original shia part 2

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

[quote="PyariCgudia
Points:

  1. I do not think any human is infallible - the Prophet, Ali (R), and his successors included. Here’s why: The Quran mentions numerous times over and over again that the human reader does not know all. That God is all-knowing. How is that not familiar to you shias who say that the Imams are infallible, and ACTUALLY believe it?

IMHO, I meet a lot of shias who don’t know the first thing about this infallible issue. ABCD’s maybe, I dunno.

  1. The hadith that Shia’s believe in - that for whoever the RAsul is a leader, then Ali is also a leader…

I still don’t think that’s justification for Ali (R) INHERITING leadership.

[/QUOTE"]

ok i’ve not read the first post or the following replies but this post caught my eye cos of all the cut and paste jobs and counter cut and pastes around, this post (and the two points) gets to crux of the matter and of the single main difference between the shia and sunni theology. The rest of the stuff is just irrelevent. thats why i had to open new thread.

pcg,2 things, first being infallible does not equate to being all-knowing since as you rightly said only god is all knowing. in our understanding infallibillity is related to degrees & levels of acquired knowledge and the infallibility that comes with that knowledge. e.g.'s for later.

2ndly our view on ali’s leadership isn’t because of his being the prophets closest companion or son-in-law. that would be superficial and monarchy-like system, in effect like the system of khilafat that has been with muslims since muaviyah up until the breakdown of ottoman empire. Our criteria for viewing Ali as the rightful leader is knowldege, based on the principle as stated in the quran. Knowledge is never inherited. Therefore in our view leadership is never inherited. Only those possessing knowledge and therefore infallibility that comes with that knowledge have right to leadership. Thats not just any right, but Divine right, in the grand tradition of the ancient Israelite Prophets.

2

Re: original shia part 2

oh and any cut and pastes,or hadith linkages and any discussion other than infallibility and criteria for leadership, i want mods to delete. gotta keep it simple.ta.

3

Re: original shia part 2

^ good idea. Thanks. It gets so tiring to read cut-and-paste. Also shows that people aren’t thinking thru their arguments. :bash:

Point 1: Infallibility, logically, leads one to actually be all-knowing.

In infallibility, if an infallible person makes a statement, it CANNOT be false. Right? Now Ali (R) probably uttered lots of statements, as does each human being, except those that are mute.

If you keep uttering statements on vastly different topics, as leaders do, then to say that each statement is right automatically because it comes out from this person is equal to saying they’re all-knowing. Because if Ali (R) had made ANY other statement, it would be true.

So you can imagine a bank of unlimited statements. If Ali (R) uttered any such statement (think of Ali as drawing out a statement like drawing paper from a hat), then it would AUTOMATICALLY have to be right. Therefore, for Ali (R) to do this, he must be all-knowing.

He must know that if statement X were to be right, then contingent unuttered and implied statements Y and Z and so on and so forth must also be right.

Secondly, where in the Quran does it ever speak of Ali (R)'s infallibility? And if there was some ayah that you people claim was revealed about Ali (R)'s infallibility, then where is it? Please show us? Even for the Rasul there is no Ayah that says the Prophet was infallible - if anything, God corrects the Prophet by asking him not to ban anything that God doesn’t want banned.

So Ali is infallible, but the Prophet himself was not? Then why wasn’t Ali the final messenger?

  1. Yes, even Sunnis believe that Ali was extraordinary, not because of his relationship with the prophet, but because of his hard work and dedication to the deen that really is unparalleled (surprise surprise, I even accept this as a sunni).

But Shias go on further to maintain that leadership should have passed from Ali onto his sons, and onto his grandsons and so on and so forth. THAT is where your 12 Imam theory comes in - these infallible Imams are supposed to be in the lineage of Ali (R).

But the surprising thing was that Ali’s sons didn’t live to be leaders even. As in caliph leaders, although they did of course exhibit leadership in their tasks. Furthermore, if you follow Ali’s progeny down, there were numerous attacks on his male heirs, and basically the last heir disappeared - he was kidnapped, apparently, and nowhere to be seen after that.

He probably escaped in grew up, in MY opinion, because the Mahdi is most likely going to come from this line.

But bottom line is that the 12 Imams never materialized the way they were supposed to. The 12 Imams that Shias do follow are actually other guys that are not in Ali (R)'s progeny.

So Ali (R)'s leadership doesn’t follow from inheritence, of course. And the fact that he wasn’t the first caliph probably does point to an initial power struggle between sahabah after the Prophet’s death. Guess what? Even the sunnis believe this did happen.

