Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Circular Reasoning Of Twelvers

Rate this topic


faridov

Recommended Posts

السلام عليكم bro

I'm not understanding what you're trying to ask here. Can you elaborate?

 

I'm asking, if the Caliphs have to have political authority, then how do you reconcile that with the hadith which says "لا يضرهم من خذلهم"?

 

Rough translation: Who ever ignores them does not harm them.

 

So wouldn't that mean, that who ever doesn't recognise them, in the end it wouldn't matter to them? So why do they have to be recognised as political Caliphs?

 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the hadith?

Edited by al-Ibrahimi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@ Al Ibrahimi: I could not find Tawtheeq for Al Alaaf. Please see my analysis on the hadith. Any hadith with additions hold no weight when you see how many chains go back to Jabir bin Samura which do not include these additions.

@ Islamic Salvation:

Ahlan akhi. It has been a long time. Nice hadith, but it is weak due to Mohammad bin Eisa. See Tahreer Al Tawoosi and the evidences brought by Al Behbudi in Ma'rifat Al Hadith that expose him as a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Al Ibrahimi: I could not find Tawtheeq for Al Alaaf. Please see my analysis on the hadith. Any hadith with additions hold no weight when you see how many chains go back to Jabir bin Samura which do not include these additions.

 

Shukran. I understand now.

Edited by al-Ibrahimi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

@ Islamic Salvation:

Ahlan akhi. It has been a long time. Nice hadith, but it is weak due to Mohammad bin Eisa. See Tahreer Al Tawoosi and the evidences brought by Al Behbudi in Ma'rifat Al Hadith that expose him as a liar.

 

Too long.

 

We'll have to disagree about al-Ubaydi, seeing as though I believe his Tawthiq is stronger than contextualized weakening, but that may turn into a lengthy discussion in of itself I am sure.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

When non-Muslims become Sunnis, it is due to the Qur'an.

 

When non-Muslims become Shias, they start with the Qur'an, and then the details of the 12 Imams are explained to them later on. They do not come up with the idea of 12 Imams through the Qur'an alone. They need to either read Shia books, or have some knowledgeable Twelver explain the concept to them (using Shia books).

 

Whereas the fundamental concept of Sunnis - Tawhid, Prophethood, Prayer, Zakaat, Hajj are all found in the Qur'an. They only need Sunni ahadith to explain the details, not to introduce the entire concept.

 

So yes, believing in 12 Imams can only be done through the books of Twelvers, and this is indeed circular logic.

I've read a few books written by classical sunni scholars, and I've never come across such logic in centuries. Maybe because some of these classical scholars were scholars who knew something about religion, divine justice etc

I say, the non Muslims start with fitra. It guides them to monotheism , to Allah , to Quran and Islam. Once they pick up the Quran and accept the god of Quran they accept Islam.

That dose not mean that they will accept all laws of Islam. Some may not accept hijab for example. Isn't haya part of fitra? Shouldn't they just figured it out without being taught about it through Quran?

This is ridiculous . The fitra led them to Islam , Islam then refined their fitra, it improved fitra and polished it.

Then in Quran we don't have explicit order to cover the way women cover today. Shouldn't it be there? Where is the evidence ?

You will point to me to the else of following the prophet. Fine, so what? The versed isn't say to take his words as religion, just respect him as leader? Follow his commands in battles etc

Of course this is ridiculous thinking . It is a former of reductionism that is below absurdism.

Is following the prophet part of fitra or we learn about fitra only through the prophet teachings?

So fitra, Quran, prophet sunnah. ....then we have the prophet mentioning 2 other sunnah to be followed besides his. Sunnah of his household in the famous hadith of thaqalyin and sunnah of the khulafa rashidoun Mahdioun .

Is that logic circular?

Draw a diagram to show me please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 its clear and obvious that the name of twelve Imam did not mentioned in detail in the holy Quran, this holy book, provide , general rules from which the rule of individual cases will deduce and infer, because of the generalities of the Quranic verses, sunni scholar resort to Qyas  Istehsan… which is not accepted  from shi’a point of view .

 

in many Ahadith and narration which exist in both shi’a and sunni books explicitly stated that the following verse revealed in the day of Ghadir Al-khum   when the holy prophet appointed Imam Ali as his successor among people (الیوم اکملت لکم دینکم وأتممت علیکم نعمتی ورضیت لکم الاسلم دینا) please look at this sunni books : Ibn Jurair Tabary , Hafez Abu Na’im Isfahani, Khatib Baghdady...

 

 

in addition , based on many Ahadith which exist in sunni books the verse number 67  ( (یا ایها الرسول بلغ ماانزل الیک من ربک from chapter Ma'da also revealed about Iamm Ali and what happened in the day of Ghadir Al-khum , look at the following sunni books : Hafez Abu na’im Isfahani,Ibn ‘asaker shafe’y, sheikh  Sulaiman Qunduzy Hanafi…

Edited by dawudansari2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Some of the brothers have been curious about the Imamah of the Twelve and why I have chosen it as a debate topic. As we can see from my debate with Abu Hadi, the way to prove the Imamah of the Twelve can only be done with the usage of Shia hadiths.

It is impossible to know who the Imams were from the Qur'an, since their names aren't included.

It is impossible to know the Imams from Sunni hadith since there is no evidence of appointment of the Imams in Sunni hadith.

There is no evidence of the Imams from using logic alone, since one needs evidence of appointment to accept their Imamah. One cannot be born in the desert and contemplate the stars, then start believing in the Imams.

The ONLY evidence of the Imamah of the Twelve is through Shia hadith.

This means that if you are a Twelver, then you are following a circular reasoning.

One cannot be a Twelver unless he accepts Twelver hadith sources.

One cannot accept Twelver hadith sources unless he becomes a Twelver.

