Twelve Leaders of Quraysh

[Rationalist]

Below are hadiths which unequivocally mentions that there has been no Prophet/Messenger raised between Nabi Isa (a.s) and Nabi

Refer to reply 24. I already  showed you disagreement with Abu Huraira. In fact the hadith on Khalid bin Sinan are in the 12er Shia books too. My link is from a 12er Shia sitr.

[wannabe]

here's a confusion from a 21st century man
https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/90wbj6/why_there_is_no_new_prophets_or_messengers/
while i have the answer as to why there's no need for a new prophet or messenger, i'm quite at a loss for words as to ....

It has been narrated by Abu Huraira that the Prophet (may pceace be upon him) said:

Banu Isra'il were ruled over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him; but after me there is no prophet and there will be caliphs and they will be quite large in number. His Companions said: What do you order us to do (in case we come to have more than one Caliph)? He said: The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others. Concede to them their due rights (i. e. obey them). God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1842 a
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 71
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4543

i believe, human being has no say in choosing who should be a prophet. And the prophets of banu israel preserved the teaching of the previous Messenger.
thus, it struck me as quite odd:
Allah chose the succeeding prophets for banu israel but man chose the succeeding caliphs for ummah Muhammad saw.
i tend to agree with bro Rationalist - this hadith is problematic.
Allahu a'lam.

[Ijtaba]

Thank you again. You were just strengthening my argument. Maybe you need to re-read our previous posts to understand why I said that... ☺

Hence, your previous comparison between the 12th Imam and Isa (as) has completely failed.

I don't think so. I believe that your argument is weak. My comparison of Imam Mehdi (a.s) with Nabi Isa (a.s) is because I am comparing the rule of Prophethood with rule of Imamah and not because I believe Imam Mehdi (a.s) is a Prophet like Nabi Isa (a.s).

However, Jews and Christians share the same opinion like you when we Muslims say to them that a Prophet unto Moses is none other than Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w) as well as present our evidences by highlighting the similarities between the two Prophets (a.s). What would you say about that? Are Jews and Christians arguments strong for not accepting Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w) a Prophet like Nabi Musa (a.s)?

We Twelvers believe Imam Mehdi (a.s) shares certain qualities with two Prophet (a.s):

- Nabi Isa (a.s) - Both will come in End of Times and fight evil forces at that time to bring peace and justice to earth.

- Nabi Khidr - Both are in Ghaybah e Kubra

Now we Twelvers don't believe that Imam Mehdi (a.s) is identical to these two Prophets (a.s) in the sense that his (Imam a.s) life should exactly be like them (Prophets a.s) e.g. Imam Mehdi (a.s) was not born without a father like Nabi Isa (a.s), etc.

[Ijtaba]

Refer to reply 24. I already  showed you disagreement with Abu Huraira. In fact the hadith on Khalid bin Sinan are in the 12er Shia books too. My link is from a 12er Shia sitr.

Is the Shii'te hadith authentic?

Ahlul Sunnah believes all the hadiths which I gave to be authentic.

[Rationalist]

Is the Shii'te hadith authentic?

Ahlul Sunnah believes all the hadiths which I gave to be authentic.

Im not sure about the 12er Shia grading. The issue is the narrations are not  popular and less in number. On the other hand, I brought the Quran and the timeline of Surah Yasin comes in after Prophet Isa's(as) timeline.

[Rationalist]

I don't think so. I believe that your argument is weak. My comparison of Imam Mehdi (a.s) with Nabi Isa (a.s) is because I am comparing the rule of Prophethood with rule of Imamah and not because I believe Imam Mehdi (a.s) is a Prophet like Nabi Isa (a.s).

However, Jews and Christians share the same opinion like you when we Muslims say to them that a Prophet unto Moses is none other than Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w) as well as present our evidences by highlighting the similarities between the two Prophets (a.s). What would you say about that? Are Jews and Christians arguments strong for not accepting Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w) a Prophet like Nabi Musa (a.s)?

We Twelvers believe Imam Mehdi (a.s) shares certain qualities with two Prophet (a.s):

- Nabi Isa (a.s) - Both will come in End of Times and fight evil forces at that time to bring peace and justice to earth.

