Jump to content
StrugglingForTheLight

Coincidence? 12 number in Quran.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

No we can't, because there would be a difference between Imam and Prophets if they are in the same context, like the words Islam and Iman are words for the same thing when used individually, but when used together imply different things.

Then why emphasize on bowing if it's implied by doing Salah (in 5:55). Give I grant you that, what if people wanted to say, yes there were Imams in the past chosen by God but not after Mohammad or if they want to obtuse can say this about religious scholars who are rightly guided by God and are his leaders in religion, but it doesn't mean Imammate like Shias say?

Quote

 

but to me the verse would be clear cut; especially if we had an explanation of that verse coming from varying different sects as remember the books of Ahl as-Sunnah are filled with people narrating from different sects.  If the interpretations only came from 12ers that contradicted what all the other sects combined on, then yes I would say that is a very unlikely interpretation.

 

It would be clear cut because of which words, the words "Leaders" or the word "Chosen"?  If it's leaders, you guys seem to be saying religious scholars are leaders to be followed. If it's chosen, then would it not be sufficient to say such chosen ones exist after Mohammad because the word leaders obviously can be interpreted differently like it is in the hadiths (the Imams are from Quraysh for example)?

 

 

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

Then why emphasize on bowing if it's implied by doing Salah (in 5:55). Give I grant you that, what if people wanted to say, yes there were Imams in the past chosen by God but not after Mohammad or if they want to obtuse can say this about religious scholars who are rightly guided by God and are his leaders in religion, but it doesn't mean Imammate like Shias say?

It would be clear cut because of which words, the words "Leaders" or the word "Chosen"?  If it's leaders, you guys seem to be saying religious scholars are leaders to be followed. If it's chosen, then would it not be sufficient to say such chosen ones exist after Mohammad because the word leaders obviously can be interpreted differently like it is in the hadiths (the Imams are from Quraysh for example)?

 

 

As far as why emphasize bowing, then bowing is not emphasized, rather what is mean is is humility.  In that context, obvious صلاة and ركوع are not the same thing.

If people want to say that, then they can; then we would turn to the Sunnah of the Messenger when we disputed in these issues.  Since the concept of 12er Imamate is only narrated by 12ers, then we would have to reject that opinion.  If that opinion was corroborated by others then we would have to accept it obviously.  If the opinion is not corroborated, then we can't accept it since a) only people that follow that sect say that and b) aqeedah is not based on ahad narrations as agreed on by Shi'as and non-Salafi Sunnis.

As far as "us guys" saying leaders are to be followed, then that is not just us, rather that is all of the Muslims except you.  This is especially obvious since we can disagree with Uli Al-Amr, which in turn we return the issue back to Allah and His Messenger; as per the Qur'anic instructions.

It wouldn't be the words "leaders" or "chosen", it would Allah asking us to follow them that would convince me.

Don't forget the 4 point that I keep asking you to address; unless of course you don't have an answer.

Edited by Cyrax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

As far as why emphasize bowing, then bowing is not emphasized, rather what is mean is is humility.  In that context, obvious صلاة and ركوع are not the same thing.

Alright, so what if someone said, God wanted to emphasize on people receiving his revelations to convey to people (Nabis), as well as conveying his clear message (Rasools) and also emphasize on their role as leaders on his behalf (Imams)? It's like God's Names, emphasizing on different aspects, but referring to the same being.

Quote


If people want to say that, then they can; then we would turn to the Sunnah of the Messenger when we disputed in these issues.

 

Hold on a second, your argument is how God would make it clear enough in Quran. Now you are saying we have to refer to Sunnah....I agree we have to refer to Sunnah, but let's figure out how words can be clear enough from God let alone the Rasool!

Quote


Since the concept of 12er Imamate is only narrated by 12ers, then we would have to reject that opinion.  If that opinion was corroborated by others then we would have to accept it obviously.  If the opinion is not corroborated, then we can't accept it since a) only people that follow that sect say that and b) aqeedah is not based on ahad narrations as agreed on by Shi'as and non-Salafi Sunnis.


