Pakistani1947
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
------------------ continued from above -------------
8. Finally among the classic scholars of Shia at the old times there were some of them who hold that Quran is changed by Sahabah and that certain verses are removed from it.
In fact this is the most logical reply that one can get. However no Shia scholar these days refer to this response. They have changed their minds about this opinion (although among them there are still some individuals that do not deny the possibility). However every one knows that this is opposed to the verse of Qur'an where Allah promises to keep the book. Also if this is the case then how we know that there weren’t some verses in Qur'an in support of (say) Baha’ollah or (say) George w. Bush? By this assumption no basis will remain to hold any opinion as a Muslim. On the other hand, Allah could reveal as much as needed about Imamat (like 98 verses about prayer). Just imagine how difficult would it be if some one wanted to remove all the verses about prayer from Quran . Allah could do the same for Imamat.
9. Where in Quran it is said that Muslims should choose a khalifah by themselves?
Firstly, it is not appropriate to answer a question with a question. Shia needs to adjust their doctrine with Qur'an and only after that it is appropriate to ask such a question.
Any way, this question only shows the misunderstanding of some brothers about the belief of the mainstream Muslims. Believing in Khulfa e Rashideen is not a fundamental element of Islam. According to the main stream Muslims, there are only 6 Articles of Faith and 5 pillars of Islam and believing in khilafat of Abu Bakr (ra) is not part of either of them.
Any groups of people tend to elect some one as their leader. And the rational and most reasonable way to do so is by election. This is a routine social/political practice. Certainly no system of public election was established at that time and the election of Abu Bakr (ra) was done through negotiation of present people. You might think that it was not a good choice or that not all qualified people were presented at the time, that's your opinion but it has nothing to do with looking for evidences in Qu'ran about it. It's just a routine social practice that was and is and will be done in any society and no logical mind would expect a divine evidence for that.
Having said that, once the Sahabeh of the holy prophet pbuh agree on a great Sahabi like Abu Bakr (ra) to become the Khalifah, then it is the duty of all Muslims to obey him for the sake of Islam and unity.
If a Shia asks me what is my proof about this, I will give him/her a source that Shia holds as a very strong proof:
Nahjul balagha, letter No. 6 of Imam Ali to Mawiyah (note that in some versions of Nahjul balagha. This letter is few numbers before or after):
"People who did Beyat to Abu Bakr (ra) and Omar (ra), did beyat with me in the same way. So the one who is present cannot select any one else for Kahlifah and the one who is absent cannot disobey people in their selection. Shora belongs to Mohajer and Ansar, so if they gather around a person and appoint him as their Imam this is to the satisfaction of Allah. If any one disapprove them on this or innovate something about it he should be taken back to the people who he has left (by accepting the appointed Khalifah), and if he refused to do so people has to fight with him as he is going to a path other than of Muslims."
(note that in the Shia websites like al-islam.org, certain words have been inserted in the translation –like the word “suppose” – without putting them in the brackets in an attempt to change the meaning of the text.)
Now it's up to the Shia brothers/sisters whether they want to attribute Taqiyah or lie or politics or what ever to their Imam and whether they like to justify his comment in the same way that they justify verses of Qur'an.
(also please bear in your mind that we have an explicit verse in Qur'an that says:
(Qur'an 42:38) وَالَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُوا لِرَبِّهِمْ وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَىٰ بَيْنَهُمْ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ
Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance;
اور وہ جو اپنے رب کا حکم مانتے ہیں اور نماز ادا کرتے ہیں اور ان کا کام باہمی مشورے سے ہوتا ہے اور ہمارے دیے ہوئے میں سے کچھ دیا بھی کرتے ہیں
Surely the question of leadership is one of the affairs of Muslims. However I won't use this verse to prove anything about Khelafat in Islam. Unlike the Shia brothers and sisters, I am quite cautious about playing Lego with the verses of Quran)
So let us not compare apple with orange. Imamat doctrine is a fundamental belief of Shia, election or selection of Khulfa e Rashideen is just a routine and common socio-political practice.
On the other hand, let's look at the present situation is Iran. Is there any divine command about how to establish a leadership in the occultation of Mahdi? Let's remember that there were no religious system of governing after the occultation of Mahdi for about 1000 years after the recent revolution of Iran and emerging of the theory of Welayate Faqih. Those who know about Shia and Iran appreciate that Welayate Faqih of Khomeini was only a theory that he derived from some Ahadith. Not all Shia scholars agree with that (like Khoiee and his followers). Among the classic Shia scholars only few had referred to this theory and most like Sheikh Ansari had the opinion that it is difficult to derive such a theory from ahadith (refer to Makaseb of Sheikhe Ansari). Also among those recent scholars who accept the theory there are non-agreements about the extend of the theory and that how it could be put in practice (Like Montazeri, late Shirazi, etc.). Shia too ended up with the same situation as the mainstream Muslims that is to elect a leader by themselves in the absence of any direct divine command.