But inherited leadership by Ali’s progeny, an idea maintained by Shia, does NOT follow from these facts.

4

Re: original shia part 2

alright you got some good questions there and some dodgier interpretations of supposed shia beliefs. Lets cut out this shia sunni stuff for now and break it right down to the beginning and talk about infallibility on its own merits.

just to get an idea of where you're coming from,do you believe the Quran is an infallible source of information and why?

5

Re: original shia part 2

good idea :k:
copy paste is geting boring lately :nook:

6

Re: original shia part 2

Ok I reckon you got this the wrong way around. in my view infallibility isn’t a quality in itself independent of all else. its something that is the practical expression of the knowledge, you already have to a greater or lesser degree. A simple example right, you are infallible with respect to say,a fire. you’re not likely to stick your hand into a fire cos you have knowledge of the consequences which a babby doesn’t and so which makes the child fallible. Thats just a little example of the the difference in levels of knowledgability and understanding, leading to difference in approach and infallibility, i.e. avoiding error.

Starting with the Prophet, his infallibility is mentioned in the Quran, which in itself is infalliable source of information. His infallibility is directly linked to his knowledge in that he wasn’t educated or mentored by anyone and yet he recieved knowledge and was taught by God, the source of all knowledge.

The real question is why is the prophet’s infallibility, the fact that he should never make a mistake, the fact that he never speak out of his own desire, so important and so crucial to his prophethood and his leadership?

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
وَالنَّجْمِ إِذَا هَوَى {1}
[Shakir 53:1] I swear by the star when it goes down.

مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَى {2}
[Shakir 53:2] Your companion does not err, nor does he go astray;

وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَى {3}
[Shakir 53:3] Nor does he speak out of desire.

إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَى {4}
[Shakir 53:4] It is naught but revelation that is revealed,

عَلَّمَهُ شَدِيدُ الْقُوَى {5}
[Shakir 53:5] The Lord of Mighty Power has taught him,

ذُو مِرَّةٍ فَاسْتَوَى {6}
[Shakir 53:6] The Lord of Strength; so he attained completion,

7

Re: original shia part 2

I'd like to know the exact connotation of the arabic word that is translated as "err". The Prophet had continuous guidance from God, so whatever he said was True, since it was coming straight from God.

Ali did not have this kind of communication with God, so even if we were to say for argument's sake that the Prophet is infallible, then how is Ali infallible? Revelations were not coming to Ali, nor was God communicating directly with Ali, nor did Gibrail (Angel Gabriel) ever visit Ali.

Also, the Quran, an infallible source of information according to all Muslims (well, I dunno about Qadiyanis and some distant sects of Ismailis and Agakhanis, but at least this is true for Sunnis and Shias from WHAT i KNOW), never says that Ali is infallible and that Ali does not err.

So of all the humans that God made, he made the Prophet infallible (again this is up for heavy debate), and He says in 53:2, but He forgot to mention that the other person this extraordinary quality is reserved for is Ali?

The Quran mentions various prophets, even dedicates a whole chapter to Bibi Marium - and she wasn't even a messenger herself - she was the mom of a messenger - and it leaves out the miraculously infallible Ali? Notice the word "miraculous".

The Quran which is the COMPLETE source of Guidance for Muslims somehow forgot to leave out the supposed HOLY COMMAND that Ali take over after the Prophet in leadership? What kind of guidance was that to these people, especially since this one "oversight" has led to the biggest fractioning of the ummah in the history of the ummah?

And again, if the Shias feel the the present-day compiled Quran is the incomplete Quran, and that Ali had the real complete Quran copy that had the command that he is to follow the Prophet in leadership of the caliphate, then where is this copy? Surely, its not the same copy that Hafsa Bibi had that got destroyed by Uthman (er Umar - whoever, the third caliph)? Because Ali had his own copy. With his own notes in it. So where is that copy? Why didn't Ali transmit that LOST verse that commanded he come into power onto future generations?

So many holes in the story.

Oh, and yes, I do believe that the Quran is infallible, because it is the direct message from Allah. That's something I believe, and for all you non-muslims, no, I can't prove it scientifically or logically. Its a leap of faith in the end, that's all. Take it or leave it.

And no, I do not think that the Prophet was infallible. He made at least one mistake that he was corrected for in the Quran. And that was where God asks him not to disallow something that God has allowed. (Haha, poor mullahs in Pakistan - I feel sorry for those guys - they're numero uno in this offense, but I digress).