 

Let's not get into a discussion about the Sunnah here.

Quote


It wouldn't be the words "leaders" or "chosen", it would Allah asking us to follow them that would convince me.

 

Why would the word follow you convince you since you said you are convince religious scholars can be followed and ought to be followed. Why it would convince you decisively it's about Imammate like Shias understand it? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

That is the hidden reality of those who reject the Imamah. They are like the munafiq who is legally a Muslim, but really a kafir.

The reason why a munafiq is treated as a muslim and has the same rights is that you can't really differentiate between a believer and a munafiq. He may hate salat but still performs it, he may not be willing to pay zakat, but he still does pay it, he may not believe in the messengers but he says he does. Muslims are ordered to deal with people by what is apparent and outwardly and publicly done, what is in the hearts of people, Allah will deal with that.

The difference between a munafiq and a sunni is that a sunni openly and outwardly rejects the concept of Imamah as understood by shia's to be a pillar of islam. So what is the reason that sunni's are legally considered muslims? Is someone who rejects zakat also a muslim, someone who rejects salat, the last day, the hereafter, the messengers, the finality of prophethood or a combination of these or all of these also a muslim legally?

 

Edited by GreatChineseFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

Alright, so what if someone said, God wanted to emphasize on people receiving his revelations to convey to people (Nabis), as well as conveying his clear message (Rasools) and also emphasize on their role as leaders on his behalf (Imams)? It's like God's Names, emphasizing on different aspects, but referring to the same being.

It would still mean different things, like how certain Prophets are called رسولا نبيا, this is talking about two things, or how Allah referred to Ibrahim عليه السلام as a Prophet who became an Imam for mankind since all the words major monotheistic religions are called "Abrahamic" faiths.  I would argue that saying "follow the Imams and the Prophets" could never mean that they are the same thing as is obvious from the context.  Like when Allah says "And whoso obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His Grace, of the Prophets, the Siddiqun, the martyrs, and the righteous."  No one can possibly interpret this verse to mean that the Prophets, Siddiqun, martys and righteous are all talking about the same thing, even though those words could all refere to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Quote

Hold on a second, your argument is how God would make it clear enough in Quran. Now you are saying we have to refer to Sunnah....I agree we have to refer to Sunnah, but let's figure out how words can be clear enough from God let alone the Rasool!

Unfortunately, you decided to chop up my reply to get what you hoped out of it.  I said that if there was a difference about these verses that I hypothetically quoted (which I don't think there is, you are trying to come up with a hypothetical objection someone might have to verses that don't exist), then we would return the matter back to other verses in the Qur'an and the Sunnah.

Quote

Why would the word follow you convince you since you said you are convince religious scholars can be followed and ought to be followed. Why it would convince you decisively it's about Imammate like Shias understand it? 

First off all, you don't understand Imamated like other 12ers do, and you certainly don't understand it like how Ismailis and Zaydis do.  Second of all, all Muslims except you agree that scholars are to be followed in absence of infallibles.  For me to be convinced, Allah would have to tell us to follow these "mustafawn", like he tells us to follow the Muhajiroon, Ansar and Scholars.

So I take it you can't address the other points raised against you?  Khayr inshallah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cyrax said:
Quote

It would still mean different things, like how certain Prophets are called رسولا نبيا, this is talking about two things, or how Allah referred to Ibrahim عليه السلام as a Prophet who became an Imam for mankind since all the words major monotheistic religions are called "Abrahamic" faiths.  I would argue that saying "follow the Imams and the Prophets" could never mean that they are the same thing as is obvious from the context.

 

Why not? Why not be emphasizing they are all these things, but these are various aspects of them? Just stating it's obvious is not sufficient reason.

2 minutes ago, Cyrax said:
Quote


 Like when Allah says "And whoso obey Allah and the Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), then they will be in the company of those on whom Allah has bestowed His Grace, of the Prophets, the Siddiqun, the martyrs, and the righteous."  No one can possibly interpret this verse to mean that the Prophets, Siddiqun, martys and righteous are all talking about the same thing, even though those words could all refere to the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم.

