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

Quote

Yes one can be more right, but, obedience is to the one who is given authority at the time. Two Imams are not given the same authority at the same time. People are not following two Imams at one time.

So then we have an issue here. Is the Imam in authority always the correct one - as it seems to be in the alleged disagreement of Husayn (عليه السلام) with his brother, or is it not the case?

And, had Imam Al-Husayn (عليه السلام) been in his brother's position, and chosen war instead of treaty, would that mean an Imam is capable of a wrong decision (and regretting it) - since you yourself said that Al-Husayn (عليه السلام) realised he was incorrect.

Quote

I am not discussing Mawlawi statements at all which are expressions of presenting the legal divine rules, and the issue of the Sulh is definitely not Mawlawi - Sulh is just a human contract. If he went against an amr mawlawi, particularly while knowing it's mawlawi, then that's an instance of sin. If he didn't think it's mawlawi or didn't know then that's also a different story.

That sulh of Imam Hasan needs to be understood as a contract made by the Wali Amr and hence as a Hukm Wilayee who decided it was appropriate to get into such a contract with a transgressor at that time. One must obey the commands of the Wali Amr, even if they disagree.

My point is simply that the idea that two infallibles necessarily would have done the same thing in each others position is not true especially when we have alibis to show they would disagree on some matters. The only thing we can claim is they would have presented the correct hukm, and even that, in some of its application it is not known they would have carried the hukm out the exact same way because of their tashkeesaat.

If you really want to see this dilemma open up more you have to just look at the struggle our scholars have gone through to explain khums and why khums on arbah al-makasib (the most common khums the Shias pay today) is non-existent up until the later Imams while at the same time they believe it is a hukm mawlawi/shar'I.

Wait, so the fatwa, for lack of better term, of an Imam (عليه السلام) on a situation concerning a legal matter - which is the conditions and limitations of treaties (something which has precedent in the Sunnah) - is not a mawlawi command, rather a command of the ruler?

How is that reconciled with the various hadiths that say or imply that obedience to the Imam is like the obedience to the Prophet, which is essentially obedience to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?

The only way you can solve this is if you claim that even the Prophet, in terms of his commandments, - they were not all mawlawi, and in fact some were based on his own tashkheesat.

Furthermore I would like to know your opinion on this hadith;

Quote

Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from ibn Mahbub from ibn Ra’aab from Durays al-Kunasi.

He said: I heard Abu Ja`far عليه السلام saying – and with him were people from his companions: I am surprised by a community that acknowledges our wilaya, accepts us as Imams, and says that obedience to us is compulsory upon them just like the obedience to the Messenger of Allahصلى الله عليه وآله ; yet they break their proof (hujja) and dispute amongst themselves by the weakness of their hearts. They diminish our rights and blame those whom Allah has granted evidence to know us and submit to our command. Do you not consider that Allah تبارك وتعالى has made it obligatory to obey His awliya’ upon His slaves? How would He hide the news of the heavens and the Earth from them, and cut them off from the sources of knowledge that maintain their religion?!

So Humran said to him: May I be your ransom, have you deliberated regarding what occurred from the rising of `Ali b. Abi Talib, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn عليهم السلام? They came out and rose up for the religion of Allah عز ذكره; how much they suffered from their deaths at the hands of the tyrants – they were defeated, murdered and overpowered. So Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: O Humran, Allah تبارك وتعالى had destined that for them; decreed it, approved it, and necessitated it – it was beyond choice. It thus occurred and the knowledge of it had come to them from the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وآله. `Ali, al-Hasan, and al-Husayn عليهم السلام rose whilst knowing [the consequences]. By its knowledge, there were those of us who remained silent. Had they, O Humran, whilst facing what Allah عز وجل made them face and suffer defeat at the hands of the tyrants, asked Allah عزوجل to remove their suffering and implored Him to destroy the kingdom of the tyrants, He would have answered their prayers and granted it for them – then, the decree would have removed the tyrants and their kingdom would end faster than the dispersal of threaded beads under pressure. That which they endured, O Humran, was not because of a sin they committed or a punishment for opposing Allah, rather, it was a deliverance and a bounty from Allah, who wished for them to attain it. Do not allow them (I.e. the people) to take you away from the [correct] path. (al-Kafi, Volume 1, hadith 675)

(sahih) (صحيح)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Faith
39 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Each of the Imams, instead of Imam Hasan (عليه السلام),would took the same decision.

