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

Imamate Is A Self-contradictory Concept

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

During one of the chatting sessions here, my statement was declared self-contradictory by a Shia brother and I think this does not suit at least an Ithna Ashariya Shia to call anyone self-contradictory as the very basis on which they chose to part from mainstream islam i.e the concept of Imamate; (which was also incidentally the topic of that discussion with Shia brother) is itself a purely self-contradictory phenomenon. I therefore decided to write my views about this concept and present them for discussion on this forum to show the vague and dubious nature of this concept in view of a very brief overview of its historical and logical aspects.

Shia brothers seceded from mainstream Islam as they thought that this concept was a cardinal tenet of the religion of Islam having a position equal to Tawheed and Prophethood in Muslim faith and that divine leadership and its presence on Earth at all times is necessary and Allah had initiated this office after the demise of the Holy Prophet(s) as he did not want to leave the Ummah without divine guidance. A position higher than Prophets was given to Imams – direct descendants of Ali® and Fatima®. It was said that they received not revelation but inspiration ‘ilham’ directly from Allah. Gabriel(as) continued to visit Hazrat Fatima® after the demise of Prophet(s) and a new book, including many others, three times as big as Quran was revealed to her which is a great repository of knowledge and is possessed by Imams only and no one else has ever seen this, and other books other than the Imams. Brothers, present this concept to an unbiased reader and he will reach the conclusion that Imamate is a continuation of Nabuwwah in Shia imagination. In fact the Imams enjoy a status higher than Prophets in Shia religion!

All this was done by children of Abdullah Bin Saba and his likes because after the tragedy of Karbala, the political struggle of Ahlelbayt against Umayyads had come to a close. Now it could only have been given religious colour which Shia did but mind you, this was not recommended by Imams themselves. Now apparently the office of Imam was to practically, and not just spiritually, lead the Ummah till the day of judgment because for spiritual guidance Allah himself and his Prophet(s) were already there. It would have been a great concept had it actually worked but it soon proved to be only a product of Shia idealistic imagination. Never in the history of mankind has there been a single example of Imams being the leaders of communities after the demises of Prophets (as) under the supervision of whom everything happened in a perfect order. But Shias continued to insist on its importance because after the end of chances of an Ahlelbayts’ accession to power, they had to adopt some new doctrine to keep their sect alive. It’s so funny that their all important need for presence of Hujjat Ullah on Earth to PRACTICALLY lead the Ummah on matters of temporal and spiritual nature died out only after 11 Imams and all of a sudden they took a U-Turn by announcing that the 12th Imam had gone into hiding for fear of being persecuted by oppressors and he will reappear to relieve the world of their oppression and tyranny (self-contradictory). This was the period of Shia bewilderment when they were witnessing their all important doctrine of Imamate taking its last breaths and transforming into a confused and apocryphal amalgam of Imam (now a confused concept of an ‘absent’ leader) + Messiah, and scores of them got disillusioned at this stage and they decided to renounced Shiaism. Now tell me one thing. Is this whole concept of Imamate not self-contradictory. In the beginning, insistence on physical presence of a leader was thought essential be Shias in order to oppose the rule of especially the first three Caliphs(we are not worried about the later Caliphs as we the Sunnis don't endorse their dynastic rule anyway, in fact we have no faith in the concept of Caliphate at all and it does not constitute a part of our belief system - it's not a part of our articles of faith) and then all of a sudden making an announcement that Allah has decided to leave the Ummah without any physical leadership and that the current Imam has gone into occultation till doomsday. This is purely self-contradictory.

( This phenomenon of Occultation was used in the past by Shias of different other colours and we are discussing this concept in reference of the Ithna Ashariya Shia and their beliefs otherwise history of this concept and the number of sects that came into being as a result of belief in it makes it look more ridiculous)

Suppose the wishes of the Utopian, idealistic Shias had come true and these eleven Imams had ruled the Muslim world, in fact the first Imam Ali® did and the second Hasan® handed the authority over to Muawiya® thus refuting the Shia insistence on Imamah by his own action. As I said earlier, if caliphate had been given to the 11 Imams and they had continued to rule the Muslim world. Since Shia believe and very proudly present the hadith of 12 caliphs as proof of the doctrine of Imamate and think that it was foretold in favour of their doctrine then the question is that the 12th Imam would have been the last Imam and his rule had to remain intact till the day of judgment. How would he have ruled? Would Allah have prolonged his apparent life too till the day of judgment as according to prophesy which Shias think precisely depicts the story of the institution of Imamate says that there would be 12 caliphs whose rule will extend till Islam would remain on Earth and all Shias must have read in their commentaries and Majalis in Muharram that since Islam will remain till doomsday so will remain the rule of the 12th Imam on Earth. Was this whole concept of Imamate, including this prophesy of 12 successors made just to cause a schism in Islam and prove that Shiaism was the real Islam or did this institution have the function of leadership to perform which apparently it did not succeed in doing. If someone says that Oh! it was just a prophesy and it told in it as to what was going to happen and it doesn't have anything to do with its practical implications then this can sure be said that the Shias of those times did not get any benefit from this prophesy. Now they are using it not only against Sunnis but also against hundreds of other Shia sects to show that their set of Imams is right as their number ends at 12, can they tell me what benefit the then Ithna Ashari Shia have in evaluating the truth of their chain Imams which was at that time less than 12. If Allah had foretold that the number of Imams will end at 12, then can someone tell me what exactly was the purpose of instituting this most important office. This office obviously did not achieve anything phenomenal. The Shias today despite accepting this office and their religion don't seem too different from the Sunni religion apart from their modus operandi of carrying out their worships, their times of fasting, acceptance of Muttah and practicing Taqiyyah and such other small things connected with prayers, rituals and certain beliefs. Sunni religion, despite having extracted its teachings from 'corrupt' Sahaba as Shias call them, doesn't have much to be ashamed of, but the whole world can see how the Shia religion looks so much different and divergent from mainstream Islam in their rituals and ceremonies of Muharram and other times. Why was imamate initiated when it managed to achieve nothing but caused a schism in Islam? If someone gives the old, preposterous Shia reply that some Prophets also failed to achieve their targets, my answer is that the institution of Prophethood did much in changing lives of people and imparting the light of faith in God to them and teaching them to do good deeds. The institution of Imamate was concerned about religious and POLITICAL leadership of Ummah (and in reality the emphasis initially was on political leadership of Ummah and that's what divides Islam into two major sects as according to Shia the spiritual role was played by Imams anyway). So the institution was a failure as far as leading the Ummah in political matters was concerned. So there is no point in giving the example of prophets and comparing Prophethood with Imamate.

Just to for the sake of presenting an argument about Shia claim to show their eligibility to take the hadith of 12 Caliphs as a proof of Imamate, it seems apt to say that Shia are not in a position to use the Hadith for their purpose as the existence of the 12th Imam cannot physically be proven. No doubt, the 12th Imam is a venerable character for Shias that exists in their belief and imagination but his existence can certainly not be verified by any means and hence the Shia brothers do not qualify to use this Hadith as a proof of Imamate in the first place. Let alone the debate of whether the word Khalifa has been used in it instead of Imam, or Quraish has been used instead of Ahlelbayt, and whether it is a vague Hadith and so on. A prophesy is a prophesy unless the events foretold in it physically happen in real world and not in someone’s imagination. Once all the events in the prophesy happen in real world, the prophesy is deemed to have been fulfilled which is not the case with the prophesy under discussion.

Another question is if the Imams had ruled, would it have been a panacea for every problem of Muslim society. Would Allah have changed the rules governing the conducts of all people and nations of the world to let Islam rule and flourish without any problems and hindrances. Of course not, if Shias think that the very founder of this religion Hazrat Muhammad(s) could not improve the conditions of character of his closest associates and he failed in doing that. How could Imams have established that utopian society of Shia imagination. In fact one of the Imams Hazrat Ali® did not have a successful tenure of rulership when he practically attained it. Shias live not in a real but imaginary and idealistic world. Just look at what is happening with Agha Khanis. Their Imams constitute the bloodline of Ahlelbayt which has continued heretofore, just as could have been imagined by early Shias. Their Imam still exists. Do these Imams have an immaculate character? Certainly not. What is the guarantee that descendants of the Ithna Ashariya Imams in rule would also not have indulged in luxuries and comforts and would have stayed steadfastly on the right path. The problem with Shias is that they don’t see what actually happened and could happen but they insist on things that didn’t actually happen and keep staying in a world of dreams and imagination by longing for a perfect world of peace and justice in which everything is happening in accordance with laws of Islam and Sharia lead by their infallible Imams who get their guidance directly from none other than the Godhead himself. Shia have got an advantage of idealizing things that did not happen. Since these things did not happen, Shias attach a lot of claims and wishes to these things and all this was not done in good faith but only to show opposition to mainstream Muslims and cause sedition as was the aim of their protagonist Abdullah Bin Saba. If their movement is aimed at establishing an ideal and prosperous society, then they should appreciate the tenure of Sheikains (with assistance of great viziers Ali) in which things went perfectly well( at least Islam has seen no better times ever since) as far as prosperity, rule of law, etc is concerned( Shia brothers are requested here not to again insist on their beliefs of usurpation by Sheikhain because this is their personal opinion rather belief and is not what we are discussing) Shias keep criticizing others for things that did happen according to how they do in this normal physical world following the laws of nature. Here I am talking about only the first three Caliphs and other Sahabas who followed and helped them including Ali®, I have no intention of defending the rule of the Ummayads and their action of founding their dynastic rule in Islam.

After the failure of the doctrine of Imamate, Shias used the concept of Messiah and mixed it with Imamate to prepare a cloak of mystery for the 12th Imam to don till the end of the world.

Don’t they realize the big difference between the two concepts; Imamate is a PRESENT DAY concept and it deals with guidance of Ummah in all affairs; religious or temporal at this very moment. Imamate is a practical and functional concept.

Messiah is an eschatological concept which deals with prevalence of truth and defeat of falsehood immediately before the end of the world. It gives a hope to the theists of the ultimate victory of forces of truth and is a logical conclusion of the struggle between right and wrong. It has got no significance in today’s world whatsoever. It is an idealistic concept and doesn’t have any practicality or functionality apart from what has been stated above.

Poor Shia who live in a world of dreams used the concept of Messiah as a film character who will return to punish the real and supposed oppressors of Ahlelbayt.

These two concepts can by no way be one and the same.

Interestingly, Occultation was used time and again by Shia of those times right from the martyrdom of Hazrat Ali®. Shia brothers and sisters should not take for granted that the history of Imamate is so crystal clear as presented to them. It has really been turbulent with scores of sects forming on dispute of who the real Imam is. Obviously, it was not written on someone’s face that he is the true Imam (In fact as per Sunni opinion no Such person as Shia Imams actually exists). Just think, people find it difficult to recognize a prophet and same happened even with our Holy Prophet(s). Why would
Allah
start a series of Imams after the demise of Holy Prophet(s) and let people fight over the matter of who the Imam is and who is not, and whether he has died or is in occultation, or whether he will return or not. Does this all not sound confusing especially when Islam was in its nascent stage of development. So it was in those times when all this was happening and the sub sects of Shiaism were formed. Can anyone tell me what advantages the then Ithna Ashariya had in determining their line of Imams to be true? Have the adherents of this sect not thought that occultation is the antonym of Imamate. Imamate is insistence on the physical presence of divine leadership in the world, occultation is the absence of any kind of physical leadership. The twelfth Imams announcement of going into hiding left all matters of religious and everyday life for Ummah and Ulema themselves to decide in light of Quran and Sunnah. That’s exactly what Muslims did after the demise of the Prophet(s) and same is the stance of mainstream Muslims till now(ironically Shias are also doing the same; their ulema and Ayatullahs are deciding upon matters of religious and temporal nature since the occultation and even before that). It seems that the
Allah
instituted the concept of Imamate, which failed and Shias had to take a U-Turn in their stance on insistence on a God appointed leader, just to divide the Muslims in their religion and he tried his best to confuse them by not giving any clear instructions to them about it so that they may not understand the concept and start believing in infallible Imams.
Allah
made sure that no categorical proof about Imamate is given in Quran but whenever it is needed to be explained, it is done in form of hints and metaphors so that the large majority of Muslims would not understand this important pillar of faith and is lead astray. The conduct of divinely appointed Imams also adds to the confusion because instead of insisting on performance of their duty, they decided to pay allegiance to the deniers of their divine status and became their viziers instead of leaders. I ask the Shia brothers, why did Ali® decide to help the 3 Caliphs. If they give the common reply that it was for Muslim unity or that Islam was in a weak position at that time. I ask them why they don’t follow his Sunnah. For whatever reason Ali® decided to cooperate with the mainstream Ummah, his followers should also have stayed with the mainstream Islam in the same way. If they were his followers, why did they not follow him in this regard. He did not form a separate sect so why did his followers form it or let me ask who formed this sect? Who are Shias following in forming this sect if it was not Ali® who never formed a sect. Are they following the conspirator Abdullah bin Saba? If the initial times when Islam was in a weak position according to Shias and Ali® was obliged to concede (part of) his divine right to others in order to save Islam from becoming extinct and they give the examples of Prophets whose prophethood was not recognized by people. I ask did any prophet concede part of his prophethood to someone else in case people failed to acknowledge and accept him as God’s true messenger. No one ever did this. Despite the fact the Imamate entails a portfolio greater than Prophethood, how did Ali® abdicate from his status and instead of at least verbally, if not practically, opposing the oppressors he joined hands with them and worked under their direct leadership. If the answer as I said before is that it was to strengthen the weak position of Islam in the beginning then why, instead of letting the killers of Uthman® do their job, he sent the second and third Imams Hasan® and Hussain® to protect him. Why at that time of turmoil and confusion. If Shias think that the 12
th
Imam will come to get the Rashidun Caliphs out of their graves and take revenge of the alleged atrocities they committed to the first Imam, why did the first Imam himself try to protect this oppressor by sending his two sons for his protection. Then after the martyrdom of the innocent Uthman® when people went to Ali® to finally accede to the (full, final and visible) position of Imam, surprisingly(if you believe in Imamate) he replied that he is not fit for the position of Caliph and has good experience of being a vizier. He also told the rioters that they did not form a legitimate electoral group and it was for the party of Muhajireen and Ansars to decide upon this matter. Upon insistence when he agreed to take the position, Muawyia® refused to accept his Caliphate on account of the prevailing circumstances and Ali® wrote to Muawiya® to accept his Caliphate as he had been elected in the same way as the previous Caliphs thus validating the legitimacy of his rule by citing the election of the previous Caliphs and not asserting that he was the God appointed Imam,( he should at least now have vociferously claimed his divine status and no notion of expedience should have remained in his mind since time to remain silent was over) Muawiya didn’t agree and civil war ensued. Now the sword of Muslims had been drawn against Muslims and on the plains of Siffin when victory was finally imminent, why did the Imam, on getting the first chance to be the sole ruler of the Muslim empire for the first time and therefore ushering into a new era for Muslims of living according to teachings of Quran and Sunnah under the immaculate leadership of the infallible Imam and making the Shia dreams come true, accept the offer of arbitration (for whatever given reason) and thereby leave the matter (of Imamate) into a state of abeyance.

The story of this confusion continued when the second Shia Imam Hasan® altogether abandoned the claim and abdicated in favour of Muawiya®. Now there was no excuse that he was doing this because this could have harmed Islam because civil war had already started. Wars of Jamal, Siffin and Neharwan had already been fought and the rule of the Imam Ali® had already been established. Situation had changed from Ali’s® times. So once again the Imam’s acts don’t seem to comply with the Shia ideology or vice versa.

