Answering The Zaydiyyah/Ismaili Sects

[SBM]

Br MF
Very conveniently you ignored about Hadith, you always produce Hadith but asked here some one not to produce Hadith
As for Br Anjami's Quran says Establish Prayers but does it say how, so if 5 people get together and they establish according to their understanding and other 5 decided to establish according to their understanding, does Quran specify which group is right, again in the light of Quran and NOT in the light of SUNNAH (since Prophet is the one who taught us how to perform Salah, Quran only told us to perform Salah)

[anajmi]

Let me try and explain this conundrum in a simple manner. Let us take these two things. Salaah and Imamat.

The concept of Salaah is clearly established in the Quran. Then we come to the question - how do we establish Salaah? And here we go to the prophet (saw) since otherwise, all of us will establish Salaah differently.
You won't find any muslim disagreeing with the fact that Salaah is in the Quran. Shia or Sunni or anything in between.

Let us now come to the concept of Imamat. Muslim First is asking you to clearly establish Imamat from the Quran. Then we will figure out how to establish it from the prophet (saw).
You will find many (a majority actually) who are still struggling to find the concept of Shia Imamat in the Quran (including anajmi and Muslim First). That is what Muslim First is asking for.

[anajmi]

Let us say for example that I create a new concept call Najmiyaat. According to this, all najmis will be true Imams. This has been clearly established in hadiths compiled by the clan of najmis who were students of the students of the students (14 times) of the students of the great Imam Jafar Sadiq. Hence Najmiyaat has been established in hadith.

Will you ask me if Najmiyaat is valid according to the Quran or not? And if you do ask me that, can I tell you that Quran doesn't tell you how to pray salaah does it? Hence it doesn't tell you about Najmiyaat either. You have to just take hadith.

Will you be willing to swallow that?

[SBM]

Br Anajmi
I am not here to discuss about Imamt or anything . In your last post you did mention about Hadiath. I got into this conversation because Br MF
in his quest to take on Br Mehdi said, show it from Quran and NOT from any Hadith and all I am saying Br MF can not have it both ways, he and you keep on following the Hadith but would forbid others to do the same (not you but Br MF whose comment got me into this thread) Just like many things are not in Quran but it is the Sunnah of the Prophet same way many believe in Shia that Quran may not have mention about their school of thoughts but it comes from the Sunnah and Ahle-Bayt and who am I to argue with them as long as there is no Kufr involved.

[anajmi]

Did you even read what I have posted? There is a very valid reason why Br. Muslim First is asking to show it from Quran and only from the Quran. Either you can show it or you cannot. Do not hide behind salaah as it is an invalid analogy. If you had read my post, you would've understood why.

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

Brother
Please prove your doctrine from Quran (simply by pasting the verse with no commentary and no hadith). and I ask you about the practicability of doctrine in the absent of an accessible Imaam.
( Something like this
O Prophet, after you there will be imams from the progeny of Ali, there will be 12 or 5or 7 or 49 Hazir imams)

I believe, these remain as two severe problems with Shia belief and no answer could be given for them unless new verses of Quran come down and their so called Imaam of Time come out of his occultation. As I don’t think that any of these would happen I had no problems in posting this here knowing that Shia brothers and sisters will also read it. There are no hidden plans. These are facts.

Please do not send me to Shiachat sites. I am tired reading them.
And
What is wrong with sincere
5 Salah on time, zakat, fast in Ramadan and Hujj if you can afford it?

Bismillah Ar-rahmaan Ar-raheem

I pray that Allah [swt] guides us to his path and that which he favours. I also pray that the brothers and sisters who may be reading, will benefit InshaAllah.


Brother, the first the thing which you need to understand is that your question itself is a flawed question. You asked the following:

Please prove your doctrine from Quran (simply by pasting the verse with no commentary and no hadith). and I ask you about the practicability of doctrine in the absent of an accessible Imaam. Something like this(O Prophet, after you there will be imams from the progeny of Ali, there will be 12 or 5or 7 or 49 Hazir imams)

Introduction

The Qur'an as we know today and the verses that it contains was revealed step by step with a context to address a particular issue either in the lives of the Prophet or the people around him.

We find that the Qur'an talks about the history of the prophets. it talks about the history of the aqwaam like the people of 'Aad and Thamud.

Those verses which were revealed in Makkah, i.e. the Early period of Islam were aimed at mainly doctrinal issues such as tawheed & nubuwwah, & the day of judgement, whereas the verses revealed in Madinah were there to address issues pertaining mainly to Fiqh [Jurisprudence], for example, the banning of alcohol was not until madinah [according to Qur'an] and prior to that there were recommendations against but there wasn't a strict fiqh ruling from the Prophet's [saww] mouth until they had gone to madinah including other laws such as those related to war, marriage, divorce etc.


The Qur'an says:

'Whatever the messenger gives you take it, whatever the messenger forbids you, stay away from it and keep your duty to Allah, indeed Allah is severe in penality' - [59:7]

So clearly here, there's a statement to take the words of RasoolAllah [saww], but like you mentioned you don't want to focus on the hadiths & tafsir, so Inshallah we will stick to the Qur'an. Please keep the above as a sidenote.

But now, how do we interpret the Qur'an? How do we get information from the Qur'an? There's a very famous saying (not hadith) which goes along the lines as saying, If God were to come down to us right now and speak to us in clear, straight, pure English, we would not understand it. In other words, that english would still require interpretation because language on its own is vague.

If you're going to take the Qur'an as gospel truth, then you might as well become a Qur'anist and as a Qur'anist you would have your own interpretation of the Qur'an. Look at the nation of Islam; they also reject the sunnah and they interpret the Qur'an in their way & also reject the concept of Qiyamah, so they clearly went through the verses on qiyamah, but they had other ways of interpreting it.

The Qur'an says:

'No one knows its interpretation except for Allah and those who are delved in knowledge [Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm]' - 3:7

So, whats the difference between an 'Aalim and Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm? An Aalim is someone who has knowledge. Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm is like a bucket in the ocean, there can be a bucket thats full of water and there can be a bucket that is surrounded by water.

There are two ways to read his verse; the first way is in which the 'Sunnis' read it which is: 'No one knows its interpretation except for Allah.' (Full stop).

Then the way we read it is as follows: ''No one knows its interpretation except for Allah and those who are delved in knowledge [Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm].'

So from this, if we're going take it on the first interpretation, i.e. ''No one knows its interpretation except for Allah.' Then, your interpretation becomes invalid and so is the Prophet's because only Allah knows the interpretation to the Qur'an and you can only say that we've been given a part of it, but the Qur'an is a message to humanity so if Allah is going to be giving us a book, then he should be telling us what it means, he's not going to give us a book that we don't know the meaning of.

Then on the second interpretation [i.e. the way we read], it adds 'Wa Raasikhoona fil Ilm' (And those who are delved in knowledge), which clearly makes more sense.

So who are 'Those delved in knowledge' (Raasikhona fil 'Ilm), its a plural, not just one person. You can't just say its RasoolAllah [saww] & thats it and that everyone else had an imperfect knowledge of the Qur'an.

'Umar Ibn Khattab; he thought that (If you read Bukhari and Muslim) certain surahs were double the size, which shows he didn't really have much of a knowledge of the Qur'an. If you read those sunni hadiths and you can ask your shuyookh; only a few of the companions of the Prophet actually memorised the Quran, like less than 10.

So what that's trying to say is that RasoolAllah [saww] who was trying to guide a community over 120,000 people or more and in that community there were polytheists, Jews, Christians, old people, young, illiterate. literate, women etc. So he was dealing with people of different levels of knowledge and so the Qur'an says that there were those who stayed with the prophet to learn about the religion. So you find that very few of the companions actually learnt the fiqh of the Prophet, the tafsir of the Qur'an and learn the hadiths of the Prophet [saww].

You find there's over 100,000 companions but most of the hadiths from the companions only come from a select few, namely 'Abu Hurairah, 'Aisha, 'Ibn Abbas, 'Ibn Umar, 'Anas Ibn Malik and few others. So you have very few; many of the companions were fighting, many of them died as martyrs during the life of the prophet, many understood bits & parts of the religion but not all of it.

But the Qur'an clearly says here that 'Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm' are those who are delved in knowledge and that they know the interpretation of the Qur'an.

Now the Ahlulbayt [as] according to our own hadiths, which come in mutawatir & sahih form (According to 'Ilm al rijal) make clear to me that they are the Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm. So are they lying? Are they telling the truth? Are we lying? Wallahu 'Aalam.

We have in the Qur'an as I referenced earlier: 'Anything that the Messenger gives you, take it, anything that he forbids you, abstain from it' , which means that ANYTHING that Muhammad [saww] gives you, you take it. A perfect example is that of Wine [Khamr]; but the Muskar [Alcohol, intoxicants, drugs, none wine intoxicants] are not forbidden in the Qur'an, they are forbidden in the sunnah.

The Prophet said: 'That my ummah will split into 73 sects' and the companions asked him, which ones, then the prophet said: 'Ali and his Shia' (According to Shia interpretation) or 'The Quran and the sunnah' (according to sunni interpretation).

Later on in the thaqalayn hadith which is mentioned in Sahih Muslim, 'I leave behind you two weighty things, the Quran and my progeny, the Ahlulbayt', so you can understand that in your own way.

