Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Al-Islaah

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Basic Members

https://youtu.be/RQYezZCyQ9k?si=kg6S42wUuoyUsb_U

Salam, I am pasting below some claims in the comment section of the above video which has given me many doubts. It makes me feel like our entire sect has just been fabricated and that nothing we believe actually exists in our books. Can someone please help my doubts as i dont know what to believe right now. In regards to the above video here is some claims in the comment section:

"There's no basis for a Divine appointment as it is not in the Qur'an. If it was so, it would be as clear as Tawheed, belief in Anbiya, Malaika, Aakhirah and Kutub (Books). The traditional clergy and the laity only tries to play with the Mutashabih aayaat or present aayat without any context. If Divine appointment was indeed true, it would have been incumbent upon Maula Ali to state the same repeatedly. Also, the Sahaba listened to the Prophet all his life in all the matters, it's so unfair to blame them only when it comes to the appointment of the Successor. Infact the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).w gave this Ummah an opportunity to choose their leader after his demise as this was not given as a command to the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).w from Allah. If it was true the Prophet would not have kept it ambiguous. Obviously Maula Ali more than had all the merits to become the First Caliph. But if this was a divine appointment, he couldn't let the others take his position and would have gathered his evidence and Sahaba supporting him i.e. his Shia would have testified to this Divine appointment. You find no claim or testimony from any of the Sahaba. Also, Maula Ali himself has not claimed anywhere that he was Divinely appointed. This was all a later fabrication of the Ghulaat. You find no support to this in the Sermons or letters of Nahjul Balagha. In fact on the contrary you have Maula Ali's letter to Muawiya regarding the way the first 3 Caliphs were selected. There's is no doubt that there was some kind of disagreement or say dispute as to why the family of the Prophet was not taken aboard for consultation. Apart from that this is a clear innovation that was brought in to divide the Ummah into sects which the Qur'an clearly speaks against. May Allah guide us to research without any bias and keep the Qur'an as our guide and helper. This is when we will understand the true message of Ahlulbayt and we will be able to identify and distinguish the falsehood from the truth. The main message of Ahlulbayt was to take us to Allah and the laity is stuck at the Ahlulbayt and that too the Ghuluw-ified Ahlulbayt. This only takes us away from Islam." 

"There's no doubt about Maula Ali being the Maula and the most suitable person to lead the Ummah. But we have to remember that this was not a Divine appointment. This is an additional merit of Maula Ali like the others he had (Flag of Khaybar, Haroon-Moosa hadith, Mubahila, etc..). Indeed Al-Islaah believes that he was the most meritorious of the Sahaba but Al-Islaah takes Maula Ali's stance when it comes to Khilafat. Yes, there were disagreements initially but Maula Ali buried the hatchet and moved on. Many of the Ansari Sahaba were of the opinion that Maula Ali should have been elected as the first Caliph but when Hazrat Abu Bakr became the Caliph although there was disagreement for the initial 6 months, Maula Ali reconciled. If you bring in the Divine appointment theory, then what can you bring from Maula Ali himself claiming the same unambiguously? Also, you can read the letter of Imam Hussain to Kufa before Karbala, even he did not state anywhere that his father was divinely appointed. Clearly this was a later introduction as a theology just to divide the Ummah. This led to development of many sects on this ideology."

"You can accuse anyone of anything. You can have a theory why Saqifa happened etc. The fact remains that how Maula Ali saw it. Did he fight against the Khulafa? You as a Shia of Maula Ali should be with him and take his stance. If he was divinely appointed, then he should have said so and taken his rightful position. Infact when he was being offered the position of the 4th Caliph, he initially denied then accepted it. If Imam Hasan was divinely appointed, he shouldn't have made a treaty with Muawiya. If Maula Hussain was divinely appointed, he should have said so to the people of Kufa in his letters. This theology was developed later on and the Ghulaat added Wilayat e Takwiniyah and other deviant beliefs just to misguide the people from Islam and many sects were formed on the basis of various ideologies. No one is denying the merits of Ahlulbayt. But for attributing something to Allah, you should have a clear daleel or sultan from the Qur'an. The same goes with Istigatha and other practices which are not God-centric but have become Imam centric due to the above deviant beliefs."

