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

A Question Regardin Shia Faith

Rate this topic


_Abbas

Recommended Posts

  • Basic Members

(salam)

 

My dear brothers and sisters in faith, from the last 2 days i have realized that questioning your faith or beliefs  is the one of the most difficult things to do for a human being. However i am inclined to search for the truth which i always try to look for. I dont mind interacting with a wahabi/salafi or sunnis. As long the talk is constructive and based on concrete logic i will think and try to understand it without being biased towards anyone.

 

I have been a silent viewer of the shia sunni debate section and i always got bored of seeing old debates which were mostly on fadak garden, proving imamat from quran, and the aimmah being tortured and killed.

All of the debates didnt worry me as i am dedicated and holding fast on my religion. I was convinced with the narrations provided by the brothers who even mentioned their gradings which is uncommon in the majalis lectures.

 

However recently i have witnessed something unusual in the section. A salafi member raised a question in a thread which has confused me alot and i still havent been able to find a valid answer to convince myself at all. I had solid beliefs regarding the school of thought i follow which is the usooli twelver shia of the 12 Imams. Sadly no one has been able to answer him and this is worrying me alot. The thread is now a mess and has been derailed by unnecessary arguments from amateur members.

 

So i have joined this forum just to see what you think about it.

 

The question that has been raised is

 

The aqaed we shia of Ali a.s hold is that three usurped the khilafa from Ali and it was his and after him his family's right to rule. Unfortunately this not happen and our aimmah were deprived of their rights. He says for the sake of argument lets suppose that our Imams were allowed to rule instead of the shakhayn or banu ummaya afterwards. How would this have been continued? Yoy have only 12 chosen imams who are divinley appointed by Allah. For how much time your Imams would have ruled? Who would have been your imam after Imam Mahdi a.s left? He would have certainly not been the Qaim in that case?

 

I am certainly sure that for something to be acceptable it must be valid and applicable. We disagree with the sunnis on the procedure the muslim ummah adopted after the Prophet (saw) left and we suggest a different one. but dear brothers and sister dont you think it must make sense and show that was really a practical solution instead of a theory? To me the authority of just 12 is not practical if it were to be applied in real terms. It would have made sense if the Qaim appeared after say 300 years or even 400 years from the death of the Prophet and restored peace.. but it didnt.

 

It seems that something is missing, something is wrong and i wish to have all the answers to this problem. I now have reasonable doubt in my mind regarding the beliefs i have held from the last 31 years and i am optimistic about it being removed like my all other doubts. I wish that this thread be a good lesson for me. I have contacted some renowned shia ulemas regarding this problem and till now they havent been able to come up with a valid argument.

 

And please no insults to the other school of thought and i am not interested in what sunnis have to say to justify their approach of choosing a caliph, NOT at ALL..! All i am interested is how authentic and practical MY religion is?

 

I would request the senior members of the forum to step in deal with the issue. I dont want this thread to be derailed or handled incompetently by those who have no idea about my dilemma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

What would have happened in Adam (as) hadn't listened to Shaytan? Your question is a hypothetical of a similar nature. Allah knows what will happen in the future, and plans in relation to what will happen, not what could have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows had the Imams a.s not ruled if there would have been the twelve imams a.s ? Or perhaps the need for twelve?

 

What if mankind obeyed their prophets pbuh collectively, would we have been in need of continual prophets had we not erred after originally being one nation?

 

What if we all obeyed rasullulah s.a.w and everyone magically converted, what would be the need for the Mahdi a.s ?

 

I believe Allah swt knows fulll well future intentions, future events. The Imams a.s were there to preserve his sunnah , and they were needed if one studies what happened after the death of rasullulah s.a.w.

 

At the end of the day, i leave this knowledge to Allah swt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF we are playing the game of IF's to entertain the minds of the IF's then I will promote  my version of an infinite IF variable.

 

IF the 12 ruled in succession, then the the game could have ended with the 12th during his life time, therefore we would have not existed.

IF, it remained until the 12th, then depending on the game variables, his life could have been extended.

 

IF you had a thinking brain you would not have to ponder over a silly question like that.

 

IF the internet was never invented, you would not have had the ability to discuss with faridov how to create a false story of reading a question, that you could not answer.

