Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Leibniz

  1. Though it does not derive from that verse but Imam Ali was "Ulil amr" for a brief period of time. I have already ceded that. But that's not the point.
  2. 4:59 dismisses the infallibility of "Ulil amr" and its so clear that even the early Shia scholars could see it. Hence in al kafi there is a Hadith which deals with this contradiction by ascribing it to Tehreeg in Qur'an. عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ أُذَيْنَةَ عَنْ بُرَيْدِ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالَ تَلَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ ( عليه السلام ) أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَ أَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَ أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ تَنَازُعاً فِي الْأَمْرِ فَأَرْجِعُوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَ إِلَى الرَّسُولِ وَ إِلَى أُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ثُمَ
  3. PS : You have posted segments of verses to make a point but that does not serve the purpose. Its like cherry picking from Shakespeare plays to prove that he was a momin. Whatever God intends to say in the Qur'an , says it explicitly and if Imamah is an article of faith for Muslims , it would have been explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an.
  4. "Ulil amr" explicitly means people of authority and the Shia Imams never had any authority except for the brief period of Ali. The verse is clearly stating that you can differ with "Ulil amr" and in such a case the absolute authority rests with Allah and his messenger. I wonder why are you arguing over such a clear verse which is very clearly saying that "Ulil amr" is not infallible.
  5. The Shia Imams , other than Ali for a brief period , were never "Ulil Amr" (people of authority). Secondly the verse clearly indicates that "Ulil Amr" must be someone fallible as one can differ with him and the matter shall against be taken to Allah and Prophet who are infallible ones. This verse clearly refutes the saga of infallibility. Wilayah and Imamah are concepts alien to Islam and human rational. The second verse you have quoted has nothing to do with Imamah
  6. 4:59 annuls infallibility for anyone other than God and his Prophet so that's an argument against Imamah. 5:55 has nothing to do with Imamah. See, if there was anything in the Qur'an about Imamah it would not have been that hard for you to pull it off. My point was that God supposedly inserted these far fetched whimsical Jafr codes in Qur'an but did not mention Imamah explicitly in any verse to make it as straight of a matter as Tawheed , Nabuwaah or Aakhira etc
  7. Let me phrase my question again. The Shias claim that after the Prophet there had to be 12 (11 excluding Ali) Imams from his progeny. The Imams are infallible beings and its binding upon Muslims to follow them , so much so that Imamah is an article of faith. Can you provide any Quranic verse(s) which unequivocally substantiates this claim? You can refer to verses related to oneness of God , Prophethood of Muhammad and its finality , life hereafter , existence of angels to know what an unequivocal description is in Qur'an when it comes to articles of faith.
  8. @Warilla How the Zaidis view the companions other than the first three Caliphs?
  9. For now we are talking about Qur'an. I claimed that Qur'an is severely deprived of the Shia tenants of faith. You claimed that its otherwise. Anyways , I would not push you on this. The point is that God could rather give us explicit verses about the Shia narrative which would have been far more helpful than these whimsical Jafr games
  10. See , what the Shia pretension about Imamah is? After Muhammad , there would be 12 Imams in his daughter's progeny which would be divinely inspired infallible individuals and it shall be binding upon Muslims to follow them. Quote me a single verse which substantiates this.
  11. You have only quoted verses of Qur'an containing the word "Imam". You have to quote me a single verse that can be unequivocally applied to your Imams.
  12. From a personal perspective I neither believe in the Sunni Mahdi nor the Shia Mahdi but there is a particular difference between the two. In Sunni Hadith literature Mahdi is referred to as Al-Mahdi and no where "Imam" Mahdi. Mahdi for Sunnis is eschatological character who shall appear before the end of times and he has no religious binding other than that. He is not present , he can not hear us or respond to out calls , we can not fasten his appearance and he is not an Imam. Mahdi is not mentioned as a basic article of faith in Sunnism and some prominent Sunni scholars like Ibn Khaldun h
  13. That's the Sunni concept of Mahdi , a reviver who shall appear in the end of times and correct the affairs but for Shias Mahdi is the 12th Imam and they make the argument that the world can never be deprived of an Imam hence Mahdi is the current Imam. I don't agree with all the things the current Aga Khan does but in terms of current Imam , he serves a better purpose than Mahdi. He is leading his community , providing his community with a lot of social services , you can meet him and (may be) ask him theological questions as well. I am not saying that Aga Khan is a theologically valid Ima
  14. Its a negative affirmation. If you believe other wise provide evidence for your claim from Qur'an. To begin with , Let me know how Qur'an affirms Imamah and infallibility.