Imam left the Ummah again in the hands of Muawiya® to rule and again became a silent observer. The third Imam too followed suit and instead of fighting with Muawiya® after the death of Hasan® accepted his leadership quiescently. Why did the third Imam not stand against Muawiya® despite the alleged murder of Hasan® which happened due to Muawiya’s® conspiracy. Instead he rose up against Yazid’s rule which means that it was not to attain he position of (visible) Imamate that he started his struggle against Yazid as he could have done it against Muawiya® but he did it because he did not consider Yazid to be competent enough to be the Caliph.

At this stage Shias of Kufa called him for help and invited him to be their leader and on the first step betrayed Muslim bin Aqil® when he had besieged Ibn-e-Ziyad with less than 10 guards in the Dar ul Imara, along with thousands of Shias. The Shias, on one warning of dire punishment from Ibn-e-Ziyad in case they continued their siege and helped Muslim®, betrayed Muslim bin Aqil® and abandoned him without unsheathing of a single sword from Ibn-e-Ziyad or offering him any resistance. Imagine how cowardly and fickle a people were the predecessors of Shias. What forced them to leave Muslim® at this stage? It was only because of their untrustworthy and fickle nature. The pinnacle of this story of betrayal was seen on the soil of Karbala when no Kufan Shia was available to help the Imam against the tyranny of Ibn-e-Ziyad. On the very opposite, they were part of his army sent against the great Hussain®. Husssain® had to show them the letters they had sent to him inviting him to lead them as he was astonished to see the same people holding their arms against his sacred household.

The conduct of later 11 Imams again confirmed that they had no claims whatsoever to the office of divine appointment and they never struggled to achieve it. Noteworthy is the fact that 25 other members of the Ahlelbayt conducted armed struggle against the tyrant and unlawful rule of Umayyads and they embraced martyrdom. They announced themselves to be the leaders of that time in the presence of Ithna Ashariya Imams as neither of them had any belief in the concept of divine Imamate otherwise they would not have declared themselves to be the leaders of their times and made the decision of armed struggle without obtaining approbation from the God appointed Imams.

When man takes decisions of
Allah
in his hands, strange phenomena start to happen. Shia insistence on divine leadership and their criteria of accepting the eldest son of an Imam to be the next one after his departure from this world made them accept even 8 years old Imams twice. Imam Muhammad Taqi® and Imam Ali Naqi®. Can anyone believe that the extremely important office of Imamate to lead the Ummah in those sensitive times was given to these small kids? What was the need of this? What were their accomplishments at that age in context with their portfolio as Imams?

The drop scene of the story of Imamate was the announcement of the occultation of the alleged 12
th
Imam. This was the end of the whole story of Imamate. Insistence on presence of physical leadership after the Prophet(s) was converted into waiting for a leader till an unspecified time who was 4 years old at the time of going into occultation and is hiding in a naked state in some cave right now. That’s the whole story of the Imamate in brief.

This much was a critical analysis of the concept of Imamate in light of its very brief history and logic. As far as evidence of Imamate in Quran and Hadith is concerned, not a single evidence can be found which gives a clear guidance to Muslims to accept this doctrine. After centuries of search, Shias have not been able to produce a single verse from the Quran which endorses this concept. A separate debate on these ‘proofs’ of Imamate can be done but it seems that this will also just be another futile attempt to make Shia brothers accept the reality of the dubious nature of the basic teachings of their sect which separated them from the rest of the Ummah.

Edited by ambrosechappel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Then why is the rejection of Abu Bakr and Umar considered kufr?

Are you here trying to convert us again to Satanism? How many times have you read Quran? According to Quran, we all will be raised in the judgement day with our Imam. inshAllah while the rest of us on

what a waste of time and brain.............. :wacko:

Are you here trying to convert us again to Satanism? How many times have you read Quran? According to Quran, we all will be raised in the judgement day with our Imam. inshAllah while the rest of us on sc will be raised with the Imam Al Madi (as), you and your likes will be raised with iblees, umer, yazid, and the current dictators of ME.

Rejoice!

Edited by Waiting for HIM
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In Sunni Islam Caliphate is not an article of faith, I have already stated that in my note. In Shia Islam, Imamate is one of the 5 Usool-e-Deen and therefore a basic tenet of this religion. Caliphate and Imamate have no relevence and comparison whatsoever. I therefore deem this question extraneous and would take the liberty of refusing to answer this as this is not what I am discussing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

During one of the chatting sessions here, my statement was declared self-contradictory by a Shia brother and I think this does not suit at least an Ithna Ashariya Shia to call anyone self-contradictory as the very basis on which they chose to part from mainstream islam i.e the concept of Imamate; (which was also incidentally the topic of that discussion with Shia brother) is itself a purely self-contradictory phenomenon. I therefore decided to write my views about this concept and present them for discussion on this forum to show the vague and dubious nature of this concept in view of a very brief overview of its historical and logical aspects.

Shia brothers seceded from mainstream Islam as they thought that this concept was a cardinal tenet of the religion of Islam having a position equal to Tawheed and Prophethood in Muslim faith and that divine leadership and its presence on Earth at all times is necessary and Allah had initiated this office after the demise of the Holy Prophet(s) as he did not want to leave the Ummah without divine guidance. A position higher than Prophets was given to Imams – direct descendants of Ali® and Fatima®. It was said that they received not revelation but inspiration ‘ilham’ directly from Allah. Gabriel(as) continued to visit Hazrat Fatima® after the demise of Prophet(s) and a new book, including many others, three times as big as Quran was revealed to her which is a great repository of knowledge and is possessed by Imams only and no one else has ever seen this, and other books other than the Imams. Brothers, present this concept to an unbiased reader and he will reach the conclusion that Imamate is a continuation of Nabuwwah in Shia imagination. In fact the Imams enjoy a status higher than Prophets in Shia religion!

All this was done by children of Abdullah Bin Saba and his likes because after the tragedy of Karbala, the political struggle of Ahlelbayt against Umayyads had come to a close. Now it could only have been given religious colour which Shia did but mind you, this was not recommended by Imams themselves. Now apparently the office of Imam was to practically, and not just spiritually, lead the Ummah till the day of judgment because for spiritual guidance Allah himself and his Prophet(s) were already there. It would have been a great concept had it actually worked but it soon proved to be only a product of Shia idealistic imagination. Never in the history of mankind has there been a single example of Imams being the leaders of communities after the demises of Prophets (as) under the supervision of whom everything happened in a perfect order. But Shias continued to insist on its importance because after the end of chances of an Ahlelbayts’ accession to power, they had to adopt some new doctrine to keep their sect alive. It’s so funny that their all important need for presence of Hujjat Ullah on Earth to PRACTICALLY lead the Ummah on matters of temporal and spiritual nature died out only after 11 Imams and all of a sudden they took a U-Turn by announcing that the 12th Imam had gone into hiding for fear of being persecuted by oppressors and he will reappear to relieve the world of their oppression and tyranny (self-contradictory). This was the period of Shia bewilderment when they were witnessing their all important doctrine of Imamate taking its last breaths and transforming into a confused and apocryphal amalgam of Imam (now a confused concept of an ‘absent’ leader) + Messiah, and scores of them got disillusioned at this stage and they decided to renounced Shiaism. Now tell me one thing. Is this whole concept of Imamate not self-contradictory. In the beginning, insistence on physical presence of a leader was thought essential be Shias in order to oppose the rule of especially the first three Caliphs(we are not worried about the later Caliphs as we the Sunnis don't endorse their dynastic rule anyway, in fact we have no faith in the concept of Caliphate at all and it does not constitute a part of our belief system - it's not a part of our articles of faith) and then all of a sudden making an announcement that Allah has decided to leave the Ummah without any physical leadership and that the current Imam has gone into occultation till doomsday. This is purely self-contradictory.

( This phenomenon of Occultation was used in the past by Shias of different other colours and we are discussing this concept in reference of the Ithna Ashariya Shia and their beliefs otherwise history of this concept and the number of sects that came into being as a result of belief in it makes it look more ridiculous)

Suppose the wishes of the Utopian, idealistic Shias had come true and these eleven Imams had ruled the Muslim world, in fact the first Imam Ali® did and the second Hasan® handed the authority over to Muawiya® thus refuting the Shia insistence on Imamah by his own action. As I said earlier, if caliphate had been given to the 11 Imams and they had continued to rule the Muslim world. Since Shia believe and very proudly present the hadith of 12 caliphs as proof of the doctrine of Imamate and think that it was foretold in favour of their doctrine then the question is that the 12th Imam would have been the last Imam and his rule had to remain intact till the day of judgment. How would he have ruled? Would Allah have prolonged his apparent life too till the day of judgment as according to prophesy which Shias think precisely depicts the story of the institution of Imamate says that there would be 12 caliphs whose rule will extend till Islam would remain on Earth and all Shias must have read in their commentaries and Majalis in Muharram that since Islam will remain till doomsday so will remain the rule of the 12th Imam on Earth. Was this whole concept of Imamate, including this prophesy of 12 successors made just to cause a schism in Islam and prove that Shiaism was the real Islam or did this institution have the function of leadership to perform which apparently it did not succeed in doing. If someone says that Oh! it was just a prophesy and it told in it as to what was going to happen and it doesn't have anything to do with its practical implications then this can sure be said that the Shias of those times did not get any benefit from this prophesy. Now they are using it not only against Sunnis but also against hundreds of other Shia sects to show that their set of Imams is right as their number ends at 12, can they tell me what benefit the then Ithna Ashari Shia have in evaluating the truth of their chain Imams which was at that time less than 12. If Allah had foretold that the number of Imams will end at 12, then can someone tell me what exactly was the purpose of instituting this most important office. This office obviously did not achieve anything phenomenal. The Shias today despite accepting this office and their religion don't seem too different from the Sunni religion apart from their modus operandi of carrying out their worships, their times of fasting, acceptance of Muttah and practicing Taqiyyah and such other small things connected with prayers, rituals and certain beliefs. Sunni religion, despite having extracted its teachings from 'corrupt' Sahaba as Shias call them, doesn't have much to be ashamed of, but the whole world can see how the Shia religion looks so much different and divergent from mainstream Islam in their rituals and ceremonies of Muharram and other times. Why was imamate initiated when it managed to achieve nothing but caused a schism in Islam? If someone gives the old, preposterous Shia reply that some Prophets also failed to achieve their targets, my answer is that the institution of Prophethood did much in changing lives of people and imparting the light of faith in God to them and teaching them to do good deeds. The institution of Imamate was concerned about religious and POLITICAL leadership of Ummah (and in reality the emphasis initially was on political leadership of Ummah and that's what divides Islam into two major sects as according to Shia the spiritual role was played by Imams anyway). So the institution was a failure as far as leading the Ummah in political matters was concerned. So there is no point in giving the example of prophets and comparing Prophethood with Imamate.

Just to for the sake of presenting an argument about Shia claim to show their eligibility to take the hadith of 12 Caliphs as a proof of Imamate, it seems apt to say that Shia are not in a position to use the Hadith for their purpose as the existence of the 12th Imam cannot physically be proven. No doubt, the 12th Imam is a venerable character for Shias that exists in their belief and imagination but his existence can certainly not be verified by any means and hence the Shia brothers do not qualify to use this Hadith as a proof of Imamate in the first place. Let alone the debate of whether the word Khalifa has been used in it instead of Imam, or Quraish has been used instead of Ahlelbayt, and whether it is a vague Hadith and so on. A prophesy is a prophesy unless the events foretold in it physically happen in real world and not in someone’s imagination. Once all the events in the prophesy happen in real world, the prophesy is deemed to have been fulfilled which is not the case with the prophesy under discussion.

Another question is if the Imams had ruled, would it have been a panacea for every problem of Muslim society. Would Allah have changed the rules governing the conducts of all people and nations of the world to let Islam rule and flourish without any problems and hindrances. Of course not, if Shias think that the very founder of this religion Hazrat Muhammad(s) could not improve the conditions of character of his closest associates and he failed in doing that. How could Imams have established that utopian society of Shia imagination. In fact one of the Imams Hazrat Ali® did not have a successful tenure of rulership when he practically attained it. Shias live not in a real but imaginary and idealistic world. Just look at what is happening with Agha Khanis. Their Imams constitute the bloodline of Ahlelbayt which has continued heretofore, just as could have been imagined by early Shias. Their Imam still exists. Do these Imams have an immaculate character? Certainly not. What is the guarantee that descendants of the Ithna Ashariya Imams in rule would also not have indulged in luxuries and comforts and would have stayed steadfastly on the right path. The problem with Shias is that they don’t see what actually happened and could happen but they insist on things that didn’t actually happen and keep staying in a world of dreams and imagination by longing for a perfect world of peace and justice in which everything is happening in accordance with laws of Islam and Sharia lead by their infallible Imams who get their guidance directly from none other than the Godhead himself. Shia have got an advantage of idealizing things that did not happen. Since these things did not happen, Shias attach a lot of claims and wishes to these things and all this was not done in good faith but only to show opposition to mainstream Muslims and cause sedition as was the aim of their protagonist Abdullah Bin Saba. If their movement is aimed at establishing an ideal and prosperous society, then they should appreciate the tenure of Sheikains (with assistance of great viziers Ali) in which things went perfectly well( at least Islam has seen no better times ever since) as far as prosperity, rule of law, etc is concerned( Shia brothers are requested here not to again insist on their beliefs of usurpation by Sheikhain because this is their personal opinion rather belief and is not what we are discussing) Shias keep criticizing others for things that did happen according to how they do in this normal physical world following the laws of nature. Here I am talking about only the first three Caliphs and other Sahabas who followed and helped them including Ali®, I have no intention of defending the rule of the Ummayads and their action of founding their dynastic rule in Islam.

After the failure of the doctrine of Imamate, Shias used the concept of Messiah and mixed it with Imamate to prepare a cloak of mystery for the 12th Imam to don till the end of the world.

Don’t they realize the big difference between the two concepts; Imamate is a PRESENT DAY concept and it deals with guidance of Ummah in all affairs; religious or temporal at this very moment. Imamate is a practical and functional concept.

Messiah is an eschatological concept which deals with prevalence of truth and defeat of falsehood immediately before the end of the world. It gives a hope to the theists of the ultimate victory of forces of truth and is a logical conclusion of the struggle between right and wrong. It has got no significance in today’s world whatsoever. It is an idealistic concept and doesn’t have any practicality or functionality apart from what has been stated above.

Poor Shia who live in a world of dreams used the concept of Messiah as a film character who will return to punish the real and supposed oppressors of Ahlelbayt.

These two concepts can by no way be one and the same.

