Imam Ali (a.s) fighting Muawiya

[iceman]

In short, Zayd bin Ali (as) was not familiar with divine concept of Imamah, as he had never heard such thing from his father. Some other members of ahlul bayt like Muhammad Nafs Zakkiyah, his brother, his father and others from Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) progeny were also unaware about such divine concept (also rejected taqiyyah). So they all revolted on their own, declaring themselves in public as an Imam.

[ISLAMIC OPPOSITION OF AL-NAFS AZ-ZAKIYA ® by Imam Muhammad al-Asi]
The majority of the Muslims of Al-Medinah, through a Shura process, as was supposed to be the case through the past 100 odd years, agreed that An-Nafs Az-Zakiyah qualifies to lead the Muslims in finishing the struggle of the past years and launching the Muslims into a new era of Adl, justice, equality and political participation that was lost in the previous years at that level.

"In short, Zayd bin Ali (as) was not familiar with divine concept of Imamah, as he had never heard such thing from his father"

Ok.......

"Some other members of ahlul bayt like Muhammad Nafs Zakkiyah, his brother, his father and others from Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) progeny were also unaware about such divine concept"

Ok........Then you say,

"So they all revolted on their own, declaring themselves in public as an Imam"

Excuses me...

"declaring themselves in public as an Imam"

Well if they hadn't heard of it so weren't aware of it and that is 'divine concept of Imamah' then why revolt and by declaring themselves in public as an Imam? 😑

If there was no concept as divine Imamah and they never heard of it then they should revolt against the concept and not the others by declaring themselves as the Imam which is associating yourself to the concept.

It doesn't sound like the revolt with others was against the concept of Imamah but it sounds like the revolt with others was for and about the concept of Imamah.

[Rationalist]

Excuses me...

"declaring themselves in public as an Imam"

Well if they hadn't heard of it so weren't aware of it and that is 'divine concept of Imamah' then why revolt and by declaring themselves in public as an Imam? 😑

If there was no concept as divine Imamah and they never heard of it then they should revolt against the concept and not the others by declaring themselves as the Imam which is associating yourself to the concept.

It doesn't sound like the revolt with others was against the concept of Imamah but it sounds like the revolt with others was for and about the concept of Imamah.

Imam Ali, his sons did not become Calipahs on the conditional beleifs of the 12er Shia. They became Calipahs through people and their bayah. As for fighting injustice thats on the basis of Quran and Sunnah.

[iceman]

Imam Ali, his sons did not become Calipahs on the conditional beleifs of the 12er Shia. They became Calipahs through people and their bayah. As for fighting injustice thats on the basis of Quran and Sunnah.

You're missing the point here. We're talking about Imams and not Caliphs.

In short, Zayd bin Ali (as) was not familiar with divine concept of Imamah, as he had never heard such thing from his father"

Ok.......

"Some other members of ahlul bayt like Muhammad Nafs Zakkiyah, his brother, his father and others from Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) progeny were also unaware about such divine concept"

Ok........Then you say,

"So they all revolted on their own, declaring themselves in public as an Imam"

[Rationalist]

You're missing the point here. We're talking about Imams and not Caliphs.

In short, Zayd bin Ali (as) was not familiar with divine concept of Imamah, as he had never heard such thing from his father"

Ok.......

"Some other members of ahlul bayt like Muhammad Nafs Zakkiyah, his brother, his father and others from Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) progeny were also unaware about such divine concept"

Ok........Then you say,

Imamate and Caliphate are interchangable terms. They dont get Wahi, they are not divinely appointed to lead. People give them bayah to lead.

"So they all revolted on their own, declaring themselves in public as an Imam"

Yes people saw injustice, these Imams said we have to do something. They accepted bayah and declared Imamate.
.

[fgss]

Well if they hadn't heard of it so weren't aware of it and that is 'divine concept of Imamah' then why revolt and by declaring themselves in public as an Imam? 😑

If there was no concept as divine Imamah and they never heard of it then they should revolt against the concept and not the others by declaring themselves as the Imam which is associating yourself to the concept.