- Nabi Khidr - Both are in Ghaybah e Kubra

Now we Twelvers don't believe that Imam Mehdi (a.s) is identical to these two Prophets (a.s) in the sense that his (Imam a.s) life should exactly be like them (Prophets a.s) e.g. Imam Mehdi (a.s) was not born without a father like Nabi Isa (a.s), etc.

Isnt the Gaiyba quality shared by Dajjal as well? In fact since Shaykh Saduq believed that Prophet Isa (as) died he compared the Mahdi's gaiyba to the gaiyba of Dajjal.

[Ijtaba]

Isnt the Gaiyba quality shared by Dajjal as well? In fact since Shaykh Saduq believed that Prophet Isa (as) died he compared the Mahdi's gaiyba to the gaiyba of Dajjal.

I am not responsible for Shaykh Saduq's beliefs. He may believe whatever he wants but he is not hujjah for me.

As for Dajjal's ghaybah... it should be noted that for a ghaybah to occur a person should have been born (literally come into this world) and then afterwards go into occultation. According to Ahlul Sunnah has dajjal been born? If yes then when did his birth take place and who witnessed his birth?

If you bring the hadith of island then it should be noted Dajjal is not in Ghaybah as Sahabas did see Dajjal and had conversation with him. According to the hadith Dajjal is chained in some unknown island and would be released during End times. We Shias do not believe such thing about our twelfth Imam.

[Ijtaba]

Im not sure about the 12er Shia grading. The issue is the narrations are not  popular and less in number. On the other hand, I brought the Quran and the timeline of Surah Yasin comes in after Prophet Isa's(as) timeline.

On the contrary... Quran says otherwise:

SURAH 5:19 (SAHIH INTERNATIONAL)
O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger to make clear to you [the religion] after a period [of suspension] of messengers, lest you say, "There came not to us any bringer of good tidings or a warner." But there has come to you a bringer of good tidings and a warner. And Allah is over all things competent.

As for the Surah Yasin... do you have any authentic report or reliable evidence that the Messengers referred in al-Quran came after Nabi Isa (a.s)?

However I will give the link of ibn Kathir's tafsir for the verses mentioned by you:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1491&Itemid=92

By the way no Prophet by the name of Khalid bin Sinan is mentioned in ibn Kathir's tafsir of these verses.

[Rationalist]

On the contrary... Quran says otherwise:

Having Prophets after Prophet Isa (as) does not contradict this verse. The verse could imply suspension after those Prophets.

As for the Surah Yasin... do you have any authentic report or reliable evidence that the Messengers referred in al-Quran came after Nabi Isa (a.s)?

Yes the era the Surah is referring to happened after Prophet Isa (as) timeline. Plus the verses say 3 Messengers were sent.

However I will give the link of ibn Kathir's tafsir for the verses mentioned by you:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1491&Itemid=92

By the way no Prophet by the name of Khalid bin Sinan is mentioned in ibn Kathir's tafsir of these verses.

Ok but how this tafsir again works against you.
 We reinforced them with a third,) means, `We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger. ' Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu`ayb Al-Jaba'i, "The names of the first two Messengers were Sham`un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah).

﴿فَقَالُواْ﴾

(and they said) means, to the people of that city,

﴿إِنَّآ إِلَيْكُمْ مُّرْسَلُونَ﴾

(Verily, we have been sent to you as Messengers.) meaning, `from your Lord Who created you and Who commands you to worship Him Alone with no partners or associates.' This was the view of Abu Al-`Aliyah. Qatadah bin Di`amah claimed that they were messengers of the Messiah, peace b

[muslim720]

Its your opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but it isn't necessary that their opinion is a fact.

It is a fact.  Had you had the slightest shred of evidence in favor of Imamah, let alone an unambiguous verse, which could stand scrutiny, you would have been screaming it at the top of your lungs.

Then what about rest of them? I mean to ask about Banu Ummaya, Banu Abbas, Ottomon Empire, Modern era Rulers? As they have not been pledged allegiance through the process of Shura as endorsed by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) so is their leadership illegitimate?

Why do you concern yourself with the process of Shura as endorsed by the Holy Prophet (saw) when you deem the entire concept to be illegitimate?  My point, without turning this into a historical discussion to give you what you are seeking (an escape route), is this: can you start by acknowledging the legitimacy of the first three Caliphs (ra) just like Imam Ali (ra) accepted them?

