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
Sign in to follow this  
Follower of Ahlulbayt

Are the Imams All The Same Person?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Ahh you quite clearly proved that Prophet Harun (عليه السلام) explained the situation to Prophet Musa (عليه السلام), and there is nothing to indicate Musa (عليه السلام) was still upset after the situation was explained to him.

Habibi, I gave 2 responses to this objection. I was expecting for you to respond to my replies...

2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

What is ajeeb is you are relying on a historical source with a couple unverified chains, coming from the words of a non-Imam, to prove a matter of aqeeda and not of tarikh.

 This isn't a discussion of history, this is a discussion of aqeeda. 

The question of "Did Imam Hussain (a) disagree with Imam Hasan (a) on the peace treaty with Muawiyah", is a historical question. I am not using this to prove aqeeda. The onus is on people who claim the principle that 'every Imam would do exactly the same thing as the other if they had the same situation', they need to provide the evidence for this. I am simply stating that this proven historical event contradicts this principle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Habibi, I gave 2 responses to this objection. I was expecting for you to respond to my replies...

Habibi you refuted yourself. However, you said this:

The point is that it is clear that if Musa (a) was in charge, he would have fought the people and not let them worship the idol.  This proves that they are indeed different people and would have done different things.

__

This proves nothing. Because what is thahir is he did not know what the situation was, so how do you know he would have reacted different when he himself didn't know what's going on? Habibi your argument defies human logic.

And then you said he sought forgiveness for his brother, but as other brothers pointed out, he sought forgiveness for himself. So what is the argument here?

Finally, this "aqeeda" is influenced by the fact that many Shi'a believe an Imam cannot make a mistake (khata), in fact to believe so is shadh among the scholars. 

Share this post


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

This proves nothing. Because what is thahir is he did not know what the situation was, so how do you know he would have reacted different when he himself didn't know what's going on? Habibi your argument defies human logic.

Musa (a) would have known beforehand the situation and how many people he had left with Prophet Harun (a) to look after.  When Musa (a) returns, he can only be angry at Harun (a) for two reasons— either he was angry because Musa (a) believed that Harun (a) completely abandoned his duty and didn't care about it, or he disagreed with how Harun (a) handled the situation. I don't think we can accept the first option, because how can we say that a Musa (a) thought that a Prophet of God didn't care about his duty, so that leaves us with the second option. 

15 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 And then you said he sought forgiveness for his brother, but as other brothers pointed out, he sought forgiveness for himself. So what is the argument here?

I answered this as well. Musa (a) asked forgiveness because he thought he didn't do enough to stop this from happening. Likewise, he thought that Harun (a) also could have done more to stop the calf incident.

20 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 Finally, this "aqeeda" is influenced by the fact that many Shi'a believe an Imam cannot make a mistake (khata), in fact to believe so is shadh among the scholars. 

The Imams making the same decisions as each other all the time has got nothing to do with whether they commit mistakes or not. As in with the peace treaty, if Imam Hasan (a) fought and lost, I wouldn't say that was a mistake, as he fought for Islam and became a martyr. So Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing with Imam Hasan (a) has got nothing to do with mistakes.

Also, the Imams being able to do mistakes may be shadh amongst the scholars, but it is the view transmitted by the a'immah (a).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extra point:

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that yes afterwards, Musa (a) agreed with Harun (a) after Harun (a) explained the situation, the fact of the matter is that Musa (a) still disagreed beforehand. Thus, we still conclude that it is possible for two infallibles to disagree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

When Musa (a) returns, he can only be angry at Harun (a) for two reasons— either he was angry because Musa (a) believed that Harun (a) completely abandoned his duty and didn't care about it, or he disagreed with how Harun (a) handled the situation

Salam it's thir option that said in Qur'an by Prophet  Harun (عليه السلام)

When Moses returned to his people, angry and indignant, he said, ‘Evil has been your conduct in my absence! Would you hasten on the edict of your Lord?’ He threw down the tablets and seized his brother by the head, pulling him towards himself. He said, ‘Son of my mother, indeed this people thought me to be weak, and they were about to kill me. So do not let the enemies gloat over me, and do not take me with the wrongdoing lot.’ (150)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/7:150

