Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Theological Implications of Imamism - A Zaydi Refutation of Ammar Muslim

Rate this topic


Zaidism

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

In the name of Allāh the Most Gracious, Most Merciful, through this article I aim to present reasons as to why I respectfully believe the Imāmī view on Naṣṣ Imāma is inconsistent, prone to great error, and not reliable. 

This article is inspired by the arguments utilized, and defended by Shaykh ʿAmmār Muslim, I will seek to highlight how the arguments presented against ʿAbdullāh al-Afṭaḥ, and the fatḥīyya are not decisive in my estimation. Rather, they highlight how the Imāmī view seems to implode on itself due to the understanding of taqīyya posed by the respected Shaykh. I find that taqīyya is a double-edged sword, and its repercussions will be made clear - in this humble effort - by the grace of our Lord. 

I will concede all the premises provided by the Shaykh in his defense of Hishām, Zurāra, al-Ṭāq, et al, and how they came to know who the Imām is. I won’t emphasize how immensely troubling I find it that the Imāms, upon them be peace, supposedly hid their Imāma from their own kindred, and how I hold this to be in direct contradiction - as al-Imām al-Qāsim, upon him he peace, beautifully highlights - with the Glorious Qurʾān, and the Honorable life of the Prophet, upon him, and his family be peace. The one who is interested with what the Star of the Ahl al-Bayt has to say regarding this can refer to the article here:

https://www.facebook.com/100075942141076/posts/pfbid02bMNuCTNtqw2LbeFeZviPrHyzWffSsb9823SVRvwaNiXssFGddfv8weQnqC1ZgYFql/?d=n

Seeing that the honorable Shaykh noblely concedes that all the reports which supposedly designate Twelve Imāms are indeed fabrications, and additionally maintains by his genuineness that the closest companions of the sixth Imām were unaware instantaneously who the Imām is after al-Ṣādiq, upon him be peace. 

I would like to commend - before advancing to the critique - and congratulate the Shaykh for his dignified honesty. I pray that we can all emulate his well-principled example. For, it is through such academic integrity that we will be able to not only advance the discussion, but also arrive together as aids of one another to the path of the progeny of our beloved Prophet ﷺ. 

I will begin, by the grace of His Majesty, in accepting the premises that the respected Shaykh introduces, and thereafter will demonstrate based on their presuppositions how to me they seem to be self-refuting, and I will seek to make my qualms all the more clear for the respected reader, and the noble Shaykh - that he may grace us with his knowledge, and insight. 

The first premise in defense of the Khawāṣ in terms of their ignorance of who the succeeding Imām is, is sought to be excused in light of a narration that is attributed to al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, upon him be peace, wherein he states that the means to identify who the Imām is after him is by virtue of him being the eldest, as long as there is no flaw within him. Thus, the way for these Khawāṣ, and the Shīʿa to identify who the Imām is, is by their testing the one who is assumed to be the Imām, as the dear Shaykh explicates - the Imāma of the next Imām is contingent on him passing the litmus test, so to speak. 

Now, one may ask how the Khawāṣ could know who to test first if the Imām has more than one son, and the answer given is by our esteemed Shaykh ‘The Affair is in the elder provided there is no flaw in him’. This instantly indicates a matter to the critical reader, and it is that ʿAbdullāh during the time of his father al-Ṣādiq, upon him be peace, did not engage in anything problematic such as a major sin, or any other deed which may put one’s reliability in question. Indeed, Hishām, and al-Ṭāq entering upon ʿAbdullāh, alongside many from among the Imāmī jurists, and Shaykhs is an explicit attestation to his uprightness - as I hold- (in the public eye, and even in the eyes of the elite Khawāṣ). Otherwise, why would they test someone who has questionable faith, or is problematic in any sense prima facie?

In fact their entering upon ʿAbdullāh exceeds one’s typical tawthīq of an individual, they are essentially saying that this personality is so reliable, and great that he could possibly be our Imām! Moreover, their presumption that he truly is the Imām seems to be accentuated when they are later seen weeping in the alleyway not knowing where to go, when he supposedly fails the litmus test. So, one can confidently say that the credibility of ʿAbdullāh so far is quite remarkable in the eyes of the general Imāmīya, and the most elite from among the Khawāṣ themselves. 

