias agree on - the Quran.

Shia Academic vs Sunni on Imamah (MUST WATCH!)

Mohammed Hijab & a Shia.

[ZulFiqar]

I was disappointed that the Shi'ite debater only wanted to debate the the idea of an infallible Imamate but didn't have the courage to prove his particular 12-man line of Imamate from the Holy Qur'an. As you know, according to the Ithna Ashariya, it's not sufficient to simply believe in a divinely appointed Imamate in theory, you have to believe in a particular line of 12 Imams, as Muhammad Hijab mentioned in his opening remarks. What's the point of persuading a Muslim that there is a divinely appointed Imamate in theory, but then stop there and not proceed to prove who exactly those individuals are, especially when you claim it is a matter of salvation to recognise a particular line of Imams?

[glorfindel]

As-Salam 'Alikeum,

The was a much better debate then the last one.  The Shia brother used some Quran finally to substantiate the concept of Imamah, alas he wasn't able to prove that it was the same as what they believe.

To get to the examples he used, about the verse about Syedna Ibrahim (as) and his progeny this is talking about the prophets (as) for if we say that the Imams from his progeny must be like him in his example then they must surely have been prophets and the verse which talks about his progeny are all prophets (as) one would have to find a non-prophet who was an Imam in his progeny mentioned in the Quran for the Shia argument to hold water.

Similarly if we look at the verse with regards to guidance and one should follow the Imams who are guided and not the ones who are no guided - this again is talking about the prophets (as).

The rest of the arguments from the audience just don't make sense - the one fellow who made mention of Syedna Isa (as) and then jumped to Fatima Az-Zahra (ra) and the Sibtayn (ra) made no sense at all.

I am glad this kind of debate has occurred with decorum and civility - Allah knows elsewhere in the world we are not so lucky.

Ma' asalama.

[ZulFiqar]

As-Salam 'Alikeum,

To get to the examples he used, about the verse about Syedna Ibrahim (as) and his progeny this is talking about the prophets (as) for if we say that the Imams from his progeny must be like him in his example then they must surely have been prophets and the verse which talks about his progeny are all prophets (as) one would have to find a non-prophet who was an Imam in his progeny mentioned in the Quran for the Shia argument to hold water.

Similarly if we look at the verse with regards to guidance and one should follow the Imams who are guided and not the ones who are no guided - this again is talking about the prophets (as).

وعليكم السلام

Respectfully, I disagree with you that the Ayah (2:124) is referring to a covenant that is restricted exclusively to Prophets from among the progeny of Abraham. Imamate is broader than Nubuwwah, meaning, all Prophets are Imams, but it is not necessary that a righteous Imam has to be a Prophet. The covenant is that Allah will make from the righteous progeny of Abraham many Imams, including both Prophets and non-Prophets. One could therefore say that the Rightly-Guided Successors of the Prophetﷺ (Sayyidina Abi Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Amir-ul-Mu'minin Ali b. Abi Talib, and Hassan b. Ali رضى الله عنهم) were all righteous Imams from the progeny of Abraham as per 2:124. The coming awaited Mahdi رضى الله عنه is likewise included within this Covenant, and he is not a Prophet.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

If the verses of Quran allude to prophets then the onus is on those to prove it refers to Imamate of non prophets too.
Can you provide evidence of this without any long winded philosophical interpretations of your own whim?

[ZulFiqar]

If the verses of Quran allude to prophets then the onus is on those to prove it refers to Imamate of non prophets too.
Can you provide evidence of this without any long winded philosophical interpretations of your own whim?

First you have to substantiate your assertion that the Verse (2:124) is an allusion to Prophets only; especially when the Verse has the word Imam and not Prophet. So it is by no means a "long winded philosophical interpretation" to say that 2:124 is not restricted to Prophets only, but Allah may give any descendant of Abraham the station of Imamate provided he is not a Zalim. That is the apparent meaning of the Verse. To say that it is restricted to Prophets is an interpretation that has to be substantiated. So the onus is on you not me.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

If the verses of Quran allude to prophets then the onus is on those to prove it refers to Imamate of non prophets too.
Can you provide evidence of this without any long winded philosophical interpretations of your own whim?