He said, ‘O son of my mother! Do not grab my beard or my head! I feared lest you should say, ‘‘You have caused a rift among the Children of Israel and did not heed my word [of advice].’’’ (94)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/20:94

first the punishment of Harun (عليه السلام) showed to other the greatness of their sin that Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) even punished his brother althought he didn't do any mistake

second Prophet Harun could show his truth & locality 

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/question/fa71779 

"سمعت النبی (ص) انه قال: الا ان مثل اهل بیتی فیکم مثل سفینة نوح فی قومه، من رکبها نجی و من تخلف عنها غرق"

 

"The similitude of my Ahlalbayt amongst you is the same as that of Noah's Ark amongst his tribe. Whoever boards it will be saved and he who avoided it will drown.[5]"

if even one of them had disagreement with others or made mistakes this narration would be false 

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa2163

 

 

 

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 1192
25 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

So Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing with Imam Hasan (a) has got nothing to do with mistakes.

 

8 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Around 10 historians (Sunni and Shia) have recorded the incident of Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing initially with Imam Hasan (a) on the treaty.

These are the two statements. Please tell us the complete story, what made him agreed afterwards? 

 

Quote

Ibn Asakir in his authority work ‘Tareekh Damishq’ and Imam Dhahabi in ‘Siyar Alam Nubla’ Volume 3 page 269 records:

إلا وان معاوية دعانا إلى أمر ليس فيه عز ولا نصفة فان اردتم الموت رددناه عليه وحاكمناه إلى الله جل وعز بظبا ( 5 ) السيوف وان اردتم الحياة قبلناه واخذنا لكم الرضا فناداه القوم من كل جانب البقية البقية ( 6 ( فلما افردوه امضى الصلح

Hasan said: “Be informed that Mu’awiya has called us to such a treaty that is neither honorable nor is it based on justice. If you are ready for death then we will reject this offer, and answer the matter with our swords and leave the matter with Allah. If you like life then we can accept it. Upon saying this, the calls from all around were ’Taqqiyyah, Taqqiyyah’ when the people left Hasan, he made peace”.
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 13 page 268

Perhaps you have evidences with you that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) was absent when Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) was delivering this sermon and he never saw what made his brother decide in favor of peace treaty. If so, provide those evidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Also, the Imams being able to do mistakes may be shadh amongst the scholars, but it is the view transmitted by the a'immah (a)

it's said about forgetting some routine tasks in daily life that for example maybe they was forgetting place of something or doing something in daily life not what affects whole of Muslims life & destiny. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Musa (a) would have known beforehand the situation and how many people he had left with Prophet Harun (a) to look after.  When Musa (a) returns, he can only be angry at Harun (a) for two reasons— either he was angry because Musa (a) believed that Harun (a) completely abandoned his duty and didn't care about it, or he disagreed with how Harun (a) handled the situation. I don't think we can accept the first option, because how can we say that a Musa (a) thought that a Prophet of God didn't care about his duty, so that leaves us with the second option. 

Actually in fact, he questioned his brother on whether he failed his duty. And his brother said; 

[Aaron] said, "O son of my mother, do not seize [me] by my beard or by my head. Indeed, I feared that you would say, 'You caused division among the Children of Israel, and you did not observe [or await] my word.' "

Meaning even if he did try and confront them, Harun (عليه السلام) feared that his brother wouldn't be happy with that - as he may claim he caused division between them or he didn't await his word. 

You are arguing nothing right now. Harun (عليه السلام) did the right thing, there is no proof of disagreement after the situation was explained.

33 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

I answered this as well. Musa (a) asked forgiveness because he thought he didn't do enough to stop this from happening. Likewise, he thought that Harun (a) also could have done more to stop the calf incident.

You totally made that up with no daleel whatsoever and I advise you not to attribute things to Prophets, especially in Ramadhan, when you are not sure.