10. Show us the names of the prophets between ... and ... in Quran if you think that every thing should be in Quran
The Shia who sends this question cannot realize or does not want to realize that what is the main issue. The issue is not about NAMES. It is about a CONCEPT. The concept of prophet-hood has been addressed in Qur'an in many verses and there are a few verses that tells Muslims that they need to believe in all the prophets. Allah has given use the story of the main prophets and have left the story of others. There is no need to know the NAME of the (as they say) 124,000 prophets in order to obey Allah. The question is about the concept of Imamat not the names of Imams. Qur'an has established the concept of prophet-hood and its function for us through many many verses. There is however not a single verse in Qur'an that explicitly tells us that there is another position called Imamat which refers to infallible God appointed individuals who are not prophets and that their existence are necessary and there will be such Imams after the prophet.
11. It is a test that's why it is not mentioned in Qur'an
This claim puts the function of Qur'an as a guidance under a serious doubt. By this claim there is no use to read Qur'an to get any guidance because who knows may be there is a fundamental part of your belief that is not mentioned in Qur'an because Allah wants to test you! By the same token Bahayees claim that Qur'an talks about their prophet Baha'Ollah. When you ask them but where in Quran they will show you some verses that have nothing to do with their claim. When you say but these verses are not clear about your claim they say Oh because Allah is testing you, Nice!
This is again playing with divinity. Who are we to decide for Allah that what is a test and what is not a test? The prophet-hood of Mohammad (pbuh) was also a test but there are many verses in Qur'an that directly tells people that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet. A test is different from a puzzle. Allah says in Qur'an that he makes things clear for people. Even a teacher first makes it clear for his students that what are the material of exam and then designs a test based on those material. We need to read Qur'an to see what are these material that Allah is going to ask us about in the day of judgement. Is believing in the doctrine of Imamat one of the materials that Qur'an commanded us about? Allah makes things clear for you and sends you enough evidences and then test you to see if you can be humble enough to obey his guidance. The claim that this sorts of answers are making is like we expect Qur'an to be empty of any verses about the day of judgement and then say that Allah wants to test people to see if they can GUESS or DEDUCT that there is a day of judgement. No way, Allah makes it clear in Qur'an that we need to believe in him and his prophet and to do good things and to pray etc. and the test is whether we obey these commands. God does not play game with us. He does not expect us to solve puzzles and riddles. I wonder why Shia cannot see this in another way around. Imamat is not explicitly referred to in Qur'an but still Shia insists to be separate from the mainstream Muslims because of this doctrine. Aren't they under a test by Allah? Allah knows best.
12. Arguments that use few verses of Qur'an out of the context
Here Shia tries to refer to any verse in which the words Imam or Khalifa are used. It is interesting that most of the verses in this category are those that even Shia scholars do not use them to prove their doctrine cause Shia tafasir are clear about the commonly agreed meaning of these verses. There are however non-Scholar Shia youths, those who spend all their youth over internet debating with others that use these verses. To be more specific, these are the verses where the term Khalifa/Kholafa have been used or the verses that the term Imam has been used in the meaning other than Leader. The Shia friends simply think any reference to Imam or khalifa means what they think. The best way to answer them in this category is to refer them to their own tafasir like Almizan and Majmaolbayan. Also to remind him of the warning that Allah gives us in Quran about taking the verses out of their context :
(Qur'an 4:46)
مِّنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَاعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ ۚ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَّهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَـٰكِن لَّعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
یہودیوں میں بعض ایسے ہیں جو الفاظ کو ان کے محل سے پھیر دیتے ہیں او ر کہتے ہیں ہم نے سنا اور نہ مانا او رکہتے ہیں کہ سن نہ سنایا جائے تو اور کہتے ہیں راعِنا اپنی زبان کو مروڑ کر اور دین میں طعن کرنے کے خیال سےاور اگر وہ کہتے ہیں کہ ہم نے سنا اور ہمنے مانا اور سن تو اور ہم پر نظر کو تو ان کے حق میں بہتر اور درست ہوتا لیکن ان کے کفر کے سبب سے الله نے ا ن پر لعنت کی سو ان میں سے بہت کم لوگ ایمان لائیں گے
13. Sunnies believe in Mahdi while he is not mentioned in Quran:
Firstly, the concept of Mahdi for the mainstream Muslims is totally different from the concept that Shia holds for Mahdi. However, the more important thing is that we cannot compare the belief of the mainstream Mulims about Mahdi with the belief of Imamat in Shia. Imamat is one of the main articles of faith for Shia but belief in Mahdi is not one of the main articles of belief of the mainstream Muslims. The articles of belief of the mainstream Muslims have been listed by the scholars and Alhamdolillah all of them are based on explicit verses of Qur'an. These are 6 (or 7 depending on the phrasing) articles of belief: Belief in Allah and his Oneness - Belif in Angels - Belief in Allah's books (Bible, Qur'an, etc.) - Belief in Allah's messengers - Believe in the day of resurrection - Believe in Qadar (i.e. every thing and event has been written). All of these are derived form explicit verses of Qur'an. The very reason that we cannot see THE BELIEF IN MAHDI being listed among the articles of belief of the mainstream Muslims is that this has not been commanded and explained and established in Qur'an in the same way that other articles of belief are established in Qur'an.