"Ghadeer is not a valid claim to say that Rasool Allah appointed him as his successor. If that was the case, Maula Ali could have used this as his justification. Do you feel that none of the Ashaab understood this announcement as his selection as the Successor? If Maula Ali was divinely appointed, wasn't it incumbent upon him to claim his right. He never used Ghadeer to say that he should be the Caliph. In his answer to Hazrat Abu Bakr regarding closeness to Rasool Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).w. where he used Quraysh, Maula Ali said he was much closer and was from Banu Hashim, the tribe of the Prophet. But even there he did not use Ghadeer. I still believe that Maula Ali was the most rightful candidate. But I don't believe that it was a divine appointment. Even Maula Ali did not appoint Imam Hasan after him. He left for the people to choose. You can read Nahjul Balagha for the reference."

"Ghadeer was a merit of Maula Ali but not a direct Divine appointment mansoos min Allah. No one here is denying Man Kunto Mawla fa hadha Aliyun Mawla. Al-Islaah only disagrees with the Divine Imamah. We take the Imams as the pious scholars but not divinely appointed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I didn't watch the whole thing, no time right now, but just want to make 2 quick points. 

First, if there is no Divine appointment then name me one time in the Quran where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) left the decision of leadership up to the people and didn't directly appoint someone as the leader. All Prophets were Divine Appointment, there was no election, lol. All leaders who were not Prophets (such as Talut (Saul) , who was a leader and not a prophet) and the Wasi (Successors of Prophets) were also appointed by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Also, when Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) says about Ibrahim((عليه السلام)) 'I am going to make you an Imam', that means that the Imam (Caliph) is appointed by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). There is so much evidence, just in the Quran that goes against what they say , i.e. that there is no divine appointment. This is only a very, very brief summary of it and there is a lot more I don't have time to cover, at this point. 

The leader of the Ummah is chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) only and not by people. Full Stop. This is what Holy Quran says. Ironically, we Shia are asked over and over again to prove this even though the Quran is clear about it. Do you want us to also prove that we have to make Salat ? that the months are twelve ? that we will be resurrected ? All this is clear in Holy Quran

Again ironically their 'Caliphs' were not chosen by election even though they like to talk about elections. Shura (mutual consultation) is part of Islam and does have it's place but it is not used to choose the Leader of the Ummah. To recap, Abu Bakr and Umar launched a coup de etat from Saqifah and the outcome of this coup was that he took power, by force. Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr. Uthman was appointed by Umar via a sham committee which consisted of only a few people which Umar hand picked. The rest of the 'Caliphs' used a combination of threats, bribes, and misinterpretation of the verse in Holy Quran that talks about 'Wali Al Amr'. They said that anyone who takes power ' by hook or by crook' is now the leader and must be obeyed. I guess if a two headed giraffe somehow managed to seize power we would have to obey him too. Lol

 

Second, I started watching the video hoping there would be something new in their arguments. Unfortunately there wasn't. They took a khutba from Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) from Nahjul Balagha and mistranslated it and took it out of context. The context of that Khutba was the time after the events of Saqifa when Umar and Abu Bakr did their coup de etat  in secret to exclude Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) from the position of Leadership of the Ummah. Imam Ali((عليه السلام)) was obeying the orders of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) who told him to be patient during this time when they would take your rights and oppress you. It was this order of Rasoulallah(p.b.u.h) that kept him from fighting those two. So when he said those words that they quoted, the Leadership had already been usurped from him. So he had two choices, either fight or not, and if not, he still wanted to make a positive contribution and help the Ummah even if he was not in the Leadership position. This is why he said those words. That is the proper context, not what they imply, i.e. that he was trying to say that he wasn't appointed by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as Imam. I stopped watching at that point. If others want to watch all 1 hour 30 minutes of it and tell me if there is something new and interesting ? 

