461 replies to this topic

[Sheraz]

Funny thing is you think that Immamate is a contradicotry concept... but you do not see your very own Caliphate as a contradictory concept.

Let me explain: Khulafa-e-Rashideen concept, that the first 4 Calipha where the on the righteous path wasnt not the consensus of the people of that time (infact the people living at that time believed in all those Calipha), rather Sunni Ulemah afterwards (much much later) concluded this new concept of Khulafa-e-Rashideen as they saw the other Calipha had abused this system. Double standards or what?!

Lets not try and get smart here, If you think that after the death of the Holy Prophet saw it was essential to have a Leader then why do you only believe in the Khulafa-e-Rashideen? and not the remaining zalim, najis Khulafa? Infact if the Calipha is so essential to lead the Ummah whose the your Current Calipha in 2011?

@ Your last post you have not even dealt with the surface of history of Immamate rather presented your own view which does not correspond to the majority of Sunni Scholar view:

“The rank of Imamat is actually a reflection of Prophethood and the nature of the Imam has been found to be very close to the nature of the Prophet"

Edited by Sheraz, 28 December 2011 - 07:42 PM.

[ambrosechappel]

1. Caliphate is not a part of my faith or that of any other Sunni Muslim.
2. Nor does any Sunni 'believe' in the Rashidoon Caliphs as having any God-mandated authority.
3. The need of a leader is not doubt essential but Imamate calls for a robotic - automatically and divinely operated - leader which is what I am arguing against.

[Sheraz]

ambrosechappel, on 02 January 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

1. Caliphate is not a part of my faith or that of any other Sunni Muslim.

Abu Bakr n Co made it,,, there was never a need for a man made calipha.

ambrosechappel, on 02 January 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

2. Nor does any Sunni 'believe' in the Rashidoon Caliphs as having any God-mandated authority.

Irrelevant if they werent appointed by God then why: have you taken religion from them and relied upon their rulings on particular matters? If they arent appointed by God..., then how dare you take your Islamic rulings/judgements from them regarding specific issues? Also whose Umar to ban Mutah when it was widely practised (ibn Abbas) and admitted by after the demise of the Prophet saw?

ambrosechappel, on 02 January 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

3. The need of a leader is not doubt essential but Imamate calls for a robotic - automatically and divinely operated - leader which is what I am arguing against.

Go tell this to Abu Bakr n Mawuaiiaya  (la) who appointed the next leader whose intentions where to remove the Imams of Ahlul Bayt a.s. and introduce a man made system.

Can you kindly stop posting your view of Immamate and show me some scholarly view because frankly speaking I have seen nothing but worthless long posts by you.

p.s. change your font color to something darker I have enough of a hard time digesting your wayward opinion and view of immamate as it is.

Edited by Sheraz, 02 January 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[Muntaqim Force]

ambrosechappel, on 02 January 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

3. The need of a leader is not doubt essential but Imamate calls for a robotic - automatically and divinely operated - leader which is what I am arguing against.

You dont even sound muslim. Your main problem is against "divinely appointed" leader other wise you yourself accept the need of a leader. You should be arguing with Allah then why He sent his messengers and Imam and did not let you to have your own made leader.
Your hate is towards DIVINE otherwise you had no issues.

[Mikael]

In response to the OP:

Other posters before me have elucidated how your arguments are but speculations. Moreover, they have provided refutations of your point of view, which I would honestly say, has been sewn out of the weakest thread. So, my interest is not to present a direct refutation of your claim. I will present an indirect refutation, using the concept of Justice, which is central to man and governance of any nation in general, and the Muslim nation, in particular.

The concept of justice is vital for the maintained existence of man and a nation. It is central to Islam. I am sure you will agree. But what is justice? What is the view of justice regarding the Leader of a nation and the humble worker of a nation?


I have not found any definition of Justice from any caliph, neither from any of the Khulafa arRashidoon, except Imam Ali . So, I am compelled to seek the definition from either Imam Ali or any Imam from his sons .

Ma'moon once had a thief brought in front of him. Apparently, the man looked very pious, with marks of sujood and a tasbih. Ma'moon ordered that his hand be cut off. The thief retorted that not his, but Ma'moon's hand would have to be cut off, as he was the caliph, responsible for his people’s well-being (just as a father is). The thief had stolen only as the last option, just before hunger sucked life out of him. Corruption was rampant. On hearing this statement, Ma'moon turned to the Imam and asked whether the thief’s statement was valid. The Imam replied in the affirmative, that in this case, Ma'moon's hand would have to be cut off...

So, this is justice. The leader is supposed to be an affectionate father to the nation.
Also, I am quite sure that the first 3 caliphs would have seen the presence of such 'thieves' in their eras, and also, corruption, as they were just humans, not infallible, selected by a handful of people. In such a situation, what would we expect to happen?
We would see either innocent people having their hands cut off for no sin of theirs, or see a caliph have his hand amputated. And, what when another thief is caught, and another, and another...?

From the example presented above, the caliph would have to cut off an innocent's hand and commit injustice or have his hands cut off. His being a fallible does not permit him to put in the tremendous effort required to look after each individual of his nation and sacrifice his own ease and luxuries for their sake. However, he also cannot keep on having his hand cut off with each 'thief' caught.

Thus, caliphate, as portrayed by your creed, is impractical, and unIslamic.
Thus, Imamate, as believed in by the Shia of Ali is the only way to establish an Islamic state.

This is the refutation from the concept of justice, so valued in Islam.

[ambrosechappel]

Ali Arslan Kazmi, on 05 January 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

In response to the OP:

Other posters before me have elucidated how your arguments are but speculations.

All those who consider my arguments to be mere speculations,

I have not speculated even once in my article. All I have done is to show the impracticality of the institution of Imamate which is based on a mere speculative assumption that ‘Deen was perfected after the commencement of the office of Imamate and the Holy Prophet(s) could not have left without announcing a system of successorship for the Ummah’ without providing a single unequivocal and conclusive reference either from Quran or Hadith to decisively establish the claim. I have further elaborated, in refutation of any arguments presented from Quran and Hadith in disagreement with my position(and that of Sunni Islam), that any such office is practically and logically impossible to establish and therefore any inclusion of such a concept into the main body of a religion will make that religion essentially flawed. This goes in consonance with the beliefs of a major sect of Islam i.e. Suniism and therefore is not just a speculative analysis of the problem but a representation of the credence and belief of the vast bulk of Muslims. This is a practical and logical approach to dealing with the issue and not an ivory tower built in an imaginary world(unlike Imamate and subsequently Shiism.)  

[Khadim uz Zahra]

In The Name of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, The Most Beneficent, The Most Merciful.

Firstly, without delving into the particularities of the essay itself, I would like to mention one weakness in your essay, which Brother Ali H Syed has also mentioned. This is the fact that your essay is too dependent on “what ifs” and speculations which do not, generally, contribute towards an intellectual discussion.  Of course, if without these “but ifs” the same results, then they may be used to make a point but, in the end, it all depends on the subject at hand whereby sometimes it may be extremely useful to use such devices while at other times it is extremely naïve and unpractical to do so. I believe that this discussion is an example of the latter. Why? I will discuss this later on.

Another point I want to talk about is your principle of LONAP. I would, to a large extent, agree to this principle but there are instances whereby you either consider something to be an infringement of LONAP while I don’t or else I would disagree that Allah (SWT) never breaks this principle. An example of this is you saying, “The carrier of authority will have to be kept safe and secure till doomsday which would need a continued miracle and continuation of miracles goes against the LONAP Principle.” We must realise here that if you consider Allah (SWT) protecting the Imam as a violation of LONAP, then you must also do so for Allah (SWT) protecting the Quran from any adulterations for more than 1400 years! Surely - as in the case of the first 11 Imams (peace be upon them all) - protecting 11 humans for a maximum period of about 250 years is much less of a breach of LONAP than is protecting a book from corruption for 1400 years. Also, then you must also consider Allah (SWT) protecting the Prophet of Islam from the hordes of his enemies that existed. Another example of such a “breach” that comes into mind is the protection of the Prophets (peace be upon them all) from the temptations of Satan, as indicated by the following verses:

All I am trying to do by this example is to show you that protecting the Imams (peace be upon them all) is not something that God would not do. Whether you do consider these examples as breaches of LONAP or whether you try and explain them away is not my concern. The only point I am trying to make is that all of these are examples of prolonged protection or intervention provided by Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. If these are acceptable to you, then why is the notion of Allah (SWT) protecting the Imams (peace be upon them all), His Hujjahs on the Earth, illogical to you?

Now coming to your article itself, the first set of arguments you raised were for the successful implementation of the system.

Firstly, the Imam himself, is a protector of the message. Now you argue that “why would Allah send a series of successors (Imams) to protect the message when the message was already protected as Allah says in the Quran? The answer to this is twofold:
1.    Allah (SWT) is going to protect the Quran, yes, but how? Just like God is going to guide all humans but does he just miraculously do it? No. He uses Prophet (an apparatus) to do so. In the same way, according to Shias, the Imams (peace be upon them all) are the apparatus who are going to protect it.

2.    Is the message only consisting of the Quran? Unless you belong to the Quran only sect, you would agree with me that the Quran is very essential but the Hadith and the Sunnah of the Prophet also form part of the message. Now, even if Allah (SWT) is going to somehow protect the Quran, how will the Sunnah be protected? In fact, this Sunnah has been constantly violated and attacked over the centuries and there is a need for us to have someone to go back to who knows the Sunnah and can be trusted 100%. This is the Imam. Now,  if you try to argue that God can miraculously protect the Sunnah and the Quran, then is this not a violation of LONAP?

You have said, “Why would Allah go against LONAP and continue a series of custodians of the message when writing had been invented, records were being kept, the message was recorded not only on paper but also in human memory. In reality, this was the reason why the last messenger was sent at this stage when these landmarks in human civilization had been achieved,” and are therefore blaming the corruption of the previous messages on the lack of writing and recording. This is a gross error on your part. You are ASSUMING that either writing was not invented in the times of the previous messages or that these messages were not written down. As for the first option, it is an utter lie since writing was invented long before the Torah and Injeel were sent down yet these messages have been corrupted. There is ample historic evidence to support this. Also, these books had been written down and the proof for this comes from the fact that the present day New Testament contains many books which were either written by the disciples themselves or during their time, as according to Christian records. Now, I find it very hard to believe that the disciples did not know how to write during the time of Jesus (peace be upon him) and, miraculously, learnt how to do that after his death. So, they knew how to write during the time of Jesus (peace be upon him). Just as you can figure out that writing the message would have greatly contributed towards preserving it in its original form and I am sure Allah (SWT) and Jesus could have figured that out as well. So, they would have obviously commanded the disciples to write the message.

Firstly, what this does is refutes your premise that these past messages were lost due to the recording of them. It also brings forth one important point: even though these messages were written, they had been lost. So why is it that Quran has been protected for centuries? Considering the conditions of the past nations whose messages been written but yet were changed or corrupted, it can be said that this is the “normal” thing to happen since God did not intervene and keep the previous messages intact. Now, if the Quran has been protected for more than 1400 years, would you not consider this an infringement of LONAP?

In fact, I would argue that the Imams are, in a way, there to reduce this miraculous intervention of Allah (SWT) in stopping the message from getting corrupt. What we must realise is that all the past messages were prone to corruption but since the office of Nabuwwah had not yet been closed, Allah (SWT) would have allowed the messages to have, atleast on a mainstream basis, to have become corrupt since He would send other Prophets later on to correct these distortions.

I have said that Allah (SWT) allowed the message to get corrupt on a mainstream basis because due to the Justice of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, the right message must have been present in the world at all given times. This is because if the original message had been totally obliterated, then it would be injustice on God’s part as the generations living in these times could easily argue against Allah (SWT) saying that there was no right message for them to follow so how much ever they could have tried, they would not have found the right path and, therefore Allah (SWT) cannot punish them. Also, if we look at the example of Ashab al Kahaf, we find that these men had come years after Jesus (peace be upon him) and were, therefore, in a time where the wrong teachings in Christianity had already been spread and yet they were so steady on the right path that Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, although they were not Prophets, provided a great miracle for them! Now, if these people were not following the original message, why would Allah (SWT) provide them with a miracle? If he did so, it would be encouraging the wrong beliefs of these people to be accepted more. This shows that they were on the right path and that, even in such turbulent times, Allah (SWT) did keep his message alive, even though it was only in small quarters.

Coming back to my discussion, the option of sending a new Prophet to correct the past nations was open for all the Prophets (peace be upon them all) except the Prophet of Islam . This is, exactly, why after the Prophet , Allah (SWT) chose successors to act as guardians to this message and protect it from corruptions as had happened in the case of the past generations because once it got corrupted, no new Prophet was going to come and correct these adulterations and innovations. It was, therefore, incumbent on Allah (SWT) due to His Justice, to provide a means of keeping this last message secure and away from adulterations.

One may argue that Allah (SWT) could just miraculously protect His message and there is just no need for special “guardians” to protect the message but this is a violation of LONAP and a far bigger one than you may consider the protection of the lives of 12 individuals. If Allah (SWT) would have willed to do such miraculous things, then he may not have even sent any Prophets or books and just guided people in their heads so such an argument is asking too much!

The answer to your second point, “It needed extraordinary measures to be taken for the safety and security of the Imam and that of his announced successor,” is already given above.

This is also one of the reasons why I had started off by saying your article is too reliant on “what if” discourses. The “what ifs” here have no meaning because the things you mentioned – I chose to not paste them to save space – did not happen. Also, like brother Ali H Syed mentioned, if we are going to use this line of reasoning, then even Prophet hood is going to seem like an impractical system because I could argue “what if Prophet Muhammed had died without finishing his message?” I could easily use this – and other similar arguements – to try and do away with many Islamic concepts such as Prophet hood and even Khatm e Nabuwwah.

As for your third point, “It would also need an extraordinary condition of the successor (such as a son in case of Imamate) to be ready at time of the current Imam’s departure from the world,” your argument is pretty atheistic, in my view. If Allah (SWT) willed, Jesus (peace be upon him) as an infant talked! We must remember that the wisdom, knowledge and experience of Prophets (peace be upon them all), and likewise the Imams, is not worldly or gained through worldly means such as attending a school. If this were to be the case, then Prophet Muhammad who had never been to any sort of school or learned from anyone could not have been the best of Prophets (peace be upon them all) since he, as the best, possessed more knowledge than any other Prophet. The following verse of the Quran will be of interest to you:

يَا يَحْيَى خُذِ الْكِتَابَ بِقُوَّةٍ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْحُكْمَ صَبِيًّا (19:12)
·  19:12 (Asad) [And when the son was born and grew up, ^[10] he was told,] "O John! Hold fast unto the divine writ with [all thy] strength!" - for We granted him wisdom "while he was yet a little boy,

·  19:12 (Y. Ali) (To his son came the command): "O Yahya! take hold of the Book with might": and We gave him Wisdom even as a youth,

·  19:12 (Picktall) (And it was said unto his son): O John! Hold the Scripture. And We gave him wisdom when a child.

NOTE: All the translations are Sunni.