14. Imamat is not the fundamental belief of 12ers, the appointment of Ali is the fundamental of belief.
If one cannot appreciate (in line with the conscious of all the scholars of Shia) that Ali being appointed by the prophet is the direct consequence of the concept of Imamat and that Imamat is the core belief of 12er Shia that’s fine. I would ask the same question about Ali. The question is a generic one that can be applied to any fundamental of belief:
Where are explicit verses of Quran without any Tafsir or Hadith that clearly command us about what ever is the fundamental of 12ers’ belief that distinguishes them from the mainstream Muslims, being Imamat or the Khilafat of Ali after the holy prophet pbuh. There is no escape from this question as long as one believes that Qur'an is the ultimate guidance. And if a Muslim is not able to find this in Qur'an then by Allah he/she needs to answer Allah in the day of judgement that why he/she separate him/herself from the mainstream Muslims.
So as you see, none of the above responses are really answering the question. These responses are actually escaping from the truth. Give Qur'an (a translation) to an English man with no idea about Islam and ask him to read it and write down 5 important articles of Islamic belief based on his understanding from Qur'an. I can imagine that he will write down oneness of God, Prophet-hood, the Day of Judgment, perhaps the rewards and punishments, prayer, Zakat, … but is there any chance that he writes the doctrine of Imamat as 12ers put it? I don’t think so.
The very reason that Shia needs to include lots of explanation and commentaries and Hadith to prove his doctrine from verses of Qur'an proves that Qur'an is not explicit and direct about Imamat and when a book of guidance is not explicit and direct about some thing, that “thing” CANNOT be a fundamental of guidance and people who have chosen to be separated from the mainstream Muslims because of that “thing” are responsible for their sectarianism attitude.
The above is the weakest link of 12er Shia and repeating it over and over is the only ways that we could make some of them realize this weakness. Verily as Qur'an says (25:30):
(Qur'an 25:30)
وَقَالَ الرَّسُولُ يَا رَبِّ إِنَّ قَوْمِي اتَّخَذُوا هَـٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ مَهْجُورًا
Then the Messenger will say: "O my Lord! Truly my people took this Qur'an for just foolish nonsense."
اور رسول کہے گا اے میرے رب بےشک میری قوم نے اس قرآن کو نظر انداز کر رکھا تھا
While I think that we are all subject to this complain and we all need to re-establish the role of Qur'an in our belief, I should say that to me 12er Shia are one of the best examples of such complain.
Question Two: How does the current Imam leads Shia?
The first question should be enough for any one to consider 12er Shia as a group that is biased from the original Islam. However it is helpful to have a word about the concept of occultation of Mahdi.
When you ask a Shia that why we need an infallible Imam, he says we need it because it is not justice from Allah to leave us without any divine leadership. When you say okay then where is this divine leader now, the Shia will say: Oh he has been hidden for more than 1000 years and will come out near the end of the world. Nice!
This means that the theory of Justice of Allah in terms of guidance worked only for about 300 years (before the occultation)!
Imam means a leader, how can you be led when the leader is not contactable and accessible? It is a conscious of Shia that no one has direct contact with Mahdi during his greater occultation (they believe he had about 70 years smaller occultation during which direct contact was possible). So what is the point of all this debate?
Shia believes in Imamat and accused others for not having a leadership system, well at the end of the day we all ended up at the same point didn’t we? Shia had no leadership system up to the Iranian revolution and the system of Welayate Faqih that is the leadership system in the current Iran is nothing but a man made system in which people elect certain scholars to elect a leader for them. Well this is exactly what happened in Saqufeye Bani Saedeh when people elected Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra), so, what is all the fuss about? Some of the Muslims have elected Osamah Ben Laden to be their leader, does Khameneyee the leader of Shia has any divine advantages to Osamah?
The point is that if Shia had a live Imam who was supposedly infallible and had access to extra ordinary knowledge than we did not need this much waste of time. Instead of all these debates I would have asked a Shia to take me to his infallible Imam and there surely the Imam could prove me his right by his extra ordinary knowledge and attitude. This is not the case now. If some one becomes a Shia these days, nothing will be changed for him in terms of guidance. He/she will combine the prayers and attend ceremonies for Hussain and pay Khums to scholars and rub his feet in ablution and start a debate over Internet by a user name like Ex-Sunni but nothing in terms of being directed by a divine Imam. So what? Shia says it is obligatory to know the Imam of your time, but from the so-called Imam of their time what do they know? Anything more than his name and the fact that he will not come out till near the end of the world? So is it all about knowing a name rather than actual guidance?
We are fighting over a closed file .
The Ghaybat of Imam is in 100% in variance with the very basis of the reason Shia claims we need an Imam. The Shia belief is in fact not self consistent.