It doesn't sound like the revolt with others was against the concept of Imamah but it sounds like the revolt with others was for and about the concept of Imamah.

Their concept of Imamah (leadership) was different than asna ashri shia concept which is divine and limited only to 12 persons and where Imam have special powers and miracles, yet he have to perform taqiyyah (even in very minor issues) to save his and other's life. 

Tafsir Furat Kufi

[From  Abi  Hashem  al-Rummani who  has  it  on the  authority  of  Imam  Zayd  (AS)  who  said in  a  long  discourse:  ―I avow  that  none of  us  –  the  descendants of  both al-Hasan and al-Husayn  –  never claimed  to  be  imposed  leaders  on  all  the  Muslims  (by  this  he  may  be  referring to  the  issue  of  divine  appointment  and  the  Prophetic  text).  I  affirm  that  my father  ‗Ali  ibn  al-Husayn  did  not  say  so  as  I  lived  with  him  until  he  passed  on. Muhammad  ibn  ‗Ali  did  not  do  so  either  as  I  also  lived  with  him  until  he passed  away.  My  nephew  did  not  utter  such  a  claim  either,  after  him.  Then  he said:  An  Imam  from  among us who commands  the leadership of  the  Muslims is he  who  bears  arms  and  upholds  the  Book  of  Allah  and  the  Sunnah  of  His triumphant  Prophet  (P).  How  can  Muslims  have  a  leader  (Imam)  who  is imposed  on  all  the  Muslims,  who  lives  in  bedroom  comfort,  withholding  the argument  for  his  legitimacy,  with  a  closed  door  policy,  and  with  rampant injustice?  We know  nothing  of  this behavior!]

[iceman]

Imamate and Caliphate are interchangable terms. They dont get Wahi, they are not divinely appointed to lead. People give them bayah to lead.

Yes people saw injustice, these Imams said we have to do something. They accepted bayah and declared Imamate.
.

"Imamate and Caliphate are interchangable terms. They dont get Wahi, they are not divinely appointed to lead. People give them bayah to lead"

We are talking about Shia Imamah which is considered to be divinely appointed. We are talking about Zayd. And I've pointed out flaws within the post.

"Yes people saw injustice, these Imams said we have to do something. They accepted bayah and declared Imamate"

That's not what was mentioned in the post is referred to. 'Zayd knew nothing about the concept of Imamah. He wasn't aware of it' which Imamah is spoken about here. You're mixing it all up.

[Rationalist]

We are talking about Shia Imamah which is considered to be divinely appointed. We are talking about Zayd. And I've pointed out flaws within the post.

12er Shia imamate is all a theory which never came into reality. The little hope for 12er Shia is to expect a man to come out of gaiyba and abolish taqiyyah, and then believe he will bring this theory to life. After that the 12er belief is rajah to further implement the plan of Imamate of 12.

That's not what was mentioned in the post is referred to. 'Zayd knew nothing about the concept of Imamah. He wasn't aware of it' which Imamah is spoken about here. You're mixing it all up.

Yes Zayd declared Imamate on the basis of bayah not divine appointment.

[iceman]

Their concept of Imamah (leadership) was different than asna ashri shia concept which is divine and limited only to 12 persons and where Imam have special powers and miracles, yet he have to perform taqiyyah (even in very minor issues) to save his and other's life. 

