Re: The Big Sunni Shia dialogue on the Friends Show !
13 mins - Belief of innocent Imams has not been cited with a reference, later rational angle attempted by saying 2 points - Imams have fuller knowledge and they are protected ... This is not a rational angle it is a belief based on other beliefs
No evidence cited that they 1) have more knowledge 2) are protected for having true beliefs
Later in citations of the word 'Imama' in Qur'an is translated as Imam but to say leader is wrong. Why? It is because a leader can be anyone, but an Imam has to fit the royalty.
However, the presence of the term Imama does not mandate the Shi'a interpretation of it. Something else needs to suggest that it is erroneous to assume Imama is anything other than Royal leaders.
At 25 mins in there is some rational pointing, but no claims. The answer to the question is that Abu Bakr (RA) set the mould for leaders to come.
Historically Shi'a separated for political reasons
At 28 mins an attempt is made to rationalise the position of having khilafah or Imama as a Divine appointment, but the argument was said to be traditional and a jump was made to arrive at the conclusion.
At 32 mins - Reflexive argumentation used to dismantle ijma' by saying that Sunnis differ on core issues. Please read previous post above. Yes they do differ but that is not rational reason to support Imamate because there is no rational conclusion that can be drawn from this.
At 34mins 30 sec - claims that there is no need for consultation the Imam knows - that may be true but it has not been established that Imamate is valid yet.
The last argument raised in the time I listened was that the Salafis existence supports the need for Imamate ... but this is fallacious argument because Shi'a who believe in Imamate also differ in terms who the Imams really are. At least three differ ... Isma'ilis, Fivers and Twelvers. On the basis that we take the shi'a brothers reasoning as valid then he destroys the Shi'a basis in with the argument.