Honestly I have not received any considerable reply for this question to elaborate on, let me only address two semi-replies:
1. The guidance of Imam is not restricted to direct guidance. There are other functions of Imamat that we cannot fully understand except that his existence is a must for universe.
2. Imam’s benefit in occultation is like the benefit if sun when it’s behind the cloud.
I answer them in the same order:
1. The guidance of Imam is not restricted to direct guidance. There are other functions of Imamat that we cannot fully understand except that his existence is a must for universe.
This is just a philosophical argument (being affected by pre-Islamic belief) that has absolutely no support from Qur'an and Hadith. We have been told that certain angels are arranging certain things for the universe but we have heard nothing about such an extra ordinary claim. If this is the case then who was the Imam immediately before the Prophet? Did the Prophet ever meet him?! And why we need some one being alive in the earth to do the job? Imam Reza the 8th Imam of Shia said to people (who thought his father is not dead but is alive and in occultation) a very interesting point: “if Allah wanted to extend the life of any of his servants for the need of people to him, he would have extended the life of his Prophet” (Kashshi –a Shia author- Marefatorrejal P. 379).
Furthermore by the above reply in fact the 12ers are stepping down and surrender their main argument that says in every time there is a need for an Imam to direct and lead people (i.e. tangible direction and leading not philosophical direction). In fact the earlier 12er scholars nearer to the beginning of the time that the 12ers refer to as the greater occultation of Mahdi has used the same argument to prove the existence of Mahdi. They even go as far to say that this ‘obvious’ argument suffices them from referring to any ahadith to prove the existence of Mahdi.
Let’s see what is the argument of one of the classic gurus of 12ers:
"... Rationality tells us that surely there should be an infallible leader at every time who is not relying on people in matters and science -of religion- because it is impossible that people live in a time when there are no leaders to bring them closer to good and farther from bad and every non-complete human needs some one to advise him and every oppressor needs some one to control him ... and there should be some one who teaches those who don't know and waken up ignorant, advise misguided and perform the Hodood (Punishments of Shariat) ... and solve the differences of opinion and appoint governors and defend the borders and protect properties ... and gather people for Eids and collective prayers. (Ershad by Mofid - Section 36).
As it can be seen, this scholar who was one of the ones who established 12er doctrine clearly says that there always need to an infallible Imam at all times who could practically (and in a tangible way) direct and guide people (look at the bold words). It seems that to people like Mofid who was quite close to the beginning of what 12ersa refer to as the greater occultation of Mahdi. The expectation was that the occultation will not last for a long period and Mahdi will appear shortly otherwise all the above argument (knowing that Mahdi is not accessible) had no points.
The above is the understanding of other classic 12er scholars as well but I preferred to quote from one of the main ones that is considered as one of the pillars of the 12er scholars.
As you see, the Mahdi that is the subject of our debate with 12ers is the one that the classic 12er Shia believed in as some one who practically and in a tangible way leads people. If an Imam could be hidden and not available to people then what is the point of arguing for the necessity of having a Allah appointed leader at the first place?
To change the function of Mahdi to be able to justify his long occultation is nothing but changing the whole story to be able to escape from the truth. It is exactly like changing the function of Qur'an (from the book of guidance to a book that is only completed by Hadith and needs the explanation of 12er Imams) to be able to justify why the 12er theory of Imamat is not mentioned in Qur'an.
2. Imam’s benefit in occultation is like the benefit if sun when it’s behind the cloud.
This is nothing but a poetic justification of the problem. What is exactly meant by sun behind clouds? Even sun behind the clouds has many benefits. You can still find your way when the sun is behind the cloud. However is there any clue from Mahdi now days to direct the Shia in Iran in any way? There are lots of controversy issues in Iran these days among the scholars in terms of Islam and modernism, the extend of the power of Walaye Faqih (the leader), etc. There are certain Shia scholars (Mojtaheds) that are in home arrest because they are not agree with the current policies and leader. Were there any letters, voices, what ever from Mahdi to clear up a bit of these difficulties? Which one of these Majtaheds who are in sever disagreement with each other are directed and led by Mahdi and how are the 12er people suppose to realize that?
There is a difference between a fairy tale and reality and I hope some Shia could realize it.
To conclude, I think by refraining from entering never ending debates about minor issues and sticking to the major issue both Shia and mainstream Muslims will be able to come to conclusions faster. I tried to explain in my post that the main issue in debate with 12er Shia is their doctrine of Imamat.
I further described that the best never answered question for Shia is to ask them for prove for their doctrine of Imamat from Quran (simply by pasting the verse with no commentary) and to ask them about the practicability of their doctrine in the absent of an accessible Imam. These remain as two severe problems with Shia belief and no answer could be given for them unless new verses of Qur'an come down and their so called Imam of Time come out of his occultation. As I don’t think that any of these would happen.
8. Finally among the classic scholars of Shia at the old times there were some of them who hold that Quran is changed by Sahabah and that certain verses are removed from it.