Tafsir Furat Kufi

[From  Abi  Hashem  al-Rummani who  has  it  on the  authority  of  Imam  Zayd  (AS)  who  said in  a  long  discourse:  ―I avow  that  none of  us  –  the  descendants of  both al-Hasan and al-Husayn  –  never claimed  to  be  imposed  leaders  on  all  the  Muslims  (by  this  he  may  be  referring to  the  issue  of  divine  appointment  and  the  Prophetic  text).  I  affirm  that  my father  ‗Ali  ibn  al-Husayn  did  not  say  so  as  I  lived  with  him  until  he  passed  on. Muhammad  ibn  ‗Ali  did  not  do  so  either  as  I  also  lived  with  him  until  he passed  away.  My  nephew  did  not  utter  such  a  claim  either,  after  him.  Then  he said:  An  Imam  from  among us who commands  the leadership of  the  Muslims is he  who  bears  arms  and  upholds  the  Book  of  Allah  and  the  Sunnah  of  His triumphant  Prophet  (P).  How  can  Muslims  have  a  leader  (Imam)  who  is imposed  on  all  the  Muslims,  who  lives  in  bedroom  comfort,  withholding  the argument  for  his  legitimacy,  with  a  closed  door  policy,  and  with  rampant injustice?  We know  nothing  of  this behavior!]

First of all what is Imamah or Shia Imamah? Lets take a look at this first. Shia Imamah is continuous divine guidance after Nabuwwah which is also divine guidance. The Qur'an and Sunnah wasn't left unattended and the Muslim Ummah wasn't left without a divine guide. Nabuwwah had to do with mankind where as Imamah after it doesn't have to do with mankind but has to do with the Muslim Ummah. There is a clear difference.
Now this is an internal matter that certain individuals weren't happy with the divine concept of Imamah and they did all they could to follow their own desire and plans.

It was clear that the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper and they weren't interested. They had the book of Allah with them and they believed it was sufficient for them. So this wasn't a matter for Muhammad s.a.w to impose by force. Nor was it a matter for Ali ibn Abi Talib or other Imams to fight for. It was something the Prophet s.a.w wanted for the the benefit of the Ummah. And if certain people aren't interested, they don't think it's necessary and have their own idea and plans then 'La ikraha fideen" their is no compulsion within religion.

At the end of the day this isn't an external matter regarding shirk or kufr. But infact it's an internal matter of the Muslim Ummah which is sensitive and delicate. That's why it was dealt with patience and tolerance rather than the sword and by heavy handed tactics. Plus I've already mentioned that those who got into authority and gained power used what ever means necessary to restrain members of the Ahle Baith, their family, friends and supporters via persecution.

[Rationalist]

First of all what is Imamah or Shia Imamah? Lets take a look at this first. Shia Imamah is continuous divine guidance after Nabuwwah which is also divine guidance.

How is it divine guidance when Imams do not get wahi?

The Qur'an and Sunnah wasn't left unattended and the Muslim Ummah wasn't left without a divine guide.

When the 12th Imam went into hiding what divine guide did he leave the Ummah with?
 

It was clear that the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper and they weren't interested.

Pen and paper had nothing to do with Caliphate.

Plus I've already mentioned that those who got into authority and gained power used what ever means necessary to restrain members of the Ahle Baith, their family, friends and supporters via persecution.

Sahaba were mostly the generation of the first 3 Imams. What did the Shia do as a majority to support Imamate? The Sahaba made it clear that they did not want to get into the Hashimi and Ummawi conflict, so they sidelined the Ahlul bayt. They were wrong, but at least they weren't people of lip service. Whereas the Rafidah made statement and the Imams did not respond or trust them. Till today the 12th Imam is ready to come out.

[fgss]

First of all what is Imamah or Shia Imamah? Lets take a look at this first. Shia Imamah is continuous divine guidance after Nabuwwah which is also divine guidance. The Qur'an and Sunnah wasn't left unattended and the Muslim Ummah wasn't left without a divine guide. Nabuwwah had to do with mankind where as Imamah after it doesn't have to do with mankind but has to do with the Muslim Ummah. There is a clear difference.
Now this is an internal matter that certain individuals weren't happy with the divine concept of Imamah and they did all they could to follow their own desire and plans.

Guidance after the Nabuwwah was/is through the scholars, because the ruling and knowledge of every matter is already in the Quran and Sunnah.