I am asking who was legitimate Caliph at that time since there were two caliphs... one at Medina and one at Syria. In this situation who was rightful Caliph according to Prophetic Hadith (as there can't be two caliphs at one time)?

Pledge for Yazeed was taken by force and the answer to your unintelligent query is answered in the same narration you quoted.

It has been narrated by Abu Huraira that the Prophet (may pceace be upon him) said:
Banu Isra'il were ruled over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him; but after me there is no prophet and there will be caliphs and they will be quite large in number.  His Companions said: What do you order us to do (in case we come to have more than one Caliph)?  He said: The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others.  Concede to them their due rights (i. e. obey them). God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them.

To answer your question, the one to whom people pledged allegiance first (without being forced) was elected as per Shura condoned by the Holy Prophet (saw). 

Next time I suggest you read your own evidences carefully!

[wannabe]

It is a fact.  Had you had the slightest shred of evidence in favor of Imamah, let alone an unambiguous verse, which could stand scrutiny, you would have been screaming it at the top of your lungs.

Why do you concern yourself with the process of Shura as endorsed by the Holy Prophet (saw) when you deem the entire concept to be illegitimate?  My point, without turning this into a historical discussion to give you what you are seeking (an escape route), is this: can you start by acknowledging the legitimacy of the first three Caliphs (ra) just like Imam Ali (ra) accepted them?

Pledge for Yazeed was taken by force and the answer to your unintelligent query is answered in the same narration you quoted.

It has been narrated by Abu Huraira that the Prophet (may pceace be upon him) said:
Banu Isra'il were ruled over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him; but after me there is no prophet and there will be caliphs and they will be quite large in number.  His Companions said: What do you order us to do (in case we come to have more than one Caliph)?  He said: The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others.  Concede to them their due rights (i. e. obey them). God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them.

To answer your question, the one to whom people pledged allegiance first (without being forced) was elected as per Shura condoned by the Holy Prophet (saw). 

Next time I suggest you read your own evidences carefully!

what you've said, is acceptable to you but maybe not to others. IMO, this debate will go on endlessly.
what is of immediate concern to a 21st century man like me, is:
what did the imams say about people following them? i mean, are there any reports that say, the imams (including  the 12 imams) gave any guarantee that they won't dissociate from their followers, on the Judgement Day? i'm referring  to the verse Quran 2:165-167.
AFAIK, the verse 2:165 apparently ONLY exlcuded MUKMIN from this unjust people. Thus muslim who love other than Allah (women/men, properties, families, etc...) as they love Allah, will be part of this group of people.
Sahih International
Quran 2:165-167
And [yet], among the people are those who take other than Allah as equals [to Him]. They love them as they [should] love Allah . But those who believe are stronger in love for Allah . And if only they who have wronged would consider [that] when they see the punishment, [they will be certain] that all power belongs to Allah and that Allah is severe in punishment.
 [And they should consider that] when those who have been followed disassociate themselves from those who followed [them], and they [all] see the punishment, and cut off from them are the ties [of relationship],
Those who followed will say, "If only we had another turn [at worldly life] so we could disassociate ourselves from them as they have disassociated themselves from us." Thus will Allah show them their deeds as regrets upon them. And they are never to emerge from the Fire.

[Ijtaba]

Having Prophets after Prophet Isa (as) does not contradict this verse. The verse could imply suspension after those Prophets.
Yes the era the Surah is referring to happened after Prophet Isa (as) timeline. Plus the verses say 3 Messengers were sent.

Its your opinion. Provide evidence for Messengers coming after Nabi Isa (a.s)

Ok but how this tafsir again works against you.
 We reinforced them with a third,) means, `We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger. ' Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu`ayb Al-Jaba'i, "The names of the first two Messengers were Sham`un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah).

﴿فَقَالُواْ﴾

(and they said) means, to the people of that city,

﴿إِنَّآ إِلَيْكُمْ مُّرْسَلُونَ﴾

(Verily, we have been sent to you as Messengers.) meaning, `from your Lord Who created you and Who commands you to worship Him Alone with no partners or associates.' This was the view of Abu Al-`Aliyah. Qatadah bin Di`amah claimed that they were messengers of the Messiah, peace b

Did you carefully read the link I gave?