Another last point is that they are making polemic, ad hominem arguments. They are not responding to the content of what Sayyid Nakshawani says. They are taking little clips out of context and then giving a 'weak' response to those. THey throw in 'everything and the kitchen sink' knowing that almost noone will be able to respond to it all, and then they think they win by default. A classic misinformation / propaganda technique. If they are so certain they could defeat Sayyid Nakshawani in a debate, why don't they debate him ? They never will because they know they would lose and it would be over in a few minutes. In an actual debate, not a propaganda piece, there are rules and guidelines. A topic is chose, one topic, that is agreed by both sides in advance as to the wording of the question being debated. Then each time is given equal time and an equal chance to refute what the other is saying. They could never win this type of real debate. 

I wish I had time to watch the whole video. I probably could have refuted every point, but alas. If others can help with this. Salam. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Assalam o aliakum.

5 hours ago, Just Passing By said:

There's no basis for a Divine appointment as it is not in the Qur'an

Brother, the divine appointment of a Hujjah for people has always been the Sunnah of the Lord Almighty (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Is there any mention of such Ummah in Quran, who was allowed to select pious scholars as leaders ever? Is there any example of Ummah, who was left without a divinely appointed being in them?

Contrary to that, we can just go forever quoting verses like Bismillah.

۞ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ ٱصْطَفَىٰٓ ءَادَمَ وَنُوحًۭا وَءَالَ إِبْرَٰهِيمَ وَءَالَ عِمْرَٰنَ عَلَى ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَ ٣٣
Indeed, Allah chose Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham, and the family of ’Imrân above all people ˹of their time˺.

ذُرِّيَّةًۢ بَعْضُهَا مِنۢ بَعْضٍۢ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ  ٣٤
They are descendants of one another. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

Then in Surah Al-Anam:

وَتِلْكَ حُجَّتُنَآ ءَاتَيْنَـٰهَآ إِبْرَٰهِيمَ عَلَىٰ قَوْمِهِۦ ۚ نَرْفَعُ دَرَجَـٰتٍۢ مَّن نَّشَآءُ ۗ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ حَكِيمٌ عَلِيمٌۭ ٨٣
This was the argument We gave Abraham against his people. We elevate in rank whoever We please. Surely your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing.

وَوَهَبْنَا لَهُۥٓ إِسْحَـٰقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ ۚ كُلًّا هَدَيْنَا ۚ وَنُوحًا هَدَيْنَا مِن قَبْلُ ۖ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِهِۦ دَاوُۥدَ وَسُلَيْمَـٰنَ وَأَيُّوبَ وَيُوسُفَ وَمُوسَىٰ وَهَـٰرُونَ ۚ وَكَذَٰلِكَ نَجْزِى ٱلْمُحْسِنِينَ ٨٤
And We blessed him with Isaac and Jacob. We guided them all as We previously guided Noah and those among his descendants: David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron. This is how We reward the good-doers

وَزَكَرِيَّا وَيَحْيَىٰ وَعِيسَىٰ وَإِلْيَاسَ ۖ كُلٌّۭ مِّنَ ٱلصَّـٰلِحِينَ ٨٥
Likewise, ˹We guided˺ Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elias, who were all of the righteous.

وَإِسْمَـٰعِيلَ وَٱلْيَسَعَ وَيُونُسَ وَلُوطًۭا ۚ وَكُلًّۭا فَضَّلْنَا عَلَى ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَ ٨٦
˹We also guided˺ Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot, favouring each over other people ˹of their time˺.

