You can not prove Imams are greater than Prophets according to Shaikh Toosi

[In Gods Name]

A lot of the sunni folk seem to think that believing imams are better than all the prophets apart from nabi e kareem is part of our fundamentals. This is not true.

And Shaykh at-Tusi says in his Risalat al-Ashr:
عن قوله في التفاضل بين اولى العزم من الرسل وبين ائمتنا عليهم السلام أجمعين، فإني وجدت أقوال أصحابنا في ذلك مختلفة. الجواب: هذه المسائل فيها خلاف بين أصحابنا، منهم من يفضل الائمة على جميع الانبياء عليهم السلام، ومنهم من يفضل عليهم اولو العزم، ومنهم من يفضلهم عليهم، والاخبار مختلفة والعقل لا يدل على شئ منه، وينبغي أن نتوقف في ذلك، ونجوز جميع ذلك.
"The Shaykh is basically saying that he found different riwayaat to support the various positions, and that the `aql cannot prove it either way, and that he personally does tawaqquf on the issue, and that it is permissible to hold onto any opinion." Nima translation 

Shaykh At-Tusi states there are different opinions, and the Aql can not prove it, and he personally withholds from having an opinion and refers the matter to Allah. Although he does say as a Shia it is permissible to believe according to his opinion that Imams are greater than all apart from one.

If you are a Shia you can also take the safe road and refer the matter to Allah because the Riwayah all give varying views and reason itself can't prove this. 

[Abu Nur]

1 hour ago, In Gods Name said:

A lot of the sunni folk seem to think that believing imams are better than all the prophets apart from nabi e kareem is part of our fundamentals. This is not true.

And Shaykh at-Tusi says in his Risalat al-Ashr:
عن قوله في التفاضل بين اولى العزم من الرسل وبين ائمتنا عليهم السلام أجمعين، فإني وجدت أقوال أصحابنا في ذلك مختلفة. الجواب: هذه المسائل فيها خلاف بين أصحابنا، منهم من يفضل الائمة على جميع الانبياء عليهم السلام، ومنهم من يفضل عليهم اولو العزم، ومنهم من يفضلهم عليهم، والاخبار مختلفة والعقل لا يدل على شئ منه، وينبغي أن نتوقف في ذلك، ونجوز جميع ذلك.
"The Shaykh is basically saying that he found different riwayaat to support the various positions, and that the `aql cannot prove it either way, and that he personally does tawaqquf on the issue, and that it is permissible to hold onto any opinion." Nima translation 

Shaykh At-Tusi states there are different opinions, and the Aql can not prove it, and he personally withholds from having an opinion and refers the matter to Allah. Although he does say as a Shia it is permissible to believe according to his opinion that Imams are greater than all apart from one.

If you are a Shia you can also take the safe road and refer the matter to Allah because the Riwayah all give varying views and reason itself can't prove this. 

 

Yes, it is impossible by reason to prove in invidual level of who was better in status. It is actually very pointless and I don't know what does it bring any benefit. 

We make no distinction between any of them.  Quran 3:84

[Ibn Tayyar]

While that is the view of Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah), other scholars both in the classical period and the later period disagreed, and some have said that it is obligatory to believe that the Imams (عليه السلام) are better, such as Al-Saduq (rah), and there are some of those who came later also claimed it is an essential belief, such as Al-Majlisi (rah) and others.

[realizm]

I ventured into this topic once 

[Cool]

Salam!

With all due respect to my Sheikh, I do think it is easy to prove. 

The whole argument lies in the phrase لا ينال عهدي الظالمين 

The Quranic stories of Prophet Adam (عليه السلام) and four ulul azm Prophets, Prophet Noah (عليه السلام), Prophet Ibrahim (عليه السلام), Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) & Prophet Isa (عليه السلام) can be cited & the lives of Panjetan عليهم السلام can be compared. 

What you cannot find in the lives of Imams is what scholars understand as "ترك الاولى". That "tark al aula" we do find in the lives of Prophets (except Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)).

Then the level of certainty, even the Ulul Azm Nabi Ibrahim (عليه السلام) said:

بَلَى وَلَـكِن لِّيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِي

(And when Abraham said, “My Lord, show me how You bring the dead to life.” He said, “Do you not believe?” He said, “Yes, but to reassure my heart.”)

While we know what Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said:

لو كشف لي الغطاء مازددت يقينا 

15 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

and the Aql can not prove it

Secondly, Ulil Amr as appointed from Ghadeer to the 12th Imam, are the signs of continuation of the Prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). In reality, as a hadith states "Kullona Muhammad", it should not be difficult for "aql" to come to that fact.

With their this "nisbat" to Prophethood انهم مني و انا منهم، it is easiest thing to prove. As long as a person believes that Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is "Syed ul Anbiya" & "Imam ul Anbiya". 

[In Gods Name]

On 9/24/2023 at 8:00 AM, Ibn Tayyar said:

While that is the view of Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah), other scholars both in the classical period and the later period disagreed, and some have said that it is obligatory to believe that the Imams (عليه السلام) are better, such as Al-Saduq (rah), and there are some of those who came later also claimed it is an essential belief, such as Al-Majlisi (rah) and others.

Didn't Majlisi believe the Quran has missing verses and that hadith which support tahreef are muttawaatir? 

Saduq is no Hujjah and also claimed aqeedah claims Mufeed refuted.

[Ibn Tayyar]

Just now, In Gods Name said:

Didn't Majlisi believe the Quran has missing verses and that hadith which support tahreef are muttawaatir? 

Saduq is no Hujjah and also claimed aqeedah claims Mufeed refuted.