 

Just because it some places it's obvious it's different doesn't mean in all places it's obviously different.

 

2 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

First off all, you don't understand Imamated like other 12ers do, and you certainly don't understand it like how Ismailis and Zaydis do.  Second of all, all Muslims except you agree that scholars are to be followed in absence of infallibles.  For me to be convinced, Allah would have to tell us to follow these "mustafawn", like he tells us to follow the Muhajiroon, Ansar and Scholars.

What would make you think chosen ones are not scholars but Imams as Shias understand it.

To you it's obvious God told us to follow scholars. So if God says follow the chosen leaders, perhaps, you may think it's those who God help guide to become scholars?

You haven't shown what words are clear enough to show the Shia concept of Imammate. Which to me, I thought of this issue before, and I realized it cannot be easily conveyed in words or two, but there must be a systematic approach Quran comes to deal with it. Some verses reinforcing others. 

But do you want at it with another attempt to show clear verses about Imammate as Shias understand it?

I will answer your question inshallah in due time. I don't want us to debating all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

Why not? Why not be emphasizing they are all these things, but these are various aspects of them? Just stating it's obvious is not sufficient reason.

Just because it some places it's obvious it's different doesn't mean in all places it's obviously different.

 

What would make you think chosen ones are not scholars but Imams as Shias understand it.

To you it's obvious God told us to follow scholars. So if God says follow the chosen leaders, perhaps, you may think it's those who God help guide to become scholars?

You haven't shown what words are clear enough to show the Shia concept of Imammate. Which to me, I thought of this issue before, and I realized it cannot be easily conveyed in words or two, but there must be a systematic approach Quran comes to deal with it. Some verses reinforcing others. 

But do you want at it with another attempt to show clear verses about Imammate as Shias understand it?

I will answer your question inshallah in due time. I don't want us to debating all over the place.

As far as "Just because it some places it's obvious it's different doesn't mean in all places it's obviously different."  Then that is the point, if Allah said "follow the Messengers and the Imams", then it would be pretty clear that these are two different things.  Such as for example when Allah says "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), and those of you who are in authority."  Since here, we can't possibly interpret Messenger to mean Allah, and similarly we can't interpret "Uli al-Amr" as being the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم even those he has authority over us.  Since this verse ends with "(And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger."  This shows they weren't divinley appointed Imams who must be obeyed at all times since we are allowed to differ with them and we return the matter back to Allah and His Messenger.  For this verse to even imply what you believe (let alone actually be clear on the issue), it would at the very least not allow to differ with them, or at least their authority would be on the same level as Allah's and His Messenger.  Take for example "He who obeys the Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), has indeed obeyed Allah."  Imagine if that verse said "Whoever obeyed the Imams has obeyed the Messenger or Allah", then we would at least be going somewhere.  Instead, we are asked to obey those in charge of us (leaders, scholars, Imams in Salat) on a conditional level, as is mentioned in quite a few places in the Qur'an.

I have shown quite a few clear instances of how the Imamate could've been proven in the Qur'an.  Unfortunately, you decided to give hypothetical objections that are extremely implausible to believe in.  When I told you that if we differ on something, we return it back to the Qur'an and the mu[Edited Out]ir Sunnah; you decided that you didn't want to get into that discussion right now.

Which brings us back to the beggining, if it is a pillar of Islam, then it must be clear and only the specifics can be explained in the Sunnah.  Otherwise, if it is a secondary issue (such as Mut'ah or punishment of the grave or any number of fiqh issues) then difference of opinions must be tolerated.

PS I didn't say anything bad, I'm not sure what there was an automatic edit; what I said was متواتر in Arabic in case anyone is wondering.

Edited by Cyrax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If people look for excuses to deny, then people can find them. This is my point. 

There is verse that explicitly says there chosen ones who inherited the book after it was revealed to the Messenger. For example, but I know, I very well know Satan is going to say, yeah but it says "so of them (ie. chosen ones) is he who is unjust", when the Quran doesn't imply such a thing.