In this verse, Allah (SWT) is clearly stating that he endowed wisdom to Prophet Yahya (peace be upon him) when he was only a child. If you find this, as the Will of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, strange, then so be it – you would be going against the Quran if you did - and if you don’t, then it would be inconsistent and contradictory if you found the concept of Imams being children strange.  After all, it does not matter how old you are but all that matters is that you are guided by Allah (SWT) and then, even if you have no experience through worldly means, you would still outshine those who did. This time, I am providing a verse of the Quran, which every Muslim believes in, as opposed to a Shi’ite book so I hope you would consider this argument more credible.

Something I find more interesting is related to the response you have provided to Brother Ali H Syed’s response:

ambrosechappel, on 16 December 2011 - 06:34 AM, said:

I am not arguing about anyone’s belief(you have the right to hold any beliefs) I am talking about the practicability of an institution based on logic for which a person has to be ready at time of acceding to the office. Remember, the portfolio of this office i.e. Imamate entails the gigantic task of both religious and political leadership of a huge Ummah and not just being an Aalim (even for being an aalim you need to be mature enough). Going by your logic, if age is irrelevant then a one-day-old neonate can be an Imam to take over the charge of leading the ummah. Does that sound rational to you? Any examples of child-prodigies don't count here(and i can argue on that but because of being irrelevant i will not touch upon it) because in your criterion age doesn't at all matter even if a neonate-prodigy being an Imam is in question.(Just as a side note, how strange is it that in order to establish the truth of the capabilities of an Infallible Imam you are presenting the example of the fallible Allama Hilli which is itself doubtful as to whether he was a mujtahid at the age of nine or not but it's still irrelevant from the point I made above. Is it not better to present some books written by the Imams while being young or some political decisions taken by them to show their extraordinary abilities)

Your arguement that a child could be an aalim as this just requires knowledge but a child cannot be an Imam since his duties incorporate not only knowledge but also have a political dimension to them as they are supposed to govern the Muslims is in stark contradiction with the above verse. The verse above provides the most decisive response you could ever get since it does NOT say “…We gave him Ilm (Knowledge) when a child,” but rather, it says, “We gave him Hukm (Wisdom) when a child.” Wisdom encompasses experience as well as knowledge. This is why it is very common to hear the term “wise” in relation to kings and political leaders and rarely do we hear “knowledgeable king”. If Allah (SWT) provided him with Wisdom, could he not do so for the Imams (peace be upon them all)? If you consider our Imams being children when they took on their duties to be a breach of LONAP and, therefore, illogical then what would you think about God giving Prophet Yahya (peace be upon him) wisdom when he was yet a child?

Your third objection was as follows:

ambrosechappel, on 14 December 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

¨    We see that even the presence of Prophets at all times was not considered necessary and nowhere in Quran does Allah make this claim. This would have been an ideal situation in order for the message to be protected especially when it was neither recorded in writing nor memorized.

I have already discussed about whether these previous messages were recorder or not. Also, I fail to understand that, even if we assume that they were not written, how were they not memorized?

ambrosechappel, on 14 December 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

¨    It needed a continued presence of Infallible beings in the society. There is a difference of opinion between the followers of different Islamic sects about even the Prophets being infallible. Let’s take the stance of those who consider the Prophets being Infallible as correct. We see that even the presence of Prophets at all times was not considered necessary and nowhere in Quran does Allah make this claim. This would have been an ideal situation in order for the message to be protected especially when it was neither recorded in writing nor memorized. We can even see that the message was forgotten or it got corrupted during later centuries because of an absence of a protector of message. My supplementary question here is Why was the message allowed to be corrupted in the past? Why were extraordinary measures not taken to protect the message by continued presence of Prophets at that time? What was the fault of those to whom the message reached in a corrupted form? All Shias believe that the current message still got corrupted (as done by Ahl-e-Sunnah and other Shia sects) even despite the office of Imamate being in operation.

Firstly, I would like you to refer to my reply to your first point where I have talked about why the message cannot be totally obliterated and corrupted. Coming to the objection you have raised, the message has NOT been corrupted. The followers of the Imams (peace be upon them all) have the right message. Just because wrong beliefs exist in the name of Islam, it does not mean that the message has not been protected.

If you want there to be no corruptions at all, then you are going against LONAP since Allah (SWT) has given us free will and choice and, therefore, over a period of time, it is inevitable that some may diverge off from the right path.

Secondly, if you believe that having guardians for the message is against LONAP and against Allah (SWT)’s practice, then this put doubt on whether the Islam Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and his progeny) is even there today or whether it has been lost just like the previous messages. How do I know whether the “real” Islam has not been lost today because, according to you, if Allah (SWT) protects His Message, then he is going against LONAP. So, why should I believe that any sect today has the right Islam because Allah (SWT) did not protect the message so why should I just not believe Islam was also corrupted like the previous versions of the Divine Message?

Also, if you believe that this message could be corrupted, then would this not be injustice on the part of Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì. Why should he punish me when the real message was just not there! Even if I were to agree that the previous messages were totally corrupted such that no one has the right message, there is a very fundamental difference between this message and the previous ones: the message of Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and his progeny) is the last message.

If Allah (SWT) had let this message become corrupted, then since there is no other Prophet to come, it would stay like this till the day of Judgement. Therefore, all the generations to come after this would have been dealt with unjustly by Allah (SWT) and cannot be held to blame for choosing the wrong path but this cannot be the case. In such a case, why would Allah (SWT) punish me when the real message was just not there? In fact, even if I would agree to your arguement that that no extraordinary measures were taken to protect the older messages, this message requires that such measures be taken - when the message is in danger - so that the message of Allah (SWT) is not lost forever.

If you try to argue He kept it intact without the need of Imams, then is this not a much bigger violation of LONAP than Allah (SWT) keeping it secure with the use of the Imams (peace be upon them all)? Surely, the proposition that the Office of Imamah is there to protect the message is much less of a violation as there is, at the least, an apparatus Allah (SWT) is using to protect the message rather than just doing so using miraculous means!

As for the diversions within Islam, the Office of Imamah is just there to protect the real message until the end of times, which is their prime purpose. As long as the message is found on the face of the Earth, they have done their job. Whether others accept it or not, and diverge off to other beliefs, is not part of their responsibility, although they would try to avoid this. The diversions are an obvious consequence of the free will we possess and the result of evil people trying to manipulated religion for their own benefit.

Their case is just like the Prophets (peace be upon them all). I will take the example of Jesus (peace be upon him): when the original message of Moses (peace be upon him) had been lost by the majority, Jesus (peace be upon him) was sent to revive the message but if the Jews did not listen to him – which was the case for the majority – he cannot be held accountable. He tried to bring them to the right path – just as the Imams (peace be upon them all) tried to bring people to the right path and stop them from diverting – but if they did not accept, he is not to be blamed. Similarly, as long as the Imams (peace be upon them all) did their task honestly, they are not to be blamed for the actions of others as they have free will and are at liberty to choose what they believe in and want to do. Protection is not compulsion!

ambrosechappel, on 14 December 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

¨    On the other hand, there would have been expected the display of completely ‘non-resistant’ attitude from Ummah regarding the God-Appointed Imam in such highly controversial matters as politics which are always fraught with difference of opinion. No matter what the opinion of others (even if they were allowed to have one), the Imam had to give the final decision which would have reduced the contemplative faculties of the minions as they would always be expecting the Imam to give the final verdict. Consultation, which encourages cogitation, is alien to the system of Imamate. This would have harmed the followers in three ways a. reducing their thinking abilities b. reducing their competitive abilities c. making them completey servile without new ideas and thoughts. They would merely have to be The Followers Par Excellence.

I have a simple question for you: would you agree and recognize that all these arguments can also be raised against Prophet hood and, since Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and his progeny) also used to be the political leader of the Ummah, then are you as willing criticise the legitimacy of his political leadership as you are in trying to critcise the political leadership of the Imams (peace be upon them all)? Don’t you think you are using double standards?

For your next point, the reply is the same questions.

ambrosechappel, on 14 December 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

It would have needed a continuous chain of persons, each and every act of whom in government would be perfect, immaculate and exemplary. They would be successful in each and every of their endeavor and policy in order to keep the Ummah satisfied. This would have been their duty to keep the Ummah happy even if conditions were not good. This is an extraordinary task and too much to expect from the Imam. And if he does not maintain excellent conditions, it is too much to expect from the Ummah to keep following him.

Also this goes back to how legitimate you think the political leadership of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) was? The answer is the same as for the last and second last points.

ambrosechappel, on 14 December 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

It also needs a team of !00%(virtually Infallible) sincere, perfect, and obedient comrades who would assist the Imam to run the affairs of the state as any mistake of theirs would be considered the mistake of the Imam himself. Not only that, but their mistakes would disrupt the whole system and things would go wrong. See, the example of Ali’s® forced arbitration at Siffin when his followers changed the whole course history and that of the institution of Imamate.

For one, I don’t understand how the mistake of the followers can be considered the mistake of the Imams (peace be upon them all)? If this is the case, then I would ask you to call the “mistake” (as Sunnis believe it to be) of Khalid ibn Walid when he killed so many to be the mistake of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny).

As for the second point you made, I would ask you to consider the leadership of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) yet again! This argument can, easily, be made against the leadership of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) as well. What would you do then? Like I have said before, the duty of the Imam is to guide the people and do the right thing at the right time and they cannot be blamed for the wrong doings of their followers. This is like blaming Prophet Aaron (peace be upon him) for the Jews worshipping the calf because he was, after all, the political and spiritual leader of Bani Israil when Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) had left for Mount Sinai. If I were to extend this “faulty” argument, then we would have to blame Prophet Solomon and Prophet Yusuf (peace be upon them both) for every crime that happened during their period of rulership; from every mugging to murder, all the blame should, according to your logic, be on them!

I would say that in all the four points you made in this sections, you were applying extra ordinary amounts of double standards because all the arguments you are trying to make can, just as legitimately, be made against Prophets (peace be upon them all) and yet you choose to disregard this and believe in one concept while you refuse to accept the other!

I am stopping here and will continue later on because this post is getting extraordinarily long – the longest post I have ever made on Shiachat – and will write the next part of my response in another post.
I apologise for the length of this post but since the opening post was so long, I could not answer amply without writing at length myself.

INSHALLAH, I have been helpful, clear and objective in my reasoning and have not hurt anyone!

May Allah (SWT) bless us all, our families and loved ones, may He guide us all to The Straight Path with His Perfect Guidance and may He, The Forgiver of Sins and The Oft-Forgiving, forgive all our sins for, indeed, there is neither any refuge not any respite for the sinners except in Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì.

[ambrosechappel]

Quote

INSHALLAH, I have been helpful, clear and objective in my reasoning and have not hurt anyone!

Brother, thanks for your post. I agree that you have intelligently dealt with the matter and have been polite and sober in your demeanor.

Let me copy the LONAP principle from my original post here which will be repeatedly used in this post for a reminder and understanding of readers

Before proceeding any further, one thing that must be kept into account is the fact that Allah has programmed this world and its affairs to work within the limits of certain laws; the laws of nature. Allah very seldom intrudes into the matters of this world by breaking these laws as and when it becomes inevitable for instance to show the truth of his existence or the identity of his messengers (even that does not go against logic because an extraordinary claim needs an extraordinary evidence to prove its truth) Otherwise, the laws of nature, in general, remain applicable in normal circumstances. Since the foundations of the laws of nature are laid on logic, this means that anything that defies logic is a breach in these laws and therefore an extraordinary phenomenon such as a miracle. There can be isolated occurrences in which such extraordinary things happen but these exceptions can never comprise any rules. It can therefore be deducted that any rules in contradiction with logic and laws of nature cannot be promulgated and implemented as this goes against the design of Allah’s world. (I will refer to this paragraph later during this article by citing it as ‘The Laws Of Nature Principle’ or the acronym ‘LONAP’).

Quote

Firstly, without delving into the particularities of the essay itself, I would like to mention one weakness in your essay, which Brother Ali H Syed has also mentioned. This is the fact that your essay is too dependent on “what ifs” and speculations which do not, generally, contribute towards an intellectual discussion. Of course, if without these “but ifs” the same results, then they may be used to make a point but, in the end, it all depends on the subject at hand whereby sometimes it may be extremely useful to use such devices while at other times it is extremely naïve and unpractical to do so. I believe that this discussion is an example of the latter. Why? I will discuss this later on.

Another point I want to talk about is your principle of LONAP. I would, to a large extent, agree to this principle but there are instances whereby you either consider something to be an infringement of LONAP while I don’t or else I would disagree that Allah (SWT) never breaks this principle. An example of this is you saying, “The carrier of authority will have to be kept safe and secure till doomsday which would need a continued miracle and continuation of miracles goes against the LONAP Principle.” We must realise here that if you consider Allah (SWT) protecting the Imam as a violation of LONAP, then you must also do so for Allah (SWT) protecting the Quran from any adulterations for more than 1400 years! Surely - as in the case of the first 11 Imams (peace be upon them all) - protecting 11 humans for a maximum period of about 250 years is much less of a breach of LONAP than is protecting a book from corruption for 1400 years. Also, then you must also consider Allah (SWT) protecting the Prophet of Islam from the hordes of his enemies that existed. Another example of such a “breach” that comes into mind is the protection of the Prophets (peace be upon them all) from the temptations of Satan, as indicated by the following verses:

All I am trying to do by this example is to show you that protecting the Imams (peace be upon them all) is not something that God would not do. Whether you do consider these examples as breaches of LONAP or whether you try and explain them away is not my concern. The only point I am trying to make is that all of these are examples of prolonged protection or intervention provided by Allah سبحانه وتعالى. If these are acceptable to you, then why is the notion of Allah (SWT) protecting the Imams (peace be upon them all), His Hujjahs on the Earth, illogical to you?

I completely disagree with the ‘ifs and buts / speculations’ objection just as I have done in the past. This work is related to practicability and functionality of this concept and I am sure this categorically proves the institution of Imamate requiring extraordinary arrangements in order for it to work properly.

I would like to remove one misconception here in which you have objected by raising a point, that LONAP is never broken. I believe that LONAP is either broken directly and Allah puts it into a state of abeyance by allowing a miracle to happen and therefore a direct intrusion or in other instances Allah intrudes into the matters of the world but while keeping LONAP intact. For example if Allah wants to help a person in a car accident, he will take measures to ensure protection from any physical damage to the person by removing the person from the point of encounter such as a narrow escape or in case of an injury, the person does not get a fatal blow and hence recovers later. Laws of nature still stay in place. What does not happen is that the person stays at the point of encounter and the car passes through him or the car divides into two halves, or jumps over him or the person gets converted into liquid or gas form of matter.

As far as your example of protecting the Quran is concerned. The matter of a book staying in its original form and protecting a series of persons from any fatal damage are two completely different things. It does not take extraordinary measures to be taken in order for a book to be preserved for thousands of years. I am sure you will agree that not just Quran but also hundreds and thousands of books are present in their original form and this can be said with confidence that these books will stay in the same way for thousands and thousands of years to come. On the other hand you cannot claim for a series of individual that they will all stay safe and secure especially in a way that many components and requirements of the task they are meant to perform will also be fulfilled for all times to come.