Al-Majlisi wasn't the only scholar who believed in tahreef, some of the classical scholars did too.

No scholar is "hujjah", the "hujjah" is what they narrate and the proof they give. Al-Mufid (rah) was also closer to the belief that the Imams (عليه السلام) were greater.

[In Gods Name]

1 minute ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Al-Majlisi wasn't the only scholar who believed in tahreef, some of the classical scholars did too.

No scholar is "hujjah", the "hujjah" is what they narrate and the proof they give. Al-Mufid (rah) was also closer to the belief that the Imams (عليه السلام) were greater.

Is someone who believes the book of Allah has missing verses, many of which completely change the meaning of current verses by adding and subtracting words in verses that exist Muslim? Majlisi had corrupt beliefs, he believed in Tahreef of the Quran and its distortion. He loses credibility.

[Ibn Tayyar]

32 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Is someone who believes the book of Allah has missing verses, many of which completely change the meaning of current verses by adding and subtracting words in verses that exist Muslim? Majlisi had corrupt beliefs, he believed in Tahreef of the Quran and its distortion. He loses credibility.

We don't hold the belief that whoever believes in tahreef has committed kufr. 

You can have your opinions about Al-Majlisi, that doesn't change the original point which is many Shi'i ulama hold the belief of afdhaliya as something that cannot be rejected.

You mentioned Al-Mufid responding and refuting Al-Saduq, but in one of the most famous "refutations" Shaykh Al-Mufid denied Al-Saduq's belief that disbelieving in sahw al-nabi is ghulu, so it isn't like Al-Saduq is on the side of the ghulat here. And he himself said this is a wajib belief.

And finally, you should instead read the evidence from our own texts that support this belief instead of just worrying about what the scholars said. 

[Cool]

Salam, 

Just wanted to add two points here;

1. Sheikh Mufeed was of the belief that Imams are greater in status than Prophets except Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).

2. While you are discussing the tehreef, you must see the means which Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has provided for the protection of Quran. 

If the divine promise of protection is for the "book" which we print and then someone against the book easily destroy or burn that book, then obviously, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) hasn't made any such promise to protect those books which we print. 

Here is a verse mentioning the means of divine protection of "the book":

بَلْ هُوَ آيَاتٌ بَيِّنَاتٌ فِي صُدُورِ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْعِلْمَ ۚ وَمَا يَجْحَدُ بِآيَاتِنَا إِلَّا الظَّالِمُونَ {49}

[Shakir 29:49] Nay! these are clear communications in the breasts of those who are granted knowledge; and none deny Our communications except the unjust.

The sacred breasts of the "Rasikhoona fil ilm" are the place where Quran has been protected & preserved. 

And perhaps this is among the reasons, why Imams & Quran will not separate from each other till they meet the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) at pond (كوثر).

Wassalam!

Edited September 26, 2023 by Cool

[Ashvazdanghe]

3 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Didn't Majlisi believe the Quran has missing verses and that hadith which support tahreef are muttawaatir? 

Saduq is no Hujjah and also claimed aqeedah claims Mufeed refuted.

Salam you just repeat false claims of Wahabists without providing any reliable or solid evidence which such accusation are just baseless accusation of Wahabists against them which until now thay have not provided a rational or solid evidencefor approving  their batalant lies. 

[Hameedeh]

On 9/24/2023 at 2:42 AM, realizm said:

I ventured into this topic once 

Same.  

Edit: I did enjoy reading all the replies. For the doom and gloom complainers, this topic proves that ShiaChat is alive and well.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Hameedeh
Edit

[In Gods Name]

18 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

We don't hold the belief that whoever believes in tahreef has committed kufr. 

 

Kulayni and Majlisi both believed the verses of the Quran have missing words. These words when added in, completely change the meaning. For most part, they believe in a totally different Quran, with big additions, subtractions. This is a grave slander against Allah subhanawatallah. It shows that their Aqeedah is weak, and to many Muslims, this might be pure Kufr. I know to us Shia they aren't obvious Kaffirs, but they are extremely misguided. 

18 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

many Shi'i ulama hold the belief of afdhaliya as something that cannot be rejected.

You mentioned Al-Mufid responding and refuting Al-Saduq, but in one of the most famous "refutations" Shaykh Al-Mufid denied Al-Saduq's belief that disbelieving in sahw al-nabi is ghulu, so it isn't like Al-Saduq is on the side of the ghulat here. And he himself said this is a wajib belief.

And finally, you should instead read the evidence from our own texts that support this belief instead of just worrying about what the scholars said. 

The belief that the Imams are better than the Prophets is not a fundamental belief one needs to enter Jannah. Not believing in it does not make you a Kafir.  You might argue someone who does Tawwaquf and does not hold an opinion and leaves the matter to Allah is misguided, but you can not call them a kaffir. 

Otherwise, you would be calling Shaykh Toosi, the man who Khoei' himself called the Shaykh. A leader of our sect. A man who authored two of our major four books a Kaffir. I take it you're not doing this.

Saduq has some beliefs he said are fundamental which Shaykh Mufid refuted him for and claimed are not fundamental. It does not matter how ghali or muqassir a scholar is, the point stands. The belief that the Quran has been preserved is fundamental to Shia and Sunni Islam. I would myself leave it to Allah if a person who claims the Quran basically is devastatingly distorted is a Muslim or not. I don't know enough to judge, i call them badly misguided and leave it to God.

 

---

Like i said, i take the safest option. I don't say one way or the other. Allah knows best is my answer. 