In fact this is the most logical reply that one can get. However no Shia scholar these days refer to this response. They have changed their minds about this opinion (although among them there are still some individuals that do not deny the possibility). However every one knows that this is opposed to the verse of Qur'an where Allah promises to keep the book. Also if this is the case then how we know that there weren’t some verses in Qur'an in support of (say) Baha’ollah or (say) George w. Bush? By this assumption no basis will remain to hold any opinion as a Muslim. On the other hand, Allah could reveal as much as needed about Imamat (like 98 verses about prayer). Just imagine how difficult would it be if some one wanted to remove all the verses about prayer from Quran . Allah could do the same for Imamat.
9. Where in Quran it is said that Muslims should choose a khalifah by themselves?
Firstly, it is not appropriate to answer a question with a question. Shia needs to adjust their doctrine with Qur'an and only after that it is appropriate to ask such a question.
Any way, this question only shows the misunderstanding of some brothers about the belief of the mainstream Muslims. Believing in Khulfa e Rashideen is not a fundamental element of Islam. According to the main stream Muslims, there are only 6 Articles of Faith and 5 pillars of Islam and believing in khilafat of Abu Bakr (ra) is not part of either of them.
Any groups of people tend to elect some one as their leader. And the rational and most reasonable way to do so is by election. This is a routine social/political practice. Certainly no system of public election was established at that time and the election of Abu Bakr (ra) was done through negotiation of present people. You might think that it was not a good choice or that not all qualified people were presented at the time, that's your opinion but it has nothing to do with looking for evidences in Qu'ran about it. It's just a routine social practice that was and is and will be done in any society and no logical mind would expect a divine evidence for that.
Having said that, once the Sahabeh of the holy prophet pbuh agree on a great Sahabi like Abu Bakr (ra) to become the Khalifah, then it is the duty of all Muslims to obey him for the sake of Islam and unity.
If a Shia asks me what is my proof about this, I will give him/her a source that Shia holds as a very strong proof:
Nahjul balagha, letter No. 6 of Imam Ali to Mawiyah (note that in some versions of Nahjul balagha. This letter is few numbers before or after):
"People who did Beyat to Abu Bakr (ra) and Omar (ra), did beyat with me in the same way. So the one who is present cannot select any one else for Kahlifah and the one who is absent cannot disobey people in their selection. Shora belongs to Mohajer and Ansar, so if they gather around a person and appoint him as their Imam this is to the satisfaction of Allah. If any one disapprove them on this or innovate something about it he should be taken back to the people who he has left (by accepting the appointed Khalifah), and if he refused to do so people has to fight with him as he is going to a path other than of Muslims."
(note that in the Shia websites like al-islam.org, certain words have been inserted in the translation –like the word “suppose” – without putting them in the brackets in an attempt to change the meaning of the text.)
Now it's up to the Shia brothers/sisters whether they want to attribute Taqiyah or lie or politics or what ever to their Imam and whether they like to justify his comment in the same way that they justify verses of Qur'an.
(also please bear in your mind that we have an explicit verse in Qur'an that says:
(Qur'an 42:38) وَالَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُوا لِرَبِّهِمْ وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَىٰ بَيْنَهُمْ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُونَ
Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance;
اور وہ جو اپنے رب کا حکم مانتے ہیں اور نماز ادا کرتے ہیں اور ان کا کام باہمی مشورے سے ہوتا ہے اور ہمارے دیے ہوئے میں سے کچھ دیا بھی کرتے ہیں
Surely the question of leadership is one of the affairs of Muslims. However I won't use this verse to prove anything about Khelafat in Islam. Unlike the Shia brothers and sisters, I am quite cautious about playing Lego with the verses of Quran)
So let us not compare apple with orange. Imamat doctrine is a fundamental belief of Shia, election or selection of Khulfa e Rashideen is just a routine and common socio-political practice.
On the other hand, let's look at the present situation is Iran. Is there any divine command about how to establish a leadership in the occultation of Mahdi? Let's remember that there were no religious system of governing after the occultation of Mahdi for about 1000 years after the recent revolution of Iran and emerging of the theory of Welayate Faqih. Those who know about Shia and Iran appreciate that Welayate Faqih of Khomeini was only a theory that he derived from some Ahadith. Not all Shia scholars agree with that (like Khoiee and his followers). Among the classic Shia scholars only few had referred to this theory and most like Sheikh Ansari had the opinion that it is difficult to derive such a theory from ahadith (refer to Makaseb of Sheikhe Ansari). Also among those recent scholars who accept the theory there are non-agreements about the extend of the theory and that how it could be put in practice (Like Montazeri, late Shirazi, etc.). Shia too ended up with the same situation as the mainstream Muslims that is to elect a leader by themselves in the absence of any direct divine command.