So all this shows that the Prophet is a speaking authority besides the Qur'an, that the Qur'an is not left with us alone in the same way that the bible as an A-Z truth, for example, but that the Prophet speaks besides the Qur'an and we can go through the hadiths later as for now you want to focus on Qur'an only, but just as an example here, the Prophet said in the mutawatir hadiths in sunni sourcs: 'Follow my example and the example of the khulafa rashidoon after me' and of course you will say that they are none other than Abu Bakr, Umar etc.

But the only concept of Khulafa rashidoon in the hadiths are the 12 caliphs in Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim, which are mutawatir (According to sunni hadith science) as it goes through more than 30 chains upto Jabir bin Samura, who reports on the authority of the prophet that 'there will be 12 caliphs after the Prophet.' And sunnis give different interpretations of these 12, but they don't even deem it to be important to know who they are, but nonetheless, if the Prophet is going to say 'Follow my example and the example of the khulafa rashidoon after me' then you have to know what is the definition of a caliph because by a standard definition there's been more than 50, there hasn't been 12.

If your opinion is that the caliph is the ruler of the Muslim ummah, then there clearly hasn't been 12 caliphs, there's been more. So was Rasoolallah [saww] wrong? Or is the definition wrong? I'll leave that for you to decide

Surah 4:59 mentions:

'Obey Allah and obey the rasool and those who are vested in authority from amongst you ['Ulim Amri Minkum]', so if you read carefully, the verse is using the same 'obey' for the Prophet and the 'Ulil Amr. It doesn't say Obey Allah and obey the prophet and obey the Ulil Amr. It says 'Obey Allah and obey the messenger AND those vested in authority from amongst you.' (This seems to be the popular way of translating, looking at Pikthall).

So the same word 'Utee', i.e. 'Obey' is being used for Rasoolallah [saww] and for the Ahlulbayt [as] or the 'Ulil Amr. We'll leave it there.

And so that means that the obedience that we give to the Prophet, is the same obedience that we give to the Ahlulbayt [as]. The rest of the verse says 'And if there is a dispute amongst you, then return it to Allah his messenger', which means if you find doubt in the Imams, then go back to Allah & his Rasool to verify their statements, and so if our obedience to the 'Ulil Amr is going to be the same obedience as to the Prophet, then its not just for Allah to tell us to follow the obedience of the messenger & apply that to a ruler because a ruler is going to be wrong in some cases, he will be sinful etc.

But unfortunately, that was exactly the way it was understood amongst majority of the companions of the Prophet, during Banu 'Ummayah, Banu Abbas and you can read this in sahih muslim, kitab al imarah, same chapter of the hadith of the 12 caliphs, that 'the obedience of the caliph is obligatory.' Meaning, you have to follow the calipha, even if you don't like him or even if that person transgresses against you,

Now, this caliph being a fallible person doesn't really make sense does it? Because that would mean that the rule of Nimrod, the rule of Fir'awn was legitimate, Or the rule of Barrack Obama or the rule of Basshar Al Assad or the rule of Aale Saud, is legitimate, meaning that they have a legitimate rule and that no matter what they do, you have to follow them and that rising in revolution is not allowed.

One contemporary example that I know of was of the recent rule in Egypt by former president, Hosni mubarak, and that some people said it was haram to rise against him because these are considered protests and that the protests against the rulers are haram, i.e. Against Islam and that it's considered apostasy.

A similar fatwa was also released when people were protesting the rule of Aale Saud in Saudi Arabia, in the east of the country there were people who were protesting against unjust conditions and some sheikhs in saudi released a fatwa saying it was illegitimate in the Shari'ah and those who protest could be arrested or they could be killed etc.

So the question is, is this considered Just? Would Allah tell us to follow to the same obedience of the Prophet to follow an unjust leader? I don't think so personally, thats point 1,


2. If we're going to find interpretation to 'Ulil Amr, looking outside of the Sunnah, looking outside of the hadiths (As you stated), let us look at the Qur'an itself. The word 'Ulil Amr is mentioned the Qur'an again:

"And if any tidings, whether of safety or fear, come unto them, they leave it aside, whereas if they had referred it to the messenger and to such of them as are in authority ('Ulil Amr), those among them who are able to think out the matter would have known it." - 4:83

So let's look at the verse in context, the verses before and after it. The verse before says:

"Will they not then ponder on the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much incongruity." - 4:82

The next verse says: "And if any tidings, whether of safety or fear, come unto them, they leave it aside, whereas if they had referred it to the messenger and to such of them as are in authority ('Ulil Amr), those among them who are able to think out the matter would have known it. If it had not been for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy you would have followed Satan, save a few (of you)." - 4:83

So it's saying over here, that the 'Ulil Amr, are not just these rulers over the Muslim Ummah & lands, physical ruler or otherwise, then this verse is saying that the 'Ulil Amr or Wali al Amr have knowledge of the verses, read the verse again; you also have to think about who is the 'few'.

So clearly here, the verse here is giving a definition to the Ulil 'Amr; it's saying that it is those who know the Qur'an, so we go back to it; it says the Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm (Those who are delved in knowledge) are those who know the Qur'an, i.e. the ta'weel of it.

The verse says; 'Obey Allah and obey the messenger and those vested in authority authority from amongst you.' - 4:59, so we know now that this group of individuals, i.e. the 'Ulil Amr are those who know the Qur'an.

Now let me explain briefly our fundamentals of beliefs (Usool al deen, which is categorised by the scholars to make it easy for people to follow), but the ahadith from the Ahlulbayt [as] that we have also indicate the pillar of Wilayah/Imamah is an essential part of the religion.

The usool al deen can be split into two categories, Usool al Islam, is that which all the Muslims believe and the Usool al Madhab is that which you have to believe, accept and practice to be considered a shi'a of Ahlulbayt [as]. Both groups are considered Muslims. The Shia of Ahlulbayt [as] are a madhhab within the Muslims, i.e. a vanguard of the Imams; those who follow the Quran and Ahlulbayt [as]. the two thaqalayn of RasoolAllah [saww] that he left behind and if you question what are the thaqalayn? Which is what are the most mutawatir hadiths that the Prophet [saww] ever said, he said that at the end of his message in hajjatul wida on mount 'Arafah, he said that I am leaving behind for you two weighty things, The Qur'an and Ahlulbayt [as]; there are several versions of this hadtih and I'm conscious of the arguments with regards to the Sahih muslim version & Sunan Tirmidhi version.

But let's take for example, the sahih Muslim version which does not have the statement 'hold fast onto the thaqalayn' instead it has the statements, 'I warn you with regards to the Ahlulbayt, I warn you with regards to the Ahlulbayt, I warn you with regards to the Ahlulbayt (Three times)', which also Ibn Kathir references in his tafsir.

The Prophet [saww] is technically leaving many things behind; If he told us to take care of the Ahlulbayt, like lets just say we interpret that hadith to just mean we follow the Quran and we just take care of the ahlulbayt, make sure nothing happens to them etc. Let's imagine that's the interpretation. The prophet [saww] is clearly talking from a religious context, this is his final Hajj, his death is near, he's on mount arafah with all the companions that came with him to Hajj and he's telling them what he's leaving behind.

Now technically he's leaving behind his swords, his wives, his companions, his house, his masjid and all kinds of things. But he doesn't say I'm leaving behind 10 things. He says: I'm leaving behind TWO weighty things, the Qur'an and Ahlulbayt. The things that these two have in common as opposed to the other things which mentioned, is that these are both from a religious context; that's if you take the Sahih Muslim version.

The other hadith in Tirmidhi and the other versions in our books (Again I agree there might be a slight difference of the wording of it), but the point is is that these are all sahih, The authors of Sahih muslim and Sunan tirmidhi considered them to be authentic.

The Tirmidhi version says 'Whoever holds onto them will never go astray' and it also says 'that the two will not separate until they reach the pond' meaning of the hawd of kawther.' So how do we understand this? Do we just say that we follow the Quran and just take care of the Ahlulbayt? Or do the Ahlulbayt play a role with the Qur'an? It's not saying that the Ahlulbayt are just 5 people, Muhammad [saww], Ali [as], Fatimah [as], Hassan [as] and Hussain [as]; it's saying 'they won't separate from the Quan' and that these were just people who came in history, died and khalas.

They are the the Khalifatayn of the Prophet. You cannot have one without the other, the Ahlulbayt without the Quran is incomplete because many of the hadiths reference the Quran and that the Qur'an without the Ahlulbayt is incomplete because otherwise you run into all kinds of inconsistencies.

Most the ahadith that the shia use from sunni sources in regards to the verses such as 5:55, 33:33 and those ayahs which clearly reference Ahlulbayt [as] are sahih & mutawatir. Alsom If we're going to find that there are dhu'afa (Weakening) in the chains and that the dhu'afa are only claim to be dha'eef (weak) because they are sh'ia, I mean this is a circular argument because the problem with sunni rijaal is that anyone who is considered a raafidi is weak automatically, period. Meaning, you won't find a single raafidhi who is considered thiqa (trustworthy).