The following reference Ayatullah Khamenei has given:

"Nahjul Balaghah, ibn Hadid, V. 16. P, 10"

What he said, is this:
 

Quote

The peace treaty was done by Imam Hasan alone, he did it, he and Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام)). Although Imam Hasan was the symbol to peace and Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام)) was behind him. Imam Hussain was among those who were defending and supporting the idea for peace. In a private meeting one of the closest companions – most epics and …… - criticize Imam Mujtaba, Imam Hussain confronted him: (Imam Hussain signaled to Hujra1 ). No one can say that if Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام)) was to be in the place of Imam Hasan the peace would not occurred. No Imam Hussain with Imam Hasan were together and this peace event occurred, and if Imam Hasan was not present and Imam Hussain to be in the same condition he would have did what Imam Hasan ((عليه السلام)) did for peace to prevail.

https://www.khameneiseminar.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/a-250-years-old-person.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 2:17 AM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Salam,

But one incident which I believe makes the case that the Imams are different people and that they wouldn't have done the same as each other even if they had the same circumstances is the fact that Imam Hussain (a) disagreed with Imam Hassan (a) on the peace treaty with Mu'awiyah. The evidences for this can be read here

Walaikum assalam,

I glanced through the ten pages, I could not find the evidence (you were referring). Would you be able to direct?

By the way, just to remind you. Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) and Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) are both the sons of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and the grandsons of Prophet Muhammad ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and also the leaders of youth of paradise.

They cannot differ, it is impossible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That is irrelevant. Even if he happens to be "less correct" you still have to obey him - as I said, these matters of tashkees go back to personal understandings of things and often times only in hindsight can we can tell whether it was the best decision or not. Otherwise in the moment, you often only have a certain limit of information available accompanied by other personal variables like one's attitude, experiences, perceptions and so on and have to act on what is apparent to you (which becomes hujjah upon you - like in the hand-shaking example I gave you earlier). I showed traditions earlier where one Imam as a father made their son (who is another Imam) marry a certain woman who was not in the best interest of their son, and in fact the son divorces her because of how bad the woman was. Or one Imam entrusting an alcoholic with their assets even after the father said do not do so, and the Imam lost their assets.

I have no problem with matters of irshaad and regular non-religious related disagreements. My issue is merely with hukm - which me and you agree would be the same no doubt because the source of it is Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and its application - which mean and you seemingly disagree, and also what falls under mawlawi. 

I have not seen clear cut evidence which hasn't been explained by scholars, where two Imams apparently have a different approach in application of hukm, with the exception of this historical report.

Quote

I am not sure what you mean by "wrong decision" - are you saying there is a decision that is registered in reality and the decision has to be in accordance with that? In these matters there is no evidence for me that they are infallible - in fact I am not sure what "infallibility" here even means. I cited some traditions here to show that they made certain decisions in these matters where two Imams were very apparently disagreeing on matters or even not listening to another. In fact, to even begin accepting infallibility to such an extent you would have no choice but to establish that they have knowledge of the unseen, which is another thing not proven for me and it is well known that the classical scholars did not accept such a thing either. You have to prove that infallibility of error and mistakes extends beyond religious matters, to matters which concern Prophet's personal decisions. In vol. 2 of al-Mizan, 'Allamah Tabataba'I has a discussion on 'ismah and divides infallibility into three:

أن العصمة على ثلاثة أقسام : العصمة عن الخطأ في تلقي الوحي ، والعصمة عن الخطأ في التبليغ والرسالة ، والعصمة عن المعصية وهي ما فيه هتك حرمة العبودية ومخالفة مولوية ، ويرجع بالاخرة إلى قول أو فعل ينافي العبودية منافاه ما ، ونعني بالعصمة وجود أمر في الانسان المعصوميصونه عن الوقوع فيما لا يجوز من الخطأ أو المعصية.