I have said before that continuity of divine contact is the origin of Imamate and the same continuity is the biggest problem in its existence. And it was this same continuity which gave rise to the completely anti-imamate concept of the occulted Imam.

Protection of Prophet(s) from enemies is a practicable phenomenon. It does not need any breach in laws of nature. The Holy Prophet(s) lived in this world for 63 years. A person living in this world for 63 years is not an extraordinary phenomenon. Continuation, on the other hand, of an unbroken chain of a series of persons till doomsday is an extraordinary phenomenon. The problem exacerbates when certain other requirements also have to be fulfilled which I have already described in my article. There are many other things, in addition to those requirements, each and every one of which further consolidates my position on the issue such as:

All Imams till end of the world must live long enough to produce children. (LONAP allows the opposite)
All Imams must have children. (LONAP allows the opposite)
At least one child must be a male. (LONAP allows the opposite)
The Imam must announce a successor from amongst his children. (LONAP allows the opposite)
The successor must outlive the Imam. (LONAP allows the opposite)

These extraordinary requirements, I am sure, are not analogous to the safe life of one individual.

Quote

Now coming to your article itself, the first set of arguments you raised were for the successful implementation of the system.

Firstly, the Imam himself, is a protector of the message. Now you argue that “why would Allah send a series of successors (Imams) to protect the message when the message was already protected as Allah says in the Quran? The answer to this is twofold:
1. Allah (SWT) is going to protect the Quran, yes, but how? Just like God is going to guide all humans but does he just miraculously do it? No. He uses Prophet (an apparatus) to do so. In the same way, according to Shias, the Imams (peace be upon them all) are the apparatus who are going to protect it.

There is a contradiction in this point. You very rightly say that Allah does not guide miraculously but through Prophets according to LONAP. On the other hand, you say that the Imam is there to protect the message but HOW? Perhaps miraculously?? Will the book be protected just because a person is present in the society or wait when he is not even physically present in the society (the 12^th Imam)?  You attribute the safety of a book to the presence of a person in the society/ an obscure idea of the occulted Imam but don’t describe the method using which he will ensure such protection.

A very brief overview of the history of Quran will clearly show to you how Allah ensured its originality without any need of an extraordinary person in the society.

People had started to memorize the Quran during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet(s). It was preserved in writing which added to the safety of the book. But the defining factor, which ensured the safety of Quran was something else.

This was ensured that a state is established before the demise of the Holy Prophet(s). Establishment of a state can ensure the long life of an institution, the successful proselytizing of an idea, and the preservation of a written material (of course all of which are endorsed by the state) once consensus is achieved on the integrity of the text of the material. After the demise of the Holy Prophet(s), the authentic version of the Quran in its pristine form, which was in possession of sincere and loyal followers of the message i.e. Sahaba® (including Ali®) was unanimously accepted by Ummah as being the original and correct book. It was solely because of this consensus, and subsequently the widespread distribution of the book that ensured its integrity coupled with a continued existence of the state. Had the message not been in a written form, had consensus not been achieved on its integrity and had a state not been established to propagate it on a wider scale, the presence of any person in the society or that of an occulted individual would have played no function whatsoever to preserve the message. Even the presence of a Prophet does not automatically perform his function of preaching the message if the Prophet(as) does not use physical means to preach and propagate the message. The Holy Prophet(s) lived for 40 years before announcing his prophethood and no one became a Muslim. The message became only known to people and started its spread once the Holy Prophet(s) physically announced it and propagated it. How strange is it that Shia consider the Imams to be not even in a position to announce their divinely bestowed status to the Ummah and resort to Taqiyyah but they had this mysterious power to keep the Quran safe.

Quote

2. Is the message only consisting of the Quran? Unless you belong to the Quran only sect, you would agree with me that the Quran is very essential but the Hadith and the Sunnah of the Prophet also form part of the message. Now, even if Allah (SWT) is going to somehow protect the Quran, how will the Sunnah be protected? In fact, this Sunnah has been constantly violated and attacked over the centuries and there is a need for us to have someone to go back to who knows the Sunnah and can be trusted 100%. This is the Imam.

I have proven above that the protection of Quran cannot be ascribed to the presence of a person in the society. As far as Sunnah is concerned. If you think Imams are meant to protect the Sunnah. How many versions of Sunnah do you now have? Yes, many. What does this mean? Quran was protected without using extraordinary means. But for Sunnah, extraordinary means were taken but still there are many versions of Sunnah. Why, despite the Imam protecting it? Simply because Sunnah was not preserved in a book soon after the demise of the Holy Prophet(s), consensus was not achieved on the correct and original form of Sunnah and propagation of a unanimously agreed upon Sunnah was not done. If you still assert that Imams are meant to protect Quran and Sunnah, how come they managed to succeed in half of their duty and failed in the other half. If you say they did succeed in protecting Sunnah i.e. the Shia version of it, then why did the Sunnni version of Sunnah come into being? Why didn’t a Sunni version of Quran also somehow emerge? In fact the classical Shia scholars considered Quran to be a Sunni corrupted/altered/tempered version of the book!!! That is why the myth of such imaginary texts as Mushaf Fatima etc had to be contrived.

Quote

You have said, “Why would Allah go against LONAP and continue a series of custodians of the message when writing had been invented, records were being kept, the message was recorded not only on paper but also in human memory. In reality, this was the reason why the last messenger was sent at this stage when these landmarks in human civilization had been achieved,” and are therefore blaming the corruption of the previous messages on the lack of writing and recording. This is a gross error on your part. You are ASSUMING that either writing was not invented in the times of the previous messages or that these messages were not written down. As for the first option, it is an utter lie since writing was invented long before the Torah and Injeel were sent down yet these messages have been corrupted. There is ample historic evidence to support this. Also, these books had been written down and the proof for this comes from the fact that the present day New Testament contains many books which were either written by the disciples themselves or during their time, as according to Christian records. Now, I find it very hard to believe that the disciples did not know how to write during the time of Jesus (peace be upon him) and, miraculously, learnt how to do that after his death. So, they knew how to write during the time of Jesus (peace be upon him). Just as you can figure out that writing the message would have greatly contributed towards preserving it in its original form and I am sure Allah (SWT) and Jesus could have figured that out as well. So, they would have obviously commanded the disciples to write the message.

Firstly, what this does is refutes your premise that these past messages were lost due to the recording of them. It also brings forth one important point: even though these messages were written, they had been lost. So why is it that Quran has been protected for centuries? Considering the conditions of the past nations whose messages been written but yet were changed or corrupted, it can be said that this is the “normal” thing to happen since God did not intervene and keep the previous messages intact. Now, if the Quran has been protected for more than 1400 years, would you not consider this an infringement of LONAP?

Same as above. Please consider the defining (and distinguishing) factors that ensured the safety of Quran in addition to writing. I can make further remarks on this paragraph but deem my above explanation to be adequate in order not to dwell on irrelevancies and keep the discussion in the right direction.

Quote

In fact, I would argue that the Imams are, in a way, there to reduce this miraculous intervention of Allah (SWT) in stopping the message from getting corrupt. What we must realise is that all the past messages were prone to corruption but since the office of Nabuwwah had not yet been closed, Allah (SWT) would have allowed the messages to have, atleast on a mainstream basis, to have become corrupt since He would send other Prophets later on to correct these distortions.

Your arguments hold no validity and nor any historical evidence to support it. It is logically flawed as described above because the presence of a person, especially an occulted person, does not ensure protection of a text.

Quote

Coming back to my discussion, the option of sending a new Prophet to correct the past nations was open for all the Prophets (peace be upon them all) except the Prophet of Islam . This is, exactly, why after the Prophet , Allah (SWT) chose successors to act as guardians to this message and protect it from corruptions as had happened in the case of the past generations because once it got corrupted, no new Prophet was going to come and correct these adulterations and innovations. It was, therefore, incumbent on Allah (SWT) due to His Justice, to provide a means of keeping this last message secure and away from adulterations.

Same as above three posts.

Quote

One may argue that Allah (SWT) could just miraculously protect His message and there is just no need for special “guardians” to protect the message but this is a violation of LONAP and a far bigger one than you may consider the protection of the lives of 12 individuals. If Allah (SWT) would have willed to do such miraculous things, then he may not have even sent any Prophets or books and just guided people in their heads so such an argument is asking too much!

Same as above four posts.

Quote

The answer to your second point, “It needed extraordinary measures to be taken for the safety and security of the Imam and that of his announced successor,” is already given above.

I too have already provided an argument in return.

Quote

This is also one of the reasons why I had started off by saying your article is too reliant on “what if” discourses. The “what ifs” here have no meaning because the things you mentioned – I chose to not paste them to save space – did not happen. Also, like brother Ali H Syed mentioned, if we are going to use this line of reasoning, then even Prophet hood is going to seem like an impractical system because I could argue “what if Prophet Muhammed had died without finishing his message?” I could easily use this – and other similar arguements – to try and do away with many Islamic concepts such as Prophet hood and even Khatm e Nabuwwah.

I have already given an answer in the beginning. Continued life of a Prophet is a normal phenomenon just like the continued life of any other individual (with or without a mission to accomplish). Continuity of a series of persons, with current person nominating his successor from amongst his sons is the problem.

Quote

As for your third point, “It would also need an extraordinary condition of the successor (such as a son in case of Imamate) to be ready at time of the current Imam’s departure from the world,” your argument is pretty atheistic, in my view. If Allah (SWT) willed, Jesus (peace be upon him) as an infant talked! We must remember that the wisdom, knowledge and experience of Prophets (peace be upon them all), and likewise the Imams, is not worldly or gained through worldly means such as attending a school. If this were to be the case, then Prophet Muhammad who had never been to any sort of school or learned from anyone could not have been the best of Prophets (peace be upon them all) since he, as the best, possessed more knowledge than any other Prophet.

Brother, we have to consider the question of what is the normal way how things happen if we understand and follow LONAP. Moreover, we need to keep the old adage in mind, ‘Exceptions are not the rule’. Here we are talking about generalizing things on the basis of which rules are formulated and not discussing exceptions. Otherwise please tell me how many Prophets(s) despite getting direct guidance from Allah as you said, started preaching the message while still being kids? Allah, despite his power to give guidance of any level to anyone of any age, waited for Prophets to grow up because 1. This is according to LONAP 2. It would be acceptable for the nations being guided to listen to an adult Prophet rather than a child Prophet . This is extremely important. 3. The adult Prophet would be strong enough to cope with the physical difficulties he would be facing in line of his duty. 4. An adult Prophet(as) would have shown by his character that he is an extraordinary and pious person which would make him sound plausible to people; a child, on the other hand, would not be enjoying this advantage. 5. An adult Prophet(as) would have another advantage of dealing with and having social terms with his people which will help him understand them, communicate with them, have knowledge of the society, be versed in their customs, values, desires and circumstances. This way he will plan the modus operandi of his effort well. You say Jesus talked as a neonate (a miracle and violation of LONAP – a brief and temporary incident). But he started preaching the message (the actual duty of a Prophet(as) when he grew older. Didn’t he? Even the Holy Prophet(s) did not start preaching until he reached the age of 40!!

Quote

Firstly, I would like you to refer to my reply to your first point where I have talked about why the message cannot be totally obliterated and corrupted. Coming to the objection you have raised, the message has NOT been corrupted. The followers of the Imams (peace be upon them all) have the right message. Just because wrong beliefs exist in the name of Islam, it does not mean that the message has not been protected.

You say that the Imams transmitted the right Sunnah. How come Quran which was compiled, agreed upon and accepted by ordinary Sahaba® remained unharmed while the Sunnah, despite protection from God-appointed Imams got corrupted? It seems Sahaba® remained more successful in their job than the Imams. If you say that both Quran and Sunnah were somehow preserved by Imams and Allah helped them do that despite all odds, how come they remained successful in doing part of their job well but failed to play their role as the political leaders of the community as well. Why did Allah not help them achieve resplendent success in that part of their job?

Quote

If you want there to be no corruptions at all, then you are going against LONAP since Allah (SWT) has given us free will and choice and, therefore, over a period of time, it is inevitable that some may diverge off from the right path.

Then how come Quran is uncorrupted?

Quote

Secondly, if you believe that having guardians for the message is against LONAP and against Allah (SWT)’s practice, then this put doubt on whether the Islam Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and his progeny) is even there today or whether it has been lost just like the previous messages. How do I know whether the “real” Islam has not been lost today because, according to you, if Allah (SWT) protects His Message, then he is going against LONAP. So, why should I believe that any sect today has the right Islam because Allah (SWT) did not protect the message so why should I just not believe Islam was also corrupted like the previous versions of the Divine Message?

Allah did not do anything against LONAP to protect the message. He created physically possible circumstances to ensure protection of message as I have already explained (a state was established, Sahaba® were sincere in protecting the message, consensus was achieved on the right version of Quran, this was done soon after the demise of the Holy Prophet(s), the message was recorded in writing, memorized, authority of Allah over the state was established, the correct message was widely distributed) This ensured that any dissident sects(such as Shiism I apologize for having to mention) are unable to raise objection on the authenticity of the message or even if they do, it remained unheard or ineffective.

Quote

Also, if you believe that this message could be corrupted, then would this not be injustice on the part of Allah سبحانه وتعالى. Why should he punish me when the real message was just not there! Even if I were to agree that the previous messages were totally corrupted such that no one has the right message, there is a very fundamental difference between this message and the previous ones: the message of Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and his progeny) is the last message.

If Allah (SWT) had let this message become corrupted, then since there is no other Prophet to come, it would stay like this till the day of Judgement. Therefore, all the generations to come after this would have been dealt with unjustly by Allah (SWT) and cannot be held to blame for choosing the wrong path but this cannot be the case. In such a case, why would Allah (SWT) punish me when the real message was just not there? In fact, even if I would agree to your arguement that that no extraordinary measures were taken to protect the older messages, this message requires that such measures be taken - when the message is in danger - so that the message of Allah (SWT) is not lost forever.

Most of this has already been discussed. As for your italicized point, no extraordinary measure was taken even to protect the last message. I have already explained this.

Quote

If you try to argue He kept it intact without the need of Imams, then is this not a much bigger violation of LONAP than Allah (SWT) keeping it secure with the use of the Imams (peace be upon them all)? Surely, the proposition that the Office of Imamah is there to protect the message is much less of a violation as there is, at the least, an apparatus Allah (SWT) is using to protect the message rather than just doing so using miraculous means!

Already discussed. No miracles took place. LONAP remained intact.

Quote

As for the diversions within Islam, the Office of Imamah is just there to protect the real message until the end of times, which is their prime purpose. As long as the message is found on the face of the Earth, they have done their job. Whether others accept it or not, and diverge off to other beliefs, is not part of their responsibility, although they would try to avoid this. The diversions are an obvious consequence of the free will we possess and the result of evil people trying to manipulated religion for their own benefit.

Already discussed

Quote

Their case is just like the Prophets (peace be upon them all). I will take the example of Jesus (peace be upon him): when the original message of Moses (peace be upon him) had been lost by the majority, Jesus (peace be upon him) was sent to revive the message but if the Jews did not listen to him – which was the case for the majority – he cannot be held accountable. He tried to bring them to the right path – just as the Imams (peace be upon them all) tried to bring people to the right path and stop them from diverting – but if they did not accept, he is not to be blamed. Similarly, as long as the Imams (peace be upon them all) did their task honestly, they are not to be blamed for the actions of others as they have free will and are at liberty to choose what they believe in and want to do. Protection is not compulsion!

