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
Follower of Ahlulbayt

Are the Imams All The Same Person?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

You refuted your own argument regarding the Verse in the Qur'an and then as your secondary proof, you relied on a historical source that is completely non-binding to us believers to try and disprove this belief.

Not saying I affirm or deny it, but please try better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 - أحمد بن محمد، عن محمد بن الحسن، عن علي بن إسماعيل، عن صفوان بن يحيى، عن ابن مسكان، عن الحارث بن المغيرة، عن أبي عبدالله عليه السلام قال: سمعته يقول: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: نحن في الامر والفهم والحلال والحرام نجري مجرى واحد، فأما رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وعلي عليه السلام فلهما فضلهما.

H 728, Ch. 58, h 3
Ahmad ibn Muhammad has narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Hassan from Ali ibn Isma‘il from Safwan ibn Yahya from ibn Muskan from al-Harith ibn al-Mughirah who has narrated the following from Abu ‘Abdallah ((عليه السلام).). "We in the matters of commands, understanding, lawful and unlawful all are alike and the same. However, the Messenger of Allah and Ali ((عليه السلام).) have their own virtue and excellence."

(AlKafi, Vol 1, Part 4, Ch 58)

مجلسي حسن

@Urwatul Wuthqa

Share this post


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

You refuted your own argument regarding the Verse in the Qur'an 

An assertion like this is pointless without showing how. Quite happy to be proven wrong btw

8 hours ago, Sumerian said:

 as your secondary proof, you relied on a historical source that is completely non-binding to us believers to try and disprove this belief.

 

Ajeeb. What do you mean by the historical source is non-binding? 

Do you mean it comes from non-Imami sources? If this is your reasoning, the you might as well reject most of history.  Also, Shi'I sources were given such as Abi Mikhnaf (who is a primary source for the battle of Karbala btw)

Or do you mean it comes in a non mu'tabar chain? If this is what you mean, then I'll say that this is as equally absurd. History is not looked through the same lens as Fiqh is looked into. If you were going to only accept mu'tabar by sanad reports, then again, most of history would be gone. Many aspects of the battle of Karbala would be gone. You wouldn't be able to prove the martyrdom of Sayeda Fatima (s) with this methodology. 

I would urge you to look at the evidences again brother.  Around 10 historians (Sunni and Shia) have recorded the incident of Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing initially with Imam Hasan (a) on the treaty. If you were to say that all of this is fabricated and wrong, I would say that we might as well reject the whole incident of Karbala. 

Share this post


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

An assertion like this is pointless without showing how. Quite happy to be proven wrong btw

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.

1 hour ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Ajeeb. What do you mean by the historical source is non-binding? 

Do you mean it comes from non-Imami sources? If this is your reasoning, the you might as well reject most of history.  Also, Shi'I sources were given such as Abi Mikhnaf (who is a primary source for the battle of Karbala btw)

Or do you mean it comes in a non mu'tabar chain? If this is what you mean, then I'll say that this is as equally absurd. History is not looked through the same lens as Fiqh is looked into. If you were going to only accept mu'tabar by sanad reports, then again, most of history would be gone. Many aspects of the battle of Karbala would be gone. You wouldn't be able to prove the martyrdom of Sayeda Fatima (s) with this methodology. 

I would urge you to look at the evidences again brother.  Around 10 historians (Sunni and Shia) have recorded the incident of Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing initially with Imam Hasan (a) on the treaty. If you were to say that all of this is fabricated and wrong, I would say that we might as well reject the whole incident of Karbala. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
On 5/17/2019 at 11:47 AM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

So a theological question which I believe many of us need to ponder over a bit more is the concept that the Imams are all the same person and that each of them would have done exactly the same thing as the other and the only reason that they did different things was due to their situations.

Just some traditions where a difference of opinion amongst the Imams (a) is apparently reflected (there are a few more I can think of as well, but I do not have time to translate them) - Shi'I scholars have generally tried to explain these away through different types of ta'weel due to their presumptions about 'Ismah:

1) Al-Kafi and other works:

Abu ‘Abd Allah (a) has said, ‘I once visited Abu Ja‘far (a) and said, ‘I like to give a certain amount of asset to so and so to buy for me certain goods from Yemen.’ He (Imam Baqir) said, ‘Do you not know that he drinks wine?’ I (Imam Sadiq) replied, ‘I have heard from believing people who say so.’ He (al-Baqir) said to me, ‘You must believe them because Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, says, “. . . he believes in Allah and in the believing people.”’ He (al-Baqir) then said, ‘If you give a certain amount of assets and it is destroyed or lost, you will not have any reward or compensation for it with Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious'.'