العيون: بالاسانيد الثلاثة عن الرضاء عن ابائه عليهم السلام:  قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه واله: اللهم ارحم خلفائي- ثلاث مرات – قيل له ومن خلفائك قال الذين يأتون من بعدي ويروون أحاديثي وسنتي فيعلمونها الناس من بعدي

al-Uyun: Via the three chains from al-Ridha from his forefathers عليهم السلام: the messenger of Allāh صلى الله عليه واله said: O Allāh have mercy on my successors – thrice – it was said to him: and who are your successors? He said: those who come after me and transmit my narrations and my Sunnah teaching it to the people after me.

الكافي: عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن عيسى، عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر عن أبان بن عثمان، عن ابن أبي يعفور، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله خطب الناس في مسجد الخيف فقال: نضر الله عبدا سمع مقالتي فوعاها وحفظها وبلغها من لم يسمعها، فرب حامل فقه غير فقيه ورب حامل فقه إلى من هو أفقه منه …

al-Kafi: A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Abi Nasr from Aban b. Uthman from Ibn Abi Ya’fur from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام who said: the messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله gave a speech to the people in the Masjid of al-Khif and said: may Allah make radiant [the face of] a slave who hears my words and understands them and memorizes them and relays them to the one who did not hear them, for it may happen that a bearer of Fiqh is not a Faqih and it may happen that a bearer of Fiqh relays them to one who is more of a Faqih than him …

الكافي: عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد، عن إسماعيل بن مهران، عن سيف بن عميرة، عن أبي المغرا، عن سماعة، عن أبي الحسن موسى عليه السلام قال: قلت له: أكل شئ
في كتاب الله وسنة نبيه صلى اليه عليه وآله؟ أو تقولون فيه؟ قال: بل كل شئ في كتاب الله وسنة نبيه صلى الله عليه وآله

al-Kafi: A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid from Ismail b. Mihran from Sayf b. ‘Amira from Abi al-Maghra from Sama’a from Abi al-Hasan Musa عليه السلام, he said: I said to him: is everything in the book of Allāh and the Sunnah of his prophet صلى الله عليه وآله or do you have a say in it? he said: rather everything is in the book of Allāh and the Sunnahof the prophet صلى الله عليه وآله

And this can not be the guidance. Even the narrator could not bear the pain.

علل الشرائع: أبي، عن سعد، عن محمد بن الوليد والسندي، عن أبان بن عثمان، عن محمد بن بشير وحريز، عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام قال: قلت له: إنه ليس شئ أشد علي من اختلاف أصحابنا، قال: ذلك من قبلي

Ilal al-Sharai: My father from Sa’d from Muhammad b. al-Walid and al-Sindi from Aban b. Uthman from Muhammad b. Bashir and Hariz from Abi Abdillah عليه السلام, he (Hariz) said: I said to him: there is nothing more difficult for me [to bear] than the differences [that exists] between our fellows, he said: that is from me (I purposely caused that).

It was clear that the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper and they weren't interested. They had the book of Allah with them and they believed it was sufficient for them. So this wasn't a matter for Muhammad s.a.w to impose by force. Nor was it a matter for Ali ibn Abi Talib or other Imams to fight for. It was something the Prophet s.a.w wanted for the the benefit of the Ummah. And if certain people aren't interested, they don't think it's necessary and have their own idea and plans then 'La ikraha fideen" their is no compulsion within religion.

Is it possible that Allah (swt) and His Messenger (s.a.w.w) would stop and not complete the revelation/order just because certain people are not interested? Remember 5:69 (Shia version of Gadhir).

At the end of the day this isn't an external matter regarding shirk or kufr. But infact it's an internal matter of the Muslim Ummah which is sensitive and delicate. That's why it was dealt with patience and tolerance rather than the sword and by heavy handed tactics.