Now, you'll find people who are considered shi'i that are thiqah (trustworthy) and you find them in Bukhari and Muslim as they narrate some hadiths from these shi'a. The definition of shi'a is different for the sunnis than ours.
The sunnis say it is just someone who prefers 'Ali [as] and that's it, meaning that it doesn't have to be someone who believes in a certain number of Imams and that they are the true successors etc. So by this definition, some sunnis would have been considered 'Shia', some of the zaydis also would be considered from this group too, i.e. Whoever has this theological or political preference is in that category. So it's very easy to consider some shia's to be thiqah because they're just like sunnis, but the raafidah in that rijaal are all considered weak. If you go to the sunni rijaal books, you'll find that there were 100s were considered raafidhi, so in turn throwing hadith away just because a person is a raafidi,

So my question to you, is that is this considered an honest form of rijaal? Because how do you get to the truth? So anyone who narrates the hadith, is dha'eef. If I'm narrating the hadith saying Ali is doing rukoo' and he's giving zakah & that surah 5:55 was revealed about him; If I'm narrating that hadith, it's likely that It'll be considered a raafidhi. So I mean for me to be considered dha'eef, its a circular argument because anyone who is narrating hadiths on the topic of Imamah is dha'eef [weak], so that means we've already categorised the 100s or 1000s of hadiths on Imamah that are used as proof..all of them are considered dha'eef because the system says so.

We can either take that approach or we can take a more realistic approach like saying that there's so many thousands of hadiths on this topic which goes back to the Prophet and goes back to the twelve Imams. That it's impossible that the Prophet and the Imams didn't claim this concept or at the very least, that the Imams claimed this concept and that the prophet saying that the Shi'a misunderstood it. But if you're going to say that then you might as well throw ahlulbayt at the dustbin, meaning there's a lot of lip-service going on by some so-called sunni scholars saying that 'As-Sadiq' is one of our scholars and 'Al-Baqir' is one of our scholars and that Ali, Hassan and Hussain are great, or if it's clear that all their students considered them to be Imams, or the vast majority of the students, i.e. 1000s of students narrated hadith on Imamah and we're just going to reject all of that!?

I mean, you might as well reject the Ahlulbayt too because like for example, Imam As-Sadiq [as] had a school and he had 1000s of students and from these 1000s of students (I can ask a brother who can give a list of all the students in arabic) and the vast majority of these students are Shi'ah and many of those who are considered 'Amma are people that would be disowned by the 'Amma today because they believed in this or that.

My point from all this though is that if all these students follow a certain madhhab, then it's very likely that the Imam who is teaching these students believes in that madhhab and we have no other reason to disbelieve that because the sunnis did not collect As-Sadiq's teachings, meaning the sunnis weakened all of As-Sadiq's students and that they did not establish their own dependent maddhab of Ahlulbayt. Like you have people such as Sufyan ath-thawri, who was a sunni historian who studied under As-sadiq [as]. but how 'sunni' he is a question. He was from Kufa and his madhhab did die.

But anyway, the question here is, why are these people systematically ignored? If As-sadiq [as] was teaching in the Prophet's masjid for many years, very openly, then why wasn't there an effort to collect his teachings of the maddhab? My answer to this would be because his teachings were not inline with what Sunnis wanted, so for example, Malik Ibn Anas in his muwatta quotes from As-Sadiq [as] but only 13 times and it's on the chapters of Hajj & a couple other places.

So I mean, Malik who was someone in the same city as Imam Sadiq [as], i.e. Madinah and he was a student of As-Sadiq [as],but he only narrates these few hadiths & these few are problematic according to sunni scholars by the way. And on the other people who narrate from As-Sadiq [as]. for example if you go to Abdul Razzaq's musannaf, he quotes from As-Sadiq [as] for the bit from the tareeqah from Sufyan Ath-thawri. Sufyan is considered trustworthy according to shia standards and also for sunnis. Even the hadiths in the musannaf are again conidered problematic because most of them are in line with shia beliefs, meaning that As-sadiq [as] on the few issues that sunnis quote him on; these are things that sunnis don't like. For example, praying maghrib when the darkness hits & this is clearly narrated in sunni riwayat up to the Baqirayn [as]. Now, the majority of sunnis don't pray that way anymore, so the question is why would you go to As-Sadiq and Al-Baqir [as To be quoting these issues?

Another issue is, seafood, so As-sadiq [as] in the musannaf of Abdul Razzaq; he says that the fish without scales is markooh and so the person narrating says, why is it makrooh? Is it halal is it haram? What is it? So As-sadiq [as] says. the halal and haram are in the book of Allah and the book of Allah says all seafood is halal, however, there are some things that we have hated, who is we? We is Allah, the prophet and Ahlulbayt.

The belief in Imamah is even integral to all sunnis because most sunnis (if not all) believe in the Mahdi and many salafi believe in the Mahdi. Now the Mahdi is a man who is supposed to come at the end times. He's not a prophet, he's not a messenger, but he's a leader of the Muslims and he has a pure rightful Islam with him, he'll be the leader of the Ummah, there's even some sunni hadiths that say Jibra'eel will announce his coming and there's even the riwayah (Bukhari or Muslim I can't remember) which says that when Isa [as] descends, that the Imam will say 'lead us in prayer' and then Isa will say 'no, Allah has created Aimmah (leaders) for this community, the Muslims' and Isa [as] will refuse to lead the prayer and pray behind the Mahdi. What is that? That's an Imam! Does it mean that Isa is negated? No, Isa [as] returning is like president Bush (who served his term for 8 years as US president and now hes on his ranks somewhere) and then if he comes back to meet Obama, president Bush is still president but he's not the president that's active. i.e. he's not the speaking 'imam' in this context. Of course, Bush still has his status as a former president & figure in history, but his president is obama, whether one is greater than the other is another discussion.

So the same thing here, Isa [as] comes back and he is the Messiah, rasool and nabi & he's praying behind someone who is neither of these so I mean he's praying behind the Mahdi [as] because he recognises his leadership. Isa [as] comes back as a muslim and the leader of the Muslims is the Imam or of the Muslims.

The Qur'an says:

'This day I have perfected your religion and have completed my favour unto you and have chosen for you a religion, Al-Islam' - Surah 5:3

So the first words are 'Al yawma akmaltu lakum deenukum'. 'Akmaltu' means completion or perfection. The example that comes to mind is the moon, the moon could half or full and once it's full it can't be more full than that, i.e. It's complete. But it says 'Wa atmamtu alaikum ne'amatee'. 'Akmaltu' means its completed but it's something that can be added onto later on. So it's saying that the deen of Allah is complete, the laws are complete, the shari'ah is complete, the Qur' an is complete and nothing will be added onto it.

'Wa atmamtu alaikum nea'matee' means that Allah has given you a nea'mah (blessing) but he can give you another nea'ma afterwards because that's just the word he's using. In other words, Imamah is nea'mah from Allah (swt) and the Mahdi is a nea'mah is a blessing from Allah (Swt).

The sunnis and the shias both believe that the Mahdi is going to come; there's some who have rejected the Mahdi like Muhammad Iqbal of Pakistan but he also didn't believe in Isa's [as] second coming or many of the eschatological events so I mean, whether you want to take the opinion of Muhammad Iqbal or not is another question.

The Qur'an also says:

'Those who disbelieve say if only some ayah were sent down upon him from his lord? You are only a warner and for every community is a guide.' - 13:7

Now there's two way to read this verse, the sunni way of reading it is 'You are a warner and a guide to every community' then our interpretation is 'you are a warner and for every community is a guide'. Which interpretation is correct?

If you take the first interpretation, it doesn't correlate to ahadiths because the Prophet [saww] says in Sahih bukhari that 'I am not a witness for the people who come after me' and so when companions of the prophet are brought to the prophet, some of them will be taken away to hell. The Prophet will say, 'My companions'? And Allah will say 'You did not witness what they created after you.' Meaning that rasoolallah [saww] is not a witness for those who come after him. In addition, we find the following:

Ibn Jareer narrates from Iqramah, “When this verse descended, Rasul Allah places his hand on his chest and said, I am the Warner, and then placed his hand on the shoulder of Ali and said, Ya Ali! You are the guide, and after me those seeking guidance will attain it through you.”
Ibn Murdayyah narrates from Abi Barzah (r), says, I have heard Rasul (saww) saying, that when this verse was descended, (I am a warner) while first placing his hand on his chest, and then on Ali’s chest (for every people there is a guide).
Ibn Abbas narrates, Rasul (saww) said, I am the warner and Ali is the guide.
Abdulah bin Ahmad in Zawaid un-Musnad, Ibn Abi Hathim in Tabrani fil-Ausat and Hakim in his Sahih, Ibn Marduyyah and Ibn Asakir narrates from Ali (as) saying: “Rasul (saww) read the verse then I said Rasul is the warner and I am the guide.”
Tafseer Dur al-Manthur vol 4, p 87

And 'Isa [as] says in the Qur'an: 'I was only a witness of them while I was among them.' When Allah raised Isa [as] (of course he's still alive) but he's no longer a witness that Allah has sent to look after the people on the earth and to warn them.

The message of the prophet [saww] is complete and the mission of the prophet [saww] is complete, meaning that there's witnesses that come after the Prophet. That's why we find the verse in the Qur'an which also says:

'And we will raise every people by their Imam' - Surah Isra: 17

Because every nation, every community (Qawm) as a haad (guide) and every haad is an Imam and every qawm is raised with their Imam. Of course some will say that the 'Imam' is the book , again we disagree with that interpretation based on our interpretation of the verses through our hadiths.