Do you have a hadith to prove that the reason for his istighfaar was because he didn't think he and especially his brother didn't do enough to stop them? 

41 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

The Imams making the same decisions as each other all the time has got nothing to do with whether they commit mistakes or not. As in with the peace treaty, if Imam Hasan (a) fought and lost, I wouldn't say that was a mistake, as he fought for Islam and became a martyr. So Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing with Imam Hasan (a) has got nothing to do with mistakes.

Also, the Imams being able to do mistakes may be shadh amongst the scholars, but it is the view transmitted by the a'immah (a).

How does disagreement not imply a mistake? Unless you believe there can be two correct decisions, but then one of them has to be more correct. Okay then who do we follow when Imams (عليه السلام) disagree yet they are equally hujjah upon us?

Furthermore, what right does Al-Husayn (عليه السلام) have - if we go by your view - to disagree with the hujjah upon him, the Imam of his time? How does this sound to you? To disagree with Al-Hasan (عليه السلام) is the equivalent to disagreeing with the Prophet or Imam Ali (عليه السلام), just as they were hujjah when they were alive, he is also equally hujjah during the time of his Imamah, and he is obligatory to follow just as they are obligatory to follow, in fact he is the hujjah of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) on his creation, just as they were and are.

This isn't a simple matter what you are saying. The aqeeda you are proposing has too much contradictions to even make common sense.

Just as there are shadh opinions, there are also shadh reports, so the fact that some hadiths have that meaning or imply it is nothing new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

You are arguing nothing right now. Harun (عليه السلام) did the right thing, there is no proof of disagreement after the situation was explained.

Ahsant!

So you agree with me. Musa (a) did disagree with Harun (a) before it was explained to Musa (a) the reason why Harun (a) didn't rise up. 

Therefore, two infallibles can disagree with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 You totally made that up with no daleel whatsoever and I advise you not to attribute things to Prophets, especially in Ramadhan, when you are not sure.

 Do you have a hadith to prove that the reason for his istighfaar was because he didn't think he and especially his brother didn't do enough to stop them? 

You're right I should have been more careful here, like I did in a previous post, I should have said there could have been other reasons. But, I do think that he (a) is doing istighfar for himself and his brother for a reason. If Harun (a) didn't do anything wrong and in fact he did the best possible action (which I don't necessarily disagree with), why would Musa (a) ask for his forgiveness?

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 3:51 AM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Ahsant!

So you agree with me. Musa (a) did disagree with Harun (a) before it was explained to Musa (a) the reason why Harun (a) didn't rise up. 

Therefore, two infallibles can disagree with each other.

No, because the assumption was that Harun (عليه السلام) broke the trust given to him by Musa (عليه السلام), which would actually be a sin (naudhubillah) as he asked  him "a3asayta amri" - to which Harun (عليه السلام) explained to him that there was no actual 3isyaan (defiance of order).

On 5/20/2019 at 4:18 AM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

You're right I should have been more careful here, like I did in a previous post, I should have said there could have been other reasons. But, I do think that he (a) is doing istighfar for himself and his brother for a reason. If Harun (a) didn't do anything wrong and in fact he did the best possible action (which I don't necessarily disagree with), why would Musa (a) ask for his forgiveness?

There are a few reasons given in the books of tafseer, I haven't seen one mention the reasoning you gave.

Actually the distinction of irshadi and mawlawi makes perfect sense - the Imams (عليه السلام) no doubt make different decisions when it comes to matters not related to the deen. That is not an issue. In fact the Qur'an says, 

Say, "I hold not for myself [the power of] benefit or harm, except what Allah has willed. And if I knew the unseen, I could have acquired much wealth, and no harm would have touched me. I am not except a warner and a bringer of good tidings to a people who believe." [A'raaf 188]

So there is no issue when it comes to irshaadi matters.

