The belief in Prophets.

[Abu Muhammad]

1. There is wisdom in God telling us there are no more Prophets after Mohammad.
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to for there to be no more Prophets would apply to telling us there are no more divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad that succeed him if there was no more divinely chosen leaders to succeed Mohammad's position.
3. God didn't tell us there are no more divinely chosen leaders to succeed Mohammad's position.
4. Therefore there are divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad who succeed him.

Which premise is disputed here?

There were no mentioned of following the so-called 'chosen leaders' after Muhammad s.a.w. in the Quran in the first place. So, how could Allah s.w.t. negate something that he didn't instruct in the Quran?

There were so much aql in your writing and no naql (Quran & hadith). You should be the follower of Socrates, Plato and all those Greek philosophers instead of Muhammad s.a.w.

Which premise is disputed?

 What you say is another disputed thing and it's wrong to attack the conclusion instead of the argument.... There is also no point of going off-topic. If you wish to discuss the verses I believe are about leadership, you can do so, in their respective threads.

Or we can have a one on one debate about it. But this thread is making a different argument.

If you add the premise "if Imammate was true, it would be in Quran", then the argument that you quoted but didn't address would prove it is in the Quran.

Quran shows Prophet aside from revealing revelation had chosen leadership roles! So it's mentioned. So if leadership through chosen ones was to end, God should clarify that.

Since when it is off-topic? Read properly. I'm disputing your premise no. 2 and indirectly no. 3. Because you are using your aql here equating prophethood and your 'chosen leaders' whereas no quranic ayahs ever mentioned about following this so called 'leaders' in the first place.

[Link]

1. There is wisdom in God telling us there are no more Prophets after Mohammad.
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to for there to be no more Prophets would apply to telling us there are no more divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad that succeed him if there was no more divinely chosen leaders to succeed Mohammad's position.
3. God didn't tell us there are no more divinely chosen leaders to succeed Mohammad's position.
4. Therefore there are divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad who succeed him.

Which premise is disputed here?

There were no mentioned of following the so-called 'chosen leaders' after Muhammad s.a.w. in the Quran in the first place. So, how could Allah s.w.t. negate something that he didn't instruct in the Quran?

There were so much aql in your writing and no naql (Quran & hadith). You should be the follower of Socrates, Plato and all those Greek philosophers instead of Muhammad s.a.w.

Which premise is disputed?

 What you say is another disputed thing and it's wrong to attack the conclusion instead of the argument.... There is also no point of going off-topic. If you wish to discuss the verses I believe are about leadership, you can do so, in their respective threads.

Or we can have a one on one debate about it. But this thread is making a different argument.

If you add the premise "if Imammate was true, it would be in Quran", then the argument that you quoted but didn't address would prove it is in the Quran.

Quran shows Prophet aside from revealing revelation had chosen leadership roles! So it's mentioned. So if leadership through chosen ones was to end, God should clarify that.

Since when it is off-topic? Read properly. I'm disputing your premise no. 2 and indirectly no. 3. Because you are using your aql here equating prophethood and your 'chosen leaders' whereas no quranic ayahs ever mentioned about following this so called 'leaders' in the first place.

So in disputing 2, you are essential saying Prophets didn't have the role of leadership?

[Abu Muhammad]

So in disputing 2, you are essential saying Prophets didn't have the role of leadership?

What have you been smoking all this while? How can you conclude that I essentially said prophets didn't have the role of leadership?

Again, read slowly and properly. I was talking about prophethood and your chosen leaders i.e. those leaders after the Muhammad s.a.w. Not the QUALITY of prophethood itself.

[Link]

Then you are attacking the conclusion and not the argument.

Since you believe Prophets had the role of leadership, it should have said that leadership would come to end if it were.

In other were words it should have been clear there would be no chosen leaders after Mohammad that succeed him.  You can't say there is no such thing as chosen leaders in Quran, because that was a primary role Prophets had.

Please don't attack the conclusion or anything related to the conclusion but address the actual argument.

[muslim720]

Still ignoring my point.

Ignoring which point?  Do you even have a point?  You have no point - other than what you use extrapolation to appear like you have one - because everything you say is rooted in your own whims.  As for Isa (asws) and Imam Mahdi (as), they are prophesied.  If the same was true regarding your "captains", you would have a point.

[Link]

Yes I have a point. Try to digest it.

[muslim720]

Yes I have a point. Try to digest it.

No, you do not have a point.  To try to insert it in the Qur'an is adding insult to injury.

