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 Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Merdan

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender
  1. To you the issue might not be 'obeying the imam', however, the concept of imamate is clearly defined to you and everybody. As to 'who the imam is', well, a lot of things in the Quran are ambiguous. So if we can derive a clear cut meaning for other ambiguouis items; then imamate shouldn't be different. It's not by default, and I don't see why this would constitute blame to shias. So we know that Allah subhanahu wa taala makes some prophets as messengers and imams, hence it would be divine.You already know that there is vested authority with imams when prophets are not present and after the last. So, I don't think anything else needs to be said. So first the Prophet saws declared this. Poeple recognized it. This changed. Imam Ali as propogated the true sunnah, obedience to the Ahlul Bayt, while trying to maintain unity with the ummah. The masses were told that there would be 12 caliphs after the prophet saws that would adhere to the true sunnah, the last being Imam Mehdi afj. It's not inconsistent, contradictory, and flawed. I've already showed you how they can reject the Prophet's order. And after 26 years (since the death of the Prophet saws), of just following whatever came out of certain personalities' mouths, not even you should think that they could just suddenly revert back to the Imam. You seem to have too much blind faith in these people. Again, it's not that Ali "withdrew".... if the majority of so called muslims decide not to follow the Prophet saws, that's one thing. Imam never stopped actually being the ruler of the ummah.
  2. Kind of going off topic. "Muslims" back then, even though they may have fought for the Prophet saws and accepted Islam, still had the capactiy (and did) to disobey the Prophet SAWs. To disobey things straight from his mouth. To be a Muslim, technically imamate wouldn't be involved per se. But what happens when you blanlently reject anything the Prophet SAWS says? (I'm not talking about knowing something is a sin, but you have weak faith, so you do it anyway. I'm talking about just flat out rejecting it and saying I ain't doing that.) Obeying the imam is just as clear as going to hajj or praying in the Quran and in the sunnah. You or others might have a different "interpretation", but the concept of authority while prophets alehom assallam are not present or after the last prophet saws, is evident in all schools. Now Sunnis may not want to even admit this, because then they would be giving inches to the followers of Muhammaed saws and his progeny as, but it's true. My point has been is that the masses had the same perspective as would a shia, but was later changed. Again, people or abu bekr himself may have thought he was some form of a successor, however, it was a "ruler", if you will, of the ummah. When we're talking about a guide for the people, objective history shows that Imam a.s., throughout the time of the so called caliphs, advocated the true sunnah of the Prophet saws. one time that I'll give you where he blantely rejects abu bekr as some sort of guide for the ummah is when ibn Auf asks him if he will 'continue' his sunnah.
  3. First, you can't single out shias. Sunnis also put imamat (or a version of it) as a fundamental. i.e. if you don't believe that abu bekr is the rightful, you are ahlul biddah. If you don't don't believe in imamate per the shia perspective, then you just aren't a mumin. There were many so called muslims who heard from the prophet saws that there wouldn't be another prophet, but yet sided with self proclaimed prophets during the rebellion of abu bekr's time. this can't be the prophet's saws fault, right? we can go on and on. unfortunately, these muslims did have the capacity completely disregard even the simplest of commandments to the basic of fundamentals. it's not a question of if it makes sense or not, it's already been established that it has happened. yes it does, so to speak... because we all want proximity to the Prophet salallahu aleyhi sallam, and there isn't a reason not to believe that ali and fatemeh aleyhom assalaam were the closest to the Prophet saws. the Prophet saws entrusted Ali as with super important things during his lifetime, many that were exclusive to him. You cannot justify witholding important matters to Islam and the Islamic state because of age or any other reason. whatever abu bekr was thinking as himself in his mind...nothing noteworthy, important, or authoritative. there have been many "caliphs of Islam" that have passed through. I guess there's supposedly, guardians of the 2 holy mosques even today. the real authority will always remain with Allah's vicegerents.
  4. It's not far fetched that the masses disobyed the Prophet saws, as they did disobey the prophet on religious matters on occasions. we both know this. maybe Abu bekr and omer thought they were doing the right thing. but we know where good intention might lead to, so to speak. in the end, they're accountable for their actions. call it what you want. if instead they had informed ali a.s. and they didn't just claim themselves to the throne, then maybe the real meaning of the ghadeer proclamation would be known the same by everybody. No, it's not like imam a.s. said to abu bekr, 'okay, now you're the divine imam, the prophet saws has given you this position, you're infallible and your 11 descendents will encompass the claiphate of Allah swt'. imam a.s. did not withdraw his position as the divine imam. As people have shown you on this thread, he did still proclaim he is the divine imam to be recognized and followed.
  5. To do your first quote, we have to do your second quote. Your argument is that the people did not see imam (a.s..) as divine and that their mindset is proof and history is history, etc. .... Somehow... you say that since people didn't have a particular mindset, imam cannot possibly be divine, but unfortunately history shows that peoples' mindsets can be corrupted. taraweeh is one example that i showed you, and that you can't explain why the vast majority of people directly corrupted the commadment of the prophet saws. you claim to know real history (that imam a.s. was cool with the established government and participated in it), but intentionally ignore factual details that make the situation more complicated. let me put to you simply, as you don't get it: prophet saws appointed imam as and the muslims were aware of this. abu bekr (along with omer), seeing that there was an intense atmosphere with the possibility of war, decided to statue power among the ummah, and created a gropthink scenario and made everyone just agree with his decision because of impending doom, and thereby justified his actions and seizing power for himself and not informing the actual rightful leader. the majority of the muslims bought into this idea and just gave bayah to abu bekr deciding that the prophet's order didn't really matter anymore. it's not a far stretch..... i mean you see how taraweeh was established right? same concept, you just have to think a little. but i can give you so many more examples.... like how the prophet saws commanded people to love his family, but then supposed "rightful" caliphs decided to kill and oppress them for the sake of an "islamic" government and the majority 'approved it'. giving allegiance does not mean that Ali a.s. disobeyed God swt and the Prophet saws, as the Prophet saws (while appointing him) commanded him to remain patient and not instigate harm.