The smart Shi'ee amongst you will try to throw that question back at me and say: Then then same applies to Sunnis.

The smarter Shi'ee will know that that the fundamentals of the deen according to Sunnis is not based on circular reasoning, since all our fundamentals are explicit in the Qur'an.

Ironically, even Shia sources themselves are extremely questionable and I suggest checking out my site for my reasons why in the article about Sunni vs Shia Hadith Sciences. However, that is another topic for another time.

Please try not to derail the thread.

May Allah guide us all.

 

You didn't prove anything of the kind

 

This is what happened.

 

- You said there is no NASS (explicity proof from hadith) that Imam Ali(a.s) was designated sucessor of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h)

- I mentioned Ghadir

- You replied that Ghadir is not NASS and that you had issues with it

- I asked you what the issues were

- You refused to answer, and instead wanted to start a new debate where no other sources can be used except Ghadir

 

That is not proving anything. That is resorting to nonsense tactics when cornered on a point, refuse to answer until the other person (me)

just loses interest in your stalling tactics, wait a few days, then declare victory.

 

I doubt whether anyone reading that thread will agree with you that you proved anything.

 

Here is the original thread. Let the brothers and sisters judge for themselves

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235030534-debate-on-imamah-on-shiachat/page-8#entry2811374

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I suggest that you guys google: Twelve Caliphs Twelver Shia to see my three part analysis which includes the Hadith Text, the Sunni perspective, and the Shia perspective.

And afwan.

I suggest that you guys google: Twelve Caliphs Twelver Shia to see my three part analysis which includes the Hadith Text, the Sunni perspective, and the Shia perspective.

And afwan.

This is the opinion of al imam al nawawi regarding the clear dalala, after the establishment of the authenticity of the chain, that khilafa is in Quraish . From his commentary on sahih Muslim regarding the Hadith of the 12 caliph

ال النووي : هذه الأحاديث وأشباهها دليل ظاهر أن الخلافة مختصة بقريش لا يجوز عقدها لأحد من غيرهم وعلى هذا انعقد الإجماع في زمن الصحابة فكذلك بعدهم ومن خالف فيه من أهل البدع أو عرض بخلاف من غيرهم فهو محجوج بإجماع الصحابة والتابعين فمن بعدهم بالأحاديث الصحيحة قال القاضي اشتراط كونه قرشيا هو مذهب العلماء كافة قال وقد احتج به أبو بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهم على الأنصار يوم السقيفة فلم ينكره أحد قال القاضي وقد عدها العلماء في مسائل الإجماع ولم ينقل عن أحد من السلف فيها قول ولا فعل يخالف ما ذكرنا وكذلك من بعدهم في جميع الأعصار قال ولا اعتداد بقول النظام ومن وافقه من الخوارج وأهل البدع أنه يجوز كونه من غير قريش ولا بسخافة ضرار بن عمرو في قوله أن غير القرشي من النبط وغيرهم يقدم على القرشي لهو أن خلعه إن عرض منه أمر وهذا الذي قاله من باطل القول وزخرفه مع ماهو عليه من مخالفة اجماع المسلمين والله أعلم

If I may ask a kind brother to translate the nawawi opinion so that everyone will benefit from it.

Edited by Chaotic Muslem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I suggest that you guys google: Twelve Caliphs Twelver Shia to see my three part analysis which includes the Hadith Text, the Sunni perspective, and the Shia perspective.

And afwan.

In your article you are insisting that the Mahdi is a matter of ghayba.If you believe he will come and rule then it's a part of aqeedah,no matter if he is in ghayba or not.And you said the 12 caliphs have to rule in a "time of glory",that's why the mahdi can't be a caliph.

So what is he then and what is the role of Issa if the times of glory are over?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

In your article you are insisting that the Mahdi is a matter of ghayba.If you believe he will come and rule then it's a part of aqeedah,no matter if he is in ghayba or not.And you said the 12 caliphs have to rule in a "time of glory",that's why the mahdi can't be a caliph.

So what is he then and what is the role of Issa if the times of glory are over?

Sister, sunnis don't believe in ghayibah. It is utter non sense to them. Ghaybah of who exactly?

This is absurd takhlit made for the sake of fun .

Ghayibah is a belief related to imamah of imam Mahdi. Sunnis don't believe he was born to be in ghayibah nor they believe he is saint with miracles. Sunni concept of Mahdi is of regular Muslim who will conquer .

Some Sunni scholars though, after failing to find misdaq for the Hadith of the 12 caliph said that the 12 will come after Mahdi since Mahdi will establish justice and since all of these 12 must be very just and pious .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I just wondered why faridov is mentioning ghayba...

Here is an article of an Ayatullah about "Imam al-Mahdi in Sunni Hadith Resources"

Author: Ayatullah al-Uzma Nasir Makarim Shirazi

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=11727

I suggest faridov to read it.

Edited by mina313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Looks like I forgot to respond to a coupple of points made by brother Islamic Salvation.

Please, if anyone noticed me skipping a certain point that has to do with the topic of the circular reasoning of Shias, then please make an additional post to let me know, or PM me.

Islamic Salvation, you said that the Imamah of Ali, Al Hasan, and Al Hussain, can only lead to the Imamah of the rest of the Twelve. Let us say, for the sake of the argument, that their Imamah is proven, how does that lead me to accepting the Imamah of the rest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wondered why faridov is mentioning ghayba...

Here is an article of an Ayatullah about "Imam al-Mahdi in Sunni Hadith Resources"

Author: Ayatullah al-Uzma Nasir Makarim Shirazi

http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=11727

I suggest faridov to read it.

 

Everyone knows al-Mahdi is found in Sunni sources, and narrations concerning him may be mutawatir, either way some are sahih, but I don't think all Sunnis consider believing in him as a fundamental part of the religion. But I have heard of a Sunni scholar who declares kufr on people who don't believe in al-Mahdi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

(bismillah)

 

Does this mean we need to validate the prophethood of all the prophets who arent mentioned in the Qur'an? I suspect not.