But I (al-Sadiq) gave him my assets and he lost it, and then prayed to Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, for reward. He (al-Baqir) said, ‘Never, my son, Allah will not reward you or compensate you for such loss.’ He (al-Sadiq) has said, ‘I asked him, ‘Why is it so?’ He (al-Baqir) said to me, ‘Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, says, “Do not give to the dimwitted ones your assets which Allah has given you for your sustenance,” (4:5) do you see anyone more dimwitted than a wine drinker?’ He (al-Sadiq) has said that he (al-Baqir) then said, ‘A servant has a chance before Allah, until he drinks wine. When he drinks wine Allah, most Majestic, most Glorious, tears down his covering, then Satan, may Allah condemn him, becomes his guardian and brother, his ears, his eyes, his hands, his legs and he drives him to all misguidance and turns him away from all good things.’”

In this report Imam Sadiq (a) goes against the command of Imam Baqir (a) and loses his assets. Because of the presumption of 'ismah the scholars have said this command was Irshadi (not Mawlawi) - Irshadi means it is something the intellect itself can ascertain and determine but it is not shar'an obligatory or even recommended to follow (such as, do not trust a liar, it is only intellectually good to abide by this judgement), whereas Mawlawi commands are legislative. As such, Majlisi writes:

ثم لما كان النهي إرشاديا مخالفته لا تنافي العصمة

They do not realize that such an explanation makes the situation even worse since you are then saying that the Imam (a) couldn't realize with his intellect what is the better thing to do and that even if he did, he did not abide by his intellectual judgement.

----

2) Al-Kafi:

Muhammad ibn al-Husayn has narrated from Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Ahmar from ‘Abd Allah ibn Hammad Khattab ibn Salmah who has said the following: “I had a wife who believed (in the divine authority of ‘A’immah) and so also was her father, but she had very bad moral behaviors and I did not like to divorce her because of her belief and the belief of her father. I met Abu al-Hassan, Musa, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, and I wanted to ask him (the Imam) if divorcing her is proper saying, ‘I pray to Allah to keep my soul in service for your cause, I need an answer to a question and I like to ask you.’ He (the Imam) said, ‘Come tomorrow at the time of al-Zuhr Salat (prayer). He (the narrator) has said, ‘After performing al-Zuhr Salat (prayer) I went to see him (the Imam) and I found that he (the Imam) had completed his Salat (prayer) and he was sitting. I went inside and sat in front of him (the Imam). He (the Imam) initiated speaking to me and said, ‘O Khattab, my father made me marry a daughter of my uncle and her moral behaviors were very bad. My father sometimes would close the door on both of us in the hope that I may meet her, instead of climbing the wall to run away. When my father passed away I divorced her.’ I (the narrator) then said to myself, ‘Allah is Greater than can be described, He (the Imam) has answered my question before I could even ask him (the Imam).’”

------------

3) Al-Kafi:

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn Faddal from ibn Bukayr from Zurarah who has said the following: “Abu Ja‘far said to me, ‘I wanted to marry a woman but my father disliked it. I went and married her and afterwards I went to see her. I looked at her and did not see anything attractive to me. I stood up to leave but her guard with her went to the door to close it on me. I told her not to do so and she could have what she wanted. When I returned home to my father and informed him about it, he said, ‘You only owe to her half of the mahr (dower).’ He said, ‘You married her during a hot hour.’”

This tradition shows Imam Baqir (a) marrying a woman who his father (Imam Sajjad) disliked, and on top of that Imam Baqir (a) did not even seem to know the rule for mahr at the time. In addition, the chapter in which this hadith appears is about when it is a good time to get married and that this tradition is showing the reason why this marriage failed is because the Imam married this woman during a hot season.

Once again some have tried to say the dislike was Irshadi, not Mawlawi, or that Imam Baqir (a) was doing taqiyyah in his presumption about the ruling of having to give the full mahr since some Sunni jurists would say if you take your clothes off and lock the door, the full mahr is established.

------------

4) There is room to contemplate over the many, many traditions in Shi'I and Sunni books regarding Imam Ali (a) discouraging people from getting their daughters married to Imam Hasan (a) because of his many divorces. Shi'a scholars through-out history have tried many ways to explain these traditions, even to the extent that one scholar says Imam Hasan (a) was playing the role of a muhallil.

Unfortunately, this principle of "each Imam would do the same thing" is not discussed in classical theology and you will not really find a comprehensive academic discussion of it anywhere. 

Wasalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

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

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...