Jump to content
Follower of Ahlulbayt

Refuting "From Imāmiyya to Ithnā-ashariyya"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 9/22/2018 at 5:42 AM, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

Does anyone know of any good works that refute the paper "From Imāmiyya to Ithnā-ashariyya" by Etan Kohlberg? 

You may also like to see the ؐhadiths about the names of 12 Imams. The following link provide this book about imams in Arabic:

http://alfeker.net/library.php?id=1069

wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2018 at 1:26 AM, skyweb1987 said:

I do not have this book, Could you please bring the points raised by the author so that it can be discussed and counter arguments / answer to the objections can be mentioned, please.

Basically argues that the doctrine of Ghaybah was developed later in history and that in our earliest books (Basâ'ir al-darajât and Kitab al-Mahasin) this doctrine is absent. Only do we find in the later books of Saduq this doctrine really taking shape.

How do we refute the idea that Imamah was a doctrine developed later in history in general? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

How do we refute the idea that Imamah was a doctrine developed later in history in general? 

1. The statement that the doctrine of immamah  was developed by later in history can be refuted by the verses of quran that mention Ibrahim AS as chosen imam. The similar imams  were also chosen by Allah swt for the guidance of the people. Similarly in the ummah of the prophet saaw there are 12 imams/ caliphs/ ameers..

The doctrine of imamah as we now has its foundation in the hadith thaqlyn that two weighty things ie Quran and Ahl lbayt of the prophet saaw for whom we should adhere to avoid going astray. This is neglected by a common  and biased researcher from west at first,.

The numerous hadith in sunni books mention about 12 leaders/ successor / ammers but the names are not quoted because of political reasons. The sunni have remained confused as no one confirms the identification of those 12 based on the hadith of the prophet saaw.

Shia books do mention these hadith and the names are quoted confidently  from the progeny of the prophet saaw, First one being imam Ali and the last 12th is Almahdi AS. which is justified  in the light of the verses of quran and other hadith of the prophet saaw..

wasalm

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

1. The statement that the doctrine of immamah  was developed by later in history can be refuted by the verses of quran that mention Ibrahim AS as chosen imam. The similar imams  were also chosen by Allah swt for the guidance of the people. Similarly in the ummah of the prophet saaw there are 12 imams/ caliphs/ ameers..

 The doctrine of imamah as we now has its basis on the hadith thaqlyn that two weighty things for whom we should adhere to avoid going astray. This is neglected by a common  and biased researcher from west at first,.

 The numerous hadith in sunni books mention about 12 leaders/ successor / ammers but the names are not quoted because of political reasons. The sunni have remained confused as no one uits the cirteiaa for the idntifcation of those 12 based on the hadith of the prophet saaw. Shia books do mention these hadith and the names are quoted from the progeny of the prophet saaw, First one being imam Ali and the last 12th is Almahdi AS. which is justified  in the light of the verses of quran and other hadith of the prophet saaw..

 wasalm

The verse of Ibrahim being an Imam does not establish any of the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) being Imams. None of their names are mentioned in the verse.

Yes maybe we could use the 12 khulafa hadith in Sunni books, but again this doesn't mention the names of the Imams of Ahlulbayt, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

The verse of Ibrahim being an Imam does not establish any of the Imams of Ahlulbayt (as) being Imams. None of their names are mentioned in the verse.

Yes maybe we could use the 12 khulafa hadith in Sunni books, but again this doesn't mention the names of the Imams of Ahlulbayt, 

1. Ibrahim AS was a chosen imam as per quran and his progeny includes imams too verse 2:124 except the wrong doers.

2. Why the sunni books does not mention these 12  names even in the presence of these hadith? Is it not a weakness of major nature in those when they claim to follow the caliphs / ameers / iams as ulil amr? Were these sunni books not written before shia early books?