However, as the respected Shaykh correctly states ‘since there is no publicly known Naṣṣ for ʿAbdullāh, there was always a possibility of his ‘flaw’ becoming revealed in the face of ‘questioning’. He also adds in the seventeenth footnote in vindication of their action ‘the Aṣḥāb would not dare ‘test’ him if the Naṣṣ naming him was known to them!’. Thus, beautifully highlighting to the lay reader that every Naṣṣ that designates the Twelve in the Imāmī corpus is a fabrication, and likewise any case of al-Imām al-Ṣādiq stating that so, and so is my successor. 

Hence, we find Hishām, and al-Ṭāq entering upon ʿAbdullāh to test him, so as to see whether he truly is the next Imām in line. The noble Shaykh proposes that ʿAbdullāh made some effort to allude that he was the Imām, meaning he did not explicitly state this, but it can be assumed - as he maintains - by virtue of him sitting in the place of his father, this is him alluding to himself to be the heir of al-Ṣādiq. With what is forthcoming, the reader will see how this argumentation, once again will - in my estimation - serve as a double edged sword. 

Indeed, this emphasis on the elder is something that can be gleaned throughout the development of the Imāmī sects, we see remnants of the narrations of the Ghulāt in al-Irshād, and al-Kāfī where it is explicitly stated that the affair is in the hands of the eldest. 

However, we find how after the death of ʾIsmāʿīl b. Jaʿfar, the Imāmīya were forced to present the concept of Badāʾ. Otherwise, the creed that they were building would have collapsed, and would have been exposed then, and there when the eldest died (that is if they don’t choose the scapegoat of occultation, or simply cessation of the line of Imāma). 

The problem that came after al-Ṣādiq, upon him be peace, is that ʿAbdullāh (the eldest one after ʾIsmāʿīl) did not live long. Rather, he only survived a little over two months after al-Ṣādiq! Recall how the Khawāṣ are unaware who the Imām is after al-Ṣādiq, therefore, even this patchwork presented by the Imāmīya in terms of Badāʾ does not work, because they didn’t expect ʿAbdullāh to die so early! 

Indeed, when the eldest, ʾIsmāʿīl died the Imāmīya needed to act quickly because everyone was expecting ʾIsmāʿīl to be the heir of al-Ṣādiq, per that principle. However, to slyly say that Badāʾ occurred and the matter was transferred to Abū al-Ḥasan Mūsā b. Jaʿfar is unacceptable because there is no Naṣṣ as the respected Shaykh agrees with us. Thus, the Badāʾ that was introduced was only a Badāʾ that served in saying that the Imāma is nonetheless going to continue with the eldest. 

Although this slip is somehow remedied through Badāʾ, the Imāmīya still expect that the affair - as the preceding Imāmīya had established as a creed for them - that the Imāma is for the eldest son, and seeing that the eldest son had died, and Bada’ (a concept never taught up until that time) had to be introduced, the Imamiya could go on with their narrative. 

This brings us to the Khawāṣ, and them entering upon ʿAbdullāh, as well as the companions of al-Ṣādiq. We find al-Shaykh al-Mufīd mentioning in his Kitāb al-Irshād something quite insightful that will help in dissecting this encounter, and aid in providing key insights into the nature of the question posed to ʿAbdullāh!  

al-Mufīd states: ((ʿAbdullāh b. Jaʿfar was the eldest of his brothers after ʾIsmāʿīl, and his status with his father was unlike that of his other sons in veneration. He was accused of opposing his father in creed, and it is said that he would intermingle with the Ḥashawīyya, and leaned towards the creed of the Murjites. He claimed the Imāma after his father, and argued that he was the eldest from among his brothers that remained; he was followed by a group from the companions of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq)).

As the astute reader may see, the words of al-Shaykh al-Mufīd are in stark contrast to the active example of the companions of al-Ṣādiq, and the Khawāṣ. For, if it was so clear from the start that he had problematic views in creed, and had such inclinations. Then, why would the companions of al-Ṣādiq entertain his Imāma, or even gather among him. Moreover, he supposedly is asked a question regarding the Murjites by Hishām, yet he is unaware what their view is? Someone like ʿAbdullāh who leaned towards their creed - according to the Imāmī narrative - should naturally know their view, especially since he opposed his father in creed according to the Shaykh, and leaned towards them.

