Tou ap ki nazr mein yeh kia hai.. Ap source wala link click karen or parhein poura.. OR yeh RAM LEELA nahin.. NAHJ UL BILAGHA HAI.. janab.
مرزا جہلمی کی کچھ مزید بونگیاں
- Thread starter swing
- Start date
Tou ap ki nazr mein yeh kia hai.. Ap source wala link click karen or parhein poura.. OR yeh RAM LEELA nahin.. NAHJ UL BILAGHA HAI.. janab.
Here you are Qanbar sahab,
“Suwaid ibn Ghafla (ÑÍíãå Çááå) reported that once he passed by a group of shi’a who were talking about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in derogatory terms. Then he visited ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and told him ‘O Ameeral Mu’mineen! I passed by a group of your companions while they were referring to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in derogatory terms. If it were not that they thought that you secretly felt as they openly said, they would not have dared to say it.’
Ali replied, ‘I seek refuge in Allah! I seek refuge in Allah from secretly feeling anything towards the two of them other than what the Prophet, (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã) entrusted to me. May Allah curse anyone who holds inside himself anything but goodness and gratitude towards the both of them. (They were like) two brothers to Allah’s Messenger (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã), his two companions, his two assistants, may Allah’s Mercy be on both of them.
Then ‘Ali got up with tears in his eyes, holding on to my hand until he entered the masjid. Next he ascended the mimbar and sat at its top holding onto his beard and looking at it until the people gathered. After having made a brief but eloquent speech, he added, ‘What is wrong with those who make allegations about the two masters of Quraysh, the two fathers of the Muslims, allegations which I would never say or even want to hear others say; and for which I may be punished? By He who split the seed and created the soul, only a pious believer loves them, and only a wretched sinner hates them. Those two who accompanied Allah’s Messenger (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã), commanding all that is good and prohibiting all that is evil; who became angry with the wrongdoers and punished them based on truth and honestly alone. In their rulings, they did not overstep the opinions of Allah’s Messenger (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã). In fact, their opinions always coincided with those of Allaah’s Messenger (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã) and the believers were pleased with both of them throughout their respective caliphates.
The Messenger of Allah (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã) appointed Abu Bakr to lead the believers in their prayers for the last nine days of the Prophet’s life and he died without recalling him. The believers, subsequently, made him responsible for their affairs, and gave him their Zakaah. They willingly pledged allegiance to him and I am the first person from Banu ‘Abd al Muttalib to confirm his leadership. He disliked leadership and wished that one of us would take his place. By Allah, he was the best of those who remained after the Prophet (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã); the eldest, the kindest, and truly the most compassionate and pious. He was like Angel Mikaa’il in his benevolence and Prophet Ibraheem in his willingness to forgive and his dignified bearing. He took the path of the Prophet (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã) and passed away on that path (May Allah have mercy on him).
After Abu Bakr, ‘Umar took command, and I was among those pleased with his appointment. He ruled according to the policy of Allah’s Messenger (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã) and his companion Abu Bakr, following their footsteps the way a young camel follows its mother. I swear by Allah, he was kind and gentle with the weak, a champion of the cause of the oppressed and without any blame concerning Allah’s Religion. Allaah manifested examples of truth through him and made the truth a part of him to such a degree that we used to think that an angel was speaking with his tongue. Allah made his conversion a strengthening factor for Islam, and placed in the hearts of the hypocrites a fear of him and in the hearts of the believers love for him. Allah’s Messenger (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã) compared him to angel Jibreel in his harshness towards the enemies of Islam.
So who among you can be compared to the two of them?! May Allah’s Mercy be on them, and may Allah provide us with the ability to continue in their paths. Let whoever loves me, love them, for whoever does not love them has angered me, and I will have nothing to do with him. If I hear anymore derogatory talk about the two of them, I will punish the offenders severely. After today, whoever is brought before me will get the punishment of a slanderer. Verily, the best of this nation after its Prophet (Õáí Çááå Úáíå æ Óáã) is Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them. Then Allah knows best who the best is. I am saying this asking Allah’s Forgiveness for both you and myself.’”
[source: Talbees Iblees, pg 49-51 (English Translation) of Ibnul Jawzee]
Now try to break down the narration of this saying of Maula A.S and see for yourself. Try to prove this saying wrong. It's from the book of Ibn ul Jawzee and Shias tried their best to claim it a weak hadith but the chain is sound according to Ulema. I am not the one to decide the chain. So let's see what you have to say about this.
famamdani
Minister (2k+ posts)
please read once again what you say its two diffrent thing and it´s make no sense............
sab se pehle aik shakhs ko khud quraan ko theek tarah se samajhne ki poori poori kosh karni chahiye aur deegar baatun main waqt zaaya kerne se bachna chahiye. khudaa ne paighambar kyun bhaije? is liye keh woh insaanu ko aik jannati maashra qaaim kerne ki baat samjhaana chahta tha. saare quraan main yahee baat zare behs hai. yahee wajah hai deene islam aik riyaasti nizaam hai alag alag logoon ke mazhabi amaal ka perwaana nahin hai. lihaaza her aik ke liye laazmi hai keh woh us nizaam ko is duniya main qaaim kerne ki tarkeeb soche. For a detailed explanation of things about the quran, deen of islam and pakistan see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.
quran baitullah us riyaasat ko kehta hai jo khudaa ke mansha ke mutaabiq qaaim ki gayee ho. us riyaasat main rehne waale us riyaasat ke baashinde hen yani ehlul baeet. logoon ko quraan main is maani ko quraan ke mukhtalif maqamaat per apply ker ke dekhna chahiye keh kia nateeja nikalta hai. quraan main istemaal shuda ilfaaz ke aur mataalib bhi hen to woh bhi logoon ko dekhne chahiyen taa keh un ko khud apni ghalatiyun ka ehsaas ho sake.
quran baitullah us riyaasat ko kehta hai jo khudaa ke mansha ke mutaabiq qaaim ki gayee ho. us riyaasat main rehne waale us riyaasat ke baashinde hen yani ehlul baeet. logoon ko quraan main is maani ko quraan ke mukhtalif maqamaat per apply ker ke dekhna chahiye keh kia nateeja nikalta hai. quraan main istemaal shuda ilfaaz ke aur mataalib bhi hen to woh bhi logoon ko dekhne chahiyen taa keh un ko khud apni ghalatiyun ka ehsaas ho sake.