First you have to substantiate your assertion that the Verse (2:124) is an allusion to Prophets only; especially when the Verse has the word Imam and not Prophet. So it is by no means a "long winded philosophical interpretation" to say that 2:124 is not restricted to Prophets only, but Allah may give any descendant of Abraham the station of Imamate provided he is not a Zalim. That is the apparent meaning of the Verse. To say that it is restricted to Prophets is an interpretation that has to be substantiated. So the onus is on you not me.

We know it refers to Abraham who was a prophet. His successors were prophets.
That is the apparent context to me.
So like I said the onus is on you to prove the context extends beyond prophets.
Can you show me one verse from the Quran where Allah SWT refers to any non offspring of Abraham as a leader/Imam?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Typo:

Offspring of abraham, not non offspring.

[ZulFiqar]

We know it refers to Abraham who was a prophet. His successors were prophets.
That is the apparent context to me.
So like I said the onus is on you to prove the context extends beyond prophets.
Can you show me one verse from the Quran where Allah SWT refers to any non offspring of Abraham as a leader/Imam?

Imamate is broader than Nubuwwah. Any righteous person who is in a position of authority is an Imam. Such a person is not necessarily a Prophet. Although as I've said, every Prophet is automatically an Imam also, but it is not necessary that every Imam is a Prophet. So the Holy Qur'an says that Allah is praising those people who pray to Him asking Him to make them an Imam for the Righteous (Sura 25:74). Now if you are claiming that the Imamate is exclusive to Prophets, how can an ordinary Believer ask Allah to make him a Prophet? Did you not know it is Kufr to ask Allah to make one a Prophet, since Prophethood has been terminated. So if you say that non-Prophets are excluded from the covenant of Imamate for the progeny of Abraham, then you have divested the status of Imamate from the likes of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali رضى الله عنهم who were all from the progeny of Abraham, and righteous Imams, though none of them were Prophets. Similarly, you are saying that the Mahdi won't be an Imam; although the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم declared him as our Imam when he said: كَيْفَ أَنْتُمْ إِذَا نَزَلَ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ فِيكُمْ وَإِمَامُكُمْ مِنْكُمْ "What will be your condition when the Son of Mary descends among you and your IMAM is from among you?" (Bukhari). ِAnd he said: مَنْ مَاتَ بِغَيْرِ إِمَامٍ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً "Whoever died without an Imam died a death of ignorance" (Ahmad)...does it mean whoever died without allegiance to a Prophet? No! It is referring to non-Prophet Imam.

Yes it is true that the immediate successors of Abraham, namely his sons, were Prophets. But the progeny of Abraham isn't restricted to a handful of generations. The progeny of Abraham exists even now, and his Du'a was that the Imamate should be placed within his progeny. His du'a did not mention Nubuwwah, but it mentioned Imamah which is broader than Nubuwwah. Now after Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم there can be no other Prophet, but there certainly can come an Imam from the progeny of Abraham to fulfill the Du'a of Abraham. The covenant that Allah made with Abraham that Allah will make Imams from his progeny, so long as they are not Zalimeen, is a permanent covenant. But if you say this covenant is restricted only to Prophets, then it means this covenant has terminated after Prophet Muhammad since no other Prophet can come. But this Verse indicates it is a permanent covenant and so long as the progeny of Abraham is existent, Allah will make Imams from the righteous among them.

This is why in the exegesis of this Verse, Imam al-Suyuti in his Durr al Manthur has quoted the Hadith of the Prophet: لا طاعة لمخلوق في معصية الله "There is no obedience to the creation in disobedience to Allah". This proves that he considers this Verse as broadly referring to both Prophets and non-Prophets from the progeny of Abraham. If they are righteous and command with good, then they are the Imam and ought to be obeyed, but if they are Zalimeen and command with disobedience to Allah, then they are not the Imam and not to be obeyed. This is also why Abu Bakr al-Jassas, in his Ahkam ul Quran, has quoted this Verse (2:124) as proof that the government of a Zalim is invalid. This shows that Abu Bakr al-Jassas considered this Verse as not restricted to Prophets only, but even non-Prophet rulers, and the government of the non-Prophet ruler who is not a Zalim is legitimate according to him, and such a person is worthy of the description "Imam":

See my blog for the references http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.ca/2017/02/islamic-uprisings-against-tyrants-part-1.html

[zaid_ibn_ali]

I'm talking about distinguishing between infallible divinely appointed Imams with leaders elected by the muslims.
Since you are not shia then it complicates our discussion.
I do not know your beliefs in this regards.