[GreatChineseFall]

1. There is wisdom in God telling us there are no more Prophets after Mohammad.
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to for there to be no more Prophets would apply to telling us there are no more divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad that succeed him if there was no more divinely chosen leaders to succeed Mohammad's position.
3. God didn't tell us there are no more divinely chosen leaders to succeed Mohammad's position.
4. Therefore there are divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad who succeed him.

Which premise is disputed here?

1. There is wisdom in God telling us clearly and unambiguously without allusion or parables that the belief in Prophets is a fundamental part of Islam
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to believe in Prophets unambiguously and clearly without allusion or parables would apply to telling us we have to believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets if there were to be divinely chosen leaders we have to believe in.
3. God didn't tell us unambiguously and without allusion and parables that we have to believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets like the Prophets.
4. Therefore we don't have to believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets like the Prophets.

Which premise is disputed here?

[Link]

1. There is wisdom in God telling us there are no more Prophets after Mohammad.
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to for there to be no more Prophets would apply to telling us there are no more divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad that succeed him if there was no more divinely chosen leaders to succeed Mohammad's position.
3. God didn't tell us there are no more divinely chosen leaders to succeed Mohammad's position.
4. Therefore there are divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad who succeed him.

Which premise is disputed here?

1. There is wisdom in God telling us clearly and unambiguously without allusion or parables that the belief in Prophets is a fundamental part of Islam
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to believe in Prophets unambiguously and clearly without allusion or parables would apply to telling us we have to believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets if there were to be divinely chosen leaders we have to believe in.
3. God didn't tell us unambiguously and without allusion and parables that we have to believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets like the Prophets.
4. Therefore we don't have to believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets like the Prophets.

Which premise is disputed here?

#3.

As I stated, side remarks about the conclusion are off-topic from this topic.

If the premises are true from this argument, it would mean God appointed Imams.

And since 2 is true and 1 is true in your argument, it follows that God did tell us unambiguously that there are chosen leaders after the Prophet.

We dispute this claim, but it is off-topic from the argument here in this topic.

There are threads about verses related to Imams in other threads like 4:59 etc....

I am focusing on another angle in this thread.

[Hani]

Define what is a "divinely chosen leader" in the shortest and most efficient definition.
Afterwards, define "prophet" in a similar manner.

This discussion you guys are having is pretty useless unless you define what each term means.

[GreatChineseFall]

1. There is wisdom in God telling us there are no more Prophets after Mohammad.
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to for there to be no more Prophets would apply to telling us there are no more divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad that succeed him if there was no more divinely chosen leaders to succeed Mohammad's position.
3. God didn't tell us there are no more divinely chosen leaders to succeed Mohammad's position.
4. Therefore there are divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad who succeed him.

Which premise is disputed here?

1. There is wisdom in God telling us clearly and unambiguously without allusion or parables that the belief in Prophets is a fundamental part of Islam
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to believe in Prophets unambiguously and clearly without allusion or parables would apply to telling us we have to believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets if there were to be divinely chosen leaders we have to believe in.
3. God didn't tell us unambiguously and without allusion and parables that we have to believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets like the Prophets.
4. Therefore we don't have to believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets like the Prophets.

Which premise is disputed here?

And since 2 is true and 1 is true in your argument, it follows that God did tell us unambiguously that there are chosen leaders after the Prophet.

What??
So assuming 1 and 2 are true, 3 can't possibly be true? This is logic to you?

#3.

As I stated, side remarks about the conclusion are off-topic from this topic.

I am focusing on another angle in this thread.

I am not going off-topic as my goal is not to discuss the subject, it's just to give you a piece of your own medicine. So let me respond in you likewise manner, maybe you'll see how silly it is:
#3.

If the premises are true from this argument, it would mean God didn't order someone to succeed the Prophet.

And since 2 is true and 1 is true in your argument, it follows that God did tell us unambiguously that there are no divinely chosen successors after the Prophet.

(I don't see a difference between your answer and mine, you are simply stating things)

[Link]

Yes, that is exactly it. The reason of 1 and 2 is indisputable, it would make the verse of Sealing Prophethood without purpose if not true.

The same is true of God telling us to believe in Prophets unambiguously and the same logic applying to the need of clarifying unambiguously that there are chosen leaders after the Prophet, without that, those verses lose their meaning.