Last edited:
Ghulam-e-Qanbar
Councller (250+ posts)
الحمدللہ، راحیل بھائی محمد و آل محمد علیہم السلام کا لطف وکرم ہے۔
راحیل بھائی، آپکا دعویٰ تھا کہ نہج البلاغہ میں حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام نے ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان کی تعریفیں کی ہیں۔
میں نے کہا کہ تھا کہ آپ مجھے نہج البلاغہ میں حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام کی زبان مبارک سے ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان کے بارے میں تعریفی جملے نہیں جملہ دکھا دیں جس میں حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام نے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں کی ہوں۔
آپ نے ایک دن کی مہلت مانگی اور کہا کہ کل لیکر آؤں گا
میں نے کہا ٹھیک ہے میں آپکا انتظار کروں گا۔ اگر آپ نہج البلاغہ میں حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام کے خطبات میں و مکتوبات میں مجھے حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ والسلام کی زبان سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں نہیں صرف تعریف ہی دکھا دیں تو میں آپکو حق بجانب تسلیم کر لوں گا لیکن اگر آپ ایسا نہ کر سکیں تو میں آپکو ابوبکر، عمر و عثمان سے دوری اختیار کرنے کی دعوت دیتا ہوں۔
مختلف الفاظ میں میری کہی یہ باتیں لگ بھگ اسی مفہوم کیساتھ اس تھریڈ پر اس وقت بھی موجود ہیں۔ قارئین پچھلی پوسٹوں میں جا کر دیکھ سکتے ہیں۔
راحیل بھائی! آج حسب وعدہ آپ نمودار تو ہو گئے اسکے لیے آپکا شکریہ لیکن اپنے دعوے کے برعکس آپ نہج البلاغہ سے حضرت علیہ علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام کی زبانی ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان کے لیے ایک چھوٹا سا تعریفی جملہ بھی پیش کرنے میں یکسر ناکام رہے ہیں۔
اپنے دعوے میں شدید ناکامی پر شرمندہ ہو کر ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان سے دوری اختیار کرنے کی بجائے آپ نے کمال ڈھٹائی کے ساتھ اپنی زبان اور قول سے منحرف ہو کر نہج البلاغہ کی بجائے ابن جوزی کی تبلیس ابلیس اٹھا کر یہاں کاپی پیسٹ کر دی۔ مجھے آپکی ناکامی کا افسوس نہیں کہ یہ یقینی تھی بلکہ مجھے آپ کی کم علمی اور ڈھٹائی پر حیرت ہے۔
آپ نہج البلاغہ سے ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان کی تعریفیں دکھانے نکلے تھے اور دوسرے دن ہاتھ میں ابن جوزی کی تبلیس ابلیس اٹھا کر آ گئے، سبحان اللہ۔
کیا حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام کا کوڈ نیم ابن جوزی ہے؟
کیا نہج البلاغہ کا خفیہ نام تبلیس ابلیس ہے؟
اس تھریڈ پر آپکے ہر سنی بھائی بہن کو میں اس سلسلے میں آپکی مدد کرنے کی درخواست کرتا ہوں۔ آپ ایک دن، دو دن تین، چار، پانچ دن لے لیں اور مجھے اپنے دعوے کی سچائی کے ثبوت کے طور پر نہج البلاغہ سے حضرت علی کی زبانی ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں دکھا دیں۔
اگر آپ ایسا نہ کر سکیں تو میں آپکو شرمندہ کرنے کی بجائے دعوت تحقیق دیتا ہوں دین شیخین چھوڑ کر اور مکتب محمد و آل محمد علیہم السلام کی طرف بلاتا ہوں۔
آپ تہذیب سے بات کر رہے ہیں، مجھے آپ سے بات کر کے خوشی ہوئی۔ امید ہے میری کوئی بات بری نہیں لگے گی۔
میں نے کہا کہ تھا کہ آپ مجھے نہج البلاغہ میں حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام کی زبان مبارک سے ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان کے بارے میں تعریفی جملے نہیں جملہ دکھا دیں جس میں حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام نے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں کی ہوں۔
آپ نے ایک دن کی مہلت مانگی اور کہا کہ کل لیکر آؤں گا
میں نے کہا ٹھیک ہے میں آپکا انتظار کروں گا۔ اگر آپ نہج البلاغہ میں حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام کے خطبات میں و مکتوبات میں مجھے حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ والسلام کی زبان سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں نہیں صرف تعریف ہی دکھا دیں تو میں آپکو حق بجانب تسلیم کر لوں گا لیکن اگر آپ ایسا نہ کر سکیں تو میں آپکو ابوبکر، عمر و عثمان سے دوری اختیار کرنے کی دعوت دیتا ہوں۔
مختلف الفاظ میں میری کہی یہ باتیں لگ بھگ اسی مفہوم کیساتھ اس تھریڈ پر اس وقت بھی موجود ہیں۔ قارئین پچھلی پوسٹوں میں جا کر دیکھ سکتے ہیں۔
راحیل بھائی! آج حسب وعدہ آپ نمودار تو ہو گئے اسکے لیے آپکا شکریہ لیکن اپنے دعوے کے برعکس آپ نہج البلاغہ سے حضرت علیہ علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام کی زبانی ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان کے لیے ایک چھوٹا سا تعریفی جملہ بھی پیش کرنے میں یکسر ناکام رہے ہیں۔