But when it comes to matters pertaining to the Deen of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), it is much harder to believe that there are cotradictory views in His religion. This is a matter not just pertaining to ismah - although that is a huge deal in and of itself, but also an issue with tashrii and ahkaam, and the protection of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) of His religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So then the principle that "all Imams would do the same thing if they were in each other's position" is no longer universal, and all we should say is that they would present the same general legislative hukm for any given situation if they were in each other's position, but not necessarily have an agreement in the tashkees of how to go about implementing and carrying out that hukm, neither the tashkees of whether a certain hukm is applicable at that time (for example, one may believe the hukm is applicable, while the latter may believe there is some 'unwan thanawi which prevents that hukm from being applied at that time - such as Imam Hasan assuming Sulh is fine, whereas Imam Husayn assuming Sulh is not fine), and finally, neither in irshadi matters which can be judged by the intellect alone (I.e. they can even differ in that and perhaps not make the best of decisions - and this usually goes back to tashkees).

The above conclusion is not mainstream Shi'I opinion.

The matter of application of ahkaam is also very blury - to claim they would apply ahkaam in different ways implies a form of ijtihaad, and also implies that one has a more correct process, because you can't have two equally correct processes.

Furthermore, is it only the case that the hukm is inspired by Divine guidance or is the application also inspired? 

As for irshaadi matters, that is clear, and no issue here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What's wrong with that? They are not doing ijtihad in deriving the hukm, just its application.

Because it wouldn't make sense that the application of the Deen is based on ijtihad. Say you had two masooms, and each of them had a different approach in carrying out a hukm, who do the people follow? 

Quote

The latter can definitely be inspired, but you need to theologically establish that this was the case for every single decision the Prophet (p) or Imams (a) made - there is no concrete rational evidence for it.

Hold on a minute, so it "can" be inspired, but not always? So then Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) discriminates between different ahkaam - in which sometimes the Imams (عليه السلام) are given the whole package (hukm + application) and sometimes not? 

Leaving aside ismah, this is very problematic from the standpoint of tashree brother. 

Furthermore there are certain texts that strengthen the claim that the matter of tashree is Divinely inspired, such as the narrations which deal with things such ilham, speaking to Angels, that Rooh Al-Qudus aids the Imam (عليه السلام), that the Imam (عليه السلام) is given knowledge when he asks for it (why ask about a hukm but not how to carry it out?).

This position is safer and offers more clarity.

Quote

In that case, if an Imam (a) gives an Irshadi command to you (which we have many such reports on), there is no necessity on you to follow it as the Shari'ah and there should be no reason to condemn such a person. Like in the case of Kulayni's uncle who is from the

'iddatun min ashabina and Najashi says he is thiqa, yet he refused to listen to Imam Mahdi (a) when the Imam told him not to go to Hajj and was killed:

قتل علان بطريق مكة و كان استأذن الصاحب عليه السلام في الحج فخرج: توقف عنه في هذه السنة فخالف‏

He was killed on his way to Makkah. He had sought the permission of the Imam (a) regarding whether he should go to Ḥajj. The response came, ‘Do not go to it this year.’ However, he went against it.

Scholars have explained this away as him going against a hukm irshadi of the Imam, because if it was mawlawi it would have been an instance of sin.

Wasalam

I don't see an issue with this at all. Thanks akhi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sumerian said:

No, because the assumption was that Harun (عليه السلام) broke the trust given to him by Musa (عليه السلام), which would actually be a sin (naudhubillah) as he asked  him "a3asayta amri" - to which Harun (عليه السلام) explained to him that there was no actual 3isyaan (defiance of order).

Before Harun (a) explained why he didn't rise up, did Musa (a) agree or disagree with Harun's decision to not rise up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Before Harun (a) explained why he didn't rise up, did Musa (a) agree or disagree with Harun's decision to not rise up?

No he didn't, that's because nahi an al munkar is wajib, unless the conditions are not fulfilled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Why not? It has been 14 centuries since Islam is being applied through ijtihadat of the companions and jurists, and this can be traced back to the time of the infallibles themselves. There is nothing strange about it and in fact it is the method that is recognized by the infallibles themselves so I do not see why it would become strange if a Prophet or Imam had to do the same thing.