Like I said, if you're going to have a 'Quran only' discussion then we won't get anywhere because it is obvious from the wordings of your question that you want something which suits you rather than what the truth actually. So no matter what we say, you will most probably not accept because you want things according to your personal viewpoint. In reality, you have to use the ahadiths because the prophet didn't just leave the Qur'an behind, rather the Quran and sunnah, more specifically The Qur'an and Ahlulbayt, but nonetheless, if the verse were about the books then it would not say 'Bi Imaamihim'
but it would say 'Wa Bi Aimmatihim' because there would be multiple books unless we all have the same record on the day of judgement, but the Mu'min and the kaafir have a different record on the day of judgement so they have to be tried by two different books.

And so this verse cannot be referring to books, but rather the Imam.

Anyway, the last hadith I want to end off with which is in Sahih Muslim which says that 'This Amr will not dissappear in the earth even if there's only two people left on it' so saying that the khilafah will not leave the earth even if there are 2 people left on it. So even if there are only 2 muslims left of the Ummah of Muhammad [saww], one of them would be calipha and one of them would be the follower. Now the question is who is the calipha today? And I mean many of the sunni mufassireen and 'Ulama didn't deal with this hadith because there was always a caliph back in the day. Like after the Prophet left this world, according to them, it was Abu bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Hassan, Muawiyah, Yazid, Muawiyah thani, Marwan al hakam etc. All the way up to the ottomon empire. And then the Ottoman empire has only been gone for less than 100 years, so they didn't deal with this issue because it was nuisance as usual, there was always a caliph, period. Sometimes there was more than one.

But now we have a unique issue in the history of the Ummah and the issue is that, you don't have a caliph. Now you can either say that Rasoolallah [saww] was wrong (astaghfirullah) or you can revisit your interpretation of Khilafah because your interpretation says that there's more than 50 khulafah, when the prophet said there will only be 12.

My point here is that if there is a calipha today then the prophet wouldn't have worded the hadith like this, he would have said something in another way as right now there's more than 2 people on the earth. There's more than 7 billion or so and one of them has to be the caliph and so we have a calipha. He is the Imam, he is currently in ghaybah (occultation) and the hadiths on this are mutawatir & sahih according to ilme rijaal principle. There's 100s of them that are sahih.

Nonetheless, we have a caliph and we know who he is. he is the twelfth Imam from Quraish & sub clan of bani hashim. The ahlesunnah don't have one & I think that's problematic.

I came across one verse in particular:

Verily, Allāh chose Ādam, Nūḥ, the family of Ibrāhīm and the family of Imrān above the worlds ... Allāh provides sustenance to whom He wills, without limit.}

Ibn ‘Abbās said according to Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal: “{and the family of Imrān} They are the believers from the family of Ibrāhīm, the family of ‘Imrān, the family of Yāsīn AND THE FAMILY OF MUḤAMMAD, peace be upon him. He (Allāh) says: {Verily, the most entitled to Ibrāhīm are those who followed him} They are the believers”

Aale Muhammad is an extension of Aale Ibrahim because Ibrahim [as] had two sons, Ishaq and Ismail. And Muhammad [saww] descended from ismail [as]. The family of Ibrahim [as] likewise include the prophet [saww] and ahlulbayt [as]. But even if there was confusion with regards to it, we have hadiths which testify from 'Ibn Abbas & from our Imams that there is ta'weel (esoteric interpretation), that the ta'weel is when the prophet [saww] would describe a verse, like he would recite the verse and he would describe it and add onto it in order to interpret it. In the ta'weel of the respective verse, it adds 'Wa Aale Muhammad' so you have to see that why is Aale Muhammad referred to here? Why does the Qur'an say 'salaamun alaa aale ya-sin' in the warsh Quran? Who is Aale Ya-sin? Why is it separated into two words in the script? Alif, laam (space) seen.

Brothers, you have to consider that the Qur'an in many places will be blessing Ahlulbayt [as] like in 33:33, i.e. the verse of tatheer, the verse of Aale Yasin, we have a direct order to follow the Ulil Amr and I explained Ulil Amr through surah nisa, verse 83, also the words of Muhammad [saww] - there's many hadiths on the topic of Khilafah/Imamah, on following Ahlulbayt, there is the hadith of thaqalayn which speaks for itself, there's the hadith of surah 13:7, there's the hadith of 'Qoola ma'as saadiqeen' so i mean the proofs are in plentitude of them and you'd be in denial if you say just Qur'an only.

According to Ash-Shaafi, he said that there were more than 300 verses that spoke about ahlulbayt (direct or indirect), so another interesting point.

I agree that Imamah was not there as a specific concept right from the beginning of the entire message and that's why its not considered usool al Islam because tawheed was there from the beginning, before any of the prophets and creation. So it has to be incremental to the message. Qiyamah was there before there was Muhammad [saww] so it has to be incremental on the book & message.

Imamah was the last Fard or wujoob that was added to the Qur'an & hadiths, meaning that Rasoolallah [saww] didn't obligate people to follow Imam Ali [as] in that way until he was appointed at ghadeer. So like, I agree its not incremental to the message but it is incremental to the end of the message because that was the last thing that rasoolallah [saww] said to all of his companions and there was not a Jama'ah like that afterwards. So very clearly, it was extremely important.

And what's the function of the Imams? The function of the imams is that we understand the message through the Imams, so we know how to pray...and I agree that salah is one of the arkaanul Islam, but how do you pray? The Qur'an doesn't say how do you pray, it just says 'pray', how much zakah do you give? It was rasoolallah [saww] that said you give 1 dirham for every 40 dirhams, which is 2.5%.

So my point here is that the were orders in the Qur'an that were not clarified except by through the messenger of Allah [saww]. The zakah was not clarified except by through him, salah was not clarified except through him, hajj was not clarified except by him and likewise Imamah/khilafah was not clarified except through the messenger [saww], even the concept of tawheed had to be cleared because now you have wahhabis who believe that Allah has physical attributes! The Imams also clarified these things. And rasoolallah [saww] clarified everything and said exactly what Allah had given him and then that continued through the next few imams who would later become the usool al madhhab, meaning they would interpret all the concepts, be it docrinal or fiqhi.

For now, thats all I have to say, there's many verses I can point you towards; some of them are not as clear as you might want them to be but I think what I've written is sufficient.

Allah humma salli 'alaa Muhammad wa aalehi at-tahireen.

May Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad & his purified progeny.

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

Yes, he claimed his declaration openly in public whilst Imam Al-Kadhim [as]'s wasn't. If you read above, the incident is mentioned of how the supposed 'Imamate' of Al-Aftah was disproven; 1. By dying childless, 2. Getting the questions regarding zakah wrong, 3. I have come across another incident in which Imam Al kadhim [as] invited him and asked him to jump in the fire because if he truly was an Imam then no harm would have befell him, yet he did not jump.

It seems that immediately after demise of Jaffer Sadiq, majority of his followers did not know Abdullah Aftah nor Musa Kadhim had nass till they started claiming to have nass.
Abdullah Aftah claimed nass publicly and Musa Kadhim claimed nass privately.

But on other hand, followers of the "already dead" Ismail, did know Ismail had the nass from his father without Ismail being there physically to claim it.

Does that not prove that Jaffer Sadiq did give nass to Ismail ?

Some close companions of As-Sadiq [as] did know the nass of Al-Kadhim [as] but not in full public and soon after Al-Aftah's 'imamah' was disproven, people knew Al-Kadhim [as] was the true succesor.

The thing is ,people before any sort of announcement thought Ismail would be the successor and so they were dearly attached to him in addition to other ploys they might have had, so they were emotionally attached in that sense.

We have no explicit evidence that As-Sadiq [as] gave the nass to Ismai'l, maybe one or two hadiths might allude to it but these have zero chain of narrators and cannot be found any main sources. I can easily make up a hadith for example about something, but it can easily be disproven by comparing it to the Qur'an and other established narrations with regards to an issue.

The nass of Al-Kadhim [as] has atleast 15-20 clear ahadith along with its chain of narrators.

[Muslim First]

Br Khadim
AS
I asked you post Aya or to which says something like this


O believers, after the Prophet, there will be twelve Imams chosen by Allah and you should follow them.”

What I get long copy paste article without giving author credit.

One of most important thing after prophethood and not even mention of it.

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

Br Khadim
AS
I asked you post Aya or to which says something like this


O believers, after the Prophet, there will be twelve Imams chosen by Allah and you should follow them.”

What I get long copy paste article without giving author credit.

One of most important thing after prophethood and not even mention of it.

Wa 'alaikum salaam.

That took me more than 2 hours to write. If you're not going to be sincere akhi in seeking the truth then that is fine by me. But I know it's only a waste of my time and yours to continue this discussion any further on here.

Only if, and I repeat only if you are sincere enough then I am more then willing to talk via a Skype conversation & 1 or 2 other brothers may Also be able to help if you have any questions, this goes for anyone on here who would like to know more. You may PM me inshallah.

[Muslim First]

So my point here is that the were orders in the Qur'an that were not clarified except by through the messenger of Allah [saww]. The zakah was not clarified except by through him,
Zakah is mentioned in Qura in many places
salah was not clarified except through him,
Salah is mentioned more then 90 times
hajj was not clarified except by him
it is mentioned in Quran
and likewise Imamah/khilafah
where? Don't fool us. We do not buy it
was not clarified except through the messenger [saww],
did he say Ali would be leader in clear language ? Did he say there will be 12 imams? Did he say 12th will live thousands of years? And guide black turban Mullas thru osmosis or Ilaham? It has been thousand plus years an you cannot even agree which lineage is correct one. So Far more than 100 splits. Jus think about it!!!!

