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

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
1 hour ago, 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).

1 hour ago, 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 @Ibn al-Hussain, 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
41 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

Actually @Ibn al-Hussain, 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.

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.

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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
26 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

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.

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

Quote

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

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 so you'll have to resort to the traditions to establish it.

Quote

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

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 'Allan al-Razi 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

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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? 

17 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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.

Edited by Sumerian

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
Just now, Sumerian said:

Because it wouldn't make sense that the application of the Deen is based on ijtihad.

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.

Just now, Sumerian said:

Say you had two masooms, and each of them had a different approach in carrying out a hukm, who do the people follow? 

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).

Just now, Sumerian said:

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? 

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.

Just now, Sumerian said:

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

What is problematic about it?

Just now, Sumerian said:

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

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.

Just now, Sumerian said:

(why ask about a hukm but not how to carry it out?).

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

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
6 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

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

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

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


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

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

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

 

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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?

7 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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)?

16 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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)?

23 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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?

28 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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
13 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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

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...