اپنے دعوے میں شدید ناکامی پر شرمندہ ہو کر ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان سے دوری اختیار کرنے کی بجائے آپ نے کمال ڈھٹائی کے ساتھ اپنی زبان اور قول سے منحرف ہو کر نہج البلاغہ کی بجائے ابن جوزی کی تبلیس ابلیس اٹھا کر یہاں کاپی پیسٹ کر دی۔ مجھے آپکی ناکامی کا افسوس نہیں کہ یہ یقینی تھی بلکہ مجھے آپ کی کم علمی اور ڈھٹائی پر حیرت ہے۔
آپ نہج البلاغہ سے ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان کی تعریفیں دکھانے نکلے تھے اور دوسرے دن ہاتھ میں ابن جوزی کی تبلیس ابلیس اٹھا کر آ گئے، سبحان اللہ۔
کیا حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام کا کوڈ نیم ابن جوزی ہے؟
کیا نہج البلاغہ کا خفیہ نام تبلیس ابلیس ہے؟
اس تھریڈ پر آپکے ہر سنی بھائی بہن کو میں اس سلسلے میں آپکی مدد کرنے کی درخواست کرتا ہوں۔ آپ ایک دن، دو دن تین، چار، پانچ دن لے لیں اور مجھے اپنے دعوے کی سچائی کے ثبوت کے طور پر نہج البلاغہ سے حضرت علی کی زبانی ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں دکھا دیں۔
اگر آپ ایسا نہ کر سکیں تو میں آپکو شرمندہ کرنے کی بجائے دعوت تحقیق دیتا ہوں دین شیخین چھوڑ کر اور مکتب محمد و آل محمد علیہم السلام کی طرف بلاتا ہوں۔
آپ تہذیب سے بات کر رہے ہیں، مجھے آپ سے بات کر کے خوشی ہوئی۔ امید ہے میری کوئی بات بری نہیں لگے گی۔
Ghulam-e-Qanbar
Councller (250+ posts)
جناب آپ مجھے عجیب و غریب ویبسائٹوں کے لنک دے کر لمبے چوڑے آرٹیکلز پڑھا رہے ہیں، کمال ہے۔
آپکا دعوی تھا کہ نہج البلاغہ میں حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام نے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں کی ہیں
میں آپ سے دس مرتبہ پوچھ چکا ہوں کہاں کی ہیں؟ دکھاؤ
آپ کبھی مجھے کسی ویبسائٹ کا لنک دے دیتے ہیں کبھی ابن جوزی کی کتاب پکڑا دیتے ہیں۔
بھائی!آپ یہاں وہ جملہ لکھ دو جو حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ والتسلیم نے ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان کے بارے میں کہا ہے۔
نہج البلاغہ میں غالبا:۔
۔241 خطبات ہیں
۔79 مکاتیب ہیں
۔480 کلمات قصار ہیں
آپ مجھے اتنی بڑی کتاب سے ایک جملہ ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریف کا دکھا دیں
چلیں شاباش ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ میدان اور گھوڑا حاضر ہے۔
آپکا دعوی تھا کہ نہج البلاغہ میں حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ ولسلام نے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں کی ہیں
میں آپ سے دس مرتبہ پوچھ چکا ہوں کہاں کی ہیں؟ دکھاؤ
آپ کبھی مجھے کسی ویبسائٹ کا لنک دے دیتے ہیں کبھی ابن جوزی کی کتاب پکڑا دیتے ہیں۔
بھائی!آپ یہاں وہ جملہ لکھ دو جو حضرت علی علیہ الصلواۃ والتسلیم نے ابوبکر، عمر اور عثمان کے بارے میں کہا ہے۔
نہج البلاغہ میں غالبا:۔
۔241 خطبات ہیں
۔79 مکاتیب ہیں
۔480 کلمات قصار ہیں
آپ مجھے اتنی بڑی کتاب سے ایک جملہ ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریف کا دکھا دیں
چلیں شاباش ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ میدان اور گھوڑا حاضر ہے۔
Ghulam-e-Qanbar
Councller (250+ posts)
Ghulam-e-Qanbar
Councller (250+ posts)
شکریہ بھائی، مولا آپکی توفیقات میں اضافہ فرمائے اور ہر غم مصیبت سے محفوظ رکھے۔
بھائی، غم روزگار میں مصروفیت کی وجہ سے یہاں بہت کم آنا ہوتا ہے۔ آجکل ملازمتیں بند ہونے کی وجہ سے گھروں میں قید ہیں اسلیے ذرا زیادہ وقت مل جاتا ہے۔ کوشش کرتا ہوں کہ کسی مسلک کی دلآزاری کیے بغیر مکتب تشیع کے بارے جو میری معلومات ہیں صاف اور واشگاف انداز میں الفاظ چبائے بغیر دوسرے مکاتب فکر کو آگاہ کروں۔
سنیوں کی بہت بڑی اکثریت کا مسئلہ یہ ہے کہ انہیں نہ اپنے مذہب کی کچھ سوجھ بوجھ ہے نہ مکتب تشیع کا کچھ پتہ سمجھ ہے لیکن اعتراض اور نکتہ چینی ہر بات پر کرنی ہے۔ ہمارا "مسئلہ" یہ ہے کہ ہمیں اپنے ساتھ ساتھ سنیوں کے دین کا بھی پتا ہے۔ اب انکی کم علمی اور جاہلانہ قسم کے اعتراضات کے نتیجے میں ہمیں موقع مل جاتا ہے کہ ہم انکے نقائص کھول کھول کر بیان کرتے ہیں اور اپنی عروض بھی لگی لپٹی رکھے بغیر پیش کر دیتے ہیں۔
اب آپ راحیل بھائی کو ہی بطور مثال لے لیں (اکثریت کا یہی حال ہے) کل مولا علی علیہ السلام کی نہج البلاغہ لینے گئے تھے اور آج ابن الجوزی کی تبلیس ابلیس اٹھا کر لے آئے۔ راحیل بھائی سادہ آدمی ہیں اسلیے مولویوں کی باتوں میں آ کر یہاں پھنس گئے۔ کسی مولوی نے جلسے میں جھوٹ موٹ کسی کتاب کو نہج البلاغہ بنا کر انکے سامنے اونچی آواز میں پڑھ کر سنا دیا کہ یہ شیعوں کی ہاں معتبر کتاب نہج البلاغہ ہے اس میں حضرت علی نے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں لکھی ہیں۔ راحیل بھائی نے کبھی نہج البلاغہ دیکھی تک نہیں پڑھنا تو درکنار۔ اکیلے راحیل بھائی ہی نہیں نوے پچانوے فیصد سنیوں کو انکی اپنی کتب سے بھی دور رکھا جاتا ہے شیعوں کی کتابیں تو یہ بیچارے کیا پڑھیں گے۔