  15. There is a rhetorical refutation of that Hadith of the 12 Caliphs in Sunni literature. For Shias , why was not this Hadith quoted against the 5vers , 7ers and all the various sects which sprung after the demise of each Imam and some very sincere Shias getting into schism and utter confusion? The argument is that there must be an Imam , a divine and infallible one to lead the Ummah or the Ummah shall get distracted. The Ummah did get distracted despite the Sunni Caliphs and the Shia Imams. Worse in the case of Shias as most of the schism with in Shiasm appeared due to Imamah itself. Of wha
  16. I did not know that it was some sort of mining going on
  17. Where is Wahabism in it? Do you believe Qur'an has the code through which you can calculate the speed of light? There are numerous websites who have applied far more easy methods to Qur'an and other books to extract miracles. Do you agree with them? Its a very common sense refutation of a whimsical idea and if its Wahabism I am happy with it.
  18. The book is not reliable and I am sure no serious Shia would quote it as a reference. The confusions and disputes regarding the number Imams and who should be the next Imam is alone sufficient to prove that there was no such concept in the early days of Imamah.
  19. The early Imamah was more of a political thing than a theological one. Right since the times of Abu Bakr , Hashmites were a political faction claiming their right to Imamah (Caliphate). Once after Uthman the Hashmites got some what of an upper hand , they diverged into Alids, Abbasid , Jaffarites. That's where you see strains of splits with in the Hashmites due to internal power struggle and that's how it goes once a political party attains power. There are rifts and there is choas. Even the Alids split among themselves for the same reason. Generally , for most of the Shias (who were mainly po
  20. Here you can refer to the "mathematical codes" in Bible as well. Any religious zealot who stoops to making such claims about his holly scripture is infact accepting that there is nothing useful in the plain facts of my scripture which can impress you therefor I am going to resort to some child play to convince you that my scripture contains miracles. mathematical codes in Bible
  21. It is absurd to assume that God would play such far fetched childish number games depending on some "Jafr" codes. You can infact make such extrapolations based on numbers in any book for anything. The fact that is evident to anyone with an objective mind is that the Qur'an is severely deprived of the Shia narrative of Islam and there is hardly any single verse which unequivocally supports the Shia tenets of dispute with the Sunnis.
  22. PS : I am translating a letter of Abbasid Caliph Abu Jaffar Mansoor in which he highly praises Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah while castigating the rest of the progeny of Ali. The Abbasids had a soft corner for Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah due to the reason stated above.
  23. Right. I believe that the 12ver concept of Imamah did not exist at that time. Various Hashmites claimed to be Imams and it was more of a political affair than a theological affair. Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah's claim of Imamah can be asserted from a simple fact even if you dismiss all the narrations stating that. He had a son named Abdullah and was known as Abu Hashim. The Kaysanites after Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah made Abu Hashim their Imam. Kaysanites were the largest chunk of politically active Shias of that era. Abu Hashim is later said to have given the Imamah to Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abdul
  24. Most of the history was penned down in the Abbasid era and one may use your argument to claim that most of the Anti Ummayads stuff came due to Abbaaid's pressure as they were very keen to demonize Ummayads. As far as Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah is concerned , to me he is shaddy character. He is surely on his father's side in Siffain but I don't find his character supportive of the 12ver Imami theology. Post Hassan , he was the leader of Hashimites and was a political figure for that reason. Mua'via bribed him and there is a narration in which Muhammad bin Hanafiyyah praises Yazid once he was appro
  • Create New...