The tafsir says following:

...(The second) is that the people of Antioch did believe in the messengers sent by the Messiah to them. Antioch was the first city to believe in the Messiah, and it is one of the four cities in which there are Christian patriarchs. These cities are: Jerusalem, because it is the city of the Messiah; Antioch, because it was the first city where all of the people believed in the Messiah; Alexandria, because it was in that city that they agreed to reform the hierarchy of patriarchs, metropolitans (archbishops), bishops, priests, deacons and monks; and Rome, because it is the city of the Emperor Constantine who supported and helped to establish their religion. When he adopted Constantinople as his city, the Patriarch of Rome moved there, as has been mentioned by several historian, such as Sa`id bin Batriq and others, both People of the Book and Muslims. If we accept that, then the people of Antioch were the first to believe, but Allah tells us that the people of this town rejected His Messengers and that He destroyed them with one Sayhah and lo! they (all) were still. And Allah knows best. (The third) is that the story of Antioch and the Disciples of the Messiah happened after the Tawrah had been revealed. Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him, and others among the Salaf stated that after revealing the Tawrah, Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, did not destroy an entire nation by sending a punishment upon them. Rather, He commanded the believers to fight the idolators. They mentioned this when discussing the Ayah:

(And indeed We gave Musa -- after We had destroyed the generations of old -- the Scripture) (28:43). This implies that the city mentioned in the Qur'an is a city other than Antioch, as also stated by more than one of the Salaf. Or, if we wish to keep the same name, it is possible that it is another Antioch, not the one which is well-known, for it is not known that it (the famous Antioch) was destroyed, either during Christian times or before. And Allah knows best.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1491&Itemid=92

[Ijtaba]

It is a fact.  Had you had the slightest shred of evidence in favor of Imamah, let alone an unambiguous verse, which could stand scrutiny, you would have been screaming it at the top of your lungs.

In your opinion it is a fact. There are clear verses pointing to Imamah but its different thing when people interpret the clear verses according to their desires.

I want to know your view/opinion regarding a question which I have in my mind.

Often you see we Shias bringing the verse of Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) being made Imam for mankind. The verses afterwards tells us Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) asking ALLAH (SWT) to make Imams (a.s) from his (a.s) progeny also and ALLAH (SWT) answers that HIS (SWT) covenant does not include zalimun (i.e. oppressors). Now we both (Ahlul Sunnah & Twelvers) agree that ALLAH (SWT) did make Aimmah (a.s) in the progeny of Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) during the period of Prophethood.

My question is: Prophethood ended with Prophet Mohammed (s.a.w.w) being the Seal of Prophets but did the Imamah also end with Prophethood or continue to exist after Prophethood?

- If you believe that Imamah ended with Prophethood... can you provide any evidence of this belief?

- If you believe that Imamah did not end with Prophethood... then were the Aimmah (a.s) coming after Prophethood ended similar to Aimmah (a.s) during the period of Prophethood?

Why do you concern yourself with the process of Shura as endorsed by the Holy Prophet (saw) when you deem the entire concept to be illegitimate?  My point, without turning this into a historical discussion to give you what you are seeking (an escape route), is this: can you start by acknowledging the legitimacy of the first three Caliphs (ra) just like Imam Ali (ra) accepted them?

Escape route? I came over here to learn the viewpoints of Ahlul Sunnah.

Ahlul Sunnah believes the legitimacy of Caliphate through the process of Shura. All I did was ask if the Caliph is chosen without the process of Shura then according to Ahlul Sunnah would his Caliphate be deemed illegitimate? I was hoping for answer as Yes or No. If the answer would had been Yes then I would had further asked to gain knowledge so that I could know all the procedures of becoming legitimate Caliph in the eyes of Ahlul Sunnah.

Pledge for Yazeed was taken by force and the answer to your unintelligent query is answered in the same narration you quoted.

It has been narrated by Abu Huraira that the Prophet (may pceace be upon him) said:
Banu Isra'il were ruled over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him; but after me there is no prophet and there will be caliphs and they will be quite large in number.  His Companions said: What do you order us to do (in case we come to have more than one Caliph)?  He said: The one to whom allegiance is sworn first has a supremacy over the others.  Concede to them their due rights (i. e. obey them). God (Himself) will question them about the subjects whom He had entrusted to them.

To answer your question, the one to whom people pledged allegiance first (without being forced) was elected as per Shura condoned by the Holy Prophet (saw).

Next time I suggest you read your own evidences carefully!

