Myself Vs Farid on the 12 Khalifas

[Shia_student]

Asalaam Alaikum.

I have started a new post because I wish to know the authentic Sunni view on the Hadith of the "Twelve Leaders" as found in Sunni and the Shia sources, from the most leaned person at this discussion group, namely, Farid.

At the previous discussion, I am getting multiple replies, and can't attend all of them due to time constraint.

So please brothers bear with me. Refrain from commenting until we have completed the Sunni and the Shia view of the Hadith of the twelve leaders of Islam.

In a nutshell, Farid had replied saying:

"

The narration is talking about the izza (greatness) of the Islamic Empire.

We ask Shias, according to the hadith, the Islamic empire will be great until the passing of twelve caliphs. Do Shias believe this? It seems like Shias believe that the Empire was always in an inferior state of weakness since the Imam is always afraid and hiding."

Others replied with similar views.

I used a report to say, the  greatness of Islam was conditional to the men appointed by Allah. Here is the report:

It has been reported on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said:

I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted (well) as long as they are governed by twelve men. Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said words which were obscure to me. I asked my father: What did the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say? He said: All of the (twelve men) will be from the Quraish.

My comment:

"What the Prophet was saying is this, the affairs of the people will continue to be conducted well AS LONG AS they are governed by twelve men...

It was made "conditional" but the condition was NOT met, because the ones in view didn't govern but the those who were appointed by men."

---------------------------

Farid replied:

@ Shia_Student:

Brother Aba Abdullah has presented you with the majority of the narrations and their wordings and they do not include what you have quoted.

It seems that you are quoting the one that says:

لا يزال أمر الناس ماضيا ما وليهم اثنا عشر خليفة

This narration is not explicit that it is a conditional requirement. It can be interpreted to be conditional and unconditional.

The other ones are clear it is unconditional. Thus, the correct interpretation is that it is unconditional.

-------------------------

My reply for today in this new post:

Farid:

"It can be interpreted to be conditional and unconditional..."

I agree it can be interpreted in both ways, but I have my reasons as to why the Prophet stipulated a condition in his Hadith.

If we were to divert our attention to the history of man made Khalifahs which included men like Muawiyah, Yazid and their successors, we will perceive that Islam started to deteriorate rapidly in its "spirit"and "essence" during their RULE which was detrimental to our religion's real IZZA (greatness)...

What you forget to consider is, Islam did not come to dominate the bodies of the humans only but their spirits too. You are concentrating on the HUSK and not the KERNAL!

Allah and His Prophet would never have approved the rule of such men, where most of them FOUGHT for power and self interest. They did not lead by the conduct of the Prophet nor his compassion and spirit. Some amongst the 12 were responsible for murder of his progeny and so forth!

As for the reports that claim the following:

"This religion would continue to remain powerful and dominant until there have been twelve Caliphs..."

I could still argue that such words were uttered in the conditional sense, referring to those who were in the Prophetic vision not those who ruled by their bodies and not spirit.

Here is something else for you to consider, the power and dominance which you guys boast about, CONTINUED even AFTER the rule of the 12 sunni Khalifas, so it does not make ANY sense for the Prophet to RESTRICT such an AFFAIR to the 12 Leaders only! (Read the report again)

Are you going to educate me that Islam was not powerful and dominant during the rule of the succeeding Khalifas?

Therefore, either such reports are conditional or the  Prophet was unaware of the rule and dominance of the Khalifahs after the 12th Successor in the view of the Sunnis.

[Farid]

Salam brother.

Seems like the brothers are racing for ajr. My apologies on their behalf. Everyone always wants a piece of the action. =)

I agree it can be interpreted in both ways, but I have my reasons as to why the Prophet stipulated a condition in his Hadith.

I just want to make it clear that it is only that single variation that you quoted that suggests that it can be interpreted both ways. The other variations are declarations. They are prophesies.

If you go to Dala'il Al Nubuwa by Al Bayhaqi 6/519 you will see that this is how he understood the hadith.