[In Gods Name]

18 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam you just repeat false claims of Wahabists without providing any reliable or solid evidence which such accusation are just baseless accusation of Wahabists against them which until now thay have not provided a rational or solid evidencefor approving  their batalant lies. 

There is widespread agreement that both Kulayni and Majlisi believed in distortion of the Quran so far as verses or words removed are concerned. 

[Ibn Tayyar]

10 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Kulayni and Majlisi both believed the verses of the Quran have missing words. These words when added in, completely change the meaning. For most part, they believe in a totally different Quran, with big additions, subtractions. This is a grave slander against Allah subhanawatallah. It shows that their Aqeedah is weak, and to many Muslims, this might be pure Kufr. I know to us Shia they aren't obvious Kaffirs, but they are extremely misguided. 

The belief that the Imams are better than the Prophets is not a fundamental belief one needs to enter Jannah. Not believing in it does not make you a Kafir.  You might argue someone who does Tawwaquf and does not hold an opinion and leaves the matter to Allah is misguided, but you can not call them a kaffir. 

Otherwise, you would be calling Shaykh Toosi, the man who Khoei' himself called the Shaykh. A leader of our sect. A man who authored two of our major four books a Kaffir. I take it you're not doing this.

Saduq has some beliefs he said are fundamental which Shaykh Mufid refuted him for and claimed are not fundamental. It does not matter how ghali or muqassir a scholar is, the point stands. The belief that the Quran has been preserved is fundamental to Shia and Sunni Islam. I would myself leave it to Allah if a person who claims the Quran basically is devastatingly distorted is a Muslim or not. I don't know enough to judge, i call them badly misguided and leave it to God.

 

---

Like i said, i take the safest option. I don't say one way or the other. Allah knows best is my answer. 

You seem to misunderstand that what is considered essential has changed from time to time and from scholar to scholar. Some of the early companions of the Imams (عليه السلام) didn't even believe in isma, but now many scholars consider it an essential belief.

I never said that one who doesn't believe in such a belief is a kafir, at the end of the day this is a matter for the fuqaha to decide. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Ibn Tayyar

[Cool]

11 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Kulayni and Majlisi both believed the verses of the Quran have missing words.

إنا نحن نزلنا الذكر " أي القرآن " وإنا له لحافظون " عن الزيادة والنقصان والتغيير والتحريف، 

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1440_بحار-الأنوار-العلامة-المجلسي-ج-٩/الصفحة_115

Why you continue saying things without knowledge? 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 9/26/2023 at 4:39 AM, In Gods Name said:

Didn't Majlisi believe the Quran has missing verses and that hadith which support tahreef are muttawaatir? 

Saduq is no Hujjah and also claimed aqeedah claims Mufeed refuted.

You are repeating your baseless nonsense in similar fashion of a troll .

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) in the words of the Infallibles ((عليه السلام))

 

Ali the first amongst men to adopt Islam

THE THIRD EVIDENCE

In the sermons and dissertations of Ali we usually come across the following and other similar sentences:

"I am the servant of Allah and the brother of the Holy Prophet and the greatest truthful one, and none will utter this sentence after me except one who is a liar. I offered prayers along with the Holy Prophet for seven years before anyone else did so.

The author of al-Ghadir (vol. III. page 222) has quoted authorities for these narrations from the hooks of traditions and history and we dispense with quoting the same briefly::

THE FOURTH EVIDENCE

The following traditions of the Holy Prophet narrated by successive witnesses with various explanations have been quoted to this effect:

"The first person who will meet me on the pool of Kausar' and the first person who embraced Islam is Ali son of Abu Talib .

You may also study the authorities for these traditions in the third volume of al-Ghadir', page 320.

https://erfan.ir/english/17291.html

[In Gods Name]

9 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) in the words of the Infallibles ((عليه السلام))

 

Ali the first amongst men to adopt Islam

THE THIRD EVIDENCE

In the sermons and dissertations of Ali we usually come across the following and other similar sentences:

"I am the servant of Allah and the brother of the Holy Prophet and the greatest truthful one, and none will utter this sentence after me except one who is a liar. I offered prayers along with the Holy Prophet for seven years before anyone else did so.

The author of al-Ghadir (vol. III. page 222) has quoted authorities for these narrations from the hooks of traditions and history and we dispense with quoting the same briefly::

THE FOURTH EVIDENCE

The following traditions of the Holy Prophet narrated by successive witnesses with various explanations have been quoted to this effect:

"The first person who will meet me on the pool of Kausar' and the first person who embraced Islam is Ali son of Abu Talib .

You may also study the authorities for these traditions in the third volume of al-Ghadir', page 320.

https://erfan.ir/english/17291.html

Imam Ali has a high station but even if these are authentic (not proven).

Still as per Shaykh Toosi, they are not clear proof Imams are higher than prophets.

[In Gods Name]

2 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

You seem to misunderstand that what is considered essential has changed from time to time and from scholar to scholar. Some of the early companions of the Imams (عليه السلام) didn't even believe in isma, but now many scholars consider it an essential belief.

I never said that one who doesn't believe in such a belief is a kafir, at the end of the day this is a matter for the fuqaha to decide. 

And the Fuqaha are not in agreement and there is no consensus on the issue among classical-present scholars.

It is not a fundamental of the madhab that not believing in it makes you Kafir as you agree. So i take the path of Shaykh Toosi, i agree there is no clear evidence, it's all speculation, and i leave it to Allah.

[Ashvazdanghe]

7 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Imam Ali has a high station but even if these are authentic (not proven).

Still as per Shaykh Toosi, they are not clear proof Imams are higher than prophets.