اس معرکے میں وڑائچ صاحب مدد کو لپکے اور مرزا محمد علی کی ایک ویڈیو لگائی کہ ایک خطبہ ہے جس میں مولا علی کسی کا نام لیے بغیر جو تعریفیں کر رہے ہیں وہ بے نام اور کردار عمر ابن الخطاب ہے۔ کیوں کہ لفظ "فلاں" کا مطلب عمر ابن الخطاب ہوتا ہے، اسلے خطبے میں لفظ فلاں سے مراد عمر ابن الخطاب ہے، ماشا اللہ۔
اللہ جانے مرزا صاحب نے حضرت علی کے خطبے کی کوڈنگ اور ڈی کوڈنگ کہاں سے سیکھی لیکن ان کی حماقت سے زیادہ انکے جعلی اعتماد کی داد دینا پڑتی ہے کہ کس ڈھٹائی سے حضرت علی علیہ السلام پر تہمتیں لگا رہے ہیں اور سامنے بیٹھے کدو اسکا یقین کر رہے ہیں۔ ماشا اللہ
بھائی، غم روزگار میں مصروفیت کی وجہ سے یہاں بہت کم آنا ہوتا ہے۔ آجکل ملازمتیں بند ہونے کی وجہ سے گھروں میں قید ہیں اسلیے ذرا زیادہ وقت مل جاتا ہے۔ کوشش کرتا ہوں کہ کسی مسلک کی دلآزاری کیے بغیر مکتب تشیع کے بارے جو میری معلومات ہیں صاف اور واشگاف انداز میں الفاظ چبائے بغیر دوسرے مکاتب فکر کو آگاہ کروں۔
سنیوں کی بہت بڑی اکثریت کا مسئلہ یہ ہے کہ انہیں نہ اپنے مذہب کی کچھ سوجھ بوجھ ہے نہ مکتب تشیع کا کچھ پتہ سمجھ ہے لیکن اعتراض اور نکتہ چینی ہر بات پر کرنی ہے۔ ہمارا "مسئلہ" یہ ہے کہ ہمیں اپنے ساتھ ساتھ سنیوں کے دین کا بھی پتا ہے۔ اب انکی کم علمی اور جاہلانہ قسم کے اعتراضات کے نتیجے میں ہمیں موقع مل جاتا ہے کہ ہم انکے نقائص کھول کھول کر بیان کرتے ہیں اور اپنی عروض بھی لگی لپٹی رکھے بغیر پیش کر دیتے ہیں۔
اب آپ راحیل بھائی کو ہی بطور مثال لے لیں (اکثریت کا یہی حال ہے) کل مولا علی علیہ السلام کی نہج البلاغہ لینے گئے تھے اور آج ابن الجوزی کی تبلیس ابلیس اٹھا کر لے آئے۔ راحیل بھائی سادہ آدمی ہیں اسلیے مولویوں کی باتوں میں آ کر یہاں پھنس گئے۔ کسی مولوی نے جلسے میں جھوٹ موٹ کسی کتاب کو نہج البلاغہ بنا کر انکے سامنے اونچی آواز میں پڑھ کر سنا دیا کہ یہ شیعوں کی ہاں معتبر کتاب نہج البلاغہ ہے اس میں حضرت علی نے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں لکھی ہیں۔ راحیل بھائی نے کبھی نہج البلاغہ دیکھی تک نہیں پڑھنا تو درکنار۔ اکیلے راحیل بھائی ہی نہیں نوے پچانوے فیصد سنیوں کو انکی اپنی کتب سے بھی دور رکھا جاتا ہے شیعوں کی کتابیں تو یہ بیچارے کیا پڑھیں گے۔
اس معرکے میں وڑائچ صاحب مدد کو لپکے اور مرزا محمد علی کی ایک ویڈیو لگائی کہ ایک خطبہ ہے جس میں مولا علی کسی کا نام لیے بغیر جو تعریفیں کر رہے ہیں وہ بے نام اور کردار عمر ابن الخطاب ہے۔ کیوں کہ لفظ "فلاں" کا مطلب عمر ابن الخطاب ہوتا ہے، اسلے خطبے میں لفظ فلاں سے مراد عمر ابن الخطاب ہے، ماشا اللہ۔
اللہ جانے مرزا صاحب نے حضرت علی کے خطبے کی کوڈنگ اور ڈی کوڈنگ کہاں سے سیکھی لیکن ان کی حماقت سے زیادہ انکے جعلی اعتماد کی داد دینا پڑتی ہے کہ کس ڈھٹائی سے حضرت علی علیہ السلام پر تہمتیں لگا رہے ہیں اور سامنے بیٹھے کدو اسکا یقین کر رہے ہیں۔ ماشا اللہ
There is only 1
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
دعاؤں کے لئے شکریہ
. . . . . .
سچ ہے کہ سنی حضرات کی اکثریت کو مذھب کی بنیادی باتوں کا بھی نہیں پتا ہوتا . ان کے نام نہاد علما بھی صرف اپنے قیاس کو ہی حرف آخر سمجھتے ہیں
کاش کہ وڑائچ صاحب نے اس خطبے کے فٹ نوٹ پڑھے ہوتے یا کم از کم انجنیئر صاحب نے ہی
. . . .
راحیل بھائی نے اگر چند خطبات بھی پڑھ لئے ہوتے تو ان کو اندازہ ہو جاتا کہ باب العلم کا کیا مقام ہے . اور اس طرح ان کے شکوک و شبھات خود بخود ختم ہو جاتے
. . . . . . .
لیکن خیر ، کوئی مانے نہ مانے ، آپ کلمہ حق ادا کرتے رہیں الله آپ کا حامی و ناصر ہو . آمین
famamdani
Minister (2k+ posts)
you must explain you give the above example......not me..... ?
we are all by birth muslim but before our forfathers sure convert to Islam.................its mean they leave other faith and accept truth by core.............................other hand you write
Hazrat Aali Maqam RA ne farmaya jis ne Hazrat Siddique Akbar RA and Hazrat Umar RA ki baiyat ki us ne meri baiyat ki.
this bothe things are very diffrent and sure make no sense and diffrent meaning.....Sorry to say
Bhai jee. sorry mein type nahin kar sakhta.. left ungli mein stitches aye hain.. khat gaye thi.. bas aik baat keh sakhta hon kay agar ap meri post parhein tou taareef he mile gi.. Arab tareefein or tareeqay se karte hain.. CHounkay mein qatar mein paida howa hon or 2nd class tak arabi school mein parha hon tou is liye thori bohat arabi aati hai. or arabon ke mizaj ka bhi pata hai.. sirf itna kehna kay kay JIN ki TAREEF RASOOL ULLAH SAW NE KI HO.. UN KO kisi tareef KI ZARORAT NAHIN HAI. English wala comments mein jo copy paste kia hai who parhein... tareef hi nikale gi..