Sunni scholars also continued to name the twelve. They would always give lists. This is because they understood that this was a prophecy and that it was unconditional.

Here is something else for you to consider,the power and dominance which you guys boast about, CONTINUED even AFTER the rule of the 12 sunni Khalifas, so it does not make ANY sense for the Prophet to RESTRICT such an AFFAIR to the 12 Leaders only! (Read the report again)

That is a good question.

Though, a number of interpretations can be provided as to what is meant. It could be the excessive inner struggles between those that want power. It could also be about the expansion rate of the Muslims of the time. As I mentioned in my article, by the end of the rule of twelve caliphs, Muslims have already conquered Andalusia to China, that there wasn't much "new" greatness after that.

Furthermore, the narration does not say that greatness will not exist within the nation any more. It is simply referring to a continuous state of greatness. Hence, twelve great caliphs can exist, then the temporary state is lifted, but then it returns again by the grace of Allah.

Remember, this narration is said in a context of a new found greatness. After more than a decade of weakness in the early days of Islam, the Muslims finally started to overwhelm the lands. It was then that the Prophet peace be upon him said that it would continue to in its current state.

I ask you this: Was Islam in a state of greatness during the time of the Prophet peace be upon him?

[Shia_student]

Salam brother [

Wa Alaikum Salaam

I just want to make it clear that it is only that single variation that you quoted that suggests that it can be interpreted both ways. The other variations are declarations. They are prophesies.

Other variations can also be perceived as conditional statements, based upon the report I have used, since the Sunni twelve leaders are not meant by Hadith, due the  restriction applied by the Prophet to the number of the successors, which goes against the nature of the Khalifate and the izza of Islam, in whatever category you place that greatness.

I stated:

"Here is something else for you to consider,the power and dominance which you guys boast about, CONTINUED even AFTER the rule of the 12 sunni Khalifas, so it does not make ANY sense for the Prophet to RESTRICT such an AFFAIR to the 12 Leaders only! (Read the report again)"

That is a good question.

Thanks for being honest. Now let's see how you have handled it.

Though, a number of interpretations can be provided as to what is meant.

It could be the excessive inner struggles between those that want power.

Well that also continued beyond the 12th Khalifah, so that answer doesn't meet the objection.

It could also be about the expansion rate of the Muslims of the time. As I mentioned in my article, by the end of the rule of twelve caliphs, Muslims have already conquered Andalusia to China, that there wasn't much "new" greatness after that

If the greatness was linked to the rate of expansion, then Islam is more greater today then it has ever been. However, when Allah said, "And you see the people entering into (the) religion (of) Allah (in) multitudes..." He meant that for all ages. So, whether new or old, that greatness, is not the greatness which is spoken about in the Hadith. I know that's not your personal choice of interpretation, so we will not bother with it anymore.

Furthermore, the narration does not say that greatness will not exist within the nation any more. It is simply referring to a continuous state of greatness.

Thank you for admitting that, which takes you back to my main question, which you praised. So if the Hadith is referring to a continuous state of greatness, then why restrict the Leaders to number twelve? That's where the Sunni interpretation fails, whatever it may be.

[/Quote]Remember, this narration is said in a context of a new found greatness. After more than a decade of weakness in the early days of Islam, the Muslims finally started to overwhelm the lands. It was then that the Prophet peace be upon him said that it would continue to in its current state.[/Quote]

So are you restricting the greatness to the conquering of the lands only?

The report I quoted is authentic too. It cannot be dismissed rather reconciled with other reports. Here it is again:

Jabir bin Samura said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted (well) as long as they are governed by twelve men..."

Do you see the words: "The AFFAIRS of the people will continue to be conducted well..." ?

Does that refer to the conquering of the lands only???

If it does, then you have a point (at the moment) and if not then, will you try harder to give us a better explanation in the light of the above report?

Till then, I still stand to claim that all the reports that are speaking about the 12 Leaders are conditional. Not only based upon the report I have used, but how the Prophet's words do not conform to the test of history and reality.