وأما الخطأ في غير باب المعصية وتلقي الوحي والتبليغ ، وبعبارة أخرى في غير باب أخذ الوحي وتبليغه والعمل به كالخطأ في الامور الخارجية نظير الاغلاط الواقعة للانسان في الحواس وإدراكاتها أو الاعتباريات من العلوم ، ونظير الخطأ في تشخيص الامور التكوينية من حيث الصلاح والفساد والنفع والضرر ونحوها فالكلام فيها خارج عن هذا المبحث

'Allamah did not consider Hukm Wilayee and these personal decisions to be part of Wahi and Shari'ah hence they are outside the scope of the theological arguments made for 'ismah which is what I had said earlier as well - you need to first determine your definition of infallibility and establish the rational and textual arguments for it, the rational argument for infallibility only proves infallibility in a very small circle of things:

المصونية عن الخطأ في أمر الدين والشريعة المشرعة

In volume 14 of al-Mizan he says that if an Imam or Prophet goes against a Hukm Irshadi, such a decision is outside the scope of the theological arguments made for 'ismah and hence they have not done anything wrong:

 وأما المعصية بمعنى مخالفة الأمر الإرشادي الذي لا داعي فيه إلا إحراز المأمور خيرا أو منفعة من خيرات حياته ومنافعها بانتخاب الطريق الأصلح كما يأمر وينهى المشير الناصح نصحا فإطاعته ومعصيته خارجتان من مجرى أدلة العصمة وهو ظاهر

In volume 8 he writes:

وظاهر سياق الآية وكذا ما في سورة طه من آيات القصة أن موسى غضب على هارون كما غضب على بني إسرائيل غير أنه غضب عليه حسبانا منه أنه لم يبذل الجهد في مقاومة بني إسرائيل لما زعم أن الصلاح في ذلك مع أنه وصاه عند المفارقة وصية مطلقة بقوله : « وَأَصْلِحْ وَلا تَتَّبِعْ سَبِيلَ الْمُفْسِدِينَ »وهذا المقدار من الاختلاف في السليقة والمشية بين نبيين معصومين لا دليل على منعه ، وإنما العصمة فيما يرجع إلى حكم الله سبحانه دون ما يرجع إلى السلائق وطرق الحياة على اختلافها

This is why 'Allamah Tabataba'I accepted that tradition of the date-palm trees where the Prophet (p) saw people of Medina pollinating the trees in a certain way one year and he informed them to not do it that way. That year the trees did not produce dates and he (p) asked them why that was the case, so they replied you had told us to do it in such and such a way. He replied with a statement: أنتم اعلم بامور دنياكم

Most Shi'a scholars do not accept this tradition, but 'Allamah Tabataba'I accepted it (as mentioned by Allamah Hasan-Zadeh Amuli in the book ممد الهمم در شرح فصوص الحكم pg. 567):

 جناب علامه فرمودند: حديث ابار حديثى است كه به تواتر رسيد ولى ممكن است از حضرت رسول پرسيدند ابار بكنيم حضرت فرموده‏اند شما به مصالح دنيا از من اعلميد

What I mean is in the matters of application of ahkaam, not in irshadi matters - note - I haven't yet accepted that this was a political decision.

However, I find it interesting what I read in the quote from Al-Tabataba'I, where he says akhd al wahi wal 3amal bihi العمل به , isn't that exactly what I'm arguing for in terms of application?

As for general societal matters not connected to revelation, then I agree,and the wujoob of obeying the ma'soom on such matters is proven, and irshadi matters are more like personal recommendations, like business etc.. and this is supported by the Ayah regarding istikthaar of khayr. 

As for the hadith, it is saying that they (Al-Hasan in this case) was predestined to rise, and it was necessiated beyond his control, and in fact he had knowledge of it. How then can it be a political decision, when it is based on wahi? Or will you say that his rising up was based on a command from Allah, but the treaty wasn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Popcorn
Quote

This whole book presumes this principle, without really trying to prove it (it takes it for granted). If you do not accept this principle, the analysis in the book do not hold.

Why not you ask Ayatullah Khamenei to prove you that? He is a wali-e- faqeeh, you can ask him to provide you the evidences for what he has mentioned.

Interesting thing about the history is that most of the historians you named, have mentioned every discussions between Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) and Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) and with his companions but most of them failed to provide the text/clauses & terms of that treaty.