 

If it's sufficient to accept the general notion of prophethood and the finality of it culminating with Muhammad al-Mustafa, without knowing the names yet alone nass of majority of the prophets, why, then, do we need overwhelming evidence for the nass of each Imam when the idea of there always existing after the Prophet , until the Day of Judgement, a possessor of authority, who is from the Quraysh, and with them being twelve in number is established in the Book and Sunna?

 

The Qur'an is filled with narratives of individuals selected by God who posses divine authority amongst the people. Some of whom are prophets and some are not. On the odd occassion, they seem to have a greater insight into some matters than Messengers of God themselves (eg., Surah Kahf). The fact that this authority was given to a group of individuals whom we now call "Imams" doesnt change the fact that these kinds of individuals existed and their mention is all over the Quran. 

 

This is a subtle yet crucial point alluded too by some users here in the past and one that has been made more apparent to myself recently when given more consideration and thought. I feel this is a point many Shia overlook as well when approaching this specific issue. 

 

 

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Allah has already mentioned 25 Prophets with their stories and mission but Allah has explicitly told us to believe in all the Prophets that were sent from beginning of time. This is not the case with 'twelver shia' Imams. Neither they are mentioned by name nor is there is anything about them in the Quran nor has Allah asked us to "believe in Imams who will come after the Prophet", there is no such verse. Not only that but there are so many Shia sects who have different 'divinely appointed infallible' Imams. None of them can prove their claims from the Quran. 

 

This is what Allah want us to believe - that we all say that we believe in all the Prophets and Messengers that were sent:

 

آمَنَ الرَّسُولُ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِن رَّبِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ ۚ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللَّـهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّن رُّسُلِهِ ۚ وَقَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا ۖغُفْرَانَكَ رَبَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ

The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination." (2:285)

 

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا آمِنُوا بِاللَّـهِ وَرَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي نَزَّلَ عَلَىٰ رَسُولِهِ وَالْكِتَابِ الَّذِي أَنزَلَ مِن قَبْلُ ۚ وَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِاللَّـهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلَالًا بَعِيدًا

O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah, His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray. (4:136)

 

قُولُوا آمَنَّا بِاللَّـهِ وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطِ وَمَا أُوتِيَ مُوسَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ وَمَا أُوتِيَ النَّبِيُّونَ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّنْهُمْ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ 

Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him." (2:136)

 

وَلَـٰكِنَّ الْبِرَّ مَنْ آمَنَ بِاللَّـهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ وَالْكِتَابِ وَالنَّبِيِّينَ 

...but [true] righteousness is [in] one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Book, and the prophets (2:177)

 

Nothing about twelve or seven etc infallible Imams because there is no such thing Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

^

Do you believe that prophet ESA and Musa had successors ?

Do you believe that Allah told us their stories for entertainment or for the fact that what happened for previous nations will be repeated?

Didn't you read the Hadith of the khulafa by the number of noqaba bani Israel and hawari of ESA?

Or is Quran not a book for contemplation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

21:73--Al- Anbiya:  And We made them Imams who guided (people) by Our command, and We revealed to them the doing of good and the keeping up of prayer and the giving of the alms, and Us (alone) did they serve.

 32:24 Al-Sajdah: And We made of them Imams to guide by Our command when they were patient and they were certain of Our communications.

The Holy Prophet (pbuh) said:

"Whosoever dies without recognising the Imam of his age dies the death of a pagan." 

Why would he mention non existent Imams?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
 

Indeed, it is a matter of Ghayb for a Sunni now, since according to them, the Mahdi is not present during their time acting as an authoritative figure. However, it will turn into a matter of 'Aqeedah when the Mahdi does emerge during their time, establishes his authority on earth in declaring himself as the Khalifah of the prophet and requests every person to give him Bay'ah. That is, they are obliged to give him Bay'ah and refusing to do so nullifies their Eman(i.e they apostate from Islam and their blood and money become Halal). With that said, let's assume a fictional scenario to understand this better - that is; assuming a person living during the time of when the Mahdi emerges but refuses to give him Bay'ah with the reasoning that his position to authority is not stated in the Quran, let alone his name. Now would you defend the Eman of this person based on the reasoning they give? If you were to answer him from a Sunni perspective, you would not defend him by stating that the proof for the obligation to give Bay'ah to the Mahdi is established in the Sunnah without the need of it being mentioned in the Quran. Therefore you would tell him that he must acknowledge the Mahdi as the leader of his time and the prophet's Khalifah on earth as part of his 'Aqeedah, otherwise his Eman becomes nullified. The same is no different about the A'immahع with their authority being explained in details from the Sunnah alone being sufficient to establish it without the Quran mentioning these details (i.e their names and during what period of time they will become the Khulafah of the prophet) while at the same time; the essence of their authority as Khulafah of the prophet is established in the Quran, and it is.

 

The initial argument from mina was that the Mahdi is not mentioned in the Qur'an yet every Muslim believes in him, implying that a matter of 'aqeeda was not included in the Qur'an.

 

To this I say no - a matter of 'aqeeda is something mentioned in the Qur'an and which Rasul Allah (saw) expounded upon in detail.

 

The Mahdi is a matter of ghayb for Ahlul Sunnah. We merely expect him to arrive somewhere near the end of time. We neither await his appearance nor prepare for it - it is just something that will happen as a sign of the hour. It is not a matter of 'aqeeda, the Mahdi is completely useless to us now, for the last 1400 years, and for however long it is until he appears.

 

In the tradition of Ahlul Sunnah we have practically no information on the Mahdi, other than he will be a descendant of Rasul Allah (saw) and some very vague details about his character and reign.