Wasn't Yazeed nominated by Muawiya like Umar was nominated by Abu Bakr? Muawiya followed the Sunnah of Abu Bakr in appointing his son as Caliph.

In Abdullah ibn Umar's view Yazid was pledged allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle (s.a.w.) and the pledge wasn't taken by force.

Narrated Nafi`:

When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn `Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 7111
In-book reference: Book 92, Hadith 58
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 9, Book 88, Hadith 227

[muslim720]

There are clear verses pointing to Imamah but its different thing when people interpret the clear verses according to their desires.

Very well said!  Every verse that Shias present to support Imamah is a verse they have interpreted according to their desires.  You have recognized the symptom of the problem; if you could only fix it now.

My question is: Prophethood ended with Prophet Mohammed (s.a.w.w) being the Seal of Prophets but did the Imamah also end with Prophethood or continue to exist after Prophethood?

- If you believe that Imamah ended with Prophethood... can you provide any evidence of this belief?

- If you believe that Imamah did not end with Prophethood... then were the Aimmah (a.s) coming after Prophethood ended similar to Aimmah (a.s) during the period of Prophethood?

I do not believe in Imamah (the way Shias believe in it) so your question is invalid (whether I believe Imamah ended with Prophethood or continued after it).  This is a strawman!

What I believe is that Ibrahim (asws) was made an Imam over mankind as our role model which is why we are asked in the Qur'an to follow his religion.  Our Hajj rituals, for example, are replete of deeds that commemorate Ibrahim (asws) or replicate what he did.

My question to you is this: if Imamah was to stay with the 12 "infallible" Shi'i Imams (ra), why are we asked in the Qur'an to supplicate to Allah (swt) to make Imams from among us?  If Allah (swt) appoints Imams, as per the Shi'i narrative, why are we then reciting this du'a?

"And those who pray, 'Our Lord! Grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and give us (the grace) to lead the righteous.' " (Surah Al-Furqan verse 74)

Transliteration: Wa Al-Ladhīna Yaqūlūna Rabbanā Hab Lanā Min 'Azwājinā Wa Dhurrīyātinā Qurrata 'A`yunin Wa Aj`alnā Lilmuttaqīna 'Imāmāan

Escape route? I came over here to learn the viewpoints of Ahlul Sunnah.

Ahlul Sunnah believes the legitimacy of Caliphate through the process of Shura. All I did was ask if the Caliph is chosen without the process of Shura then according to Ahlul Sunnah would his Caliphate be deemed illegitimate?

You asked who was the righteous Caliph from between Ibn Zubayr, Yazeed, I don't know who else!  So I directed your attention to a hadith you quoted yourself.  In it, the Prophet (saw) clearly says that the one to whom allegiance was pledged first has superiority.  Pledged, not forced to pledge, by the way!

Wasn't Yazeed nominated by Muawiya like Umar was nominated by Abu Bakr? Muawiya followed the Sunnah of Abu Bakr in appointing his son as Caliph.

Abu Bakr (ra) did not appoint Umar (ra) haphazardly.  He consulted the major Sahaba (ra) so there was consultation before Umar (ra) was suggested as the successor.  No one opposed and after pledging allegiance to him, Umar (ra) became the second Caliph.

In Abdullah ibn Umar's view Yazid was pledged allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle (s.a.w.) and the pledge wasn't taken by force.

Narrated Nafi`:

When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn `Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 7111
In-book reference: Book 92, Hadith 58
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 9, Book 88, Hadith 227

Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) also didn't fight against Imam Ali (ra).  He didn't fight Muawiyah either.  He was what you would call an "isolationist".  In this report, he is urging his family and friends not to withdraw the bayah.  That does not mean he was supportive of Yazeed.  This might be hard for you to stomach but people at the time when Yazeed was declared Caliph did not know that his army would kill Imam Hussain (ra).  There were many people who accepted him as their leader.  Ibn Umar (ra) was only preventing his friends and family to compound upon the mistake of pledging allegiance to Yazeed by withdrawing it.