I did not hold anyone responsible for the loss of message. Yes right the carrier of authority is not responsible for any corruption/alteration but the message did get corrupted. On the other hand half of the message did remain unaltered which was a direct result of the effort of people who bore no divine mandate to accomplish the task.

Quote

I have a simple question for you: would you agree and recognize that all these arguments can also be raised against Prophet hood and, since Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and his progeny) also used to be the political leader of the Ummah, then are you as willing criticise the legitimacy of his political leadership as you are in trying to critcise the political leadership of the Imams (peace be upon them all)? Don’t you think you are using double standards?

For your next point, the reply is the same questions.

The Holy Prophet(s) was not a ‘de facto’ ruler. This is the mistake you are making when you ask how his authority was acceptable but not that of the Imam. He was ‘ACCEPTED’ by Muslims to be their leader. Those who embraced Islam, opted for him as a leader. He presented a philosophy and struggled to achieve this position. He was truly a ‘de jure’ leader. The Imam on the other hand is not a ‘de jure’ but a ‘de facto’ or ‘imposed’ leader. It’s a folly to compare the two instances.
The Holy Prophet(s), after a lot of effort established his authority over the state and we know that his headship over the state was not confronted against and was agreed upon by all Muslims. Non-Muslims did raise objection over the spread of Islam (not the leadership of the Holy Prophet(s)) but no internal opposition was faced from inside the Muslim community. People had their faith in Him; they had the same aims, motivations and desires. They were fed up with the old systems. They wanted to get rid of lawlessness, ignorance, discriminatory social systems and illogical religious institutions. For this they had made up their minds and prepared themselves to fight against injustice and strive for rule of Allah to establish. These are characteristics of people who aim to bring a reformation or revolution in the society. In such instances, they adore their leadership which is a symbol of change for them. They don’t raise objections against their leadership. This is invariably done by followers who wish to bring the change even in case of ordinary worldly leaders ( history is full of such examples), let alone the matter of raising objections against the leader of all leaders by people who had faith in him as being the last of Allah’s messengers.
On the other hand, once target has been achieved, later generations forget the struggle of their predecessors and their faith does not remain as firm as their forerunners. Political, Economic and Social conditions of the nations don’t remain the same and due to absence of any identical objective, nations start moving on the path of regression.  In these conditions, people don’t care about who is sitting on the throne and they raise voice against them. The Holy Prophet(s) was the protagonist of this movement. This movement also had to fall a victim to internal quarrels, difference of opinion, change in political, social, and economic conditions and it did happen just like in case of any other movement(following LONAP). Therefore we cannot compare the authority of Holy Prophet(s) with authority of Imams. Just as an example see the reign of Ali® (infallible Shia Imam) which was fraught with such difficulties. Don’t expect the same levels of obedience from later people who have not gone through the experience, the companions of the Prophets(as) have passed through especially while being in different part of history in different social, economic and political conditions.

Quote

For one, I don’t understand how the mistake of the followers can be considered the mistake of the Imams (peace be upon them all)? If this is the case, then I would ask you to call the “mistake” (as Sunnis believe it to be) of Khalid ibn Walid when he killed so many to be the mistake of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny).

As for the second point you made, I would ask you to consider the leadership of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) yet again! This argument can, easily, be made against the leadership of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his progeny) as well. What would you do then? Like I have said before, the duty of the Imam is to guide the people and do the right thing at the right time and they cannot be blamed for the wrong doings of their followers. This is like blaming Prophet Aaron (peace be upon him) for the Jews worshipping the calf because he was, after all, the political and spiritual leader of Bani Israil when Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) had left for Mount Sinai. If I were to extend this “faulty” argument, then we would have to blame Prophet Solomon and Prophet Yusuf (peace be upon them both) for every crime that happened during their period of rulership; from every mugging to murder, all the blame should, according to your logic, be on them!

I would say that in all the four points you made in this sections, you were applying extra ordinary amounts of double standards because all the arguments you are trying to make can, just as legitimately, be made against Prophets (peace be upon them all) and yet you choose to disregard this and believe in one concept while you refuse to accept the other!

I am compelled to say that you are yourself applying double standards here. On one side, when it comes to highlighting the mistakes committed during the regimes of the Rashidun Caliphs, Shia brothers will immediately hold the Caliph himself responsible for these mistakes. They all very eagerly cite the acts of Merwan and call them Uthman’s® failing. Any other mistakes made by any administrator of the Caliph make them laud the rioters who killed the Caliph in the end. This is the normal way how things happen. Even today, you will lampoon the government for any acts of a member of the machinery that runs the government. If you have bad experience with a commercial organization as a customer, you will spread word of mouth against the whole organization and not just the specific person who committed the mistake.
We are here talking about the practicability of the Institution of Imamate and for it to run successfully, we need to keep into account the different factors that are involved in its successful implementation. You very conveniently consider Imamate a system of leadership for the Ummah that can run successfully for as long a time as till end of the world. How will it run successfully without sincere and loyal comrades who will run the affairs as per the instructions of the Infallible Imam. If they are unable to do so, people will be least bothered to evaluate exactly whose mistake that would be as long as it is committed by members of the Imam’s team. The overall image of the Imam’s good governance can only be maintained in good shape provided that a team of competent comrades assists the Imam. Where will these people come from in presence of the fact that (according to your belief) the Holy Prophet(s), despite being the last and true Prophet of Allah, managed to gather around himself only a band of such would-be apostates (nauzubillah) as Abu Bakr®, Umar®, Uthman® etc.
You have declared this argument faulty without getting to the gist of it. The idea is that people will ‘consider’ the fault of the components of a system to be a fault of the system or the leader himself. I am not blaming the leader to be actually responsible for the mistake. I am talking about the perception that people get and react accordingly.

Edited by ambrosechappel, 17 January 2012 - 06:01 PM.

[spearscribs]

ambrosechappel, on 17 January 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

Brother, thanks for your post. I agree that you have intelligently dealt with the matter and have been polite and sober in your demeanor.

Let me copy the LONAP principle from my original post here which will be repeatedly used in this post for a reminder and understanding of readers

Before proceeding any further, one thing that must be kept into account is the fact that Allah has programmed this world and its affairs to work within the limits of certain laws; the laws of nature. Allah very seldom intrudes into the matters of this world by breaking these laws as and when it becomes inevitable for instance to show the truth of his existence or the identity of his messengers (even that does not go against logic because an extraordinary claim needs an extraordinary evidence to prove its truth) Otherwise, the laws of nature, in general, remain applicable in normal circumstances. Since the foundations of the laws of nature are laid on logic, this means that anything that defies logic is a breach in these laws and therefore an extraordinary phenomenon such as a miracle. There can be isolated occurrences in which such extraordinary things happen but these exceptions can never comprise any rules. It can therefore be deducted that any rules in contradiction with logic and laws of nature cannot be promulgated and implemented as this goes against the design of Allah’s world. (I will refer to this paragraph later during this article by citing it as ‘The Laws Of Nature Principle’ or the acronym ‘LONAP’).




I completely disagree with the ‘ifs and buts / speculations’ objection just as I have done in the past. This work is related to practicability and functionality of this concept and I am sure this categorically proves the institution of Imamate requiring extraordinary arrangements in order for it to work properly.

I would like to remove one misconception here in which you have objected by raising a point, that LONAP is never broken. I believe that LONAP is either broken directly and Allah puts it into a state of abeyance by allowing a miracle to happen and therefore a direct intrusion or in other instances Allah intrudes into the matters of the world but while keeping LONAP intact. For example if Allah wants to help a person in a car accident, he will take measures to ensure protection from any physical damage to the person by removing the person from the point of encounter such as a narrow escape or in case of an injury, the person does not get a fatal blow and hence recovers later. Laws of nature still stay in place. What does not happen is that the person stays at the point of encounter and the car passes through him or the car divides into two halves, or jumps over him or the person gets converted into liquid or gas form of matter.

As far as your example of protecting the Quran is concerned. The matter of a book staying in its original form and protecting a series of persons from any fatal damage are two completely different things. It does not take extraordinary measures to be taken in order for a book to be preserved for thousands of years. I am sure you will agree that not just Quran but also hundreds and thousands of books are present in their original form and this can be said with confidence that these books will stay in the same way for thousands and thousands of years to come. On the other hand you cannot claim for a series of individual that they will all stay safe and secure especially in a way that many components and requirements of the task they are meant to perform will also be fulfilled for all times to come.

I have said before that continuity of divine contact is the origin of Imamate and the same continuity is the biggest problem in its existence. And it was this same continuity which gave rise to the completely anti-imamate concept of the occulted Imam.

Protection of Prophet(s) from enemies is a practicable phenomenon. It does not need any breach in laws of nature. The Holy Prophet(s) lived in this world for 63 years. A person living in this world for 63 years is not an extraordinary phenomenon. Continuation, on the other hand, of an unbroken chain of a series of persons till doomsday is an extraordinary phenomenon. The problem exacerbates when certain other requirements also have to be fulfilled which I have already described in my article. There are many other things, in addition to those requirements, each and every one of which further consolidates my position on the issue such as:

All Imams till end of the world must live long enough to produce children. (LONAP allows the opposite)
All Imams must have children. (LONAP allows the opposite)
At least one child must be a male. (LONAP allows the opposite)
The Imam must announce a successor from amongst his children. (LONAP allows the opposite)
The successor must outlive the Imam. (LONAP allows the opposite)

These extraordinary requirements, I am sure, are not analogous to the safe life of one individual.



There is a contradiction in this point. You very rightly say that Allah does not guide miraculously but through Prophets according to LONAP. On the other hand, you say that the Imam is there to protect the message but HOW? Perhaps miraculously?? Will the book be protected just because a person is present in the society or wait when he is not even physically present in the society (the 12^th Imam)?  You attribute the safety of a book to the presence of a person in the society/ an obscure idea of the occulted Imam but don’t describe the method using which he will ensure such protection.

A very brief overview of the history of Quran will clearly show to you how Allah ensured its originality without any need of an extraordinary person in the society.

People had started to memorize the Quran during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet(s). It was preserved in writing which added to the safety of the book. But the defining factor, which ensured the safety of Quran was something else.

This was ensured that a state is established before the demise of the Holy Prophet(s). Establishment of a state can ensure the long life of an institution, the successful proselytizing of an idea, and the preservation of a written material (of course all of which are endorsed by the state) once consensus is achieved on the integrity of the text of the material. After the demise of the Holy Prophet(s), the authentic version of the Quran in its pristine form, which was in possession of sincere and loyal followers of the message i.e. Sahaba® (including Ali®) was unanimously accepted by Ummah as being the original and correct book. It was solely because of this consensus, and subsequently the widespread distribution of the book that ensured its integrity coupled with a continued existence of the state. Had the message not been in a written form, had consensus not been achieved on its integrity and had a state not been established to propagate it on a wider scale, the presence of any person in the society or that of an occulted individual would have played no function whatsoever to preserve the message. Even the presence of a Prophet does not automatically perform his function of preaching the message if the Prophet(as) does not use physical means to preach and propagate the message. The Holy Prophet(s) lived for 40 years before announcing his prophethood and no one became a Muslim. The message became only known to people and started its spread once the Holy Prophet(s) physically announced it and propagated it. How strange is it that Shia consider the Imams to be not even in a position to announce their divinely bestowed status to the Ummah and resort to Taqiyyah but they had this mysterious power to keep the Quran safe.


I have proven above that the protection of Quran cannot be ascribed to the presence of a person in the society. As far as Sunnah is concerned. If you think Imams are meant to protect the Sunnah. How many versions of Sunnah do you now have? Yes, many. What does this mean? Quran was protected without using extraordinary means. But for Sunnah, extraordinary means were taken but still there are many versions of Sunnah. Why, despite the Imam protecting it? Simply because Sunnah was not preserved in a book soon after the demise of the Holy Prophet(s), consensus was not achieved on the correct and original form of Sunnah and propagation of a unanimously agreed upon Sunnah was not done. If you still assert that Imams are meant to protect Quran and Sunnah, how come they managed to succeed in half of their duty and failed in the other half. If you say they did succeed in protecting Sunnah i.e. the Shia version of it, then why did the Sunnni version of Sunnah come into being? Why didn’t a Sunni version of Quran also somehow emerge? In fact the classical Shia scholars considered Quran to be a Sunni corrupted/altered/tempered version of the book!!! That is why the myth of such imaginary texts as Mushaf Fatima etc had to be contrived.




Same as above. Please consider the defining (and distinguishing) factors that ensured the safety of Quran in addition to writing. I can make further remarks on this paragraph but deem my above explanation to be adequate in order not to dwell on irrelevancies and keep the discussion in the right direction.




Your arguments hold no validity and nor any historical evidence to support it. It is logically flawed as described above because the presence of a person, especially an occulted person, does not ensure protection of a text.



Same as above three posts.




Same as above four posts.





I too have already provided an argument in return.




I have already given an answer in the beginning. Continued life of a Prophet is a normal phenomenon just like the continued life of any other individual (with or without a mission to accomplish). Continuity of a series of persons, with current person nominating his successor from amongst his sons is the problem.





Brother, we have to consider the question of what is the normal way how things happen if we understand and follow LONAP. Moreover, we need to keep the old adage in mind, ‘Exceptions are not the rule’. Here we are talking about generalizing things on the basis of which rules are formulated and not discussing exceptions. Otherwise please tell me how many Prophets(s) despite getting direct guidance from Allah as you said, started preaching the message while still being kids? Allah, despite his power to give guidance of any level to anyone of any age, waited for Prophets to grow up because 1. This is according to LONAP 2. It would be acceptable for the nations being guided to listen to an adult Prophet rather than a child Prophet . This is extremely important. 3. The adult Prophet would be strong enough to cope with the physical difficulties he would be facing in line of his duty. 4. An adult Prophet(as) would have shown by his character that he is an extraordinary and pious person which would make him sound plausible to people; a child, on the other hand, would not be enjoying this advantage. 5. An adult Prophet(as) would have another advantage of dealing with and having social terms with his people which will help him understand them, communicate with them, have knowledge of the society, be versed in their customs, values, desires and circumstances. This way he will plan the modus operandi of his effort well. You say Jesus talked as a neonate (a miracle and violation of LONAP – a brief and temporary incident). But he started preaching the message (the actual duty of a Prophet(as) when he grew older. Didn’t he? Even the Holy Prophet(s) did not start preaching until he reached the age of 40!!



You say that the Imams transmitted the right Sunnah. How come Quran which was compiled, agreed upon and accepted by ordinary Sahaba® remained unharmed while the Sunnah, despite protection from God-appointed Imams got corrupted? It seems Sahaba® remained more successful in their job than the Imams. If you say that both Quran and Sunnah were somehow preserved by Imams and Allah helped them do that despite all odds, how come they remained successful in doing part of their job well but failed to play their role as the political leaders of the community as well. Why did Allah not help them achieve resplendent success in that part of their job?


Then how come Quran is uncorrupted?