 

These lack of details indicate that Rasul Allah (saw) did not want us to place too much importance on him, i.e. make him a matter of 'aqeeda.

 

This is in contrast to the Twelver creed in which the Mahdi is basically the bedrock of your entire sect.

 

 

I've read a few books written by classical sunni scholars, and I've never come across such logic in centuries. Maybe because some of these classical scholars were scholars who knew something about religion, divine justice etc

I say, the non Muslims start with fitra. It guides them to monotheism , to Allah , to Quran and Islam. Once they pick up the Quran and accept the god of Quran they accept Islam.
That dose not mean that they will accept all laws of Islam. Some may not accept hijab for example. Isn't haya part of fitra? Shouldn't they just figured it out without being taught about it through Quran?

This is ridiculous . The fitra led them to Islam , Islam then refined their fitra, it improved fitra and polished it.

Then in Quran we don't have explicit order to cover the way women cover today. Shouldn't it be there? Where is the evidence ?
You will point to me to the else of following the prophet. Fine, so what? The versed isn't say to take his words as religion, just respect him as leader? Follow his commands in battles etc

Of course this is ridiculous thinking . It is a former of reductionism that is below absurdism.

Is following the prophet part of fitra or we learn about fitra only through the prophet teachings?

So fitra, Quran, prophet sunnah. ....then we have the prophet mentioning 2 other sunnah to be followed besides his. Sunnah of his household in the famous hadith of thaqalyin and sunnah of the khulafa rashidoun Mahdioun .

Is that logic circular?
Draw a diagram to show me please!

 

The point is that usually when a non-Muslim becomes a Sunni it is due to the Qur'an, and that once he becomes a Sunni, he does not need any other book to introduce the fundamentals of the faith to him. He needs the books of Ahlul Sunnah to teach him the details.

 

Whereas when a non-Muslim becomes a Twelver he needs their books to introduce 90% of the religion to him - namely the 12 Imams.

 

In other words - before even learning about 12 Imams you have to accept the truth of the Twelver books, in essence becoming a Twelver in order to accept the correctness of the Twelver books.

 

 

[1] There is not contradiction in trying to get some to give you allegiance and wanting to oppress and kill them. These two methods were usually used, either to gain it or to intimidate Shias into giving allegiance, so often even after getting that allegiance (if they did), they still killed them. I don't get your point of mentioning that, unless it was failed sarcasm.

 

[2] Were they seeking allegiance or trying to kill and oppress them? Make your mind up.

 

[3] We forget it because it's wrong. Al-Husayn was the brother of Al-Hasan, not his descendant. 

 

[4] This is not a point that i wish to accept or reject right now, but it's not something you can claim without actually researching and studying all the instances. Stating it as a fact, just because it sounds right to you, is not only unacademic, it's dishonest. Once you have studied all the instances and come to certainty that this was not the reason, then you can make this claim, otherwise it's better not to say anything. 

 

I am not going to argue your other points as I don't see the point (with all due respect).

 

Just regarding point [3] - I didn't state that al-Husayn (ra) was a descendant of al-Hassan (ra), you should reread my post.

 

 

 

 

[1] How do you differentiate between the two? Are you allowed to reject the two or choose not to believe in their coming? Could you still be Sunni Muslim if did so? After answering those questions, tell me again; is it still not a matter of Aqeedah? And where in the Qur'an is the concept of Messiah-ism derived from?

 

[2] It's not the word of God until you have proven that it is without using circular logic!?

What an absurd statement. If you can't prove the Quran without pure rational proof, then it doesn't matter what you want to call it, there is no binding proof in it. 

 

[3] The concept of Imamah is found within the Qur'an, authority after the Prophet Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã is also found within the Qur'an. Its details come from elsewhere. 

 

[1] Yes, I can reject the belief in the Mahdi, and it would not make me a kaffir. It would however make me a fool.

 

[2] I fully agree, I never tainted the Qur'an with the issue of circular logic, some people did in response to Farid though.

 

[3] No doubt, the concept of leadership is found in the Qur'an. But the Twelver concept isn't merely one of simple leadership, it is a concept of divinely selected leadership after Rasul Allah (saw), which is a standalone concept not evidenced in the Qur'an.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Secondly, you need to define very clearly what you mean by Twelver hadith sources. Do you mean Twelver ahadith books and all that is in them, or do you mean specifically the ahadith that explicitly mention who the Imams were?

I am referring to early sources of hadith written by Twelver Shias like Al Kulaini, Al Saduq, and Al Tusi.

Although, in principle, of course one could have been a Twelver even if they had never seen those narrations or the narrations that came down to us, simply by witnessing the Imam of the time and recognizing him and accepting from them the Imamate of the 12, or the 12th [in order to be considered a Twelver] or those who will become Twelvers when the 12th comes and may not have read or seen any Twelver hadith sources. So this means that your premise one isn't applicable on everyone and in every time [which actually opens up a lot of discussion especially with regards to the early 12ers], and logically it becomes a particular proposition (juz'i) and not a general principle valid for all times and situations.

Indeed, it is not applicable to all times. I never claimed that it was. It is circular logic to the people of our times though.

In more logical jargon:

[*]Your Premise One: One cannot be a Twelver unless he accepts Twelver hadith sources - the جهت of the proposition here is not بالضرورة rather only today you may see it in some cases as being بالفعل. Otherwise, I mentioned above, there were individuals who believed in the 12 Imams without having to see or read any narrations [simply because they lived at the time of al-'Askari for example] or may exist بالقوة . I don't want to take the discussion into those 12ers who are 12ers due to taqleed - which I would argue that the large masses in most sects observe this methodology - as that will open up another discussion, but that is also one group of people who are 12ers without having any real understanding of hadith sources in order to accept or reject them [rather they may use their taqleed - for which they may have done a valid qiyas - to accept the narrations. I am speaking of Qiyas of logic of course, not what is understood in Fiqh]. Therefore, being a Twelver is an effect of accepting Twelver hadith sources, but its cause (that which makes one a 12er) is not limited to this.