 

I think faridov sent his henchman here, must be bored with life, if the debating on the internet is the only thing that gives him a living idiom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

So i have joined this forum just to see what you think about it.

 

The question that has been raised is

 

The aqaed we shia of Ali a.s hold is that three usurped the khilafa from Ali and it was his and after him his family's right to rule. Unfortunately this not happen and our aimmah were deprived of their rights. He says for the sake of argument lets suppose that our Imams were allowed to rule instead of the shakhayn or banu ummaya afterwards. How would this have been continued? Yoy have only 12 chosen imams who are divinley appointed by Allah. For how much time your Imams would have ruled? Who would have been your imam after Imam Mahdi a.s left? He would have certainly not been the Qaim in that case?

 

 

The following is my response on your question:

 

The quran does mention the events happened after the prophet Musa left haroon as his successor in his nation and he was made weak asnd the people choose the calf instead of listening and obeying the prophet haroon. When the same comes in as per hadith mentioning the similarity of events in children of israel and our nation for the selection of calf and calif instead  we try to deny these facts. It is not true  for a thought ful mind.
 
The quran mentions the names of only about 26 prophets, but in the light of hadiths we believe in 1,24.000 prophets and it is undeniable fatcs that only some of them ruled over the kingdom, thus it is not  necessary as per the practice of Allah swt, for the persons ie prophets and imams to physically rule over the kingdom.
 
There are many traditions in sunni and shia both about 12 imams/ caliphs / ameers. yet the sunni hadith stop only at 4, and the rest 8 are not mentioned in any of hadith from sunni sources. On the other hand shia and some sunni hadith clearly mentions the name of 12 imams from the progeny of the prophet Muhammad saww. We only know yet whats has been quoted by the prophet traditions about 12 imam as per knowledge given by Allah swt tto him, and the knowledge of unseen lies with Allah swt alone.
 
 
قُلْ أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَالرَّسُولَ ۖ فَإِن تَوَلَّوْا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْكَافِرِينَ
Say, "Obey Allah and the Messenger." But if they turn away - then indeed, Allah does not like the disbelievers. 3:32
 
وَمَا آتَاكُمُ الرَّسُولُ فَخُذُوهُ وَمَا نَهَاكُمْ عَنْهُ فَانتَهُوا ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ
And whatever the Messenger has given you - take; and what he has forbidden you - refrain from. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty. 59:7
 
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تُقَدِّمُوا بَيْنَ يَدَيِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ ۖ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ
O you who have believed, do not put [yourselves] before Allah and His Messenger but fear Allah . Indeed, Allah is Hearing. 49:1 

 

 

Regards
Edited by skamran110
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

What would have happened in Adam (as) hadn't listened to Shaytan? Your question is a hypothetical of a similar nature. Allah knows what will happen in the future, and plans in relation to what will happen, not what could have happened.

 

 

Here the thing is. Will of God. Allah has decided everything would happen this way. From Kerbela to ghaybah of imam mahdi (as) since Hazrat Adam (as) ate that apple or perhaps since ever

 

the argument of Adam A.S does not work here  .  we would not be exist  if the Adam a.s hadn't listen to shytan or ate the apple .This may effect everything ..

but when it comes to ruling of 12 imams continuously  it will effect only shia or Shia concept of Imamat .. rest of the world will be on their place  .  it will not make a big change for others . specially for sunni.,.  even the Second coming of Esa A.S will be there whether 12 imams rules or being killed and go to gaybat..        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

You should join my forum brother _Abbas. You will not find answers here. See my other thread. ;)

This is not true at all. You have all the answers here. But one has to listen as well and not just talk. Here most questions are asked to the Shias, not to seek an answer but to raise suspicion and to cast doubt. Still this is not a problem and never has been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

the argument of Adam A.S does not work here  .  we would not be exist  if the Adam a.s hadn't listen to shytan or ate the apple .

 

Please reflect upon this verse:When your Lord said to the angels, “I am going to place a vicegerent on the earth,” the angels said, “Will You place on the earth the one who shall act wickedly in it and shed blood; whereas we sing Your praise and glorify You?” Allah said, “Surely I know what you do not know.”

