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


Basic Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Shia Islam

sumsoul91's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. No, I'm still 12er Shia, but being critical of both sides, especially my own side since I don't wanna have bias towards it. I'm no scholar, but I have some understanding of how it works, the Imams either have the knowledge passed on, or they are taught in a divine way. I don't have a problem with that if it's proven. Having a perspective isn't enough, there must be a reason as to why that perspective should be accepted in the first place. I'm not too sure tbh lol. It was a long time ago. Yeah, it's so annoying having to be wait for posts to be approved lol. If it's your last reply, I'll leave the convo there and wait for someone else. May God help us all.
  2. Nothing in the sense that if you rely on it, there's very little that you'd know about the Prophet, in comparison to everything that was recorded in history, not that the book is lacking in quality of information. So I've gone through the first two books and they rely on sunni books, not just for comparisons on agreed information, but to provide a more complete source. As for Hayat al Qulub, I had this book years ago. I personally didn't enjoy it lol. I'll have to spend more time looking through it. Ultimately, even if it's able to provide a complete, detailed biography using shia sources alone, the next question to ask would be - how many of these narrations are going directly back to the time of the Prophet himself? Let's put it this way, there's a difference of opinion among sunni and shia scholars about how the first revelation occurred. Shia narrations paint a very different story to the sunni narrative, however, they're coming from the Imams who weren't even around during that period, so on what basis would we accept the narration from the Imam rather than what earlier sources say, is it because of our theological beliefs? Or can we show the Imams established the information from the time of the Prophet? In the meantime, let's say we agree that Imamah is only for men. What evidence do we require to clearly establish someone is an Imam and once we know they're an Imam, what can we know about what the station of Imamah entails?
  3. I've had a look through this book again. Bro, maybe I miscommunicated what I meant by a detailed biography. I meant complete, from the birth of the Prophet until his death, like The Message by Ja'far Subhani or The Life of The Messenger by Rasul Ja'fariyan (although the latter uses many more sources... don't think they're shia though for the most part). This book you've shared by Sadiq Shirazi is nothing (with all due respect) in comparison to a full biography. I'd have to get back to you regarding the grammar as I'm asking friends who have studied it for several years.
  4. Wa alaikum assalaam, Yes, I've been convinced by this narration for 10 years now... until now. I'm currently reading sunni responses to it as I never really made that effort, I always assumed the shia understand was correct. InshaAllah I'll provide another response with my thoughts soon. The discussion is about the status of the Imams after the Prophet, not whether they existed or not. If you scroll all the way down to the references just in this chapter alone, you'll see things such as al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn, Musnad ibn Hanbal, Sahih al-Tirmidhi etc, so this clearly doesn't fit the criteria for what I asked bro. Interesting point. My knowledge of arabic is weak, but I'm wondering if the masculine is being used because it's being addressed to a man?
  5. If you could bring me a book by a Shia scholar who has a detailed biography on the life of the Prophet without relying on any Sunni sources. The Quran says that Ibrahim became an Imam and that his offspring will also become Imams if they're not unjust. So from this we understand that anyone from his offspring who is unjust should therefore be an infallible Imam, but we know according to Shia theology, that's not true, especially if it's a woman e.g. Fatima Zahra.
  6. Yes, but how much can we know about the life of the Prophet just by using shia books? So let's say for the sake of argument that I accept this proves that 1)The rank of Imamah is divine and higher than Prophethood, and 2) That Allah made Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob Imams... does this mean we only accept that someone is an Imam from the offspring of Ibrahim if Allah mentions their name explicitly within the Quran? As to my knowledge, there are Prophets from the line of Ibrahim who aren't referred to as Imams. Furthermore, if this proves that Imamah is only reserved for infallibles, does this mean that anyone from the offspring of Ibrahim, who isn't unjust is automatically considered an infallible Imam? I'd have to think about the example of Musa more before giving a reply inshaAllah. I'll look into the narration you've quoted as well.
  7. Yeah, sure why not. Maybe I've rejected the zaidi position due to incorrect information.
  8. Sunni narrations of thaqalayn. From one twelver shia to another, on which basis are the twelver shia books an authority on this given that there's so much dependence on sunni literature to understand the Prophet's life? I've looked through it again and with respect, I don't see how it answers my objections. Yes, Ibrahim passed divine trials by which Allah then referred to him as an Imam for mankind, he then asked about his offspring and Allah replied by saying the future Imams will not be from the unjust. What evidence do we have that shows us unjust means that it's only for people who are infallible? I will agree with you that if Imamah is a divine rank, it doesn't necessarily mean that only Prophets have it, unless someone can explain how the Imams from the offspring is only referring to Prophets. However, the question remains, if according to our authentic narrations, Imamah itself means not being able to see angels, whereas Prophets could, then on what basis is the rank more superior?