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

So my point here is that the were orders in the Qur'an that were not clarified except by through the messenger of Allah [saww]. The zakah was not clarified except by through him,
Zakah is mentioned in Qura in many places
salah was not clarified except through him,
Salah is mentioned more then 90 times
hajj was not clarified except by him
it is mentioned in Quran
and likewise Imamah/khilafah
where? Don't fool us. We do not buy it
was not clarified except through the messenger [saww],
did he say Ali would be leader in clear language ? Did he say there will be 12 imams? Did he say 12th will live thousands of years? And guide black turban Mullas thru osmosis or Ilaham? It has been thousand plus years an you cannot even agree which lineage is correct one. So Far more than 100 splits. Jus think about it!!!!

You've clearly not read my post properly..Just skipped and went to the last bit. Alhamdulillah-hil-ladhee hadana li hadhaa wa ma kunna linah tadiya lawla 'an hadaanAllah.

[alwan]

The nass of Al-Kadhim [as] has atleast 15-20 clear ahadith along with its chain of narrators.

Thank you for your replies.
Something is missing somewhere.

By looking at their actions, the majority were not aware of such 15-20 clear sayings including the saying of Prophet naming 12 caliphs.

By the actions of the majority, we see

1. Majority thought Ismail was supposed to be Imam but he died before Jaffer Sadiq and were waiting for Jaffer Sadiq to declare "another" nass but it did not come.

2. After the demise of Jaffer Sadiq,
(a) Ismail was not present to take over the Imamate,
(b) Abdullah Aftah claimed to have nass and therefore majority followed him and
(c) at the same time Musa Kadhim indicated privately that he had the nass.
( I am not taking account other small groups who believed Ismail was Qaim, Mohd bin Ismail was the Imam etc )

3. Shortly, Abdullah Aftah died childless, bulk of his followers took Musa Kadhim as Imam because according to the shia doctrine, Imam must be present.

It seems Musa Kadhim was acknowledge as Imam by majority not because he had nass but because he was most "likely" to be the Imam at that time.

[anajmi]

'No one knows its interpretation except for Allah and those who are delved in knowledge [Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm]' - 3:7

So, whats the difference between an 'Aalim and Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm? An Aalim is someone who has knowledge. Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm is like a bucket in the ocean, there can be a bucket thats full of water and there can be a bucket that is surrounded by water.

There are two ways to read his verse; the first way is in which the 'Sunnis' read it which is: 'No one knows its interpretation except for Allah.' (Full stop).

br. khadhim,

We should not play games with the words of Allah. You have chosen to do exactly what you are blaming the sunnis of doing. You chose to post only a small portion of 3:7 and yet you designate it as the complete ayah 3:7. Can I ask you to post the entire ayah and then give us the explanation of the entire ayah instead of just a portion of it? Thank you in advance.

And I apologize, it will take me a few days to analyze your entire post, so expect many posts from me regarding everything that you have posted.

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

'No one knows its interpretation except for Allah and those who are delved in knowledge [Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm]' - 3:7

So, whats the difference between an 'Aalim and Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm? An Aalim is someone who has knowledge. Raasikhoona fil 'Ilm is like a bucket in the ocean, there can be a bucket thats full of water and there can be a bucket that is surrounded by water.

There are two ways to read his verse; the first way is in which the 'Sunnis' read it which is: 'No one knows its interpretation except for Allah.' (Full stop).

br. khadhim,

We should not play games with the words of Allah. You have chosen to do exactly what you are blaming the sunnis of doing. You chose to post only a small portion of 3:7 and yet you designate it as the complete ayah 3:7. Can I ask you to post the entire ayah and then give us the explanation of the entire ayah instead of just a portion of it? Thank you in advance.

And I apologize, it will take me a few days to analyze your entire post, so expect many posts from me regarding everything that you have posted.

Salam, I only posted that section because that was the bit that was relevant in this discussion. Like for example, evenwwhen the prophet and Imams would explain a certain verse, they didn't necessarily quote the full verse. A famous example would be that of the verse of tatheer; the ahadith which quote the prophet saying the bit, 'innama yureedullah etc....' and then specifying who this refers to. But I'm on my mobile at the moment, so I'll post when on laptop.

Khair, do take your time inshallah, look forward to seeing what you have to say.

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

The nass of Al-Kadhim [as] has atleast 15-20 clear ahadith along with its chain of narrators.

Thank you for your replies.
Something is missing somewhere.

By looking at their actions, the majority were not aware of such 15-20 clear sayings including the saying of Prophet naming 12 caliphs.

By the actions of the majority, we see

1. Majority thought Ismail was supposed to be Imam but he died before Jaffer Sadiq and were waiting for Jaffer Sadiq to declare "another" nass but it did not come.

2. After the demise of Jaffer Sadiq,
(a) Ismail was not present to take over the Imamate,
(b) Abdullah Aftah claimed to have nass and therefore majority followed him and
(c) at the same time Musa Kadhim indicated privately that he had the nass.
( I am not taking account other small groups who believed Ismail was Qaim, Mohd bin Ismail was the Imam etc )

3. Shortly, Abdullah Aftah died childless, bulk of his followers took Musa Kadhim as Imam because according to the shia doctrine, Imam must be present.

It seems Musa Kadhim was acknowledge as Imam by majority not because he had nass but because he was most "likely" to be the Imam at that time.

It is possible that the Prophet [saww] and/or Imams [as] said these ahadith but, it is unlikely that these ahadith (like that of the 12 imams and naming of the 12) were ever well known in the early Shia community. There were a few points of ikhtilaf on successorship, like the one mentioned in this thread, that even some of the major companions into. There were also schisms after the death of Imam Al-Kadhim [as]. What is important though is knowing how the Shi'i got to the conclusions that they did, such as the scenario mentioned.

One such example is as follows: When Hisham Bin Salim (ra) and some other well known assoiciates of the Imam [as] entered the movement of 'Abdullah and of course they all gathered assuming that he, as the eldest son, would be the Imam after his father. Then one of the associates (in order to test his knowledge) asked him the question regarding zakat etc. (Mentioned in an earlier post).

But when Hisham and his companions left 'AbdAllah in a state of disapointment, not knowing to whom to turn to in Medina, at that momement, a man in the market signaled him and to follow him. Hisham became suspicious and asked his companions to let him go alone with the old man who, as Hisham supposed, could have been an Abbasid spy wanting to find out who the next Imam of the Shi'a would be as to get rid of him. Hisham then followed him, fearing for his life.

The old man led him to Al-Kadhim's [as] house. Then hisham requested to ask the Imam some questions, which he received satisfactory answers, as a proof that Al-Kadim [as] was the true Imam.

He then asked him about why he had concealed his Imamate, especially when the companions of Imam sadiq [as] were confused about the matter. Then the Imam informed him due to the fact that the abbasids who were after him etc. Hisham then sought permission to inform other assoicates about the rightful Imamate of Al-Kadhim [as]. The Imam permitted him to do so but only to those who were loyal and sincere & only after making them promise not to publicize his Imamate, as his life was in danger.

Hisham then left the Imam, rejoined his companions, and explained to them how he had been guided to the rightful Imam. They also came to the Imam and asked him questions, at which it became evident to them that he was the true Imam. Then slowly but surely, Al-Kadhim [as]'s followers began to grow large in number and Abdullah was left with very few followers, with all the others having acknowledged the Imamate of Al-Kadhim [as].

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

The nass of Al-Kadhim [as] has atleast 15-20 clear ahadith along with its chain of narrators.

Thank you for your replies.
Something is missing somewhere.

By looking at their actions, the majority were not aware of such 15-20 clear sayings including the saying of Prophet naming 12 caliphs.

By the actions of the majority, we see

1. Majority thought Ismail was supposed to be Imam but he died before Jaffer Sadiq and were waiting for Jaffer Sadiq to declare "another" nass but it did not come.

2. After the demise of Jaffer Sadiq,
(a) Ismail was not present to take over the Imamate,
(b) Abdullah Aftah claimed to have nass and therefore majority followed him and
(c) at the same time Musa Kadhim indicated privately that he had the nass.
( I am not taking account other small groups who believed Ismail was Qaim, Mohd bin Ismail was the Imam etc )

3. Shortly, Abdullah Aftah died childless, bulk of his followers took Musa Kadhim as Imam because according to the shia doctrine, Imam must be present.

It seems Musa Kadhim was acknowledge as Imam by majority not because he had nass but because he was most "likely" to be the Imam at that time.

It is possible that the Prophet [saww] and/or Imams [as] said these ahadith but, it is unlikely that these ahadith (like that of the 12 imams and naming of the 12) were ever well known in the early Shia community. There were a few points of ikhtilaf on successorship, like the one mentioned in this thread, that even some of the major companions into. There were also schisms after the death of Imam Al-Kadhim [as]. What is important though is knowing how the Shi'i got to the conclusions that they did, such as the scenario mentioned.

One such example is as follows: When Hisham Bin Salim (ra) and some other well known assoiciates of the Imam [as] entered the movement of 'Abdullah and of course they all gathered assuming that he, as the eldest son, would be the Imam after his father. Then one of the associates (in order to test his knowledge) asked him the question regarding zakat etc. (Mentioned in an earlier post).

But when Hisham and his companions left 'AbdAllah in a state of disapointment, not knowing to whom to turn to in Medina, at that momement, a man in the market signaled him and to follow him. Hisham became suspicious and asked his companions to let him go alone with the old man who, as Hisham supposed, could have been an Abbasid spy wanting to find out who the next Imam of the Shi'a would be as to get rid of him. Hisham then followed him, fearing for his life.