 

Surely i know what you do not Know  Are you stating you know what Allah swt knows? Whether Adam had ate the fruit or not, how do you know what Allah swt had planned?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

(salam)

 

My dear brothers and sisters in faith, from the last 2 days i have realized that questioning your faith or beliefs  is the one of the most difficult things to do for a human being. However i am inclined to search for the truth which i always try to look for. I dont mind interacting with a wahabi/salafi or sunnis. As long the talk is constructive and based on concrete logic i will think and try to understand it without being biased towards anyone.

 

I have been a silent viewer of the shia sunni debate section and i always got bored of seeing old debates which were mostly on fadak garden, proving imamat from quran, and the aimmah being tortured and killed.

All of the debates didnt worry me as i am dedicated and holding fast on my religion. I was convinced with the narrations provided by the brothers who even mentioned their gradings which is uncommon in the majalis lectures.

 

However recently i have witnessed something unusual in the section. A salafi member raised a question in a thread which has confused me alot and i still havent been able to find a valid answer to convince myself at all. I had solid beliefs regarding the school of thought i follow which is the usooli twelver shia of the 12 Imams. Sadly no one has been able to answer him and this is worrying me alot. The thread is now a mess and has been derailed by unnecessary arguments from amateur members.

 

So i have joined this forum just to see what you think about it.

 

The question that has been raised is

 

The aqaed we shia of Ali a.s hold is that three usurped the khilafa from Ali and it was his and after him his family's right to rule. Unfortunately this not happen and our aimmah were deprived of their rights. He says for the sake of argument lets suppose that our Imams were allowed to rule instead of the shakhayn or banu ummaya afterwards. How would this have been continued? Yoy have only 12 chosen imams who are divinley appointed by Allah. For how much time your Imams would have ruled? Who would have been your imam after Imam Mahdi a.s left? He would have certainly not been the Qaim in that case?

 

I am certainly sure that for something to be acceptable it must be valid and applicable. We disagree with the sunnis on the procedure the muslim ummah adopted after the Prophet (saw) left and we suggest a different one. but dear brothers and sister dont you think it must make sense and show that was really a practical solution instead of a theory? To me the authority of just 12 is not practical if it were to be applied in real terms. It would have made sense if the Qaim appeared after say 300 years or even 400 years from the death of the Prophet and restored peace.. but it didnt.

 

It seems that something is missing, something is wrong and i wish to have all the answers to this problem. I now have reasonable doubt in my mind regarding the beliefs i have held from the last 31 years and i am optimistic about it being removed like my all other doubts. I wish that this thread be a good lesson for me. I have contacted some renowned shia ulemas regarding this problem and till now they havent been able to come up with a valid argument.

 

And please no insults to the other school of thought and i am not interested in what sunnis have to say to justify their approach of choosing a caliph, NOT at ALL..! All i am interested is how authentic and practical MY religion is?

 

I would request the senior members of the forum to step in deal with the issue. I dont want this thread to be derailed or handled incompetently by those who have no idea about my dilemma.

Bro the answer to this question is very simple and straight forward. Shia believe in Imamath after Muhammad (pbuh). Just as Allah governed man kind through Messengerhood Allah wanted to govern mankind through Imamath. Now you have two things here;

1, Assigned and 2, predicted. We need to ask ourselves that was 12 assigned or were they predicted? The Messenger (pbuh) had the knowledge of the unknown. He knew what was going to happen. So he perdicted about the 12 Khalifs through Hadith. 11 have gone by and ages ago.

Due to how they were treated and how the Muslim Ummah indulged in neglect and how it became irresponsible and careless, Allah up lifted the 12th in to occultation and left the Muslim Ummah to themselves until they finally get fed up, have enough and scream out for Allah's help. Now if everything went according to what you or this Salafi has asked then, yes. Just as there have been thousands and thousands of Messengers for our guidance there would have been hundreds if not thousands for our guidance after the last Messenger (pbuh).