So, basically you’re trying to say that the tactics of Zayd bin Ali (as) and his likes from ahlul bayt were not right. But on other hand we have reports about his martyrdom from Prophet (s.a.w.w) and about his resemblance to Ali ibn Abi Talib (as) more than any other member of ahlu bayt at that time. May be that was the reason, why many scholars/fuqha as well (not just laymen) supported his revolt against tyrants.

Plus I've already mentioned that those who got into authority and gained power used what ever means necessary to restrain members of the Ahle Baith, their family, friends and supporters via persecution.

This is not true at least for the supposed divine Imams.

Sheikh Mufeed says:

Chapter: As for what Abu Ja‘far mentions of the death of our Prophet and the Imams by poison or murder, some of this is confirmed as fact and some not. What is confirmed is that the Commander of the Believers, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, departed from this world by murder, none of them died a natural death. Musa ibn Ja‘far, peace be upon him, was killed by poison.

It is highly probable that ar-Rida (‘Ali ibn Musa) was poisoned, yet this cannot be confirmed. As for the others, there is no justification for the claim that they were either poisoned or murdered or killed through persecution, since the reports concerning this matter are extremely confused, and there are no means of proving it definitely.

[iceman]

12er Shia imamate is all a theory which never came into reality. The little hope for 12er Shia is to expect a man to come out of gaiyba and abolish taqiyyah, and then believe he will bring this theory to life. After that the 12er belief is rajah to further implement the plan of Imamate of 12.Yes Zayd declared Imamate on the basis of bayah not divine appointment.

Not just Shias but Sunnis also believe that a saviour will come. There is a need for a saviour and both Sunnis as well as Shias believe in this. Why? How did things go wrong. When did they start going wrong and why, when Islam was completed and favours were full filled by Allah to the Ummah. The job was done, what ever the job was at the end. So what happened. Why are things getting from bad to worse. And still they will get even worse. Shias only hope isn't Mahdi, the Ummah's hope is Mahdi. So don't play the card by just  gluing and sticking it with the Shias.

"Yes Zayd declared Imamate on the basis of bayah not divine appointment"

He probably didn't even declare anything. He just wanted revenge for his ancestors killed in karbalaa. His grandfather Hussein Ibne Ali. That's why he took up arms against the Ummayads. And if there is evidence that he declared by bayah, then by bayah you declare Caliphate and Imamah. You become a Caliph and not an Imam. No Caliph declared or called themselves as the Imam of the people.

[Rationalist]

Not just Shias but Sunnis also believe that a saviour will come. There is a need for a saviour and both Sunnis as well as Shias believe in this. Why? How did things go wrong. When did they start going wrong and why, when Islam was completed and favours were full filled by Allah to the Ummah. The job was done, what ever the job was at the end. So what happened. Why are things getting from bad to worse. And still they will get even worse. Shias only hope isn't Mahdi, the Ummah's hope is Mahdi. So don't play the card by just  gluing and sticking it with the Shias.

A couple point you need to note.
Mahdi concept is not part of our aqeeda. Its not mutawatir. Some great scholars even rejected the idea.
Mahdi for us is not the Imam of the time.

The Mahdi concept even if its fully accepted  he will come in an unknown future. So many generations will not be guided by him.

With the hadith we have Mahdi will rule for 7-9 years. So after that there is a generation after him who wont be directly guided by him.

There is no hadith telling Sunni he the last Imam.

Lastly he is not divinely appointed. Hadith which say so are weak.

He probably didn't even declare anything. He just wanted revenge for his ancestors killed in karbalaa. His grandfather Hussein Ibne Ali. That's why he took up arms against the Ummayads. And if there is evidence that he declared by bayah, then by bayah you declare Caliphate and Imamah. You become a Caliph and not an Imam. No Caliph declared or called themselves as the Imam of the people.