Indeed, one can be a Twelver without using Twelver hadiths, through matters like taqleed, lack of research - which is the case with most ex-Sunnis, and by force. However, and perhaps this is one of the ill effects of reading too much ilm al jadal/kalaam, my point is clear and I am talking about the acceptance of the Twelve Imams based on Daleel. This is what I mean by "becoming a Twelver."

I doesn't seem to be an issue of my phrasing of the dilemma that Shias find themselves in, since many of the readers here perfectly know what I am talking about.

@ Al-Englisi:

[2] Similarly one can not be born in the desert without any communication with others and believe in Aakhirah(especially if he never witnesses death). I'm not even speaking about the details, the mere concept - do you claim it can be proven just by plain ta`aqqul and no experience? 

Indeed, one cannot arrive at akhira without an external source. One needs nass.

Please refer to my other answers to Ibn Al Hussein since they are similar to objections that you raised.

Edited by faridov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You haven't proven your second statement. Rather you have basically asserted it.

Who says you can't accept Twelver hadith sources unless you become a Twelver? Again, you need to prove this statement.

I am glad you brought this up because this will give me a chance to rephrase what I mean and perhaps get through to readers.

Here is an example to get my point across:

A convert, one who does not cling to Sunni nor Twelver hadith has chosen to accept Islam due to the Qur'an, some inspiration, or (insert any other reason here). Upon entering the deen, he is faced with two hadith libraries, the Sunni hadith library and the Twelver hadith library. After going through several books of Shia hadith, he arrives at the conclusion that the Twelve Imams are appointed, and that whoever rejects one of these Twelve men is damned to hell. He finds no such thing in Sunni hadith works, or little to no mention of some of those men. What would make this new convert accept the Twelver sources along with this teaching?

How about the example of an ex-Sunni? He begins to believe that Sunnism is false and turns his back away from the hadiths of those that do not come from Ahl al Bayt. He does find a lot of narrations from Ahl al Bayt in the Sunni hadith corpus. However, he chooses to reject it and rely on the foundations found in Al Saduq's books. What drove him to accept those sources?

In both scenarios, these two that have embraced Twelver Shiasm only arrived at this through accepting Twelver sources. Yet, one would not accept Twelver sources unless one becomes a Twelver Shia.

Remember, this is a foundation of the religion, and yet, cannot be proven with external evidences.

If asked about his deen, he would say: I am a Twelver Shia.

If asked: Why? He would say: Because Twelver Shia sources told me to accept the Twelve.

If asked: Why do you accept the Twelver sources? He would say: Because I am a Twelver Shia.

The same cannot be applied to any Sunni foundation, and even though I would love to discuss some of the adalat al sahaba stuff here including proofs from Qur'an and Shia hadiths, I'm not keen on getting the thread derailed.

Edited by faridov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

FAridov is actually right.

 

But what he is missing is that Sunni Islam is circular too.

 

Because that new convert in his example, let's say he converts to Islam due to the inspiration from the Qur'an. Then before even knowing about hadith he reads a biography of the Prophet and then a history of the early caliphate / Islamic conquests. He notices a lot of corruption and fitnah in the early centuries, such as companions of the Prophet fighting one another and shedding blood. The convert may be tempted to think that the early Muslims were just a crazy bunch. If he reads the Sunni hadith, however, he reads that the first three generations are guides for the future and the companions "are like the stars in the sky." etc. Then he will develop a Sunni mentality of these events, because it's based on the Sunni sources he read. How are they authentic? Because they are narrated by Sunnis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the brothers have been curious about the Imamah of the Twelve and why I have chosen it as a debate topic. As we can see from my debate with Abu Hadi, the way to prove the Imamah of the Twelve can only be done with the usage of Shia hadiths.

It is impossible to know who the Imams were from the Qur'an, since their names aren't included.

It is impossible to know the Imams from Sunni hadith since there is no evidence of appointment of the Imams in Sunni hadith.

There is no evidence of the Imams from using logic alone, since one needs evidence of appointment to accept their Imamah. One cannot be born in the desert and contemplate the stars, then start believing in the Imams.

The ONLY evidence of the Imamah of the Twelve is through Shia hadith.

This means that if you are a Twelver, then you are following a circular reasoning.

One cannot be a Twelver unless he accepts Twelver hadith sources.

One cannot accept Twelver hadith sources unless he becomes a Twelver.

The smart Shi'ee amongst you will try to throw that question back at me and say: Then then same applies to Sunnis.

The smarter Shi'ee will know that that the fundamentals of the deen according to Sunnis is not based on circular reasoning, since all our fundamentals are explicit in the Qur'an.

Ironically, even Shia sources themselves are extremely questionable and I suggest checking out my site for my reasons why in the article about Sunni vs Shia Hadith Sciences. However, that is another topic for another time.

Please try not to derail the thread.

May Allah guide us all.

 

In the name of Allah, the beneficient, the merciful.

 

This will be the only discussion topic i post, as i had promised myself not to get into debates or discussions until after my exam. Due to the pressing need , i make this exception.

 

Brother Farid,

 

You and i both agree on the coming of Imam Mahdi a.s, even if we disagree on whether or not he is born. We both agree obidience to him is wajib, Jesus son of Mary pbuh will pray behind him, that he will rule the entire ummah and be at the forefront of bringing reform, peace, justice and prosperity in the entire world. However, where in the Quran do we find such an important concept being discussed? (By the way, i have excluded dai'f hadiths about Imam Mahdi a.s, only included the reliable , hasan, saheeh's etc)

 

Going by this logic, one would easily reject someone as important as Imam Mahdi a.s (or Al madhi r.a) simply because the Quran does not directly explicitly name his title or name all of these quite pertinent points about him.