10. Show us the names of the prophets between ... and ... in Quran if you think that every thing should be in Quran
The Shia who sends this question cannot realize or does not want to realize that what is the main issue. The issue is not about NAMES. It is about a CONCEPT. The concept of prophet-hood has been addressed in Qur'an in many verses and there are a few verses that tells Muslims that they need to believe in all the prophets. Allah has given use the story of the main prophets and have left the story of others. There is no need to know the NAME of the (as they say) 124,000 prophets in order to obey Allah. The question is about the concept of Imamat not the names of Imams. Qur'an has established the concept of prophet-hood and its function for us through many many verses. There is however not a single verse in Qur'an that explicitly tells us that there is another position called Imamat which refers to infallible God appointed individuals who are not prophets and that their existence are necessary and there will be such Imams after the prophet.
11. It is a test that's why it is not mentioned in Qur'an
This claim puts the function of Qur'an as a guidance under a serious doubt. By this claim there is no use to read Qur'an to get any guidance because who knows may be there is a fundamental part of your belief that is not mentioned in Qur'an because Allah wants to test you! By the same token Bahayees claim that Qur'an talks about their prophet Baha'Ollah. When you ask them but where in Quran they will show you some verses that have nothing to do with their claim. When you say but these verses are not clear about your claim they say Oh because Allah is testing you, Nice!
This is again playing with divinity. Who are we to decide for Allah that what is a test and what is not a test? The prophet-hood of Mohammad (pbuh) was also a test but there are many verses in Qur'an that directly tells people that Muhammad (pbuh) is a prophet. A test is different from a puzzle. Allah says in Qur'an that he makes things clear for people. Even a teacher first makes it clear for his students that what are the material of exam and then designs a test based on those material. We need to read Qur'an to see what are these material that Allah is going to ask us about in the day of judgement. Is believing in the doctrine of Imamat one of the materials that Qur'an commanded us about? Allah makes things clear for you and sends you enough evidences and then test you to see if you can be humble enough to obey his guidance. The claim that this sorts of answers are making is like we expect Qur'an to be empty of any verses about the day of judgement and then say that Allah wants to test people to see if they can GUESS or DEDUCT that there is a day of judgement. No way, Allah makes it clear in Qur'an that we need to believe in him and his prophet and to do good things and to pray etc. and the test is whether we obey these commands. God does not play game with us. He does not expect us to solve puzzles and riddles. I wonder why Shia cannot see this in another way around. Imamat is not explicitly referred to in Qur'an but still Shia insists to be separate from the mainstream Muslims because of this doctrine. Aren't they under a test by Allah? Allah knows best.
12. Arguments that use few verses of Qur'an out of the context
Here Shia tries to refer to any verse in which the words Imam or Khalifa are used. It is interesting that most of the verses in this category are those that even Shia scholars do not use them to prove their doctrine cause Shia tafasir are clear about the commonly agreed meaning of these verses. There are however non-Scholar Shia youths, those who spend all their youth over internet debating with others that use these verses. To be more specific, these are the verses where the term Khalifa/Kholafa have been used or the verses that the term Imam has been used in the meaning other than Leader. The Shia friends simply think any reference to Imam or khalifa means what they think. The best way to answer them in this category is to refer them to their own tafasir like Almizan and Majmaolbayan. Also to remind him of the warning that Allah gives us in Quran about taking the verses out of their context :
(Qur'an 4:46)
مِّنَ الَّذِينَ هَادُوا يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ وَيَقُولُونَ سَمِعْنَا وَعَصَيْنَا وَاسْمَعْ غَيْرَ مُسْمَعٍ وَرَاعِنَا لَيًّا بِأَلْسِنَتِهِمْ وَطَعْنًا فِي الدِّينِ ۚ وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ قَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا وَاسْمَعْ وَانظُرْنَا لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَّهُمْ وَأَقْوَمَ وَلَـٰكِن لَّعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا
Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
یہودیوں میں بعض ایسے ہیں جو الفاظ کو ان کے محل سے پھیر دیتے ہیں او ر کہتے ہیں ہم نے سنا اور نہ مانا او رکہتے ہیں کہ سن نہ سنایا جائے تو اور کہتے ہیں راعِنا اپنی زبان کو مروڑ کر اور دین میں طعن کرنے کے خیال سےاور اگر وہ کہتے ہیں کہ ہم نے سنا اور ہمنے مانا اور سن تو اور ہم پر نظر کو تو ان کے حق میں بہتر اور درست ہوتا لیکن ان کے کفر کے سبب سے الله نے ا ن پر لعنت کی سو ان میں سے بہت کم لوگ ایمان لائیں گے
13. Sunnies believe in Mahdi while he is not mentioned in Quran:
Firstly, the concept of Mahdi for the mainstream Muslims is totally different from the concept that Shia holds for Mahdi. However, the more important thing is that we cannot compare the belief of the mainstream Mulims about Mahdi with the belief of Imamat in Shia. Imamat is one of the main articles of faith for Shia but belief in Mahdi is not one of the main articles of belief of the mainstream Muslims. The articles of belief of the mainstream Muslims have been listed by the scholars and Alhamdolillah all of them are based on explicit verses of Qur'an. These are 6 (or 7 depending on the phrasing) articles of belief: Belief in Allah and his Oneness - Belif in Angels - Belief in Allah's books (Bible, Qur'an, etc.) - Belief in Allah's messengers - Believe in the day of resurrection - Believe in Qadar (i.e. every thing and event has been written). All of these are derived form explicit verses of Qur'an. The very reason that we cannot see THE BELIEF IN MAHDI being listed among the articles of belief of the mainstream Muslims is that this has not been commanded and explained and established in Qur'an in the same way that other articles of belief are established in Qur'an.