Here are the words of another report found in Sahih Muslim,that support my case:

 ‏"‏ لاَ يَزَالُ الإِسْلاَمُ عَزِيزًا إِلَى اثْنَىْ عَشَرَ خَلِيفَةً ‏"‏

Islam will continue to be AZIZ (strong /powerful) until there have been twelve successors.

Hang on, Islam was strong and powerful even after the 12th Khalifah, right? Then why is the Prophet restricting its MIGHT AND POWER to the 12th Leader only?

Inspect these words from Sahih Muslim also:

‏"‏ لاَ يَزَالُ الدِّينُ قَائِمًا حَتَّى تَقُومَ السَّاعَةُ أَوْ يَكُونَ عَلَيْكُمُ اثْنَا عَشَرَ خَلِيفَةً كُلُّهُمْ مِنْ قُرَيْشٍ ‏"

The Islamic religion will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled over by twelve Caliphs, all of them being from the Quraish.

Well the Islamic religion, continued to be established even after the rule of 12th Sunni leader, if the Khalifate system was genuine to begin with.

You see, unless we reconcile the reports to give them a conditional meaning, we will continue to face statements that cannot be restricted the twelve Sunni leaders.

Secondly, may I request something. When you offer opinions and interpretations, only restrict yourself to the one which you agree with most. I am discussing with you at the moment, so would like to have your personal choices involved. I hope that's not too much of a problem for you. It will save our time. Thanks.

[MuslimK]

Mod note: Apologies! Only Farid and Shia_Student's posts will be allowed in this thread for the time being. Please use the other active thread on this topic.

[Farid]

Other variations can also be perceived as conditional statements, based upon the report I have used, since the Sunni twelve leaders are not meant by Hadith, due the  restriction applied by the Prophet to the number of the successors, which goes against the nature of the Khalifate and the izza of Islam, in whatever category you place that greatness. 

It seems as though we are disagreeing upon the very core of the hadith, which is what is leading us to such completely different understandings.

Let's take a step back.

The Prophet peace be upon him narrated these words once. In this gathering he wad heard by Jabir bin Samura who transmitted the hadith. Jabir, missed out on the last couple of words due to the sounds of the crowd, so he asked his father what he missed. His father said that "they are all from Quraish".

Virtually all of the narrations share this pattern. This indicates that Jabir did not hear this hadih more than once. We are talking about an isolated event.

Due to this, we can safely assume that the differences in wordings are due to the narrators.

The Prophet peace be upon him did not say, "Imam," then "Caliph," then "Ameer." He only said one of those things. Thus, an objective student of knowledge filters out the wordings that are uncommon are sticks with the wordings that are stronger and arrive through multiple routes. An objective student of knowledge does not pick and choose what he likes from the narrations in order to strengthen a preconception.

Inshallah this is clear.

Refer to this link for more on the correct wording of the hadith.

http://twelvershia.net/2015/05/12/hadith-of-twelve-caliphs/

My conclusion of the correct wording was:

Jabir bin Samura narrated from the Prophet – peace be upon him – that he said: This matter/religion/Islam will stay in a state of glory until the passing of twelve caliphs.

Jabir then says: He – peace be upon him – said something that I didn’t understand, so I asked my father about it.

He said: They are all from Quraish.

[Shia_student]

My conclusion of the correct wording was:

Jabir bin Samura narrated from the Prophet – peace be upon him – that he said: This matter/religion/Islam will stay in a state of glory until the passing of twelve caliphs.

Ok the report seems to be self-explanatory. Islam will remain in a state of glory until the passing of "twelve caliphs"...

That takes me back to my original question:

"Why did the Prophet place a restriction up to the 12th Caliph, when the glory of Islam continued even after the twelfth successor?"

The link you sent me supports my case. In reference to the Hadith you selected, the article states:

The narration does not suggest that glory will only be known during the reign of twelve caliphs, but rather, it suggests an uninterrupted era of glory which was a significant prophecy and good news for the Sahabah, who were used to the oppression from their enemies.