[ZulFiqar]

I'm talking about distinguishing between infallible divinely appointed Imams with leaders elected by the muslims.
Since you are not shia then it complicates our discussion.
I do not know your beliefs in this regards.

Actually you are so excited and focused on refuting Shi'ism that you are going overboard in trying to interpret every reference to Imamah in the Holy Qur'an as referring exclusively to Nubuwwah. So you have to rectify this approach and take a more balanced approach to the Holy Qur'an, and not interpret it from a purely polemical angle, but rather understand without any preconceived biases. The issue is not whether Imamate is infallible and divinely appointed. I am certainly not arguing that. The issue is whether the covenant Allah made with Abraham that He will make Imams from Abraham's progeny provided they are not Zalimeen is that covenant restricted to Prophets or does it include non-Prophets. This is the issue.

Don't be afraid of the word Imamate. If someone says Imamate and talks about the Imamate of a non-Prophet, don't assume that person is a Shi'ite. I never said that a non-Prophet Imam is infallible or divinely-appointed. Only Prophets are infallible.

As for being divinely-appointed, this is a more technical discussion. Allah can divinely appoint an Imam through the agency of a Prophet (such as Talut), or He can guide the people to recognise the person He wills should be the Imam through asbaab, such as consultation (in the case of Abu Bakr). In both instances, Allah has given the Imamate to the one He desired should become the Imam.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

I was replying to you as if you were a shia then realised my mistake.
With shia they take the verses to prove their Imams to be on same station as prophets.
You say only prophets are infallible. Therefore, clearly if the verses refer to non prophets too, these non prophets do not hold the same status as prophets, agreed?

[ZulFiqar]

I was replying to you as if you were a shia then realised my mistake.
With shia they take the verses to prove their Imams to be on same station as prophets.
You say only prophets are infallible. Therefore, clearly if the verses refer to non prophets too, these non prophets do not hold the same status as prophets, agreed?

I agree that Prophets are superior, and a non-Prophet can never be equal to a Prophet or possess the same status.

But this Verse is talking about Imamah, i.e., leadership. Every Prophet is an Imam, but a non-Prophet can also become an Imam. Obviously they are not equal, although both have been raised to the office of Imamah.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

I was replying to you as if you were a shia then realised my mistake.
With shia they take the verses to prove their Imams to be on same station as prophets.
You say only prophets are infallible. Therefore, clearly if the verses refer to non prophets too, these non prophets do not hold the same status as prophets, agreed?

I agree that Prophets are superior, and a non-Prophet can never be equal to a Prophet or possess the same status.

But this Verse is talking about Imamah, i.e., leadership. Every Prophet is an Imam, but a non-Prophet can also become an Imam. Obviously they are not equal, although both have been raised to the office of Imamah.

Then the verse does not apply the same to non prophets as it does prophets. An infallible divine prophets leadership is not the same as a fallible non divine non prophet.

The shia obviously don't make the distinction between the two when it comes to imamate.

[ZulFiqar]

You see this Verse (2:124) is not talking about the issue of Ismah "infallibility". And let me be honest, when Shi'ites quote this Verse (2:124), they aren't trying to prove the infallibility of Imams, they are quoting this Verse as a proof for the fact that Allah is the One who makes the Imam, i.e., their doctrine that the Imam is divinely appointed by Allah just as the Prophet is divinely appointed.

Now if you as a Sunni take this Verse (2:124) and say that the covenant mentioned in it is only concerning Prophets, I find that dishonest, because it is clear that you are saying that only to oppose the Shi'ite doctrine, and so you have a preconceived bias in approaching the text of the Holy Qur'an.

Now I will clarify my doctrine. According to me Allah does indeed give Imamate to the progeny of Abraham with a Nass, i.e., directly naming and appointing an Imam to lead and guide the people. This is the Sunnah of Allah. And those whom Allah appoints as Imam are not always Prophets. I will give some examples:

I've already mentioned the example of Talut عليه السلام

وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّـهَ قَدْ بَعَثَ لَكُمْ طَالُوتَ مَلِكًا
And their Prophet said to them, "Indeed, Allah has sent to you Talut as a king." (2:247)

وَلَقَدْ أَخَذَ اللَّـهُ مِيثَاقَ بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ وَبَعَثْنَا مِنْهُمُ اثْنَيْ عَشَرَ نَقِيبًا
And Allah had already taken a covenant from the Children of Israel, and We delegated from among them twelve leaders. (5:12)

So you should know that King Talut (Saul) and the 12 Nuqaba' (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Benjamin, and Joseph) were not Prophets, with the exception of Joseph.