 

The Quran often touches on principles, goes into depth about some, whilst allowing the Prophet PBUH to elucidate and expand in depth.

 

Upon going through the Quran, as a convert, i would have asked a few key questions:

 

1. Where do i get the Sunnah of Muhammed pbuh from and key command and elucidation for the verses of the Quran? Clearly, every verse has its context, and it would be improper of me to therefore inteprete the Quran purely on my own will and whims, though i can grasp many meanings.

 

2. I would look at both sunni and shia hadiths on tawheed, because it is a key principle and notice a stark difference(i am grateful for the PM, after my exams inshAllah we wil discuss more)

 

Shia vs Sunni view on Allah swt.

 

1. Shias maintain that Allah swt does not have a 'face', a 'shin', 'hands' even if we affirm his parts are nothing like ours. We affirm these are all allegorical, not literal. If one affirms Allah swt has these parts, but then says they are nothing like our parts, it would denote Allah swt's shin is different to his hands, and that he is made up of constituent parts, and this goes against the very notion of ahad, of tawheed, of the indivisible unity and oneness of Allah swt.

 

2. Shia's maintain Allah swt will never be seen on the day of judgement. The Quran says, and i paraphrase, but there are those with eyes but do not see. Clearly, beleivers will see Allah swt through the eyes of the heart, not the literal eyes. They will see him 'allegorically', and not literally. Vision can not perceive him. Allah swt is not made up of limits, a confine, and hence vision can never comprehend nor perceive him, limit him, if one see's only part of him they have partitioned him.

 

3. Now, this is where the sunni's and salafi's split. I.E the belief Allah swt is literally above the arsh, but we must not ask how or question it. Shia's, and some sunni's affirm, and perhaps salafi's too, but it is not valid in my eyes as one can not hold two contradictory beliefs - but allahualam there may be differences among groups- but some affirm Allah swt is literally above his arsh. Shia's reply , and through hadiths, Allah swt existed before there was a 'where', and the question of 'where' does not apply to him.

 

You see, one can not say they would then follow a sunni school that does not beleive in the above because the vast majority do affirm some of the above. One also can not run away from the confusing hadiths which have caused such confusion among the ahlus-sunnah in their own hadith books by becoming an ashari,it would call into disrepute the hadith collections, the veracity and truthfulness of narrators, and in my view, make the key hadith books no longer reliable and just to follow like a normal sunni muslim.

 

One would either have to turn to being a quranist, have a very illogical way to somehow justify the hadiths, or trust in the mercy and justice of Allah swt that he would not leave mankind without a clear group who adhere to the truth, and investigate further and come to the school of ahlulbayt a.s (this is a simplified process, there are many steps inbetween)

 

We find clear instances here as to the differences in even fundamental understandings of Allah swt. Shias report from the ahlulbayt a.s, and it shows clearly.

 

You see, i could write more about this.

 

 

3. Putting aside 'twelve' imams a.s, the books among the shia and Ahlul-sunnah are absolutely crystal clear on the Ahlulbayt a.s being the key source for the sunnah of Muhammed pbuh, and the leadership of Ali a.s over all of the muslims, as well as the superiority of the ahlulbayt a.s This would then cause me to look at which madhab in Islam truly preserved the teachings of the Ahlulbayt a.s, it would act as a solid grounding.

 

The ahadith explicitly state, Muhammed pbuh's two precious things are the Quran and Ahlulbayt a.s. These were said shortly before his death, to the masses. The outer and explicit meaning is therefore to hold onto the ahlulbayt a.s, and one would therefore have to convincingly argue against such an explicit meaning. It is not as if the outer meaning is unclear and hence one needs to argue convincingly for the real deeper meaning.

 

We then have to think, who are this Ahlulbayt ?

 

Muhabila, where Muhammed pbuh does not bring anyone other than Ali a.s as his 'self', Fatima a.s as his women (note, it said 'women' and not 'daughter) and none by Hasan a.s and Hussain a.s as his two sons. No wives were brought, no other companions despite there being noble ones. Only these five.

 

We find example after example of verses in the Quran being directly for these individuals. For example, there is not a single hadith i have so far come across where Muhammed pbuh gathers five under the cloak, and it being his wives. We even have accounts where the wives were barred from entering the cloak and asked to remain in their position.

 

We find in the hadith, shortly before the messenger of Allah swt passes away, in both sunni and shia hadith, him saying he is leaving behind two precious things. The Quran, and the Ahlulbayt. This is explicit, precious denotes value, juxtaposition next to the Quran denotes each are united together, each must be consulted.

 

We find time and time again, meritious praises for Ali a.s and his ahlulbayt a.s. You'll find praise for the caliphs, but often its isolated praise, in our view fabricated. Whenever you find praises of Ali a.s, it is often historically verified, often the praise are not verbatim praises by examples of praise of something he has actually done.

 

Ghadeer , when you collated with the context, the situation, the Quran and Ahlulbayt hadiths among the other hadiths, is a clear indication of the succesorship of Imam Ali a.s. It is no coincidence both events occured shortly before the death of our prophet pbuh, i.e in the span of a year or so if not less or more.

 

The Prophet pbuh states, do i not have more authority over you than your ownselves? (which in my eyes, means he is clearly putting a context to the speech) Then whomsoevers mawla i am, Ali is also his mawla (meaning, as the prophet has more authority over us than we do over our ownselves, whomsoevers master he is, Ali is also his master).