Interestingly, Occultation was used time and again by Shia of those times right from the martyrdom of Hazrat Ali®. Shia brothers and sisters should not take for granted that the history of Imamate is so crystal clear as presented to them. It has really been turbulent with scores of sects forming on dispute of who the real Imam is. Obviously, it was not written on someone’s face that he is the true Imam (In fact as per Sunni opinion no Such person as Shia Imams actually exists). Just think, people find it difficult to recognize a prophet and same happened even with our Holy Prophet(s). Why would
Allah
start a series of Imams after the demise of Holy Prophet(s) and let people fight over the matter of who the Imam is and who is not, and whether he has died or is in occultation, or whether he will return or not. Does this all not sound confusing especially when Islam was in its nascent stage of development. So it was in those times when all this was happening and the sub sects of Shiaism were formed. Can anyone tell me what advantages the then Ithna Ashariya had in determining their line of Imams to be true? Have the adherents of this sect not thought that occultation is the antonym of Imamate. Imamate is insistence on the physical presence of divine leadership in the world, occultation is the absence of any kind of physical leadership. The twelfth Imams announcement of going into hiding left all matters of religious and everyday life for Ummah and Ulema themselves to decide in light of Quran and Sunnah. That’s exactly what Muslims did after the demise of the Prophet(s) and same is the stance of mainstream Muslims till now(ironically Shias are also doing the same; their ulema and Ayatullahs are deciding upon matters of religious and temporal nature since the occultation and even before that). It seems that the
Allah
instituted the concept of Imamate, which failed and Shias had to take a U-Turn in their stance on insistence on a God appointed leader, just to divide the Muslims in their religion and he tried his best to confuse them by not giving any clear instructions to them about it so that they may not understand the concept and start believing in infallible Imams.
Allah
made sure that no categorical proof about Imamate is given in Quran but whenever it is needed to be explained, it is done in form of hints and metaphors so that the large majority of Muslims would not understand this important pillar of faith and is lead astray. The conduct of divinely appointed Imams also adds to the confusion because instead of insisting on performance of their duty, they decided to pay allegiance to the deniers of their divine status and became their viziers instead of leaders. I ask the Shia brothers, why did Ali® decide to help the 3 Caliphs. If they give the common reply that it was for Muslim unity or that Islam was in a weak position at that time. I ask them why they don’t follow his Sunnah. For whatever reason Ali® decided to cooperate with the mainstream Ummah, his followers should also have stayed with the mainstream Islam in the same way. If they were his followers, why did they not follow him in this regard. He did not form a separate sect so why did his followers form it or let me ask who formed this sect? Who are Shias following in forming this sect if it was not Ali® who never formed a sect. Are they following the conspirator Abdullah bin Saba? If the initial times when Islam was in a weak position according to Shias and Ali® was obliged to concede (part of) his divine right to others in order to save Islam from becoming extinct and they give the examples of Prophets whose prophethood was not recognized by people. I ask did any prophet concede part of his prophethood to someone else in case people failed to acknowledge and accept him as God’s true messenger. No one ever did this. Despite the fact the Imamate entails a portfolio greater than Prophethood, how did Ali® abdicate from his status and instead of at least verbally, if not practically, opposing the oppressors he joined hands with them and worked under their direct leadership. If the answer as I said before is that it was to strengthen the weak position of Islam in the beginning then why, instead of letting the killers of Uthman® do their job, he sent the second and third Imams Hasan® and Hussain® to protect him. Why at that time of turmoil and confusion. If Shias think that the 12
th
Imam will come to get the Rashidun Caliphs out of their graves and take revenge of the alleged atrocities they committed to the first Imam, why did the first Imam himself try to protect this oppressor by sending his two sons for his protection. Then after the martyrdom of the innocent Uthman® when people went to Ali® to finally accede to the (full, final and visible) position of Imam, surprisingly(if you believe in Imamate) he replied that he is not fit for the position of Caliph and has good experience of being a vizier. He also told the rioters that they did not form a legitimate electoral group and it was for the party of Muhajireen and Ansars to decide upon this matter. Upon insistence when he agreed to take the position, Muawyia® refused to accept his Caliphate on account of the prevailing circumstances and Ali® wrote to Muawiya® to accept his Caliphate as he had been elected in the same way as the previous Caliphs thus validating the legitimacy of his rule by citing the election of the previous Caliphs and not asserting that he was the God appointed Imam,( he should at least now have vociferously claimed his divine status and no notion of expedience should have remained in his mind since time to remain silent was over) Muawiya didn’t agree and civil war ensued. Now the sword of Muslims had been drawn against Muslims and on the plains of Siffin when victory was finally imminent, why did the Imam, on getting the first chance to be the sole ruler of the Muslim empire for the first time and therefore ushering into a new era for Muslims of living according to teachings of Quran and Sunnah under the immaculate leadership of the infallible Imam and making the Shia dreams come true, accept the offer of arbitration (for whatever given reason) and thereby leave the matter (of Imamate) into a state of abeyance.

The story of this confusion continued when the second Shia Imam Hasan® altogether abandoned the claim and abdicated in favour of Muawiya®. Now there was no excuse that he was doing this because this could have harmed Islam because civil war had already started. Wars of Jamal, Siffin and Neharwan had already been fought and the rule of the Imam Ali® had already been established. Situation had changed from Ali’s® times. So once again the Imam’s acts don’t seem to comply with the Shia ideology or vice versa.

Imam left the Ummah again in the hands of Muawiya® to rule and again became a silent observer. The third Imam too followed suit and instead of fighting with Muawiya® after the death of Hasan® accepted his leadership quiescently. Why did the third Imam not stand against Muawiya® despite the alleged murder of Hasan® which happened due to Muawiya’s® conspiracy. Instead he rose up against Yazid’s rule which means that it was not to attain he position of (visible) Imamate that he started his struggle against Yazid as he could have done it against Muawiya® but he did it because he did not consider Yazid to be competent enough to be the Caliph.

At this stage Shias of Kufa called him for help and invited him to be their leader and on the first step betrayed Muslim bin Aqil® when he had besieged Ibn-e-Ziyad with less than 10 guards in the Dar ul Imara, along with thousands of Shias. The Shias, on one warning of dire punishment from Ibn-e-Ziyad in case they continued their siege and helped Muslim®, betrayed Muslim bin Aqil® and abandoned him without unsheathing of a single sword from Ibn-e-Ziyad or offering him any resistance. Imagine how cowardly and fickle a people were the predecessors of Shias. What forced them to leave Muslim® at this stage? It was only because of their untrustworthy and fickle nature. The pinnacle of this story of betrayal was seen on the soil of Karbala when no Kufan Shia was available to help the Imam against the tyranny of Ibn-e-Ziyad. On the very opposite, they were part of his army sent against the great Hussain®. Husssain® had to show them the letters they had sent to him inviting him to lead them as he was astonished to see the same people holding their arms against his sacred household.

The conduct of later 11 Imams again confirmed that they had no claims whatsoever to the office of divine appointment and they never struggled to achieve it. Noteworthy is the fact that 25 other members of the Ahlelbayt conducted armed struggle against the tyrant and unlawful rule of Umayyads and they embraced martyrdom. They announced themselves to be the leaders of that time in the presence of Ithna Ashariya Imams as neither of them had any belief in the concept of divine Imamate otherwise they would not have declared themselves to be the leaders of their times and made the decision of armed struggle without obtaining approbation from the God appointed Imams.

When man takes decisions of
Allah
in his hands, strange phenomena start to happen. Shia insistence on divine leadership and their criteria of accepting the eldest son of an Imam to be the next one after his departure from this world made them accept even 8 years old Imams twice. Imam Muhammad Taqi® and Imam Ali Naqi®. Can anyone believe that the extremely important office of Imamate to lead the Ummah in those sensitive times was given to these small kids? What was the need of this? What were their accomplishments at that age in context with their portfolio as Imams?

The drop scene of the story of Imamate was the announcement of the occultation of the alleged 12
th
Imam. This was the end of the whole story of Imamate. Insistence on presence of physical leadership after the Prophet(s) was converted into waiting for a leader till an unspecified time who was 4 years old at the time of going into occultation and is hiding in a naked state in some cave right now. That’s the whole story of the Imamate in brief.

This much was a critical analysis of the concept of Imamate in light of its very brief history and logic. As far as evidence of Imamate in Quran and Hadith is concerned, not a single evidence can be found which gives a clear guidance to Muslims to accept this doctrine. After centuries of search, Shias have not been able to produce a single verse from the Quran which endorses this concept. A separate debate on these ‘proofs’ of Imamate can be done but it seems that this will also just be another futile attempt to make Shia brothers accept the reality of the dubious nature of the basic teachings of their sect which separated them from the rest of the Ummah.

It is hilarious to hear the story of Abdullah bin Saba from the people of Najd (wahabis) whom the Prophet (pbuh) had warned and foretold about the wahabi fitna in multiple Sahih hadiths. Yet we do not have a single hadith foretold by Prophet (pbuh) regarding Abdullah bin Saba's fitna.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

In Sunni Islam Caliphate is not an article of faith, I have already stated that in my note. In Shia Islam, Imamate is one of the 5 Usool-e-Deen and therefore a basic tenet of this religion. Caliphate and Imamate have no relevence and comparison whatsoever. I therefore deem this question extraneous and would take the liberty of refusing to answer this as this is not what I am discussing.

You chose not to answer my question, based on that in Sunni Islam Caliphate is not a article of faith.

So, here is some questions for you.

1. Who chose abu Bakr to be a Calipha?

2. Who chose Omar to be a Calipha?

3. Who chose Usman to be a Calipha?

4. Who chose Ali to be a Calipha?

The above four are considered to be first four Calipha Rashedeen by Ahlul Sunnna. If you don't want to answer me by the Sunni Islam perspective, then answer me based on historical facts.

The question is, are you able to answer honestly the above four questions based on historical facts?

Edited by aladdin
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sunni Islam Caliphate is not an article of faith

Pure ignorance!

Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his Musnad, vol. 28, p. 88, Number 16876 (Muasassat al-Risalah) records:

قال رسول الله: من مات بغير إمام مات ميتة جاهلية

Allah’s Apostle said: “Whosoever dies without an Imam dies the death of Jahiliyyah (i.e. a pagan death).”

The annotator says:

هذا حديث صحيح لغيره وهذا إسناد حسن من أجل عاصم وبقية رجاله ثقات، رجال الشيخين

This Hadith is sahih via corroboration, and this chain is hasan on account of Asim, while the rest of the narrators are trustworthy, being narrators of the Two Shaykhs.

Imam Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, vol. 10, p. 434 (Muasassat al-Risalah, ed. Shaykh Shua’yb al-Arnaut) also records:

قال رسول الله: من مات وليس له إمام مات ميتة جاهلية

Allah’s Apostle said: Whosoever dies while he does not have an Imam over him dies the death of Jahiliyyah.

This same above Hadith has been recorded by Abu Ya’la in his Musnad, vol. 13, p. 366, Number 7375 (ed. Husayn Salim Asad). Its annotator, Husayn Salim Asad says:

إسناده حسن

Its chain is hasan.

Imam Muslim too records in his Sahih, Hadith 1850:

من مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية

Whosoever dies while he does not have on his neck a pledge of allegiance dies the death of Jahiliyyah.

Finally, Shaykh al-Albani in his Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihah, Number 984 records:

[ من خلع يدا من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة ولا حجة له ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية ] . ( صحيح ) . وورد بلفظ من خرج من الجماعة قيد شبر فقد خلع ربقة الإسلام من عنقه حتى يراجعه ومن مات وليس عليه إمامة وجماعة فإن موتته موتة جاهلية . وقال الحاكم صحيح على شرط الشيخين . ووافقه الذهبي . واعلم أن الوعيد المذكور إنما هو لمن لم يبايع خليفة المسلمين وخرج عنهم وليس كما يتوهم البعض أن يبايع كل شعب أو حزب رئيسه بل هذا هو التفرق المنهي عنه في القرآن الكريم .

[Whosoever withdraws his hand from obedience will meet Allah on the Day of Resurrection without any excuse, and whosoever dies while he does not have on his neck a pledge of allegiance dies the death of Jahiliyyah] (Sahih)

It has also been narrated with this wording:

“Whosoever separates from the Jama’ah has removed the rope of Islam from his neck (i.e. has apostatized) until he returns to the Jama’ah, and whoever dies while there is no Imamah (leadership) and Jama’ah over him, verily his death is that of the Jahiliyyah.”

Al-Hakim said “Sahih on the conditions of the Two Shaykhs”. Al-Dhahabi agreed with him.

Know that the one mentioned (in the Hadiths) is only the one who pledges the oath of allegiance to the Khalifah of the Muslims and then withdraws from them. It is not as some claim that each group should give the pledge of allegiance to its leader. This is sectarianism which the Noble Qur’an has forbidden.

We understand from these Hadiths that:

1. It is absolutely obligatory for each Muslim to pledge allegiance to the Imam or Khalifah of the Muslims of his time.

2. Those who have pledged allegiance to the Imam are called the Jama’ah.

3. Whoever dies without having pledged allegiance to an Imam dies a pagan.

4. Whoever pledges allegiance but then withdraws it is an apostate.

5. There can be only one Muslim Imam at a time, to whom the allegiance of ALL Muslims is due.

In case the words of the Prophet (pbuh) do not convince you, note what Imam al-Qurtubi has stated in his Tafsir, vol. 1, pp. 264-265 concerning Imamah:

إن الصديق رضي الله عنه لما حضرته الوفاة عهد إلى عمر في الامامة، ولم يقل له أحد هذا أمر غير واجب علينا ولا عليك، فدل على وجوبها وأنها ركن من أركان

http://islamport.com.../1/44/2414.html

When al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, was about to die, he transferred the Imamah to 'Umar. And none said to him: "This matter is not compulsory over you or us". This proves that Imamah is compulsory, and that it is one of the pillars of the religion.

Is that enough? Or, do you want more?

Edited by Saved
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Yes pure ignorance saved but I am afraid on your part. Ignorance because you seem not to know the Sunni Articles of Faith, they are:

  1. Tawheed
  2. Prophethood
  3. Angels
  4. Scriptures
  5. The day of Judgment and Afterlife
  6. Predestination

Compare it with the list of Shia Articles of Faith

  1. Tawheed
  2. Adl
  3. Prophethood
  4. Imamate
  5. Qiyamat

Where is Caliphate in this list of Sunni Articles of Faith? Please rectify your information.

I was trying to stick to the point and not indulging into irrelevant discussion. The main idea of my opening note was to show my opinion that the concept of Imamate is not self-consistent and rather is self-contradictory but here I am, involved in yet another instance of explaining my faith rather than getting an answer from Shia brothers in reply of my accusations in which they should try to prove the self-consistency and rationale of their faith i.e. Imamate.

You have given a copy paste reply in which you have provided references to some Hadith which show the importance of a leadership system in Islam and advise Muslims not to divide in sects and some common principles of remaining adherent to the allegiance a person has given to his leader. The basic theme of this advice in these Hadith is to stay loyal to the Jamaa and not divide in allegiance. If they were meant to announce the commencement of the institution of Imamah, then nothing could have stopped either Allah nor the Holy Prophet(s) to categorically make such announcement.

There are many verses of Quran and Hadith which, in order to give importance to a subject, ascribe a negative image to a tendency opposing it.

Again, I will try to stick to my original point of discussion in reference with this Hadith too. Do Shia brothers think that this Hadith has any practical implications or is it just a proof of Shiaism to be a true religion without being beneficial in any way to the Muslim people. Even if you take the words of the Hadith on the face value and take the literal meanings in purely Shia context. Can I ask why just to ‘know’ the Imam is so compulsory and why are no other benefits on offer for the followers of the Shia meanings of this Hadith. It seems that the Agha Khanis and other forms of Shia are much better than Twelvers as their series of Imams is continued till this time and they are getting more benefits from out of this Hadith by ‘having’ a present Imam rather than just believing in one. What is the view of Twelvers on this issue? Other Shia sects also ‘know’ their Imams and not just that, they have their continued series of Imams till date. How are Ithna Ashariya any better than them. If the answer is that their number is 12 and hence they qualify to be the Shia par excellence, I have presented an objection to this point in the original opening post i.e. Ithna Ashariya cannot prove the existence of their 12 Imams in the first place(Read my original post). Another question I have asked is that other Shia sects of that time when the Ithna Ashariya Imams had not ‘reportedly’ reached the number 12, also believed in ‘knowing’ their Imams. What benefits did Ithna Ashariya have in determing their line of Imams to be true at that time?

The Shia insistence according to this Hadith on the need of an Imam for PRACTICAL purposes in the beginning of the sect and cursing the Sahaba® and Rashidun Caliphs® for usurping Caliphate from God-Appointed Imam, and then taking an abrupt U-Turn by ‘having’ to announce the Occultation of the 12th Imam and thereby rendering the Shias leaderless Sine die is purely self-contradictory. It shows that if you stick to the original topic and try to answer the questions asked therein, it will save a lot of hassle for all of us and keep the discussion in order as well.