So it is proven that Allah Most High did indeed appoint non-Prophet to the position of Imamate with a Nass, i.e., through Wahi. They did not acquire Imamate through consultation and election by the people but were divinely appointed by Allah.

Now if you say that these are examples from the previous Ummam, then I will give you an example from this Ummah. That is the example of Allah appointed the Mahdi to be the Imam. The Mahdi's Imamate has a Nass from the Prophetic Hadith:

عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ لَوْ لَمْ يَبْقَ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا إِلاَّ يَوْمٌ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ زَائِدَةُ فِي حَدِيثِهِ ‏"‏ لَطَوَّلَ اللَّهُ ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمَ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ اتَّفَقُوا ‏"‏ حَتَّى يَبْعَثَ فِيهِ رَجُلاً مِنِّي ‏"‏ ‏.‏ أَوْ ‏"‏ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِي يُوَاطِئُ اسْمُهُ اسْمِي وَاسْمُ أَبِيهِ اسْمَ أَبِي ‏"‏ ‏.‏ زَادَ فِي حَدِيثِ فِطْرٍ ‏"‏ يَمْلأُ الأَرْضَ قِسْطًا وَعَدْلاً كَمَا مُلِئَتْ ظُلْمًا وَجَوْرًا
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If only one day of this world remained. Allah would lengthen that day (according to the version of Za'idah), till He raised up in it a man who belongs to me or to my family whose father's name is the same as my father's, who will fill the earth with equity and justice as it has been filled with oppression and tyranny

Hattaa Yab'atha Feehi Rajulam Min Ahli Baitee "Until He (Allah) raised up in it a man (Mahdi) from my Household" (Sunan Abi Dawud: Isnaduhu Hasan)

So it is known that the Mahdi is an Imam who is directly appointed by Allah with a Nass; we as the Umma don't have the authority to consult among ourselves and elect our own Mahdi.

Now where we differ with the Shi'ites is concerning a specific issue, which is whether the Prophet ﷺ directly named his successor with a Nass, and whether their 12 Imams are divinely appointed Imams. This is the extent of our difference with them. To argue with them over the theory of divinely-appointed Imamate and to argue that there is no such concept as a divinely-appointed Imamate is to shoot oneself in the foot. In such a debate the Shi'ite will always win. Hope you understand where I'm coming from now

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

That is the example of Allah appointed the Mahdi to be the Imam. The Mahdi's Imamate has a Nass from the Prophetic Hadith:

عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ لَوْ لَمْ يَبْقَ مِنَ الدُّنْيَا إِلاَّ يَوْمٌ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ زَائِدَةُ فِي حَدِيثِهِ ‏"‏ لَطَوَّلَ اللَّهُ ذَلِكَ الْيَوْمَ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ ثُمَّ اتَّفَقُوا ‏"‏ حَتَّى يَبْعَثَ فِيهِ رَجُلاً مِنِّي ‏"‏ ‏.‏ أَوْ ‏"‏ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِي يُوَاطِئُ اسْمُهُ اسْمِي وَاسْمُ أَبِيهِ اسْمَ أَبِي ‏"‏ ‏.‏ زَادَ فِي حَدِيثِ فِطْرٍ ‏"‏ يَمْلأُ الأَرْضَ قِسْطًا وَعَدْلاً كَمَا مُلِئَتْ ظُلْمًا وَجَوْرًا
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If only one day of this world remained. Allah would lengthen that day (according to the version of Za'idah), till He raised up in it a man who belongs to me or to my family whose father's name is the same as my father's, who will fill the earth with equity and justice as it has been filled with oppression and tyranny

How will you explain the following hadeeth?

Abu Hurairah (ra) from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم that he said:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْعَثُ لِهَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ عَلَى رَأْسِ كُلِّ مِائَةِ سَنَةٍ مَنْ يُجَدِّدُ لَهَا دِينَهَا

“Verily Allah sends to this Ummah at the head of every one hundred years someone who will renew the Deen for her”.