Now that we are clear on the selection you've made, please answer my question in the light of additional information. Thank you.

[Shia_student]

@Abu Muslim Korasani:

Mod note: Apologies! Only Farid and Shia_Student's posts will be allowed in this thread for the time being. Please use the other active thread on this topic.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your intervention.

[Farid]

Ok the report seems to be self-explanatory. Islam will remain in a state of glory until the passing of "twelve caliphs"...

That takes me back to my original question:

"Why did the Prophet place a restriction up to the 12th Caliph, when the glory of Islam continued even after the twelfth successor?"

I have provided explanations that you did not accept previously. Let us say, for the sake of the argument, that you are correct, and that my interpretation is faulty. How does that harm Sunnism? There are meanings in the Qur'an and the Sunnah that scholars explicitly comment on by saying: "We don't know what this means." The most famous example is: "Alif Laam Meem."

How does the wording that I have provided support your theory of the Imamate of the Twelve?

[Shia_student]

I have provided explanations that you did not accept previously.

You provided three views, and I argued against them for not having met my objections. Then I requested you choose one specific view which you mostly agreed with, but instead you selected a report which was self-explanatory.

I raised my initial question against it again, along with the quote that supported my cakse from the link you provided, and expected a rebuttal from you, but surprisingly got the following response instead:

Let us say, for the sake of the argument, that you are correct, and that my interpretation is faulty. How does that harm Sunnism?

What is correct, when a learned person (like you) perceives something incorrect, then he should be brave enough to admit that, so that others who look up to such a person are not mislead.

If something is correct, then again he should confirm that even it is against his own self, so that one paves the way for others to accept what is valid.

There are meanings in the Qur'an and the Sunnah that scholars explicitly comment on by saying: "We don't know what this means." The most famous example is: "Alif Laam Meem."

I can accept certain things cannot genuinely be comprehended but when the excuse of ignorance is put forward just for the sake of denial, then that is deceit and incorrect.

Anyhow, there is no comparison between the Hadith in question and the abbreviated letters, Alif, Laam Meem. The Hadith is clear in its prophecy (as admitted in the article) and the message of the above letters  is unclear and ambiguous.

How does the wording that I have provided support your theory of the Imamate of the Twelve?

Let us first reach your final attempt of reconciling the Hadith with the historical reality, then we can move towards the above question.

Wa Salaam.

[Farid]

I will entertain your request.

I said previously that I like the interpretation of the expansion of the Islamic Empire.

You replied:

If the greatness was linked to the rate of expansion, then Islam is more greater today then it has ever been. However, when Allah said, "And you see the people entering into (the) religion (of) Allah (in) multitudes..."

I was referring to a territorial expansion as a sign of greatness. Numbers do not mean much when they have little to no power. Today, most Muslim nations are seen as puppets of the West. This was not the case back in the time of tyrants like Yazeed and Al Hajjaj.

The nation was in a state of Izz (greatness) in the eyes of the whole world back then. It seems like only some Shias, like yourself, could disagree.

Now, instead of discussing the politics, military might, social practices, and religiousness of the early Muslims, we can skip all that since I have conceded this point for the sake of the argument.

Please provide the answer that every Shia lurking on these boards is dying to hear:

How does the wording that I have provided support your theory of the Imamate of the Twelve?

[Shia_student]

Thanks for the reply. Please bear with me, I am occupied with something. I shall endeavour to reply, asap. Thanks

[Shia_student]

@ Farid:

I will entertain your request.

Oh, you're very kind. Thank you!

I said previously that I like the interpretation of the expansion of the Islamic Empire.

You replied:

Quote
 If the greatness was linked to the rate of expansion, then Islam is more greater today then it has ever been. However, when Allah said, "And you see the people entering into (the) religion (of) Allah (in) multitudes..."

I was referring to a territorial expansion as a sign of greatness. Numbers do not mean much when they have little to no power. Today, most Muslim nations are seen as puppets of the West. This was not the case back in the time of tyrants like Yazeed and Al Hajjaj.