Likewise in 4:59, if I say "obey your teachers therefore if Mr. Flemming assigns you homework, make sure to do it", it would not mean that you ought to not obey future teachers or other teachers you have that assign you homework.

If I say "Eat fruits and vegetables, they are good for you, therefore eat the carrot in your lunch box.." it would compliment it, not say it means you only eat the carrot in your lunch box.

 

4:59 similarly to me, is saying "O you who believe, Obey God and obey the Messenger and those who possess the authority from you therefore if you dispute in a thing, refer it to God and the Messenger...."

It means like above. 

This specially given context from the previous verses.

But at the end, God will judge our hearts and how sincere we were in investigating the truth of the path of submission to him. Who he required us to submit to to obey him and not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

If people look for excuses to deny, then people can find them. This is my point. 

There is verse that explicitly says there chosen ones who inherited the book after it was revealed to the Messenger. For example, but I know, I very well know Satan is going to say, yeah but it says "so of them (ie. chosen ones) is he who is unjust", when the Quran doesn't imply such a thing.

Likewise in 4:59, if I say "obey your teachers therefore if Mr. Flemming assigns you homework, make sure to do it", it would not mean that you ought to not obey future teachers or other teachers you have that assign you homework.

If I say "Eat fruits and vegetables, they are good for you, therefore eat the carrot in your lunch box.." it would compliment it, not say it means you only eat the carrot in your lunch box.

 

4:59 similarly to me, is saying "O you who believe, Obey God and obey the Messenger and those who possess the authority from you therefore if you dispute in a thing, refer it to God and the Messenger...."

It means like above. 

This specially given context from the previous verses.

But at the end, God will judge our hearts and how sincere we were in investigating the truth of the path of submission to him. Who he required us to submit to to obey him and not.

 

Well, if your argument is "people will look for excuses to deny", then you are by default assuming I am looking for excuses to deny and I am not a sincere Muslim.  Unfortunately, all of your argument break down this way; you present a premise that you claim is "clear cut and majestic", then when shown that your premise is wrong, even from the perspective of other 12ers, your first go to defense is "well, Satan cover it up for them."  It's like when a Christian tries to explain the trinity, and when we can't understand it, we are told its because we worship Satan and follow the anti-Christ.  I'm not sure how you think this would convince anybody.  This is precisely why you couldn't get anyone on here to endorse you in your debates.

As far as your second statement, further proof that you have a position and you're just trying to find anything that could possibly support your argument.  And when the Qur'an explicitly goes against what you said, it is in fact "Satan" who tricked us into reading that verse literally; even though the "Quran" implies no such thing.  I should just stop here, but lets keep going inshallah.

As far your Qiyas, then it is extremely faulty.  I never said you shouldn't obey Uli Al-Amr, I just said it is conditional, which you seem to be ignoring.  Allah says if we disagree with them (which should not be allowed if they were infallible) then we return the issue back to Allah and His Messenger (which again, shouldn't be allowed since if Uli al-Amr were infallible, then their interpretation goes no matter what).  Instead, we get a conditional command; such if I were to say "obey your teacher, but if you disagree with him then return the issue back to the principal."  We see here, this is a conditional obedience.  Therefore, this verse is in an of itself enough to refute the concept of infallible leaders.

Edited by Cyrax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allah never says if we disagree with them. The next verse emphasizes it's about disputes between people by emphasizing that people who were going to the judgement of the Taghut over God and his Messenger weren't true believers until they made Mohammad (saw) a judge between what they disagreed about between themselves and disputed about.

There is also few reasons it doesn't make sense for Allah to say "and Ulil-Amr from you" regarding the disputes.

1. Who exactly they were weren't well known to everyone.

2. The Rasool was the head of society.

3. It would imply the believers ought to refer to future Imams who weren't born yet.

4. It would mean aside from getting the judgement of Mohammad to judge between themselves, they would have go to Ali, as well as Hassan, as well Hussain..despite Mohammad judgement being enough.

However it makes sense it's addressing current and future believers in that they ought to obey the Ulil-Amr, but it doesn't all Imams are alive or commanding current believers.