Now while my view is that there are verses unambiguously stating there are Imams appointed by God after Mohammad,  there is definitely not a single verse saying Imams chosen by God has come to an end so your argument is ad hoc (neither of us believe in the premise you are asserting).

There was some people trying to make it as if seal of Prophets means no more divinely chosen leaders, but we see this problematic with Jesus who comes back not as a Prophet but with divine authority and leadership, and arguably the Mahdi (You can try to redefine being chosen leader but the Mahdi at the end is exactly that).

So we would have to unambiguous declaration that after the Prophet that there is no chosen leader aside from Jesus (or Imam Mahdi included (let's not argue on the latter point, it is superfluous to the argument)).

But definitely there is no such clarification in the Quran and no one can assert that.

So it follows the conclusion is God appointed Imams and due to your argument it becomes clear that they have unambiguously been appointed in the Quran.

But to talk about where they are appointed unambiguously in Quran is off-topic... the thing is the argument I am posing combined with yours would prove they are.



 

[Link]

But it is 3 that has to be the disputed premise in both arguments. But we know for certain there is no verse stating there are no chosen leaders after the Prophet.

[GreatChineseFall]

Yes, that is exactly it. The reason of 1 and 2 is indisputable, it would make the verse of Sealing Prophethood without purpose if not true.

The same is true of God telling us to believe in Prophets unambiguously and the same logic applying to the need of clarifying unambiguously that there are chosen leaders after the Prophet, without that, those verses lose their meaning.

Hold your horses, I responded to you in likewise manner. It definitely doesn't mean I have no problem with anything else, but I will come to that later.

Btw, I will ask you again, can you confirm that you believe that if 1 and 2 are true, 3 can't possibly and logically be true?

Now while my view is that there are verses unambiguously stating there are Imams appointed by God after Mohammad,  there is definitely not a single verse saying Imams chosen by God has come to an end so your argument is ad hoc (neither of us believe in the premise you are asserting).
 

My view is that God did tell us that there will be no divinely chosen leaders after Prophet Muhammad saws. There is definitely not a single verse stating that we should believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets.

(There is a difference between God clearly telling us something and a verse stating something. For example God clearly and unambiguously told us not to marry 25 wives at the same time, yet there is not a single verse stating that we should not marry 25 wives. Likewise, there is definitely not a single verse stating that we should believe in divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets, so nice attempt at sliding towards your view and very clever but try that with a five year old next time. And keep what both of us believe or don't to yourself)

There was some people trying to make it as if seal of Prophets means no more divinely chosen leaders, but we see this problematic with Jesus who comes back not as a Prophet but with divine authority and leadership, and arguably the Mahdi (You can try to redefine being chosen leader but the Mahdi at the end is exactly that).

There are some people trying to make it as if Ulil Amr are divinely chosen leaders besides Prophets,  but we see this is problematic as the verse tells us to refer things to the Messenger and Allah if we disagree with them.

So we would have to unambiguous declaration that after the Prophet that there is no chosen leader aside from Jesus (or Imam Mahdi included (let's not argue on the latter point, it is superfluous to the argument)).
 

.... we would have to unambiguous declaration ... ??
I am not even sure what you are trying to say here, it's not proper English, please clarify.

[GreatChineseFall]

Define what is a "divinely chosen leader" in the shortest and most efficient definition.
Afterwards, define "prophet" in a similar manner.

This discussion you guys are having is pretty useless unless you define what each term means.

It would be like pulling teeth from him, so I just start and he will define it as the discussion progresses. As a matter fact my copy of his argument can be replaced by anything, it's just a placeholder as long as I include "besides Prophets"

[Link]

1. I'm not discussing verses with Ulil-Amr or others, they been discussed already.

2. I'm not making a universal argument that all things have to be mentioned in Quran, I made a long explanation in the OP of why the premise is true. And I will try to make it simple. The issue of telling us there is a seal of Prophets is so fake Prophets or the religions claiming them while testifying to the Quran get paid no attention.  Or it's to emphasize on wisdom of God sealing Prophets. Whatever it is, in this scenario the role of leadership of Prophets and the issue of succession to a founding Messenger is been emphasized through out Quran, and so if it were to come to an end, the same wisdom of manifesting one implies manifesting the other (ie. Imammate coming to an end).