 

I would then look at historical events, the unanimously accepted fact Ali a.s opposed the first caliph for six months. I would ask, why did he do so? Why would Ali a.s, who is often cited in sunni sources as calling the first caliph the best of men after the prophet pbuh at that time in arabia several times, and in other cases citing he is lower than even the third, choose to oppose the first for six months? Either he believed he should have been caliph or had a greater right to it.

 

Either that, or he is extremely immature for risking the unity of the ummah and not even talking and ironing things through right away.

 

Six months of opposition is a fact everyone needs to absolutely reflect on.

 

Think about it, infront of masses of people, Muhammed pbuh explicitly states he is leaving behind two precious things, the Quran and Ahlulbayt a.s, and in other traditions it is said after this, he goes onto say whomsoevers master i am, Ali is his master?

 

If i had no-one to cloud my judgement, no polemics, as you say, sitting there without bias, and i heard rasullulah explicitly state he is leaving behind the Quran and the Ahlulbayt a.s, the same Ahlulbayt a.s whom verses of the Quran were revealed explciitly time and time again for, and that because Muhammed pbuh had more authority over us than we do over our ownselves, whomsoevers master he is, Ali is also his master, is such a clear and explicit designation of leadership.

 

There are ofcourse other discreprancies. One being the idea that the first Caliph and Ummulmumineen Aisha, knew the inheritance laws of Muhammed pbuh, while ibn Abbas r.a, Ali a.s, and Fatima a.s were not even aware of the inheritance laws of their own blood. Um.Aisha was very young , and i fail to see how she could have had more knowledge about this than Ali a.s , who was always close to Muhammed pbuh, his own daughter, and a very notable companion. Clearly, this is not something that at all makes sense, there was certainly something strange going on with the ahlulbayt a.s's continual claim the land of Fadak was their right.

 

It's very strange to find Ali a.s , Fatima a.s not giving bayah to the first caliph , opposing him, and somehow forgetting a hadith that prophets do not leave behind inheritance and clashing on that topic as well.

 

IMHO, it's hadiths such as this that make me think, was there honestly no interporlation in hadith, fabrication, and distortion? This is not necessary nor sufficient proof, but it is certainly a basis by which to begin investigating. This hadith is also found in Bukhari:

 

140yn36.png

 

 

 

 

Just to add:

 

1. It would be circular reasoning to accept the Quran is the word of God just because it came from Muhammed pbuh, and that Muhammed pbuh was a prophet because the Quran was the word of God. One would need convincing proof for both.

 

2. Similarly, it would be circular reasoning to affirm the ahlul-sunnah or the shia-schools are correct in their intepretation of the Quran and historical events because they are the righteous, because they claim to be the true madhabs , because they are righteous and on truth etc. One would need to study both, and provide evidences to validate their claims.

 

You see brother, this has nothing to do with the allegation of circular reasoning. Your argument in essence is that why does Allah swt not explicily talk about ghadeer or the imamah of the twelve and name them.

 

The method i have shown is how one can attain truth through a process of deduction and come to the school of ahlulbayt a.s (briefly, not exhaustive proof) and understand why certain things are mentioned in principle and elucidated in depth by the prophet pbuh.

 

 

 

I will return after my exams inshAllah. This is not designed to be an exhaustive list of proofs, or even written in the right order unless explicitly said so.

Edited by Tawheed313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belief in the Qur'an's words is just based on reading it and feeling its raw eloquence and power, as many converts can attest. Even in translation.

 

Any belief or practice that comes from hadith - of any sect - is circular due to the circular nature of the hadith sciences and rijal.

 

You believe in a certain thing/practice and follow a sect because the hadith says so. How do you know the hadith is authentic? You study the narrators' reliability. How are they reliable? If they follow that sect you are following! This goes for Sunnis too.

 

Actually, the Quran in english while powerful, loses it's linguistic prowess that it has in Arabic. But the meanings of the Quran and the teachings, the life of Muhammed pbuh, the prophecies, and so on testify to its divine origin.

 

Lets put aside Muhammed pbuh, lets focus on Allah swt.

 

How did i choose to believe in God?:

 

1. Through reflection and philosophy as well as reason, i knew Allah swt can not have a 'where' as he existed before a 'where', he can not be literally seen because he has no form, no confine, no image. He can not 'descend' because movement nor motion apply to him. He does not have a shin, a face, a leg, fingers even if we affirm they are nothing like ours because he is ahad, one, God is eternal and has no constituent parts. He can not change form as the necessary existence by which everything exists must have been changeless, eteral, unlike matter and energy. i.e he can not have a 'foot' and put it 'into hell', that is an element of change.

 

And then i compared the two hadith collections:

 

Contention one: Can we see Allah swt, comprehend him or limit him in our knowledge?

 

Bukhari

9.530:

The Prophet said, "You will definitely see your Lord with your own eyes."

9.531:

Allah’s Apostle came out to us on the night of the full moon and said, "You will see your Lord on the Day of Resurrection as you see this (full moon) and you will have no difficulty in seeing Him."

 

Al Kafi

H 261, Ch. 9, h 10- Graded SAHIH by Alama Majlisi

"I asked Imam abul Hassan al-Rida (a.s.), about Allah if He can be described (defined in words). The Imam (a.s.) said, "Have you not read the Quran?" I replied, "Yes, I do read the Quran." He then said, "Have you not read the words of Allah, the Most High, "No mortal eyes can see Him, but He can see all eyes. He is All-kind and All-aware." (6:103) I replied, "Yes, I have read them." The Imam (a.s.) said, "Do they know the meaning of the eyes?" I replied, "Yes, they do." The Imam (a.s.) said, "What is it?" I replied, " It means seeing with the eyes." Then the Imam said, the Awham(mentioned above) of the heart is far greater comprehensive in knowledge than eye-witnessing. It is not able to comprehend Him but He comprehends all things.