Allah did not do anything against LONAP to protect the message. He created physically possible circumstances to ensure protection of message as I have already explained (a state was established, Sahaba® were sincere in protecting the message, consensus was achieved on the right version of Quran, this was done soon after the demise of the Holy Prophet(s), the message was recorded in writing, memorized, authority of Allah over the state was established, the correct message was widely distributed) This ensured that any dissident sects(such as Shiism I apologize for having to mention) are unable to raise objection on the authenticity of the message or even if they do, it remained unheard or ineffective.



Most of this has already been discussed. As for your italicized point, no extraordinary measure was taken even to protect the last message. I have already explained this.


Already discussed. No miracles took place. LONAP remained intact.



Already discussed



I did not hold anyone responsible for the loss of message. Yes right the carrier of authority is not responsible for any corruption/alteration but the message did get corrupted. On the other hand half of the message did remain unaltered which was a direct result of the effort of people who bore no divine mandate to accomplish the task.



The Holy Prophet(s) was not a ‘de facto’ ruler. This is the mistake you are making when you ask how his authority was acceptable but not that of the Imam. He was ‘ACCEPTED’ by Muslims to be their leader. Those who embraced Islam, opted for him as a leader. He presented a philosophy and struggled to achieve this position. He was truly a ‘de jure’ leader. The Imam on the other hand is not a ‘de jure’ but a ‘de facto’ or ‘imposed’ leader. It’s a folly to compare the two instances.
The Holy Prophet(s), after a lot of effort established his authority over the state and we know that his headship over the state was not confronted against and was agreed upon by all Muslims. Non-Muslims did raise objection over the spread of Islam (not the leadership of the Holy Prophet(s)) but no internal opposition was faced from inside the Muslim community. People had their faith in Him; they had the same aims, motivations and desires. They were fed up with the old systems. They wanted to get rid of lawlessness, ignorance, discriminatory social systems and illogical religious institutions. For this they had made up their minds and prepared themselves to fight against injustice and strive for rule of Allah to establish. These are characteristics of people who aim to bring a reformation or revolution in the society. In such instances, they adore their leadership which is a symbol of change for them. They don’t raise objections against their leadership. This is invariably done by followers who wish to bring the change even in case of ordinary worldly leaders ( history is full of such examples), let alone the matter of raising objections against the leader of all leaders by people who had faith in him as being the last of Allah’s messengers.
On the other hand, once target has been achieved, later generations forget the struggle of their predecessors and their faith does not remain as firm as their forerunners. Political, Economic and Social conditions of the nations don’t remain the same and due to absence of any identical objective, nations start moving on the path of regression.  In these conditions, people don’t care about who is sitting on the throne and they raise voice against them. The Holy Prophet(s) was the protagonist of this movement. This movement also had to fall a victim to internal quarrels, difference of opinion, change in political, social, and economic conditions and it did happen just like in case of any other movement(following LONAP). Therefore we cannot compare the authority of Holy Prophet(s) with authority of Imams. Just as an example see the reign of Ali® (infallible Shia Imam) which was fraught with such difficulties. Don’t expect the same levels of obedience from later people who have not gone through the experience, the companions of the Prophets(as) have passed through especially while being in different part of history in different social, economic and political conditions.





I am compelled to say that you are yourself applying double standards here. On one side, when it comes to highlighting the mistakes committed during the regimes of the Rashidun Caliphs, Shia brothers will immediately hold the Caliph himself responsible for these mistakes. They all very eagerly cite the acts of Merwan and call them Uthman’s® failing. Any other mistakes made by any administrator of the Caliph make them laud the rioters who killed the Caliph in the end. This is the normal way how things happen. Even today, you will lampoon the government for any acts of a member of the machinery that runs the government. If you have bad experience with a commercial organization as a customer, you will spread word of mouth against the whole organization and not just the specific person who committed the mistake.
We are here talking about the practicability of the Institution of Imamate and for it to run successfully, we need to keep into account the different factors that are involved in its successful implementation. You very conveniently consider Imamate a system of leadership for the Ummah that can run successfully for as long a time as till end of the world. How will it run successfully without sincere and loyal comrades who will run the affairs as per the instructions of the Infallible Imam. If they are unable to do so, people will be least bothered to evaluate exactly whose mistake that would be as long as it is committed by members of the Imam’s team. The overall image of the Imam’s good governance can only be maintained in good shape provided that a team of competent comrades assists the Imam. Where will these people come from in presence of the fact that (according to your belief) the Holy Prophet(s), despite being the last and true Prophet of Allah, managed to gather around himself only a band of such would-be apostates (nauzubillah) as Abu Bakr®, Umar®, Uthman® etc.
You have declared this argument faulty without getting to the gist of it. The idea is that people will ‘consider’ the fault of the components of a system to be a fault of the system or the leader himself. I am not blaming the leader to be actually responsible for the mistake. I am talking about the perception that people get and react accordingly.

Impressive reply brother, very well written.

[ambrosechappel]

spearscribs, on 24 January 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Impressive reply brother, very well written.

Thanks brother

[ambrosechappel]

Any further thoughts?

[Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki]

ambrosechappel, on 14 December 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

I have presented my arguments in the past about how Imamate (religious and political leadership as a divinely ordained affair vested in a continual chain of identified people) could not have been an intelligent choice to cater for the leadership requirements of the Ummah. My main emphasis is on the flaws that are essentially affixed to this concept and I have already argued that the concept proved to be utterly blemished and self-contradictory in its history. Please refer to the following link to read those arguments: http://www.shiachat....ictory-concept/

Ya Akhi, asalaamu 3laikum,

I don't mean to be funny or rude, I realize you wrote a lot, but there's a big problem with this first paragraph, namely the bold part.

Allah made Nubuwwah (Prophethood) in a "continual chain of identified people"

From Adam , to his children and their children, down to Nuh , Ibrahim , his sons Ishac and Ishaq , Musa , Dawud , Suleyman , 'Isa .... Muhammad .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you just implied that Allah didn't make an intelligent choice in Nubuwwah.

What do you propose is better than Allah's decision?

Quote

Qur'an al-Kareem Surat al-Ankaboot (ch.29), Ayat 27
And We gave to Him Isaac and Jacob and placed in his descendants prophethood and scripture. And We gave him his reward in this world, and indeed, he is in the Hereafter among the righteous.

[Khadim uz Zahra]

ambrosechappel, on 05 February 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Any further thoughts?

Ok, I have seen your reply and wanted to reply for sometime now but I have been putting it aside for some time now precisely because of the lengths I have to write in order to answer. I will, soon, be answering to your reply as well as finishing my response to the original post.

[ambrosechappel]

Dawud Miqdad al-Amriki, on 05 February 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

Ya Akhi, asalaamu 3laikum,

I don't mean to be funny or rude, I realize you wrote a lot, but there's a big problem with this first paragraph, namely the bold part.

Allah made Nubuwwah (Prophethood) in a "continual chain of identified people"

From Adam , to his children and their children, down to Nuh , Ibrahim , his sons Ishac and Ishaq , Musa , Dawud , Suleyman , 'Isa .... Muhammad .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you just implied that Allah didn't make an intelligent choice in Nubuwwah.

What do you propose is better than Allah's decision?

Brother, this is simply not a list of a "continual chain of identified people"

[Ameen]

ambrosechappel, on 02 January 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

1. Caliphate is not a part of my faith or that of any other Sunni Muslim.
2. Nor does any Sunni 'believe' in the Rashidoon Caliphs as having any God-mandated authority.
3. The need of a leader is not doubt essential but Imamate calls for a robotic - automatically and divinely operated - leader which is what I am arguing against.

Ok! You said " The need of a leader is no doubt essential ". At least that's one thing clear and out of the way. Now the question is who appoints this leader??? What is your opinion on the situation after Muhammad [pbuh]??? Did he name and nominate a successor??? Did he leave it to the Ummah to decide and pick one amongst themselves after him??? Or was it somehting else??? Tell me what your belief then I will take it from there.

ambrosechappel, on 05 February 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Any further thoughts?

You bet! Lets make it plain and simple. I don't think there is any need in going into extreme detail when a matter is straight forward. What is your opinion on the situation, after Muhammad [pbuh], regarding Khilaafath???

[ambrosechappel]

Ameen, on 16 February 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Ok! You said " The need of a leader is no doubt essential ". At least that's one thing clear and out of the way. Now the question is who appoints this leader???

Yes. The need of a leader is essential like many other essential things. Even Bees in a hive have leaders. All nations, all communities and all organizations have leaders. As far as your question of who appoints the leader is concerned. All leaders as mentioned above are appointed(by people or situation)/(they are imposed)in different ways because of it being a matter of everyday life. It all depends upon the situation and circumstances of the time. If situation allows/requires,(while staying within the LONAP boundries),  Allah himself can directly appoint leaders but he CANNOT make leadership a part of religion.

Quote

What is your opinion on the situation after Muhammad [pbuh]??? Did he name and nominate a successor???

No, he did not nominate a successor. In this thread I have provided the reason why this could not have been done.

Quote

Did he leave it to the Ummah to decide and pick one amongst themselves after him??? Or was it somehting else??? Tell me what your belief then I will take it from there.

He did not make successorship a part of the religion because doing so could have harmed religion itself.

Quote

You bet! Lets make it plain and simple. I don't think there is any need in going into extreme detail when a matter is straight forward. What is your opinion on the situation, after Muhammad [pbuh], regarding Khilaafath???

On the other hand, I do think there is a need of looking into the matter in greater detail because if the matter had been so straight forward and easily understood, it could have been resolved by now after more than 1400 years. You have asked for my opinion. This is what I have repeatedly described above.

[Ameen]

ambrosechappel, on 16 February 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

Yes. The need of a leader is essential like many other essential things. Even Bees in a hive have leaders. All nations, all communities and all organizations have leaders. As far as your question of who appoints the leader is concerned. All leaders as mentioned above are appointed(by people or situation)/(they are imposed)in different ways because of it being a matter of everyday life. It all depends upon the situation and circumstances of the time. If situation allows/requires,(while staying within the LONAP boundries),  Allah himself can directly appoint leaders but he CANNOT make leadership a part of religion.



No, he did not nominate a successor. In this thread I have provided the reason why this could not have been done.



He did not make successorship a part of the religion because doing so could have harmed religion itself.



On the other hand, I do think there is a need of looking into the matter in greater detail because if the matter had been so straight forward and easily understood, it could have been resolved by now after more than 1400 years. You have asked for my opinion. This is what I have repeatedly described above.

Why can't Allah make leadership a part of religion???? Allah has chosen leaders in the name of Messengers and Prophets. He has also made people Khalifa and Imaam. It's all in the Holy Quran. Allah chose 124,000 Messengers as leaders to govern mankind. After Muhammad [pbuh] uptil Keyaamath he decided to leave it to mankind to bicker and argue amongst themselves. WHY??? So you definately believe that the Prophet [pbuh] didn't name and appoint a sucessor. Anybody can come along or can be chosen to teach the true meanings and explanations of the Quran and Sunnah after the Prophet [pbuh]??? If the Prophet [pbuh] didn't name a successor then what did he do or advise for the future??? Or did he just pass away without even bothering about such and important matter regarding his Ummah concerning the Quran and Sunnah??? How would have successorship harmed religion??? If the Prophet [pbuh] named and appointed a successor how would this have harmed religion???? By not doing so and leaving the companions to bicker and argue amongst themselves did this not harm religion???? What did the Prophet [pbuh] advise after him or did he not bother??? Was it left to the Ummah??? Did the Prophet [pbuh] leave it to the Ummah to decide??? Then why was the matter taken away from the Ummah by Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] by naming and appointing a successor???? Why did Hazrath Umar [ra] take a different turn by appointing a committee to chose the next leader??? If the Prophet [pbuh] left it to the Ummah then why did the Shaikhain [raa] go against the Prophet's [pbuh] advice??? The Prophet [pbuh] didn't name and appoint a successor but Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] and Ameer Muavia did. WHY??? Is this not against the Prophet's [pbuh] way??? What criteria and procedure was there to chose a leader after the Prophet [pbuh]??? Or was it just come along  and then do as you please??? Just pick your own method and do as you please??? The Matter is straight forward and easy. The reason why it hasn't been resolved is due to stubborness and ignorance. Total disregard for sense, logic, reality and facts.

[Hagop]

Salaams ambrosechappel,

If I've understood you correctly, your argument is essentially based around the temporal (i.e. political leadership) aspect of Imamate. That being the case, would it not be fair to respond by saying that Imamate is primarily about the spiritual? The Imam is more than a political leader.

The very being of an Imam, whether or not one has direct access to him, is THE channel for God's grace and mercy towards His sinful creation and a shield from His absolute justice, the application of which would bring destructive punishment upon us.

The Imam is by another name a saint, or rather the saint-of-saints. Would you not agree that sainthood is conferred by God alone?

And Allah knows best.

Peace

Edited by Hagop, 16 February 2012 - 08:42 PM.

[Hagop]

Salaams,

Unable to edit my previous post so just wanted to (re)emphasise the following: the temporal side of Imamate, particularly in relation to political dominion, is by far the lesser aspect of the whole concept.

Wasalaam.

Edited by Hagop, 16 February 2012 - 09:10 PM.

[ambrosechappel]

Ameen, on 16 February 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Why can't Allah make leadership a part of religion????

You need to read my original post for this.

Quote

Allah has chosen leaders in the name of Messengers and Prophets. He has also made people Khalifa and Imaam. It's all in the Holy Quran. Allah chose 124,000 Messengers as leaders to govern mankind.

Just a correction. He appointed(did not choose) messengers depending upon what was happening at that time and made some of them leaders/rulers as well but he CANNOT make permanent leadership/successorship or Imamate an indispensable feature of the religion.

Quote

After Muhammad [pbuh] uptil Keyaamath he decided to leave it to mankind to bicker and argue amongst themselves. WHY??? So you definately believe that the Prophet [pbuh] didn't name and appoint a sucessor. Anybody can come along or can be chosen to teach the true meanings and explanations of the Quran and Sunnah after the Prophet [pbuh]???

Many of the questions you asked can be asked more effectively from Shia brothers themselves. These questions are, in Shia view, the strongest proofs of their doctrines as if they have a continued series of Imams who have remained present to perform the function of leadership since the time of Holy Prophet(s) and will remain so till the end of the world. What they don't remember is the fact that since Hasan Askari®, no Imam has provided them with palpable leadership and guidance of any kind. If these questions are the strongest proof of their teachings, and as I said these can be asked from them in return of their own arguments because of the absence of a visible Imam, i deem it apt to say that these same questions hold more validity if asked against Shiism than Sunniism because Sunnism doesn't believe in leadership/successorship being part of religion.

As one instance, you have asked the above question:

After Muhammad [pbuh] uptil Keyaamath he decided to leave it to mankind to bicker and argue amongst themselves. WHY??? So you definately believe that the Prophet [pbuh] didn't name and appoint a sucessor. Anybody can come along or can be chosen to teach the true meanings and explanations of the Quran and Sunnah after the Prophet [pbuh]???