If someone says that initially the office of Imamate had the practical purpose of leading the Ummah to serve as long as the Imams lived but later after the Occultation, the practical purpose was converted into just believing in the Imam, my question is What was the practicality in God’s appointment of 8 years old Imams twice and then a 4 years old Imam who went into hiding? What were their attainments at that time? Did Allah send them as Imams just for Ithna Ashariya to believe in them at those early ages?

I will restate your reference here to discuss another important point:

Imam Muslim:

Whosoever dies while he does not have on his neck a pledge of allegiance dies the death of Jahiliyyah.

Well, Ali® gave the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakar®, Umar® and Uthman®. Do you agree that he took this oath according to this Hadith, if not what stance do you have about the position of Ali® in context with this Hadith?

As I said originally that the conduct of the Shia Imams goes against the Shia belief in Imamate. Ali® despite being the Imam took oath of allegiance on the hands of the 3 Caliphs. I have a question, if he was a God-Appointed Imam, then did God himself advise him to give the oath of allegiance, or was it his personal decision? If God advised him to take oath, please give references? Did he also advise him thereby to partially concede his right of Imamate to usurpers? What was the status of the office of Imamate at that time? Was it put into a state of abeyance? If yes, was this order valid just for Ali® or for his followers as well? Did Ali® allow his followers to take such an oath on he hands of usurpers as well or did this Hadith still stay valid for his followers? Please provide references. If God did not allow Ali® to take this oath and no references are available, then how did Ali® himself take this decision without the will of God when he was the his appointed Imam himself? Was this Hadith and those others of the same kind valid for Ali® and other Imams as well?

More arguments can be given in this regard, but I request my Shia brothers to provide the answer to my original questions and prove that the concept of Imamate is self-consistent in view of its history and conduct of the Imams themselves.

Edited by ambrosechappel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

im not gonna even bother my time reading the OP. Break it down in lil points and if i have time ill respond to them.

Ive jst skim read ^^ above post

You said : "The main idea of my opening note was to show my opinion that the concept of Imamate is not self-consistent and rather is self-contradictory"

So your telling me you have more knowledge and understanding than the following ppl? Mawardi, Shah Ismaeel Shaheed Dehlavi, Allamah Shibli Numani, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani and finally Dr Tahir ul qadri?

Answer this:

"For every nation there is a guide" (13:7)

Allah has picked a guide for every nation. If the guide makes a mistake than whose fault is it?

p.s. ill xplain the relevance to the above when you have replied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

im not gonna even bother my time reading the OP. Break it down in lil points and if i have time ill respond to them.

Ive jst skim read ^^ above post

You said : "The main idea of my opening note was to show my opinion that the concept of Imamate is not self-consistent and rather is self-contradictory"

So your telling me you have more knowledge and understanding than the following ppl? Mawardi, Shah Ismaeel Shaheed Dehlavi, Allamah Shibli Numani, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani and finally Dr Tahir ul qadri?

Answer this:

"For every nation there is a guide" (13:7)

Allah has picked a guide for every nation. If the guide makes a mistake than whose fault is it?

p.s. ill xplain the relevance to the above when you have replied.

Verse 13:7

YUSUFALI: And the disbelievers say: “Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?” But you (O Muhammad) are truly a warner and to every people a guide.

PICKTHAL: Those who disbelieve say: “If only some portent were sent down upon him from his Lord!” You (O Muhammad) are a warner only and for every folk a guide.

It is clear that here Allah has called the Prophet Muhammad as both a warner and a guide to all people. Indeed, it is our Islamic belief that the Prophet was the only Prophet sent to all of mankind, and this is what is meant by this Quranic verse.

If you take Shia meanings and say that there is a Guide for every nation then there are so many nations in the world, which means there should be so many guides (just for the sake of argument). If we take the above translation as posted by me then the Holy Prophet's(s) being a guide for every nation makes sense. Doesn't it?

Even if someone still insists that this guidance is to be provided by an infallible Imam then my question is where is that Imam? I would like to get my guidance from him. Please let me know how I can reach him? If it means spiritual guidance then Allah and his Apostle(s) are enough for us to get such guidance from. We have our faith in them to get such a guidance and we don't need any hidden characters to get spiritual leadership from. Brother, you have again brought me to the same point of discussion that the concept of Imamate is incompatible with its history.

Why in the beginning Shias insisted on need of the presence of a divine leader and sarcastically asked mainstream Muslims as to how Allah left the Ummah leaderless after the Holy Prophet(s), then how come Allah left the Ummah leaderless after the death of the 11th Imam and the occultation of the 12th one? How can a person be led if the leader is inaccessible? Shia in the beginning accused mainstreams for not having a leadership system, well in the end we both ended up on the same point after the hiding of the 12th Imam.

An important fact is that if shias had an infallible Imam with so much of knowledge and powers assisting him, there would have been no need for this debate to happen, we could simply have been taken by Shias to their Imam and we would have learnt the truth by his phenomenal knowledge and character. But unfortunately this is not the case. A Shia doesn't have any advantage from any other Muslim in terms of getting guidance from his divine Imam. So what is all the fuss about? The Shia assert that it is compulsory to know the name of their Imam but the question is what do they know from their Imam? Apart from just his name and that he is hiding and will reappear near the day of judgment. So it's about just knowing the name rather than actual guidance.

I have already told in my initial note that the discussion about quranic verses and hadith about the concept of Imamate need a seperate session to be organized, here I have just asked a simple question to Shia brothers to show that the concept and the history of Imamate and the conduct of Imams themselves are in consonance with each other and that will make Imamate a self-consistent doctrine. Can anyone please try to prove that?

You didn't answer my questions, as you know that answering my questions, you will demean rasool Allah and put the status of abu Bakr and Omar over rasool Allah.

Are you able to answer my questions?

Brother everyone knows about these events. Please say what you have to instead of asking me to narrate history. Whoever elected these leaders, the fact of the matter is that Ali® corroborated these elections by paying allegiance to them and being their close associate and vizier. One thing I know for sure is that Ali® was a part of the party that elected Uthman®. Whatever your answer may be, it would be of interest to me if it can prove to me that the concept of Imamate and its history, keeping in account the conduct of Imams, are consisent with each other.

Then why is the rejection of Abu Bakr and Umar considered kufr?

Your question is wrong and out of place. Acceptance of Abu Bakr® and Umar® is not eqaul to having belief in the term Caliphate, and likewise, rejecting them is not equal to rejecting the institution of Caliphate. The term Caliphate entails wider meanings. Just to help you out, compare Caliphate with Imamate, you will come to know the difference between acceptance and having belief in Sheikhain® to be not the definition of the term Caliphate.

Belief about Sheikhain® cannot be compared with belief in the term Caliphate.

Whatever you have to say about it, your objection is still not valid in which you seemingly did not accept my statement that Caliphate is not an Article of Sunni faith. I have presented a list of Sunni Articles of Faith to brother saved in my reply above. Caliphate is not included in it.

Edited by ambrosechappel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brother everyone knows about these events. Please say what you have to instead of asking me to narrate history. Whoever elected these leaders, the fact of the matter is that Ali® corroborated these elections by paying allegiance to them and being their close associate and vizier. One thing I know for sure is that Ali® was a part of the party that elected Uthman®. Whatever your answer may be, it would be of interest to me if it can prove to me that the concept of Imamate and its history, keeping in account the conduct of Imams, are consisent with each other.

Then here is the answer you are looking for. Quran tells that God has completed the religion and nothing is left uncompleted. Also, the Quran tells to make a will.

In both the above cases rasool Allah failed to do so. He didn't make a will nor he completed the religion. He died without leaving instructions how to pick his successor. Whether this successor to be picked by general public, picked by a committee, picked by him, or any way shape or form.

While the body of rasool Allah was still warn and being prepared for burial, this dire situation was recognized by both abu Bakr and Omar. The Prophet failed to recognize as such and Allah was not competent enough to warn the Prophet. It was both abu Bakr and Omar who were better than Prophet and Allah and recognized the dire situation, so they left the warm unburied body of the Prophet to pick a successor. Ten people met in a different town, which included both abu Bakr and Omar and they picked abu Bakr as the successor. When they came back the Prophet was already buried.

The Prophet and Allah miserably failed, and it was abu Bakr and Omar who saved the Ummah. In fact, the Ummah refused to accept abu Bakr as their leader so they refused to pay taxes. Thus, for the first time in Islamic history the Muslims swords were drawn against Muslims. Abu Bakr started the War of Ridda, and Omar advised him against it. First time the Muslims blood was split by Muslims. How can the Prophet and Allah forsee this.

Abu Bakr was more smarter than the Prophet and followed the Quran, where as the Prophet didn't. Abu Bakr made a will and picked his successor. He picked his successor to be Omar, again one of the ten people who left the warm but unburied body of the Prophet to appoint a successor. One can say deals were made, but how can be, as both abu Bakr and Omar were better than the Prophet who recognized this dire situation, which both the Prophet and Allah didn't. Abu Bakr made a will and chose Omar to be his successor, but the Prophet went against the Quran and didn't make a will.

Even Omar was better than the Prophet and Allah. He made a will and appointed a committee to appoint his successor. He even picked two people for this committee to be considered as his successor. Thus, his will appointed a committee and two candidates. Again, the Prophet and Allah miserly failed to make a will how to appoint a successor. Omar was better than both the Prophet and Allah.

If Allah and Prophet had seen the necessity making a will to appoint a successor, the war of Ridda wasn't happened. Muslims blood was split, Muslims swords were not drawn against Muslims, which continued to the murder of Usman, the wars of Jamal, Siffin, Karbala and so forth. Had both Allah and the Prophet foreseen this, but they didn't. Only both abu Bakr and Omar forsaw this and left the warm and unburied body of the Prophet to make deals and appoint each other in successions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Your question is wrong and out of place.

It is neither.

Acceptance of Abu Bakr® and Umar® is not eqaul to having belief in the term Caliphate, and likewise, rejecting them is not equal to rejecting the institution of Caliphate.

So what is the "acceptance" of Abu Bakr and Umar? Accepting that they existed? No Shia has ever claimed otherwise.

The term Caliphate entails wider meanings. Just to help you out, compare Caliphate with Imamate, you will come to know the difference between acceptance and having belief in Sheikhain® to be not the definition of the term Caliphate.

Belief about Sheikhain® cannot be compared with belief in the term Caliphate.

Non-issue.

Why is that your theologians have considered the rejection of the caliphate of the shaykhayn to be kufr? Obviously this was my original question but you are trying to divert the issue with irrelevancies.

Whatever you have to say about it, your objection is still not valid in which you seemingly did not accept my statement that Caliphate is not an Article of Sunni faith. I have presented a list of Sunni Articles of Faith to brother saved in my reply above. Caliphate is not included in it.

Yes I do not accept your statement because it is not supported with evidence. The list you have provided has been invented in the last century. It is also no coincidence that it was in the last century when the institution of (manmade) "caliphate" was finally consigned to the dustbin of history.

In all the classical texts, regardless of whether they are Mutazali or Ashari (or even otherwise, apart from Kharijite), "Imamat" is an article of faith. The disagreement is on the characteristics and qualifications of an Imam; no one disputes the necessity of having one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

إِنَّا نَحۡنُ نُحۡىِ ٱلۡمَوۡتَىٰ وَنَڪۡتُبُ مَا قَدَّمُواْ وَءَاثَـٰرَهُمۡۚ وَكُلَّ شَىۡءٍ أَحۡصَيۡنَـٰهُ فِىٓ إِمَامٍ۬ مُّبِينٍ۬ (١٢) verses 2 sorat yassin son't try to read quran in english because it's false nobody can translate it it's why i will not give you a verses in english but i will explain Allah in the verses that imam know every thing sorat albakara وَإِذِ ٱبۡتَلَىٰٓ إِبۡرَٲهِـۧمَ رَبُّهُ ۥ بِكَلِمَـٰتٍ۬ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ‌ۖ قَالَ إِنِّى جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامً۬ا‌ۖ قَالَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِى‌ۖ قَالَ لَا يَنَالُ عَهۡدِى ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ (١٢٤) he said in this verses too I have appointed thee a imam for mainkind or humainkind and humainkind and mainkind is not the same it's why i don't want to translate quran but i try to explain وَنُرِيدُ أَن نَّمُنَّ عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ ٱسۡتُضۡعِفُواْ فِى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ وَنَجۡعَلَهُمۡ أَٮِٕمَّةً۬ وَنَجۡعَلَهُمُ ٱلۡوَٲرِثِينَ sorat kassas verses 5 And We desired to show favour unto those who were oppressed in the earth, and to make them imams and to make them the inheritors, there is a word of imam in quran i think you don't read quran still

ambrosechappel you should read it Allah it's who who choose imams as you see in quran the word ja3l in quran mean a choice of Allah if you read quran sorat kassas verses 5 alalh said wa naj3alahom aimatan and in verses 124 sorat bakara Allah said ini it's me -ja3eloka- mean the choice of Allah li nassi imaman . if you speak about ahadith about imam i give you too

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

i gave you verses from quran even if quran it's enough for whom who have pure hearth i will give you ahadith that speak about 12 imams too

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.329

Narrated Jabir Ibn Samura:

I heard the Prophet saying, "There will be twelve commanders (Amir)." He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said, the Prophet added, "All of them will be from Quraish." we see there they changed the word who are all of them are from me or from ahl lbayt because they wanted to change the truth .

In Musnad Ahmad, the tradition is as follows:

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "There shall be twelve Caliphs

for this community, all of them from Quraish." sunna Reference: Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v5, p106

In Sahih Muslim, the traditions are as follows:

Narrated Jabir Ibn Samura:

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "The matter (life) will not end, until it is passed by twelve Caliphs." He then whispered a sentence. I asked my father what the Prophet said. He said, the Prophet added: "All of them will be from Quraish." Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, Kitab al-Imaara, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v3, p1452, Tradition #5

- Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter DCCLIV (titled: The People are subservient to the Quraish and the Caliphate is the Right of the Quraish), v3, p1009, Tradition #4477

Again from Sahih Muslim:

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "The affairs of people will continue to be conducted (well) as long as they are governed by the twelve men."

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "Islam will continue to be triumphant until there have been twelve Caliphs." Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, Kitab al-Imaara, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v3, p1453, Tradition #7

- Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter DCCLIV (titled: The People are subservient to the Quraish and the Caliphate is the Right of the Quraish), v3, p1010, Tradition #4480 The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "The Islamic religion will continue until the Hour (day of resurrection), ha

- Sahih Muslim, Arabic version, Kitab al-Imaara, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, v3, p1453, Tradition #10

- Sahih Muslim, English version, Chapter DCCLIV (titled: The People are subservient to the Quraish and the Caliphate is the Right of the Quraish), v3, p1010, Tradition #4483

ving twelve Caliphs for you, all of them will be from Quraish.

Also in another wording, the Messenger of Allah uses the word "Imam" instead of "Caliph". It is widely narrated that:

Obviously, the above traditions are not fit to the first four Caliphs all together, as they were less than twelve.

And they can not be applied to the Umayad Caliphs, because

(a) they were more than twelve;

(B) all of them were tyrants and unjust (except Umar Ibn Abd al-Aziz);

© they were not from the Hashimites and the Holy Prophet had said in another tradition that: "All of them will be from the Bani Hashim..."

Also they cannot be applied to the Abbasid Caliphs, because:

(a) they were more than twelve;

(B) they persecuted the descendants of the Prophet every where which means they did not comply with the Quranic verse: "I don't ask you any wage except to love my family." (42:23).

