97 replies to this topic

[aladdin]

Zufa, on 20 October 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

Quote

You mean this one? But how it makes sense to Imply "We made them Imams (masculine plural) to Prophet Musa who is in singular but not for Children of Isreal (masculine plural)". If so, I already answered it. If there is something I missed post it.

How can "Read the bold, the Imams are guided by commandments and revelations." Answer to that question?

Who is nabi Israel ?

[Dhulfikar]

aladdin, on 20 October 2011 - 06:02 AM, said:

Who is nabi Israel ?

It is Prophet Yaʿqūb , because Bani Isreal means; both a people (the descendants of the patriarch Jacob/Israel, and the historical population of the kingdom of Israel)

[aladdin]

Zufa, on 20 October 2011 - 06:10 AM, said:

It is Prophet Yaʿqūb , because Bani Isreal means; both a people (the descendants of the patriarch Jacob/Israel, and the historical population of the kingdom of Israel)

Yes, and the Bani Israel had 12 tribes, the one remaining tribe called Yahudi wiped out the other 11 tribes. Some people call the tribe of Yahudi, the tribe of Satan.

It was Jacob who wrestled all night long with Elohim, and in the morning Jacob defeated Elohim, and Elohim got happy and named Jacob, Israel.

Basically, Jacob did jihad al-nafs.

[haideriam]

Ugly Jinn, on 20 October 2011 - 04:24 AM, said:

That's a question, not a claim, hence the question mark.

It's obvious your English is not good and now you're a Polytheist.

the ? says you are not conversant with al islam,
it is only on your tongue and not in the heart
as the holy quran says



bro aladdin, salaams to you

[Basim Ali]

,

Ugly Jinn, on 17 October 2011 - 03:27 PM, said:

The hadith is not applicable for the following reasons:

• Zakat, Prayers, Hajj are not fundamental aspects/pillars of Islam. They are branches, hence are part of Faroo Ad-Deen.
  
• Hadith states 'specifics' have not been given for many commandments. Yet the commandment itself of a divine successor being established after the Prophet is not stated. Verse 4:59 does not use the word "Divine". The addition of "who possess Divine authority" in parenthesis is incorrect, it is not stated in the verse. This authority can be applied to anyone, even Abu Bakr (even WF supporters have used this verse to justify WF).
  
• Also, the excuse of specifics is flawed. This is not a ritual which needs details, it's a fundamental belief. Specifics are needed for practices like salat, hajj, etc., which are in detail. No one is asking for specifics, just stating  "Ali is your divine successor" or just 2 words "Follow Ali" is more than enough.
  
• All the other fundamentals of Islam are stated clearly with names and specifics in the Quran, yet Ali (Imamat) is excluded.

1. What does that even mean? It has been told to you before (in other threads) that the grouping has been done by fallible people for ease of comprehension. By no means is it flawless.
Also, 'they're not fundamentals of religion'? Assuming you're a Muslim, how is your religion complete without them? Furthermore, Salaah IS a pillar of Islam. In fact, while there are no ahadith which specifically mention Qiyamah, for example, as a pillar of Islam; we do have a hadith which states that Salaah is Imaad ad-Deen (pillar of Islam) and one hadith which says Salaah to the religion is like the pole holding up a tent is to the tent.

2. The fact that a separate authority, besides that of Allah (swt) and the Prophet , has been mentioned in the Qur'aan where it's described as something that can't be possessed by wrong doers, is more than sufficient as a commandment.

3. I'm sure you've heard of so many different ways one can do Shirk, for example, which is basically the opposite of Tawheed (the first 'fundamental' belief). Could you perhaps recount how many of them are mentioned in the Qur'aan? I believe some people consider some as trivial as naming humans after the names of Allah (swt) as Shirk as well.
So suppose only Ali (a) was mentioned clearly. Then there would be cults demanding that there be the names of the rest of the 11 Imams too in the Qur'aan before they believed in them; and one who denies one of them has denied all of them.

4. Really? Where's the promised Mahdi (ajf) mentioned in the Qur'aan clearly? Belief in him is obviously a very basic fundamental of Islam.

wa

[aladdin]

haideriam, on 20 October 2011 - 06:44 AM, said:

the ? says you are not conversant with al islam,
it is only on your tongue and not in the heart
as the holy quran says


bro aladdin, salaams to you

Salam brother Haider.