My above response was in reference to your statement:

It could also be about the expansion rate of the Muslims of the time...

As for my argument against the territorial issue, then this is what I said:

So are you restricting the greatness to the conquering of the lands only?

The report I quoted is authentic too. It cannot be dismissed rather reconciled with other reports. Here it is again:

Jabir bin Samura said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: The affairs of the people will continue to be conducted (well) as long as they are governed by twelve men..."

Do you see the words: "The AFFAIRS of the people will continue to be conducted well..." ?

I also quoted a further two reports to disagree with your interpretation of conquering of the lands.

Today you said:

The nation was in a state of Izz (greatness) in the eyes of the whole world back then. It seems like only some Shias, like yourself, could disagree.

You guys are relating the izza of Islam to conquering the lands in your desperation. Conquering the lands means nothing in reality, since any country with a big army could claim the land from others, whether legitimately or illegitimately. This kind of situation is not permanent, it fluctuates with the changing circumstances...

Besides, war in Islam is the LAST resort to solve any kind of a disagreement and not the first. Islam stands for "Peace" and our Prophet was sent as a "Mercy" to mankind...

Therefore, the glory that the Prophet spoke about could not have been something related to BLOODSHED and IMPRISONMENT but all the GREATNESS that supports the religion in its exoteric and esoteric nature and value...

Seems your mindset has become similar to some of the the critics of Islam, who use the excuse of the wars for the expansion of Islam and not the CHARACTER AND THE TEACHINGS of the Prophet of Allah...

I pity your poor reasoning, and your defence for the Umayyah clan who used the Muslims (though deceit) to build their own KINGDOM. I could use many reports like the following to support my case:

الْخِلَافَةُ بَعْدِي ثَلَاثُونَ سَنَةً، ثُمَّ تَكُونُ مُلْكًا

"The Caliphate will remain after me for thirty years, then it will transform into Kingship."

They even went as far as fighting and killing the pious Muslims, to preserve their Kingdom, let alone the non-Muslims, which included the FAMILY OF THEIR PROPHET. Battles of Sifeen and Karbala are some of such examples...

Such events prove, they didn't give a toss about the glory of Islam, it was their PERSONAL rule and power that INTERESTED them.

Anyhow, what are you going to do about the quote that was extracted by me from the link you provided in connection with the report you had selected:

The narration does not suggest that glory will only be known during the reign of twelve caliphs, but rather, it suggests an uninterrupted era of glory which was a significant prophecy and good news for the Sahabah, who were used to the oppression from their enemies.

How does that assist the interpretation that you preferred in relation to the territorial issue?

If the report suggests an uninterrupted era of glory, then how can you restrict it to time period of the 12th successor?

You haven't reconciled the contradiction in perception. I'll give you more time. Please reconcile the contradiction before we can move on...

Wa Salaam.

[Farid]

=)

That is fine. My interpretation  is due to my "flawed reasoning". Please present yours.

[Shia_student]

Farid:

That is fine. My interpretation  is due to my "flawed reasoning". Please present yours.

Farid, you are not the man who gives up so easily, what's the matter?

If there is any room for you to strengthen your interpretation, then please do so, otherwise be honest and state you cannot defend it any further.

As far as your above statement is concerned, I feel like you have just expressed that to get my side of the interpretation.

I'll wait for your reply and see what you have decided.

A) If you decide to defend your view then that's all fine and well.

B) If you genuinely admit that you cannot defend your view (in all honestly) then I'll present my case tomorrow. It's getting late here, and will be leaving work soon and then drive home.

Wa Salaam.

[Farid]

As far as your above statement is concerned, I feel like you have just expressed that to get my side of the interpretation. 

I'll wait for your reply and see what you have decided.

A) If you decide to defend your view then that's all fine and well. 

B) If you genuinely admit that you cannot defend your view (in all honestly) then I'll present my case tomorrow. It's getting late here, and will be leaving work soon and then drive home. 