The matter cannot be more explicitly clear that the Imāmīya, such as Hishām, and al-Ṭāq had to fabricate another narrative which involved character assissnation of ʿAbdullāh. For, ʿAbdullāh died seventy days after al-Ṣādiq, and the Imāmīya were once again in an extreme predicament! They couldn’t say that Badāʾ occurred, and slyly wiggle out of the issue once more, the reason is because they already gathered, and held to the Imāma of ʿAbdullāh, and when he died he didn’t have any sons that one could predicate Imāma unto! 

Hence, we find this scapegoat presented by al-Ṭāq, and co, in terms of meeting secretly with the Imām, and him saying that he is the Imām! However, there is a problem, why didn’t Hishām, and al-Ṭāq test al-Kāẓim, upon him be peace, like they did with ʿAbdullāh? This is a problem, so naturally the Imāmīya would have to go back to the fabrication machine and come out with another attempt at patching this inconsistency.

Hence, we have this:

 ‘Muḥammad b. Muslim asks how they will come to know their ‘man’ when they make it to Medina.

The Imām answers: He (i.e. the true Imām) is given tranquility, dignity, and awe’.’

Now, link this with the narration that says he felt a sense of ‘awe’.

With all honesty, I am awestruck! So, now our salvation lies in the feelings of some fallible men? Indeed, the Shaykh makes a remark regarding the Agha Khan, and how one couldn’t possibly feel ‘awe’ when seeing him. Well, those are the respected Shaykh’s feelings! I invite the Shaykh to go and look at how the Nizārī ʾIsmāʿīlīs marvel at him, and weep when his name is mentioned. So, I pray the Shaykh can accept that it's possible for humans to have different feelings towards an individual. Also, I hope the Shaykh can understand that humans can lie about their feelings too, anyways, I digress.

So, now the reader can see how these reports are fabricated throughout the historical development of Imāmism. Indeed, the oppressed Imām al-Ṣādiq would not make such simple mistakes, nor lack precision in speech. 

We find the Imām simply saying that the Imāma is for the eldest, with no further explanation. Then, the eldest dies, so the concept of Badāʾ is introduced. Then, ʿAbdullāh dies after the Imāmīya accept him as an Imam, so, more fabricated reports need to come in place (1) the testing of the potential Imam, and (2) the feeling of ‘awe’. Indeed, the outcome would have been a lot more different if ʿAbdullāh had a son, even if his son was an infant it would have been enough to deem him to be the Imām. For, they would argue that Nabī Yaḥyā, upon him be peace, was given dominion as a child. However, even this was not an option, and as mentioned Badāʾ could not be introduced because the Imām was dead, unlike al-Ṣādiq living - they fabricated a report, and said see the Imām has addressed this. However, to fabricate reports was not an option here, because the Imāmīya were already in the know when it comes to what ʿAbdullāh was - supposedly - teaching. 

This explains why we find some fatḥīs coming to believe in the Imāma of al-Kāẓim eventually, this is because they had no other choice - even when they had no doubt that he - ʿAbdullāh - was the Imām as al-Nawbaḳtī, and al-Mufīd maintain. It was either that, or capitulation. 

Now, let us turn to al-Ṭāq, and Hishām, and their seeking to convince these companions of al-Ṣādiq, upon him be peace - who became fatḥīs - that what they have is in fact the truth. 

This will be constructed in a dialogue form:

The fatḥī: O woe is me, the Imām has died so early! This is truly a calamity, perhaps it is like the case of the son of Mary. Yes, he likely did not die, rather it was only made to appear so! This can be the only answer, otherwise, we have reached a dead end. 

Hishām/al-Ṭāq: Actually, the Imām is not ʿAbdullāh! He is al-Kāẓim, his brother.

The fatḥī: How can that be? We have clear guidelines from al-Ṣādiq that the Imāma is for the eldest, and he was the eldest. You yourself came, and you presumed he was the Imām. Why are you suddenly changing your mind?! 

Hishām/al-Ṭāq: You don’t understand, the guidelines we received from al-Ṣādiq are unlike those you received. He has clarified for us - the elite - what to do if something like this would happen, indeed he had informed us to test the eldest. Thus, his Imāma was contingent on him answering the questions accurately! You see, we asked ʿAbdullāh a simple question in jurisprudence, and he was unable to answer. Therefore, he wasn’t the Imām. 

The fatḥī: I am shocked that this is coming from you! 

al-Ṭāq: Why is this shocking?

The fatḥī: You yourself told Zayd b. ʿAlī that his father lied to him, and concealed his Imāma from him in a Muʿtabar Ḥadīth in al-Kāfī. Likewise, al-Ṣādiq, and al-Bāqir! 