[Ugly Jinn]

Zufa, on 20 October 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

Quote

You mean this one? But how it makes sense to Imply 'We made them Imams (masculine plural) to Prophet Musa who is in singular but not for Children of Isreal (masculine plural). If so, I already answered it. If there is something I missed post it.

How can 'Read the bold, the Imams are guided by commandments and revelations. Answer to that question?

I don't understand your question regarding 'masculine plural' and singular. Can you rewrite the question again differently.

Basim Ali, on 20 October 2011 - 10:21 AM, said:

1. What does that even mean? It has been told to you before (in other threads) that the grouping has been done by fallible people for ease of comprehension. By no means is it flawless.
Also, 'they're not fundamentals of religion'? Assuming you're a Muslim, how is your religion complete without them? Furthermore, Salaah IS a pillar of Islam. In fact, while there are no ahadith which specifically mention Qiyamah, for example, as a pillar of Islam; we do have a hadith which states that Salaah is Imaad ad-Deen (pillar of Islam) and one hadith which says Salaah to the religion is like the pole holding up a tent is to the tent.

The topic is focused on a component of Roots of Religion/Articles of Faith/Usool Ad-Deen. This is regarding belief not practice. Fundamental belief is a prerequisite for practice.

Quote

2. The fact that a separate authority, besides that of Allah (swt) and the Prophet  , has been mentioned in the Qur'aan where it's described as something that can't be possessed by wrong doers, is more than sufficient as a commandment.

That 'authority' is applicable anyone, even fallibles.

Quote

3. I'm sure you've heard of so many different ways one can do Shirk, for example, which is basically the opposite of Tawheed (the first 'fundamental' belief). Could you perhaps recount how many of them are mentioned in the Qur'aan? I believe some people consider some as trivial as naming humans after the names of Allah (swt) as Shirk as well.
So suppose only Ali (a) was mentioned clearly. Then there would be cults demanding that there be the names of the rest of the 11 Imams   too in the Qur'aan before they believed in them; and one who denies one of them has denied all of them.

I don't understand what you mean by 'naming humans after Allah'? No one is implying to name anyone after Allah. Quran has named dozens of humans from Prophets to fallibles. Regarding the second point, naming a living divine successor while Quran is being revealed is different than naming future Imams.

Quote

4. Really? Where's the promised Mahdi (ajf) mentioned in the Qur'aan clearly? Belief in him is obviously a very basic fundamental of Islam.

There isn't any mention of him. And it's a fundamental belief for Shia Islam. Sunnis do not consider this prophecy a fundamental belief (Not part of their Articles of Faith).

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 20 October 2011 - 05:03 PM.

[MAFHJ]

Ugly Jinn, on 20 October 2011 - 03:59 AM, said:

It seems you are not recognizing the illogical question. I've posted a link for Negative Proof http://rationalwiki..../Negative_proof

I don't have to prove anything, and it is not a logical fallacy because the Qur'an clearly tells you to refer to the hadth for other answers. So my argument is that I don't have to prove "where does the Qur'an state that it does not mention all the fundamental beliefs," because it clearly tells you to also refer to hadith. The argument is that it does not have to all be mentioned in the Qur'an. It is like asking me where does the Qur'an state that it does not mention all the Prophets, even though these are 2 different arguments, the Qur'an clearly tells you to refer to hadith, so whatever other Prophets are mentioned in hadith are accepted (under the hadith conditions that I mentioned before). You already proved my point with your angel color example.

For me, I know that the Qur'an tells us to also refer to the hadith, so my answer is that it does not have to be all mentioned in the Qur'an, because the Qur'an has also referred us to another primary source to take information from. Your argument of "Negative proof" would work if the Qur'an did not instruct us to refer to the hadith. But I'm sorry to say that it does.

From your posts we can conclude you are not a Shi'i (which is fine), but the problem is that you are going against mainstream Sunni views also. You have a problem if you do not accept hadith as a primary source, and if that is the case, you are going against the Qur'an. So pick one, which is it: Admit and answer the question, or admit that you are going against the Qur'an.

So here is the question again: Where does the Qur'an state that all the fundamental beliefs are mentioned in the Qur'an?

[Dhulfikar]

Quote

I don't understand your question regarding 'masculine plural' and singular. Can you rewrite the question again differently.