The Prophet (PBUH&HF) said: "The Imams are from Quraish"

Sunni references:

- al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149

- Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

- Sahih al-Nisa'i, from Anas Ibn Malik

- Sunan, by al-Baihaqi

- al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqa, by Ibn Hajar al-Haithami, Ch. 11, section 2, p287

and many other ahadiths now we how i said they changed the word imam by by amir and from me from rassoul Allah by from quraich .i have one question My recollection about the unfortunate history of Caliphate indicates that, even from the Sunni point of view, there was no good Caliph left after the first 4 Caliphs (It would be 5 if we include Umar Ibn Abd al-Aziz. Some Sunnis are very generous and they add Imam al-Hasan (as) and Imam al-Mahdi (as) to the list as well.) I would like to remind you that "Caliph" means successor/deputy. The successor of the Prophet (or the preceding Caliph) should come immediately after the demise of the Prophet (or the preceding Caliph). If there is any gap between the successors, the word "successor" does not make any sense. So successors should come right after the other without any gap. Also as the Prophet (PBUH&HF) suggested in the above traditions, those twelve Caliphs will cover till the day of resurrection. As you may know, the Followers of the Members of the House of the Prophet (PBUH&HF) refer to these 12 Caliphs as of their 12 Imams starting with Imam Ali (as) and ending with Imam Mahdi (as) the leader of our time. There are Caliphs because Allah made them Caliphs (They are vice-regents of Allah on the earth). With the passage of time and through historical events, we know that by the above traditions the Holy Prophet (PBUH&HF) meant the twelve Imams from his Ahlul-Bait who are the descendants of the Prophet since we have no other 12 pure candidates in the history of Islam upon whose righteousness all Muslims agree. It is interesting to know that even the enemies of Shi'a have NOT been able to find any fault in the virtues of the twelve Imams of Shi'a. Moreover these twelve Imams came one after another without any gap. the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: He who dies while he does not know the Imam of his age, is like the one who died during days of Jahiliyya (the era before Islam)

<p> </p>

<p>Few Facts About the Twelve Imams of Ahlul-Bait</p>

<p>==============================================</p>

<p>The First Imam: The Commander of Believers, Abul-Hasan, <b>ALI</b> al-Murtadha, son of Abu Talib, was born on the 13th of Rajab, 10 years before the declaration of the Prophethood (600 A. D.), INSIDE KA'BAH. He became Imam, on the demise of the Prophet on the 28th of Safar 11/632, and was fatally wounded by the poisoned sword of Ibn Muljam while engaged in prayers at the Mosque of Kufa (Iraq), and expired two days later on the 21st of Ramadhan 40/661, and was buried at al-Najaf (Iraq).</p>

<p>The Second Imam: Abu Muhammad, <b>AL-HASAN</b> al-Mujtaba, son of Ali, was born on the 15th of Ramadhan 3/625 in Medina; martyred of poison on the 7th or 28th Safar 50/670 in Medina by the order of Mu'awiya.</p>

<p>The Third Imam: Abu Abdillah, <b>AL-HUSAIN</b>, The Chief of Martyrs (Sayyid al-Shuhadaa), son of Ali, was born on the 3rd of Sha'ban 4/626 in Medina; was martyred with his sons (except one), relatives and companions, on the 10th of Muharram (Ashura) 61/680 in Karbala (Iraq) by order of Yazid (LA). He and his elder brother, al-Hasan, were sons of Fatima, the daughter of the holy Prophet.</p>

<p>The Fourth Imam: Abu Muhammad, <b>ALI</b> Zain al-Abidin, son of al-Husain, was born on the 5th of Sha'ban 38/659; martyred of poison on the 25th of Muharram 94/712 or 95/713 in Medina by the order of Husham Ibn Abdul-Malik.</p>

<p>The Fifth Imam: Abu Ja'far, <b>MUHAMMAD</b> al-Baqir, son of Ali, was born on the 1st of Rajab 57/677 in Medina; martyred of poison by Ibrahim on the 7th Dhul-Hajja 114/733 in Medina.</p>

<p>The Sixth Imam: Abu Abdillah, <b>JA'FAR</b> al-Sadiq, son of Muhammad, was born on the 17th of Rabi'ul-Awwal 83/702 in Medina; martyred there of poison on the 25th of Shawwal 148/765 by the order of al-Mansur.</p>

<p>The Seventh Imam: Abul-Hasan al-Awwal, <b>MUSA</b> al-Kadhim, son of Ja'far, was born in al-Abwa (7 miles from Medina) on the 7th Safar 129/746; martyred of poison on the 25th of Rajab 183/799 in the prison of Harun al-Rashid in Baghdad and was buried at al-Kadhimiyya, near Baghdad (Iraq).</p>

<p>The Eighth Imam: Abul-Hasan al-Thani, <b>ALI</b> al-Ridha, son of Musa, was born in Medina on the 11th Dhul-Qa'da 148/765; martyred of poison on the 17th of Safar 203/818 in Mash'had (Khurasan, Iran) by the order of Ma'mun.</p>

<p>The Ninth Imam: Abu Ja'far al-Thani, <b>MUHAMMAD</b> al-Taqi al-Jawad, son of Ali, was born on the 10th of Rajab 195/811 in Medina; martyred of poison by the order of Mu'tasim in Baghdad on the 30th Dhul-Qa'da 220/835; was buried near his grandfather at al-Kadhimiyya.</p>

<p>The Tenth Imam: Abul-Hasan al-Thalith, <b>ALI</b> al-Naqi al-Hadi, son of Muhammad, was born on the 5th of Rajab 212/827 in Medina; martyred of poison in Samirra (Iraq) on 3rd of Rajab 254/868 by the order of Mutawakkil.</p>

<p>The Eleventh Imam: Abu Muhammad, <b>AL-HASAN</b> al-Askari, son of Ali, was born on the 8th of Rabi al-Thani 232/846 in Medina; martyred of poison by Mu'tamid in Samirra (Iraq) on the 8th of Rabi'ul-Awwal 260/874.</p>

<p>The Twelfth Imam: Abul-Qasim, <b>MUHAMMAD</b> al-Mahdi, son of al-Hasan, was born on the 15th of Sha'ban 255/869 in Samirra (Iraq). He is our present and alive Imam. He went into Lesser Occultation in 260/874 which continued until 329/844. Then the greater occultation began which still continues. He will reappear when Allah allows him to establish the kingdom of Allah on earth and to fill the world with justice and equality as it would be full of injustice and tyranny. He is al-Qa'im (the one who shall stand to establish the rule of Allah); al-Hujja (the proof of Allah over His creatures); Sahib al-Zaman (the master of our time); and Sahib al-Amr (the one who is supported by divine authority).</p>

<dir>

</dir>

<dir>

</dir>

<dir>

</dir>

<dir>

</dir>

<pre>

Abdul Muttalib

__________|___________

| |

Abdullah Abu Talib

| |

Muhammad (al-Mustafa) |

| |

Fatima (al-Zahra) Ali (al-Murtadha)

|______________________|

__________|___________

| |

al-Hasan (al-Mujtaba) al-Husain (Sayyid al-Shuhadaa)

|

Ali (Zain al-Abidin)

|

Muhammad (al-Baqir)

|

Ja'far (al-Sadiq)

|

Musa (al-Kadhim)

|

Ali (al-Ridha)

|

Muhammad (al-Taqi)

|

Ali (al-Naqi)

|

al-Hasan (al-Askari)

|

Muhammad (al-Mahdi)

</pre>

then you have no imam you are kafir as prophet mohamed sala allaho 3alayhi wa alih said or your amir of saudia the evil brother of usa is the imam who when i died and don't know him im kafir?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The Shia insistence according to this Hadith on the need of an Imam for PRACTICAL purposes in the beginning of the sect and cursing the Sahaba® and Rashidun Caliphs® for usurping Caliphate from God-Appointed Imam, and then taking an abrupt U-Turn by ‘having’ to announce the Occultation of the 12th Imam and thereby rendering the Shias leaderless Sine die is purely self-contradictory. It shows that if you stick to the original topic and try to answer the questions asked therein, it will save a lot of hassle for all of us and keep the discussion in order as well.

If someone says that initially the office of Imamate had the practical purpose of leading the Ummah to serve as long as the Imams lived but later after the Occultation, the practical purpose was converted into just believing in the Imam, my question is What was the practicality in God’s appointment of 8 years old Imams twice and then a 4 years old Imam who went into hiding? What were their attainments at that time? Did Allah send them as Imams just for Ithna Ashariya to believe in them at those early ages?

(5:19. O People of the Scripture! Now has come to you Our Messenger making (things) clear unto you, after a break in (the series of) Messengers, lest you say: "There came to us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner.'' But now has come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner. And Allah is able to do all things. )

Allah is addressing the People of the Book -- the Jews and the Christians, saying that He has sent His Messenger Muhammad to them, the Final Prophet, after whom there will be no Prophet or Messenger. Rather, He is the Final Messenger who came after a long time passed between him and `Isa, son of Maryam peace be upon them. There is a difference of opinion about the length of time between `Isa and Muhammad . Abu `Uthman An-Nahdi and Qatadah were reported to have said that this period was six hundred years. Al-Bukhari also recorded this opinion from Salman Al-Farisi. Qatadah said that this period was five hundred and sixty years, while Ma`mar said that it is five hundred and forty years. Some said that this period is six hundred and twenty years. There is no contradiction here if we consider the fact that those who said that this period was six hundred years were talking about solar years, while the second refers to lunar years, since there is a difference of about three years between every one hundred lunar and solar years. As in Allah's statement,( Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

How do you explain to me practical purpose of Nabuwat for the people who lived in the period between prophet Isa (as) and prophet Mohammad(saw) ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

It is neither.

So what is the "acceptance" of Abu Bakr and Umar? Accepting that they existed? No Shia has ever claimed otherwise.

Non-issue.

Why is that your theologians have considered the rejection of the caliphate of the shaykhayn to be kufr? Obviously this was my original question but you are trying to divert the issue with irrelevancies.

Yes I do not accept your statement because it is not supported with evidence. The list you have provided has been invented in the last century. It is also no coincidence that it was in the last century when the institution of (manmade) "caliphate" was finally consigned to the dustbin of history.

In all the classical texts, regardless of whether they are Mutazali or Ashari (or even otherwise, apart from Kharijite), "Imamat" is an article of faith. The disagreement is on the characteristics and qualifications of an Imam; no one disputes the necessity of having one.

Acceptance of Sheikhain means that they were the successors of the Holy Prophet(s) according to the decision of Muslims who took pledge of allegiance on their hands, including Ali®, and that they were not renegades and apostates as per Shia beliefs. Rejecting in their successorship is considered tentamount to disbelief by scholars because by so doing, the rejectors, or Rafidhis, clearly testify that they believe them to be renegades who rejected, and usurped the successorship of Ali® as announced by the Holy Prophet(s) during his lifetime. This is such a rejection of Rafidhis that holds them responsible to harbour beliefs of Kufar as there is no God-Appointed Imam in Sunni Islam and therefore it's like slandering God himself in Sunni opinion.

You can yourself feel the difference from your own question That Why is rejection of Sheikhain® considered Kufr, You have your answer in your question. Why did you not ask that why the acceptance of Sheikhain® forms part of your Iman? Unlike Shia faith on Imams, Sunnis don't have any belief in the divine status of Sheikhain® nor do they consider it a part of their faith to believe in their Caliphate to have been God-mendated, it's actually to reject the basis on which Rafidhis reject their status which means that the Sunni scholars' opinion is based on the very reason why Rafidhis reject the successorship of Sheikhain® which, according to Sunni Islam, is based on unislamic and Kufriya, Rafidhi principles.

There is no such Sunni belief that Sheikhain® were God-Appointed Caliphs and none other than Allah himself had given them the mendate of the successorship of the Holy Prophet(s). Belief in their Caliphate is never taught in Sunni Kalima unlike how Ali®'s Imamate(and consequently that of other eleven Imams) is announced in Shia Kalima, Adhan and Usool-e-Deen. On the very contrary If someone declares Sheikhain® or thier successorship to have any divine status, this too will be considered Kufr in Sunni Islam. Can you see the difference?

Nor is belief in their Caliphate a part of Articles of Sunni faith(let alone the matter of having faith in any other caliphs which you very conveniently call a non-issue) and it has never been so in the whole history of Sunni Islam. You have made a revelation that it has been the case in the past before the last century. Please provide authentic references to your accusation that Imamate or Caliphate has ever been a 7th Article of Sunni Islam.

Please don't provide references that show that to appoint a leader is an important duty of Muslims in the religion, that is undisputed and won't suffice to serve the purpose. Also please prove your accusation that the 6 Articles of Sunni faith were 'invented' no earlier than the last century.

This much was for your original question as you emphsized on getting its reply, I also hold the right to stick to my original question in which I asked Shia brothers to prove that the concept of Imamate is self-consistent in view of its history and the conduct of the Imams. You blamed me for diverting from the real issue, whereas I accuse you (by asking your original question itself you diverted from the actual topic) and all other brothers making their posts here of turning aside from the actual course by making irrelevant enquiries. Does it mean that Shias are unable to reconcile a fundamental part of their religion to its history?

Edited by ambrosechappel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So first you say...

Rejecting in their successorship is considered tentamount to disbelief by scholars because by so doing, the rejectors, or Rafidhis, clearly testify that they believe them to be renegades who rejected, and usurped the successorship of Ali® as announced by the Holy Prophet(s) during his lifetime. This is such a rejection of Rafidhis that holds them responsible to harbour beliefs of Kufar as there is no God-Appointed Imam in Sunni Islam and therefore it's like slandering God himself in Sunni opinion.

but then...

There is no such Sunni belief that Sheikhain® were God-Appointed Caliphs and none other than Allah himself had given them the mendate of the successorship of the Holy Prophet(s).

So did Allah give them the mandate or not? It seems you are confused on your beliefs!

Belief in their Caliphate is never taught in Sunni Kalima unlike how Ali®'s Imamate(and consequently that of other eleven Imams) is announced in Shia Kalima, Adhan and Usool-e-Deen. On the very contrary If someone declares Sheikhain® or thier successorship to have any divine status, this too will be considered Kufr in Sunni Islam. Can you see the difference?

Here we go again with the divine nonsense. Our Allah is much greater than any of his creation thus Imams are not divine, whereas your Allah is so fat that his weight is making the arsh creak (Sahih Bukhari) therefore he is threatened by an Imam who has more knowledge than an ordinary human.

Nor is belief in their Caliphate a part of Articles of Sunni faith(let alone the matter of having faith in any other caliphs which you very conveniently call a non-issue) and it has never been so in the whole history of Sunni Islam.

If caliphate is not an article of faith, then rejecting a caliph is not kufr; if rejecting shaykhayn is kufr, then caliphate is an article of faith. You can't have it both ways.

Please don't provide references that show that to appoint a leader is an important duty of Muslims in the religion, that is undisputed and won't suffice to serve the purpose.

Do you know what the word for "leader" is in Arabic?

This much was for your original question as you emphsized on getting its reply, I also hold the right to stick to my original question in which I asked Shia brothers to prove that the concept of Imamate is self-consistent in view of its history and the conduct of the Imams. You blamed me for diverting from the real issue, whereas I accuse you (by asking your original question itself you diverted from the actual topic) and all other brothers making their posts here of turning aside from the actual course by making irrelevant enquiries. Does it mean that Shias are unable to reconcile a fundamental part of their religion to its history?