وَمِنْ ءَابَآئِهِمْ وَذُرِّيَّـٰتِهِمْ وَإِخْوَٰنِهِمْ ۖ وَٱجْتَبَيْنَـٰهُمْ وَهَدَيْنَـٰهُمْ إِلَىٰ صِرَٰطٍۢ مُّسْتَقِيمٍۢ ٨٧
And ˹We favoured˺ some of their forefathers, their descendants, and their brothers. We chose them and guided them to the Straight Path.

All of these people, were chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), divinely appointed, granted with Nabuwah, Hikmah, Knowledge, and guidance, Obedience to them is & was obligatory. It has always been like that but you come, and tell me that after Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), this Ummah is left on its own without a divine authority? Does this makes sense to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Just Passing By said:

The traditional clergy and the laity only tries to play with the Mutashabih aayaat or present aayat without any context.

Brother i do not know ghaib, the least i can say is these people (Al-Islaah) are certainly misguided. Everyone among shias 12vers know, that interpreting Quran by ones own opinion is not a Hujjah for anyone and is strictly prohibited. Because no scholar, or no person on Earth knows when which & for whom verses were revealed except for Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).
And Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) gave this knowledge of Ambiyah (عليه السلام) & Aima (عليه السلام). Whatever they taught us, its 100% hujjah and our scholars Alhumdulillah take interpretations of verses from Imams (عليه السلام) for whom, no verse of Quran is ambiguous. Verses are ambiguous for people like you & me who don't know what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) said or meant specifically in the case of Mutashabihaat but Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) knows, and the divine authority on earth knows. Our scholars take interpretations from Aima (عليه السلام) so it's not like we're toying with Quran & taking whatever meaning we like out of context. That's just a lie.

Don't doubt your religion brother just because some people who're not willing to debate any shia scholar made a youtube channel and started preaching irrationality. Besides the sermons they quote from Nahaj ul Balagha are misquoted. Also, these salafi numa shias would shamelessly quote sermons of Najahj ul Balagha without proving authenticity of chain of sermons upto their standards.

Just claiming something is narrated by ghulat, doesn't prove it brother. Do not worry or doubt your religion because of these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

here let me share a narration from our Master our Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir (عليه السلام) from Al-Kafi

 مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ عَنْ زُرَارَةَ قَالَ قُلْتُ لابي جعفر ((عليه السلام)) أَخْبِرْنِي عَنْ مَعْرِفَةِ الامَامِ مِنْكُمْ وَاجِبَةٌ عَلَى جَمِيعِ الْخَلْقِ فَقَالَ إِنَّ الله عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بَعَثَ مُحَمَّداً ﷺ إِلَى النَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ رَسُولاً وَحُجَّةً لله عَلَى جَمِيعِ خَلْقِهِ فِي أَرْضِهِ فَمَنْ آمَنَ بِالله وَبِمُحَمَّدٍ رَسُولِ الله وَاتَّبَعَهُ وَصَدَّقَهُ فَإِنَّ مَعْرِفَةَ الامَامِ مِنَّا وَاجِبَةٌ عَلَيْهِ وَمَنْ لَمْ يُؤْمِنْ بِالله وَبِرَسُولِهِ وَلَمْ يَتَّبِعْهُ وَلَمْ يُصَدِّقْهُ وَيَعْرِفْ حَقَّهُمَا فَكَيْفَ يَجِبُ عَلَيْهِ مَعْرِفَةُ الامَامِ وَهُوَ لا يُؤْمِنُ بِالله وَرَسُولِهِ وَيَعْرِفُ حَقَّهُمَا قَالَ قُلْتُ فَمَا تَقُولُ فِيمَنْ يُؤْمِنُ بِالله وَرَسُولِهِ وَيُصَدِّقُ رَسُولَهُ فِي جَمِيعِ مَا أَنْزَلَ الله يَجِبُ عَلَى أُولَئِكَ حَقُّ مَعْرِفَتِكُمْ قَالَ نَعَمْ أَ لَيْسَ هَؤُلاءِ يَعْرِفُونَ فُلاناً وَفُلاناً قُلْتُ بَلَى قَالَ أَ تَرَى أَنَّ الله هُوَ الَّذِي أَوْقَعَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ مَعْرِفَةَ هَؤُلاءِ وَالله مَا أَوْقَعَ ذَلِكَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ إِلا الشَّيْطَانُ لا وَالله مَا أَلْهَمَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَقَّنَا إِلا الله عَزَّ وَجَلَّ