Other evidence that even the Prophet was fallible was that once he was delivering a sermon, and a lady listening to it noticed that he would use the masculine gender when addressing the audience. He would say "You men should do this, or do that"-type of statements. So she asked him why he didn't address females also. He said it was implied that the same applies to women, but after he considered it, he changed his style of sermons so that he addressed both males and females, when both were meant to be addressed.

There are numerous other stories about where women would freely debate with the Prophet, and that the Prophet would, many a times, acquiesce to the females.

So, that's why I ask - what is the connotation of "err"? Are we talking about every little detail? Or are we talking about when he commands something or delivers some sort of Principle or Guidance to his people? Are we talking about strict revelation? As in, the Prophet wont err to deliver the Revelation to his people, just as he recieved it? Or are we talking in every little thing - down to how the Prophet washes his toes?

Infallibility does not have levels. Infallibility means you're NEVER wrong. Its not a human trait.

Intelligence does have levels. Loyalty to Truth has different levels. But the very definition of Infallibility basically says "dont even try to question me, don't debate with me, don't argue with me - what I say is right".

Funny that the concept of infallibility is so prevalent in our society. Even sunnis do it. So many times I hear people say "No, he's right, he's an Imam - tum ko kya patha?". The idea that someone with a beard could be wrong is totally alien to even many sunnis. And the ironic thing is that the Prophet was always open to debate, and he always accepted it when someone made a better point than him.

8

Re: original shia part 2

I dont think the Prophet's infallibility came from an inherent inability to err, or from Allah's constant guidance. Either of the two possibilities deprives him from any merit in what he did in his life. Repeatedly we have mention in the Quran about the Prophet's virtues, why would they be praiseworthy if all his virtue and steadfastness came from a voice above that said "No no, that'd be a sin wont it".

they were all human and they all had the ability to sin. if they didnt, its because they mastered that tendency.

so no, I believe that when we speak of the purity of the Prophet and our Imams, I dont believe that they needed a special sort of clay for their creation or that they were constantly guided by Allah in all of their actions, but that their virtue and knowledge enabled them to never err (where err means sin, and not grammatical errors) and Allah's guarantee of their infallibility was more of an affirmation of their virtue.

9

Re: original shia part 2

^ Yes, thank-you. I was looking for the right words, and couldn't find them.

Where the Quran says the Prophet does not err, it means in a sin-sense. That is, he won't sin. But does this also mean that every military decision he makes, ever political decision he makes, every social decision he makes, every love-making move he makes, every fatherly decision he makes, every little action he takes is also RIGHT?

I don't know how many of you have led anything in your lives, but leading is not an easy task. You'll make a decision and act upon it thinking its the right thing to do, but until you see the consequences, you wont know if it was really right all along.

To not err, especially as a political leader like in the caliphate, you'd have to have a non-human source of intelligence to guide you along the whole way. You can't just get up in the morning and be infallible.

10

Re: original shia part 2

Well, I cant say much about that, im not really that well versed as some of the other people around here. i would suspect, certainly that certain aspects of governance do have an association of err with sin. for example, I would consider it a sin if one made an error in governance about religion. if one erroneaously made interpretations of Islam that became an abomination in the name of it. case in point zia's hudood laws, i think that was a sin in addition to an error.

but i digress.. obviously you're asking in context of a discussion i havent been part of. so i guess someone else can answer your points.

11

Re: original shia part 2

Speaking of that, I wonder how the countries that housed these 12 Imams did in terms of setting up the utopian society. I mean, if they're infallible and everyone believes that, then I wonder how these societies turned out?

Yeah...

12

Re: original shia part 2

most of the 12 imams were never in power, and most of them lived in mecca/media except a few.

shias automatically believe in the seperation of church and state, regardless of all the hooplah about who got the first Khilafat. That argument is there because we believe the Prophet assigned Hazrat Ali as his successor, but even while not having the government, Hazrat Ali remained the spiritual leader of shias. His sons both had disputes about governments, but again there are explanations for why they "allegedly" sought power. With Muawiya/Hassan Imam Hassan extracted guarantees from Muawiya that he would rule according to the shari'at of the Prophet, amongst other things. Imam Hussain too never fought for attaining rulership, he fought about not giving his ba'yet to Yazeed.

Thereon, all of our imams were quietist, they stayed away from power centers, most of them were in prison except for two. They remained the source for fiqh etc but not for laws of the state.

Happy Independence day to Indian Guppies
13

Re: original shia part 2

Oh God. More cut-and-paste. I think that is what this thread is staying away from.

Please read over my definitions of "err" as used in the Quran, and also the definition of "infallibility". Then talk.