Salam at least he has higher status than all of companions even from Miqdad & Abudhar & Ammar ibn Yasir & Salman Muhammadi (Farsi) which prophet muhammad (pbu) has compared Abudhar Ghafri (رضي الله عنه) with prophet Isa (عليه السلام)  .

 

Ali: The Best of the Sahabah
Toyib Olawuyi

https://www.al-islam.org/ali-best-sahabah-toyib-olawuyi

 

Quote

From his book "Misbah-uz-Zulam", Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy
The tradition of Mishkat1 from Abdullah Ibn Umar says that the Holy Prophet (S) has described Abu Dharr ((رضي الله عنه).) to be a very truthful person. The second tradition is related from Abu Dharr himself. The Holy Prophet (S) said: “Abu Dharr is a very truthful and loyal person and is having similarity to Prophet Isa ((عليه السلام).).”

http://www.imamreza.net/old/eng/imamreza.php?id=12223

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

Prophet Muhammad (s) said to Abu Dhar: "Oh Abu Dhar! You are from the Ahl al-Bayt (a)"^[18].

[18] Ṭūsī, al-Amālī, p. 525; Ṭabrisī, Makārim al-akhlāq, p. 256.

Elsewhere he said to the effect that Abu Dharr is the most honest from among the people^[19].

[19] Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār, vol. 22, p. 404.

On another occasion, Prophet (s) compared the piety and humbleness of Abu Dharr to that of Prophet Jesus (a)^[20].

[20] Majlisī, Biḥār al-anwār, vol. 22, p. 420.

Also Imam Ali (a) said, ordinary people are unable to attain the knowledge of Abu Dhar^[21]. Imam Ali (a) also considered him among the people that Paradise awaits them.^[22].

[22]Ṣadūq, al-Khiṣāl, p. 303.

In Shi'a sources, Abu Dharr is considered one of Islam's four pillars, alongside Salman al-Farsi, Miqdad and Ammar b. Yasir[26]. Al-Shaykh al-Mufid has narrated a hadith from Imam al-Kazim (a): On the Day of Judgment, a caller will call: Where are the disciples of Prophet Muhammad (s) who did not break their promise; and then Salman, Abu Dharr and Miqdad would stand up[27].

[27] Mufīd, al-Ikhtiṣāṣ, p. 61.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Abu_Dharr_al-Ghifari

Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-. Al-Amālī. Qom: Dār al-Thiqāfa, 1414 AH.
Ṭūsī, Muḥammad b. al-Ḥaasn al-. Al-Rijāl. Qom: Daftar-i Intishārāt-i Islāmī, 1415 AH.

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Abu_Dharr_al-Ghifari

conclusion

Amir Al Muminin imam Ali (عليه السلام) has been greater than  Abu Dhar Ghifari (رضي الله عنه) who has been endorded by Shaikh Toosi (رضي الله عنه)

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

 

The position of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) is higher than the divine prophets: Tavana told ABNA

Prophet Abraham (p.b.u.h), after passing through the divine tests and trials, could reach the position of Imamate. Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) has the rank of Imamate and the fact that according to hadiths, his status is higher than the prophets is for this reason.”

 

Quote

Justice, the main characteristic of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).)

“Being just was characteristic of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).). In facing the people, he observed the divine limits and made following the Prophet (p.b.u.h) his top priority. In this regard, George Jordac, a Lebanese Christian thinker, said that Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) was killed at the altar of worship because of the severity of his justice. The justice that Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) had caused the hatred of the haters towards him led to a very stubborn animosity,” he clarified.

 

Quote

“Patience is another characteristic of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).).

Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).), with all his history in Islam, sat at home for 25 years! Of course, this did not mean that Imam ((عليه السلام).) was engaged in worship only at home, but during this time he was engaged in fundamental activities. Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) was strangely patient, and this was a promise that God and the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) took from him that after the demise of the Prophet (p.b.u.h), he should be patient in the face of hardships. Of course, the patience of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) is different from ours. For example, it is not tolerance for using haram wealth (because such a thing had absolutely no meaning to him). His patience is not to eat himself and not to give to others. The result of being with the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h) and having divine light is that Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) gives the others without any expectations. All AhlulBayt ((عليه السلام).) are like Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).),” he stated.

 

“Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) cared for Shiites and came to guide people with all the divine secrets he knew from the unseen world. Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) knew all divine knowledge, but people persecuted him and asked him absurd questions like: “How many strands of beard do I have?”! They, because they did not ask Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) about divine secrets and the course of worship, oppressed the next generations. This ignorance and malice caused the Ashura event to happen. So that Yazid’s army said that they killed Imam Hussain ((عليه السلام).) because of hatred for Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).)! There is ignorance in our time too and we must be vigilant,” he said in the end.

https://www.ahl-ul-bayt.org/en/news/item/the-position-of-imam-ali-a-s-is-higher-than-the-divine-prophets-tavana-told-abna

cursed Yazid & cursed Muawyaih have  not believed to superiority of commander of believers  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) 

[Ibn Tayyar]

12 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

And the Fuqaha are not in agreement and there is no consensus on the issue among classical-present scholars.

It is not a fundamental of the madhab that not believing in it makes you Kafir as you agree. So i take the path of Shaykh Toosi, i agree there is no clear evidence, it's all speculation, and i leave it to Allah.

If a faqih says that this belief is essential to be considered a Muslim or a Shi'i, then it is incumbent upon his followers to act in accordance to that.

For example, Shaykh Al-Ansari (rah) is said to have said that all one needs to believe to be considered a Shi'i is Imamah of the Imams and the obligation of following them.