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Hassan ibn Mahbub from Hisham ibn Salim from Zurara who has said the following. “I said to abu Ja’far ((عليه السلام)), ‘Is knowing the Imam from among you obligatory on all creatures?’” The Imam ((عليه السلام)) said, “Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, sent Muhammad to all people as His Messenger and as His authority over all creatures on earth. Those who have faith in Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger and have followed him and have acknowledged his message on such people it is obligatory to (know) the Imam from us. Those who do not have faith in Allah and in His messenger and who do not follow him and do not acknowledge him and do not acknowledge the rights of Allah and His messenger then knowing the Imam ((عليه السلام)) would be obligatory on them? They do not have faith in Allah and in His messenger, do not follow him and do not acknowledge their rights.” I then asked, “What would you say about those who have faith in Allah and His messenger who acknowledge His messenger in all the matters that have come from Allah, is it obligatory for them to know the Imam ((عليه السلام)) from you?” The Imam ((عليه السلام)) said, “Yes, it is obligatory. Do they not know so and so?” I said, “yes, they do.” The Imam ((عليه السلام)) then said, “Do you think Allah is the one who has placed such knowledge in their hearts? No, I swear to Allah that no one other than Satan has placed such knowledge in their hearts. I swear to Allah that no one other than Allah, the Most Holy, the Most High, has inspired our rights in hearts of the believers.”

صحيح
Mir‘at al ‘Uqul Fi Sharh Akhbar Al al Rasul (2/302)
Allamah Baqir al-Majlisi

صحيح
Sahih al-Kafi (25/ 1)
Shaykh Baqir al-Behbudi

Link: https://thaqalayn.net/chapter/1/4/7 Hadith#3

Read the hadeeth and tell me, still doubt if there's proof of obeying a divine authority after Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

Thank you very much brothers, JazakAllah Khairan. This really helps me out. 

I saw these people mention also that the verse of "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion." is taken out of context. 

The problem that I have is that once I hear these things I can’t let them get out of my head until someone clarifies it. Hence why I came here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Just Passing By said:

The problem that I have is that once I hear these things I can’t let them get out of my head until someone clarifies it. Hence why I came here. 

The only way is to become humble when seeking knowledge. If you doubt, then you seek the answer but not in the state of depression and grief, but with very patience and hope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salam!

The very first reference Kamanpori gave of the letter of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which he wrote to Muawiyah (L) gives the perfect example that his 800 pages of PhD thesis makes him  الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا (an ass bearing books). 

How poor is his understanding of the arguments put forth by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in that letter. 

I am quoting what Kamanpori said in that video:

"Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was basing the validity & legitimacy of his caliphate on the validity & legitimacy of the caliphs before him"

Yes, in any discussions with the opponent, you have to base your argument on a mutually agreed foundation. In case of Muawiyah (L) who started rebillion against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and rejected his caliphate was invited to that foundation by which he accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakar, Umar & Uthman. All know that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never pledged allegiance to Abu Bakar during the life time of Syeda Fatima (s.a) according to unanimously agreed history. 

So he was never basing the validity & legitimacy of "his caliphate" on the false premise. He already challenged the validity & legitimacy of consultation in the sermon of shaqshaqya. 

This alone challenge what Kamanpori said afterwards:

"Shura & Consultation was the right of muhajireen & ansaar"

Imamate, being a divine covenant as introduced in 2:124 cannot reach to the unjust. We have seen that by the shura or consultation, how muhajireen & ansaar chosen the unjust Abu Bakar, Umar & Uthman as their Imams. 