As I've expressed, I don't feel the obligation to defend my view seeing as though it doesn't derive any religious ruling.

It is a prophecy. Muslims will not be judged for failing to understand the meanings behind a prophecy.

For you, on the other hand, your sect depends on this hadith, because there is nothing else in the authentic Sunni hadith library that mentions Twelve Imams.

We have been at this for long enough and it clear that you are stalling. You know as well as I do that your interpretation is fragile. Please present your proof of Shiasm by interpreting this hadith.

Also be sure to answer: Was Islam in a state of glory during the times of the Prophet peace be upon him?

Or you can beat around the bush and keep insisting that I answer your points until you wear yourself out. Though, if you do that, you will be remembered here as the Shia_Student that opened up a thread about the Twelve Caliphs hadith, but refused to explain its link to his Twelve Imams. *smirks*

[Shia_student]

As I've expressed, I don't feel the obligation to defend my view seeing as though it doesn't derive any religious ruling.

If you're not obligated to defend your view, then that means I am wasting my time in trying to explore the Hadith.

My reason to start a discussion with you was to get to the authentic meaning of the Hadith, as I had stated:

I have started a new post because I wish to know the authentic Sunni view on the Hadith of the "Twelve Leaders" as found in Sunni and the Shia sources, from the most leaned person at this discussion group, namely, Farid.

But that didn't mean, I was going to bow down to your views blindly and without criticism.[b/]

The best way to know the truth, is to criticise it from different angles. If it the truth, it will stand the test of  time.

For you, on the other hand, your sect depends on this hadith, because there is nothing else in the authentic Sunni hadith library that mentions Twelve Imams.

We don't totally depend on it, we can use it as a support to prove our belief.

We have been at this for long enough and it clear that you are stalling. You know as well as I do that your interpretation is fragile.

There is a saying in English: "Look whose talking"

You haven't even seen my interpretation and you are already calling it fragile?

It may or may not be the case, it is too early for you to judge. I call that, "blind judgement".

For the sake of argument, let's say my interpretation turns out to be weak, which I doubt. We have seen yours to be inconsistent and unreasonable. Let me clarify that a bit further please.

Besides what has been mentioned before and based upon the interpretation of izza, it is more appropriate to relate the glory of Islam to the rule of Abbasids than the Umayyads.

It was during their time that contributions to education, literature, philology, geography, history, mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, philosophy, medicine, etc., were made to a reasonable extent.[b/]

That is what counts towards the glory of Islam and not the wars.

The only credit you have given the Umayyads (from Muawiyah to  Sulayman bin Abd al-Malik) so far is that they conquered many lands...

I don't think there was anything besides that, which they additionally contributed to the assumed glory of Islam.

So, in comparison between the Ummayads and the Abbasids, we can rightfully assume that the latter's contributions were greater than the former, not only in quantity but quality too.

In that case, how was it that the Prophet spoke about the glory of Islam and associated it with an incorrect period of time?

The reality is, some agents have done a poor job in narrating variances of the Hadith. That was due to hide the actual reality related to the Hadith. You know what I mean.

Anyhow, since your view of the Hadith is unreasonable, how will we move on if both us have failed to locate a valid interpretation? (Supposing I fail too)...

You see, I don't discuss to waste time, and reach no where. I want you to push your limits once again (after my view, if it turns out to be false) to prove your case...

On top of that, you have conditioned your mind in preconceiving a fragile interpretation.  How will you perceive the reality with such a mindset?

Clear your mind. Discuss for the sake of learning and not refuting. Be honest, and I'll start my view.

"...Though, if you do that, you will be remembered here as the Shia_Student that opened up a thread about the Twelve Caliphs hadith..."

Yes I can see, you are warning me of becoming history to your forum. That will not compel me to explain my view, but your tolerance, open mindedness and an honest learning.

We had guests today. I will be getting ready for work soon. I shall begin the discussion aiming at my side of the view fairly soon, if I get a chance.