Moreover, you yourself have actively defended the utilization of taqīyya, and you yourself explained to us how it is necessary, and justified to hide matters of salvation from even the sons of the Imāms. To the extent that the Imām can lie, and say he is not an Imām. Therefore, why do you have a problem with al-Imām ʿAbdullāh answering your question incorrectly? 

He was also engaging in Taqīyya, because we were in a semi-public setting. Moreover, even if you say that it was only the Shīʿa that were present, you also need to understand that sometimes even the companions can have some things concealed from them for the greater good! For, al-Ṣādiq had just died, and the Imām had to be tactful. 

Thus, he made it seem that he was the Imām by sitting in his place, but he also made sure to answer some questions incorrectly out of taqīyya. This is in order to create a smokescreen, since we couldn’t be certain that there were spies lurking around, the Imām knows these things, I have also heard from other companions of ours that he has knowledge of the unseen too. Albeit, even if he doesn’t his action was incredibly justified, and tactful. 

Furthermore, didn’t al-Imām al-Ṣādiq himself say Mutʿa is prohibited, and that it is like eating swine? Didn’t he also issue incorrect verdicts - in our view - that seem to be wrong, but they are not! Remember, our principle that if we have two conflicting opinions from al-Ṣādiq we just take the one that opposes the generality! 

al-Ṭāq: Yes, you’re correct in your assessment. However, I met with al-Kāẓim, and he told me, and he told Zurāra that he is the Imām! So, this is why I am bringing this new news to you conveniently after the death of ʿAbdullāh by seventy days so we can save face, and not be exposed for our lies against the honorable men from the sons of al-Ḥusayn, and above that our lies against Allāh, and His Messenger. 

The fatḥī: Look, my friend, I met with ʿAbdullāh after things calmed down, and he explained to me how he was the Imām, and how he is going to go into a minor occultation - hence him not actually dying - rather, he simply needed to fake his death in order to get the authorities away from him since they started cracking down on us more than they were during the times of the previous Imāms. I know al-Kāẓim to be truthful, and with all honesty we have asked him regarding this matter, and he outright denied it. So, I simply have to question you yourself. You can say he was doing taqīyya from me, but even your friend Zurāra died without knowing who the Imām is.

al-Ṭāq: You fool! He didn’t die without knowing who the Imām is, if you fast forward to the Ḥadīth our successors fabricated on the authority of al-Riḍā - and we don’t need to get into a discussion about whether your Mabānī accept it, or not - we clearly see that Zurāra didn’t have permission to say who the Imām is yet, he couldn’t reveal that matter! Therefore, he remained in a state of taqīyya, and he apparently died in that state of ignorance. However, thanks to that fabricated Ḥadīth the problem is solved. 

al-Fatḥī: No, it’s not. I also have a time machine, and Zurāra died two years after al-Ṣādiq, so you are saying that he was engaged in taqīyya for two years?! We literally lost our Imām seventy days after the death of al-Ṣādiq, and then you went and tried to patch this up by saying al-Kāẓim is the Imām, but then we also have you claiming that al-Kāẓim told you to select those Shīʿa who you trust to enter on him. So, basically, you get to choose who earns salvation, and who doesn’t. For, if you don’t tell them, then obviously al-Kāẓim is just going to deny being an Imām. This has been going on for two years, if you don’t accept that Zurāra died a death of ignorance, so which hill do you want to die on? 

I say: وَقُلْ جَآءَ ٱلْحَقُّ وَزَهَقَ ٱلْبَٰطِلُ ۚ إِنَّ ٱلْبَٰطِلَ كَانَ زَهُوقًا

I also invite the noble reader(s) to reflect upon the logical problem of the occultation as well, as I maintain it is a problem which cannot be solved. Similar to this, one falls into explicit folly: 

https://www.facebook.com/100075942141076/posts/pfbid02ejr6s49SyoLjJxhfpuurpu3ZfCft3opaJWhd42VBqtu9kvAmFj2ageuuvH5gXBbWl/?d=n

~ Muḥammad al-Sharīfī

اللهم صل وسلم وبارك على سيدنا وحبيبنا محمد الحق وعلى آله الطيبين الطاهرين أنوار الهدى، وسفن النجاة