Wassalam! 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Advanced Member
On 12/8/2023 at 12:26 PM, Inspector said:

Salam!

The very first reference Kamanpori gave of the letter of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) which he wrote to Muawiyah (L) gives the perfect example that his 800 pages of PhD thesis makes him  الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا (an ass bearing books). 

How poor is his understanding of the arguments put forth by Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in that letter. 

I am quoting what Kamanpori said in that video:

"Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was basing the validity & legitimacy of his caliphate on the validity & legitimacy of the caliphs before him"

Yes, in any discussions with the opponent, you have to base your argument on a mutually agreed foundation. In case of Muawiyah (L) who started rebillion against Imam Ali (عليه السلام) and rejected his caliphate was invited to that foundation by which he accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakar, Umar & Uthman. All know that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) never pledged allegiance to Abu Bakar during the life time of Syeda Fatima (s.a) according to unanimously agreed history. 

So he was never basing the validity & legitimacy of "his caliphate" on the false premise. He already challenged the validity & legitimacy of consultation in the sermon of shaqshaqya. 

This alone challenge what Kamanpori said afterwards:

"Shura & Consultation was the right of muhajireen & ansaar"

Imamate, being a divine covenant as introduced in 2:124 cannot reach to the unjust. We have seen that by the shura or consultation, how muhajireen & ansaar chosen the unjust Abu Bakar, Umar & Uthman as their Imams. 

Wassalam! 

 

 

I don't know why this guy keeps bringing up non-arguments against the twelver aqidah which have already been discussed and debunked all over the internet some 20 years ago. 

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) pulled a trump card and made Muawiyah (la) and his benefactors look like  hypocrites and fools; it is diametrically opposed to what he is claiming-

1. If the Caliphates of 1 ,2 and 3 were legitimate, then Muawiyah ibn Hind (la) had no excuse for opposing the Imam who was elected based on the same principles. 

2. If Muawiyah ibn Hind (la) feels that his rebellion and treachery against the Imam are correct, then the Caliphates of 1,2  &3 become invalid, because they were elected by the same system too. 

For his fans, I'll leave a small parting gift- :bye:

https://youtube.com/@theislaahdeception3994?si=tyiDTjPWY6XOTbmE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On 12/7/2023 at 7:32 PM, Abu Hadi said:

The leader of the Ummah is chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) only and not by people. Full Stop. This is what Holy Quran says. Ironically, we Shia are asked over and over again to prove this even though the Quran is clear about it. Do you want us to also prove that we have to make Salat ? that the months are twelve ? that we will be resurrected ? All this is clear in Holy Quran

 

I do enjoy reading a lot of what you write, but if i can play devil's advocate, what about Wilayatul Faqih? Sayed Khomeini and Sayed Ali Khamanei are leaders , supreme authorities but not chosen by Allah.

There's no doubt Ali as was the best man to lead the Ummah, and i do believe the Prophet saw had made clear indications for us to follow him, he was the best of the Ummah after the Prophet saw, and he himself opposed Abu Bakr for six months and gathered in the house with Fatima sa and the Banu Hashim and some other Sahaba and felt he had more of a right. I don't believe the Prophet saw would have just spoken out of whim or left the issue of leadership silent after him.

However, the majority of the Imams were not political leaders, the twelfth Imam right now has next to no influence on anything going on and during his time did not author a book of Tafseer, Rijal, or anything of this nature in a period where we had mass contradictions of Hadith, people were leaving Shia Islam enmasse, and some of the biggest Shia scholars, such as Qummi, Kulayni, Nuamani, were wholesale promoting the Quran had missing verses. 

We then had a period where Shias did not believe in having any ruler, until of course many Shia leaning political dynasties and political leaders were not chosen by God, until of course, the Iranian revolution where the religious and political supreme leader and WF was not chosen by God.