Shia are well confident and justified for their names from the progeny of the prophet saaw based on the hadith of the prophet saaw and sayings of imams.

wasalam

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

Basically argues that the doctrine of Ghaybah was developed later in history and that in our earliest books (Basâ'ir al-darajât and Kitab al-Mahasin) this doctrine is absent. Only do we find in the later books of Saduq this doctrine really taking shape.

How do we refute the idea that Imamah was a doctrine developed later in history in general? 

The books of Kulayni and Saduq all draw on resources that were written between the second and fourth Islamic centuries. The minor ghayba starts at 260 AH, so by then, most of the 300 Usul were already written. Kulayni just compiled them together and organized them into chapters.

Shaykh al-Tusi's Kitab al-Ghayba incorporates Fadl b. Shadhan's own Kitab al-Ghayba, and Fadl died just before Imam Hasan al-`Askari passed away. Fadl lived between the times of Imam ar-Rida to Imam al-`Askari.

Furthermore there were plenty of other sects that believed in ghayba: the Kaysaniyya (1st Islamic century) and the Waqifiyya (2nd century) for example. So the doctrine is much older than the 12th Imam. There is even some precedent for it in Sunnism (some believed that al-Khidr was in a type of occultation) and Judaism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Qa'im said:

Maybe I'll write an academic-style article someday, but I compiled a book on the subject here: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235049457-qiyam-al-qaim-2017/

Thanks amazing effort 

I'm lucky we have people like u here 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

Basically argues that the doctrine of Ghaybah was developed later in history and that in our earliest books (Basâ'ir al-darajât and Kitab al-Mahasin) this doctrine is absent. Only do we find in the later books of Saduq this doctrine really taking shape.

How do we refute the idea that Imamah was a doctrine developed later in history in general? 

Ridiculous argument.

Three points come to mind:

They're not our earliest books, most of the personal collections of the companions of the imams (the usool) predate them, they were gathered into larger collections such as Al-Kafi, so there was no need to copy and transmit them seperately thereafter, although some (AFAIK) have reached us in their original individual form.

Al-kulayni and his collection Al-Kafi came before Saduq and his books, and you'll see plenty of narrations from the later imams in there, so clearly he and his mashayikh believed in these imams to preserve and transmit these narrations.

Both books were written by twelvers. Basa'ir al-darajat was written by Muhammed bin Al-Hassan Al-Saffar who was a companion of Imam Al-Askari (as). How can one suggest twelver theology was later "developed" by saying there's a lack of evidence in a book written by a person who was a companion and believer of the 11th imam, clearly the author of the book believed in it already. As for Kitab Al-Mahasin, it was written by Ahmad Al-Barqi who was born 12 years before Imam Al-Hadi (as) and five years after Imam Al-Jawad (as), and was a companion of both, and he believed in the imamat of both.

So if one wants to suggest twelver shiism "developed" later you're going to have to do better than evidence that claim by pointing out books written by companions of and believers in the 9th, 10th, and 11th imams, while making false assumptions about them being our earliest works.

Edit:

Just realised the objection is about the ghaybah specifically, Qai'm's points are sufficient. It can be added however that there are several narrations about the ghaybah in Al-Kafi reported from the earlier imams (1), given that Al-Kafi is compiled from the usool which predate the two books mentioned, the claim is clearly false.

http://www.alseraj.net/maktaba/kotob/hadith/kafi1/html/ara/books/al-kafi-1/144.html

Edited by IbnMariam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

although I cannot claim to have even have the most superficial knowledge of the ghaybah period ,in general I have been disappointed by the paucity of ahadith in 12er imami hadith collections narrated from the first 3 imams and their companions , and the relative abundance of ahadith in sunni works narrated from close companions of first imam ( aka jabir, abu saeed, ibn abbas, bara b azib, zayd b arqam, abu dharr, and in later generations of tabi'in)

It almost seems from a neutral vantage point that two different Ali versions exist a Imami shia one and a sunni one and each has become a mouth piece of dogmas of their respective sects 

Can someone share any ideas on this ?

Edited by Panzerwaffe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×