And I have shown that your question is incorrect as every school in the religion of Islam maintains the necessity of Imamat. If you were to read the works on kalaam by any Muslim school you would see this to be the case, whereas there is no mention in the Qur'an or hadith about five or six pillars of Islam. If you have any sources, please quote me any scholar which says that believing in these pillars are a requisite to becoming a Muslim; and no, your mosque's handbook doesn't count ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators

During one of the chatting sessions here, my statement was declared self-contradictory by a Shia brother and I think this does not suit at least an Ithna Ashariya Shia to call anyone self-contradictory as the very basis on which they chose to part from mainstream islam i.e the concept of Imamate; (which was also incidentally the topic of that discussion with Shia brother) is itself a purely self-contradictory phenomenon. I therefore decided to write my views about this concept and present them for discussion on this forum to show the vague and dubious nature of this concept in view of a very brief overview of its historical and logical aspects.

Shia brothers seceded from mainstream Islam as they thought that this concept was a cardinal tenet of the religion of Islam having a position equal to Tawheed and Prophethood in Muslim faith and that divine leadership and its presence on Earth at all times is necessary and Allah had initiated this office after the demise of the Holy Prophet(s) as he did not want to leave the Ummah without divine guidance. A position higher than Prophets was given to Imams – direct descendants of Ali® and Fatima®. It was said that they received not revelation but inspiration ‘ilham’ directly from Allah. Gabriel(as) continued to visit Hazrat Fatima® after the demise of Prophet(s) and a new book, including many others, three times as big as Quran was revealed to her which is a great repository of knowledge and is possessed by Imams only and no one else has ever seen this, and other books other than the Imams. Brothers, present this concept to an unbiased reader and he will reach the conclusion that Imamate is a continuation of Nabuwwah in Shia imagination. In fact the Imams enjoy a status higher than Prophets in Shia religion!

All this was done by children of Abdullah Bin Saba ....

Salams

You are making it sound like the shia school denounces any muslim if he/she does not believe in Imamat. That is not the case since the requirement of being a Muslim, according to shia school, is the belief in Tawheed, Prophethood and Resurrection. Imamat and Justice however are the added principles of shia school. If these two principles are rejected by someone, in the absence of a divine authority and/or due to genuine reasons, he will not be regarded as a non-muslim.

Now in regards to the role of Imamat after our Prophet P.b.u.H, please note that by definition, an Imam is a GUIDE after the demise of the Prophet whose job is to assist the ummah when it comes to following the true teachings of Allah and His Prophet P.b.u.H. Thus, Imams are not taking over the Risalat of Hazrat Muhammad P.b.u.H, thereby inventing their own religion; rather, their purpose is to ensure that the foundations of Islam remain intact since there is no one else in the ummah to lead in this regard. Sunni Muslims may not know much about rest of our Imams, but they cannot ignore historical references of Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain fighting against injustice, preaching laws & logic for laws and/or ensuring the well being of the ummah in the long run. Whoever ignores their exceptional contribution to the religion is turning a blind eye to Islamic history either out of ignorance or jealousy.

You then raised the issue of the 14 Infallibles of shia school considered higher in status to previous Prophets. Thats quite funny. I remember spending time with pakistani wahabis (deobandis) who love sharing ahadith, according to which, previous Prophets envied the ummah of Prophet Muhammad and wished to be one of them. So on one hand, we are brainwashed to believe that we are so special that the previous Prophets envied our status yet we question any shia or a sunni muslim praising Ahl-ul-bayt by means of well known references amongst both sects. I note that there is lack of knowledge amongst certain groups of sunni muslims when it comes to realising the roles/status' of previous Prophets. It seems as though they believe that all of the 124,000 Prophets shared the same status as that of UlulAzm Messengers. Little do they realise that Prophets of the past had different roles. Some of them were not even assigned to an ummah. Most of them were not sent with a shariyah/Book. And not all Prophets interacted with angels. Infact, they would also just dream... e.t.c e.t.c

This is not to say that Prophethood is being degraded by shia school, but don't we all unanimously agree that the status of Prophet Muhammad P.b.u.H is far above any other Prophet and that we also have references to suggest that the status of His ummah is also worth being envied by previous Prophets? So if Ahl-ul-bayt (specifically the Punjtan paak - the five infallibe figures) are deemed blessed and higher in status by many a muslims, why does it bother other muslims so much so that they have to label us as deviants?

By the way, how is Imamat a self-contradictory concept? Either Allah would want His own Authorities to run the affairs of the ummah or He would prefer that the muslims chose their leaders after the demise of the Prophet. If we are to say that Muslims should chose their own leaders, how do we justify a well known and acceptable hadith regarding 12 leaders/caliphs after the demise of the Prophet ? Or better yet, why wern't all muslims given the opportunity to elect their leader? If we are to say that Allah choses His Authorities, doesn't the shia concept of divine leadership/guidance after Prophet Muhammad P.b.u.H make sense?

Fi-Amanillah

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

So first you say...

but then...

So did Allah give them the mandate or not? It seems you are confused on your beliefs!

Here we go again with the divine nonsense. Our Allah is much greater than any of his creation thus Imams are not divine, whereas your Allah is so fat that his weight is making the arsh creak (Sahih Bukhari) therefore he is threatened by an Imam who has more knowledge than an ordinary human.

If caliphate is not an article of faith, then rejecting a caliph is not kufr; if rejecting shaykhayn is kufr, then caliphate is an article of faith. You can't have it both ways.

Do you know what the word for "leader" is in Arabic?

And I have shown that your question is incorrect as every school in the religion of Islam maintains the necessity of Imamat. If you were to read the works on kalaam by any Muslim school you would see this to be the case, whereas there is no mention in the Qur'an or hadith about five or six pillars of Islam. If you have any sources, please quote me any scholar which says that believing in these pillars are a requisite to becoming a Muslim; and no, your mosque's handbook doesn't count ;)

It seems that after getting an apt reply of your question, you have now resorted to presenting arguments just for the sake of auguments in order to continue to be seen on this debate.

You should read the second reference as used by yourself not in the way how you have misunderstood it but the way how I wrote it, I understand that anyone can misunderstand a sentence and can derive completely different meanings from what the writer actually wants to say but do you really think a Sunni Muslim can say in such a discussion that Allah had himself given Sheikhain® the mendate of successorship? That can be considered nothing other than a Sunni version of Imamate. Then what would have been the point of having this debate?

Please read the reference as follows:

There is no such Sunni belief that 'Sheikhain® were God-Appointed Caliphs and none other than Allah himself had given them the mendate of the successorship of the Holy Prophet(s).'

it means that:

There is no such Sunni belief that Sheikhain® were God-Appointed Caliphs,

and there is no such belief that none other than Allah himself had given them the mendate of successorship of the Holy Prophet(s).

I hope I am clear enough.

In the next reference you gave, divine status means God-Mendated status which means if a Sunni, unlike Shia brothers calls SheiKhain® to have any God menadated status, he will be considered a kafir in Sunni religion unlike Shia who insist on their Imams for being God-Appointed leaders.

For your third objection I have already given a befitting reply which has made you diminish your emphasis on it and bring it forth as your third objection this time instead of first one and I don't want to reiterate and make sound redundant what I have already said in my previous reply to your original objection. If you are predetermined not to understand it and could not do so in the first instance, I am least bothered to try to make you realize the truth again. Now you are seen just trying to play with words by keeping their wrong and biased implications in your mind.

The Arabic world for leader is Imam, and commonsese explains the necessity of having one when a group of people with common religious and geographical foundations are living together in a society. They need to have a leader, don't they? Even cannibals in remote African tribes have leaders. So the importance of this necessity was known to Sunni people too. What's so difficult to understand in this? Problem comes when one group ascribes this status to divine-apointment and despises all others who who take a humanly possible stance in chosing their leaders.

During the terminal part of your post, you failed to provide references to accusations you made in your earlier post in reply of which I asked you to show how and when Imamate was considered an Article of Sunni Faith and I also asked you to show how these 6 Articles were 'invented' in only as late as the last century. Ironically, due to dearth of information, you have started to ask me further questions regarding my faith! You are the one who made the accusations so please justify them. I deem it useless to start searching for references to show where the Articles of Sunni and Shia faith have come from. Wherever they have been derived from it['s a known fact that Imamate is a part of Shia Usool-e-Deen and not a part of Sunni Articles of Faith. You are trying to get away from the original debate and therefore are trying to waste my time by getting me involved in irrelvant details. I am not inclined to do that. I just want you guys again to reconcile your doctrine of Imamate with its history and the conduct of Imams. That is my fundamental question.

Edited by ambrosechappel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

LOL!

Now the Sunnis don't believe in Predestination. That the caliphas were not appointed by God through Predestination.

And, now the Sunnis believe like Shias by believing in Freewill.

Heard it all.

LOL!

Edited by aladdin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You still havent answered my question. Allah has sent a guide for every nation as you've pointed out what im asking you is quite simple a "yes" or "no" answer will do just fine.

The guide Allah sends if that guide makes a mistake than whose fault is it???

InshAllah bare with me im not very active but ill try my best to explain this concept to you.

Verse 13:7

YUSUFALI: And the disbelievers say: “Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord?” But you (O Muhammad) are truly a warner and to every people a guide.

PICKTHAL: Those who disbelieve say: “If only some portent were sent down upon him from his Lord!” You (O Muhammad) are a warner only and for every folk a guide.

It is clear that here Allah has called the Prophet Muhammad as both a warner and a guide to all people. Indeed, it is our Islamic belief that the Prophet was the only Prophet sent to all of mankind, and this is what is meant by this Quranic verse.

If you take Shia meanings and say that there is a Guide for every nation then there are so many nations in the world, which means there should be so many guides (just for the sake of argument). If we take the above translation as posted by me then the Holy Prophet's(s) being a guide for every nation makes sense. Doesn't it?

Why are you even referring to the world? When we are specifically talking bwt the Concept of Immamate?

Even if someone still insists that this guidance is to be provided by an infallible Imam then my question is where is that Imam? I would like to get my guidance from him. Please let me know how I can reach him? If it means spiritual guidance then Allah and his Apostle(s) are enough for us to get such guidance from. We have our faith in them to get such a guidance and we don't need any hidden characters to get spiritual leadership from. Brother, you have again brought me to the same point of discussion that the concept of Imamate is incompatible with its history.

Im trying my best to help you build your understanding of the concept of Immamate....you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk. So be paitent and ill get around but you need to understand the basics first.

“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”

Allamah Shibli Numani in Al-Faruq

Why in the beginning Shias insisted on need of the presence of a divine leader and sarcastically asked mainstream Muslims as to how Allah left the Ummah leaderless after the Holy Prophet(s), then how come Allah left the Ummah leaderless after the death of the 11th Imam and the occultation of the 12th one? How can a person be led if the leader is inaccessible? Shia in the beginning accused mainstreams for not having a leadership system, well in the end we both ended up on the same point after the hiding of the 12th Imam.

An important fact is that if shias had an infallible Imam with so much of knowledge and powers assisting him, there would have been no need for this debate to happen, we could simply have been taken by Shias to their Imam and we would have learnt the truth by his phenomenal knowledge and character. But unfortunately this is not the case. A Shia doesn't have any advantage from any other Muslim in terms of getting guidance from his divine Imam. So what is all the fuss about? The Shia assert that it is compulsory to know the name of their Imam but the question is what do they know from their Imam? Apart from just his name and that he is hiding and will reappear near the day of judgment. So it's about just knowing the name rather than actual guidance.

I have already told in my initial note that the discussion about quranic verses and hadith about the concept of Imamate need a seperate session to be organized, here I have just asked a simple question to Shia brothers to show that the concept and the history of Imamate and the conduct of Imams themselves are in consonance with each other and that will make Imamate a self-consistent doctrine. Can anyone please try to prove that?

Same as above. For now its irreleveant and this is a forum and not some kinda of article refutation. So keep the posts precise and to the point so the readers can also benifit too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Salams You are making it sound like the shia school denounces any muslim if he/she does not believe in Imamat. That is not the case since the requirement of being a Muslim, according to shia school, is the belief in Tawheed, Prophethood and Resurrection. Imamat and Justice however are the added principles of shia school. If these two principles are rejected by someone, in the absence of a divine authority and/or due to genuine reasons, he will not be regarded as a non-muslim. Now in regards to the role of Imamat after our Prophet P.b.u.H, please note that by definition, an Imam is a GUIDE after the demise of the Prophet whose job is to assist the ummah when it comes to following the true teachings of Allah and His Prophet P.b.u.H. Thus, Imams are not taking over the Risalat of Hazrat Muhammad P.b.u.H, thereby inventing their own religion; rather, their purpose is to ensure that the foundations of Islam remain intact since there is no one else in the ummah to lead in this regard. Sunni Muslims may not know much about rest of our Imams, but they cannot ignore historical references of Imam Ali, Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain fighting against injustice, preaching laws & logic for laws and/or ensuring the well being of the ummah in the long run. Whoever ignores their exceptional contribution to the religion is turning a blind eye to Islamic history either out of ignorance or jealousy. You then raised the issue of the 14 Infallibles of shia school considered higher in status to previous Prophets. Thats quite funny. I remember spending time with pakistani wahabis (deobandis) who love sharing ahadith, according to which, previous Prophets envied the ummah of Prophet Muhammad and wished to be one of them. So on one hand, we are brainwashed to believe that we are so special that the previous Prophets envied our status yet we question any shia or a sunni muslim praising Ahl-ul-bayt by means of well known references amongst both sects. I note that there is lack of knowledge amongst certain groups of sunni muslims when it comes to realising the roles/status' of previous Prophets. It seems as though they believe that all of the 124,000 Prophets shared the same status as that of UlulAzm Messengers. Little do they realise that Prophets of the past had different roles. Some of them were not even assigned to an ummah. Most of them were not sent with a shariyah/Book. And not all Prophets interacted with angels. Infact, they would also just dream... e.t.c e.t.c This is not to say that Prophethood is being degraded by shia school, but don't we all unanimously agree that the status of Prophet Muhammad P.b.u.H is far above any other Prophet and that we also have references to suggest that the status of His ummah is also worth being envied by previous Prophets? So if Ahl-ul-bayt (specifically the Punjtan paak - the five infallibe figures) are deemed blessed and higher in status by many a muslims, why does it bother other muslims so much so that they have to label us as deviants? By the way, how is Imamat a self-contradictory concept? Either Allah would want His own Authorities to run the affairs of the ummah or He would prefer that the muslims chose their leaders after the demise of the Prophet. If we are to say that Muslims should chose their own leaders, how do we justify a well known and acceptable hadith regarding 12 leaders/caliphs after the demise of the Prophet ? Or better yet, why wern't all muslims given the opportunity to elect their leader? If we are to say that Allah choses His Authorities, doesn't the shia concept of divine leadership/guidance after Prophet Muhammad P.b.u.H make sense? Fi-Amanillah

Brother, from your first paragraph, I have understood that (by saying that belief in Imamate is not that necessary) you have tried to portray a miniscule depiction of the importance of Imamate in Shia sect perhaps in order to make it look less important and make your arguments sound more plausible. Imamate is a basic concept of Shia Islam and forms a part of the Usool-e-Deen. History testifies to the fact that not just belief in Imamate is necessary but desipte having belief but in a wrong Imam renders a person to be Kafir according to Shia Islam. Even if you say that belief in this doctrine is not necessary for a person to be a Muslim, perhaps this is your own view, but as far as Sunnism is concerned, having belief in the concept of Imamate 'in toto' is tentamaount to Kufr. This is the main concept that distinguishes Shia religion from Mainstream Islam and is a cause of schism and disparity amongst Islamic groups.

You further said that the role of Imam is that of a GUIDE, I asked amongst my other questions in the opening post as to where is the guide now? Why is he inaccessible and how can I get guidance from him? What guidance has he given to Shia brothers in since 270 AH. Does the impalpable existence of the Imam not make Imamate self-inconsistent? No one said that Imams were meant to take over the role of Prophethood after the Holy Prophet(s) but the belief that Imams hold ranks higher than prophets seems even far more than that to me. Is that not self-inconsistent to hear a Shia saying that 'Oh,God forbids! Imams don't take over the role of Prophethood' and then all of a sudden making the announcement that 'it's just that they hold a position higher than Prophets themselves' Nice!