Edited by In Gods Name
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The big argument they are making against Divine appointment (i don't support this argument) but it is worth discussing is, Imam Ali as never once publicly went and said Allah has chosen him, he was the rightful Imam and obedience to him is wajib. Imam Hasan as never himself makes this claim to Mu'awiyah or the people. Imam Hussain as again never once makes this claim to the people.

We don't find any public widely transmitted statement from Imam Ali as or the others, whereby they clearly and publicly say, we were chosen by Allah.

Our own scholars by the way, agree that Ghadir Khumm was not a clear cut appointment - it is on our own books. Rather they say this is more indirect evidence.

What al Islah are arguing is, the family of the Prophet saw were the best of the Ummah, had the greatest right to lead, and their right was usurped by the Caliphs. However, because it was a strong recommendation by the Prophet saw to adhere to his family, rather than a divinely appointed position, the family of the Prophet registered their protest, and then unified the Ummah and helped.

Obviously not following the guidance of the Prophet led to the Ummayads, and then the debacle that followed after, but it did not make the first two caliphs and most of the sahaba kuffar.

They argue that the Imams from the Ahlulbayt were among the best of their times if not the best of peoples of their times, having a golden chain of narrators to the Prophet saw, and they were and are the ones we should be following, learning the Sunnah from, adhering to.

However they say that they were not infallible, chosen individuals by God who were greater in status than ululazam prophets, and can hear prayers, answer prayers, etc. 

<>

I don't side with al Islah on this, but i am still seeking guidance from Allah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 12/8/2023 at 1:58 AM, Abu Nur said:

Well at least they show their true colors at last. Welcome to end times where you will witness hundreds different Shia reformist sects with their epistemological crookedness. 

I do feel they maybe have overstepped , but look at the alternative?

We belong to a sect where Ghuluw is basically the norm. 

Making Dua to GhairAllah, the Khurafat, superstition and shirk everywhere. 

It's a mess all round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

I do feel they maybe have overstepped , but look at the alternative?

We belong to a sect where Ghuluw is basically the norm. 

Making Dua to GhairAllah, the Khurafat, superstition and shirk everywhere. 

It's a mess all round.

If we can prove things to come from ghuluw then we should accept it is as ghuluw and not be arrogant to deny it or trying to inteprated for our own favor by pointless analysis. 

I realized from Shias and Sunnis, the most dishonest thing to do is to try to weaken something the classical scholars hold as sahih, by using the most absurd strick analysis that logically it hold no weight. 

For me if someone really is ghuluw and narration content sounds more to be near to shirk, then I know I should not take it, because narration must be a certainty to be taken seriously, my Imaan depends on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

If we can prove things to come from ghuluw then we should accept it is as ghuluw and not be arrogant to deny it or trying to inteprated for our own favor by pointless analysis. 

I realized from Shias and Sunnis, the most dishonest thing to do is to try to weaken something the classical scholars hold as sahih, by using the most absurd strick analysis that logically it hold no weight. 

For me if someone really is ghuluw and narration content sounds more to be near to shirk, then I know I should not take it, because narration must be a certainty to be taken seriously, my Imaan depends on it. 

Speaking of classical scholars, a major modern day scholar respected in the Hawzah, Ayatollah Mamqani in his massive Rijal work noted that many modern day scholars, had they been present in the time of our classical scholars in Q'om, would have been exiled from the city because many beliefs now regarded as the rocks of the madhab today, in those days were deemed ghuluw or heresy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
8 hours ago, In Gods Name said:

I do enjoy reading a lot of what you write, but if i can play devil's advocate, what about Wilayatul Faqih? Sayed Khomeini and Sayed Ali Khamanei are leaders , supreme authorities but not chosen by Allah.

There's no doubt Ali as was the best man to lead the Ummah, and i do believe the Prophet saw had made clear indications for us to follow him, he was the best of the Ummah after the Prophet saw, and he himself opposed Abu Bakr for six months and gathered in the house with Fatima sa and the Banu Hashim and some other Sahaba and felt he had more of a right. I don't believe the Prophet saw would have just spoken out of whim or left the issue of leadership silent after him.