Till then, you can assure me of discussing with an open mind. Thanks.

Please note. It's up to me how I proceed and present my arguments, like you had and still have every right to do so. You have to tolerate that. I like taking things step at a time. It's not an easy topic.

As an example, this is how I may proceed:

A) Prove Imamat was meant for the guidance mankind (besides Prophethood) from the Holy Quran.

B) It never got abrogated with the seal of Prophethood.

C) It was the same Imamah, that descended to the 12 Imams.

D) Followed by Shia Sunni Ahadith.

It could be become a lengthy topic. We may have to discuss, agree and disagree upon each step. If you agree, have the time and tolerance, then hit the start button!

Wa salaam.

[Farid]

The reality is, some agents have done a poor job in narrating variances of the Hadith. That was due to hide the actual reality related to the Hadith. You know what I mean.

Quoted for importance.

Anyhow, since your view of the Hadith is unreasonable, how will we move on if both us have failed to locate a valid interpretation?

What do you mean, "how will we move on?" We don't need to "move on". All you have to do is prove that your interpretation is valid. The discussion ends if I accept your interpretation, you accept mine, or if we agree to disagree.

Be aware that I have no tolerance for any attempts to divert the topic. If you wish, declare now that you will not be providing an interpretation to the hadith.

[Shia_student]

Farid:

What do you mean, "how will we move on?" We don't need to "move on". All you have to do is prove that your interpretation is valid. The discussion ends if I accept your interpretation, you accept mine, or if we agree to disagree.

I did explain don't like discussing for the sake of it. Suggested a second round. Who knows, I may prefer another view. You chose one view, discussed it for a bit and then ended your struggle. Anyhow not obligated to do so.

Be aware that I have no tolerance for any attempts to divert the topic...

Was I attempting to divert the topic?

The method I suggested was to reveal a relationship of the Hadith to the Imamate which has been mentioned in the Quran concerning Ibrahim (as).

It is our belief that Imamat is also a divine designation like Prophethood. It is similar and dissimilar to one another in many ways.

Whilst Prophethood came to an end, the Imamah continued as a necessity. By right, it was transferred over to the twelve Imams whom the Shia (twelvers) believe in.

Now if I want to reveal the BACKGROUND to the Hadith to create a greater impact on the minds of the "unprejudiced" readers, then why do you have a problem with that?

Did I ban you from proving your case, the way you saw it fit? Or did I place with any sort of conditions against your replies?

Or is it that, you are intentionally trying to avoid commenting upon the verse 2:124, because you know what's coming and that you won't be able to produce any other VALID interpretation to the word "Imam" except as how the Shia perceive it as?

From the start, that will be your downfall and the further we descend, the more problems you will face in your defence for the Sunni twelve successors. Am I correct?

If you wish, declare now that you will not be providing an interpretation to the hadith.

On the contrary, I declare that I do wish to provide an interpretation to the Hadith, but with its background, facts and features.

Wa Salaam.

[Shia_student]

So Farid, can I follow my method?

Let me know and once free again, I'll send you something typed up.

Beware, I will take it in stages and if there is anything you find implausible and inconsistent with the reality, then do highlight that. I will attempt to clarify my position further and then move on. Thanks.

Don't let me pass down for the sake of saving your energy or just to get to the Hadith quickly.

Thanks

[Farid]

So Farid, can I follow my method?

No.

Beware, I will take it in stages and if there is anything you find implausible and inconsistent with the reality, then do highlight that.

No. Your interpretation of this hadith is not in need of "stages". You are attempting to divert the topic.

Shias claim that the Prophet peace be upon him made it binding upon the Sahaba to accept the Imamah of Ali. According to Shias, a single sentence, "Man kuntu mawlah," was enough for the Caliphate of Ali to be binding evidence.

However, when asked about proof for the Imamate of the Twelve, you become aware that there is no binding evidence upon Sunnis. Due to this, you choose to divert the topic by discussing other related concepts.

Your cards have been revealed.

Provide your interpretation in your next post.