No offence, but you made use of circumlocution by saying that Imams did not take over Risalat and they did not start a new religion but followed the religion of Holy Prophet(s). No one says that they found a new religion. It's just about the status higher than that of Prophets that Shias ascribe to them which is the matter under objection.

Brother, you have given reference of a Hadith to say that previous Prophets wanted to be part of Holy Prophet's(s) Ummah. Does this give a higher status to the Ummah or to the Holy Prophet(s) himself. Although to say that this hadith means the same way as I describe it to be will be unfair, but still, I have always heard this hadith and have taken it as a sign of homage that the previous Prophets gave to the Holy Prophet(s). They revered him so much so that they even wished to be a part of his Ummah in order to be attached with him in this way. and since the religion of Islam was in complete form in this Ummah there are so many priviledges that have been offered in different Hadith to this Ummah that the status of this Ummah has been presented to be as such in this Hadith. Never in his whole life has even a Sunni layman ever thought, let alone a scholar, that such a Hadith gives a status higher than a prophet to even a single person, no matter a Sahabi® or Ahlelbayt®, Only Shia brothers have arrived at this bizarre conclusion from this Hadith. The logical reason why such things are said by leaders of religions is to make people feel the importance and benefits to accept that religion and stay adherent to it. A similar example is that of learning the importance of having belief in Allah and his Apostle(s). The Islamic religion tells that no matter how pious, noble and kind a person is but if he doesn't have belief in Allah and his Apostle(s) he will not enter paradise, while a Muslim, no matter if he is cruel and sinful, will get to reach paradise after he has paid the penalty of his sins. A follower of some other religion can say that this stipulation doesn't make any sense but for us it's the most important Article of Faith. So these incentives are announced by religions to consolidate people's beliefs in them and have firm faith and confidence in those religions and feel happy about this, not to feel proud of themselves and start thinking themselves as being so special or a chosen people of God like Jews did nor to start distributing offices higher than Prophethood thmselves to their revered people.

On one side you said that you don't intend to degrade the status of Prophets(as) but on the other hand by giving examples of different types of prophets(as) and their roles and then quoting the number 124,000 you have tried to further reduce the importance of the office(by using this number in the desired context) and comparing the number with Ulul Azm Prophets(as) and then saying that some Prophets(as) were not assigned for Ummahs, and then citing Sharia/Bookless Prophets, Prophets without angelic interactions, dreaming Prophets and then finally etc etc ...you have intentionally or unintentionally tried to reduce the importance of Prophethood in order to make room for Imams to be given a stutus higher than Prophets.

 

I quote your post,

'So if Ahl-ul-bayt (specifically the Punjtan paak - the five infallibe figures) are deemed blessed and higher in status by many a muslims, why does it bother other muslims so much so that they have to label us as deviants?'

You seem to show the same Shia reluctance to specify your beliefs clearly and confidentally as always has been observed when it comes to confessing faith in bitter parts of the Shia religion. You said 'So if Ahlelbayt are deemed blessed and higher in status by many a Muslim' this shows your reticence in manifestly pronouncing that Ahlelbayt are deemed blessed and higher in status than Prophhets(as) by many a Muslim. It does bother us brother as this has nowhere been told by Allah or his Apostle(s) that people holding a status higher than Prophets(as) are being sent by them and we must have firm belief in their God-bestowed status. Brother, you guys are bound to present illogical arguments and get help of similes and metaphors to prove the existence of such lofty offices as higher than Prophethood just because clear proofs are not present in this regard for you to make use of. Don't we even hold the right to call such a group as deviant?

Yet again you have presented the Hadith of the 12 Caliphs, If you had read my original post carefully, you would certainly have read my objection about that Shia brothers do not qualify to use this Hadith for their purpose in the first place. I will requote that bit of my original post:

Just to for the sake of presenting an argument about Shia claim to show their eligibility to take the hadith of 12 Caliphs as a proof of Imamate, it seems apt to say that Shia are not in a position to use the Hadith for their purpose as the existence of the 12th Imam cannot physically be proven. No doubt, the 12th Imam is a venerable character for Shias that exists in their belief and imagination but his existence can certainly not be verified by any means and hence the Shia brothers do not qualify to use this Hadith as a proof of Imamate in the first place. Let alone the debate of whether the word Khalifa has been used in it instead of Imam, or Quraish has been used instead of Ahlelbayt, and whether it is a vague Hadith and so on. A prophesy is a prophesy unless the events foretold in it physically happen in real world and not in someone’s imagination. Once all the events in the prophesy happen in real world, the prophesy is deemed to have been fulfilled which is not the case with the prophesy under discussion

You said that Sunnis may not know about the rest of the Imams, Can I ask if you can please let us know their political attainments since Imam is a political leader too. (the actual dispute is political as a matter of fact because as per Shia brothers they performed their spiritual roles anyway) Can you please also tell us about the attainments of the 8 years old Imams and 4 years old Imam( both political and religious at that age) and explain why kids of 8 and 4 years were sent by Allah to lead the huge Ummah on temporal and religous matters(self-contradictory). No one can deny the great roles played by Ali®, Hasan® and Hussain® after the demise of the Holy Prophet(s) and they would have played these roles had they not even been appointed as Imams (they did not get complete political leadership anyway), but as far as their roles as Imams are concerned they seem to have done quite the opposite of what they were supposed to do as being the bearers of this portfolio. Instead of playing their roles as leaders, they chose to be the leaders' assistants(self-contradictory), instead of insisting for getting allegiance on their own hands as per requirement of their office they chose to pay allegiance to usurpers of their own right(self-contradictory), I asked a question as to whether Ali® received orders from Allah to pay allegiance to Caliphs(please provide references) or was it his self decision?(self-contradictory if it was self decision) instead of raising their voice against alleged tyranny, they became close aides to the tyrants(self-contradictory), Instead of letting people kill the 3rd usurper, they sent the 2nd and 3rd Imams to protect him(self-contradictory), If the first, second and third Imam tried to protect the 3rd usurper, how come the 12th Imam will get him out of his grave to give carnal punishment to him(self-contradictory), instead of accepting the office of Imam(Caliph) when people asked them to do so after the martyrdom of the 3rd Caliph, they refused to accept it and said that I have the experience of being a vizier and chose some other Caliph and that you don't form an eligible electoral college and that this matter is for Muhajireen and Ansars to decide(self-contradictory if this matter had already been decided by Allah), Why did they write to Muawiya® when he refused to accept their Caliphate, that they had been chosen as Caliph just in the same way as the previous Caliphs had been appointed despite the fact that a better argument could have been to assert their right as God-appointed Imams(self-contradictory). No thought of expedience could have stopped them from asserting this right as Muawiya® would not have agreed anyway. In Siffin, when victory was imminent, instead of playing their vital role by attaining the (full, final and visible) office of Imam and fulfilling the duty Allah had given to them by appointing them as ones, they chose to listen to people(for whatever given resons) and accept the offer of arbitration by men(self-contradictory to accept to listen to men's decision when Allah had already made one and time of its compliance had come), instead of fighting with Muawiya® in Madain, when war was about to start, they decided to hand the authority over to him in a plate despite the fact that they were God-appointed Imams(self-contradictory) Why did the 3rd one of them not fight with Muawiya® despite the fact that he had also allegedly poisoned the 2nd Imam but only decided to fight with his son Yazid inspite of the fact that he was the God chosen Imam even in times of Muawiya(self-contradictory). Why did the rest of the Imams spend their lives in quiescence(apart from some isolated incidents) without trying to struggle to attain the office of (visible and practical) Imam who would lead the Ummah in both temporal and spiritual matters(self-contradictory). Why did 25 other members of the Ahlelbayt® stand up against the rulers and declared themselves as being the leaders despite the presence of the rest of the Ithna Ashariya Imams and without getting consent from them for their political and military actions. The household of the Prophet(s) did not themselves have any belief in the doctrine of Imamate(self-contradictory if Imamate is correct) ABOVE ALL, why did the 'Shia reported' 12th Imam decide to jump ship and go into occultation and thus take a U-Turn in Allah's policy and despite Ummah's need of having the physical presence of a leader to lead and guide the them as mentioned by you in your post(purely self-contradictory). We can summarise the Shia stance in brief regarding the Institution of Imamate which changed abruptly during its stages of development. In the beginning the need of physical presence of a divinely appointed figure was deemed necessary and anyone who did anything in contradiction with this requirement was called a renegade, but to deal with this quagmire itself was difficult and scores and scores of sects were formed on the dispute of who the next Imam was. In the end, as far as Ithna Ashariya are concerned, the Imam finally decided to hide Sine die from his oppressors and would return to relieve the world from oppressors(self-contradictory). In the end why did they reject the decision of a man-made committe and reject Abu Bakr's® election to be a successor of the Holy Prophet(s) but then chose the same method of choosing Imam Khomeni to be the representative of the twelfth Imam. (self-contradictory)

As far as your last objection is concerned as to why all the Muslims were not given a right to chose the Caliph, then brother, it's not a part of Sunni belief to have faith in any 'modus operandi' in deciding who the leader will be. But you guys have faith in God himself being the authority to appoint leaders of the Muslim community. You have to justify your method as you have faith in it.

I have asked so many other questions in my original post and afterwards. It's a pleasure to have a person from the admins, I welcome you and urge you to give answers to all my questions including the above ones.

 

Edited by ambrosechappel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brother Sheraz,

Thanks for your offer of help. I appreciate this. As far as the term 'guide' is concerned, I have provided you with reference to the translation of this verse, and your understanding of the term is completely different from what I have read it to be. According to the translation I presented to you the Guide in question is the Holy Prophet(s) himself who is infallible and doen't make mistake in both your belief and mine. So there is no question of this particular guide making a mistake. I am sorry my posts are lengthy as you have observed but they are at least not irrelevant, though the answers I got thus far are!, and no one till yet is coming to the real point and the debate has not started as yet.Once someone starts discussing the relevant points, it will start getting more precise. I hope my posts will not be so lengthy in future anyway as nowadays I am enjoying my Eid holidays(just one left). Belated Eid Mubarak to you!. I will not be that active either once I get back to work.

By the way, I wonder why in order to learn the concept of Imamate, one has to learn to crawl first and then to walk? Same is not the case with other basic concepts as Tawheed and Prophethood. Do you not think a few explicit verses in the Quran would have served the purpose much better than a Shia brother's commentry or a scholar's whole book on the concept of Imamate sans clear proofs from Quran and Hadith? I hope it is justifiable to ask for clear proofs from Quran considering the huge amount of importance the office of Imamate carries till the end of the world. On the very contrary, the concept of Tawheed and God which is a clerly understood concept has been reiterated in Quran and has been mentioned more than 2000 times and the term Prophet has been referred to more than 400 times although they already form part and parcel of Islamic theology but why is there not a single verse clearly describing the meanings and inception of the institution of Imamate?

Edited by ambrosechappel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Administrators

Brother, from your first paragraph, I have understood that (by saying that belief in Imamate is not that necessary) you have tried to portray a miniscule depiction of the importance of Imamate in Shia sect perhaps in order to make it look less important and make your arguments sound more plausible. Imamate is a basic concept of Shia Islam and forms a part of the Usool-e-Deen. History testifies to the fact that not just belief in Imamate is necessary but desipte having belief but in a wrong Imam renders a person to be Kafir according to Shia Islam. Even if you say that belief in this doctrine is not necessary for a person to be a Muslim, perhaps this is your own view, but as far as Sunnism is concerned, having belief in the concept of Imamate 'in toto' is tentamaount to Kufr. This is the main concept that distinguishes Shia religion from Mainstream Islam and is a cause of schism and disparity amongst Islamic groups.

Salams

Imamat is necessary to us but you have to clearly understand our principles and their implications in order to ensure that your criticical analysis is based on factual information rather than being your personal interpretation of our beliefs. As I previously said, if a person does not believe in Imamat, according to shia school, he cannot be considered a non-Muslim. This is not reflective of lower importance of the principle of Imamat because being a muslim (alone) is only a formal submission to Allah and not necessarily indicative of ones faith (Iman). We strongly believe that a man's faith can never be complete without belief in Imamat which is why it is emphasized and considered as one of our Primary Principles. And this is not my personal opinion. If you wish, I can share detailed response from our scholars confirming how we understand our usools.

You further said that the role of Imam is that of a GUIDE, I asked amongst my other questions in the opening post as to where is the guide now? Why is he inaccessible and how can I get guidance from him? What guidance has he given to Shia brothers in since 270 AH. Does the impalpable existence of the Imam not make Imamate self-inconsistent?

One needs to be unbiased and understand the shia concept of Occultation in detail before questioning how one can receive guidance from the Imam.

Firstly, please note that the concept of occultation (Ghaybat) is nothing new according to our historical references. We have examples of our Prophets who went into occultation during their time. For example, when Hazrat Idrees went into occultation, the oppressors of his time killed his shias and harrassed them. But then Idrees a.s returned and gave good news to his nation about a person from his progeny, Nuh a.s, after which Allah ascended him back to heavens. Thus, the shias of Idrees waited for Nuh for many centuries. We also have an example of Saleh a.s who remained in occultation for a period of time and when he returned, his own nation refused to recognise him and was divided into 3 groups. Through these example, we see that occultation is not alien to Islam.

Secondly, the maslihat (the purpose behind overall scheme) of Allah subhan Ta'aAllah is well known by Him (alone) or anyone authorised by Him. We have an example of Khizar who is although not physically present amongst us and is not a person whom one can contact to have his/her issues resolved yet this mysterious personality is accepted by all muslims and is known to assist people as per Allah's Hukm. This example shows us that a divine authority of Allah can assist in ways difficult to comprehend (Prophet Musa a.s initially disagreed with actions taken by Khizar a.s) and hidden from our sight. A question was asked from one of our Imams as to how muslims will receive guidance from the last Imam during major occultation and His response was something along the line of, "Just like you receive sun light in the absence of sun (cloudy day)".

No one said that Imams were meant to take over the role of Prophethood after the Holy Prophet(s) but the belief that Imams hold ranks higher than prophets seems even far more than that to me. Is that not self-inconsistent to hear a Shia saying that 'Oh,God forbids! Imams don't take over the role of Prophethood' and then all of a sudden making the announcement that 'it's just that they hold a position higher than Prophets themselves' Nice!

I don't know why it is seen as such a big deal when it is not even an essential requirement of our school of thought to believe whether our Imams were superior to Prophets or not. These are personal beliefs and everyone holds them based on their own research and knowledge. You will find shias on this forum who do not believe in Imams being higher in status to the Prophets and vice versa. You will also find sunni muslims who consider Panjtan Paak superior to Prophets and vice versa. These kinds of discussions should be dealt with intellectually and people should agree to disagree. No need for name calling or calling one another kafir.

On one side you said that you don't intend to degrade the status of Prophets(as) but on the other hand by giving examples of different types of prophets(as) and their roles and then quoting the number 124,000 you have tried to further reduce the importance of the office(by using this number in the desired context) and comparing the number with Ulul Azm Prophets(as) and then saying that some Prophets(as) were not assigned for Ummahs, and then citing Sharia/Bookless Prophets, Prophets without angelic interactions, dreaming Prophets and then finally etc etc ...you have intentionally or unintentionally tried to reduce the importance of Prophethood in order to make room for Imams to be given a stutus higher than Prophets.

What I shared with you is based on facts and the ahadith of our Imams. Surely you are not bound to accept our ahadith but can you atleast understand that our view of Prophethood is perhaps different from that of yours? Being understanding towards one another helps pave the way to constructive discussions.

