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

2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

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?

Islamic law itself, let alone its application, has primarily always been based off of apparent law and hujjiyyah as applications are always going to be tied down to one's personal knowledge and experience, and hence it is not based on whether it is in concordance with reality and correctness. Now while we cannot say that for the Imams the Islamic law was also just apparent law (like we can in the case of a jurist), but we can still make the argument for its application. For example, when two witnesses come to Imam Ali (a) testifying that a certain person had stolen, the Imam (a) asked for the hadd to be executed on his hands, only for the same two witnesses to come and say they erred. He knew the law (in fact mainstream tashayyu' today might even argue he even knew the truth as he has knowledge of unseen), but its application was based on limitations that one has at their disposal. The Imam's (a) decision was nothing but a reliance on the social conventions of accepting the testimony of believers which is speculation and the requirement of society to accept the verdict of the judge, even though the decision was not in accordance with reality - this is perfectly normal:

 عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ حُمَيْدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع قَالَ: قَضَى أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع فِي رَجُلٍ شَهِدَ عَلَيْهِ رَجُلَانِ بِأَنَّهُ سَرَقَ فَقُطِعَتْ يَدُهُ حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ جَاءَ الشَّاهِدَانِ بِرَجُلٍ آخَرَ فَقَالا هَذَا السَّارِقُ وَ لَيْسَ الَّذِي قُطِعَتْ يَدُهُ وَ إِنَّمَا شَبَّهْنَا ذَلِكَ بِهَذَا فَقَضَى عَلَيْهِمَا أَنَّ غُرْمَهُمَا نِصْفُ الدِّيَةِ وَ لَمْ يُجِزْ شَهَادَتَهُمَا عَلَى الْآخَرِ

I also shared a few other traditions previously on the subject of marriage where there was clear difference of opinion on application and preferences.

2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

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

No such example exists where both Prophets (p) were granted the same extent of authority at the same time.

2 hours ago, Sumerian said:

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

It is obvious Imam Hasan's (a) decision on the Sulh was a Hukm Wilayee which he thought was the best course of action and it needs to be accepted by the people - it has nothing to do with divine legislation, rather it is a political decision. However there is nothing that says that people around the Wali Amr cannot advise them and give them suggestions or ask them to consult others in their decision making process or to get them to change their decision. 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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Guest Aimmah said:

Brother , this is something I am confused about. Growing up I was taught Imams have knowledge except the day of judgement, and of course nothing compared to the infinite knowledge of Allah. I was told they have two forms, a human one but also a higher created light before the creation of all things - this is how they answer Dua. So how could it be possible that Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) with the vast knowledge he had, the best understanding in the universe, could contradict, let alone be angry with Imam al-Hassan (عليه السلام) who was identical in this regard?

 

18 hours ago, Guest Aimmah said:

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)?

That is the point of contention here in this thread.

Share this post


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

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
27 minutes ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

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
1 hour ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

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.

It is completely relevant, because the person who knew of Musa's (عليه السلام) wasiyya is in fact, shocker, Harun (عليه السلام). 

1) Why haven't you anwered why Musa (عليه السلام) never confronted them after? 

2) If you believe Musa (عليه السلام) still maintained his brother didn't fulfill his wasiyya, as he was instructed, then did he err?

And I agree this is going nowhere. This is what happens when you argue for the sake of arguing. You go nowhere. Have a nice day.

1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

Islamic law itself, let alone its application, has primarily always been based off of apparent law and hujjiyyah as applications are always going to be tied down to one's personal knowledge and experience, and hence it is not based on whether it is in concordance with reality and correctness. Now while we cannot say that for the Imams the Islamic law was also just apparent law (like we can in the case of a jurist), but we can still make the argument for its application. For example, when two witnesses come to Imam Ali (a) testifying that a certain person had stolen, the Imam (a) asked for the hadd to be executed on his hands, only for the same two witnesses to come and say they erred. He knew the law (in fact mainstream tashayyu' today might even argue he even knew the truth as he has knowledge of unseen), but its application was based on limitations that one has at their disposal. The Imam's (a) decision was nothing but a reliance on the social conventions of accepting the testimony of believers which is speculation and the requirement of society to accept the verdict of the judge, even though the decision was not in accordance with reality - this is perfectly normal:

 عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ حُمَيْدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ عَنْ أَبِي جَعْفَرٍ ع قَالَ: قَضَى أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ع فِي رَجُلٍ شَهِدَ عَلَيْهِ رَجُلَانِ بِأَنَّهُ سَرَقَ فَقُطِعَتْ يَدُهُ حَتَّى إِذَا كَانَ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ جَاءَ الشَّاهِدَانِ بِرَجُلٍ آخَرَ فَقَالا هَذَا السَّارِقُ وَ لَيْسَ الَّذِي قُطِعَتْ يَدُهُ وَ إِنَّمَا شَبَّهْنَا ذَلِكَ بِهَذَا فَقَضَى عَلَيْهِمَا أَنَّ غُرْمَهُمَا نِصْفُ الدِّيَةِ وَ لَمْ يُجِزْ شَهَادَتَهُمَا عَلَى الْآخَرِ

I also shared a few other traditions previously on the subject of marriage where there was clear difference of opinion on application and preferences.

The example you brought forth brother does not seem to support your case, what I meant by reality is that this is in accordance with how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wanted it. For example, if I pray 5 rak'aat instead of 4 rak'aat for isha, this is an invalid salaat, as this is not in accordance with what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) prescribed.

Perhaps I should have used the word "in accordance" instead of "reality".

So my question is, how do we know that what the Imam's (عليه السلام) application of the law is in accordance with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) - if we accept the theory of different types of applications? And would it make sense to believe in the wujoob of something that would not be in accordance with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?

The only way to answer this would be to say there are numerous ways of applying the hukm and they are all in accordance with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

No such example exists where both Prophets (p) were granted the same extent of authority at the same time.

Prophets Ishaaq (عليه السلام) and Isma'il (عليه السلام)? Yaqub (عليه السلام) and Yusuf (عليه السلام)?

1 hour ago, Ibn al-Hussain said:

It is obvious Imam Hasan's (a) decision on the Sulh was a Hukm Wilayee which he thought was the best course of action and it needs to be accepted by the people - it has nothing to do with divine legislation, rather it is a political decision. However there is nothing that says that people around the Wali Amr cannot advise them and give them suggestions or ask them to consult others in their decision making process or to get them to change their decision. 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).

Would this not contradict fardh al-ta3a lil Imam, and how obedience to the Imam (عليه السلام) is essentially obedience to the Prophet (saww), which is essentially an obedience of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?

Share this post


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

The example you brought forth brother does not seem to support your case, what I meant by reality is that this is in accordance with how Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wanted it. For example, if I pray 5 rak'aat instead of 4 rak'aat for isha, this is an invalid salaat, as this is not in accordance with what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) prescribed.

Perhaps I should have used the word "in accordance" instead of "reality".

So my question is, how do we know that what the Imam's (عليه السلام) application of the law is in accordance with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) - if we accept the theory of different types of applications? And would it make sense to believe in the wujoob of something that would not be in accordance with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?

You are confusing two matters - one is the actual law (which I am not debating in the case of an infallible) and one is its application. For example, there is a law that says it is haram to shake hands with women - but under haraj you can do it. Now you and I may be in the same scenario, but due to my personality, my perception, my experiences, the extent of my knowledge, my psychological state or limitations, I may believe it is an instance of haraj, but you may be stronger than me, more daring, or may even have certain knowledge that I did not have to factor into my decision, or you have gone through certain experiences in life such that you would say this situation does not constitute haraj. Neither of us have done anything wrong, because applications like these are left upon us to begin with since they are dependent on you and your understanding of things. In another scenario, you may be in authority and while I disagree with your tashkees and may even try to convince you otherwise, I would still have to listen to you because of the authority you have been given. This is what we are arguing - why is it not possible for two Imams to disagree even if they were in the same situation, and what is the necessity for both of them to have done the exact same thing if they were in each others position.

For example, in Islamic law, it may say it is prohibited to get into a Sulh with a transgressor who will usurp your rights, unless you are in a weakened position. Why is it not possible for Imam Hasan (a) to believe that they were definitely in a weakened position because of lack of support, whereas Imam Husayn (a) may have believed otherwise and that there is still a reason to fight Mu'awiyah and not get into a Sulh with him?

1 minute ago, Sumerian said:

Prophets Ishaaq (عليه السلام) and Isma'il (عليه السلام)? Yaqub (عليه السلام) and Yusuf (عليه السلام)?

These things need to be properly researched. Is it known that they were given the same extent of authority at the same time or not, is it known whether both of them were even Prophets at the exact same time or not and if so then at what point was the second made a Prophet and what impact did it have on the previous Prophet, did they even ever reach a level where they were able to execute their authority etc. 

1 minute ago, Sumerian said:

Would this not contradict fardh al-ta3a lil Imam, and how obedience to the Imam (عليه السلام) is essentially obedience to the Prophet (saww), which is essentially an obedience of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?