Because ijtihaad is based on different understanding of nass, while the Prophets (عليه السلام) and Imams (عليه السلام) are the one who narrates it. It is very different. 

Why would it be wajib to follow an ijtihaad not based on Divine inspiration?

Quote

The one who has authority at any given time and only if the command is a hukm shar'I or wilayi - not if it is irshadi (apparently, as per what was being said above).

Two issues with this.

1) We know for a matter of fact that different Prophets existed at different times, and it is quite likely that they also were also at equal authoritative level. If we allow for them to disagree, then Allah's religion would be an in a battle of human intellect, and the people would not know who is the hujjah.

2) You explained earlier that had the command of the Mahdi (عليه السلام) been mawlawi, it would have been a sin to go against it. Would it not be a sin for a Prophet or Imam to disagree with a mawlawi command given by a figure with more authority - like in the case of Al-Hasan (عليه السلام) and Al-Husayn (عليه السلام)?

Quote

It can be, as in rationally it can be, the intellect does not see any impossibility in it, but at this time the onus is on one making the claim to prove whether such a thing also occurs or not, and if so, whether it occurs all the time or only sometimes in some cases where we can prove it, or it does not occur at all because there is no evidence for it.

What is problematic about it?

What is problematic is in effect we are left with a belief that we have had an application tableegh that is not wholly guided by Divine, and therefore why is it wajib to follow something not from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?

Quote

Let us exactly define tashri' so we know what we are talking about. In this discussion I understand tashri' as simply the knowledge of a hukm and I do not see how that has anything to do with its application. Some tashri'at include the application within them, for example how to pray or how to do Hajj, but there are many tashri'at that do not mention anything about their application or their applications rely on secondary 'unaween which rely on individual tashkeesat and these can differ based on personal experiences and limitations that each individual has in their own lives as a material existent.

Right, but this is not the issue. Context matters, but we are asking if the Imams (عليه السلام) were in the exact same position, would they apply the hukm in the same way? This doesn't have anything to do with secondary anaween, because we are ignoring context on purpose for the sake of the answer to this question.

Again, I ask, why is it wajib to follow an application that is based on simple human intellect?

Quote

Why not because it was left to human endeavor and experience, and that human perfection lies in figuring out the best way to carry it out? Is that so far fetched?

Wasalam

Because why would a religion that is complete and perfect be left to human intellect which doesn't make the best decisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

No he didn't what? No he didn't agree? Or no he didn't disagree? 

He didn't agree to Harun's position, but it turns out there was no disagreement at the end, once he realised what's going on. So this means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Interesting view of Akhund Khorasani regarding the extent people have to obey the Imams:

بقي الكلام في انّه، هل يجب على النّاس اتّباع أوامر الإمام (عليه السلام) و الانتهاء بنواهيه مطلقا و لو في غير السياسيات، و غير الأحكام، من الأمور العادية، أو يختصّ بما كان متعلّقا بهما؟! فيه اشكال، و القدر المتيقن من الآيات و الرّوايات، وجوب الإطاعة في خصوص ما صدر‌ منهم، من جهة النّبوة و الإمامة

http://ar.lib.eshia.ir/13025/1/93

 

I can see why there is an ishkal but I don't find the view that only following the Imams (عليه السلام) in tableegh and ahkam as controversial. I don't know if it is correct, but I don't have an issue with it. 

Share this post


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

 He didn't agree to Harun's position, but it turns out there was no disagreement at the end, once he realised what's going on. So this means nothing.

Ok, we have at least agreed on one point.

So there was a disagreement between two infallibles. Only once Musa (a) learned of the situation, did they agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Ok, we have at least agreed on one point.

So there was a disagreement between two infallibles. Only once Musa (a) learned of the situation, did they agree.

I call that a misunderstanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

He didn't agree to Harun's position, but it turns out there was no disagreement at the end, once he realised what's going on. So this means nothing.

Side point but...

since you have agreed that there was disagreement before Harun (a) explained the matter, the onus is now on you to prove where Musa (a) changed his view regarding the decision of Harun (a)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

If this is what you meant, then I agree.