If I just change it to:

After Hasan Askari® uptil Keyaamath the 12th Imam decided to leave it to mankind to bicker and argue amongst themselves. WHY??? So you definately believe that the the 12th Imam didn't name and appoint a sucessor(OK let's say in his physical absence). Anybody can come along or can be chosen to teach the true meanings and explanations of the Quran and Sunnah after the 11th Imam???

Quote

If the Prophet [pbuh] didn't name a successor then what did he do or advise for the future??? Or did he just pass away without even bothering about such and important matter regarding his Ummah concerning the Quran and Sunnah???

I can change it to:


If the 12th Imam didn't name a successor(in his physical absence) then what did he do or advise for the future??? Or did he just go into hiding without even bothering about such and important matter regarding his Ummah concerning the Quran and Sunnah???

Let me further ask, if the 12th Imam went into hiding for fear of being oppressed(which is actually a self-contradictory feature of his office) why did he not reappear with the establishment of states which believed in him. Why did he not appear during Safavid Iran? Where is he now in Wilayat al Faqih Iran? Is he still fearful of being oppressed by Iranis too?

Quote

How would have successorship harmed religion??? If the Prophet [pbuh] named and appointed a successor how would this have harmed religion????

Again, you need to go through my original post.

Quote

By not doing so and leaving the companions to bicker and argue amongst themselves did this not harm religion????

No, by starting a series of successors, in form of Imamate, religion would have been harmed though. Read original post please.

Quote

What did the Prophet [pbuh] advise after him or did he not bother??? Was it left to the Ummah??? Did the Prophet [pbuh] leave it to the Ummah to decide???

Same questions about the 12th Imam. Asking the Ummah to wait till doomsday is nothing more than a joke. What was the solution he gave? None, I am afraid.

Quote

Then why was the matter taken away from the Ummah by Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] by naming and appointing a successor???? Why did Hazrath Umar [ra] take a different turn by appointing a committee to chose the next leader??? If the Prophet [pbuh] left it to the Ummah then why did the Shaikhain [raa] go against the Prophet's [pbuh] advice??? The Prophet [pbuh] didn't name and appoint a successor but Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] and Ameer Muavia did. WHY??? Is this not against the Prophet's [pbuh] way???

Successorship is not a part of religion. By staying quite, the Holy Prophet(s) simply did not include it in religion. Acts of Shaikhain® were not part of religion. They simply did what they thought was wise and expedient and was a need of their time in a matter of everyday life. This kept on changing according to what was happening in this world. Wilayat al Faqih is also a typical example of such a method of choosing leaders used by Shia Iran.

Shaikhain® were not even divine agents and they did how they thought it was good to do. What is interesting to note is the way how Shia divine agents did. They all went against the way of the Holy Prophet(s) despite being God-appointed agents. What do you have to say about that? Ali® paid allegiance to Caliphs. The Holy Prophet(s) did not do so against all odds. Hasan® handed over the office to Muawiya®. Holy Prophet(s) did not do that. Similar are stories of rest of the Imams. They even resorted to Taqiyyah to hide their status. The Holy Prophet(s) did not do that. The 12th Imam did the most unusual thing by going into hiding till the end of the world. The Holy Prophet(s) did not do that. If they were divine agents, they all went against the Holy Prophet's(s) way in terms of their responsibilities.

Quote

What criteria and procedure was there to chose a leader after the Prophet [pbuh]??? Or was it just come along  and then do as you please??? Just pick your own method and do as you please???

Like Wilayat al Faqih? I have repeatedly said it was not a part of religion so whatever criterion was it, it did not form a basis of the Islamic religion.

Quote

The Matter is straight forward and easy. The reason why it hasn't been resolved is due to stubborness and ignorance. Total disregard for sense, logic, reality and facts.

On whose part? Think with an unprejudiced mind.

Edited by ambrosechappel, 19 February 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[Seekingtruth14]

Salam!

ambrosechappel, on 19 February 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

After Hasan Askari® uptil Keyaamath the 12th Imam decided to leave it to mankind to bicker and argue amongst themselves. WHY??? So you definately believe that the the 12th Imam didn't name and appoint a sucessor(OK let's say in his physical absence). Anybody can come along or can be chosen to teach the true meanings and explanations of the Quran and Sunnah after the 11th Imam???

I am not so good at this, but I will give it a try.

The 11th Imam gave the guidelines for what his followers should do in the matter of religion:
"...but if there is anyone among the fuqaha' who is in control over his own self, protects his religion, suppresses his evil desires and is obedient to the commands of his Master, then the people should follow him." [Shaykh at-Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj, vo. 2, Najaf 1966, p. 263.]

It is recorded that the 12th Imam (A.J) have said in a reply to Ishaq ibn Ya'qub :
“As far as newly occurring circumstances are concerned, you should turn (for guidance) to the narrators of our ahadith, for they are my proof over you just as I am Allah's proof over you."”

The taqlid in the School of Ahlulbayt (A) was founded by the Imams of Ahlulbayt Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã. So the guidelines for what to do during the occultation of Imam Al Mahdi (A.J) were not left to mankind to bicker and argue amongst themselves.

Don’t you agree with me dear brother?

[ambrosechappel]

Seekingtruth14, on 20 February 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Salam!



I am not so good at this, but I will give it a try.

The 11th Imam gave the guidelines for what his followers should do in the matter of religion:

"...but if there is anyone among the fuqaha' who is in control over his own self, protects his religion, suppresses his evil desires and is obedient to the commands of his Master, then the people should follow him." [Shaykh at-Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj, vo. 2, Najaf 1966, p. 263.]

It is recorded that the 12th Imam (A.J) have said in a reply to Ishaq ibn Ya'qub :
“As far as newly occurring circumstances are concerned, you should turn (for guidance) to the narrators of our ahadith, for they are my proof over you just as I am Allah's proof over you."”

The taqlid in the School of Ahlulbayt (A) was founded by the Imams of Ahlulbayt عليه السلام. So the guidelines for what to do during the occultation of Imam Al Mahdi (A.J) were not left to mankind to bicker and argue amongst themselves.

Don’t you agree with me dear brother?

Brother,

Thanks for your post. I wanted to stay on the original topic and before trying to reply to brother Ameen's post I was apprehensive that a reply to that will take the discussion to a different course which I am already witnessing to be the most recent development. I wish we could have stayed on the original path. However,

Everything written in your post is contradicting all the essential components of Imamate. In fact the very raison d'etre of having an Imam is completely made null and void in these lines. Let's read them in detail:

Quote

...but if there is anyone among the fuqaha' who is in control over his own self, protects his religion, suppresses his evil desires and is obedient to the commands of his Master, then the people should follow him." [Shaykh at-Tabarsi, al-Ihtijaj, vo. 2, Najaf 1966, p. 263.]

First of all, in this statement, the Imam has not nominated a successor. This is the MOST important condition. Our whole discussion and the concept of Imamate is built around one pre-requisite i.e. announcing a God-appointed successor who would be PHYSICALLY present amongst his people as a political and religious leader of the community.

Secondly, the virtues of a person to be followed have been given above. But the big question is WHO is going to decide about an individual as to whether he possesses these qualitities or not? Obviously, the Ummah? So in the end it's for the Ummah to decide who is to be followed. Don't you feel it to be a fatal blow to Imamate-God-appointed leadership.

Thirdly, it is quite straight forward that a person of these qualities should be followed in matter of religion. It's just a lame explanation to justify the imaginary office of Imamate that these lines are considered a strong proof of its truth. Otherwise, even any other religion of the world considers a person who is well versed in the laws of the religion, has a control over himself, protects his religion, suppresses his evil desires and is obedient to the commands of his Master, capable to be followed. This is more of an ethical or obvious advice rather than a divine command. Divine command is the nomination of a person. This is what is missing.

Fourthly these are the attributes of a pious individual. A saint can be an embodiment of these virtues. An above-board religious scholar can be endowed with them. But what about the qualities of a leader? A leader must possess many other qualities than these. He needs to have a charismatic personality. He needs to be a good decision maker, an astute individual with resolve and political acumen. He must be seasoned enough to perform his duties. He must be a good judge of men. He must possess a vision. He must be intelligent, disciplined, creative, pro-active, fair, assertive, magnanimous, humane, chivalrous etc. All these qualities can be found in the Holy Prophet(s). This definition of a leader as given by an infallible Imam does not in any way fulfill the actual requirements on which a leader is to be evaluated, unless one is inclined to completely metamorphose the term Imam as a political and religious leader to only an interpreter of Quran and Sunnah.

Quote

It is recorded that the 12th Imam (A.J) have said in a reply to Ishaq ibn Ya'qub :
As far as newly occurring circumstances are concerned, you should turn (for guidance) to the narrators of our ahadith, for they are my proof over you just as I am Allah's proof over you.

What is 'newly occuring circumstances'. Were they worse than the time of Holy Prophet(s) when he faced difficulties? Were they worse than those preceding that time i.e. the 12th Imam's time? Why did other Imams not go into occultation? Why did the 12 Imam go into occultation when even his identity was not known to his followers? Could he not have waited to grow up and at least let himself be known to his people? Why did the eleventh Imam not go into occultation before his demise for that matter. At least he was a historically known personality. The occultation of a completely unknown person led to the formation of more than a dozen sects in Shiism? Did the 'newly occuring circumstances' never change afterwards? Why did the Imam not re-appear when these circumstances improved? Where is he now? Is Iran which believes in Wilayat al Faqih not enough to give him protection? How more desirable can conditions be for him to re-appear and lead? I am so sorry that I have to write these lines as I have alreeady discussed this issue on the other thread 'Hadith of 12 Caliphs doesn't belong to Shia'

http://www.shiachat....16#entry2266516

I would rather have stayed on the original topic of this thread.

Quote

you should turn (for guidance) to the narrators of our ahadith,

Again, a successor is missing from this scenario.

It means that anyone who narrates hadith of the Imams is an successor? Is that not a blow to Imamate?

Or if it is just 'religious' leadership without a successor then:

Who is to decide which hadith is authentic?

What if different narrators narrate different hadith about a certain matter? Who is to make the casting vote?

Will people not bicker and argue amongst themselves over this issue?

Does the narrator of the hadith of the Holy Prophet(s) not make a good leader if that is the condition to decide one. Why need Imams at all! Did they say anything other than what the Holy Prophet(s) said? Is this a religion different from that of the Holy Prophet(s)? Are their teachings any different from His(s)?

This is again an utterly incomplete definition of a leader

Quote

So the guidelines for what to do during the occultation of Imam Al Mahdi (A.J) were not left to mankind to bicker and argue amongst themselves.

These are very obvious and easily understandable guidelines. These are followed by any religious or even (non-religious/ethical) organization and a divine command is not required to understand this very easily conceived attribute of a religious person. Million dollar question is who is to decide whom to follow. Obviously it's not Allah in this case. This is the exact point which negates the concept of Imamate.

Brother, I again make this humble request that the original theory is discussed more than the peripheral issues( I agree that they are relevant but they have already been discussed)

Edited by ambrosechappel, 20 February 2012 - 06:25 PM.

[Ameen]

ambrosechappel, on 14 December 2011 - 11:54 AM, said:

I request the readers to go through this article from beginning to end in order to get a complete comprehension of the points I have tried to make.

I have presented my arguments in the past about how Imamate (religious and political leadership as a divinely ordained affair vested in a continual chain of identified people) could not have been an intelligent choice to cater for the leadership requirements of the Ummah. My main emphasis is on the flaws that are essentially affixed to this concept and I have already argued that the concept proved to be utterly blemished and self-contradictory in its history. Please refer to the following link to read those arguments: http://www.shiachat....ictory-concept/

My present endeavour is relatable to further elaboration of these flaws. I will assert how this concept can not be a wise and realistic system of leadership because of the eccentricities and problems involved in its implementation, and contrary-to-nature physical conditions, and attitudes(of Ummah) required for its upholding.  

In order to understand why this concept came into being by creating a schism in the Ummah ,we first need to know the leadership structure on the demise of the Holy Prophet(s), the nature of his office and the need that was felt by the Ummah at that time in terms of  leadership.  

The office of the Holy Prophet(s) on his demise had a twofold function; 1.the temporal leadership of the nation, and 2. the spiritual leadership of the ummah. There had been Prophets in the past as well but no sects were formed on the basis of their successorship because of two reasons:

• The portfolio of the Prophets did not entail the responsibility of the temporal leadership of the nation because of the absence of a state.

• In other cases, when Prophets ruled over states, the successors who were present in their own lifetimes took over the responsibility after the departure of their predecessors and were therefore the succeeding prophets. This scenario was applicable since the office of Prophethood was still in place.

An important point to be noted here in case of the second example is that even though Prophets succeeded their predecessors, in the end the states did not remain intact and therefore the need of a continuous chain of Prophets was not felt and no sects were formed on this basis.

On the other hand, there were other instances also when chains of Prophets were formed. In these cases, the Prophets succeeded their forerunners when the message they carried was not yet complete or it needed continued preaching, but still these chains broke as and when Allah willed and hence an intermediate period was always observed between one Prophet and another or a chain of Prophets and another chain/an individual Prophet.

We therefore learn that the office of Prophethood was designed by Allah in a way that the perennial or continued presence of a Prophet on Earth at all the time was not necessary.
But all the Prophets taught their followers that a man will come who will deliver the last message of Allah and they were required to have belief in that last Messenger.

In the end, the last Messenger of Allah, our Holy Prophet(s), came and delivered his message. Amongst his other teachings was the doctrine of Khatam-e-Nabuwwa i.e. the end of a direct contact of man with his creator and presence of a divinely appointed authority in the world. Any future course of action in terms of leadership had to be planned keeping in account this very fundamental tenet of the Islamic religion.

Before proceeding any further, one thing that must be kept into account is the fact that Allah has programmed this world and its affairs to work within the limits of certain laws; the laws of nature. Allah very seldom intrudes into the matters of this world by breaking these laws as and when it becomes inevitable for instance to show the truth of his existence or the identity of his messengers (even that does not go against logic because an extraordinary claim needs an extraordinary evidence to prove its truth) Otherwise, the laws of nature, in general, remain applicable in normal circumstances. Since the foundations of the laws of nature are laid on logic, this means that anything that defies logic is a breach in these laws and therefore an extraordinary phenomenon such as a miracle. There can be isolated occurrences in which such extraordinary things happen but these exceptions can never comprise any rules. It can therefore be deducted that any rules in contradiction with logic and laws of nature cannot be promulgated and implemented as this goes against the design of Allah’s world. (I will refer to this paragraph later during this article by citing it as ‘The Laws Of Nature Principle’ or the acronym ‘LONAP’).

Just as a side note, long life of Khizar etc is not a worldly matter and therefore does not apply to the current discussion.

Many things which seem ideal and needful, but their implementation needs a breach in laws of nature, do not comprise a religious law for this very reason. Would it not have been ideal for a person to be receiving the divine commands himself? This can be an ideal situation. But staying within the laws of nature, this seems impracticable. Allah does not communicate with his creation directly and doing this will go against the laws of nature and will change the whole structure of life on this world. Every person will be a Prophet and the nature of this trial through which Allah claims to be passing his creature through will be lost.