Fardh al-Ta'lim or Irshad al-Jahil is in the case of hukm of Allah, not in tashkeesat. This is even the ruling today. For example in al-Kafi vol. 3:

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ عَنْ فَضَالَةَ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سِنَانٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ: اغْتَسَلَ أَبِي مِنَ الْجَنَابَةِ فَقِيلَ لَهُ قَدْ أَبْقَيْتَ لُمْعَةً فِي ظَهْرِكَ لَمْ يُصِبْهَا الْمَاءُ فَقَالَ لَهُ مَا كَانَ عَلَيْكَ لَوْ سَكَتَّ ثُمَّ مَسَحَ تِلْكَ اللُّمْعَةَ بِيَدِه‏

A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from Fadalah from ‘Abd Allah ibn Sinan who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah, ‘Alayhi al-Salam, has said, ‘Once my father took Ghusl (bath) because of sexual relation. Someone said to him that water has not reached to a spot on his back. He said, “It was not necessary for you to inform me. (I wish) you sought to have remained quiet.” He then wiped that spot with his hand.’”

Imam Husayn (a) never disobeyed Imam Hasan (a) - he had a disagreement. A disagreement does not mean disobedience. 

Share this post


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

It is completely relevant, because the person who knew of Musa's (عليه السلام) wasiyya is in fact, shocker, Harun (عليه السلام). 

 1) Why haven't you anwered why Musa (عليه السلام) never confronted them after? 

 2) If you believe Musa (عليه السلام) still maintained his brother didn't fulfill his wasiyya, as he was instructed, then did he err?

 And I agree this is going nowhere. This is what happens when you argue for the sake of arguing. You go nowhere. Have a nice day.

There is no need to get so worked up because you couldn't answer the question.

And Musa (a) did confront them...he literally burned the calf:

"[Moses] said, "Then go. And indeed, it is [decreed] for you in [this] life to say, 'No contact.' And indeed, you have an appointment [in the Hereafter] you will not fail to keep. And look at your 'God' to which you remained devoted. We will surely burn it and blow it into the sea with a blast." (20:97)

And also says afterwards:

Your God is only Allah, except for whom there is no deity. He has encompassed all things in knowledge." (20:98)

Also, Harun (a) didn't know what Musa's (a) reaction was going to be. He feared that Musa (a) would say you caused disunity etc... This is the apparent meaning of the Qur'an. So because Harun (a) feared how Musa might have responded, you are saying that is evidence that Musa (a) changed his opinion?  

 

Something completely not related, but I feel like you have been way too condescending. Even in your first reply to me, you said:

On 5/20/2019 at 12:48 AM, Sumerian said:

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. 

Us Believers? What did you mean by that? Its as if you are indirectly doing takfir on me. 

Share this post


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

Imam Husayn (a) never disobeyed Imam Hasan (a) - he had a disagreement. A disagreement does not mean disobedience. 

But according to historical records, Imam Hassan (عليه السلام) also wanted to fight. What would be the reason of disagreement in such a scenario?

Quote

The conclusion is that the true Islamic caliph, the grandson of the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), being the Imam, did not deviate from the basic divine law which directs to fight the rebellious group till they return to the right path as commanded by Almighty Allah.

In accordance with this very firm Islamic law, his father had fought with Muawiya and the Imam (عليه السلام) also followed the same divine law step by step till the end. Thus he was not satisfied with peace with Muawiya and had made it clear to the people that there was neither respect nor justice in It

 

Share this post


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

There is no need to get so worked up because you couldn't answer the question.

Says the one who was insulting other believers in this month earlier on this thread. You have no leg to stand on, humble yourself, Mr..Tawheed313.

21 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

And Musa (a) did confront them...he literally burned the calf:

"[Moses] said, "Then go. And indeed, it is [decreed] for you in [this] life to say, 'No contact.' And indeed, you have an appointment [in the Hereafter] you will not fail to keep. And look at your 'God' to which you remained devoted. We will surely burn it and blow it into the sea with a blast." (20:97)

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.

So it seems you left out a very important piece to the story.

NOW, what do you say to this?

36 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Also, Harun (a) didn't know what Musa's (a) reaction was going to be. He feared that Musa (a) would say you caused disunity etc... This is the apparent meaning of the Qur'an. So because Harun (a) feared how Musa might have responded, you are saying that is evidence that Musa (a) changed his opinion?  

No, it implies that had he confronted them, and they disunited, he feared he would be blamed. Perfectly fine. He certainly didn't intend to disagree or disobey his brother, which is the point of this thread.