The "if you dispute in a thing..."...cannot wait...while "obey..." can wait till each Imam commands and must obey.

That is why it makes more sense in 4:83 in a hypothetical "had they referred to the Rasool as well to the Ulil-Amr then..." showing their station, but not commanding people to refer to them for the same reasons as above.

Also, the word is "fa" which is not "wa laken..." (but if). It is "so/therefore" which supports the interpretation of my "Qiyas".

As for your criticism of reminding of Waswas of Satan, the same criticism can be levied against God with his book, that he should not have emphasized on Satan at all, over and over again.

I say it and remind of it, because I believe it's an issue of not fault of Quran not being clear, but yes, of Satan and dark forces putting locks on the hearts with respect to the clear recitation.

 

 

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

Allah never says if we disagree with them. The next verse emphasizes it's about disputes between people by emphasizing that people who were going to the judgement of the Taghut over God and his Messenger weren't true believers until they made Mohammad (saw) a judge between what they disagreed about between themselves and disputed about.

There is also few reasons it doesn't make sense for Allah to say "and Ulil-Amr from you" regarding the disputes.

1. Who exactly they were weren't well known to everyone.

2. The Rasool was the head of society.

3. It would imply the believers ought to refer to future Imams who weren't born yet.

4. It would mean aside from getting the judgement of Mohammad to judge between themselves, they would have go to Ali, as well as Hassan, as well Hussain..despite Mohammad judgement being enough.

However it makes sense it's addressing current and future believers in that they ought to obey the Ulil-Amr, but it doesn't all Imams are alive or commanding current believers.

The "if you dispute in a thing..."...cannot wait...while "obey..." can wait till each Imam commands and must obey.

That is why it makes more sense in 4:83 in a hypothetical "had they referred to the Rasool as well to the Ulil-Amr then..." showing their station, but not commanding people to refer to them for the same reasons as above.

 

 

1. If that is the case, then what about all those supposed ahadeeth that tells us to follow Ahl al-Bayt?

2. He is the head of society and everyone after it.  We don't disagree here.

3. It implies everyone who qualifies as having authority over us.

4. I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion.  I think you skipped point 4 and went straight to 5.

I am not sure how you reached the conclusion that this verse refers to just those four people, or who it is specifically.  Again, all I see is refer back to Allah and His Messenger if we disagree with those who are in charge from amongst "us."  Since I am not from Ahl al-Bayt, the only way this verse would be referring to me is if "us" here meant Muslims.  Which means it is an unrestricted command (مطلق), and it is conditional.

I am no longer able to follow your line of argument.  The verse is clear that if we disagree (even if you don't want to accept that us here means Muslims and not Ahl al-Bayt), it would still make "more sense" if this was an order to follow the infallible Imams till the end of time, then it would say "if we disobey regarding anything, return the issue back to Uli al-Amr" since they would be the ones who those in the future are supposed to obey unconditionally according to you.  Since it doesn't say that, it is clear they are not infallible, nor are they follow unconditionally.

Again, I'm amazed you go to all these lengths to interpret these verses this way, and yet ignore when Allah directly tells you to "follow/اتبع" the Muhajiroon and the Ansar.  You really need to address this point, as this has been just you making points and me addressing them, without you addressing anything presented towards you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring the verse that states we ought to follow muhajareen and ansar. I am aware of a verse that says to follow the Subiqoon Al-Awaloon who are from the Muhajareen and ansar, I'm not aware of any verse stating to follow the muhajareen and ansar.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, StrugglingForTheLight said:

Bring the verse that states we ought to follow muhajareen and ansar. I am aware of a verse that says to follow the Subiqoon Al-Awaloon who are from the Muhajareen and ansar, I'm not aware of any verse stating to follow the muhajareen and ansar.