Related by Abu Daawood (4291) and was verified as Saheeh by As-Sakhaawiy in ‘Al-Maqqsid Al-Hasanah’ (149) and Al-Albaaniy in ‘As-Silsilah As-Saheehah’ (599).

You are mixing the Qadr of Allah, with divine appointment.

[ZulFiqar]

How will you explain the following hadeeth?

Abu Hurairah (ra) from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم that he said:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْعَثُ لِهَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ عَلَى رَأْسِ كُلِّ مِائَةِ سَنَةٍ مَنْ يُجَدِّدُ لَهَا دِينَهَا

“Verily Allah sends to this Ummah at the head of every one hundred years someone who will renew the Deen for her”.

Related by Abu Daawood (4291) and was verified as Saheeh by As-Sakhaawiy in ‘Al-Maqqsid Al-Hasanah’ (149) and Al-Albaaniy in ‘As-Silsilah As-Saheehah’ (599).

You are mixing the Qadr of Allah, with divine appointment.

That's right, the Mujaddid is also raised up by Allah, but a Mujaddid has a different function than an Imam, so recognition of a Mujaddid is not essential. He is recognised through his work for revival of the faith. He is not owed any obedience unlike an Imam.

This is not an issue of Qadr. Allah decreeing the rule of someone, such as Pharaoh for example, is not the same as Allah raising up the Mahdi whom we must recognise when he appears and take as our Imam. So if you are arguing that the appearance of Mahdi is decreed by Allah, that is not the point, but the point is that Allah divinely appoints the Mahdi to lead the Muslims, and we must recognise him when he comes. We have to recognise him as the Mahdi, just like it is incumbent upon the rest of the world to recognise ٍSayyidina Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم as Allah's Prophet.

As I said, we cannot consult among ourselves and elect our own Mahdi. Allah will send the Mahdi, divinely appointing him, and when he appears we will have to recognise him and pledge allegiance to him. Hence, Mahdi is an example of an Imam that is Mansoos Min Allah.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

How will you explain the following hadeeth?

Abu Hurairah (ra) from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم that he said:

إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَبْعَثُ لِهَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ عَلَى رَأْسِ كُلِّ مِائَةِ سَنَةٍ مَنْ يُجَدِّدُ لَهَا دِينَهَا

“Verily Allah sends to this Ummah at the head of every one hundred years someone who will renew the Deen for her”.

Related by Abu Daawood (4291) and was verified as Saheeh by As-Sakhaawiy in ‘Al-Maqqsid Al-Hasanah’ (149) and Al-Albaaniy in ‘As-Silsilah As-Saheehah’ (599).

You are mixing the Qadr of Allah, with divine appointment.

That's right, the Mujaddid is also raised up by Allah, but a Mujaddid has a different function than an Imam, so recognition of a Mujaddid is not essential. He is recognised through his work for revival of the faith. He is not owed any obedience unlike an Imam.

This is not an issue of Qadr. Allah decreeing the rule of someone, such as Pharaoh for example, is not the same as Allah raising up the Mahdi whom we must recognise when he appears and take as our Imam. So if you are arguing that the appearance of Mahdi is decreed by Allah, that is not the point, but the point is that Allah divinely appoints the Mahdi to lead the Muslims, and we must recognise him when he comes. We have to recognise him as the Mahdi, just like it is incumbent upon the rest of the world to recognise ٍSayyidina Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم as Allah's Prophet.

As I said, we cannot consult among ourselves and elect our own Mahdi. Allah will send the Mahdi, divinely appointing him, and when he appears we will have to recognise him and pledge allegiance to him. Hence, Mahdi is an example of an Imam that is Mansoos Min Allah.

I disagree. I didn't mean to compare the roles of Imam and Mujadid by quoting that hadeeth. The only purpose was to prove that the hadeeth you used isn't a proof for divine appointment of Mahdi, since similar wordings was used for Mujadid. Hence it is the issue of Qadr of Allah.

As for the appointment of Mahdi, then

Dawud :: Book 36 : Hadith 4273 Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Disagreement will occur at the death of a caliph and a man of the people of Medina will come flying forth to Mecca. Some of the people of Mecca will come to him, BRING HIM OUT AGAINST HIS WILL AND SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO HIM between the Corner and the Maqam. An expeditionary force will then be sent against him from Syria but will be swallowed up in the desert between Mecca and Medina. When the people see that, the eminent saints of Syria and the best people of Iraq will come to him and swear allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam. Then there will arise a man of Quraysh whose maternal uncles belong to Kalb and send against them an expeditionary force which will be overcome by them, and that is the expedition of Kalb. Disappointed will be the one who does not receive the booty of Kalb. He will divide the property, and will govern the people by the Sunnah of their Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and establish Islam on Earth. He will remain seven years, then die, and the Muslims will pray over him.