39 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Something completely not related, but I feel like you have been way too condescending. Even in your first reply to me, you said:

Us Believers? What did you mean by that? Its as if you are indirectly doing takfir on me. 

No, you seem very sensitive.

Share this post


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

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?

So would you agree then, lets say if Imam Hussain (a) was not present during the peace treaty and he was in China. He then comes back and sees Imam Hasan (a) didn't fight and instead did a peace treaty. Imam Hussain (a) then says to his brother "I disagree with this we should fight Mu'awiyah".

Are you saying that Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing in this example is fine, since he wasn't there during the treaty and only came after and is therefore in a different context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alhamdulilah, 

Brother exactly what answer are you looking for from the examples of the Musa and Harun and the two Imams? You seem to want to understand if there could be two approaches or ideologies from Prophets and Imams as to how to deal with the people.  I have a story for you that could tie this together. 

It’s hard to use Musa as an example because he was a kinda of rough around the edges Prophet along with Hud and Yunus. Supposedly there is an narration of Musa even swinging at the angel of death. All the Prophets,  even though they were from the same light possessed different qualities and personalities. This means they could have handled situations differently but at the same time, there were certain situations where Allah wanted things to be handled how he wanted to. Some Prophets were a little bit more staunch or tough in stance with the people, but I think this because the people they were dealing with were staunch and needed to be dealt with that way.  And some Prophets were crying Prophets like Nuh (عليه السلام) and a few others and we also know that some of the Imams shed tears a lot. 

Lets say hypothetically Imam Hussein felt a need to deal with the usurpers a different way. The Imams are from the same light but they are meant for different times. Hassan (عليه السلام). was the Imam of the age so his approach with the treaty was the right approach meant for that time and the correct one for that time.  Remember both Imams would have fought but unfortunately the Ummah was compromised and irresponsible. 

Mahdi (عليه السلام) will not be a crying Imam, he will be a war time Imam. His personality will be meant for the time. It will be the right approach meant for the age, from the Imam of the age, there is even a narration that says he will have his feet on the back of the Arabs neck. 

A lot of how Prophets and Imams deal with the people depends on the people they are going against. The outcomes can be altered by the people. 

Edited by AbdulKarim313_Austin/Nola

Share this post


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

So would you agree then, lets say if Imam Hussain (a) was not present during the peace treaty and he was in China. He then comes back and sees Imam Hasan (a) didn't fight and instead did a peace treaty. Imam Hussain (a) then says to his brother "I disagree with this we should fight Mu'awiyah".

Are you saying that Imam Hussain (a) disagreeing in this example is fine, since he wasn't there during the treaty and only came after and is therefore in a different context?

Straw man. Try better.

Share this post


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

Says the one who was insulting other believers in this month earlier on this thread. You have no leg to stand on, humble yourself, Mr...Tawheed313.

This is quite deceitful and comedic. First, I was insulting that ONE individual because he implied I copied Umar and protected Abu Sufyan. Not saying what I did was right. but maybe give the context? And not just me, that particular user has been a constant obstacle to fruitful discussion for years on this forum. 

As for 'Mr...Tawheed313', I have no idea what you are on about :)  Was this a user you had personal beef with? Look, assuming things is a sin buddy. Another user on this forum also accused me of having another account, and their proof was because I highlighted some words in red. You probably don't have anything better proof then that yeah?

Odd people honestly

20 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

 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.

Nice one, I was not aware of this verse. Looks like this example cannot be used as evidence that two infallibles can make different decisions in the same situation.

But still, the disagreement between Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Hussain (a) regarding the peace treaty is there. 

24 minutes ago, Sumerian said:

No, you seem very sensitive.

Takfir isn't a joke. 

Share this post


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

lets say if Imam Hussain (a) was not present during the peace treaty and he was in China. He then comes back and sees Imam Hasan (a) didn't fight and instead did a peace treaty. Imam Hussain (a) then says to his brother "I disagree with this we should fight Mu'awiyah".

Hey, this reminds me what a brother has said on page 1

On 5/18/2019 at 9:00 AM, Urwatul Wuthqa said:

Every Imam follow the divine commands and act according to divine plans. Thats the simplest answer I can give even though I am sure that you will try to bring more assumptions.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam @Follower of Ahlul Bayt

The bottom line is, the Imams are infallible and everything happened in the way Allah intended it to be, including the fact that there are 12 individual Imams who have each bought something different to our religion and they are all known individually for their own attributes and life stories. 

Edited by Ali~J

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...