Due to Musa (a) not fully understanding Harun's decision, he disagreed with it.

This is different from saying that that Imams would react different in exactly the same context.

16 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Side point but...

since you have agreed that there was disagreement before Harun (a) explained the matter, the onus is now on you to prove where Musa (a) changed his view regarding the decision of Harun (a)

I'm not sure if you are being contrarion on purpose, but I'm pretty sure I showed you that Harun (عليه السلام) was fearful that if he did confront them, then Musa (عليه السلام) would say he caused division among the Israelites.

This implies that Musa (عليه السلام) would not have supported a confrontation with them, if he knew their will be divide. This is a 2+2=4 matter I am not sure why you are still arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 This is different from saying that that Imams would react different in exactly the same context.

Why not? We can say an Imam did not understand a situation completely, and he disagreed with another Imam, just like here.

6 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

I'm not sure if you are being contrarion on purpose, but I'm pretty sure I showed you that Harun (عليه السلام) was fearful that if he did confront them, then Musa (عليه السلام) would say he caused division among the Israelites.

 This implies that Musa (عليه السلام) would not have supported a confrontation with them, if he knew their will be divide. This is a 2+2=4 matter I am not sure why you are still arguing.

There is no evidence that you have provided here at all which suggests Musa (a) changed his opinion. You have just showed Harun's (a) reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The Prophet and Imams know of the hukm - through whatever means - that is tantamount to being the nass. There is a second step in which they have to carry out that hukm and that is what I am saying can be left to ijtihad and there is no issue with that. Our ijtihad is foremost in actually deriving the hukm from the extant nusus - we do not even know what the hukm is.

It is not always wajib, but on many occasions it can be required to do so because that is how human life remains in harmony and without chaos when we follow certain social conventions. For example, the tashkees of a Wali Amr has to be followed, even though it is based on ijtihad and often times speculation, or the verdicts of a judge which are usually based on speculative evidence at best and so on.

Right, but following a judge and wali al amr like you said is based on maintaining social order and prevention of chaos. But it has nothing to do with correctness of a'maal and correctness of viewpoints. How can we be certain that we will be rewarded for a amal originally based on speculation? Notice I said "originally", because this cannot be compared to maraje who can only work with what was given to them by the Imams (عليه السلام). So if the original amal is incorrect, where is the reward? Or do you believe that all the ijtihadaat of the Imams (عليه السلام) are correct and rewarding, and that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) allows for this?

Quote

That has not really been proven for me personally.

So two Prophets of similar authority have never existed together at once in the entire history of Prophethood?

Quote

Well for starters, it is not obvious that the command was mawlawi, and even if it was, it is not known Imam Husayn (a) understood it that way initially. Finally, Imam Husayn (a) ended up accepting it anyways once he understood he was in the wrong and that he should listen to his brother who is the one vested with authority. It may have been a moment of anger and frustration for Imam Husayn (a) and he reacted that way - hence we are trying to make the point that Imams were different personalities, they could react and do things differently even in same situations and scenarios.

This doesn't answer whether it would be a sin, even if he turned back from his earlier position, supposedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Why not? We can say an Imam did not understand a situation completely, and he disagreed with another Imam, just like here.

The situation of Harun and Musa mean nothing to this discussion, because the context and situation was different between them, hence the misunderstanding.

This isn't the same as two people in the exact same context, would they react different or not? Entirely different question.

9 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

There is no evidence that you have provided here at all which suggests Musa (a) changed his opinion. You have just showed Harun's (a) reasoning.

His reasoning is based on the fact that he feared Musa's reaction had he confronted them.

So was Musa pro or anti confrontation? It is clear he didn't want them to apostate, but also it is clear from his brother's words he wouldn't have been happy with division either. Otherwise why would he fear a reaction from his brother if he did exactly what his brother wanted him to do?

Again, 2+2=4 logic.

Edited by Sumerian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

The situation of Harun and Musa mean nothing to this discussion, because the context and situation was different between them, hence the misunderstanding.