Of course. The question is that why God says in Quran verse 32:24 "Made of them Imams" and imply only to Musa ? It makes more sense if He said "we made of Him Imam."

The following verses makes sense:

[Shakir 21:69] We said: O fire! be a comfort and peace to Ibrahim;
[Shakir 21:70] And they desired a war on him, but We made them the greatest losers.
[Shakir 21:71] And We delivered him as well as Lut (removing them) to the land which We had blessed for all people.
[Shakir 21:72] And We gave him Ishaq and Yaqoub, a son's son, and We made (them) all good.
[Shakir 21:73] And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the alms, and Us (alone) did they serve;
[Shakir 21:74] And (as for) Lut, We gave him wisdom and knowledge, and We delivered him from the town which wrought abominations; surely they were an evil people, transgressors;

This is why the verse 32:24 must imply also to Bani Isreal (32:23), meaning that amoung the Bani Isreal God choosed Imams.

About "Revealed" in Verse 21:73, actually in this verse "Inspiration" makes much sense, look here: http://corpus.quran....ation=(21:73:5)
But for me even Revealed is correct, because God clearly talks to Ishaq and Yaqoub because they were Prophets. But Imam title is different than Prophet.

Edited by Zufa, 21 October 2011 - 06:34 AM.

[Ugly Jinn]

MAFHJ, on 20 October 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

For me, I know that the Qur'an tells us to also refer to the hadith, so my answer is that it does not have to be all mentioned in the Qur'an, because the Qur'an has also referred us to another primary source to take information from. Your argument of "Negative proof" would work if the Qur'an did not instruct us to refer to the hadith. But I'm sorry to say that it does.

I'll explain in detail because it's obvious you are not understanding the logical fallacy. Now, you are trying to justify a negative proof by stating "Qur'an did not instruct us to refer to the hadith" which itself is illogical because a 'negative proof' argument is independent.

I'm going to apply the some 'negative proof' concept in my example just like you did:

"I asked God to strike me"
Nothing happened
"Hence God does not exist"

Now I'll add a justification from Quran (just like you did).
Quran states "Call upon Me and I will answer you"
"Nothing happened, hence the God in the Quran does not exist and Quran not authentic."

With a flawed 'negative proof' logic I've disproved God and Quran. This is why I replicated your 'negative proof' question to show it's fallacy, '"Where does the Qur'an state that there are more fundamental beliefs besides the ones mentioned in the Qur'an?"

There really is nothing more to add.

Zufa, on 21 October 2011 - 06:32 AM, said:

Of course. The question is that why God says in Quran verse 32:24 "Made of them Imams" and imply only to Musa ? It makes more sense if He said "we made of Him Imam."

I understand now. Because there were more Imams Allah appointed. Imam is a general term, in Quran it is used to describe Prophets also. (example 2:124). Also, it clearly says in the verse "And We made of them Imams to guide by Our command when they were patient, and they were certain of Our communications."

As I've said, this verse is speaking about appointed divine Prophets that receive commandments and revelations from Allah. 12 Imams cannot receive commandments and revelations hence this verse is not talking about them.

Quote

The following verses makes sense:

[Shakir 21:69] We said: O fire! be a comfort and peace to Ibrahim;
[Shakir 21:70] And they desired a war on him, but We made them the greatest losers.
[Shakir 21:71] And We delivered him as well as Lut (removing them) to the land which We had blessed for all people.
[Shakir 21:72] And We gave him Ishaq and Yaqoub, a son's son, and We made (them) all good.
[Shakir 21:73] And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the alms, and Us (alone) did they serve;
[Shakir 21:74] And (as for) Lut, We gave him wisdom and knowledge, and We delivered him from the town which wrought abominations; surely they were an evil people, transgressors;

This is why the verse 32:24 must imply also to Bani Isreal (32:23), meaning that amoung the Bani Isreal God choosed Imams.

Bani Israel God choosed Imams? I don't understand.

Quote

About "Revealed" in Verse 21:73, actually in this verse "Inspiration" makes much sense, look here: http://corpus.quran....ation=(21:73:5)
But for me even Revealed is correct, because God clearly talks to Ishaq and Yaqoub because they were Prophets. But Imam title is different than Prophet.

No, Imam has been used to describe Prophets, it's a general word. As, I've given an example above:

[Shakir 2:124] And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.