 رَبَّنَا لاَ تُؤَاخِذْنَا إِن نَّسِينَا أَوْ أَخْطَأْنَا رَبَّنَا وَلاَ تَحْمِلْ عَلَيْنَا إِصْرًا كَمَا حَمَلْتَهُ عَلَى الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِنَا رَبَّنَا وَلاَ تُحَمِّلْنَا مَا لاَ طَاقَةَ لَنَا بِهِ وَاعْفُ عَنَّا وَاغْفِرْ لَنَا وَارْحَمْنَآ أَنتَ مَوْلاَنَا فَانصُرْنَا عَلَى الْقَوْمِ الْكَافِرِينَ
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Psychological Warfare
4 minutes ago, Zaidism said:

 

This article is inspired by the arguments utilized, and defended by Shaykh ʿAmmār Muslim, I will seek to highlight how the arguments presented against ʿAbdullāh al-Afṭaḥ, and the fatḥīyya are not decisive in my estimation. Rather, they highlight how the Imāmī view seems to implode on itself due to the understanding of taqīyya posed by the respected Shaykh. I find that taqīyya is a double-edged sword, and its repercussions will be made clear - in this humble effort - by the grace of our Lord. 

I will concede all the premises provided by the Shaykh in his defense of Hishām, Zurāra, al-Ṭāq, et al, and how they came to know who the Imām is. I won’t emphasize how immensely troubling I find it that the Imāms, upon them be peace, supposedly hid their Imāma from their own kindred, and how I hold this to be in direct contradiction - as al-Imām al-Qāsim, upon him he peace, beautifully highlights - with the Glorious Qurʾān, and the Honorable life of the Prophet, upon him, and his family be peace. The one who is interested with what the Star of the Ahl al-Bayt has to say regarding this can refer to the article here:

 

fyi

Quote

Fourth objection of Zaidiyyah sect

Zaidiyyah say: If the tradition regarding the number of Imams to be twelve had been correct, people would not have doubted in the successorship of Imam Ja’far Sadiq ((عليه السلام).). So much so that there is a group among Shias that believed in the Imamate of Abdullah and some adopted the belief in Imamate of Ismail and some others remained confused. The matter reached such an extent that when some people put Abdullah, the Imam’s son under a test and didn’t find in him the necessary qualities they came out saying: “Now where do we go? To Murjiah or to Hururiya?” And Musa Ibne Ja’far heard this and he said: “Neither to Murjiah or Qadariya or Hururiya; come to me.” So, note due to how many things the tradition regarding the number of Imams to be twelve is invalidated.

One is that Abdullah occupied the seat of Imamate, secondly Shias approach him, thirdly after having tested him they are confused and do not know that their Imam is Musa Ibne Ja’far and the position is such that Musa Ibne Ja’far is compelled to call the people to himself. And a jurisprudent (Faqih) of this period, Zurarah bin Uyun, dies in that condition saying with a copy of the Quran on his breast: “O Lord, I testify for the Imamate of the one, whose Imamate is proved in this Quran.”

Our reply is: Indeed, all these things are misleading and false because we have not claimed that all the Shias of that period knew the names of all the twelve Imams. Rather we said that the Holy Prophet (S) informed that the Imams after him shall be twelve who would be his successors and that the Shia scholars have narrated this tradition with their names. And this fact also cannot be denied that there were among the Shias one or two persons or even more than that who had not heard this tradition.

However the matter of Zurarah bin Uyun is such that he died before he met a person who could have informed him about this report and he had not heard the appointment text (Nass) of Musa bin Ja’far. And since the tradition and narration had not reached him, his excuse was acceptable because he placed the Quran on his breast and said: “O Lord, I testify for the Imamate of the one, whose Imamate is proved in this Quran.”

And does any religious jurisprudent, when an issue is doubtful for him, acts in any other way? Apart from that it is also said: Zurarah believed in and knew about the Imamate of Imam Musa bin Ja’far and he sent his son, Ubaid, to Imam Musa bin Ja’far ((عليه السلام).) to inquire if he (Zurarah) was permitted to reveal what he knew about his Imamate, or that he should keep it confidential through dissimulation. And such a thing is in consonance with the position of Zurarah bin Uyun and acceptable for the level of his divine recognition (Marefat).