And I'm sorry, but if you took no time putting together a nice argument, nicely written out and cut-paste instead, I'm not going to take the time to read it. Have a nice day.

Please do feel free to re-do your post in a more readable form.

14

Re: original shia part 2

Hmm what a nice excuse to ignore the facts when you don’t have an answer to them.. the only cut paste are the hadiths.. and rest of them are my words.. but oh someone can’t confront the lies they have been spreading and needs an excuse.. oh you poor soul… I wish if you would have atleast bothered to read than just ignore and keep going on spreading false rumors.. things like who are the 12 imams of firqae jafferia from… if they are not from Hazrat Ali progeny but hmm tough one.. someone needs an excuse don’t they..
incase you don’t know I spend last couple of hours answering your queries rather than spending a few minutes copy pasting..

15

Re: original shia part 2

Like I mentioned in my previous posts which you accused me for copy pasting even though all i copies were some hadiths.. anywayzz I would really appreciate if you could bother giving references to your accusations.. religon is a sensitive issue and you can mislead alot of people by spreading rumors… and will be answerable to Allah SWT for that deed… what you are saying is a buch of rumors… no shias believes Quran is incomplete.. its just a rumors spread to defame shias.. if you hold that believe I would love to see a reference… there are several 100’s of rumors out there..and I can make 100’s of website but I don’t want to mislead other unlike you.. please refrain from spreading rumors unless you have referencess to back up your claim.. and can live up to your words that choose up lame excuses when you can’t defend your own believes…

16

Re: original shia part 2

People on this website have even claimed that the Quran is incomplete according to Shia view. You can waste your own time by sifting thru the arguments in the Original Shia thread, and the other shia threads that are up. :)

Sum up your arguments that you posted in a shorter length, and I'll read them. Please have respect for other peoples' time. Thanks.

Bhangan mode:
17

Re: original shia part 2

[quote]
Secondly, where in the Quran does it ever speak of Ali (R)'s infallibility? And if there was some ayah that you people claim was revealed about Ali (R)'s infallibility, then where is it? Please show us? Even for the Rasul there is no Ayah that says the Prophet was infallible - if anything, God corrects the Prophet by asking him not to ban anything that God doesn't want banned.
[/quote]

Where does the Quran speak about gathering everything the prophet said into a finite collection of written statements years after his death and mixing them with those that he didnt say, then developing a system to analyze chains of narration to separate the true ones from the false ones? I dont think it does. Similarly, the Quran doesnt say anything about the infalliability of Ali and his descendants. However, as human beings we are trying to understand the Quran in context of our daily lives and it isnt always easy. So, it is not difficult to understand that these are systems that have been developed to understand the Quran, the best we can, by sincere people. The sunni rely on a system of analyzing the hadith collection and shia on the family of Mohammad to interpret the Quran. Both are noble persuits, the best we could do at the time. I am sure Allah understands, since He is a reasonable and ethical Lord, most merciful and most forgiving. I would say relax guys and get to know each other. Some like strawberry and some like choclate ice cream. It is all ice cream, in different flavors. We need to tame our tendency to become scared and suspicious control freaks.

regards,

bob.

*Compliments*
*Compliments*
18

Re: original shia part 2

heh heh heh..

19

Re: original shia part 2

^ comparing the items you see in hadith (the really solid authentic ones, that is :snooty: ) to a BLOWING claim that Ali (R) is the only non-Prophet human that is infallible is like comparing oranges to peaches.

They’re both orange-y in shade, but they taste different :wink:

Likewise, the effects of hadith are dramatically different from the effects of missing to mention such a MAJOR TRUTH and that too a MIRACULOUS ONE that one in their right frame of mind would not believe unless told by a higher-up (in this case, God I’d hope).

If you want people to believe that the Prophet camel-raced, then a hadith is something people will buy into. No need to make the Quran any thicker with those details. Does the Quran talk about how Bibi Marium cooked? No. Its irrelevant info. Good to know maybe. But irrelevant.

Would it have been good to know if Ali (R) is infallible, and any male offspring springing forth from his loins (er well Fatima’s loins) is also infallible? Yep. That’s not useless information. That’s not a By-the-Way. Hadith’s are By-the-Ways. Infallibility of a non-Prophet human is HUGE!!!

That would mean Ali and his line of descendants are the only ones ever created that were not prophets but were infallible…

But then the Pope says the same thing about himself as well… scratches head

20

Re: original shia part 2

Bob_chasm, I wish Shias and Sunnis saw it that way when they were trying to kill each other. Oh wait, they still are.