Ghulam-e-Qanbar
Councller (250+ posts)
اللہ آپکی انگلی کو شفا کاملہ و عاجلہ عطا فرمائے۔
میرا مقصد آپکو شرمندہ کرنا نہیں لیکن آپ کیوں کہ ادھر ادھر بھاگ رہے ہیں تو میں آپکو آپ ہی کے لکھے ہوئے پوسٹ کی سکرین شاٹ دکھا رہا ہوں کہ آپ نے ابتدا میں کیا کہا تھا، اس سکرین شاٹ میں آپکی کہی بات کو میں نے ریڈ کلر سے ہائی لائٹ کیا ہے
میرا مقصد آپکو شرمندہ کرنا نہیں لیکن آپ کیوں کہ ادھر ادھر بھاگ رہے ہیں تو میں آپکو آپ ہی کے لکھے ہوئے پوسٹ کی سکرین شاٹ دکھا رہا ہوں کہ آپ نے ابتدا میں کیا کہا تھا، اس سکرین شاٹ میں آپکی کہی بات کو میں نے ریڈ کلر سے ہائی لائٹ کیا ہے
نیچے دیکھیں اس پوسٹ نمبر سنتالیس میں آپ نے ایک دن کی مہلت مانگی کہ آپ مجھے نہج البلاغہ سے حضرت علی کی زبان سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں لا کر دکھائیں گے
Ghulam-e-Qanbar
Councller (250+ posts)
بھائی، آپکی انگلی کٹی ہے، اسے آرام دیں۔
بس آپ نےاس تھریڈ کے پہلے صفحہ کی آخری پوسٹ نمبر بیس میں جو دعوی کیا تھا کہ نہج البلاغہ میں حضرت علی نے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں کی ہیں وہ دکھائیں۔
آپ نے پوسٹ نمبر انتالیس میں ایک دن کی مہلت مانگی تھی آج تین دن ہو گئے آپ نہج البلاغہ سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں پیش نہیں کر سکے۔
آپکی انگلی کٹی ہوئی ہے لمبی لمبی پوسٹیں کرنے کی بجائے آپ مجھے مختصرا نہج البلاغہ سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کا چھوٹا سا صرف ایک تعریفی جملہ دکھا کر اپنے آپکو سچا ثابت کریں ورنہ ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی طرح آپکا دین بھی جعل سازی پر کھڑا ہے۔
اب مجھے تب قوٹ کرنا جب آپ اپنے وعدے کے مطابق نہج البلاغہ سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں پیش کر سکیں
بس آپ نےاس تھریڈ کے پہلے صفحہ کی آخری پوسٹ نمبر بیس میں جو دعوی کیا تھا کہ نہج البلاغہ میں حضرت علی نے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں کی ہیں وہ دکھائیں۔
آپ نے پوسٹ نمبر انتالیس میں ایک دن کی مہلت مانگی تھی آج تین دن ہو گئے آپ نہج البلاغہ سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں پیش نہیں کر سکے۔
آپکی انگلی کٹی ہوئی ہے لمبی لمبی پوسٹیں کرنے کی بجائے آپ مجھے مختصرا نہج البلاغہ سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کا چھوٹا سا صرف ایک تعریفی جملہ دکھا کر اپنے آپکو سچا ثابت کریں ورنہ ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی طرح آپکا دین بھی جعل سازی پر کھڑا ہے۔
اب مجھے تب قوٹ کرنا جب آپ اپنے وعدے کے مطابق نہج البلاغہ سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں پیش کر سکیں
Pakistani1947
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Rahail Sahib,
It does not make sense at all to prove anything from Nahj al-Balagha as according to Encyclopedia of Imam Ali, this book is not authentic. Following is paragraph from that Encyclopedia:
"According to Encyclopedia of Imam Ali, considering that Nahj al-Balagha is the selected of Ali's words and likewise the sources of this book have been famous/current, hence he has not felt the necessity of mentioning its sources.Until then the sermons had been transmitted orally, between the generations and the wording was therefore open to change and misinterpretation. There is no chain of narration. The last few pages were left empty, Sharif Razi says in case he came across new Sermons; highlighting that Sharif Razi wrote down anything he came across. Sharif Razi did not follow the same level of scrutiny as followed by Hadith collectors therefore Nahj al-Balagha was not regarded as Sahih (authentic or correct) to the level of the Hadiths collections."
source: Rashad, the encyclopedia of Imam Ali, Vol. 12, P. 22
Furthermore,
According to the Shiite scholars, The Science of Hadith in the Madhab of The Twelvers has never existed nor was it implemented before the 900s Hijri.
The Big Shia Scholar Al Ha’iri “الحائري” In His book Muktabas el Athar “مقتبس الأثر” part 3 page 73 says: “From the Information that No One doubts is that No one worked in The Science of Hadith from our scholars before the second Shaheed”
And the second Shaheed is Al Hassan Bin ZaynulDeen al Jab’ee al Amili (Died 965 hijri).
If you really want to debate with deviated people ask following two questions:
Question One: Where is the doctrine of Imamat in Quran?
Question Two: How does the current Imam lead Shia?
They come up irrelevant verses from Qur'an wherever they find the word "Imam" or "Ahle-Beit" to prove their false doctrine of Khilafat,e.g.:
وَإِذِ ابْتَلَىٰ إِبْرَاهِيمَ رَبُّهُ بِكَلِمَاتٍ فَأَتَمَّهُنَّ ۖ قَالَ إِنِّي جَاعِلُكَ لِلنَّاسِ إِمَامًا ۖ قَالَ وَمِن ذُرِّيَّتِي ۖ قَالَ لَا يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِينَ
"And when Abraham was tested by his Lord with certain commands and he fulfilled them. Then He said: Lo! I appoint you an Imam for mankind.”(Qur’an 2:124).
قَالَتْ يَا وَيْلَتَىٰ أَأَلِدُ وَأَنَا عَجُوزٌ وَهَـٰذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا ۖ إِنَّ هَـٰذَا لَشَيْءٌ عَجِيبٌ - قَالُوا أَتَعْجَبِينَ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ ۖ رَحْمَتُ اللَّهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ ۚ إِنَّهُ حَمِيدٌ مَّجِيدٌ
She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!" - They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, o ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!" (Qur'an 11:72-73)
إِنَّا نَحْنُ نُحْيِي الْمَوْتَىٰ وَنَكْتُبُ مَا قَدَّمُوا وَآثَارَهُمْ ۚ وَكُلَّ شَيْءٍ أَحْصَيْنَاهُ فِي إِمَامٍ مُّبِينٍ
Verily We shall give life to the dead, and We record that which they send before and that which they leave behind, and of all things have We taken account in a clear Book (of evidence). (Qur'an 36:12)
Then they would build a whole story around it or will twist the meaning into wherever required to suite their false believe. if you are interested than read full article below on this topic "How to debate with Shia". After reading this topic you will be able to save lot of your precious time from unnecessary lengthy debates with Shias.
Last edited:
Pakistani1947
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
HOW TO DEBATE WITH SHIAS
These days anyone who is interested in discussion on Islamic subjects will come across a lot of discussion boards where there are a long and often-pointless debates going on between Shia Muslims and Mainstream Muslims (I prefer to use the term “Main Stream” rather than Sunnis which gives an impression of sectarianism).
The features of these kinds of debates are as follow:
1. They seem to be endless
2. In some point one of the sides starts using offensive language and usually this is the reason for ending the debate
3. They are repeated material that are posted every now and then in many websites
Before explaining what is an appropriate way to discuss with Shia I need to make an important point and then refer to some facts.
The point:
It is a pity to see engaging in long and often fruitless debates over Internet wastes the valuable time of a Muslim youth. Long debates like this result in making the heart and soul dry and very materialistic. I think the time of a responsible Muslim should be devoted to his/her efforts to more effective things like education, prayer and reading Qur'an, Improving his/her purity for the God, increasing practically useful Islamic knowledge, making him/herself a good example of a Muslim, helping others and of course, enjoying life and family and friends without committing any sins.
Now some facts:
1. After the revolution in Iran, the Shia scholars became very powerful and they invested a lot to spread Shia’ism in Islamic countries. What they are doing in Africa, in Saudi Arabia during Hajj, in Western countries and over the net are only parts of these activities.
2. Every belief usually has a main stream followers and then sectarian followers. It is a simple fact that the sectarian followers always need to defend themselves against the main stream while the main stream feels less necessary to challenge the sects. This results in mainstreams having less idea about the belief of sects while sects have a rather good idea about the belief of the mainstream. This in terms results in the main stream being less prepared to discuss with the sects while sects are always prepared to discuss with the mainstream. For instance: Among Christians, Mormons have a strong discussion material when entering a debate with mainstream Christians while the Mainstream Christians have less idea about what are the Mormons all about. In the same way Shia is more prepared to discuss with mainstream Muslims. The same rule applies to Shia themselves. The Shia that are usually starting debate with mainstream Muslims are Imami (12er) Shia. However, among them there are minorities like Zaidi Shia or Ismaili Shia. These minorities usually are very much prepared to enter a debate with Imami Shia while an ordinary Imami Shia usually has no idea about the belief of these minorities.