Ibrahim was a Prophet but God appointed and referred to him as an Imam also. This is just translation confusion you are having, other translators may not even use the term 'Imam'.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 21 October 2011 - 07:16 PM.

[Dhulfikar]

Quote

I understand now. Because there were more Imams Allah appointed. Imam is a general term, in Quran it is used to describe Prophets also. (example 2:124). Also, it clearly says in the verse "And We made of them Imams to guide by Our command when they were patient, and they were certain of Our communications."

The thing is, it actually does not make any sense. I gave you the verses 21:69-74 as an example.

Quote

As I've said, this verse is speaking about appointed divine Prophets that receive commandments and revelations from Allah. 12 Imams cannot receive commandments and revelations hence this verse is not talking about them.

Just because God appointed some Prophets as Imams, it does not mean that To be an Imam you need to be a prophet. So how can the verse speak about divine prophets?

Quote

No, Imam has been used to describe Prophets, it's a general word. As, I've given an example above:

No. Read this verse:
And We made them Imams who call to the fire, and on the day of resurrection they shall not be assisted. [28:41]

Quote

[Shakir 2:124] And when his Lord tried Ibrahim with certain words, he fulfilled them. He said: Surely I will make you an Imam of men. Ibrahim said: And of my offspring? My covenant does not include the unjust, said He.

Here is clear proof that God can choose Imams also from Non-Prophets.

Quote

Bani Israel God choosed Imams? I don't understand.

Among the Children of Isreal there were Imams that guided people by God command.

Quote

12 Imams cannot receive commandments and revelations hence this verse is not talking about them.

It does talk about them, you don't comprehend it.

Edited by Zufa, 21 October 2011 - 08:09 PM.

[MAFHJ]

Ugly Jinn, on 21 October 2011 - 07:11 PM, said:

I'll explain in detail because it's obvious you are not understanding the logical fallacy. Now, you are trying to justify a negative proof by stating "Qur'an did not instruct us to refer to the hadith" which itself is illogical because a 'negative proof' argument is independent.

I'm going to apply the some 'negative proof' concept in my example just like you did:

"I asked God to strike me"
Nothing happened
"Hence God does not exist"

Now I'll add a justification from Quran (just like you did).
Quran states "Call upon Me and I will answer you"
"Nothing happened, hence the God in the Quran does not exist and Quran not authentic."

With a flawed 'negative proof' logic I've disproved God and Quran. This is why I replicated your 'negative proof' question to show it's fallacy, '"Where does the Qur'an state that there are more fundamental beliefs besides the ones mentioned in the Qur'an?"

There really is nothing more to add.

Brother, I don't know what is worse, the fact that you totally misread my post, or the example you gave. I will say it one more time, I advise you, under recommended precaution, that you apply a few drops of Visine to your eyes so that you do not misread it this time and get the point.

I did not say "Qur'an did not instruct us to refer to the hadith" as you have said. I said that the Qur'an clearly tells you to refer to the hadith, so the fundamental beliefs don't all have to be mentioned in the Qur'an because the Qur'an clearly tells you to refer to hadith as a primary source. Therefore it is not a logical fallacy, because the Qur'an gives authority to the hadith and instructs you to refer to it. Therefore the Qur'an does not have to say that it does not mention all the fundamental beliefs, but for your argument to be valid the Qur'an must state that it mentions all the fundamental beliefs, but it doesn't, therefore making your initial argument invalid. If you don't get this point by now, then it is clear that you are acting based on arrogance, and that you know what I am saying but are just acting ignorant.

Admit and answer the question, or admit that you are going against the Qur'an by not accepting that it tells you to refer to hadith as a source for answers.
So here is the question again: Where does the Qur'an state that all the fundamental beliefs are/have to be mentioned in the Qur'an?

Edited by MAFHJ, 21 October 2011 - 09:17 PM.

[Ugly Jinn]

Zufa, on 21 October 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

Just because God appointed some Prophets as Imams, it does not mean that To be an Imam you need to be a prophet. So how can the verse speak about divine prophets?

Because it states commandments and revelations. Do you believe 12 Imams can receive commandments and revelations?

No one said the term Imam is restricted to Prophets.