 

 

Well, as-Sabiqoon al-Awaloon are the Muhajiroon while the Ansar are not considered from the Sabiqoon al-Awaloon.  Sabiqoon al-Awaloon would obviously include more than Ali رضي الله عنه and would exclude al-Hasan and al-Husain رضي الله عنهما.  It would also include Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf, Abu Ubaydah رضي الله عن الجميع.  You can try to restrict this verse all you want, but it would still include more than Ali رضي الله عنه.  Now, we'll see how you will anyway to reject this verse, like you hypothetically assumed would be done if Allah told us to follow the Imams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cyrax said:

Well, as-Sabiqoon al-Awaloon are the Muhajiroon while the Ansar are not considered from the Sabiqoon al-Awaloon.  Sabiqoon al-Awaloon would obviously include more than Ali رضي الله عنه and would exclude al-Hasan and al-Husain رضي الله عنهما.  It would also include Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf, Abu Ubaydah رضي الله عن الجميع.  You can try to restrict this verse all you want, but it would still include more than Ali رضي الله عنه.  Now, we'll see how you will anyway to reject this verse, like you hypothetically assumed would be done if Allah told us to follow the Imams.

Sabiqoon al-Awaloon can refer to time (ie the foremost first ones, those who preceded the first) or it can refer to merit like it does in other places in Quran. The top foremost in virtue and good deeds. Do you disagree with this possibility or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StrugglingForTheLight said:

Sabiqoon al-Awaloon can refer to time (ie the foremost first ones, those who preceded the first) or it can refer to merit like it does in other places in Quran. The top foremost in virtue and good deeds. Do you disagree with this possibility or not?

Of course it refers to both, بارك الله فيك.  Which would include following those who are not from Ahl al-Bayt, as it would at the very least (if you want to exclude Abu Bakr Omar etc) ibn Masoud and Ammar ibn Yasir, while excluding al-Hassan and al-Hussain رضي الله عن الجميع.

Notice these two verses in Surat al-Anfal (which is a chapter that generally praises the Sahabah and those who participate in Badr): 74 And those who believed, and emigrated and strove hard in the Cause of Allah (Al-Jihad), as well as those who gave (them) asylum and aid - these are the believers in truth, for them is forgiveness and Rizqun Karim (a generous provision i.e. Paradise). 75 And those who believed afterwards, and emigrated and strove hard along with you (in the Cause of Allah), they are of you. But kindred by blood are nearer to one another (regarding inheritance) in the decree ordained by Allah. Verily, Allah is the All-Knower of everything.

Yet, according to you, they were not true believers, but rather hypocrites who didn't give Ahl al-Bayt their rights.

Why reject clear cut verses with verses that supposedly have a "hijab" on them?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Bro Student,

First, a Muslim who does not believe in the Imams does not become a kafir. He is legally a Muslim. However, his iman has some very serious problems.

wow i`m very confused here brother because at first you claimed denying Imamah does not makes a Person Kaffir. he is still a Muslim with some errors in his Iman.

 

9 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

That is the hidden reality of those who reject the Imamah. They are like the munafiq who is legally a Muslim, but really a kafir.

But just when someone quoted Al-Kafi to prove they are not Muslims according to Shia Manhaj, you changed your firs statement and called them the likes of Munafiqs who are in reality a Kaffir ?

i only typed what i heard from Yaseer Al Habib who said denying a pillar makes you a Kaffir but you objected and said they are still Muslims with serious errors in their Iman. But now you are saying they are actually Munafiqs who are in reality Kaffirs ? Even a kid knows Munafiqs are the worst type of Kuffar and they will be in the deepest level of hellfire. So you believe 90% Muslims in the world are even worse than Kuffars for denying the Pillar of Imamah.

THEN WHAT DID YOU CALLED THEM MUSLIMS IN THE FIRST PLACE ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

wow i`m very confused here brother because at first you claimed denying Imamah does not makes a Person Kaffir. he is still a Muslim with some errors in his Iman.

But just when someone quoted Al-Kafi to prove they are not Muslims according to Shia Manhaj, you changed your firs statement and called them the likes of Munafiqs who are in reality a Kaffir ?

i only typed what i heard from Yaseer Al Habib who said denying a pillar makes you a Kaffir but you objected and said they are still Muslims with serious errors in their Iman. But now you are saying they are actually Munafiqs who are in reality Kaffirs ? Even a kid knows Munafiqs are the worst type of Kuffar and they will be in the deepest level of hellfire. So you believe 90% Muslims in the world are even worse than Kuffars for denying the Pillar of Imamah.