3. The above fact results that some of the mainstream Muslims have wrong idea about the belief of Shia and their practices.
4. The three points above leads us to the fourth fact: One of the reasons you find that Shia people are very much engaged in discussion with mainstream Muslims, particularly over internet is that there are lots of material available for them that they usually find a relevant answer to any question and copy and paste it in reply. These materials are loaded systematically in many shia sites and online books like: Shia Encyclopedia - Tijani’s works – Peshawar Nights – website and the rest. They can simply print out a short article and nicely fold it like a catalog and leave it in a mosque. Comparing to this vast activities, mainstream Muslims do not have such an access to good material.
5. Shia is far better in debate in English websites. This is because while most of the Shia propaganda books are translated to English, unfortunately less good Arabic books of the mainstream Muslims that provide answers have been translated to English.
6. Unfortunately due to some prejudice from some of the Scholars, many of the mainstream Muslims now a days have opinions that put them in a fragile position when debating with Shia. These opinions are not backed by any strong evidences and many of them are newly emerged opinions rather than old opinions. Among them are:
a) The belief that what ever is in Sahihayn is authentic
b ) The belief that any one who has seen the Prophet even for a short while can be considered Sahabi and thus can be trusted.
c) The belief that anything that Sahabeh and others have done during and after the death of the Prophet pbunh are right or that all their behavior has to be justified (please note that I am not suggesting criticizing Sahabeh, I am just saying that we don’t need to feel responsibility to justify anything they have done. Our responsibility is to defend Islam, Qur'an and the holy Prophet pbuh not the Sahabeh who after all were fallible. If we do this, then we are automatically defending the Sahabeh (RA) as well.
d) The idea that there were absolutely no conflicts between the Sahabeh after the passing away of the Prophet pbuh and that they all loved each other.
e) The idea of giving the title of Kafir to anyone who is not among the mainstream Muslims.
Another point I need to make before saying how is an appropriate approach in discussing with Shia in my opinion:
I think a very big mistake that some of the Mainstream Muslims have, when discussing with Shia, is that they fall in their trap by being engaged with issues that are not really directly relevant to Shia doctrine.
All the issues below are among these directly irrelevant issues:
1. The story of Fadak
2. The story of Omar (ra) and Pen and Paper
3. The battles of Siffin, Jamal
4. The attitude of Mawiyah (RA) against Ali (ra)
5. Karbala and the martyrdom of Hussain (ra)
6. The story of Ghadire Khom (this is more relevant than others but still far away from the main issue)
7. The debates about Tahrif of Quran
8. The debates about Bukhari and Muslim and their collections
9. The stories regarding our mother Ayesha (ra)
10. The stories regarding Saqifah of Bani Saedeh
11. Combining the prayers, issues about Azan, ablution and so on
12. Things like visiting graves, calling a dead and so on
13. Etc.
The above and many other issues are important but not directly relevant to Shia doctrine. At least in theory, you may find a Muslim who is not a Shia but has an opinion about the above issues that is very similar to the opinion of Shia. Interestingly enough among some moderate Shia scholars too you might find some one who has opinions about the above issues which is very similar to the opinion of the main stream Muslims. One might be interested to have a search about the above issues but to me no matter what is your opinion about them, they have nothing to do with 12er Shia doctrine.
The above are the issues for which there are lots of material provided by Shia in Internet and Shia feels very easy and comfortable to find the relevant material and copy and paste it in a discussion. Actually, for them it is like repeating a same prescription. Most of the above issues at the end rely on Hadith and what happens is that Shia base the argument on certain Hadith and mainstream Muslims base their argument on another sort of Hadith and they will ended up with fighting to prove a Hadith is authentic and the other one is not. From there they usually get no where, because first of all, people generally do not have enough knowledge about verifying if a Hadith is authentic and even if they do so, they still cannot prove their points cause verifying if a Hadith is authentic is itself depending to the words of mouths of fallible scholars. While I agree that in many of the above cases, Shia people try to disfigure the story and very ruthlessly attack great Sahaba on the basis of their biased understanding of these stories, I still remain in my position that talking about the above leads the two sides to no where.
After this rather long introduction I would like to start the main issue that is:
So How to discuss with Shia!
Let us review the doctrine of 12er Shia first, this is the doctrine that makes 12er Shia a SECT different from the mainstream Muslims and different from other Shia sects:
“The doctrine of Imamat: Apart from Prophets, there are another group of God appointed persons called Imams. These are people who are infallible and have access to a knowledge that is not accessible by ordinary people. The world cannot be empty of an Imam otherwise it will be destroyed. In the Islamic context, these individuals are 12 people among the descendants of the Holy Prophet who are appointed by no one but God to lead Muslims. Any one who chooses any leader other than these 12 is misguided and not a complete believer. The twelfth (last) of the above Imams is Mahdi and is alive and in occultation (now) for more than 1000 years and will come out of his occultation when God wants”.
The above is the core belief of 12er Shia. They consider 5 articles of belief as fundamentals of their religion. These are: Tawhid (Oneness of God) – Nabuwwat (Prophet hood) – Ma’ad (Day of Judgement) – Adl (Justice of God) and IMAMAT (The above doctrine).
In another way to put it they some times refer to 5 pillars of Islam to be: Prayer, Zakat, Fasting, Hajj and Imamat. They further hold that the latter (Imamat) is the most important one.
The above shows the importance of Imamat in Shia doctrine. And when I say Imamat I don’t mean Leadership. Certainly leadership is an important issue not only for Muslims but also for any group of people. Imamat here means the above specific doctrine.
Now let me tell you:
When you want to help a Shia to realize how deviated he/she is from Islam or to help a fellow Muslim from the mainstream not to be deceived by Shia, there are TWO QUESTIONS that completely do the job for you:
Question One: Where is the doctrine of Imamat in Quran?
Question Two: How does the current Imam lead Shia?
I elaborate on each of these here:
Question One: Where is the doctrine of Imamat in Quran?
This is a very sound question. Qur'an is the book of guidance and we have been told by the Prophet pbuh that whenever we felt lost we can consult Qur'an and it will never betray us. The above doctrine is not a minor issue, it is very important. It’s importance is to the extend that Shia holds that because of not believing in this doctrine, 80% of Muslims are misguided and in fact not true believers. Well, which verses of Qur'an have given us this doctrine?
Ask Shia to ONLY give you the verses with NO additions to the translation and NO Hadith to support a certain interpretation of the verse and NO personal commentaries. Do this and you will see how helpless the arguments will be.