Quote

No. Read this verse:
And We made them Imams who call to the fire, and on the day of resurrection they shall not be assisted. [28:41]

You are getting confused with the general translation made by Shakir cause he is using Imam. Imam in this verse is nothing more than a leader, it's using it in a general term.

Quote

Here is clear proof that God can choose Imams also from Non-Prophets.

Again, Imam is a general term, no one said it's restricted to Prophets. Even fallibles use the title Imam (ex. Imam Khomenei, Imam Khamenie, etc)

Quote

Among the Children of Isreal there were Imams that guided people by God command.

If there are 'commandments' involved then it refers to Prophets.

Quote

It does talk about them, you don't comprehend it.

I'll ask again, are you stating 12 Imams can receive revelations?

MAFHJ, on 21 October 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

Brother, I don't know what is worse, the fact that you totally misread my post, or the example you gave. I will say it one more time, I advise you, under recommended precaution, that you apply a few drops of Visine to your eyes so that you do not misread it this time and get the point.

I did not say "Qur'an did not instruct us to refer to the hadith" as you have said. I said that the Qur'an clearly tells you to refer to the hadith, so the fundamental beliefs don't all have to be mentioned in the Qur'an because the Qur'an clearly tells you to refer to hadith as a primary source. Therefore it is not a logical fallacy, because the Qur'an gives authority to the hadith and instructs you to refer to it. Therefore the Qur'an does not have to say that it does not mention all the fundamental beliefs, but for your argument to be valid the Qur'an must state that it mentions all the fundamental beliefs, but it doesn't, therefore making your initial argument invalid. If you don't get this point by now, then it is clear that you are acting based on arrogance, and that you know what I am saying but are just acting ignorant.

Ahhh...that was a typo, I copied/pasted it from somewhere. The example is still valid. Lack of evidence doesn't equate to evidence. Again 'negative proof' can't be justified. I proved it with my example.

Tell me, why didn't Allah mention Imam Ali in the Quran even though he was divinely chosen successor and alive during the revelations were being declared? Why exclude the concept of Imamt and/or Imam Ali from the Quran?

Quote

Admit and answer the question, or admit that you are going against the Qur'an by not accepting that it tells you to refer to hadith as a source for answers.
So here is the question again: Where does the Qur'an state that all the fundamental beliefs are/have to be mentioned in the Qur'an?

You keep repeating a flawed question will not make it right. I've stated that many times. I'm somewhat amazed you aren't able to comprehend the fallacy of the question. Not even Ayatollah Haydari nor Modaressi use this flawed method because it's known this is a faulty method of proving based on lack of evidence. Your attempt to prove that Quran's lack of specification equates to proof of evidence.

Regardless what the answer to your question, whether Yes or No, is irrelevant. Validating on lack of evidence is a logical fallacy which is known fact. There's a phrase to this fallacy, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I've replicated your faulty question "Where does the Qur'an state that there are more fundamental beliefs besides the ones mentioned in the Qur'an?"

You can keep repeating your question and I'll keep repeating my question to show how flawed your argument is.

On a side note, I'm 99% sure you are in your early-mid 20s. No experienced religious debater can make a fundamental mistake like this.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 22 October 2011 - 06:34 AM.

[Dhulfikar]

Quote

Because it states commandments and revelations....If there are 'commandments' involved then it refers to Prophets.

Why? Do you think Mariam, Luqman, Khidr etc are Prophets because they also receive commands? These are non-Prophets and yet God spoke to them.

I also said that in verse 21:73,  word "revelation" is used because They were Prophets and received laws. And Command and Revelation are two separate things.

Quote

You are getting confused with the general translation made by Shakir cause he is using Imam. Imam in this verse is nothing more than a leader, it's using it in a general term.

And i gave you two verses to Define Two kind of Imamat we are speaking here.

Quote

Do you believe 12 Imams can receive commandments and revelations?

Yes i believe they received Commands but not revelations. I believe that these Imams are persons who is appointed by God as a leaders and as a guide to whom obedience is due, and whom people should follow.

Edited by Zufa, 22 October 2011 - 06:21 AM.

[Ugly Jinn]

Zufa, on 22 October 2011 - 06:19 AM, said:

Yes i believe they received Commands but not revelations. I believe that these Imams are persons who is appointed by God as a leaders and as a guide to whom obedience is due, and whom people should follow.