The old man led him to Al-Kadhim's [as] house. Then hisham requested to ask the Imam some questions, which he received satisfactory answers, as a proof that Al-Kadim [as] was the true Imam.

He then asked him about why he had concealed his Imamate, especially when the companions of Imam sadiq [as] were confused about the matter. Then the Imam informed him due to the fact that the abbasids who were after him etc. Hisham then sought permission to inform other assoicates about the rightful Imamate of Al-Kadhim [as]. The Imam permitted him to do so but only to those who were loyal and sincere & only after making them promise not to publicize his Imamate, as his life was in danger.

Hisham then left the Imam, rejoined his companions, and explained to them how he had been guided to the rightful Imam. They also came to the Imam and asked him questions, at which it became evident to them that he was the true Imam. Then slowly but surely, Al-Kadhim [as]'s followers began to grow large in number and Abdullah was left with very few followers, with all the others having acknowledged the Imamate of Al-Kadhim [as].

[anajmi]

Salam, I only posted that section because that was the bit that was relevant in this discussion. Like for example, evenwwhen the prophet and Imams would explain a certain verse, they didn't necessarily quote the full verse. A famous example would be that of the verse of tatheer; the ahadith which quote the prophet saying the bit, 'innama yureedullah etc....' and then specifying who this refers to. But I'm on my mobile at the moment, so I'll post when on laptop.

Khair, do take your time inshallah, look forward to seeing what you have to say.

Actually, in these days, only one particular sect quotes half ayahs out of context. And that is simply to twist the meanings of those ayahs. You do that with 3:7 and you do that with 33:33. I have dealt with 33:33 many times on this forum. Wouldn't mind dealing with it one more time. But since you have chosen not to post the entire ayah 3:7, I will.

Here is the entire ayah.

هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ

What does it say?

هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ
He is the one who has revealed upon you the book in which there are ayaat which are Muhkamat. Muhkamat comes from Hukm - a firm Order or Command. These are normally translated as clear ayahs. These are the commands in the Quran. Clear commands.

هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ
These "Muhkamat" ayaat are referred to as the mothers of the book. Which means that these are the essence of the book.

وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ
And there are some which are "Mutashaabihat". Vague, or Similar or Allegorical. But generally translated as - Allegorical. These are those ayaat which cannot be clearly understood.

فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ
And those who have "Zaygh" in their hearts. This is normally translated as darkness.

فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ
These people with darkness in their hearts pursue these ayaat (the Mutashaabihat ones) for the sake of fitnat. And they pursue the allegorical meanings for the sake of fitnat.

وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ
And none except Allah knows their meaning. The meaning of what? The meaning of those ayah that are classified as mutashabihaat.

وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ
And the "Rasikhoona Fil Ilm". Who are these people? These are those that are soaked in knowledge.

يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِه كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا ِ
They say we believe in it. The whole of it is from our master. Who says? The "Rasikhoona Fil Ilm". Believe in what? Believe in the mutashabihaat. They believe in them, just like they believe in the whole of the book, but do not pursue the meanings behind them or try to explain their meanings. Why? Because if they did that, then they would be the ones with darkness in their hearts.

وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ
And none takes this to heart except the Ulul Albaab. Ulul Albaab are those that are the thinking kind. Those that have insight.

Now, in the light of what brother Khadhim mentioned, this ayah is not talking about only Allah knowing the meaning of the entire Quran. It is talking about only Allah knowing the meaning of the mutashabihaat ayaat of the Quran. Now, even if we are to assume that the Rashikhoona fil ilm also know their meanings, it is clear from this ayah that these people are not supposed to dwell on their meanings. If they did, then they would be with "Zaygh" in their hearts.

Coming to some of the rest of your post. I won't go into much detail, but it is clear now that you will not know a Raseekhoona Fil Ilm if he or she tries to display his or her knowledge of the taweel. Why? Because a raseekhoona fil ilm will not dwell upon the taweel. A raseekhoona fil ilm will simply say - "We believe in it. The whole of it is from our master". If you see someone explaining taweel to you, then consider them not to be from the raseekhoona fil ilm.

[alwan]

It is possible that the Prophet [saww] and/or Imams [as] said these ahadith but, it is unlikely that these ahadith (like that of the 12 imams and naming of the 12) were ever well known in the early Shia community. There were a few points of ikhtilaf on successorship, like the one mentioned in this thread, that even some of the major companions into. There were also schisms after the death of Imam Al-Kadhim [as]. What is important though is knowing how the Shi'i got to the conclusions that they did, such as the scenario mentioned.

One such example is as follows: When Hisham Bin Salim (ra) and some other well known assoiciates of the Imam [as] entered the movement of 'Abdullah and of course they all gathered assuming that he, as the eldest son, would be the Imam after his father. Then one of the associates (in order to test his knowledge) asked him the question regarding zakat etc. (Mentioned in an earlier post).

But when Hisham and his companions left 'AbdAllah in a state of disapointment, not knowing to whom to turn to in Medina, at that momement, a man in the market signaled him and to follow him. Hisham became suspicious and asked his companions to let him go alone with the old man who, as Hisham supposed, could have been an Abbasid spy wanting to find out who the next Imam of the Shi'a would be as to get rid of him. Hisham then followed him, fearing for his life.

The old man led him to Al-Kadhim's [as] house. Then hisham requested to ask the Imam some questions, which he received satisfactory answers, as a proof that Al-Kadim [as] was the true Imam.

He then asked him about why he had concealed his Imamate, especially when the companions of Imam sadiq [as] were confused about the matter. Then the Imam informed him due to the fact that the abbasids who were after him etc. Hisham then sought permission to inform other assoicates about the rightful Imamate of Al-Kadhim [as]. The Imam permitted him to do so but only to those who were loyal and sincere & only after making them promise not to publicize his Imamate, as his life was in danger.

Hisham then left the Imam, rejoined his companions, and explained to them how he had been guided to the rightful Imam. They also came to the Imam and asked him questions, at which it became evident to them that he was the true Imam. Then slowly but surely, Al-Kadhim [as]'s followers began to grow large in number and Abdullah was left with very few followers, with all the others having acknowledged the Imamate of Al-Kadhim [as].

Do you have a quote from a historian (who has done scholarly research) saying that Jaffer Sadiq gave nass to Musa Kadhim ?

[anajmi]

Here is the problem with this sect. You keep claiming that the Ahlul Bayt has the knowledge. But your religion is not that knowledge. Your religion is simply the knowledge that they have the knowledge. Do you know what knowledge they have? Of course not. Unless of course it is knowledge that simply points back to them as those who have knowledge. It is like going round and round in a circle trying to catch your own tail.

You should look at the taawil of some of the ayah posted by some people on this forum. The taawil only tells you about the greatness of the one telling you the taawil. Check it out. It won't give you any "knowledge"!!

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

Salam, I only posted that section because that was the bit that was relevant in this discussion. Like for example, evenwwhen the prophet and Imams would explain a certain verse, they didn't necessarily quote the full verse. A famous example would be that of the verse of tatheer; the ahadith which quote the prophet saying the bit, 'innama yureedullah etc....' and then specifying who this refers to. But I'm on my mobile at the moment, so I'll post when on laptop.

Khair, do take your time inshallah, look forward to seeing what you have to say.

Actually, in these days, only one particular sect quotes half ayahs out of context. And that is simply to twist the meanings of those ayahs. You do that with 3:7 and you do that with 33:33. I have dealt with 33:33 many times on this forum. Wouldn't mind dealing with it one more time. But since you have chosen not to post the entire ayah 3:7, I will.

Here is the entire ayah.

هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ

What does it say?

هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ
He is the one who has revealed upon you the book in which there are ayaat which are Muhkamat. Muhkamat comes from Hukm - a firm Order or Command. These are normally translated as clear ayahs. These are the commands in the Quran. Clear commands.

هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ
These "Muhkamat" ayaat are referred to as the mothers of the book. Which means that these are the essence of the book.

وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ
And there are some which are "Mutashaabihat". Vague, or Similar or Allegorical. But generally translated as - Allegorical. These are those ayaat which cannot be clearly understood.

فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ
And those who have "Zaygh" in their hearts. This is normally translated as darkness.

فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ
These people with darkness in their hearts pursue these ayaat (the Mutashaabihat ones) for the sake of fitnat. And they pursue the allegorical meanings for the sake of fitnat.

وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ
And none except Allah knows their meaning. The meaning of what? The meaning of those ayah that are classified as mutashabihaat.

وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ
And the "Rasikhoona Fil Ilm". Who are these people? These are those that are soaked in knowledge.

يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِه كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا ِ
They say we believe in it. The whole of it is from our master. Who says? The "Rasikhoona Fil Ilm". Believe in what? Believe in the mutashabihaat. They believe in them, just like they believe in the whole of the book, but do not pursue the meanings behind them or try to explain their meanings. Why? Because if they did that, then they would be the ones with darkness in their hearts.

وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ
And none takes this to heart except the Ulul Albaab. Ulul Albaab are those that are the thinking kind. Those that have insight.

Now, in the light of what brother Khadhim mentioned, this ayah is not talking about only Allah knowing the meaning of the entire Quran. It is talking about only Allah knowing the meaning of the mutashabihaat ayaat of the Quran. Now, even if we are to assume that the Rashikhoona fil ilm also know their meanings, it is clear from this ayah that these people are not supposed to dwell on their meanings. If they did, then they would be with "Zaygh" in their hearts.