There is no consensus on this mas'ala but the fuqaha have disagreed.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Ibn Tayyar

[In Gods Name]

10 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

If a faqih says that this belief is essential to be considered a Muslim or a Shi'i, then it is incumbent upon his followers to act in accordance to that.

For example, Shaykh Al-Ansari (rah) is said to have said that all one needs to believe to be considered a Shi'i is Imamah of the Imams and the obligation of following them.

There is no consensus on this mas'ala but the fuqaha have disagreed.

Beliefs which make you a Shia Muslim are Aqeedah issues. You can not follow a scholar on Aqeedah issues, that is, articles of belief which are  the minimum to attain salvation. 

Given there has been iktilaaf on this issue, it hardly is a fundamental part of our creed. It's more a secondary theoretical debate, and a safe thing to do is if unsure say i don't know and refer to Allah. 

[In Gods Name]

21 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

 

The position of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) is higher than the divine prophets: Tavana told ABNA

Prophet Abraham (p.b.u.h), after passing through the divine tests and trials, could reach the position of Imamate. Imam Ali ((عليه السلام).) has the rank of Imamate and the fact that according to hadiths, his status is higher than the prophets is for this reason.”

Shaykh Toosi was not ignorant of this, yet, he still did not consider this as any conclusive evidence. Imams are moreso leaders, guides. Scholars are often referred to as Imams, such as Imam Khamanei or Imam Khomeini.

The word Imam has varying linguistic usage. 

Ibrahim attained leadership yes, but nobody can really prove if that leadership was the same as the specific role and leadership of the descendants of Muhammed saw. 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

28 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Shaykh Toosi was not ignorant of this, yet, he still did not consider this as any conclusive evidence. Imams are moreso leaders, guides. 

Salam Shaykh Tusi has believed to concept of Imamate & superiority of infallible Imam through proving from  rational argument rather than relying on examining narratives & religious evidences although due to rule of Lotf (grace) of Allah so therefore he puts best of people as leader & Imam which logically infallible Imams are superior to others also because Islam & prophet Muhammad (pbu)  are superior to other religions & prophets  so therefore his successors from infallible Imams must be superior to other prophets than prophet Muhammad (pbu) in order to leaders from other religions won't be superior to them . 

36 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

. Imams are moreso leaders, guides. Scholars are often referred to as Imams, such as Imam Khamanei or Imam Khomeini.

This is comparing apples with oranges which they are general representatives of Imams  as narrators of Hadiths which people due to loving them have called them with title of Imam although their leadership  through logical & rational approach of Shaykh Tusi about supporting Wilayah Faqih in his political though .

Please explain the principles of Sheikh Toosi's political thought.

Concise answer

 

 The fundamentals of his political thought can be summarized in the following principles:

 

1- He believed that politics and religion aren’t separate.

 

2- His rational argument that proves the necessity of government and a political system and the presence of a leader is one of his notable theories.

 

3- Applying the rule of "Lotf" (Grace): He believes that Allah must designate a capable leader in the form of a prophet, Imam or a representative for the Imam that carries out political guardianship as one of his responsibilities.

 

4- The Political guardianship of the Foqaha in the society and people paying attention to this guardianship and the link between this guardianship and that of an Imam and the authorities of the Muslim leader are issues that have been discussed in Sheikh Toosi's books.

 

Moreover, achieving the principal chair of theology at the capital of the government from the Abbasi caliph can be great proof that he did not believe that religion and politics are separate, but rather he believed that politics are considered a part of religion.

 In his book, Al Iqtisad al-Hadi, he says: "Except for the Shia Twelvers and the Mo'tazelahs of Baqdad and some late scholars, no one else believes in the necessity of government and imamate. But, in any event, this necessity can be proved in two ways:

 

First is to solely mention the intellectual necessity of political order in Islam and not even discuss the traditional evidences that prove or reject this opinion. The second method is to examine the narrative and religious evidences which prove the necessity of an imam and leader whose role in protecting the shari’ah and religion is proved through rational arguments."[4]

 

After explaining these two methods, he then mentions that he prefers  the first method and explains the rational arguments that prove the necessity of Imamate:

 

A: People are not infallible and may make mistakes and neglect a wajib act, therefore if there were a capable leader that enjoyed political legitimacy and was also supported by the people, his presence will result in protecting people from their enemies, punishing the wrongdoers, and taking back the right of the weak from the oppressors and consequently the society will move towards prosperity and salvation and will be kept away from chaos and disorder.[5]

 

B: The rule of Lotf (Grace) asks for Allah to designate a politically capable leader for the Islamic society, therefore Shiekh Toosi believes in the necessity of Imamate and a political leadership that undertakes political supervision of the people. He argues that Allah does not do wrong acts due to his justice and wisdom and does not neglect any necessary action. Therefore, if Allah has granted people the shariah, it is logically necessary for him to also guarantee its practical execution and this is exactly what the rule of Lutf asks for.[6]

 

48 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Imam Khamanei or Imam Khomeini.

The word Imam has varying linguistic usage. 

2- Who is the Leader?

 

Due to the fact that Allah is the true governor of this world and that people are not immune from mistake and cannot choose the capable leader for themselves, applying the rule of Lotf he draws the conclusion that it is necessary for Allah to designate an individual as the political guardian and leader of the society. The first manifestation of this leadership was the governance of the prophet as Allah has mentioned in the Quran: "The Prophet is closer to the faithful than their own souls."[7]

 

3- The Governance of the Imam

 

Sheikh Toosi perceives an Imam's political governance as the manifestation of the Imam's general leadership by which he must supervise all spiritual and physical aspects of people's lives. On the other hand people must obey the Imam so that his decisions are carried out in society.[9]

 

4- The Governance of the Imam's representative

 

In the two mentioned cases, meaning during the presence of the prophet or an Imam, Sheikh Toosi holds that the leader must be infallible and greater than all other individuals in all terms, but regarding a third case in which the Imam or the prophet is not present, he insists that the Imam's representative must assume this responsibility, because the Islamic society must be kept alive and the commands of Allah must be carried out.