This is the root of the issue. Receiving commandants from Allah means receiving divine rules/order, which is the same as revelations. Commandments is actually defined as "a divine revelation". How are you differentiating commandments to revelations?

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 22 October 2011 - 06:34 AM.

[Dhulfikar]

Ugly Jinn, on 22 October 2011 - 06:32 AM, said:

This is the root of the issue. Receiving commandants from Allah means receiving divine rules/order, which is the same as revelations. Commandments is actually defined as "a divine revelation". How are you differentiating commandments to revelations?

The thing is when i says revelations, i mean new Divine laws that are appointed to Prophets and Messengers only. Imams can't receive new laws but they are people who Guide by Allah (SWT) order.

[MAFHJ]

Ugly Jinn, on 22 October 2011 - 05:40 AM, said:

I've replicated your faulty question "Where does the Qur'an state that there are more fundamental beliefs besides the ones mentioned in the Qur'an?"

This is seriously the last time I will make an effort in explaining this to you, the answer to your question is: The Qur'an clearly instructs you to refer to the hadith as a primary source, therefore all the fundamental beliefs do not have to be mentioned in the Qur'an because it can be mentioned in hadith. It is telling you that if something is not mentioned in the Qur'an, you will find it in hadith. That is the answer to your question, that is the evidence that shows it is not a logical fallacy, it's simple, if you saw Ayatullah Haydari's video, he makes the same point: The answer why some of the fundamental beliefs are not mentioned in the Qur'an  is because the Qur'an and hadith (under the conditions I have stated previously) are both primary sources and are the same in authority. Your question will only be valid in this case if you ask me: "where are there more fundamental beliefs outside both the Qur'an and hadith." But that is not what I am arguing, in your case you have to show that the Qur'an states that it mentions all the fundamental beliefs, so now answer the question:

Where does the Qur'an state that all the fundamental beliefs are/have to be mentioned in the Qur'an?

This is the important part:
You have made life easier on yourself by showing that you can not pose your argument. You stated: "Validating on lack of evidence is a logical fallacy which is known fact." So, where is your evidence that all the fundamental beliefs must be mentioned in the Qur'an? You have none, so based on your statement, you yourself have refuted your initial post, and showed that it is a logical fallacy. I rest my case, no matter which approach you take it, your initial post is flawed.

So you have 2 options now which both refute your initial post:
1- You accept that the Qur'an does not state that all the fundamental proofs are mentioned in the Qur'an, and that hadith is a source the Qur'an instructs you to refer to.
2- You accept the fact that you have called your own initial argument a logical fallacy, because you have stated: "Validating on lack of evidence is a logical fallacy which is known fact." You have no evidence to support your claim, therefore your initial argument is a logical fallacy (you have refuted yourself).

The answer is clear to any sane person.

Note: What does my age have to do with anything, from your posts you sound like a 7 year old right now.

Edited by MAFHJ, 22 October 2011 - 10:49 AM.

[MAFHJ]

I think I should reword this part, so that it may make more sense:

MAFHJ, on 22 October 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

This is the important part:
You have made life easier on yourself by showing that you can not pose your argument. You stated: "Validating on lack of evidence is a logical fallacy which is known fact." So, where is your evidence that all the fundamental beliefs must be mentioned in the Qur'an? You have none, so based on your statement, you yourself have refuted your initial post, and showed that it is a logical fallacy. I rest my case, no matter which approach you take it, your initial post is flawed.

So I will reword it in a simpler form so that we don't have to go over this again:

First let us start with this:
You stated:

Ugly Jinn, on 17 October 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:

I'll repeat it again, if a fallible hadith is needed to provide a fundamental aspect of Islam then it contradicts Quran's objective. Basically, Quran wasn't enough to provide the fundamentals of Islam.

Ok so taking the point that the Qur'an clearly tells you to refer to hadith as a primary source, and that they are equal in weight of authority (as long as the hadith satisfies the conditions mentioned previously), we look at what you stated here:

Ugly Jinn, on 19 October 2011 - 11:15 PM, said:

Because Allah/Prophet defined the articles of faith/fundamentals in the Quran already, He didn't mention Imamat. Who are we to add a fundamental when He defined it clearly in His Holy Book?

So you said that the fundamental beliefs are all defined in the Qur'an already, what is your evidence for this? Where does the Qur'an or hadith state that they are all defined in the Qur'an?