For the 12er Shia only the 12 Imams can became Calipahs. So arent you contradictng yourself?
Also in al Kafi Imam Zayd has a disagreement  with his brother  Imam Baqer about the duties of an Imam. Imam Zayd says revolting is part of Imamate when there are people to give bayah.

Secondly its Imam Jafar who didn't declare his Imamate to the Ummah. This is found in al Kafi.

Next there are sources where Imam Zayd took bayah, and with this bayah he didnt say Imam Jafar is the ar Rida.

[iceman]

A couple point you need to note.
Mahdi concept is not part of our aqeeda. Its not mutawatir. Some great scholars even rejected the idea.
Mahdi for us is not the Imam of the time.

The Mahdi concept even if its fully accepted  he will come in an unknown future. So many generations will not be guided by him.

With the hadith we have Mahdi will rule for 7-9 years. So after that there is a generation after him who wont be directly guided by him.

There is no hadith telling Sunni he the last Imam.

Lastly he is not divinely appointed. Hadith which say so are weak.
For the 12er Shia only the 12 Imams can became Calipahs. So arent you contradictng yourself?
Also in al Kafi Imam Zayd has a disagreement  with his brother  Imam Baqer about the duties of an Imam. Imam Zayd says revolting is part of Imamate when there are people to give bayah.

Secondly its Imam Jafar who didn't declare his Imamate to the Ummah. This is found in al Kafi.

Next there are sources where Imam Zayd took bayah, and with this bayah he didnt say Imam Jafar is the ar Rida.

"Mahdi concept is not part of our aqeeda. Its not mutawatir. Some great scholars even rejected the idea. Mahdi for us is not the Imam of the time"

Then I don't know which Sunni are you if that's your belief about Mahdi.

However the more common opinion among Sunni Muslims is, that the Mahdi is an expected ruler sent by God before the endtime to reestablish righteousness, coincides with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (Isa), but, unlike most Shia traditions, Sunni Islam often do not believe the Mahdi has already been born.

The only difference is that the Sunnis don't believe he's been born and in occultation. That's the only difference. But even some Sunnis do.

https://www.quora.com/profile/Hamid-Saadat-1

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

"Mahdi concept is not part of our aqeeda. Its not mutawatir. Some great scholars even rejected the idea. Mahdi for us is not the Imam of the time"

Then I don't know which Sunni are you if that's your belief about Mahdi.

However the more common opinion among Sunni Muslims is, that the Mahdi is an expected ruler sent by God before the endtime to reestablish righteousness, coincides with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (Isa), but, unlike most Shia traditions, Sunni Islam often do not believe the Mahdi has already been born.

The only difference is that the Sunnis don't believe he's been born and in occultation. That's the only difference. But even some Sunnis do.

https://www.quora.com/profile/Hamid-Saadat-1

Sunnis don’t believe that Imam Mahdi would be divinely appointed. Him being sent by Allah means it’s the Qadr of Allah. And believing in him isn’t fundamental part of our Aqeedah, rather scholars prohibited to reject the coming of Mahdi because, it’s proven from authentic reports, so that would fall under rejection of authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws), in this sense we even believe in coming of Dajjal too, and scholars prohibited people to reject his coming, since it would mean to reject saying of Prophet(s).

[Rationalist]

"Mahdi concept is not part of our aqeeda. Its not mutawatir. Some great scholars even rejected the idea. Mahdi for us is not the Imam of the time"

Then I don't know which Sunni are you if that's your belief about Mahdi.

Again   I said its not a mutawatir belief.
Then I said "the Mahdi concept even if its fully accepted  he will come in an unknown future. So many generations will not be guided by him.

With the hadith we have Mahdi will rule for 7-9 years. So after that there is a generation after him who wont be directly guided by him.

There is no hadith telling Sunni he the last Imam.

Lastly he is not divinely appointed. Hadith which say so are weak."

However the more common opinion among Sunni Muslims is, that the Mahdi is an expected ruler sent by God before the endtime to reestablish righteousness, coincides with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (Isa), but, unlike most Shia traditions, Sunni Islam often do not believe the Mahdi has already been born.