Narrated to us Ahmad bin Ziyad bin Ja’far al-Hamadani from Ali bin Ibrahim bin Hashim, from Muhammad bin Isa bin Ubaid from Ibrahim bin Muhammad al-Hamadani that he said:

I asked Imam Ali Reza ((عليه السلام).): O son of Allah’s Messenger, tell me whether Zurarah was aware of the Imamate of your venerable father. He replied: Yes. I further asked: Then why he sent, Ubaid, his son to inquire who Imam Sadiq, Ja’far bin Muhammad ((عليه السلام).) had appointed as his successor? Imam Ali Reza ((عليه السلام).) said: Indeed, Zurarah was aware of the Imamate of my venerable father and also knew about the clear textual appointment (Nass) of my honorable grandfather about him.

And when his son was late in returning, Zurarah was requested to mention his opinion about my father. Since he did not prefer to proceed in this matter without the leave of my father, he picked up the Quran and said: “O Lord, my Imam from among the sons of Imam Ja’far bin Muhammad is one, whose Imamate is proved in this Quran.”

Also the narration that Zaidiyyah had presented as argument does not say that Zurarah was unaware about the Imamate of Musa bin Ja’far. Rather it is proved therein that he sent his son, Ubaid to inquire about something.

My father narrated to us from Muhammad bin Yahya Attar from Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya bin Imran Ashari from Ahmad bin Hilal from Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Zurarah from his father who said:

When Zurarah sent his son, Ubaid, to Medina to inquire about the report and it was after the demise of Abu Abdillah (Imam Ja’far Sadiq (عليه السلام).), his condition became serious he took the Quran and said: “My Imam is only the one, whose Imamate this Quran will prove.”

And this narration does not say that Zurarah was not having recognition of the Imam. Moreover, the narrator of this report is Ahmad bin Hilal and this person is not reliable in the view of our senior scholars.

Narrated to us my teacher, Muhammad bin Hasan bin Ahmad bin Walid that he said: I heard Saad bin Abdullah say:

Neither we have seen or heard about any Shia person leaving the Shia faith and adopting Nasibi beliefs, except for Ahmad bin Hilal. And it is the view of these people that it is not lawful to use a traditional report narrated solely by Ahmad bin Hilal. And we are sure that the Messenger of Allah (S) and the Holy Imams ((عليه السلام).) will not intercede for anyone except one whose faith Allah had liked. And the one who doubts in the Imamate of an Imam is following a religion other than the religion of Allah. And it is narrated that Imam Musa bin Ja’far will seek Zurarah from his Lord.

Narrated to us Muhammad bin Hasan bin Ahmad bin Walid from Muhammad bin Hasan Saffar quoting from Muhammad bin Abi Sahban from Mansur bin al-Abbas from Marook bin Ubaid from Darast Ibne Abi Mansur Wasti from Abul Hasan Imam Musa bin Ja’far.

The narrator says that when Zurarah was mentioned in the presence of Imam ((عليه السلام).), the Imam said: By Allah, on Judgment Day I would seek Zurarah from my Lord, for myself, and He would give him to me. Woe be on you, indeed, Zurarah bin Uyun bore malice to our enemy for the sake of Allah and for His sake had regard for our friends.

Narrated to us my father and Muhammad bin Hasan that: Narrated to us Ahmad bin Idrees and Muhammad bin Yahya Attar; both said narrating from Muhammad bin Ahmad from Yaqood bin Yazid from Ibne Abi Umair from Abul Abbas Fadl bin Abdul Malik from Abu Abdillah Imam Ja’far Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) that he said:

“Four persons are very dear to me, whether they are alive or dead: Buraid al-Ajali, Zurarah bin Uyun, Muhammad bin Muslim and Ahwal (Muhammad bin Noman Bajali, alias Momin Taq). These four are my favorite men.”

So it is not possible that Imam Ja’far Sadiq ((عليه السلام).) should have made such a statement about Zurarah when the latter was ignorant of the Imamate of Musa bin Ja’far.

https://www.al-islam.org/kamaaluddin-wa-tamaamun-nima-vol-1-shaykh-saduq/introduction#seventh-objection-zaidiyyah-sect

Your refusal to read is very troubling.And create new packaging for the same underlying issues is very creative. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Guest Psychological Warfare said:

Your refusal to read is very troubling.And create new packaging for the same underlying issues is very creative. 