If you are convinced with those reports of these historians where they mentioned this alleged disagreement, are you also convinced with the reports which mentions that blank paper was given to Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) for writing the terms & conditions of treaty? Are you convinced with the alleged first clause which mentions that Muawiyah will act according to Qur'an, sunnah of Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and sunnah of Shekhain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My point is simply that the idea that two infallibles necessarily would have done the same thing in each others position is not true especially when we have alibis to show they would disagree on some matters. The only thing we can claim is they would have presented the correct hukm, and even that, in some of its application it is not known they would have carried the hukm out the exact same way because of their tashkeesaat.

For clarity, I think we can split this discussion into two different categories:

1: Could an Imam who does not have authority at a specific time disagree when the Imam who does have authority gives a command (irshadi or mawlawi)

2: Given the same situation, the Imams do not have to do the same exact things as the others.

I think if we accept point 1 (that an Imam is allowed to disagree with the command of another Imam), then obviously point two is also accepted. But if we accept point 2, that doesn't necessarily mean an Imam can disagree when a command is given by the Imam who has more authority.

The reason I split it up like this is because the evidences for these two points can be different. 

What I am thinking, is that if we bring the evidence that the Imams and Prophet can make mistakes in matters of application of certain laws, then that at least proves point 2, since one Imam can make a mistake in the application of a certain law, and the later Imams learn from that mistake and not do the same things. Not only that, but it also proves that the same Imam, can do different things, given the same situation, since at one time he could make a mistake, and another he learns from his mistake and doesn't do it again.

For example, lets for arguments sake say that Imam Hussain's (a) decision to go to Kufa was a mistake. Now lets say Allah gave the Imam a second chance and rewinded time back again when the Imam hadn't made the decision to leave for Kufa. Would the Imam (a) have made the same decision? I think that most of us will agree the Imam (a) would have done different things, learning from his mistake.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 9112
1 hour ago, haideriam said:

Could someone please highlight the meaning and difference between irshadi and mawlawi?

Thanks.

Irshadi = Advisory
Mawlawi = Authoritative 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, haideriam said:

Could someone please highlight the meaning and difference between irshadi and mawlawi?

Thanks.

Brother @Ashvazdanghe  You may help it to explain as most material is in Persian like the link below:

https://journals.ut.ac.ir/article_12845_e9c30b8c4e408ac42e050a3e9dc73fa7.pdf

https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%DA%A9%D9%85_%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C_%D9%88_%D8%AD%DA%A9%D9%85_%D9%85%D9%88%D9%84%D9%88%DB%8C

regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you brothers ^^

I will pen my thoughts but perhaps after the 23rd 

Just a short question to the brothers for now

How will we as lay people know that when Imam Al Asr(عجّل الله تعالى فرجه الشريف) gives us an order,  if it is Mawlawi or Irshadi?

Other than that for now Brother Ibn Al-H is staying well ahead of the curve but that was expected. 

I have a feeling he must be quite a radical in his family who for the most of them are hardcore tabbarra Syeds., at least the London ones are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 1:10 PM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

For clarity, I think we can split this discussion into two different categories:

1: Could an Imam who does not have authority at a specific time disagree when the Imam who does have authority gives a command (irshadi or mawlawi)

2: Given the same situation, the Imams do not have to do the same exact things as the others.

I think if we accept point 1 (that an Imam is allowed to disagree with the command of another Imam), then obviously point two is also accepted. But if we accept point 2, that doesn't necessarily mean an Imam can disagree when a command is given by the Imam who has more authority.

The reason I split it up like this is because the evidences for these two points can be different. 

Few things I want to mention

Proving that the Imams would have done different things if they were in each other's position doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to showing evidences where one Imam disagrees with another. Proving the Imams make mistakes is also evidence that they could have made different decisions if they were in each other's position.

Also, I want to mention something about the Harun-Musa (a) argument

On 5/21/2019 at 10:47 PM, Sumerian said:

I will concede to you that he did confront them, but as it turns out (after I did some research), the situation was NOT the same and the reaction will not have been the same had Harun (عليه السلام) confronted them because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)

They said, "We will never cease being devoted to the calf until Moses returns to us." (Taha, 91)

Which means although Bani Israel disbelieved in Harun (عليه السلام), they still believed in the authority of the Prophet (saww), similar to how some of the sahaba would take the Prophet (saww) but not Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

Therefore, your claim that Musa (عليه السلام) and Harun (عليه السلام) were in the exact same position was an incorrect assertion.