This is what I mean by you have no evidence for your claim, therefore you cannot claim it. Whereas the Qur'an clearly tells you to refer to hadith for anything that is not mentioned in the Qur'an. So if the hadith mentions that Imamate is a fundamental belief, then under what the Qur'an states, we take hadith as a source and accept the fact that Imamate is a fundamental belief.

[Ugly Jinn]

MAFHJ, on 22 October 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

This is seriously the last time I will make an effort in explaining this to you, the answer to your question is: The Qur'an clearly instructs you to refer to the hadith as a primary source, therefore all the fundamental beliefs do not have to be mentioned in the Qur'an because it can be mentioned in hadith. It is telling you that if something is not mentioned in the Qur'an, you will find it in hadith. That is the answer to your question, that is the evidence that shows it is not a logical fallacy, it's simple, if you saw Ayatullah Haydari's video, he makes the same point: The answer why some of the fundamental beliefs are not mentioned in the Qur'an is because the Qur'an and hadith (under the conditions I have stated previously) are both primary sources and are the same in authority. Your question will only be valid in this case if you ask me: where are there more fundamental beliefs outside both the Qur'an and hadith. But that is not what I am arguing, in your case you have to show that the Qur'an states that it mentions all the fundamental beliefs, so now answer the question:

Where does the Qur'an state that all the fundamental beliefs are/have to be mentioned in the Qur'an?

I'll break it down for you again. You have 2 arguments. One is valid the other is invalid.

• The valid argument is Quran instructs us to refer to the Hadith, whether it's a strong or weak argument is subjective. This is the arguments Ayatollah Haydari and Moderassi have used, you are just replicating it. Which already has been discussed.
  
• The second argument, which is a illogical question, is invalid. I'm convinced you aren't sophisticated to know this because you've obviously think it's a valid question/argument, hence I know you are young. No scholar uses 'Negative Proof' as evidence, that scholar would lose credibility. But I'm somewhat tired of explaining something which you aren't able to comprehend. You should google it.

So, in conclusion. Next time when you debate this topic, use the argument Haydari and Modaressi used about 'referring to hadith', and don't get creative and try to use 'negative proof'. Justification based on 'negative proof' is flawed.

Quote

This is the important part:
You have made life easier on yourself by showing that you can not pose your argument. You stated: Validating on lack of evidence is a logical fallacy which is known fact. So, where is your evidence that all the fundamental beliefs must be mentioned in the Qur'an? You have none, so based on your statement, you yourself have refuted your initial post, and showed that it is a logical fallacy. I rest my case, no matter which approach you take it, your initial post is flawed.

This is comical.

There is no 'lack of evidence' when the evidence is that the fundamentals are defined in the Quran.  

Quran defined it and didn't state anything regarding whether there are more or not. Hence, I'm not using arguments via 'negative proof' to validate anything. You are.

Quote

So you have 2 options now which both refute your initial post:
1- You accept that the Qur'an does not state that all the fundamental proofs are mentioned in the Qur'an, and that hadith is a source the Qur'an instructs you to refer to.
2- You accept the fact that you have called your own initial argument a logical fallacy, because you have stated: Validating on lack of evidence is a logical fallacy which is known fact. You have no evidence to support your claim, therefore your initial argument is a logical fallacy (you have refuted yourself).

You're options are based on 'negative proof' = logical fallacy

Again, my advice is for you to stick with Ayatollah Haydari's argument. No Marjas or scholars use 'negative proof', otherwise they would've used your 'awesome' argument.

Quote

Note: What does my age have to do with anything, from your posts you sound like a 7 year old right now.

Correction: A 7 year old who doesn't use 'negative proof' as an argument just like all Prophets, Imams, and Marjas.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 22 October 2011 - 07:02 PM.

[MAFHJ]

I knew what you would respond with and that is why I clarified it in the extra post so that you don't play with words, you did not address that post at all, instead you addressed the on which you thought you could twist my words on. This is my last reply, take care of yourself and may Allah guide you.

Edited by MAFHJ, 22 October 2011 - 07:53 PM.

[Ugly Jinn]

Zufa, on 22 October 2011 - 06:53 AM, said:

The thing is when i says revelations, i mean new Divine laws that are appointed to Prophets and Messengers only. Imams can't receive new laws but they are people who Guide by Allah (SWT) order.