14. Imamat is not the fundamental belief of 12ers, the appointment of Ali is the fundamental of belief.
If one cannot appreciate (in line with the conscious of all the scholars of Shia) that Ali being appointed by the prophet is the direct consequence of the concept of Imamat and that Imamat is the core belief of 12er Shia that’s fine. I would ask the same question about Ali. The question is a generic one that can be applied to any fundamental of belief:
Where are explicit verses of Quran without any Tafsir or Hadith that clearly command us about what ever is the fundamental of 12ers’ belief that distinguishes them from the mainstream Muslims, being Imamat or the Khilafat of Ali after the holy prophet pbuh. There is no escape from this question as long as one believes that Qur'an is the ultimate guidance. And if a Muslim is not able to find this in Qur'an then by Allah he/she needs to answer Allah in the day of judgement that why he/she separate him/herself from the mainstream Muslims.
So as you see, none of the above responses are really answering the question. These responses are actually escaping from the truth. Give Qur'an (a translation) to an English man with no idea about Islam and ask him to read it and write down 5 important articles of Islamic belief based on his understanding from Qur'an. I can imagine that he will write down oneness of God, Prophet-hood, the Day of Judgment, perhaps the rewards and punishments, prayer, Zakat, … but is there any chance that he writes the doctrine of Imamat as 12ers put it? I don’t think so.
The very reason that Shia needs to include lots of explanation and commentaries and Hadith to prove his doctrine from verses of Qur'an proves that Qur'an is not explicit and direct about Imamat and when a book of guidance is not explicit and direct about some thing, that “thing” CANNOT be a fundamental of guidance and people who have chosen to be separated from the mainstream Muslims because of that “thing” are responsible for their sectarianism attitude.
The above is the weakest link of 12er Shia and repeating it over and over is the only ways that we could make some of them realize this weakness. Verily as Qur'an says (25:30):
(Qur'an 25:30)
وَقَالَ الرَّسُولُ يَا رَبِّ إِنَّ قَوْمِي اتَّخَذُوا هَـٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ مَهْجُورًا
Then the Messenger will say: "O my Lord! Truly my people took this Qur'an for just foolish nonsense."
اور رسول کہے گا اے میرے رب بےشک میری قوم نے اس قرآن کو نظر انداز کر رکھا تھا
While I think that we are all subject to this complain and we all need to re-establish the role of Qur'an in our belief, I should say that to me 12er Shia are one of the best examples of such complain.
Question Two: How does the current Imam leads Shia?
The first question should be enough for any one to consider 12er Shia as a group that is biased from the original Islam. However it is helpful to have a word about the concept of occultation of Mahdi.
When you ask a Shia that why we need an infallible Imam, he says we need it because it is not justice from Allah to leave us without any divine leadership. When you say okay then where is this divine leader now, the Shia will say: Oh he has been hidden for more than 1000 years and will come out near the end of the world. Nice!
This means that the theory of Justice of Allah in terms of guidance worked only for about 300 years (before the occultation)!
Imam means a leader, how can you be led when the leader is not contactable and accessible? It is a conscious of Shia that no one has direct contact with Mahdi during his greater occultation (they believe he had about 70 years smaller occultation during which direct contact was possible). So what is the point of all this debate?
Shia believes in Imamat and accused others for not having a leadership system, well at the end of the day we all ended up at the same point didn’t we? Shia had no leadership system up to the Iranian revolution and the system of Welayate Faqih that is the leadership system in the current Iran is nothing but a man made system in which people elect certain scholars to elect a leader for them. Well this is exactly what happened in Saqufeye Bani Saedeh when people elected Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra), so, what is all the fuss about? Some of the Muslims have elected Osamah Ben Laden to be their leader, does Khameneyee the leader of Shia has any divine advantages to Osamah?
The point is that if Shia had a live Imam who was supposedly infallible and had access to extra ordinary knowledge than we did not need this much waste of time. Instead of all these debates I would have asked a Shia to take me to his infallible Imam and there surely the Imam could prove me his right by his extra ordinary knowledge and attitude. This is not the case now. If some one becomes a Shia these days, nothing will be changed for him in terms of guidance. He/she will combine the prayers and attend ceremonies for Hussain and pay Khums to scholars and rub his feet in ablution and start a debate over Internet by a user name like Ex-Sunni but nothing in terms of being directed by a divine Imam. So what? Shia says it is obligatory to know the Imam of your time, but from the so-called Imam of their time what do they know? Anything more than his name and the fact that he will not come out till near the end of the world? So is it all about knowing a name rather than actual guidance?