THEN WHAT DID YOU CALLED THEM MUSLIMS IN THE FIRST PLACE ? 

Yassir al-Habib is not a scholar of orthodox Shi'i Islam. He is an extremist, and you shouldn't be taking the words of a person like that as representative of mainstream Shi'ah.

Secondly, I made myself clear on both occasions. A denier of Imamah is a Muslim legally. That word "legally" is very important. It means that we treat him as a Muslim for all purposes in this world. 'Abd Allah b. Ubayy was well-known to all as a munafiq during the lifetime of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alaihi wa aalihi. Yet, he was legally a Muslim, despite his kufr, and was treated as a Muslim by the Messenger. The situation of deniers of Imamah is exactly like that. I did mention that their iman has some very serious problems. That should have been an enough pointer for you.

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Yassir al-Habib is not a scholar of orthodox Shi'i Islam. He is an extremist, and you shouldn't be taking the words of a person like that as representative of mainstream Shi'ah.

Secondly, I made myself clear on both occasions. A denier of Imamah is a Muslim legally. That word "legally" is very important. It means that we treat him as a Muslim for all purposes in this world. 'Abd Allah b. Ubayy was well-known to all as a munafiq during the lifetime of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alaihi wa aalihi. Yet, he was legally a Muslim, despite his kufr, and was treated as a Muslim by the Messenger. The situation of deniers of Imamah is exactly like that. I did mention that their iman has some very serious problems. That should have been an enough pointer for you.

it`s not just Yasir Al-Habib but also AbdulHamid Al-Muhajir who said anyone denies a Pillar of Islam is not a Muslim and rightly so because Islam is built on it`s 5 pillars, it`s the core foundation of our Faith which cannot be taken out. But let`s not even talk about them because even Al-Kafi recorded a narration in which Deniers of Imamah are compared with Pagans who associate others with Allah and you yourself are calling them Munafiqs who are in reality Kuffars. I`m sure there are many more such narrations in Shi`i books about those who deny Imamah.

During the Time of The Prophet (peace be upon him) the Munafiqs were in hiding but you are talking about 90% population of the Muslim Ummah who openly deny Imamah. if that makes them Munafiqs and Kuffars in reality then why would you call them Legally Muslims ? At least Yasir Al Habib and Abdulhamid Muhajir are being honest by calling them Non-Muslims according to their Manhaj.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Student_of_Deen said:

it`s not just Yasir Al-Habib but also AbdulHamid Al-Muhajir who said anyone denies a Pillar of Islam is not a Muslim and rightly so because Islam is built on it`s 5 pillars, it`s the core foundation of our Faith which cannot be taken out. But let`s not even talk about them because even Al-Kafi recorded a narration in which Deniers of Imamah are compared with Pagans who associate others with Allah and you yourself are calling them Munafiqs who are in reality Kuffars. I`m sure there are many more such narrations in Shi`i books about those who deny Imamah.

During the Time of The Prophet (peace be upon him) the Munafiqs were in hiding but you are talking about 90% population of the Muslim Ummah who openly deny Imamah. if that makes them Munafiqs and Kuffars in reality then why would you call them Legally Muslims ? At least Yasir Al Habib and Abdulhamid Muhajir are being honest by calling them Non-Muslims according to their Manhaj.

The statements of the scholars are in the context that I mentioned - the context of 'Abd Allah b. Ubayy. His kufr is clearly exposed in the Qur'an. This verse was revealed about him and his followers:

That is because they believed, and then they disbelieved; so their hearts were sealed over, and they do not understand.

Qur'an 63:3

Everyone knew him. Yet, he was treated as a Muslim for all legal purposes. The case of deniers of Imamah is exactly like that.

And, why does it matter to you that much? You guys call us total kuffar for disliking Abu Bakr. So, what is this pretense by you?

 

 

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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...