Coming to some of the rest of your post. I won't go into much detail, but it is clear now that you will not know a Raseekhoona Fil Ilm if he or she tries to display his or her knowledge of the taweel. Why? Because a raseekhoona fil ilm will not dwell upon the taweel. A raseekhoona fil ilm will simply say - "We believe in it. The whole of it is from our master". If you see someone explaining taweel to you, then consider them not to be from the raseekhoona fil ilm.

No reply to my salaam? Well that's convenient.

You first said:

Actually, in these days, only one particular sect quotes half ayahs out of context. And that is simply to twist the meanings of those ayahs. You do that with 3:7 and you do that with 33:33. I have dealt with 33:33 many times on this forum. Wouldn't mind dealing with it one more time. But since you have chosen not to post the entire ayah 3:7, I will.

I wouldn't be too sure about that because we have evidences to support our interpretation of those verses or part of the verses. Like I mentioned, the Prophet himself quoted only that one part of 33:33 and gave the names of who it was referring to. Are you going to accuse the Prophet of taking half verses out of context now? (Naoudhubillah)

My apologies for not posting the verse. Let me just post the full verse together so it makes it easier to read. The ayah says:

He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.
Quran [3:7]

You said:

هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ
He is the one who has revealed upon you the book in which there are ayaat which are Muhkamat. Muhkamat comes from Hukm - a firm Order or Command. These are normally translated as clear ayahs. These are the commands in the Quran. Clear commands.

Yes you are correct, these muhkamat verses are a clear order/command, however they also need interpreting. Who will tell you how to fast? Who will tell you the essence of tawheed? Who will tell you the details of nubuwwah including how many prophets there are? The Qur'an is clear in the sense it lays down the principles of our doctrine and waajibat, but these both need concise expalantions.

Then you said:

هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ
These "Muhkamat" ayaat are referred to as the mothers of the book. Which means that these are the essence of the book.

Again I don't disagree with you here because primarily at the beginning of revelation of the Qur'an, there were certain main issues that had to be addressed so they obviously would have more stress than for example, Imamate. Like I mentioned in my post, Imamah wasn't incremental to the beginning of the message, but rather the end and whether its a coincident or not, the actual word 'Imamah' or 'aimmah' is mentioned 12 times in singular and plural together. So Allah has addressed the principles of Imamah but the messenger [saww] and ahlulbayt [as] addressed their details, just like with EVERY other concept.

Then you said:

وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ
And there are some which are "Mutashaabihat". Vague, or Similar or Allegorical. But generally translated as - Allegorical. These are those ayaat which cannot be clearly understood.

Hence, as you mentioned, they too need interpreting, but these consist of a more hidden meaning to the passages and we believe only the Ahlulbayt [as] does that.

Then:

فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ
And those who have "Zaygh" in their hearts. This is normally translated as darkness.

فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ
These people with darkness in their hearts pursue these ayaat (the Mutashaabihat ones) for the sake of fitnat. And they pursue the allegorical meanings for the sake of fitnat.

Yes, this is clearly referring to those people who give their own interpretation of the hidden passages to mislead people. We don't give our own interpretation, because Ahlulbayt [as] have given us the explanation of the muhkamat verses as well as mutashabihat verses, whether practically or verbally.

Then you said:

وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ
And none except Allah knows their meaning. The meaning of what? The meaning of those ayah that are classified as mutashabihaat.

Yes.

يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِه كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا ِ
They say we believe in it. The whole of it is from our master. Who says? The "Rasikhoona Fil Ilm". Believe in what? Believe in the mutashabihaat. They believe in them, just like they believe in the whole of the book, but do not pursue the meanings behind them or try to explain their meanings. Why? Because if they did that, then they would be the ones with darkness in their hearts.

'....and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.'

'We believe in it' ,i.e. the mutashabihat verses as you mentioned, but then later they say, 'it is all from our lord' so the whole qur'an is from the lord.

Then we come to:

Now, in the light of what brother Khadhim mentioned, this ayah is not talking about only Allah knowing the meaning of the entire Quran. It is talking about only Allah knowing the meaning of the mutashabihaat ayaat of the Quran. Now, even if we are to assume that the Rashikhoona fil ilm also know their meanings, it is clear from this ayah that these people are not supposed to dwell on their meanings. If they did, then they would be with "Zaygh" in their hearts.

The raasikhoona fil 'Ilm are the only ones who know their meaning and hence we go them. If we take this group to be the ahlulbayt [as] then you are indirectly accusing them. Also, please think what you've written, if there isn't a group who dwell on their meanings then who can? Who are you going to turn to? You don't want to misinterpret those verses do you now?

The prophet [saww] ensured near to the end of his life that he would leave behind the protectors of the book, the Qur'an and Ahlulbayt. It was the prophet who used to explain both the muhkamat [the clear orders such as salah, zakah and other such verses] and mutashabihat, so if the prophet 'dwells on their meanings' then who are you accusing?

Coming to some of the rest of your post. I won't go into much detail, but it is clear now that you will not know a Raseekhoona Fil Ilm if he or she tries to display his or her knowledge of the taweel. Why? Because a raseekhoona fil ilm will not dwell upon the taweel. A raseekhoona fil ilm will simply say - "We believe in it. The whole of it is from our master". If you see someone explaining taweel to you, then consider them not to be from the raseekhoona fil ilm.

.

Yes I agree, but rather I will go to those whom Allah & his messenger [saww] have appointed.


Now your next post:

Here is the problem with this sect. You keep claiming that the Ahlul Bayt has the knowledge. But your religion is not that knowledge. Your religion is simply the knowledge that they have the knowledge. Do you know what knowledge they have? Of course not. Unless of course it is knowledge that simply points back to them as those who have knowledge. It is like going round and round in a circle trying to catch your own tail.

You should look at the taawil of some of the ayah posted by some people on this forum. The taawil only tells you about the greatness of the one telling you the taawil. Check it out. It won't give you any "knowledge"!!

We don't claim anything brother, we only claim what the Prophet [saww] told us & what Ahlulbayt [as] told us. Yes we are told they have the knowledge and we also have the knowledge from them from countless traditions & riwayat. We go to them on expalantions of tawheed, we go to them for the recommended dua's, we go to them for the spirituality they practiced and recommended, we go to them when we want to see the beauty of their character & apply in our own lives AND we also turn to them when we want to know how to pray, how to fast & everything else in our life. Not just religious matters, but political, economical, etc etc.

It's unfortunate that we do not have the Imam of our time [ajtf] among us right now but as indicated in the traditions, this is a real test for the shi'as and how many will remain sincere on the right path. Whatever Allah [azwj[ wishes, he will do. When he arrives, he will establish his just rule on this earth and then truly we will see the ultimate glory of Islam (just as it was during the time of the prophet) as it will prevail over all other religions, but right now in our current time of occultation we have been told instructions to act upon and how to act upon them until the hastening of the Imam.


My last point, since typing on here is very limited, are you up for a sincere dialogue/debate? Many brothers I know of can personally do this as I am not much of a debater. Or you can get a shaykh or a friend of yours and we will arrange this via facebook (so everyone can see) or skype - Look forward to your response. You may PM me if you wish,

Consider this an open invitation to all sects: salafi, sunni, hanafi, maliki, bohri, zaydi, etc.

[anajmi]

No reply to my salaam? Well that's convenient.

Please accept my apologies and my Salaam.

We don't give our own interpretation, because Ahlulbayt [as] have given us the explanation of the muhkamat verses as well as mutashabihat verses, whether practically or verbally.

Fantastic. Please give us an example of a mutashabihat verse and it's explanation by the Ahlul Bayt.

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

Do you have a quote from a historian (who has done scholarly research) saying that Jaffer Sadiq gave nass to Musa Kadhim ?

I'm not sure about non-muslims, but certain cholars/historians in general have confirmed and said about the Imamate of al-kadhim [as], about his knowledge, his miracles etc. Some of these are :

Sadruddin e hanafi
Abdul Haq Dehalvi
Imam Shaafi'
Ibn Khalakan
Ibn Hajar
Shaykh Abdullah Ibn Muhammad
Jalaluddeen suyooti
Sheikh Mohammed Hasan Aal-Yaseen
Al-Qandoozi in his yanabee al mawaddah
Abu-Faraj Al-Asfahani

Sunni scholars also confirmed that Isma'il had indeed predceased his father. Overall, you won't find much praise for Ismail for his knowledge, piety, succession etc. compared to that for Musa kadhim [as]

[anajmi]

Fantastic. Please give us an example of a mutashabihat verse and it's explanation by the Ahlul Bayt.

This is what I have asked before. In light of the following statement that you made...

It was the prophet who used to explain both the muhkamat [the clear orders such as salah, zakah and other such verses] and mutashabihat, so if the prophet 'dwells on their meanings' then who are you accusing?

Please also give us the explanation of that mutashabihat verse as per the prophet (saw).

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

No reply to my salaam? Well that's convenient.

Please accept my apologies and my Salaam.

We don't give our own interpretation, because Ahlulbayt [as] have given us the explanation of the muhkamat verses as well as mutashabihat verses, whether practically or verbally.

Fantastic. Please give us an example of a mutashabihat verse and it's explanation by the Ahlul Bayt.