As far as your last objection is concerned as to why all the Muslims were not given a right to chose the Caliph, then brother, it's not a part of Sunni belief to have faith in any 'modus operandi' in deciding who the leader will be.

This is not a reasonable explanation, imho. Considering that Islam is a well organised religion, one has to question why its Prophet would not leave behind a set of rules explaining Leadership/Khilafat and its appointment. Logically, either the successor of the Prophet had to be chosen by Himself or He may have given some indication as to how the ummah is to appoint its leader after Him P.b.u.H. So one has to chose an option rather than just dismissing the argument by claiming that it is not part of sunni belief.

I have asked so many other questions in my original post and afterwards. It's a pleasure to have a person from the admins, I welcome you and urge you to give answers to all my questions including the above ones.

 

To be honest, I avoid lengthy discussions but I'll try to go through your posts and see if I can answer some more questions. I'd highly appreciate though if the discussions are reduced to shorter posts. Its better and practical to discuss one issue at a time. I'd also appreciate if these discussions are seen as an opportunity to atleast understand one another. Because if we're just going to argue back and forth, I really don't see the point of investing so much time and effort.

Fi-Amanillah

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

All this was done by children of Abdullah Bin Saba and his likes

I stopped reading at this point. Are you out of your mind? Your ignorance is detrimental to humanity. Anyone who mentions Abdullah Ibn Saba is not entitled to an opinion on Shi'a Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brother Sheraz,

Thanks for your offer of help. I appreciate this. As far as the term 'guide' is concerned, I have provided you with reference to the translation of this verse, and your understanding of the term is completely different from what I have read it to be. According to the translation I presented to you the Guide in question is the Holy Prophet(s) himself who is infallible and doen't make mistake in both your belief and mine. So there is no question of this particular guide making a mistake.

No i was just showing you that there is a guide for every nation. Every nation has a guide who lays out a foundation for them to follow religion. You see the guide cannot make a mistake as he is assigned by Allah. If the Allahs "Guide" makes mistake than his followers (ummah) cannot be held responsible for its. Hope that clarifies the idea of Infallibility.

I am sorry my posts are lengthy as you have observed but they are at least not irrelevant, though the answers I got thus far are!, and no one till yet is coming to the real point and the debate has not started as yet.Once someone starts discussing the relevant points, it will start getting more precise. I hope my posts will not be so lengthy in future anyway as nowadays I am enjoying my Eid holidays(just one left). Belated Eid Mubarak to you!. I will not be that active either once I get back to work.

They dont give enuff holidays to us hard working ppl :dry:

By the way, I wonder why in order to learn the concept of Imamate, one has to learn to crawl first and then to walk? Same is not the case with other basic concepts as Tawheed and Prophethood. Do you not think a few explicit verses in the Quran would have served the purpose much better than a Shia brother's commentry or a scholar's whole book on the concept of Imamate sans clear proofs from Quran and Hadith? I hope it is justifiable to ask for clear proofs from Quran considering the huge amount of importance the office of Imamate carries till the end of the world. On the very contrary, the concept of Tawheed and God which is a clerly understood concept has been reiterated in Quran and has been mentioned more than 2000 times and the term Prophet has been referred to more than 400 times although they already form part and parcel of Islamic theology but why is there not a single verse clearly describing the meanings and inception of the institution of Imamate?

The concept of Immate is different in Sunni and Shia Islam. In Sunni Islam it doest carry the weight/importance as compared to Shia Islam.

Sunni View:

Allamah Shibli Numani:

“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”

Al-Faruq, page 325

Imam Rabbani; Shaykh Ahmad Sarhandi while referring to the same rank of Imamate as Wilayah wrote:

“The gist of the discussion is that Wilayah is the reflection of Prophethood”

Maktubaat, Volume 2 page 253

Shia View:

Murtaza Mutahhari, Wilãyah: the Station of the Master (Walã' hã wa wilãyat hã):

"This dimension reflects universal power over the entire universe that the Prophet and Ahlul Bayt have been vested with by the grace of Almighty Allãh"

As for bieng able to crawl before you can walk, ive laid a foundation of Immamate. So if you need any clarification jst post away. And when ive got time ill reply to them.

Edited by Sheraz
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salams

Imamat is necessary to us but you have to clearly understand our principles and their implications in order to ensure that your criticical analysis is based on factual information rather than being your personal interpretation of our beliefs. As I previously said, if a person does not believe in Imamat, according to shia school, he cannot be considered a non-Muslim. This is not reflective of lower importance of the principle of Imamat because being a muslim (alone) is only a formal submission to Allah and not necessarily indicative of ones faith (Iman). We strongly believe that a man's faith can never be complete without belief in Imamat which is why it is emphasized and considered as one of our Primary Principles. And this is not my personal opinion. If you wish, I can share detailed response from our scholars confirming how we understand our usools.

Brother, My emphasis on stating Imamate to be a predominantly significant Shia concept is due to the fact that it has been included amongst such important Islamic concepts as Tawheed, Prophethood and Day of Judgment and forms a cardinal part of Shia faith. This is not my personal or 'subjective' view of the facts but an opinion based on statements of illustrious Shia scholars:

Al-Shia.com
says

:“فيمن جحد إمامة أمير المؤمنين والائمة من بعده عليهم السلام بمنزلة ( 6 ) من جحد نبوة الانبياء عليهم السلام . واعتقادنا ”

“فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من الائمة عليهم السلام أنه بمنزلة من آمن بجميع الانبياء ثم أنكر بنبوة محمد صلى الله عليه وآله “

Translation: Imam Al-Saduk says, “Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imamah of Ameer al Mumineen [Ali] and the Aimmah (Imams) after him, has the same position like the one who rejects the Prophethood of the Prophets.”

Further, he states: “And our belief is that the one who accepts Ameer al Mumineen [Ali] but rejects a single Imam after him, has the same position like the one who believes in all of the Prophets and then rejects the Prophethood of Muhammad (saws).”

source:

Al-Shia.com
says

“Shaikh Mufid declared:

“اتفقت الامامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من الائمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار”

Translation: “The Imamiyyah [shia] are in agreement (’Ijma) that the one who rejects the Imamah of one Imam and rejects the obedience to them which
Allah
ordered is a misguided Kaffir deserving to remain in Hell-Fire forever.”

source:

It can clearly be deduced from above that belief in Imamate means Kufr in Shia Islam.

One needs to be unbiased and understand the shia concept of Occultation in detail before questioning how one can receive guidance from the Imam.

Firstly, please note that the concept of occultation (Ghaybat) is nothing new according to our historical references. We have examples of our Prophets who went into occultation during their time. For example, when Hazrat Idrees went into occultation, the oppressors of his time killed his shias and harrassed them. But then Idrees a.s returned and gave good news to his nation about a person from his progeny, Nuh a.s, after which Allah ascended him back to heavens. Thus, the shias of Idrees waited for Nuh for many centuries. We also have an example of Saleh a.s who remained in occultation for a period of time and when he returned, his own nation refused to recognize him and was divided into 3 groups. Through these example, we see that occultation is not alien to Islam.

Brother, you have given references of biblical parables, retold and corroborated by (current) Islam as well, in which extraordinary events and miraculous occurings have been narrated to have happened. Some of these events are supernatural and defy logic and common sense and one cannot believe them in normal life, but their presence in the Quran and Hadith of Holy Prophet(s) makes it compulsory for us to have belief in them without question. On the other hand, the Occultation of Imam Hasan Askari's® son, the Shia reported 12th Imam has nowhere been mentioned in Quran and Hadith. It is obviously an incident defying common sense. Our only source of information regarding this incident is Uthman Bin Said and the rest of the 3 alleged representatives of the 12th Imam. This source is not credible enough at least for a free thinking Muslim to have unquestionable belief in Occultation. Therefore this is utterly unfair to compare the authenticity quotients of these two types of incidents which have been narrated by two different sources having no comparison in the terms of their credibility. The similarity of details in these two stories with completely differently credible sources reporting them does not make the second story(story of Occulation) to be true and reliable. As I have said before in one of my posts, Shia brothers are bound to take help from things(similes, metaphors, illustrations) told in Quran and Hadith which are only similar in details of their doctrines and concepts, just because their own doctrines have not been explicitly explained in these sources.

It's like founder of a new sect in Islam says that I have travelled to Arsh-e-Mualla and have met Allah and returned during a fraction of a second and to authenticate this story he cites the incident of Me'raj and says that this phenomenon is not new to Islam as same kind of a journey has been performed by Holy Prophet(s) too. Would such a person not be called a heretic?

Same arguments holds true for your example of Khizar(as)

P.S. In the biblical parables, when a Prophet goes on his travels, which you think are analogous to Occultation, despite the fact that these incidents have been reported in Scripture, still the reason of their travels are explained in their stories while the reason of the Occultation is not known to anyone.

Secondly, the maslihat (the purpose behind overall scheme) of Allah subhan Ta'aAllah is well known by Him (alone) or anyone authorised by Him. We have an example of Khizar who is although not physically present amongst us and is not a person whom one can contact to have his/her issues resolved yet this mysterious personality is accepted by all muslims and is known to assist people as per Allah's Hukm. This example shows us that a divine authority of Allah can assist in ways difficult to comprehend (Prophet Musa a.s initially disagreed with actions taken by Khizar a.s) and hidden from our sight. A question was asked from one of our Imams as to how muslims will receive guidance from the last Imam during major occultation and His response was something along the line of, "Just like you receive sun light in the absence of sun (cloudy day)".

You have made a confession that the purpose behind Occultation is not known to Shia brothers. I don't want to comment on that, I hope the readers can understand the abstruse nature of this office from this confession.

You have given the age-old explanation of Sunlight being received from behind the clouds. This is another instance of a providing a poetic justification of the issue. The sun still provides a lot of light and benefits(energy, gravity to keep Earth in its orbit, warmth, help in photosynthesis etc) from behind the clouds. Mind you, clouds are only present in specific areas and the rest of the world is still directly exposed to its light. There are a lot of problems in which the guidance and help of the Imam are required. What benefits do we have from the Imam in this regard. None whatsoever.

I don't know why it is seen as such a big deal when it is not even an essential requirement of our school of thought to believe whether our Imams were superior to Prophets or not. These are personal beliefs and everyone holds them based on their own research and knowledge. You will find shias on this forum who do not believe in Imams being higher in status to the Prophets and vice versa. You will also find sunni muslims who consider Panjtan Paak superior to Prophets and vice versa. These kinds of discussions should be dealt with intellectually and people should agree to disagree. No need for name calling or calling one another kafir.

What I shared with you is based on facts and the ahadith of our Imams. Surely you are not bound to accept our ahadith but can you atleast understand that our view of Prophethood is perhaps different from that of yours? Being understanding towards one another helps pave the way to constructive discussions.

I am always in favour of Shia Sunni unity and never call the Shia brothers as Kafirs. As far as accepting Shia position and understanding their perspective is concerned. I am always ready to accept their right to think however they want. But it really hurts when people start giving ranks higher than Prophethood to people(no doubt sacred people) whimsically, and divide in more than 100 sects on the base of difference of opinion on who these people are and hence each group declaring their set of sacred people to have status higher than Prophets(as). This is really confusing and alarming. Isn't it?

This is not a reasonable explanation, imho. Considering that Islam is a well organised religion, one has to question why its Prophet would not leave behind a set of rules explaining Leadership/Khilafat and its appointment. Logically, either the successor of the Prophet had to be chosen by Himself or He may have given some indication as to how the ummah is to appoint its leader after Him P.b.u.H. So one has to chose an option rather than just dismissing the argument by claiming that it is not part of sunni belief.

The Ahlus Sunnah stance is that Holy Prophet(s) did not leave a set of such rules as described by you. On the opposite, Shia brothers assert that He(s) left them in organized form. Let's analyse the future events in view of both Ahlus Sunnah and Shia positions. Sahaba®, because of absence of such rules and regulations, tried the heretofore known, Arab conventional methods of choosing the Calphs and thus the election of the four Calphs (5 including Hasan®) was done. Then followed the reign of Umayyads which was the establishment of dynastic rule, unlike following the method of consultation as done previsouly. Things kept changing after that till now.

Shia point of view is that the concept of Imamate was left as a rule by Holy Prophet(s) and now we are taking your position to be legitimate in terms of the law of successorship of the Holy Prophet(s). What happened when people tried to follow this law. Right after the martyrdom of Hussain®, sects started to form because of difference of opinion within Shia ranks just on the base of this 'well defined' law of the 'well organized' religion of Shia Islam. More than one hundred sects were formed in a couple of centuries while following this law. Was this law so well explained and transparent? Why was there so much difference of opinion while all sects were actually following this fundamental law of successorship which Shia brother deem to be a pillar of their faith?

I wonder if that was the reason why the Holy Prophet(s) did not leave such a law for Muslims to follow?

Surprisingly, in the end the Imam decided to pack up and leave! Was that the end of the story of the fundamental law made by Allah?

Furthermore, Imam Khomeni decided to choose the method of Sahaba® i.e. consultation while announcing his new doctrine of Wilayat-al-Faqih to elect the representative of the hidden Imam.

To be honest, I avoid lengthy discussions but I'll try to go through your posts and see if I can answer some more questions. I'd highly appreciate though if the discussions are reduced to shorter posts. Its better and practical to discuss one issue at a time. I'd also appreciate if these discussions are seen as an opportunity to atleast understand one another. Because if we're just going to argue back and forth, I really don't see the point of investing so much time and effort.

Shia Sunni unity is my utmost desire and my formula to achieve it is that Shia brothers leave the practice of Tabarra and keep their faith to love of Holy Prophet(s) and his venerable family. Sunni fraternity in return would be more than happy to accept and have tolerance for Shia brothers and both these groups should strive to forget the elements of differences and concentrate on points of union amongst themselves. Considering your soft stance on Imamate which is an Usool-e-deen, I hope it would not be difficult for Shia brothers to leave practicing such furoo as Tabarra to attain Muslim unity. Inshallah.

Fi-Amanillah

Edited by ambrosechappel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Sunni Articles of Faith, they are:
  1. Tawheed
  2. Prophethood
  3. Angels
  4. Scriptures
  5. The day of Judgment and Afterlife
  6. Predestination

Compare it with the list of Shia Articles of Faith

  1. Tawheed
  2. Adl
  3. Prophethood
  4. Imamate
  5. Qiyamat

I understand your point of view. But I do have one simple question, why is Angels part of Sunni article of Faith? They are beings with no free will, no power to make decisions, never communicate with fallibles, and were told to prostrate to a human. What is the logical reason to make Angels an Article of Faith? (besides the fact they did what they were told by God)

PS. I didn't read your first post, it's just too long. It'll be more productive to shorten responses.

Edited by Ugly Jinn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I understand your point of view. But I do have one simple question, why is Angels part of Sunni article of Faith? They are beings with no free will, no power to make decisions, never communicate with fallibles, and were told to prostrate to a human. What is the logical reason to make Angels an Article of Faith? (besides the fact they did what they were told by God)

PS. I didn't read your first post, it's just too long. It'll be more productive to shorten responses.

002.285 The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."

Al-Qur'an, 002.285 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])

Edited by aladdin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy Sunni folks,

Proof that Imamate is Higher than Prophethood from Quran:

2:124] And (remember) when his Lord tried Abraham with (His) commands, and he fulfilled them, He said: Lo! I have appointed thee an IMAM for mankind. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be leaders)? He said: My covenant includeth not wrong-doers.

Prophet Ibrahim was already a Prophet and God raised him to Imamate. Tell me, when you obtain a promotion do you go upwards or downwards?

Common sense prevails.

--------------------------------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...