Now when you ask this from a Shia you receive different sorts of answers (and it is interesting that because the discussion is over the net, usually people cannot coordinate among themselves and you will receive responses from Shia that are in contradiction to each other and this in turns shows how baseless are the discussions).
Here are the most popular answers that you get:
1. There are also no verses in Quran to tell us how to pray. We learn some of our duties from Hadith not Quran.
2. There are certain verses but you need to look at Hadith to understand their true meaning cause we are advised to learn Quran from the Prophet and Hadith is his teachings.
3. Long and complicated analysis of certain verses of Quran to prove that even without the help of Hadith, they are proving Imamat.
4. There are no mention of the name of our Prophet pbuh in Bible but still Christians need to believe in the Prophet.
5. The verses of Quran are usually general and it is not the style of Quran to name people (i.e. Imams)
6. Qur'an says “follow the Prophet”. There are Hadith from the Prophet that prove the doctrine of Imamat and this should be enough for a Muslim if he wants to follow the Prophet.
7. There are not explicit verses because if there were, Qu'ran was in danger of fabrication.
8. Finally among the classic scholars of Shia at the old times there were some of them who hold that Qur'an is changed by Sahabah and that certain verses are removed from it.
9. Where in Qur'an it is said that Muslims should choose a khalifah by themselves?
10. Show us the names of the prophets between ... and ... in Quran if you think that every thing should be in Qur'an
11. It is a test that's why it is not mentioned in Qur'an
12. Arguments that use few verses of Qur'an out of the context.
13. Sunnies believe in Mahdi while he is not mentioned in Qur'an.
14. Imamat is not the fundamental belief of 12ers, the appointment of Ali is the fundamental of belief.
Now I’m sure most of you realize the weakness of all the above replies but let me write a brief for each of them. Using the same order of numbers:
1. There are also no verses in Quran to tell us how to pray. We learn some of our duties from Hadith not Quran:
Prayer has been referred to EXPLICITLY and STRONGLY NINTY EIGHT TIMES (98) in Quran. In each of these verses one of the aspects of prayer is covered. Many of these verses talk about the details of prayer, like how to come prepared for prayer (ablution), prayer in travel, etc. Certainly with such a vast and strong reference from Quran, Muslims will refer to the Prophet to know the details like how many prayers per day and how, etc.. In comparison, the total number of the verses that Shia refers to for Imamat is no more than 5 or 6 and yet non of them can be interpreted by a non-biased mind in the way that 12ers interpret it. In fact none of them are explicit and strong enough to prove Imamat doctrine. This is while Prayer is not at all comparable with Imamat. Imamat is the fundamental of belief. Shia calls it one of the Osoole Din (Fundamental of religion). Prayer however according to Shia is one of the Foroo’e Din (Subsidiary article of religion). Imamat is important enough to convince Shia to separate themselves from the mainstream Islam. If the only difference between Shia and the Mainstream Islam was the way they perform prayer they would never become a sect out of the mainstream Islam.
2. There are certain verses but you need to look at Hadith to understand their true meaning cause we are advised to learn Quran from the Prophet and Hadith is his teachings.
Why only when it comes to Imamat, we need Hadith to help us? We don’t need a Hadith to understand from Quran that reading prayer, performing Hajj, fasting, Jihad etc. are obligatory upon Muslims. We don’t need Hadith to understand from Quran that a Muslim needs to believe in Oneness of God and his Prophets and the Hereafter. We don’t need Hadith to understand from Quran that God has angels, there were Prophets in the history of mankind and some of them had books, and that the destiny of man is in the hands of God. All of the sudden when it comes to Imamat, Hadith becomes a vital tool to understand Quran. Quran how ever does not need a tool to be understandable. It is written in Quran that this book has been made easy to get guidance from. It is true that the Prophet explains certain verses of Quran but explaining is different from interpreting. Explaining means giving the details. Interpreting means giving the meaning. Quran needs no tool to be meaningful otherwise it wasn’t the book of guidance. Also there are many contradictory Hadith in explaining verses of Quran and at the end of the day it is impossible to verify exactly which ones are authentic. How could God expect people of our time to use Hadith to understand the MEANING of Quran? Is this the way that God says in Quran that Truth and False are separated and clear evidences have been shown? I don’t think so.
3. Long and complicated analysis of certain verses of Quran to prove that even without the help of Hadith, they are proving Imamat.
Same argument goes here. Quran is not a book of riddles and puzzles. God does not expect an ordinary Muslim to have a search in Quran and have a professional analysis of the verses of Quran to understand what should be his belief and what are his duties as a Muslim. Of course, it is very beneficial to analyse the verses of Quran to understand more from it. Quran is like an ocean. However to say that our fundamental belief can only derived from Quran after such an analysis is in contradiction with the use of Quran as a book of guidance. (For a detailed review of the verses that 12ers usually use and the discussion of the way they attempt to misinterpret these verses.
4. There are no mention of the name of our Prophet in Bible but still Christians need to believe in the Prophet
I know that this one is very funny. But because I have heard it, I am going to address it here: Firstly we believe that Bible in fact gave the information about our Prophet but these verses were removed (Quran tells us). However the most important thing is that Christians are not expected to accept the Prophet only based on their Bible. Christians along with other human being are given a brand new guidance that is Qur'an. It is Qur'an that challenges Christians not merely their own book. The last point is that the comparison is illogical. We are asking for proof of the Shia doctrine from our book of guidance, what does it have to do with the proof of our Prophet in the Bible?! There are many belief that Christians have but are not in their Bible, we however as Muslims have to disregard any belief that is not supported by Qur'an. On the other hand, another misunderstanding here is that we are not asking about the name of a particular Imam. We are asking about the CONCEPT of Imamat. The concept of prophet hood is well established in Bible (both old and new testaments). It is only after the establishment of this concept in the Christian holy book that they are expected to believe in ANOTHER prophet that is Mohammad (pbuh). The CONCEPT of Imam (in the way that 12er Shia put it) however has not even referred to (in a convincing way) in Bible, let alone being established. Therefore from this respect too, the comparison is illogical.
5. The verses of Qur'an are usually general and it is not the style of Quran to name people (i.e. Imams)
No body asked for names. Only some general verses that give us the above doctrine. Something as simple as: “Oh Muslims, be aware that there will be certain Imams for you after the Prophet from his generation who are appointed by Allah and you need to follow them”. It is as if (Allah Forbid) God was worried about talking about Imamat explicitly. Having said that, we have the name of Zaid (ra) in Quran who was a Sahabi and his name is there to refer to a very minor issue. It is not unfair to ask for a single verse with the name of Ali (RA) in it if (according to Shia) he had such an important role (Imam).
6. Quran says “follow the Prophet”. There are Hadith from the Prophet that prove the doctrine of Imamat and this should be enough for a Muslim if he wants to follow the Prophet.