Conclusion, twelve were predicted because of the advance knowledge that the Prophet (pbuh) had and how he knew what exactly was going to happen to the Imams and how Imamath was going to be taken. Now who would have been after Mahdi and onwards if things went accordingly and exactly as you or this Salafi has mentioned? Well my friend it didn't come to that stage, just as a beautiful response brother Hayder Husayn gave that if Adam and Eve were not sent out of heaven then what would have happened? Well unfortunately it didn't work out as such so we do not know. Just as if Adam's elder son did not kill the younger one then who would have the deceased married and how many children would he have had? Well unfortunately it didn't happen so we do not know,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The question that has been raised is

 

The aqaed we shia of Ali a.s hold is that three usurped the khilafa from Ali and it was his and after him his family's right to rule. Unfortunately this not happen and our aimmah were deprived of their rights. He says for the sake of argument lets suppose that our Imams were allowed to rule instead of the shakhayn or banu ummaya afterwards. How would this have been continued? Yoy have only 12 chosen imams who are divinley appointed by Allah. For how much time your Imams would have ruled? Who would have been your imam after Imam Mahdi a.s left? He would have certainly not been the Qaim in that case?

 

I am certainly sure that for something to be acceptable it must be valid and applicable. We disagree with the sunnis on the procedure the muslim ummah adopted after the Prophet (saw) left and we suggest a different one. but dear brothers and sister dont you think it must make sense and show that was really a practical solution instead of a theory? To me the authority of just 12 is not practical if it were to be applied in real terms. It would have made sense if the Qaim appeared after say 300 years or even 400 years from the death of the Prophet and restored peace.. but it didnt. 

Bismillah

Such type of hypothetical question in essence is no different than asking what would have happened if for example say; the Jews of Banu Israel did not become misguided while believing in the prophecy of Isaع even while considering that his purpose was to come guide Banu Israel that were assumed to be later misguided after Musa or if the Christians did not become misguided after 'Isa and remained on the right path even while believing in the prophecy of Muhammedص that was foretold by 'Isaع to the early Christians.

Furthermore, Allahس has instructed 'Isaع to foretell the prophecy on the coming of Muhammedص after him to his disciples and generally those among the Jews who followed him, even while his followers during his time did not become misguided until later or generations after. So if they didn't become misguided, one could argue against the idea of the prophecy on the coming of Muhammedص because there would be no need for him to be sent as a messenger in the first place- considering that the people after 'Isa would remain upon guidance and preserve the Shari'a of 'Isa.

Nevertheless, in reality however, all Muslims consider it essential to believe part of their faith that the prophecy of Muhammedص was already foretold by 'Isaع to his followers even while his followers were already guided during his time. The reason that Allahس ordered 'Isa to foretell to his followers the prophecy on the coming of another prophet and messenger after him in bringing a new Shari'a is because Allahس has 'Ilm al-Ghayb and with that He knows that after 'Isa - the people will eventually become misguided and distort the Shari'a - hence the need of prophet Muhammedص to be sent in order to call back to the people to the correct path. Ideally though, if we assume that the people after 'Isa did not become misguided and the religion was preserved, then the need of Muhammedص coming as a new messenger after would have been redundant and no need of since the Shari'a that 'Isa brought would have already been preserved after. However, reality states that the Shari'a of 'Isa was eventually distorted and there was a need for a new messenger to come bring a new Shari'a - hence the prophecy on the coming of prophet Muhammedص was needed.

With that being said, the case with the Ghaybah of Imam Mahdiع and the restriction of the number of the A'immahع to be only 12 is of no different in nature. Since Allahس has 'Ilm al-Ghayb, He is aware that after the prophetص the majority of the people will reject the A'immahع, wage war against them and where they would cause the 12thع to go into Ghaybah(just as He was aware that after 'Isaع the people would eventually become misguided and there was a need to bring Muhammedص as a new messenger to revive the Shari'a) - hence, He restricted the Khulafah of the prophet to be only 12 with the 12th going into Ghaybah based on those circumstances that were to take after the prophetص.

Nevertheless, assuming if the people accepted the A'immahع, then theoretically Allah would have extended the period of Khilafah to go beyond 12 Khulafah and without the need of a Ghaybah to take place with the last Khalif. However though, in reality we know that the majority of the people did not in fact accept to give bay'ah to the A'immahع and Allah instructed the prophetص to foretell on the restriction of his Khulafah to be only 12 with the last going to Ghaybah based on those circumstances that He had knowledge of in taking place after the demise of the prophetص.

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...