  9. Alhamdulillah, I've finally managed to create an account lol. Ok, so I thought I'd use this post a reply to both of the above. I'm going to maintain a position of scepticism towards shiism as a whole, especially twelver shiism, otherwise I'm just confirming a bias I already have and that isn't seeking the truth. Shiism in my understanding is a counter narrative to sunnism which relies on sunni texts. Yes, the Quran doesn't belong to sunnis, but to my knowledge, shiism heavily relies on sunni literature for a "complete" biography of the Prophet's life from his birth until his death. So, while shia books may have narrations about certain events from the life of Prophet which may agree or disagree with the sunni narrative, the bulk of the information is coming from narrators whose theological position would be classed as sunni. Perhaps, we could even argue that our historical knowledge of the Prophet even claiming to be a Prophet and the transmission of the Quran that goes beyond any doubt is also based on sunni sources. Of course, I'm not arguing that this automatically makes sunnism the correct position, or that everything that's narrated within their literature is authentic, i.e. that which can be rejected based on logic, but I am arguing that we are ultimately heavily relying on their texts. So then, in order for twelver shiism to be true, we must be able to create a foundation by providing a rational explanation of our beliefs which is based on the Quran and authentic sunni narrations. If there is a disagreement regarding the meanings of the verses of the Quran, we must be able to explain why the sunni understanding is wrong. If this requires having to use sunni sources, then we should know if the sources are acceptable to them and that their interpretation doesn't add up. If there is a difference of opinion regarding what's considered to be authentic among the sunni scholars, we must provide an argument for which opinion we take without providing circular reasoning, i.e. just because it agrees with us. Based on this, even if I were to find within twelver shia literature, narrations which go directly back to the Prophet which clearly state there will be 12 divinely appointed successors and who they are without a doubt, it would only count as trustworthy evidence for people who have accepted that the twelver shia narrators and their theology is correct which hasn't been established at this point. We wouldn't even be able to use this evidence to disprove why other shia groups, such as the ismaili's are wrong. Why? Because all that's saying is that twelver shiism is correct because twelver shia narrators are saying this is what the Prophet said. It would be like saying the Quran is the word of God because the Quran says it's the word of God. So now, if we go back to the Quran and sunni narrations, we have to establish the following: 1) That there will be 12 caliphs - no problem here. 2) Who they are. Are there any authentic sunni narrations from the Prophet that give names? If not, supposing that we can prove Imam Ali is the first, which sources should we use after to provide evidence from him that Imam Hassan is to be his successor, who then confirms Imam Hussain, who then confirms Imam al Sajjad etc? 3) That there is a divine status called Imamah, that that the 12 caliphs from the AhlulBayt have it and the reason why Imamah is necessary. Is it logical to assume that if a Prophet appoints an individual or a group of individuals to have some role of guidance and leadership, that they're automatically a divinely guided infallible person or people? Not necessarily. Also, if the status of Imamah is proven and that these 12 have it, twelver shiism still runs into the problem of the occultation of the twelfth Imam. Yes, there are theological responses that try to justify such a belief, but ultimately, it undermines the philosophical position that Imamah after the Prophet is necessary to ensure infallible, direct guidance of the Muslims to carry on. Even the belief that there must be a hujja at all times is problematic if the understanding is that it's a person who guides us all the time like the Prophet because in reality, that's just not happening. With all of this being said, my honest position right now, especially if you see the list of questions that I quoted from myself in the previous post, I have a problem with the sunni and shia narrative. The following questions are for my shia brothers and sisters: 1) While there is no doubt that the Fatima, Imam Ali and their children hold a very high position of love and respect within the Quran and narrations, how does hadith al thaqalayn prove without any doubt that only they are the AhlulBayt which the Prophet spoke about within those narrations, that they are the primary sources of guidance and leadership after the Prophet? Afterall, I don't think we can argue that just because the Quran tells the believers to treat the family of the Prophet well, that this means they are his successors. 2) Is your understanding that 5:55 refers to the authority of Imam Ali based on your knowledge that this is the only acceptable understanding from sunni sources, or just what you've believed is the only authentic narrative so far? 3) Regarding the verse of Ibrahim becoming an Imam. How does Allah telling him there will be Imams from his offspring prove the Imamah that is given to him is divine in rank and above Prophethood? Because the status of being an Imam that was given to him extends to righteous people in his progeny? The Quran says the covenant doesn't include the unjust. How do we understand that to mean someone who is infallible and not someone who is generally righteous but can also sin? Also, assuming that Imamah is a divine rank that is higher than Prophethood, how would you respond to this article? https://www.*************/2017/03/08/prophet-ibrahims-demotion/ My question for my sunni brothers and sisters: 1) According to what I've read from your sources, your narrative says that 33:33 refers to the wives of the Prophet. If I'm correct, ibn kathir says this can also extend to the family in general, i.e. how we see in hadith al kisa. Is my understanding here correct? If so, this seems to be a contradiction for me which I don't know how to reconcile. But, even if we say that it's only about the wives, what does the removal or keeping away of impurity mean? If it's infallibility like how the shia understand, then how does that explain aaisha and hafsa lying to the Prophet about the smell of his breath which caused them to be severely condemned in the Quran? Thank you.
  • Create New...