We are fighting over a closed file .
The Ghaybat of Imam is in 100% in variance with the very basis of the reason Shia claims we need an Imam. The Shia belief is in fact not self consistent.
Honestly I have not received any considerable reply for this question to elaborate on, let me only address two semi-replies:
1. The guidance of Imam is not restricted to direct guidance. There are other functions of Imamat that we cannot fully understand except that his existence is a must for universe.
2. Imam’s benefit in occultation is like the benefit if sun when it’s behind the cloud.
I answer them in the same order:
1. The guidance of Imam is not restricted to direct guidance. There are other functions of Imamat that we cannot fully understand except that his existence is a must for universe.
This is just a philosophical argument (being affected by pre-Islamic belief) that has absolutely no support from Qur'an and Hadith. We have been told that certain angels are arranging certain things for the universe but we have heard nothing about such an extra ordinary claim. If this is the case then who was the Imam immediately before the Prophet? Did the Prophet ever meet him?! And why we need some one being alive in the earth to do the job? Imam Reza the 8th Imam of Shia said to people (who thought his father is not dead but is alive and in occultation) a very interesting point: “if Allah wanted to extend the life of any of his servants for the need of people to him, he would have extended the life of his Prophet” (Kashshi –a Shia author- Marefatorrejal P. 379).
Furthermore by the above reply in fact the 12ers are stepping down and surrender their main argument that says in every time there is a need for an Imam to direct and lead people (i.e. tangible direction and leading not philosophical direction). In fact the earlier 12er scholars nearer to the beginning of the time that the 12ers refer to as the greater occultation of Mahdi has used the same argument to prove the existence of Mahdi. They even go as far to say that this ‘obvious’ argument suffices them from referring to any ahadith to prove the existence of Mahdi.
Let’s see what is the argument of one of the classic gurus of 12ers:
"... Rationality tells us that surely there should be an infallible leader at every time who is not relying on people in matters and science -of religion- because it is impossible that people live in a time when there are no leaders to bring them closer to good and farther from bad and every non-complete human needs some one to advise him and every oppressor needs some one to control him ... and there should be some one who teaches those who don't know and waken up ignorant, advise misguided and perform the Hodood (Punishments of Shariat) ... and solve the differences of opinion and appoint governors and defend the borders and protect properties ... and gather people for Eids and collective prayers. (Ershad by Mofid - Section 36).
As it can be seen, this scholar who was one of the ones who established 12er doctrine clearly says that there always need to an infallible Imam at all times who could practically (and in a tangible way) direct and guide people (look at the bold words). It seems that to people like Mofid who was quite close to the beginning of what 12ersa refer to as the greater occultation of Mahdi. The expectation was that the occultation will not last for a long period and Mahdi will appear shortly otherwise all the above argument (knowing that Mahdi is not accessible) had no points.
The above is the understanding of other classic 12er scholars as well but I preferred to quote from one of the main ones that is considered as one of the pillars of the 12er scholars.
As you see, the Mahdi that is the subject of our debate with 12ers is the one that the classic 12er Shia believed in as some one who practically and in a tangible way leads people. If an Imam could be hidden and not available to people then what is the point of arguing for the necessity of having a Allah appointed leader at the first place?
To change the function of Mahdi to be able to justify his long occultation is nothing but changing the whole story to be able to escape from the truth. It is exactly like changing the function of Qur'an (from the book of guidance to a book that is only completed by Hadith and needs the explanation of 12er Imams) to be able to justify why the 12er theory of Imamat is not mentioned in Qur'an.
2. Imam’s benefit in occultation is like the benefit if sun when it’s behind the cloud.
This is nothing but a poetic justification of the problem. What is exactly meant by sun behind clouds? Even sun behind the clouds has many benefits. You can still find your way when the sun is behind the cloud. However is there any clue from Mahdi now days to direct the Shia in Iran in any way? There are lots of controversy issues in Iran these days among the scholars in terms of Islam and modernism, the extend of the power of Walaye Faqih (the leader), etc. There are certain Shia scholars (Mojtaheds) that are in home arrest because they are not agree with the current policies and leader. Were there any letters, voices, what ever from Mahdi to clear up a bit of these difficulties? Which one of these Majtaheds who are in sever disagreement with each other are directed and led by Mahdi and how are the 12er people suppose to realize that?
There is a difference between a fairy tale and reality and I hope some Shia could realize it.
To conclude, I think by refraining from entering never ending debates about minor issues and sticking to the major issue both Shia and mainstream Muslims will be able to come to conclusions faster. I tried to explain in my post that the main issue in debate with 12er Shia is their doctrine of Imamat.
I further described that the best never answered question for Shia is to ask them for prove for their doctrine of Imamat from Quran (simply by pasting the verse with no commentary) and to ask them about the practicability of their doctrine in the absent of an accessible Imam. These remain as two severe problems with Shia belief and no answer could be given for them unless new verses of Qur'an come down and their so called Imam of Time come out of his occultation. As I don’t think that any of these would happen.