4. Prophet is simply one who receives information from God to be given to the people in a form a connecting scripture. A Messenger is a Prophet who has to convey the clear conveyance to all people and his revelation comes down to revive the whole message and extend to all levels of people. A Prophet that is not a Messenger receives a connecting scripture to be given to humanity but is not required to revive the whole message and do the clear conveyance. Rather he adds to the teachings and elaborates what has been founded in that society already. A non-Prophet Imam is a leader and guide from God that leads people by divine decree but doesn't receive information to be given to humanity from God in a form of scriptures like Prophets.

[GreatChineseFall]

It's good to see you write short paragraphs. Please keep it that way.

1. I'm not discussing verses with Ulil-Amr or others, they been discussed already.

Neither am I, again I am just using it for you to reflect upon. And again I am asking, are you saying that if 1 and 2 are true, 3 can't possibly and logically be true?

2. I'm not making a universal argument that all things have to be mentioned in Quran, I made a long explanation in the OP of why the premise is true. And I will try to make it simple. The issue of telling us there is a seal of Prophets is so fake Prophets or the religions claiming them while testifying to the Quran get paid no attention.  Or it's to emphasize on wisdom of God sealing Prophets. Whatever it is, in this scenario the role of leadership of Prophets and the issue of succession to a founding Messenger is been emphasized through out Quran, and so if it were to come to an end, the same wisdom of manifesting one implies manifesting the other (ie. Imammate coming to an end).

It seems you don't get it, so I will respond again in likewise manner:

I'm not making a universal argument that all things have to be mentioned in Quran, I can give a long explanation of why the premise is true if you wish. And I will try to make it simple. The issue of telling us there are Prophets is to inform us how we can be guided and who we should follow so that we will be guided. Anyway, whatever it is, in this scenario the role of leadership of Prophets is been emphasized through out Quran, and so if it were to be used to guide humans by having a human source of emulation, the same wisdom of manifesting one implies manifesting the other (ie. Imams as a human source of emulation).

[Link]

You are boring bro. I understand what you are saying, but I think you haven't understood what I said in the first place.

1.  To deny the conclusion, one premise has to be denied in either argument, because it's valid argument. The only premise that seems that can be denied in either of these to me is 3.

2. I think it's beyond clear if Quran didn't emphasis on leadership and guiding role of Prophets aside from revealing scriptures, and didn't emphasize to believe in such leaders after Mohammad, chosen ones who inherit the book, the family of the reminder and did not warn and caution on having envy towards them due to breaking our idols and heightening their believers that in all honesty in would be a book of falsehood let alone the fact it would as result show no purpose of revealing guidance in the past. It would be a book that contradicts its whole thesis and it's the whole emphasis. May God save us from misguidance and blindness. Obvious God has the best eloquence but the book must not contradict itself. Eloquence is not the main emphasis in Quran of why humans cannot bring a book like Quran. It says "bring a book having greater guidance then these two".

When you get tired of your urinated interpretations of Quran and splitting hairs with clear words from hadiths that designate Ahlulbayt, when you properly understand the reasoning Quran comes with to all humanity,  then you will know where I am coming from.

Until then, you don't understand me and I am really tired of every time I beat you guys at your chess games, all you do is shove all the pieces away and reset the conversation.

If you can't address the OP, do something else, having the last word hardly means anything.

[GreatChineseFall]

You are boring bro. I understand what you are saying, but I think you haven't understood what I said in the first place.

I am not here to entertain you and I don't think you have yet understood me

1.  To deny the conclusion, one premise has to be denied in either argument, because it's valid argument. The only premise that seems that can be denied in either of these to me is 3.

Has it occurred to you that the conclusion doesn't even necessarily follow from your premises? The fact that your understanding of logic is so poor, speaks volumens and I have no intention whatsoever to respond to it. (And you are wrong, 3 is not the only problem)

... chosen ones who inherit the book ...

Chosen to inherit the Book? Right, I remember a discussion on ShiaChat with you about the verse:

Sahih International
Then we caused to inherit the Book those We have chosen of Our servants; and among them is he who wrongs himself, and among them is he who is moderate, and among them is he who is foremost in good deeds by permission of Allah. That [inheritance] is what is the great bounty.

And you wanted to pass it off as if those who wrong themselves are not those who inherit the Book but the servants of Allah in general. Absolutely ridiculous. And then you complain about people not taking you seriously?

When you get tired of your urinated interpretations of Quran and splitting hairs with clear words from hadiths that designate Ahlulbayt, when you properly understand the reasoning Quran comes with to all humanity,  then you will know where I am coming from.