This isn't the same as two people in the exact same context, would they react different or not? Entirely different question.

How are their situations different? They were in the same positions— Prophets of God, dealing with the same people, dealing with the same person (Samiri) and trying to fix the same problem (people worshiping an idol).

26 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

His reasoning is based on the fact that he feared Musa's reaction had he confronted them.

So was Musa pro or anti confrontation? It is clear he didn't want them to apostate, but also it is clear from his brother's words he wouldn't have been happy with division either. Otherwise why would he fear a reaction from his brother if he did what his brother wanted him to do?

Again, 2+2=4 logic.

 Again, this is not evidence. Harun's (a) reasoning as to how he thought Musa (a) would have reacted is not evidence Musa (a) changed his view.

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Aimmah

How can the Imams differ? If Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) tells us one thing, and Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) another, how could we know what to do? Isn't every thing they do, every step, from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

How are their situations different? They were in the same positions— Prophets of God, dealing with the same people, dealing with the same person (Samiri) and trying to fix the same problem (people worshiping an idol).

Lol. Maybe due to the fact that when the incident happened, Musa (عليه السلام) was not there, and he only came in after the fact?

13 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

 Again, this is not evidence. Harun's (a) reasoning as to how he thought Musa (a) would have reacted is not evidence Musa (a) changed his view.

Again, this is evidence, unlike your unbacked statements. What Harun (عليه السلام) did was not with the intention of opposing or disagreeing with his brother, he believed what he did was correct and not contradictory to the wasiya of his brother who is his authority.

Add to the fact, where is the proof that Musa (عليه السلام) confronted them after he knew what they had done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sumerian said:

Again, this is evidence, unlike your unbacked statements. What Harun (عليه السلام) did was not with the intention of opposing or disagreeing with his brother, he believed what he did was correct and not contradictory to the wasiya of his brother who is his authority.

Sigh. Looks like this discussion isn't going anywhere. I asked you a simple question, and with all due respect brother, you haven't been able to answer it.

What Harun (a) did or what he didn't do or what his intention was or what it wasn't is completely irrelevant as to whether Musa (a) changed his opinion.

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Baln
Quote

As per those historical reports, Imam Husayn (a) clearly did not agree with Imam Hasan's (a) decision initially and tries to convince him otherwise, and is left frustrated and angry initially, only to have his own mind and decision changed. He never rebelled against the decision that it would constitute as a sin and transgression for going against the Wali Amr, he was simply in disagreement with Imam Hasan (a).

If Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) had some knowledge of the unseen, wouldn't he have known what was going to happen anyway? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As per those historical reports, Imam Husayn (a) clearly did not agree with Imam Hasan's (a) decision initially and tries to convince him otherwise, and is left frustrated and angry initially, only to have his own mind and decision changed. He never rebelled against the decision that it would constitute as a sin and transgression for going against the Wali Amr, he was simply in disagreement with Imam Hasan (a).

Salam you say it hit's historical & this story they fabricated same thing that Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) disagreed about Uthman with Imam Ali (عليه السلام) , it's just forging in history that always is  trying to give priority to peace & remain neutral instead of rising against tyrants that was favorite of tyrants so they make these stories to show Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) as symbole of peace against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) that were symbol of uprising against tyrants anyway I completely approve decision of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام) but I don't stories in history book about their disagreement each other but all Imams were good warriors like as Imam Hadi (عليه السلام) showed that was best shooter between all warriors despite they just knew him man of science but they don't have enough support despite quantity of Shia they don't have enough quality 

as Prophet mummad (pbu) said :I gave my dignity and my Magnanimous and my lordship to Hasan (عليه السلام) and given my courage to Hussein (عليه السلام).

ترجمه ی اعلام الوری ص 304، طبرسی.

translation of A'lam al 'vary p 304 Tabarsi

http://fa.abna24.com/news/پيامبرص-و-اهل‌بيت-ع/پرتوی-از-زندگانی-امام-حسن-مجتبی-علیه-السلام_752028.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...