 

"In regard to the political guardianship of an Imam, Sheikh Toosi mentions the features that all political leaders must possess. Moreover, factoring in the many authorities of the Foqaha in fields of Ifta' (issuing fatwas), Qaza (Judgment), executing Ahkam and resolving financial issues during the Imam's occultation, Sheikh Toosi believes that a well-qualified faqih  has the same scope of authority as an Imam, except areas of authority that are a result of a certain characteristic that only imams possess. On this basis, although Sheikh Toosi has not mentioned the term "The general representation of Foqaha for the Imams" in his jurisprudential and theological works, but has mentioned all the features a general representative would have and has given the faqih governmental authorities.[10]  

 

Other issues like the scope of the authority of the Muslim leader, the goals of Islamic government, the mutual relations between people and governors, the role of people in an Islamic government and people and oppressive governors, etc. can also be analyzed from Shiekh Toosi's political thought, but due to the briefness of this article we will explain them in a different article.[11]   

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa1741

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

54 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Imam Khamanei or Imam Khomeini.

The word Imam has varying linguistic usage. 

 

55 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Ibrahim attained leadership yes, but nobody can really prove if that leadership was the same as the specific role and leadership of the descendants of Muhammed saw. 

In light of the various (and sometimes contradictory) meanings which have been listed for the term Wilāyat (guardianship), please detail the actual meaning behind the word.

Concise answer

The word Wilāyat comes from the word Walī; various meanings have been listed for this word. The lexical meaning of this word is complete guardianship or ownership over a matter or object. Its more general meaning pertains to the guardianship of the perfect human beings (Insān Kāmil) over the rest of humanity in all of its various aspects. These aspects include the individual and the societal, the religious and the worldly, the apparent and the concealed, both in thoughts and intentions. This guardianship is designed to take human beings towards ultimate success, both in this world as well as in the next, and it is itself a means of such success.

 

Detailed Answer

Quote

The words Wilāyat and Mawlā are taken from the word Walī and the grammarians have listed various meanings for it. Amongst these meanings are the following: owner, slave, an individual who has freed someone, an individual who has been freed, owner, relative, neighbor, son, uncle, lord, helper, giver, partner, the son of one’s sister, lover, follower, groom, and one who, from certain perspectives, has precedence in the personal affairs of another, more than that person himself.[1]

 Therefore, the term ‘Wilāyat ’ that Shia scholars use, should not be considered as an equivalent of Imamate; rather, Wilāyat should be taken as the prerequisite to Imamate. In other words, it is one of the important conditions of the Imamate, and while the Guardian is available and present, it is impermissible for anyone else to lead the Muslim nation and have them pursue his goals and intentions! The reason being that it is a logically sound precept and very obvious that with the existence of one who is more superior and qualified for a position, no one else should assume it; the only exception would be if someone was allowed to take over this position by the direct permission of the supreme Walī himself.

 

An example of this would be the guardianship of the jurist during the occultation of the 12^th Imam (a). In such cases where there is permission by the Imam himself, the power of such an individual is limited to that which has been allocated to them and he cannot cross that line.

Quote

This issue is derived from the verses 3 of Surah Māʾidah which mentions the proclamation of the Walī as being the equivalent of proclaiming and communicating the message (risālat) and the oneness of God (tawḥīd), and verse 59 of Surah Nisāʾ, which establishes the obedience towards the Ulul Amr (those vested with authority) as being obedience towards God and his Messenger (s), and the tradition of Thaqalayn, which establishes the Itrat (family) as being next to (Qarīn) the Holy Quran.[3] According to another tradition by the Prophet (s), anyone who dies without knowing the Imam of his time has died the death of Jahilīyah (the pre Islamic times of ignorance).[4]

For example, during the time of the Prophet (s), no one (not even Imam Ali (a) or the Lady Fatima (a) could reach him in rank and they were all under his Wilayat.

Quote

After the passing of the Prophet (s), both Imam Hasan (a) and Imam Husayn (a) were under the guardianship of Imam Ali (a). Likewise, during the time when Imam Hasan (a) was the Imam, Imam Husayn (a) was under his Wilayat. Furthermore, when Imam Husayn (a) became the Imam, he held the peace treaty between Imam Hasan (a) and Muawiyah to be valid until the passing of Muawiyah and he didn’t initiate direct hostilities with him due to this reason. Each time period has one Imam (a) and this applies whether the people are aware of it or not, or know that he is watching or not.

It is also noteworthy that the rest of the imams can also be identified and proven through prophetic traditions and the appointment of every imam, the imam to be, in addition to each and every one of them bearing the signs of Wilāyat  (miracles, intervention in takwini (related to creation) matters, knowing others’ intentions, their great amount of knowledge of the unseen and their infallibility).

Sources:

1- A group of writers, Maʿārif Islāmī, vol. 1 and 2, a discussion on the Imamate.

2- Jawādī Āmulī, ‘Abdullah, ʿĪd Wilāyat, p. 61-70.

3- Jawādī Āmulī, ʿAbdullah, Wilāyat in the Quran.

4- Jawādī Āmulī, ʿAbdullah, Wilāyat ʿAlawī, p. 28-55, 117.

5- Ḥalabī, Taqī al-Dīn Abū al-Ṣilāḥ, p. 127-133.