[wannabe]

In your opinion it is a fact. There are clear verses pointing to Imamah but its different thing when people interpret the clear verses according to their desires.

this is very interesting.
shias have their own interpretation of Quran and Sunnah. So do sunnis.
Thus, it's quite obvious to me that Quran and Sunnah are not authoritative enough to prevent disunity and dispute among muslims. even among sunnis, there's a dispute as to the meaning of the verse Quran 3:7: some believe only Allah knows its takwil while some believe those firmly rooted in knowledge also know its takwil.
When Prophet was around he was the  divine authority over  Quran and Sunnah. After his demise, Quran and Sunnah is authoritative only if there's an authority whose interpretation of Quran and Sunnah is acknowledged and accepted by all, to dispel any dispute.
hence it sounds logical to me that Allah designating an authority after the Prophet is part of perfecting our religion and completing His favor upon us.
Allahu a'lam.

[wannabe]

Very well said!  Every verse that Shias present to support Imamah is a verse they have interpreted according to their desires.  You have recognized the symptom of the problem; if you could only fix it now.

[do excuse my ignorance] so whose interpretation is right? or both are wrong? any evidence to back it ip? 

[Abu Muhammad]

this is very interesting.
shias have their own interpretation of Quran and Sunnah. So do sunnis.
Thus, it's quite obvious to me that Quran and Sunnah are not authoritative enough to prevent disunity and dispute among muslims. even among sunnis, there's a dispute as to the meaning of the verse Quran 3:7: some believe only Allah knows its takwil while some believe those firmly rooted in knowledge also know its takwil.
When Prophet was around he was the  divine authority over  Quran and Sunnah. After his demise, Quran and Sunnah is authoritative only if there's an authority whose interpretation of Quran and Sunnah is acknowledged and accepted by all, to dispel any dispute.
hence it sounds logical to me that Allah designating an authority after the Prophet is part of perfecting our religion and completing His favor upon us.
Allahu a'lam.

Logical but, for Twelver Shi'ism, has never been back-up with historical facts for the past eleven centuries.

Logical things might work in "theory" but will never necessarily represent the "reality on the ground".

[Rationalist]

I am not responsible for Shaykh Saduq's beliefs. He may believe whatever he wants but he is not hujjah for me.

As for Dajjal's ghaybah... it should be noted that for a ghaybah to occur a person should have been born (literally come into this world) and then afterwards go into occultation. According to Ahlul Sunnah has dajjal been born? If yes then when did his birth take place and who witnessed his birth?

If you bring the hadith of island then it should be noted Dajjal is not in Ghaybah as Sahabas did see Dajjal and had conversation with him. According to the hadith Dajjal is chained in some unknown island and would be released during End times. We Shias do not believe such thing about our twelfth Imam.

Of course you are responsible for what Shaykh Saduq believes. The reason is your proofs are supposedly guidance and I am accountalble for it on the day of judgement. Now that Shaykh Saduq didnt even agree to it why should I listen to you? What you are saying is not even a concensus among your own sect. So again why should I even accept your proof? Unless you are ready to say Shaykh Saduq entered jahilyah for not believing in the 'gaiyba' of Prophet Isa.

[Rationalist]

Its your opinion. Provide evidence for Messengers coming after Nabi Isa (a.s)

Did you carefully read the link I gave?

The tafsir says following:

I did read it carefully. The point I am trying to make is the ummah has room for differing. The Quran does not specify that Prophet Isa (as) is the second last Prophet. Muslims can believe a few Prophets came after. They can also go with the general view.

If you want to prove the 12 imams concepts than bring proofs where the Ummah cannot differ on.

[wannabe]

Logical but, for Twelver Shi'ism, has never been back-up with historical facts for the past eleven centuries.

Logical things might work in "theory" but will never necessarily represent the "reality on the ground".

salam bro,
for the sake of moving forward, i'll just take your words for it.
Quran [3:103] says "...be not disunited...".
During Prophet's time, believers must obey the Messenger. i think this is the single most important matter to achieve unity ie obedience.
So, what does Allah say through His Prophet's tongue "How this unity among believers can be preserved, after his demise?"
AFAIK, Quran 4:59 is the answer.
But of course this verse means different thing to different people. thus, back to the vicious loop:

When Prophet was around he was the  divine authority over  Quran and Sunnah. After his demise, Quran and Sunnah is authoritative only if there's an authority whose interpretation of Quran and Sunnah is acknowledged and accepted by all, to dispel any dispute.

i'm not trying to prove sect A is better than sect B or vice vresa. i believe, everyone think his is upon the truth; otherwise, none will follow it.
All i'm saying is that, the time is ripe to stop this dispute and ...
"... therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;". Quran [5:48]