Brother,

How are you supposed to conclude which are mutashabihat? Of course, it may seem obvious which ones are muhkamat, but mutashabihat..not so easy. Anyways, I've been reading this one:

'But when we decreed death for him, nothing showed him them his death but a creature of the earth which ate away his staff; and when it fell down, the Jinn came to know plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in abasing torment.' - 34:14

Ibn Mahmoud, from Jameel bin saleh, from Al-waleed bin sabeeh, who has reported the following:

Abu 'Abdullah [as] having said: 'Allah mighty and majestic revealed unto Sulayman Bin Dawood [as] that' The sign of your death is a tree which will come out from Bayt Al-Maqdas called Al-Kharnouba." Sulayman looked around one day and there was Al-Kharnouba tree which had emerged from Bayt Al-Maqdas. So he [as] said to it; 'What is your name?' It said. 'Al-Kharnouba'. Sulayman turned back to his prayer niche and stood leaning upon his staff. His soul was captured in that moment.

The Jinn and the Human beings kept on serving him and were striving in his command as before, and they were thinking that he was alive and had not died. The morning came and passed, and he [as] was still standing still, until the woodworm gnawed away at his staff and it broke, and sulayman [as] fell down upon the ground. Have you not heard the words of the mighty and majestic: "And when it fell down, the jinn came to know plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in abasing torment."

[Al-Kafi, volume 8, page144 H.114]

Let me show you some other quick ones:

Ali Bin Al-Husayn, from Ali bin Fazel, from his father, from Ibrahim bin Muhammad Al-Ashary, from Muhammad Bin Marwaan, from Najam who said:

"I heard Abu Ja'far [as] say: 'But rather, you are only a warner, and for every people is a guide." The warner is RasoolAllah [saww], and the guide is Ali [as].


And from him, from Al-Husayn, from Al-nazar bin Suweyd and Fazaalat, from Musa Bin Bakr, from Al-Fazeyl who said:

"I asked Abu 'Abdullah [asws] about the statement of Allah [azwj] - 13:7 "But rather, you are only a warner, and for every people is a Guide, said: 'Each Imam [as] is a guide for the century (era) that he is in.'

Reference: Basaa'ir al-darajaat, page 1, Chapter 13, Hadith 3 & 6 respectively

Now you show me, how would you interpret this verse or other verses in the light of what you follow?

Upon the arrival of the Imam, if he gives an interpretation in the context of our times then we will accept because as time evolves new things come into play etc. So then we will accept his final interpretation abrogating the previous interpretation(s). But in our current state of ghayba, we are only required to follow that which is in our hands.

Now...what do you say about the challenge brother? To you, to a friend or a shaykh. If we do it on facebook then that would be better as it is public & I'm sure the public would like to know the truth.

[anajmi]

Dear Bro Khadim,

How do you suppose to conclude which are mutashabihat? Of course, it may seem obvious which ones are muhkamat, but mutashabihat..not so easy. Anyways, I've been reading this one:

I thought the ahlul bayt were supposed to tell you which ones were mutashabihat. No?

The interpretation that you have given, is the same explanation that other mufassireen have also given for this ayah. There is nothing hidden about this story of Sulayman. This is one amongst many of his in the history books. This ayah simply demonstrates the fickle nature of the human being and how it can end at a moment's notice without any fanfare or without anyone else even noticing. By the way, the lesson of this ayah is not in the appearance of the tree called Al-Kharnouba, but in the death of Sulayman that went without anyone even noticing it. The portion of the tree is just additional masala to the story. That is why Allah doesn't mention it in the ayah.

Now, coming to the main point of my argument. You are assuming that this is a mutashabihat ayah. As per the Quran, Allah says that only Allah and the Rasikhoona fil ilm know the meanings of these mutashabihat ayahs. But, now that you have told me, I too know the meaning of this ayah. So, am I a Rashikhoona fil ilm? I am not. And as far as I know, neither are you. So when Allah says that only Allah and Rasikhoona fil ilm know their meanings, is he wrong?

[anajmi]

Coming to 13:7

If Ali is supposed to be the guide, then we are shit out of luck. Ali has been dead for 1400 years. If the Imam is the guide, then there too we are out of luck since he is in hiding.

Now read 2:2

ذَلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لاَ رَيْبَ فِيهِ هُدًى لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ

The guidance is the Quran. The word of Allah himself, which is everlasting.

[Khadhim Al Mahdi]

How do you suppose to conclude which are mutashabihat? Of course, it may seem obvious which ones are muhkamat, but mutashabihat..not so easy. Anyways, I've been reading this one:

I thought the ahlul bayt were supposed to tell you which ones were mutashabihat. No?

The interpretation that you have given, is the same explanation that other mufassireen have also given for this ayah. There is nothing hidden about this story of Sulayman. This is one amongst many of his in the history books. This ayah simply demonstrates the fickle nature of the human being and how it can end at a moment's notice without any fanfare or without anyone else even noticing. By the way, the lesson of this ayah is not in the appearance of the tree called Al-Kharnouba, but in the death of Sulayman that went without anyone even noticing it. The portion of the tree is just additional masala to the story. That is why Allah doesn't mention it in the ayah.

Now, coming to the main point of my argument. You are assuming that this is a mutashabihat ayah. As per the Quran, Allah says that only Allah and the Rasikhoona fil ilm know the meanings of these mutashabihat ayahs. But, now that you have told me, I too know the meaning of this ayah. So, am I a Rashikhoona fil ilm? I am not. And as far as I know, neither are you. So when Allah says that only Allah and Rasikhoona fil ilm know their meanings, is he wrong?

Ok bro..I was just giving an example of a general tafseer, my point is though that the aimmah have explained the verses, be it muhkamat or mutashabihat..the ones I come across as muhkamat, I will seek an explanation from them too..both in their speaking sense as well as in action (like with salah)

So you believe that Qur'an has clear and allegorical verses, So my question to you is: How did the companions do this?

Like the aimmah gave us the meanings of the Qur'an. I just posted the above as example, whether muhkamat or mutashabihat, but we have many others from them based on Taweel.

Like even those verses which are muhkamat, every verse required tafseer, even those which might be clear like hajj, zakah, salah etc.

Allah is not wrong when he says that he is rasookun fil ilm, but the fact that you know is because you sought the interpretation in the first place so that doesn't make any of us part of the rasikhoona fil 'ilm because we are constantly seeking the meaning & explanations. It is none other than ahlulbayt [as]. The Qur'an doesn't say that they only know the mutashabihat but rather it says that they are the only ones who know it. It only make sense that they know the rest of it too and can explain them.

[Muslim First]

AS brother

Wouldn't it would be nice to start discussion on Imamah/Waliya after producing simple Aya like

O Prophet, Waliya/Imama will lead my Mumin after you and your Ahl e bait will be that

And despite that we will be burdened by splits after death of every Imam.

Look at Dawoodi Boras here on this site.
Now they are faced with who is 53 with valid Naas.

O Allah what a tangled mess these deviants are creating

[Muslim First]

Br Khadim Al Mehdi
AS

See what happens after Shia invented new religion and took this fork:

Here is what Ismaili follower of Aga Khan can belive (BTW he is still making up format of uniform Namaz. So far it is 5 years)
http://www.ismaili.net/html/modules.php ... 4&start=15

nuseri, Joined: 12 Jul 2012, Posts: 312
Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:26 pm Post subject:

To Admin:
Very inspiring message on Corbin.He was a excellent grade esoteric understanding person decoding the Marifat code.
I have formed my own formula out of my conviction not binding on anyone

At Tariqat level:

Allah =God
Ali =Imam.

At haqiqat level:

Ali = Allah = Imam.

At Marifat level:

ALI+lah= allah.

With this key all the Baatin of the world is open in a platter.

They make fun of us Main Streamers for praying 5, fast in Ramadan etc.

[anajmi]

Ok bro..I was just giving an example of a general tafseer, my point is though that the aimmah have explained the verses, be it muhkamat or mutashabihat..the ones I come across as muhkamat, I will seek an explanation from them too..both in their speaking sense as well as in action (like with salah)

Dear Bro Khadhim,

That is fine. I seek general tafseer as well. And based upon the previous example that we saw, Ahlul Bayt are apparently not the only ones with the knowledge. If they are the only ones with that knowledge, then you will have to share with me something that no one other than only you knows, through the Ahlul Bayt. But then, remember, as soon as you share it with me, then I will know it too.

So you believe that Qur'an has clear and allegorical verses, So my question to you is: How did the companions do this?

How did the companions do what? Explain the allegorical ayahs? They didn't. For example - the very first ayah of surah baqara. I do not have an explanation for it. Did the Ahlul Bayt give you an explanation? Did the prophet (saw) give you an explanation?

Like the aimmah gave us the meanings of the Qur'an. I just posted the above as example, whether muhkamat or mutashabihat, but we have many others from them based on Taweel.

Please give these taweel examples. I would really appreciate it.

Allah is not wrong when he says that he is rasookun fil ilm, but the fact that you know is because you sought the interpretation in the first place so that doesn't make any of us part of the rasikhoona fil 'ilm because we are constantly seeking the meaning & explanations. It is none other than ahlulbayt [as]. The Qur'an doesn't say that they only know the mutashabihat but rather it says that they are the only ones who know it. It only make sense that they know the rest of it too and can explain them.

I apologize but I didn't understand what you are trying to say over here. If you are insisting that only Ahlul Bayt know, then I have already shown you that that is not the case, unless you can prove me wrong.