Allah therefore established the office of Messengership through which he communicates with his creation. Even the functions of this office are designed to work following the laws of nature. The Messenger, at best, communicates the message, reminds the creation of its obligations, warns them of the Day of Judgment etc. Even he does not enter into the mind and soul of the people but only continues with his struggle, taking a humanly possible stance. Ideally he should be accessible to everyone, but he is not because this defies nature, his continuous presence (or a continuous chain of Prophets) should be there but it is not the case for the same reason.

Having established the importance of laws of nature and logic in defining a religious law, we now get back to the scenario when the Holy Prophet(s) departed from this world, leaving behind his teachings, the Quran, his Sunnah, a state, the Ummah, and his Khatam-e-Nabuwwah doctrine. Let’s now evaluate what can be a wise decision to take at this stage in terms of successorship. We have already learnt that the role of the Holy Prophet(s) as the head of Islam was twofold: Political leadership of the state (temporary and ductile) and Spiritual headship of the Ummah(through message i.e. Quran and Sunnah – eternal, already established and completed).  

We need to know if a system of continued spiritual successorship to preserve the message and the belief therein can even be required provided the message had already perfectly been delivered through Quran and Sunnah.

Considering the previous examples, when prophets delivered the message and left (even if a temporary system of successorship ensued, it also finally ended) and new messengers were sent either when the message was altogether forgotten/changed or the need of a new message was felt which quashed the older messages and ordained a new Sharia. In case of Islam, there was no possibility that a new Sharia would be required as Allah had sent the eternal message in shape of Quran which was in a written form and Allah had himself taken the responsibility to save this message and this is the faith of all Muslims as the same has been stated in the Quran itself. Forgery in Quran is thus not possible. Therefore there’s no need to have a spiritual successor to the office of the Holy Prophet(s) and history has proven that the message has still been transmitted successfully( you are free to make your own choice as to which version of the message is correct i.e.Shia/Sunni/Ibadi etc). Additionally such a system would undermine the concept of Khatam-e-Nabuwwa if not completely obliterate it as Khatam-e-Nabuwwa means the end of any direct contact of man with God.  

As far as the need of a system of political successorship is concerned, as I said before, this was required if the state had to remain intact forever. This is a temporal affair and Allah would not change the laws of nature to keep the state intact till the Day of Judgment and history has provided evidence to this effect. How can Allah proclaim a divine edict and make it an obligation for all Muslims to follow when the integrity, lifespan and extant of this institution (i.e. the state) is uncertain, ephemeral, and malleable.

This can be deduced from above that maintaining the integrity of the spiritual system i.e. the religion is far more important than maintaining the integrity of the state because of the religion being eternal and the state being a temporary phenomenon. Ideally, both should be preserved but as said before, laws of nature cannot be changed to keep the state intact. Religion could have been harmed on the other hand if any attempt was made to proclaim laws in order to establish any divine authority over the state because of the temporary nature of the state, and differences of opinion regarding the identity and choice of people regarding the divine authority. Never in the history of the world and the Islamic religion has there been a single instance when a system was introduced which established successorship of people of the remote future. This is an everyday life affair and it has been dealt with people living in their generations according to the needs and requirements of their eras. Making it a part of any religion or any other political system will essentially make that system flawed itself (causing confusion and formation of sects) instead of consummating it.

Let’s now analyze the implementation of this system in two different scenarios:

• The problems involved in the successful implementation of the system
  
• The problems involved in case of the failure of implementation of the system

In the first case, the successful implementation of the system needs extraordinary circumstances and contrary-to-nature conditions which make no sense as it goes against LONAP

• The system needs a continuous series of God-Appointed Imams to be present at all times till the end of the world. This constitutes an extraordinary requirement and the same method was never used in the past even to propagate the message in case of Prophets. In the end what is important is guidance of people (through the message). If Allah did not continue an unbroken chain of messengers to propagate the message, and the message was forsaken or corrupted by later people because of not being recorded properly, why would Allah send a series of successors (Imams) to protect the message when the message was already protected as Allah says in the Quran?

• It needed extraordinary measures to be taken for the safety and security of the Imam and that of his announced successor. Let’s say both the Imam and his appointed successor die or are killed simultaneously, who would decide the fate of the office of Imamate? The carrier of authority will have to be kept safe and secure till doomsday which would need a continued miracle and continuation of miracles goes against the LONAP Principle. No need to mention that the nature of miracles is itself temporary and they don’t last for long.

• It would also need an extraordinary condition of the successor (such as a son in case of Imamate) to be ready at time of the current Imam’s departure from the world. The successor would have to be mature, both in age and experience, enough to take over the responsibility at time of his forerunner’s (father in case of Imamate) death. Interestingly, if this extraordinary condition is not met because of the world being following the LONAP conduit, even more extraordinary and bizarre situations would have to be faced such as accepting a small kid as the next bearer of authority when he is the only offspring left on his father’s death. And Shias did make these outlandish decisions(and in their imagination, this was the strange will of Allah) by accepting 4, 7 and 8 years old kids as their Imams and the very existence of the 4 year old kid is extremely doubtful.

• It needed a continued presence of Infallible beings in the society. There is a difference of opinion between the followers of different Islamic sects about even the Prophets being infallible. Let’s take the stance of those who consider the Prophets being Infallible as correct. We see that even the presence of Prophets at all times was not considered necessary and nowhere in Quran does Allah make this claim. This would have been an ideal situation in order for the message to be protected especially when it was neither recorded in writing nor memorized. We can even see that the message was forgotten or it got corrupted during later centuries because of an absence of a protector of message. My supplementary question here is Why was the message allowed to be corrupted in the past? Why were extraordinary measures not taken to protect the message by continued presence of Prophets at that time? What was the fault of those to whom the message reached in a corrupted form? All Shias believe that the current message still got corrupted (as done by Ahl-e-Sunnah and other Shia sects) even despite the office of Imamate being in operation.

Why would Allah go against LONAP and continue a series of custodians of the message when writing had been invented, records were being kept, the message was recorded not only on paper but also in human memory. In reality, this was the reason why the last messenger was sent at this stage when these landmarks in human civilization had been achieved.

As I said, the presence of a series of Infallible beings at all times would also be an extraordinary phenomenon and it would have constituted a continuous miracle which not only goes against LONAP but also against the ephemeral nature of the phenomenon of ‘miracle’

• On the other hand, there would have been expected the display of completely ‘non-resistant’ attitude from Ummah regarding the God-Appointed Imam in such highly controversial matters as politics which are always fraught with difference of opinion. No matter what the opinion of others (even if they were allowed to have one), the Imam had to give the final decision which would have reduced the contemplative faculties of the minions as they would always be expecting the Imam to give the final verdict. Consultation, which encourages cogitation, is alien to the system of Imamate. This would have harmed the followers in three ways a. reducing their thinking abilities b. reducing their competitive abilities c. making them completey servile without new ideas and thoughts. They would merely have to be The Followers Par Excellence.

• Allah would have to keep the state in a perfect state of political, economic, and social stability in order for the followers to quiescently follow the Imam. This again is an extraordinary condition. All laws would have to be changed regarding anything that was concerned with the stability, especially economic stability, of the state so that the minions should keep following the Imam. This is human nature to blame the rulers, have anti-governments sentiments, and stand up against them if things go wrong especially the financial conditions of the state. They tend to raise voice, and rebel against Status Quo. But the office of Imamate stipulates this strange condition for the subjects to keep firm faith in the state and the divine authority on the throne and show extreme levels of unconditional obedience to it no matter what the circumstances. Would this have the justice of Allah to proclaim such injunctions? It would have needed an Infallible Ummah to display this Infallible attitude towards their Infallible Imams( seeing this, can we define Imamate as a government of the Infallible by the Infallible and for the Infallible) History is evident that during the era of Ali®, this ideal state of political, economic, and social stability was not achieved. Surprisingly, (if Imamate is correct) his era was replete with difficulties and problems. This shows that the LONAP rule was not even changed for Ali®(an Imam in power, I will later talk about the validity of LONAP for later Imams who never acquired power)

• It would have needed a continuous chain of persons, each and every act of whom in government would be perfect, immaculate and exemplary. They would be successful in each and every of their endeavor and policy in order to keep the Ummah satisfied. This would have been their duty to keep the Ummah happy even if conditions were not good. This is an extraordinary task and too much to expect from the Imam. And if he does not maintain excellent conditions, it is too much to expect from the Ummah to keep following him.

• It also needs a team of !00%(virtually Infallible) sincere, perfect, and obedient comrades who would assist the Imam to run the affairs of the state as any mistake of theirs would be considered the mistake of the Imam himself. Not only that, but their mistakes would disrupt the whole system and things would go wrong. See, the example of Ali’s® forced arbitration at Siffin when his followers changed the whole course history and that of the institution of Imamate.

Shias believe that the Holy Prophet(s) himself could not improve the conditions
of character of his wives and the closest companions. How could the opposite be expected to be happening in terms of companions of Infallible Imams?

• It would have needed the Islamic state to stay intact for all times for the office of Imamate to perform its functions. This is again an extraordinary condition. Let’s assume that the Muslim Ummah would have passed the test of being non-resistant to the Imam and the state had been invaded by some foreign enemy and they were successful in their offence and the Imam was dethroned. How would he perform his functions now? What if he is put in a jail or is killed without appointing an heir. How would his followers know about his successor? Through which medium? May be through a jail sentinel or his own executioner…..

Imagine the announcement of the status of an Infallible Imam being made by an fallible jail sentinel. This should not sound so surprising as an identical incident did happen when the announcement of the Imamate of the Infallible Imam, the twelfth Imam, was made by the fallible Uthman Bin Said Al-Amri…

We will further elaborate these conditions when the office of the Imam fails to establish as per the second condition given above i.e. The problems involved in case of the failure of implementation of the system.

1.   The biggest problem which the Imam would have to face in case of the failure of his office in adverse conditions is to lie that he is not the Imam. This would happen because amongst his responsibilities, the highly attractive and lucrative status of political leadership of the Ummah is of prime importance. Acquiring power is amongst the utmost of human desires. This is a highly controversial matter and a cause of wars, rebellions, and intrigues in the history of mankind.

An opposition to authority is never encouraged by the rulers. Any notion of an opposition would be rejected and abolished by the rulers especially of olden times. In these conditions, the God-Appointed Imam would have to lie that he is not the Imam and according to Shia beliefs this actually happened when the institution of Taqiyya was incepted by their Imams to save their lives. This will confuse the follower and he will have to depend on words of ordinary men (that he is the Imam) instead of the Imam himself (that he is not the Imam) which is a completely absurd situation.

2.   Hence, the failure, and non-establishment (of political side) of the office would cause confusion and the very identity of the Imam himself would become controversial. Ideally, all the followers should agree on the Imamate of one Imam, but they quarreled over the matter of the true identity of the successor. One of the reasons was that the Imam was actually not in power otherwise he would have clearly announced his successor (I am saying this if we consider Imamate to be a genuine institution as per Shia beliefs).

The result of this confusion would be splintering and formation of sects as the institution is not centrally controlled. The confusing conduct of the Imams and their abdication (in public) from the office would cause more difference of opinion and beliefs and this did happen in Shia history. See formation of 100+ sects on the question of the true identity of the Imam.

3.   Failure of the establishment of this office would make the Imam concede part of his divinely bestowed status (the political side of their office) to fallible contenders (actually apostates in Shia view) and to make things worse, pay allegiance to them. As per Shia beliefs the Imams did pay allegiance to the usurpers of their own right when their office failed to establish its authority. Such acts of theirs would give opportunity to false belief systems such as Sunniism to come into existence and the acts of Imams would provide them evidence to validate their mendacious dogmas. See, Baya of Ali® to the first three Caliphs.

4.   The inclusion of political authority in their portfolio would even make their spiritual duties difficult to perform as the apostate government would prevent them from propagating even their religious ideas to people whereas the government sponsored sects such as Sunniism would flourish thereby making the real message and interpretation of the Quran unknown to general masses. Would in such a situation, exclusion of political responsibility from the job description of an Imam not be a wiser decision. Would it not be a good decision to only include religious guidance to the duties of the Imams if any need of one is even felt necessary at all?

5.   This failure would also make the followers of this concept politically isolated, and they would not be able to take part in any political activity and make their ideas known and opinion heard. This would create a negative impact on their ways of understanding and they would essentially become pessimistic in their thinking paradigms; a permanent opposition. That’s how the Shia religion remained during the times of Imams but after getting rid of the hindrance in their way by announcing the occultation of their twelfth Imam, they became politically active and succeeded in becoming part of the government and even establishing their states.

6.   In the most ridiculous situation, the Imam has to go into hiding before coming into contact with and announcing his status to the Ummah. The Ummah in these cases would have to depend on the words of some fallible men like themselves to know the divinely bestowed status of the Infallible Imam. And the functions of the occulted Imam, forgetting all his responsibilities of providing political and spiritual guidance to his Ummah, is left to be explained by such poetic metaphors as ‘the sun behind the cloud’. I must point out that this last point is not one of the ‘natural problems’ that can be included in the list I am providing. I am including this just in order to show that the Shia religion had to resort to creating such illogical doctrines as the occulted Imam, in absence of a successor and to get rid of the problems (associated with the self-contradictory concept of Imamate) the Shia religion was facing at that time.

I have written this article in order to establish the idea that Imamate i.e. Divine Political Appointment of a continual chain of designated persons as a pillar or part of Religion, is not a practicable concept. I have not used any references from Quran and Hadith because there has been a lot of fight over the matter of interpretation of different verses of the Quran and both schools of Islamic thought i.e. Shia and Sunni are always contending each other as to whether a certain verse of the Quran says a certain thing or not. My present work deals with a different fundamental question as to whether such a verse can even actually mean how a certain school of thought interprets it to be if that interpretation gives birth to an illogical phenomenon. This premise is based on the belief that Allah cannot announce an illogical thing to be an obligation for this Ummah to follow. This means that a law that makes no logical sense cannot be proclaimed as a divine edict. Based on this premise, this can be concluded that if Imamate is proven to be a flawed and illogical concept, the verses of Quran which Shias claim to be verifying this concept and are controversial between the two schools of thought in their meanings, can in reality not be taken valid in Shia context of their interpretations in the first place.

I have read your entire post and I give you credit for taking time out to put forward your points. Your entire article is based on theories without any kind of backing what so ever. You haven't put forward any references from the Quran, Sunnah or history to back any of your claims. Anyways! Let me start off with this, lets say Imamath is a self-contradictory concept and put it to one side. I am going to put a few points forward as questions. Lets hope you answer them rather than avoiding them by questioning me in return. I don't mind being answered then questioned but being avoided by questions in return is quite irritating. Lets put Imamath on one side and the Shia concept out of the way. What now??? Every person incharge names and appoints someone to succeed him and to take care of affairs after him. Did the Prophet [pbuh] do that??? If not then why not??? There has always been a need for someone to take responsibility. What electoral procedure and method was used to pick the first Khalif??? You might have different electoral procedures in every country but at least the method is the same to chose the next leader. Lets pick one country and you will see that the electoral procedure and method will be the same in that country to chose its leader. You will not have procedures and methods changing everytime a leader needs to be picked.