Again, why is that only for this article of faith we need to consult Hadith? Let’s test something. Take Qur'an in your hand and open it by chance. I can guarantee that no matter where it is opened, few verses before or after are about one of the Oneness of God, Prophet hood, Day of Judgement, Destiny of Human Being, or Duties of Muslims. Now how far you need to go in order to find a verse that (with the help of certain Hadith) could be interpreted as Imamat in the 12er doctrine? How come for our other fundamental believes Quran is quite direct, even for our main duties as Muslims but when it comes to Imamat, we need to refer to Hadith? This is inconsistency and Allah is far greater than having inconsistency in his perfect book. Hadith is not the second volume of Qur'an. Authentic Hadith is explanation of Qur'an not a second Quran. This is why we are advised to disregard any Hadith that is not inline with the teachings of Qur'an. Quran itself advises people to read the book and think on it. If it was the case that we had to get certain parts of our FUNDAMENTAL belief from Hadith and not Qu'ran then for sure this would have been told to us quite clearly. Such an opinion however lowers down the position of Qur'an as our book of guidance. After all what kind of book of guidance is this that some parts of our fundamental belief (and in fact the most important parts, rejecting of which could leave us in hell, according to Shia) is not addressed enough by it? On the other hand, there are no clear, strong and explicit Hadith from the Prophet pbuh to prove the 12ers DOCTRIBE of IMAMAT. Yes there are few narrations in some secondary and unreliable sources but does really Allah expect us to look at every corner and all the collections of Hadith to see what is our religion? This is even more difficult when bare in mind that for every Hadith that Shia use to prove Imamat, there are other Hadith that are in contradiction with it. In fact even Hadith (as a whole) are not structured in a way that could prove Imamat. Such an opinion is in fact the main reason for having different sects in Islam. Zaidis too have their own Hadith, same for Ismailis and same for Bahayees. All have the same problem, they are trying to understand their religion from the sources other than Qur'an. Please note that I am not denying the importance of Hadith (I am not a Quranist). However believing that certain parts of our fundamental belief has to be derived from Hadith rather than Quran is far different from using Hadith as a source to Prophet’s Sunnat.
7. There are not explicit verses because if they were, Quran was in danger of fabrication
This is actually guessing Allah’s intentions and is very close to Kufr. From where one could come to this conclusion? Is there any verse in Qur'an that says Allah has not revealed certain things because if he does, you will change Qur'an? In fact, the verses of Qu'ran are supportive to the opinion that nothing has been left out for us from Qur'an and that Allah keeps Qur'an safe and that the Prophet pbuh should not be worried about delivering the verses. This is in fact attributing Taqqiyyah to Allah himself (Allah forbid).
------------------ continued below -------------
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.
اللہ آپکی انگلی کو شفا کاملہ و عاجلہ عطا فرمائے۔
میرا مقصد آپکو شرمندہ کرنا نہیں لیکن آپ کیوں کہ ادھر ادھر بھاگ رہے ہیں تو میں آپکو آپ ہی کے لکھے ہوئے پوسٹ کی سکرین شاٹ دکھا رہا ہوں کہ آپ نے ابتدا میں کیا کہا تھا، اس سکرین شاٹ میں آپکی کہی بات کو میں نے ریڈ کلر سے ہائی لائٹ کیا ہے
نیچے دیکھیں اس پوسٹ نمبر سنتالیس میں آپ نے ایک دن کی مہلت مانگی کہ آپ مجھے نہج البلاغہ سے حضرت علی کی زبان سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں لا کر دکھائیں گے
Mein tou aik lamhe kay liyeh nahin bhaga.. App ko mere diya gaye reference mein tareef nahin mili? zara sabr karen mein ap ko or Pakistani1947 ko zaroor jawab doun ga.
US SE PEHLE YEH SAMAJ LEIN KAY JIN KI TAREEF RASOOLULLAH SAW NE KI HO UN KAY LIYEH NEHAJ UL BILAGHA NAHIN... HADEETHEN PARTHE HAIN.. YA TOU PHIR AP MAULA A.S KO NAUOZOBILLAH ANBIYA SE BARHA SAMAJHTE HAIN.
Ghulam-e-Qanbar
Councller (250+ posts)
راحیل بھائی، آپ یک لمحے کیلئے نہیں بھاگے بلکہ چار دنوں سے بھاگ رہے ہیں۔
آپکو شرمندہ کرنے کیلئے نہیں بلکہ یاد دہانی کیلئے آئیں آپکو اسی تھریڈ کی سیر کرواتا ہوں۔
آپ نیچے دی گئی اپنی پوسٹ کا سرخ حصہ پڑھ کر بتائیں کہ کیا یہ آپ نے ہی لکھا ہے؟
آپکو شرمندہ کرنے کیلئے نہیں بلکہ یاد دہانی کیلئے آئیں آپکو اسی تھریڈ کی سیر کرواتا ہوں۔
آپ نیچے دی گئی اپنی پوسٹ کا سرخ حصہ پڑھ کر بتائیں کہ کیا یہ آپ نے ہی لکھا ہے؟
میں نے آپکے جواب میں لکھا:۔
آپ نے نہج البلاغہ سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں دکھانے کیلئے ایک دن کی مہلت مانگی، رائٹ؟
آپکی مہلت ختم ہوئے تین دن ہو گئے۔ ابھی تک اپنے وعدے کے مطابق آپ نہج البلاغہ سے ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں نہیں دکھا سکے۔ اسے ہی بھاگنا کہتے ہیں۔
راحیل بھائی، میں نے آپکی جان اتنی آسانی سے نہیں چھوڑنی ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔
اس سے پہلے میں نے آپکی پوسٹوں کے سکرین شاٹس لگائے اور اب بطور ثبوت آپکی پوسٹیں لگا لگا کر ساری دنیا کو دکھا رہا ہوں کہ سنی سر عام کتنا جھوٹ بولتے ہیں اور پکڑے جانے پر شرمندہ بھی نہیں ہوتے، افسوس۔
راحیل بھائی، میں نے آپکی جان اتنی آسانی سے نہیں چھوڑنی ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔
اس سے پہلے میں نے آپکی پوسٹوں کے سکرین شاٹس لگائے اور اب بطور ثبوت آپکی پوسٹیں لگا لگا کر ساری دنیا کو دکھا رہا ہوں کہ سنی سر عام کتنا جھوٹ بولتے ہیں اور پکڑے جانے پر شرمندہ بھی نہیں ہوتے، افسوس۔
Ghulam-e-Qanbar
Councller (250+ posts)
اگر آپ مجھے نہج البلاغہ میں حضرت علی کی زبانی ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں دکھا دیں تو میں ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کو سچا مان لوں گا ورنہ آپکی طرح یہ تینوں بھی جھوٹے ہیں۔
Ghulam-e-Qanbar
Councller (250+ posts)
تین دن گزر گئے ۔ ۔ ۔ دکھاؤ نہج البلاغہ میں کہاں ابوبکر، عمر، عثمان کی تعریفیں لکھی ہیں؟