What exactly do you mean "Guide by Allah's order"? Either 12 Imam's enforce the divine laws based on Prophet/Quran OR they receive communications from Allah Himself?

MAFHJ, on 22 October 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Ok so taking the point that the Qur'an clearly tells you to refer to hadith as a primary source, and that they are equal in weight of authority (as long as the hadith satisfies the conditions mentioned previously), we look at what you stated here:

If you consider Hadith as a primary source then what source is Quran?

And using a Hadith to authenticate it's own authority is a logical fallacy.

Quote

So you said that the fundamental beliefs are all defined in the Qur'an already, what is your evidence for this? Where does the Qur'an or hadith state that they are all defined in the Qur'an?

This is what I mean by you have no evidence for your claim, therefore you cannot claim it. Whereas the Qur'an clearly tells you to refer to hadith for anything that is not mentioned in the Qur'an. So if the hadith mentions that Imamate is a fundamental belief, then under what the Qur'an states, we take hadith as a source and accept the fact that Imamate is a fundamental belief.

You're back at making assumptions based on lack of evidence (negative proof).

Just stick with 'refer to hadith' argument only.

Edited by Ugly Jinn, 22 October 2011 - 08:04 PM.

[aladdin]

MAFHJ, on 22 October 2011 - 07:51 PM, said:

I knew what you would respond with and that is why I clarified it in the extra post so that you don't play with words, you did not address that post at all, instead you addressed the on which you thought you could twist my words on. This is my last reply, take care of yourself and may Allah guide you.

Salam brother,

This is what I and Haideriam have decided about him a long time ago. If enough people like us make this decision, and don't respond to him, thus don't waste our time with him, he might learn. It is in his own benefit not to respond to him, allowing him to reflect about himself and his methods.

[Mikael]

Jinn

I understand I am quite late to get involved in this thread, but I would just like to add my short reply, hoping it may satisfy your query.

To start, I will say that I am not of the view that as Imamat is a 'fundamental aspect of Shia Islam', Imam Ali must have been explicitly named in the Holy Qur'an. The reasons for this are as follows.

1) The established way of Allah (swt)

Were the coming prophets mentioned by their names to the waiting generations? Was the Holy Prophet (saww) mentioned by name to the Jews? Did not Jesus mention the quality of the Holy Prophet (saww) that he would be the 'Praised one'? Was this quality not then a name (Ahmed)? So is there anything as such as a 'name', distinct from what is the classification of qualities? Is not the concept of Prophethood of an even greater importance to all of mankind, yet what is told about these prophets is that when they come, as surely they will, whosoever follows them is safe? If even Prophets are recognised by virtue of their qualities, why should there be a difference and the Imams be explicitly named? The Holy Qur'an certainly seems to focus more on 'naming' people by their attributes, unless the case is of the people of the past.

2) To preserve from corrupt influences

It is easier to adopt a name rather than a quality or attribute, and, I envision, had just the name 'Ali' been mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, there would have arrived many Alis in front of Muslims. So to preserve not the Holy Qur'an, but man, and his sanity in that it may not get impossible to identify the real Ali . In my view, presenting a person as an embodiment of certain attributes is a far more robust approach rather than identifying him/her by a name, which, I am sure you would agree, is everything but the actual person. We have verses which identify, in contextual situations, Imam Ali .

3) A name does not form a part of a person

A name is everything but the actual person. It is only given to be used to address men by men, conveniently. What constitutes a person in reality are his/her characteristics or qualities. These may be that love or generosity a person has for God or towards His creation due to which he gives in charity a ring while in Ruku, or simply the knowledgeability due to which he is mentioned as of the Ulil Amr.

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

You may be interested in an alternative answer. The Holy Prophet (saw) identified Ali by name. I accept that this was presented to you before, but perhaps you missed to grasp a key concept regarding this statement. Muslims believe that the Holy Prophet (saw) said nothing of his own accord, with the older revealed scriptures describing that God will put His words into his mouth. So, since the Qur'an is also but the words of God held collectively, and the Prophet (saw) also says but the words of God, it must be that Imam Ali is mentioned in the words of God.

(If I do not answer any further responses made by you anytime soon, then do accept my apology. This is a rather busy part of the academic year.)

Edited by Ali Arslan Kazmi, 27 October 2011 - 09:08 PM.