A common belief does not make it mutawatir.
There are Sunnis who don't believe Prophet Isa (as) will return. They believe the narrations are influenced by Israeliyah.
There are 12er Shias who believe Prophet Isa (as) died.

The only difference is that the Sunnis don't believe he's been born and in occultation. That's the only difference. But even some Sunnis do.

https://www.quora.com/profile/Hamid-Saadat-1

Even in the 12er Shia beliefs we are not even sure who the mother of the Mahdi is. Is she a Roman or an African. Some  sources even that the 12th Imam's mother did not even show signs of pregnancy.
As for the  Sufis who believe in the 12th Imam, they cannot solve this problem about the Mahdi's mother.

As for difference again go through these points.

 "the Mahdi concept even if its fully accepted  he will come in an unknown future. So many generations will not be guided by him.

With the hadith we have Mahdi will rule for 7-9 years. So after that there is a generation after him who wont be directly guided by him.

There is no hadith telling Sunni he the last Imam.

Lastly he is not divinely appointed. Hadith which say so are weak."

[iceman]

Sunnis don’t believe that Imam Mahdi would be divinely appointed. Him being sent by Allah means it’s the Qadr of Allah. And believing in him isn’t fundamental part of our Aqeedah, rather scholars prohibited to reject the coming of Mahdi because, it’s proven from authentic reports, so that would fall under rejection of authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws), in this sense we even believe in coming of Dajjal too, and scholars prohibited people to reject his coming, since it would mean to reject saying of Prophet(s).

"Sunnis don’t believe that Imam Mahdi would be divinely appointed. Him being sent by Allah means it’s the Qadr of Allah"

So what does divinely appointed mean. Him being sent by Allah should be and mean DIVINE APPOINTMENT. It's not a PREDICTION but an APPOINTMENT.

You said "And believing in him isn’t fundamental part of our Aqeedah"

Then you say "it’s proven from authentic reports, so that would fall under rejection of authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws)"

Ok, so authentic reports or authentic hadiths isn't fundamental part of your Aqeedah? You just have to accept it because if you don't then you would,

"fall under rejection of authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws)"

Then wouldn’t that be a fundamental part. You're all over the place here. I suggest you take a deep look at the roots and principles of your Aqeedah.

[iceman]

Sunnis don’t believe that Imam Mahdi would be divinely appointed. Him being sent by Allah means it’s the Qadr of Allah. And believing in him isn’t fundamental part of our Aqeedah, rather scholars prohibited to reject the coming of Mahdi because, it’s proven from authentic reports, so that would fall under rejection of authentic hadeeth of Prophet(saws), in this sense we even believe in coming of Dajjal too, and scholars prohibited people to reject his coming, since it would mean to reject saying of Prophet(s).

"in this sense we even believe in coming of Dajjal too, and scholars prohibited people to reject his coming, since it would mean to reject saying of Prophet(s)"

Then I don't understand how and why it shouldn't become a very important part of your belief.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

"in this sense we even believe in coming of Dajjal too, and scholars prohibited people to reject his coming, since it would mean to reject saying of Prophet(s)"

Then I don't understand how and why it shouldn't become a very important part of your belief.

Its part of Aqeedah but not the fundamental part. Fundamental parts are proven from Quran. And the rest of Aqaid are sub-categories which actually related to one of the Fundamentals and can be found in ahadeeth, and they are many, just see Aqeedah al-Tahawiyyah.

As for the fundamentals of Aqeedah then:

The principles(Usool) of ‘aqeedah are those which Allaah has commanded us to believe in, as mentioned in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

"The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allaah, His Angels, His Books and His Messengers. They say, ‘We make no distinction between one and another of His Messengers’ – and they say, ‘We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all).’" [al-Baqarah 2:285]
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/951/what-is-aqeedah