 

(One paragraph taken from the hadith) H 253, Ch. 9, h 2  Graded SAHIH by Alama Majlisi

The Imam said, "How can a person who brought such messages to all creatures and told them

that he has brought such messages from Allah and called them to Allah by His commands and said, "The eyes can not comprehend Him." (6:103) "They can not limit Him through their knowledge." (20:110) "There is nothing similar to Him." (42:11), then he would say, "I saw Him with my own eyes? I did limit Him in my knowledge and that He is similar to a man? Should you not be ashamed of yourselves? Even the atheist have not said that the Prophet first brought one thing from Allah and then announced from Him other things contrary to the first."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contention two- Does Allah change states, or undergo change?

 

Bukhari:

"...What keeps you here when all the people have gone?' They will say, 'We parted with them (in the world) when we were in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, 'Let every nation follow what they used to worship,' and now we are waiting for our Lord.' Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, 'I am your Lord,' and they will say, 'You are not our Lord.' And none will speak: to Him then but the Prophets, and then it will be said to them, 'Do you know any sign by which you can recognize Him?' They will say. 'The Shin,' and so Allah will then uncover His Shin whereupon every believer will prostrate before Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation..."

 

Al Kafi

H 313, Ch. 16, h 4 – Graded Sahih by Alama Majlisi

The Imam said, "There is nothing in the universe, but that is subject to annihilation, alteration, change, decay, transition from one color to another, from one shape to another and from one quality to another. They increase, decrease and change from decrease to increase, except He, Who is the Lord of the worlds. He alone is eternal and in one state. He is the first, before every thing and the last eternally. His attributes and names do not change as they do in the case of others. A man at one time is dust, at other time flesh and blood, then turns into decaying bones and finally becomes dust. A piece of date  at one time is raw, at another time ripe, mature and then it dries up. With every change, the names and attributes also change. Allah, the Majestic, the Glorious is different from all such things."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contention three: Does Allah swt have a form?

 

Bukhari:

"...What keeps you here when all the people have gone?' They will say, 'We parted with them (in the world) when we were in greater need of them than we are today, we heard the call of one proclaiming, 'Let every nation follow what they used to worship,' and now we are waiting for our Lord.' Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, 'I am your Lord,' and they will say, 'You are not our Lord.' And none will speak: to Him then but the Prophets, and then it will be said to them, 'Do you know any sign by which you can recognize Him?' They will say. 'The Shin,' and so Allah will then uncover His Shin whereupon every believer will prostrate before Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation..."

 

 

Al Kafi:
Graded Muwathaq

He said: I said to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام: I heard Hisham b. al-Hakam narrate from you that Allah has a body, supported by light, His recognition is necessary and He bestows this [knowledge] upon whom He wills from the creation. So he عليه السلام said: Glorified be He, whom no one knows how He is except Himself. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing. He cannot be limited, nor can He be felt, nor can He be moved, nor can He be comprehended [by sight, nor by] the senses, nor can He be contained in anything, nor does He have a body, nor does He have a form, nor a figure, nor a confine. (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 278)

 

 

 

 

Contention : Does Allah swt move position?

 

Bukhari:

1145( Abu Hurairah)

“The Lord (Allah swt) descends every night to the lowest heaven when one-third of the night remains and says: ‘Who will call upon Me, that I may answer Him? Who will ask of Me, that I may give him? Who will seek My forgiveness, that I may forgive him?’”

 

Man Lā Yaḥḍuruh al-Faqīh, Graded sahih by alama majlisi

 ‘O son of the Messenger of Allāh, what do you say about the ḥadīth which the people narrate from the Messenger of Allāh, that he said: ‘Allāh descends in every night of Friday (i.e. Thursday night) to the earth’s heavens’’.

He said: ‘May Allāh curse (la`na) those who distort the words from its place, by Allāh, the Messenger of Allāh has not said that! Verily, he said: ‘Allāh) sends down an angel to the earth’s heavens in the last third of every night, and the first part of the night of Friday (i.e. Thursday night). And He commands him to call, ‘Are there any (who) asks, so that I can grant him?’; ‘Are there any repenters that I should forgive him?’;..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I conclude with the following excerpt of a hadith:

 

He said: A man came to Abu’l Hasan ar-Rida عليه السلام from beyond the Balkh river and said: I will ask you a question, if your answer to me is the same as that which is with me [i will accept your cause]. So Abu’l Hasan عليه السلام said: Ask whatever you wish. So he said: Inform me about your Lord, when did He come into being? And how is His state? And upon what thing does He rely? So Abu’l Hasan عليه السلام said: Allah تبارك وتعالى was there before there was a “there”, and He was being before there was a “how”, and His reliance is upon His power. So the man rose to him and kissed his head, and said: I bear witness that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and that `Ali is the deputy of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله and the succeeding upholder of what the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله established, and that you are the righteous Imams and the successors after them. (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 233) Graded SAHIH by Alama Majlisi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just as one begins to research proof as to why Muhammed pbuh is a prophet, one can also research various groups claiming to preserve his sunnah and come to the truth in this way, albeit not identically. Hence there is no circular logic, only two groups claiming each is correct and claiming each has sufficient evidence. The onus is on an individual to open their hearts and minds and study both traditions and madhabs and come to their own conclusion.

 

1. I believe in God, due to evidence.

2. I believe in the Quran and Prophethood of Muhammed pbuh due to evidence.

3. I believe in the designation of the ahlulbayt a.s and the imams due to evidence.

4. I believe due to evidence, the hadith collections in the possesions of shias, after application of ilm-al-rijal also have the truest teachings of Muhammed pbuh preserved in them, again, due to evidence.

5. Hence in accumilation, i believe in all of these things, due to evidence, without sounding too repetitive.

 

 

As i did not jump into believing in one thing randomly, i took it step by step, first by the existence of God, then by the prophethood etc

Edited by Tawheed313
Link to comment
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...