  6. Then explain this to me: how can peoples' mindset go from: not doing taraweeh (because it was commanded by the Prophet saws) ----> taraweeh is a great sunnah. And although imam was entrusted by the Prophet saws on so many levels (while he was younger), the elders did not inform him of this one.
  7. you're so right. i forgot to add to the fact that the Prophet salallahu aleyhi was sallam also entrusted imam as a leader in the battlefield... a teacher of islam to the residents of yemen and beyond... a judge in islamic matters..... these are qualities right? and thanks for bringing up a great point bro, now if the elders are supposedly most qualified for leading the ummah and religious matters, why didn't they bury the prophet saws or not even attend his funeral? okay, but don't think for a second imam was cool everything and how it went down. also, imam practically "conceded" his rightful caliphate to moaviyah, that doesn't prove that a) moawiyah is rightful, correct, or deserving & B) his appointment by the prophet saws. again is it somehow a contradiction of his values that imam arbitrated with moawiyah? even if it were the case that he was just an ordinary pious person? as people have been telling you all along, imam took this course for a reason, but never once forfeited his divinity. yeah, i know.. you follow what makes sense to you. and this probably makes sense to you, that the prophet saws specifically said not to do night congregation prayers during ramadhan. so don't do it, right? well, then suppose a guy comes along and says, you know, we should do night congregation prayers, and practically everyone says, gee that's a great idea, we should do that. i'm pretty sure the mindset of the people was to not do taraweeh, but for whatever reason, that changed... now isn't it possible (and frankly makes more sense) and that people knew of imam's a s divine appointment, but when abu bekr and omer came back from saqifah, they told everyone... 'listen, there's some tribes that are going to invade medinah and they're claiming to be prophets, and the ansar wants to also call their own caliph, but we made an agreement, that i'm going to be caliph and everyone should be cool with it, and now we have to fend off these threats to the new islamic state, so everyone just agree and we can get going." and the majority of people said, gee that's a great idea. what do you think?
  8. Shias have a right to question this because they didn't even bother to tell Imam aleyhis sallam. You might say, 'well he was too young to handle it'. Well that wouldn't make sense, since he was responsible for burying the holy prophet salallahu aleyhi was sallam. They might need some maturity. Doesn't quite make sense, because even in Bokhari (Volume 8, Book 82, Hadith 817 btw), it says that Imam aleyhis sallam opposed this so called election, and at the very least, they have to admit omer threatened to burn his house down. Sure, but there's probably more to it. Because think about it, why couldn't Imam a s just give alleigence and then go back to compiling? This was something I always used to say, but then I realized that this isn't black and white. He participated in the process of arbitration, does that mean that he really thought that moawiyah deserved at least a share of the calpihate? The answer btw is no. I think you'd even agree. To be honest, I don't understand your response to his comment. Granted, if your point that since the masses supposedly didn't know about imamate, then imamate must never have been propagated.... then let me ask you a question. Do you perform taraweeh like sunnis?
  9. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but your argument is that since Imam Ali a.s. "willingly" partcipated in the election process, he validated the process that determined the caliph (after Omer) To test that logic, I raised the question: Since Imam Ali a.s. "willingly" particpated in the arbriation process, does that mean he actually validated the process that determined the caliph, therfore conceding Moawiyah was right?
  10. I don't understand how I'm mixing things up. This is also a process that Imam a.s. validated, because he particpated. Here's what you said before: Arbritation is a very compatiable and comparable example to the topic of your thread. So either tell me how I'm mixing things up, or: If imam a.s. validated the process of arbritation (which he did, and this is independent of the results), does that mean moawiyah is entitled to caliph and was right?
  11. Thanks, but before I would discuss this further, I would want him to answer my question.
  12. If you're supposedly sticking to facts of what Imam a.s. did (as opposed to looking at the intentions behind them), then why don't we all become followers of Moaviyah? Let's take this sentence of yours: Based on your thinking, you probably think that mowiyah is the rightful caliph over Imam a.s. Is that right? Do you believe that Moawiyah is rightful because Imam a.s. agreed to the process of arbritation?
  13. Ironically, you have a sahih hadith that says Imam Mehdi afj will appear 'suddenly' and beginning of his destiny will have started. Where do you get that appear means "being born"?
  14. If you were actually trying to put this in context, you would look at the other letters in NB to get a better idea of what Imam a.s. thinks as well as other shia hadith, not just come up with your own "shia history". I understand what happened before Seffin and, to be technical, notice the quotation marks. I'm asking you, what happened afterwards with the 'arbitration'. Because Imam a.s. was willing to even consider it, does that make you think that Ali a.s. was thinking muawiyah was right?
  15. Ok, so now you're basing this on "history", rather than your initial argument of the letters in NB. You understand that if you looked at all the letters in NB, you would be debunked. Question: You agree that moawiyah was deceitful and a liar. Does Imam's willingness to 'concede/negociate' mean that moawiyah was right all along/did he approve of mowiyah's leadership, according to you? Pureethics made this point before.
  • Create New...