Mahdi would be appointed by people. The above report shows he will be appointed by people AGAINST HIS WILL, which is a proof that he wasn't appointed by Allah.

Second Proof:

Sahi muslim 4.661: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.”

Prophet(saws) didn't give any exception about the appointment of Mahdi after him, that is after the end of Prophet(saws) rather Muslim Ummah is obliged to obey the Caliph appointed by people, which we understand from the expression "who will be given the pledge of allegiance first".  This hadeeth also proves that divine appointment ended with end of Prophethood.

[ZulFiqar]

I disagree. I didn't mean to compare the roles of Imam and Mujadid by quoting that hadeeth. The only purpose was to prove that the hadeeth you used isn't a proof for divine appointment of Mahdi, since similar wordings was used for Mujadid. Hence it is the issue of Qadr of Allah.

As for the appointment of Mahdi, then

Dawud :: Book 36 : Hadith 4273 Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Disagreement will occur at the death of a caliph and a man of the people of Medina will come flying forth to Mecca. Some of the people of Mecca will come to him, BRING HIM OUT AGAINST HIS WILL AND SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO HIM between the Corner and the Maqam. An expeditionary force will then be sent against him from Syria but will be swallowed up in the desert between Mecca and Medina. When the people see that, the eminent saints of Syria and the best people of Iraq will come to him and swear allegiance to him between the Corner and the Maqam. Then there will arise a man of Quraysh whose maternal uncles belong to Kalb and send against them an expeditionary force which will be overcome by them, and that is the expedition of Kalb. Disappointed will be the one who does not receive the booty of Kalb. He will divide the property, and will govern the people by the Sunnah of their Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and establish Islam on Earth. He will remain seven years, then die, and the Muslims will pray over him.

Mahdi would be appointed by people. The above report shows he will be appointed by people AGAINST HIS WILL, which is a proof that he wasn't appointed by Allah.

This Hadith you have quoted is weak. Firstly, Qatada is narrating 'an'an from Salih Abi al-Khalil, while the former is Mudallis, and secondly and more damaging that Salih Abi al-Khalil is narrating from عن صاحب له "a companion of his" who is majhool.

But even if for the sake of argument we accept this Hadith that Mahdi will be taken out against his will to be given the pledge of allegiance, all it proves is that the Mahdi will not be aware of his position, but others will recognise him as the Imam sent by Allah before he recognises himself. This hardly means that the people decide who the Mahdi is. It is Allah who raises up the Mahdi, who bears certain characteristics which the people will recognise and hence they will give him the pledge of allegiance. The fact that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has given us the information about the Mahdi, what exactly his name will be, what he will look like, his lineage, is all sufficient evidence to say that the Prophet has appointed him to lead us by name, meaning he is Mansoos Min Allah.

[ZulFiqar]

Second Proof:[/b]

Sahi muslim 4.661: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.”

Prophet(saws) didn't give any exception about the appointment of Mahdi after him, that is after the end of Prophet(saws) rather Muslim Ummah is obliged to obey the Caliph appointed by people, which we understand from the expression "who will be given the pledge of allegiance first".  This hadeeth also proves that divine appointment ended with end of Prophethood.

Here you are quoting something general to disprove something specific. The Ahadith about the Mahdi when taken together reveal that the Muslims will already have rulers ruling over them when the Mahdi appears. Yet in the specific case of the Mahdi, the Muslims will have to abandon all their rulers and pledge allegiance to the Mahdi. In the case of anyone else, the Prophet has forbade this. We have to obey the ruler who is already established and to whom people have already given an oath of allegiance, so long as he doesn't apostatise. However, in the specific case of the Mahdi, all Muslims will have to recognise his leadership even though he will appear when there are already Muslim rulers present, Muslims rulers who will in fact try to attack him thinking he is usurping their authority. The Ahadith make this scenario clear. Because the Mahdi is special and is Mansoos Min Allah, therefore the general principle will be altered to accommodate him.