What you don't understand or are unwilling to understand is no matter how you put it, you essentially don't believe Prophethood ended. So you invent terms that allow you to circumvent the issue, but essentially that's what you arrive at. Allah emphasized leadership? A non-Prophet Imam who receives no information from God, but yet he is "from God" and leads by "divine decree"? What do you actually mean? Why not a non-Prophet Guide? Or a non-Prophet Warner?

1. There is wisdom in God telling us there are no more Prophets after Mohammad.
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to for there to be no more Prophets would apply to telling us there are no more divinely chosen guides after Mohammad that succeed him if there was no more divinely chosen guides to succeed Mohammad's position.
3. God didn't tell us there are no more divinely chosen guides to succeed Mohammad's position.
4. Therefore there are divinely chosen guides after Mohammad who succeed him.

1. There is wisdom in God telling us there are no more Prophets after Mohammad.
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to for there to be no more Prophets would apply to telling us there are no more divinely chosen warners after Mohammad that succeed him if there was no more divinely chosen warners to succeed Mohammad's position.
3. God didn't tell us there are no more divinely chosen warners to succeed Mohammad's position.
4. Therefore there are divinely chosen leaders after Mohammad who succeed him.

Of course you will say that is applicable too, because an Imam encompasses all of that. Basically there is no difference between an Imam and a Prophet except that an Imam "receives no information from God", yet at the same time somehow he is "from God" and leads "by divine decree" whatever that means. While we're at it, why not define a divinely chosen messenger as well? Let's change your definitions a bit:

Prophet is simply one who receives information from God to be given to the people in a form a connecting scripture. A Messenger is a Prophet who has to convey the clear conveyance to all people and his revelation comes down to revive the whole message and extend to all levels of people. A Prophet that is not a Messenger receives a connecting scripture to be given to humanity but is not required to revive the whole message and do the clear conveyance. Rather he adds to the teachings and elaborates what has been founded in that society already. A non-Prophet Imam is a leader and guide from God that leads people by divine decree but doesn't receive information to be given to humanity from God in a form of scriptures like Prophets.

into:

Prophet is simply one who receives information from God to be given to the people in a form a connecting scripture. A non-Prophet Messenger is a person who has to convey the clear conveyance to all people and revives the whole message that a previous Prophet-Messenger has received and extends to all levels of people while adding to the teachings and elaborates what has been founded in that society already. A non-Prophet Imam is a leader and guide from God that leads people by divine decree but doesn't receive information to be given to humanity from God in a form of scriptures like Prophets.

and then we can simply say:

1. There is wisdom in God telling us there are no more Prophets after Mohammad.
2. By the same clear wisdom that God told us to for there to be no more Prophets would apply to telling us there are no more divinely chosen messengers after Mohammad that succeed him if there was no more divinely chosen messengers to succeed Mohammad's position.
3. God didn't tell us there are no more divinely chosen messengers to succeed Mohammad's position.
4. Therefore there are divinely chosen messengers after Mohammad who succeed him.

You simply don't get it, do you? What is the difference between a Messenger leading a nation who receives information from God through an infallible angle and an Imam leading a nation who receives teachings (essentially information from God) through another infallible human being, either a Messenger or another Imam? They both receive information from God, they both receive it from an infallible one, they both understand it perfectly, do you really think that makes a difference? Is that what the message is?

And if the last Messenger or Prophet is going to appoint people anyway, how is it wisdom to end Prophethood "so that other people don't claim Prophethood"? Who cares what other people claim, it has been made clear that there is appointment anyway. Why not just say "dont follow any Prophet who is not appointed because Prophethood will from now on only continue through appointment and not other methods." That way we're at least not deprived from "information from God" and Prophethood can still continue.

As I said, I will not bother to answer your poor attempt, it's sad that you can misguide yourself so badly. It's your loss if you don't understand.

Until then, you don't understand me and I am really tired of every time I beat you guys at your chess games, all you do is shove all the pieces away and reset the conversation.

We are really tired of you trying to play chess games on a checkers board and on top of that "defining" every black piece as a queen and every white piece as a pawn, thinking that you beat anyone.

[Link]

@ Abu Muhammad, Do you now see why I made the argument that Jesus would not be returning as a Prophet but a proof and authority? You can see from the post above, it's pretty common that Sunnis equate sealing of Prophethood with sealing divine leadership with no proof and despite their hadiths about Jesus returning and Quran showing so implying otherwise and despite the Mahdi being said to be God's Caliph in hadiths.

May God curse those who read the Quran through Satanic urinated lens and may he bless those who hear and see it through the blessed eyes meant to be seen by.