My brother, you have conceded that there is no Naṣṣ, the Khawāṣ were unaware who the Imām is after al-Ṣādiq, and the matter was left in the hands of some “companions” who were publicly cursed by the Imāms. You also concede that the Imām would say he is not an Imām when asked, so you are essentially saying that you believe in Twelverism thanks to the statements of some people from the street. Do you not see how a fatḥī can literally make the same argument against them, and do so even more effectively. Hence, you still had Imāmī jurists remaining as fatḥīs. Taqīyya is a double edged sword, and it is the defeater of Imāmism. Moreover, this has been an internal critique that essentially severed the foundation of Imāmism at its very core with your own sources, and narrative. Otherwise, what are you even going to say to a Zaydī? How will you even convince a Zaydī? We believe in the Imāma of Amīr al-Muʾminīn, al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥusayn per Ghadīr, Manzila, and thaqalayn. Then, we hold to the community of the Prophet’s progeny ﷺ per the Ḥadīth of the stars, the ark, etc. These are all universal arguments accepted by sources that are held by every Muslim. How are you even going to remotely substantiate your unfounded claims in face of a Zaydī. It is impossible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Zaidism said:

We find the Imām simply saying that the Imāma is for the eldest, with no further explanation. Then, the eldest dies, so the concept of Badāʾ is introduced. Then, ʿAbdullāh dies after the Imāmīya accept him as an Imam, so, more fabricated reports need to come in place (1)

Salam thisi is totally a batalant lie & misinformation because for twelver Shias it's not necessary that eldest son be next Imam for example Muhammad ibn Hanafiyya (رضي الله عنه) has been eldest son of Amir Al Mumunin imam Ali (عليه السلام) after martyrdom of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) anyway he has not been divinly appointed Imam which it has shown in public by testifying Haja Al Aswad in favor of Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) in front of wjole of people which in similar fashion Imamate of Imam Musa Kadhim so then Imam Jawad (عليه السلام) has been proven by proven through showing having divine kowledge & proving it in front of whole people publicly .

Quote

 Badāʾ is introduced.

 Badāʾ is not Imammate which it's clearly about happening minor signs before reappearance of Imam Mahdi (aj) which some of minor signs can be postponed due to behavior & Dua & supplications of people by will of Allah which you based on wrong understanding has tried to show it as not appointing Imam after martyrdom of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام)

rest of your long post is just repaeting your nonsense & accusations against companions of Infallible Imams.

2 hours ago, Zaidism said:

t Zurāra died a death of ignorance, so which hill do you want to die on? 

I say: وَقُلْ جَآءَ ٱلْحَقُّ وَزَهَقَ ٱلْبَٰطِلُ ۚ إِنَّ ٱلْبَٰطِلَ كَانَ زَهُوقًا

I also invite the noble reader(s) to reflect upon the logical problem of the occultation as well, as I maintain it is a problem which cannot be solved. Similar to this, one falls into explicit folly: 

Zurāra has died as most trustful Shia believer which your accusations in similar fashion of wahabi accusation against him doesn't change reality of his deep faith & trustworthy Shia Muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
10 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam thisi is totally a batalant lie & misinformation because for twelver Shias it's not necessary that eldest son be next Imam for example Muhammad ibn Hanafiyya (رضي الله عنه) has been eldest son of Amir Al Mumunin imam Ali (عليه السلام) after martyrdom of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) anyway he has not been divinly appointed Imam which it has shown in public by testifying Haja Al Aswad in favor of Imam Sajjad (عليه السلام) in front of wjole of people which in similar fashion Imamate of Imam Musa Kadhim so then Imam Jawad (عليه السلام) has been proven by proven through showing having divine kowledge & proving it in front of whole people publicly .

WS, 

With all due respect, you are incorrect brother. The Imāma goes to the eldest son of the Imām not the eldest brother of the Imām. The only time the Imāma would transfer to the second in line elder brother is when there is (a) no son, or (b) the elder one dies. This is the concept of Badāʾ that was plugged in to salvage these mishaps. 
 

الله المستعان 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Zaidism said:

The Imāma goes to the eldest son of the Imām not the eldest brother of the Imām. The only time the Imāma would transfer to the second in line elder brother is when there is (a) no son, or (b) the elder one dies.

this is just your misunderstanding from concept of Imamate in Shia Islam which you think it's likewise a monarchy system which has followed by cursed Umayyads so then Abbasids but on opposition to your false claim the concept of Imamate in shia islam is based on divine appointment & showing prove of having access to divine knowledge which it has no realtion to age or death of elders in simlar fashion which prophet Isa (عليه السلام) has been appointed as prophet .

Link to comment
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...