6- Saʿīdī Mehr, Muḥammad, Kalām Islāmī, vol. 2, p. 130-200.

7- Muṭṭaharī Murtaḍā, Imamate and Leadership, p. 43-95, 161-169.

8- Muṭṭaharī Murtaḍā, The Perfect Human Being.

9- Hādavī Tehrānī, Mahdī, Wilāyat va Dīyānat, p. 64-66.

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa1156

[Ibn Tayyar]

3 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Beliefs which make you a Shia Muslim are Aqeedah issues. You can not follow a scholar on Aqeedah issues, that is, articles of belief which are  the minimum to attain salvation. 

Given there has been iktilaaf on this issue, it hardly is a fundamental part of our creed. It's more a secondary theoretical debate, and a safe thing to do is if unsure say i don't know and refer to Allah. 

You can follow a scholar in his ruling on what determines an essential belief or not, absolutely. If one scholar says he who says "x" is a kafir, and another scholar says he who says "x" is not a kafir, and you follow the scholar who says that he who says "x" makes the person a kafir, you are bound to abide by his fatwa and to apply to rulings of kufr - najasa for example - on that person.

The scholars have said you cannot follow a scholar in the Usool Al-Deen, meaning you cannot say for example, "I believe in Tawheed because Al-Sistani believes in Tawheed". 

Finally, I leave you with that which shows how beliefs have changed over time, and how this "ikhtilaf" doesn't really exist in this time. Just as there is no ikhtilaf on infallibility in this era, but in the earlier eras there was.

In that image I uploaded, Shaykh Al-Na'ini (rah) is saying that the belief in the afdhaliya of the Imams over the Prophets is from the qat'iyat of the Imamiyah, and that it isn't far-reaching to say that in the later eras it has become an essential belief of the madhab.

My personal belief is that one should follow their faqih on how to treat someone who doesn't believe in an essential of the religion. I will also add that it is safe to say that the majority of the evidence in Shi'i Imami texts points to the afdhaliya of the Imams, so unless your tawaquf is based on evidence, I'm not sure it is warranted. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Ibn Tayyar

[In Gods Name]

1 hour ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

You can follow a scholar in his ruling on what determines an essential belief or not, absolutely. If one scholar says he who says "x" is a kafir, and another scholar says he who says "x" is not a kafir, and you follow the scholar who says that he who says "x" makes the person a kafir, you are bound to abide by his fatwa and to apply to rulings of kufr - najasa for example - on that person.

The scholars have said you cannot follow a scholar in the Usool Al-Deen, meaning you cannot say for example, "I believe in Tawheed because Al-Sistani believes in Tawheed". 

Finally, I leave you with that which shows how beliefs have changed over time, and how this "ikhtilaf" doesn't really exist in this time. Just as there is no ikhtilaf on infallibility in this era, but in the earlier eras there was.

In that image I uploaded, Shaykh Al-Na'ini (rah) is saying that the belief in the afdhaliya of the Imams over the Prophets is from the qat'iyat of the Imamiyah, and that it isn't far-reaching to say that in the later eras it has become an essential belief of the madhab.

My personal belief is that one should follow their faqih on how to treat someone who doesn't believe in an essential of the religion. I will also add that it is safe to say that the majority of the evidence in Shi'i Imami texts points to the afdhaliya of the Imams, so unless your tawaquf is based on evidence, I'm not sure it is warranted. 

Shaykh Mamqani himself said, many of the believes the classical scholars considered as clear cut ghulat are now by many modern day scholars considered the fundamentals of the madhab. He went to far as saying had many modern day scholars been in Q'om in those days, they would have been kicked out as heretics.

Again, to be a Muslim(Shia) you follow certain fundamentals. You can not do Taqleed on a scholar as to what the fundamentals are. You come about that yourself. You can not say you believe in a fundamental tenant. That you do because a scholar says so. 

Scholars only have jurisprudential rights when it comes to Furu not usul.

Also the system of marjaiyaat is not actually classical. So this whole follow one scholar thing itself isn't even part of the madhab.

[Ibn Tayyar]

29 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Shaykh Mamqani himself said, many of the believes the classical scholars considered as clear cut ghulat are now by many modern day scholars considered the fundamentals of the madhab. He went to far as saying had many modern day scholars been in Q'om in those days, they would have been kicked out as heretics.

Absolutely, as I have stated before. In fact, those before the Qummis may have considered the Qummis as heretics and mughalis for their beliefs. 

29 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Again, to be a Muslim(Shia) you follow certain fundamentals. You can not do Taqleed on a scholar as to what the fundamentals are. You come about that yourself. You can not say you believe in a fundamental tenant. That you do because a scholar says so. 

You have misunderstood. I will give you an example that I hope will make the meaning clear to you.

You, yourself, didn't believe in Tawheed because a faqih told you what Tawheed is. The faqih will however tell you how to treat a non-muwahid or someone whose tawhid is incorrect. But you, yourself, must come to the correct belief in Tawheed on your own.

And that may concern the branches of Tawheed itself. For example, you know based on your research that that tashbeeh is a deviant belief, and that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has no like. The faqih will tell you how to treat a mushabih, whether he is a kafir or a deviant Muslim.

29 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Scholars only have jurisprudential rights when it comes to Furu not usul.

You misinterpreted the saying "taqleed is not in usool" completely as I showed above. Defining who is a kafir and who isn't is not taqleed in usool, this is something all the ulama in the ummah in every madhab has done. The meaning of kafir, Muslim, and mu'min is something that the fuqaha in every madhab have disagreed upon even amongst themselves. This is a Fiqhi discussion at its core.

