X96

What is the role of Prophet? You said the role of Prophet is to act as spiritual & social leader. This sounds very limited role, you need to expand the sphere of the role of Nubuwah, first of all. - Okay let me expand on from this: 1a messenger from among themselves, reading His signs2to them and purifying them and teaching them the Scripture and wisdom—although they were indeed in evident misguidance before that 62:2 Is this sufficient? Now lets take the example of Prophet Yunus (عليه السلام) for instance, he was alive but remain in the belly of fish for some time i.e., he remained in ghaybah from his nation for some time. How would you view the time period in which his nation remain leaderless spiritually & socially? Now come to Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). His "Prophethood" remain in ghaybah for 40 years and after 40 years he proclaimed his mission. So why Jesus (عليه السلام) started his mission immediate after birth? And Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) took 40 years to proclaim his mission? And why there is a huge gap of 600 years between Jesus a s & Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? - I cannot answer this, I don't know why which is why I'm exploring the issue of ghayba I cannot answer why and what was hidden in Prophet Younus time, secondly I cannot address the Jesus - Prophet issue because according to Shi'a ideology as far as I understand there is always a constant/successor witness over the earth. If Jesus passed away who was the successor after him, Shi'a hadiths seem to indicate Shamoon/Simon Peter but that's it. That still around a 600 year gap unexplained from what I understand from the Shi'a perspective and seems inconsistent. Yes indeed. But lets see the life of very first Imam i.e., Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام). Was he a spiritual & social leader of the muslim ummah after the wafat of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)? If you say yes, I would question why his role as "spiritual & social guide" remained in ghaybah for so long? I mean he wasn't the "apparent" spiritual & social leader of Muslims in the times of Abu Bakt, Umar ,& Uthman. According to Shia ideology yes, I have no view on this, but even if it wasn't apparent, Ali was still accessible and tangible, so much so that even Omar had asked him for guidance on religious issues, unlike the current Imam which was cannot have a tangible evidence for. I see your Khidr point and what not, but atleast this is actually claimed by God in the Qur'an, an issue of ghayba for example for future leaders atleast should be also claimed, infact we don't see this, what we see is verses claiming that the Prophet Mohammad will be witness over all mankind. I am just trying to understand.

Let's say the role of the Prophet was a spiritual and social leader, we have texts that show after him there was spiritual and social leaders (underground movements types) of the Shi'a Imams, the main thing was, these imams were present and could give direct guidance to issues for example. Yet, when we talk about the 12th Imam, he is in ghayba, and no one can claim they have met him or received guidance. Then how example is he fulfilling his role as an imam, what about modern issues that Muslims face, Shia's have had to take it into their own hands, like the lack of a state despite a Shi'a majority was taken into the hands of Khomeini (which should have really been the Imam but ok), or Sistani giving guidance. These guys have literally become Imam like figures in shiism, and the whole reason is because we cannot access the Imam, which to me and I will accept it if I can be proven wrong seems unjustifiable for a position of an Imam

How is that conclusive proof? Because Allah wasn't just a deity exclusive to the Muslims of Arabia. Essentially Ahl-al-Kitab and even the non abrahamists of Arabia can say that they follow Allah but it doesn't mean that what they are following are true revelations/ordained practices.

If you guys know of any let me know, I'm interesting in reading their arguments from a Shi'a perspective, reading the Qur'an, I'm concerned about how much emphasis is given to the blessings of the imams rather then the blessings of Allah. I think if Islam is a neoplatonic theology then this could work, but I'm not sure if Twelver shiism affirms this.

I would just like to say one of the reasons why many apostate is because of the rise of internet and the various differing views presented to people, it is hard to find the truth. Not only do you have Shia-Sunni polemics, you even have Shia-Shia polemics. In the olden days it was easier, you just followed what your community followed

Did any Ayatollahs forbid Istigatha?

Let's say you are to convince someone that the Prophet Mohammad is a genuine prophet sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The only argument I have seen used by Muslims is Deuteronomy 18:18 which has two issues. Number 1) The words brethren is used to refer to Israelites ONLY in this passage. 2) Let's put aside Shia bias, if the reports of the satanic verses are true, this fits the criterian of embarassment for positivity that the issue occured. Therefore the preceeding verse says that if one was to talk a word that God did not put into his mouth he would deemed false. The only way I can see this being resolved if by appealing to the Prophet Mohammad's ancestory, not from Ismael but infact from his grandmother from Banu Najer which is said to be from the line of David. Second of all: The Paraklete. The issue with this is that it would be sent in Jesus's name and Paraklete means comforter, whereas Mohammad/Ahmad means praised.

Hello all, I'm curious, I usually hear accusations on both sides of lying about the Prophet Mohammad. On the one side the Shi'as are accused of making him something he is not, that is infalliable, perfect, free from sin, and whatnot, somewhat replicative of God's own nature (and reflective of Christology). On the other side we have Shi'as accusing the sunnis of making the Prophet a faliible man, and followed by comments of disgrace. I would agree that when Sunni hadith corpuses are examined deeply, it does become highly questionable, however there are a few justifications that can be supported from this view from the fallible nature of OT prophets who sometimes err to even passages in the Qur'an themselves, such as warnings against him prohibiting honey or something that Allah has not allowed to Surah 80 being addressed to him and also various warning which show that he may have been inclined to go away from Islam teachings. The issue therefore arises, why would sunni scholars fabricate this about their own prophet? I can't imagine that there was conspiracy going on to allow this to occur.