This just came to me, but I feel like this objection is not really valid to the overall argument brother. Because, this verse proves that Musa (a) and Harun (a) were in different positions and situations. This is true. The very fact that Harun's (a) leadership was only limited and temporary is also another proof that their situations were different. But, the argument of Musa (a) disagreeing with Harun (a) proves that if Musa (a) was in Harun's (a) situation, he would have done different things. 

Although, I still feel like the argument is invalid, because although Musa (a) did disagree with Harun (a) at first, after Harun (a) explained what happen, there is no good evidence of Musa (a) changing his opinion and there is no good evidence of Musa (a) remaining on his disagreement. And it just doesn't sit right for me to argue "since you can't prove he changed his opinion, he therefore remained on disagreement".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

Salam the Wikipedia link says Irshadi ruling is based on sharia & rationality  & disobeying it doesn’t cause divine punishment like as ruling about not lying 

Mawlawi ruling is based just on Sharia (if it doesn’t say based on sharia would’t Come from rational thinking) like as ordering to Namaz/Prayer that comes from Wilayat of Allah on people & disobeying of it will lead to divine punishment 

Then talks about wali Fqih ruling in Islamic republic of Iran that is known as governmental ruling (Hukm hukumati حکم حکومت) that divides it to Irshadi & Mawlawi but only brings Irshadi examples from Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) & Imam Khamenei Irshadi rulings about president election   In two occasions as it’s prove .

Share this post


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

Few things I want to mention

Proving that the Imams would have done different things if they were in each other's position doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to showing evidences where one Imam disagrees with another. Proving the Imams make mistakes is also evidence that they could have made different decisions if they were in each other's position.

Also, I want to mention something about the Harun-Musa (a) argument

This just came to me, but I feel like this objection is not really valid to the overall argument brother. Because, this verse proves that Musa (a) and Harun (a) were in different positions and situations. This is true. The very fact that Harun's (a) leadership was only limited and temporary is also another proof that their situations were different. But, the argument of Musa (a) disagreeing with Harun (a) proves that if Musa (a) was in Harun's (a) situation, he would have done different things. 

Although, I still feel like the argument is invalid, because although Musa (a) did disagree with Harun (a) at first, after Harun (a) explained what happen, there is no good evidence of Musa (a) changing his opinion and there is no good evidence of Musa (a) remaining on his disagreement. And it just doesn't sit right for me to argue "since you can't prove he changed his opinion, he therefore remained on disagreement".  

I don't believe there is a Verse proving any disagreement, for one. Two, we had already established different authority, power and clout among the Israelities between the two Prophets, now, do you believe if Harun (عليه السلام) had the same level of influence as his brother he wouldn't have confronted them just like his brother did? Rather he would be obligated to, because it is nahi an al munkar.

Share this post


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

Two, we had already established different authority, power and clout among the Israelities between the two Prophets, now, do you believe if Harun (عليه السلام) had the same level of influence as his brother he wouldn't have confronted them just like his brother did? Rather he would be obligated to, because it is nahi an al munkar.

No issue with saying Harun (a) would have confronted them if his situation was different and the people recognised his authority for example. 

The question is if Musa (a) was in Harun's (a) position, would Musa (a) have done the same things or different? I'm just not convinced that there is any good evidence that he would have done the same things, or if he would've done different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2019 at 7:50 AM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

No issue with saying Harun (a) would have confronted them if his situation was different and the people recognised his authority for example. 

The question is if Musa (a) was in Harun's (a) position, would Musa (a) have done the same things or different? I'm just not convinced that there is any good evidence that he would have done the same things, or if he would've done different things.

There is no proof he would have confronted them if he was in Harun's position and authority either, because

1) there is no proof he would have gained anything had he done so, other than potentially getting himself killed 

2) there is no proof he was not happy about his brother's decision after it was explained to him

I'm saying what Harun did was the ONLY correct option. That's all.

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...