The actual meaning of "taqleed is not in usool" is that the method in which you, a mukalaf, reach the correct belief is not done through taqleed i.e if you say; "I believe in Nubuwah because Al-Tusi did". This is batil. You should believe in Nubuwah through your own proofs and research, and through that you reach the correct belief.

Otherwise, in your assertion which no one has stated, how do you define what an "essential belief" is? And who defines it? This is, in and of itself, a Fiqhi term, in which there are ramifications upon he who rejects it. i.e how is he treated? what ahkam concern him? 

Yes, you should reach the beliefs in usool through your own accord, but if you do not reach these beliefs or reject them, there are ramifications. This is where the fatwas come in.

29 minutes ago, In Gods Name said:

Also the system of marjaiyaat is not actually classical. So this whole follow one scholar thing itself isn't even part of the madhab.

Defining "essentials" and "usool" and "what is obligatory to believe" is not something the current era of scholarship has come up with, these are terms (and the like) that have been used from the onset. 

What is the usool? What is the dharooriyat? What causes kufr? What is the definition of a mu'min? A Muslim? All of which is disagreed upon and are discussed in Fiqh since forever.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Ibn Tayyar

[In Gods Name]

16 minutes ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Absolutely, as I have stated before. In fact, those before the Qummis may have considered the Qummis as heretics and mughalis for their beliefs. 

You have misunderstood. I will give you an example that I hope will make the meaning clear to you.

You, yourself, didn't believe in Tawheed because a faqih told you what Tawheed is. The faqih will however tell you how to treat a non-muwahid or someone whose tawhid is incorrect. But you, yourself, must come to the correct belief in Tawheed on your own.

And that may concern the branches of Tawheed itself. For example, you know based on your research that that tashbeeh is a deviant belief, and that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has no like. The faqih will tell you how to treat a mushabih, whether he is a kafir or a deviant Muslim.

You misinterpreted the saying "taqleed is not in usool" completely as I showed above. Defining who is a kafir and who isn't is not taqleed in usool, this is something all the ulama in the ummah in every madhab has done. The meaning of kafir, Muslim, and mu'min is something that the fuqaha in every madhab have disagreed upon even amongst themselves. This is a Fiqhi discussion at its core.

The actual meaning of "taqleed is not in usool" is that the method in which you, a mukalaf, reach the correct belief is not done through taqleed i.e if you say; "I believe in Nubuwah because Al-Tusi did". This is batil. You should believe in Nubuwah through your own proofs and research, and through that you reach the correct belief.

Otherwise, in your assertion which no one has stated, how do you define what an "essential belief" is? And who defines it? This is, in and of itself, a Fiqhi term, in which there are ramifications upon he who rejects it. i.e how is he treated? what ahkam concern him? 

Yes, you should reach the beliefs in usool through your own accord, but if you do not reach these beliefs or reject them, there are ramifications. This is where the fatwas come in.

Defining "essentials" and "usool" and "what is obligatory to believe" is not something the current era of scholarship has come up with, these are terms (and the like) that have been used from the onset. 

What is the usool? What is the dharooriyat? What causes kufr? What is the definition of a mu'min? A Muslim? All of which is disagreed upon and are discussed in Fiqh since forever.

If a scholar says X person is a kaffir for not believing in Y which is a fundamental of the deen, you can not, follow that scholar in coming to what is and what isn't part of the fundamentals. A scholars Aqeedah and his beliefs as to what is in that Aqeedah are his own opinions.

Most scholars would also argue, once you believe in the core fundamentals, these secondary issues and debates are not of the average believers concern. They can choose to perform Tawaquf and defer the matter to Allah.

I again will say, this whole follow one scholar thing is a modern day evolution. It has no basis in our own fundamentals

And which scholars regard believing imams as greater than prophets as fundamental to being shia? Would they regard the leader of their sect, Tusi, a Kaffir for not following this? Or would they regard him shia but deviant?

It's also telling how someone can believe in a distorted Quran and be regarded as Muslim. You deny a clear verse where Allah says he will protect the Quran. You deny the justice of Allah in preserving guidance. You deny the very value of the Quran. 

[In Gods Name]

44 minutes ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Absolutely, as I have stated before. In fact, those before the Qummis may have considered the Qummis as heretics and mughalis for their beliefs. 

It's also a big interesting. The further you go in time from the Imams, the more Ghali the beliefs are relative to scholars eras before. But you see this distortion in all major religions. 

[Muslim2010]

3 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

Again, to be a Muslim(Shia) you follow certain fundamentals. You can not do Taqleed on a scholar as to what the fundamentals are. You come about that yourself. You can not say you believe in a fundamental tenant. That you do because a scholar says so. 

 

3 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

If a scholar says X person is a kaffir for not believing in Y which is a fundamental of the deen, you can not, follow that scholar in coming to what is and what isn't part of the fundamentals. A scholars Aqeedah and his beliefs as to what is in that Aqeedah are his own opinions.

Your distorted sunni, wahabya or zadaya etc  beliefs have been refuted in the other as well as in this thread through many crystal and clear-cut refutations. 

You have also been well proven to be a one with distorted views or liar.  The following links may been seen for information in this concern:

Edited September 28, 2023 by Muslim2010

[In Gods Name]

19 minutes ago, Muslim2010 said:

Your distorted sunni, wahabya or zadaya etc  beliefs have been refuted in the other as well as in this thread through many crystal and clear-cut refutations. 

 

I'm shia. Not A wahhabi, sunni or zaidi. If i have doubts i want them addressed so i can then get closer to the truth.