The Author of the Holy Quran is Allah and the introducer is Muhammad [pbuh]. Now after Muhammad [pbuh] anybody is capable and worthy of giving a complete and thorough explanation and introduction of any part of this book??? Don't you think somebody should be present, after Muhammad [pbuh], who is well connected to the author and introducer to do and carry out this job??? Translation and meaning are two different things. Anybody can translate, who understands both languages, but not anybody can tell you the meaning. Why have the Muslims divided into different factions??? Why do we have different sects??? Isn't it because people came into power through different means and did things according to their own will, wish and desire??? Because people did things according to their own understanding??? Because people gave their own meaning to parts of Quran and Sunnah according to their own understanding??? We have had leaders in the shape of Khalifaas and Baadshahs. Why does Khilaafath stop at Khulafaa-e-Rashidah??? According to your opinion every one should be accepted, it doesn't matter how they came into power, what ever they got upto and how ever they did things. We shall talk more. I will continue this.

[ambrosechappel]

Ameen, on 21 February 2012 - 05:08 PM, said:

I have read your entire post and I give you credit for taking time out to put forward your points. Your entire article is based on theories without any kind of backing what so ever. You haven't put forward any references from the Quran, Sunnah or history to back any of your claims. Anyways! Let me start off with this, lets say Imamath is a self-contradictory concept and put it to one side. I am going to put a few points forward as questions. Lets hope you answer them rather than avoiding them by questioning me in return. I don't mind being answered then questioned but being avoided by questions in return is quite irritating.

Brother,

Thanks for your comments. My article is based on scientific principles of observation and inference and deals with pragmatic and practicable aspects of an office the legitimacy of  which has caused discord and schism in the Islamic religion for more than 14 centuries. I have not built an ivory tower in some fantasy world but have tried to deal with the problem with a realistic approach while staying within the laws of this world. Most importantly my article is backed up by the history of Imamate which I have already dealt with in the first part of my article. All historical evidence and conduct of Imam make this concept a self-contradictory phenomenon. I therefore deem your charge to be invalid that I have not used historical reference. As far as evidence from Quran and Sunnah is concerned, I again refer to my original post:

Quote

I have written this article in order to establish the idea that Imamate i.e. Divine Political Appointment of a continual chain of designated persons as a pillar or part of Religion, is not a practicable concept. I have not used any references from Quran and Hadith because there has been a lot of fight over the matter of interpretation of different verses of the Quran and both schools of Islamic thought i.e. Shia and Sunni are always contending each other as to whether a certain verse of the Quran says a certain thing or not. My present work deals with a different fundamental question as to whether such a verse can even actually mean how a certain school of thought interprets it to be if that interpretation gives birth to an illogical phenomenon. This premise is based on the belief that Allah cannot announce an illogical thing to be an obligation for this Ummah to follow. This means that a law that makes no logical sense cannot be proclaimed as a divine edict. Based on this premise, this can be concluded that if Imamate is proven to be a flawed and illogical concept, the verses of Quran which Shias claim to be verifying this concept and are controversial between the two schools of thought in their meanings, can in reality not be taken valid in Shia context of their interpretations in the first place.

Moreover, I have not avoided answering any questions in the past nor am I inclined to do it in future. The only thing I tried to do was to determine and show the invalidity of the questions. You can ask me questions but you need to first prove that the questions you ask are valid. If the questions asked are proven invalid than how can one expect any further debate on the issues raised in those question? Party A claims to have a solution to a problem which, in their opinion, Party B does not possess. Don’t Party A allow Party B to ask what the solution is and what evidence do they have thereof? On the other hand brother, I have asked so many questions in my original post. Do you allow me to ask if they have been answered? Instead of getting answers to my questions, I have received questions in return (many of which are already answered in my original post) which has changed the whole course of discussion. Moreover, I have received objections that my arguments are just theoretical in nature but no one has till yet proven them wrong imho.

Anyway, instead of discussing Imamate, let’s discuss Caliphate which I think is what we are going to do in lines to follow.

Quote

Lets put Imamath on one side and the Shia concept out of the way. What now??? Every person incharge names and appoints someone to succeed him and to take care of affairs after him.

Not necessarily. We have to keep in account the traditions, customs and inclinations of the people in question. We must not forget that Arabs were not accustomed to nominating successors. They used to choose their next leader when the preceding leader passed away. This was the democratic nature of Arab traditions.

Quote

Did the Prophet [pbuh] do that???

No, he did not appoint a successor.

Quote

If not then why not???

See, this is what I was saying earlier. I have explained in detail why this could not have been done in my original post. But I am being asked to explain it again. Reading my essay in detail, which I am sure you rightly say you have already done, will explain my stance on this question. You need to object to my arguments there if you don't agree.

Quote

There has always been a need for someone to take responsibility. What electoral procedure and method was used to pick the first Khalif??? You might have different electoral procedures in every country but at least the method is the same to chose the next leader. Lets pick one country and you will see that the electoral procedure and method will be the same in that country to chose its leader. You will not have procedures and methods changing everytime a leader needs to be picked.

I will take the weakest stance on this issue. Let’s agree that different methods were used to choose Caliphs.

How does it make Imamate right?

Please describe in detail what method was given by Holy Prophet(s) to choose the leaders?

Remember, Sunni belief is that no method was described by the Holy Prophet(s), then if one or more than one methods were used by Caliphs should not bother anyone as none of them is a standard model given by the Holy Prophet(s). They did how they thought was right based on their knowledge, experience and need of time and this was corroborate by (Shia divine agent) Ali® by allegiance. Had they deviated from the procedure given by the Holy Prophet(s), they could have been blamed for it. How strange is it that Shia brothers believe that the Holy Prophet’s(s) appointment of Ali® was downright rejected by companions but they all very willingly and quietly accepted Abu Bakr’s® appointment of Umar®. Incidents like Saqifa can be expected to be a natural corollary of Umar’s® appointment if it had been done without consultation and consent of a majority of Muslims. Same is the case with 3^rd Caliph’s appointment. Even a divine agent Ali® participated in this election. Does it still make that procedure illegitimate? In the end, All is well that ends well. If consensus was achieved and good performance was obtained from the person elected, provided that no transgression of a divine command or procedure given by Holy Prophet(s) took place, one must admire and appreciate the good job done! That’s what Sunnism and concept of ‘Rashidoon Caliphs’ is all about.

Does a Sunni have to believe that the ‘method’ that was used to appoint Caliphs is a part of his faith? Certainly not! The burden lies on the shoulders of Shia who consider Imamate to be a part of their faith and they think that the method of announcing a leader is divine appointment.

Quote

The Author of the Holy Quran is Allah and the introducer is Muhammad [pbuh]. Now after Muhammad [pbuh] anybody is capable and worthy of giving a complete and thorough explanation and introduction of any part of this book??? Don't you think somebody should be present, after Muhammad [pbuh], who is well connected to the author and introducer to do and carry out this job??? Translation and meaning are two different things. Anybody can translate, who understands both languages, but not anybody can tell you the meaning.

Non-issue as long as Shia brothers have to rely on people other than Imams to get such guidance from after 11^th Imam. Prophethood was not abandoned and the last Prophet(s) did not go into hiding. We believe that he was immensely successful in his function and only then did he pass away. The 12^th Imam had to go into hiding according to Shia beliefs.

Quote

Why have the Muslims divided into different factions??? Why do we have different sects??? Isn't it because people came into power through different means and did things according to their own will, wish and desire??? Because people did things according to their own understanding??? Because people gave their own meaning to parts of Quran and Sunnah according to their own understanding??? We have had leaders in the shape of Khalifaas and Baadshahs. Why does Khilaafath stop at Khulafaa-e-Rashidah??? According to your opinion every one should be accepted, it doesn't matter how they came into power, what ever they got upto and how ever they did things. We shall talk more. I will continue this.

I don’t see one direction in which this discussion is proceeding. There is an array of all and sundry types of questions one coming from this side the other coming from another.
There are many reasons why Muslims are divided into sects. The biggest number of sects came into being when the office of Imamate was in operation. They all were formed while search of a true Imam and his status.

The other reason of having sects is the interpretation of scripture. Sects emerged in all religions and at times on these issues. This is not a new phenomenon and this kept on happening even in times of Prophets(as). Even those believing in Imams are not immune to this natural phenomenon. Not even those believing in the same set of Imams. Ithna Ashariya Shia are further subdivided into Usoolis, Akhbaris etc because of such differences. Shia Imams did not come into power using different means. Why did their followers divide into sects?

[Ameen]

ambrosechappel, on 22 February 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

Brother,

Thanks for your comments. My article is based on scientific principles of observation and inference and deals with pragmatic and practicable aspects of an office the legitimacy of  which has caused discord and schism in the Islamic religion for more than 14 centuries. I have not built an ivory tower in some fantasy world but have tried to deal with the problem with a realistic approach while staying within the laws of this world. Most importantly my article is backed up by the history of Imamate which I have already dealt with in the first part of my article. All historical evidence and conduct of Imam make this concept a self-contradictory phenomenon. I therefore deem your charge to be invalid that I have not used historical reference. As far as evidence from Quran and Sunnah is concerned, I again refer to my original post:



Moreover, I have not avoided answering any questions in the past nor am I inclined to do it in future. The only thing I tried to do was to determine and show the invalidity of the questions. You can ask me questions but you need to first prove that the questions you ask are valid. If the questions asked are proven invalid than how can one expect any further debate on the issues raised in those question? Party A claims to have a solution to a problem which, in their opinion, Party B does not possess. Don’t Party A allow Party B to ask what the solution is and what evidence do they have thereof? On the other hand brother, I have asked so many questions in my original post. Do you allow me to ask if they have been answered? Instead of getting answers to my questions, I have received questions in return (many of which are already answered in my original post) which has changed the whole course of discussion. Moreover, I have received objections that my arguments are just theoretical in nature but no one has till yet proven them wrong imho.

Anyway, instead of discussing Imamate, let’s discuss Caliphate which I think is what we are going to do in lines to follow.




Not necessarily. We have to keep in account the traditions, customs and inclinations of the people in question. We must not forget that Arabs were not accustomed to nominating successors. They used to choose their next leader when the preceding leader passed away. This was the democratic nature of Arab traditions.




No, he did not appoint a successor.



See, this is what I was saying earlier. I have explained in detail why this could not have been done in my original post. But I am being asked to explain it again. Reading my essay in detail, which I am sure you rightly say you have already done, will explain my stance on this question. You need to object to my arguments there if you don't agree.



I will take the weakest stance on this issue. Let’s agree that different methods were used to choose Caliphs.

How does it make Imamate right?

Please describe in detail what method was given by Holy Prophet(s) to choose the leaders?

Remember, Sunni belief is that no method was described by the Holy Prophet(s), then if one or more than one methods were used by Caliphs should not bother anyone as none of them is a standard model given by the Holy Prophet(s). They did how they thought was right based on their knowledge, experience and need of time and this was corroborate by (Shia divine agent) Ali® by allegiance. Had they deviated from the procedure given by the Holy Prophet(s), they could have been blamed for it. How strange is it that Shia brothers believe that the Holy Prophet’s(s) appointment of Ali® was downright rejected by companions but they all very willingly and quietly accepted Abu Bakr’s® appointment of Umar®. Incidents like Saqifa can be expected to be a natural corollary of Umar’s® appointment if it had been done without consultation and consent of a majority of Muslims. Same is the case with 3^rd Caliph’s appointment. Even a divine agent Ali® participated in this election. Does it still make that procedure illegitimate? In the end, All is well that ends well. If consensus was achieved and good performance was obtained from the person elected, provided that no transgression of a divine command or procedure given by Holy Prophet(s) took place, one must admire and appreciate the good job done! That’s what Sunnism and concept of ‘Rashidoon Caliphs’ is all about.

Does a Sunni have to believe that the ‘method’ that was used to appoint Caliphs is a part of his faith? Certainly not! The burden lies on the shoulders of Shia who consider Imamate to be a part of their faith and they think that the method of announcing a leader is divine appointment.




Non-issue as long as Shia brothers have to rely on people other than Imams to get such guidance from after 11^th Imam. Prophethood was not abandoned and the last Prophet(s) did not go into hiding. We believe that he was immensely successful in his function and only then did he pass away. The 12^th Imam had to go into hiding according to Shia beliefs.





I don’t see one direction in which this discussion is proceeding. There is an array of all and sundry types of questions one coming from this side the other coming from another.
There are many reasons why Muslims are divided into sects. The biggest number of sects came into being when the office of Imamate was in operation. They all were formed while search of a true Imam and his status.

The other reason of having sects is the interpretation of scripture. Sects emerged in all religions and at times on these issues. This is not a new phenomenon and this kept on happening even in times of Prophets(as). Even those believing in Imams are not immune to this natural phenomenon. Not even those believing in the same set of Imams. Ithna Ashariya Shia are further subdivided into Usoolis, Akhbaris etc because of such differences. Shia Imams did not come into power using different means. Why did their followers divide into sects?

Thank you very much for your response and the comments you have made. Brother your arguement is one sided and only developes around Shia Imaamath and belief. This is what I am trying to bring you out of. I said at the begining that lets agree Imaamath is a self-contradictory concept and lets keep the Shia belief/faith out of this discussion. But your whole arguement has gone sliding back towards Shia belief/faith and has just developed on and evolved around it. Discuss with a free mind [with out a mindset]. You are putting all the blame, regarding different factions and sects, on just one group, the Shia, who are a minority to begin with. You are totally disregarding reality and facts, for example; the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ath are a group of people with different thoughts, opinions, point of view, belief, fiqh etc. There is a huge division amongst the Ahle Sunnah on all grounds, even schools of thought are different. There is a difference regarding Ahkamaath-e-Saum-o-Salaath, who is superior after the Prophet [pbuh]??? Some say Asshaab-e-Rasool and others believe Ahlul-Baith are superior. There is a difference regarding the Prophet's [pbuh] personality. Was he special, made of Noor or just like one of us but a Messenger??? The difference goes on.

You mention about the Ahle Sunna, well let me tell you what I have been told, straight from the Ahle Sunnah. Some believe the Prophet [pbuh] didn't name and appoint anyone but left the matter to the Ummah to get together and agree on chosing a leader to govern them. This is known as Shura. They say this to justify Hazrath Abu Bakar's [ra] selection as Khalifa and to prove his Khilaafath. Reference: the meeting in Sakeefa. When they are questioned that why was this method not used in selecting the second and third Khalifs and why did Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] name and appoint his successor and why did Hazrath Umar [ra] take a totally different aproach? rather than answering they begin to question Imaamath and start throwing bits and pieces from Asool-e-Kafi all over the place. Some Ahle Sunnah say the Prophet [pbuh] did name and appoint his successor, did nominate someone to govern after him. They believe that person is Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] and they justify this by giving the following reason; Pesh Imaamath and the Masala. The Prophet [pbuh] during his last days appointed Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] to take his place as leader of the prayers [Pesh Imaamath]. They use this as the Prophet's [pbuh] way of naming and appointing his successor and selecting someone to govern after him. They believe Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] is not just Khaleefatul-Muslimeen but also Khaleefa-e-Rasool and also the first imaam [Imaam-e-Awal] Oh yes! We shall talk more.

Edited by Ameen, 22 February 2012 - 03:44 PM.