However, the majority of the Imams were not political leaders, the twelfth Imam right now has next to no influence on anything going on and during his time did not author a book of Tafseer, Rijal, or anything of this nature in a period where we had mass contradictions of Hadith, people were leaving Shia Islam enmasse, and some of the biggest Shia scholars, such as Qummi, Kulayni, Nuamani, were wholesale promoting the Quran had missing verses. 

We then had a period where Shias did not believe in having any ruler, until of course many Shia leaning political dynasties and political leaders were not chosen by God, until of course, the Iranian revolution where the religious and political supreme leader and WF was not chosen by God.

I'm not sure how you could have been on this site for as long as you have and you have not heard this by now, but I will post again just in case you are sincere and not trolling. 

A person known as Ishāq bin ‘Ammār asked in a letter to Imam al-Mahdi ((عليه السلام).) about the guidance during the Ghaybat Kubra. The holy Imam wrote: “And as for the newly occurring circumstances [which have not been mentioned in the Qur’ān and sunna], refer to those who narrate our ahādīth for they are my hujjat upon you as I am Allāh’s hujjat upon them.” (To refresh your memory, see the lesson on Ijtihād, Taqlīd & Ihtiyāt.)

https://www.al-islam.org/islam-faith-practice-history-sayyid-muhammad-rizvi/lesson-49-twelfth-imām-muhammad-al-mahdi

A divinely appointed Imam can designate deputies to carry out the functions of the Imam in society when he is in ghaib (absent from the general society). He appointed 4 deputies in the Ghaib al Sughra, and then appointed 'those who narrate our traditions' as the deputies in the Ghaib Al Kubra (our current times). All of those you mentioned fall under 'those who narrate our traditions' because they don't make their fatawa based on their own opinions, but only after careful and detailed study of Quran and authentic hadith, i.e. 'our traditions', meaning hadith of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)). They are divinely appointed vis a via the tradition of Imam Mehdi(a.f.s) to carry out the functions of the Imam in the Ghaib Al Kubra. 

This is in contrast to our Sunni brothers and sister who say that an Imam can start making fatawa after studying for a few years at Al Azhar. Our scholars study for decades before they can call themselves mujtahid and years after that before they are accepted as marjaa', Jurist worthy of emulation like the ones you mentioned above. This is why their fatawa are trusted and followed almost universally by Shia. This is what keeps us together as one unit despite some minor differences, because we accept that our marjaa are hujjat over us, just as Imam Mehdi(a.f.s) is hujjat over them and Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is hujjat over him. Yes, there are contradiction in the hadith between Majlisi and Kulayi, etc. We don't have Sahih books and the authors of these books never claimed that every single hadith in the book is Sahih. That is why our scholars study for so long, so they can differentiate between the weak and strong hadith and only use the strong (sahih) to make fatawa. 

Imam Mehdi(a.f.s) is Allah(s.w.a)'s proof on earth and the earth cannot exist without this hujjat. The only reason we exist at all is because of this hujjat. So I think the fact that we exist is probably a benefit to us, don't you think. ? Just because he is not answering questions (anymore) and making fatwa directly does not mean he is not doing anything. That is your opinion, not reality. The reason he is in Ghaib and can't take an active, apparent role in society is because of us, not because of him. Since he is the last Imam appointed by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), if he were to be killed there would be no hujjat after him and the earth and everyone in it would cease to exist. I know this sounds a little probably esoteric to you but that doesn't mean it's not true. Anyway, because he does not have the sufficient level of support at this time that would allow him to overcome his enemies who would try to kill him the second he came out of Ghaiba. When he has a sufficient level of support to defeat his enemies, he will come out, apparently. If you want the Imam to come out of Ghaiba be a good Muslim, pray for his reappearance, and show that you would be loyal to him and obey him by obeying Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) both openly and secretly. 

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...