Quran Vs Shia !

[External Content]

http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/quran_vs_shia.htm


INTRODUCTION:

1. Whether we can assume that all the fundamentals of Islam has to be in Quran in an explicit and strong way:

Actually I am sorry that when it comes to referring to Quran, few Shia friends prefer to even sacrifice Quran for their own belief. They prefer to put the authority of Quran under question rather than their own opinions. Truly the most serious complain of the holy Prophet on his Ummah in the day of judgement (that has been mentioned in Quran) is about people who have put this book away.
"... and the messenger saith: O my lord lo mine own folk make this Quran of no account" (Furqan, 30, trans. Pikthall)

(by the way, according to Shia, the biggest misguidance of Muslims after the death of prophet was that they left Ahlalbayt. I wonder why then the complain of the holy prophet is about leaving Quran, not Ahlalbayt, let me guess, because leaving Quran resulted in leaving Ahlalbayt, how complicated. But this is another issue!!!)

Now here I am trying to some how prove to my Shia brothers/sisters that we need to look for explicit evidences of our belief in Quran.

Dear brothers, unlike what some of you are saying, I haven't put any assumption from my own. I think the fact that our fundamental belief needs to be directly and strongly backed by Quran is part of Badihiat (crystal clear facts), I still try to prove it to you via 4 ways:

a. By verses of Quran:

Quran itself says that it is the book of guidance.
Quran itself says that it is including every thing (which in the context of Quran it means every thing for our guidance)
Quran itself says that it is a clear and easy book (except the Moteshabeh verses).
Quran itself says that it is directing to guidance, cure, Rahmat, straight way, and Haqq.
Quran asks isn't revealing Quran enough for you (Ankaboot, 51)
Quran introduces itself as Allah's guidance (Anam 88)
Then it also tells us that the real guidance is from Allah (Baqarah 120), and that even the holy prophet cannot guide any one he wish (Baqarah 272, Qesas 56), and that even the prophet himself is being guided by Quran (Saba 50).
Quran challenges people if they can bring ANYTHING that could be better source of guidance than Quran (Qesas 49)

I cannot see how Quran can satisfy all the above characteristics and yet it does not include enough explicit and strong verses on the fundamental beliefs of Islam. How can we say that Allah is implicit about some of the fundamentals and explicit about some others after reading the above verses.

b. By looking at contents of Quran:

If Quran was only giving us stories of prophets or Fiqh or only advise to follow the prophet maybe the case was different, but Quran clearly gives us explicit criteria for our salvation (what at the end of the day every one of us is looking for):

Quran itself talks about the criteria for salvation in the day of judgement:
According to Quran the criteria is Iman and Amale Saleh (good deeds). In Quran itself we can see the definition for Momen (e.g. first verses of Sura Momenoon).
When I read in numerous places in Quran that believe in Allah and his prophet and doing good deeds are the criteria for being saved in the day of judgement, that's the only criteria for me to look for (note that every fundamental issue, commanded by the prophet is also supported by Allah, in other words even the prophet learns from Quran).
If believing in anything else was necessary, Allah would have added it in those numerous verses, and if you say why, you are questioning the guidance function of Quran.
Look at the cases where Allah tells us the criteria for salvation. Can you find even one verse where believing and following Imam (in Shia definition) has been mentioned as one of the criteria?

Now Shia says that all these criteria are nonsense if you don't believe in Imamah. And when you ask for explicit evidences they say why you think there should be explicit evidences in Quran.
Excuse me but do you believe the Quran to be the book of guidance or the book of misguidance?! (God forbidden).


c. Shia sources of Hadith:

If you refer to your own Ahadith you can see that Quran had been introduced as the main source of guidance.

Hadithe Seqelayn (which Shia is very found of) introduces Quran as the Seqle Akbar (the bigger Seql). Shia seems to just stick to their own specific interpretation of the second part of hadith (and even there only the versions that suits them) on the smaller Seql (Ahlebayt) with no notice to the first part.

Also from Shia sources:

Imam Ali says in Nahjul Balagha.:
Quran is Hujjat of Allah for his servants (No. 183, or one before or after depending on the edition)
... it is the basis of Islam ... and the guidance for anyone who follow it and justification for any one who take it as his approach and the evidence for any one who take it as his supporter in his discussions and winner for any one who use it for making his arguments (No. 198)
(how can Quran be hojjat, while it is not consisting strong explicit references to the main beliefs of Islam?)

Ahadith fi Quran, Bab Fazle Quran (a Shia book):
Holy prophet says (my translation): when fetnah comes to you like the darkness, stick to Quran ... it directs you to heaven if you follow it and it's your guide to the best way ...

Mizanol-Hekmah, Babe Quran:
The holy prophet was informed about the Fetnah of his people in future, People asked him how can we be safe from it and he replied: By Quran ... any one who look for knowledge in any were other than Quran Allah will misguide him.

Same source form the holy prophet:
Allah has not advise people in any way like when he advises them by Quran.

Imam Sadiq (same source):
Any one who comes to recognise the truth from any sources other than Quran will not be prevented from Fetnah.

Also:
Same source from Imam Ali:
It's the book of Allah by which you hear, see and talk ...

Same source from holy prophet:
Put Quran as your main leader and director

Same source, Imam Ali:
Best statements, clearest advises and best stories are in Quran.

Same source Imam Ali:
The superiority of Quran to others is like superiority of Allah to others.

All the above are Shia sources.
Again I cannot see how Quran can fulfil all the above and still it can be without explicit evidences of some of the most important parts of Islamic belief which is necessary for your guidance.


d. by rational thinking:

Quran is the textbook and guidebook of Muslims.
When a teacher gives a text book to his students, he choose a book that reflects the main subjects that the teacher wants students to learn. If in the exam students find that the questions with most significant marks are those that the text book has not refer to them or has very briefly and indirectly talked about them, they can put the justice of the teacher under question.
Allah is the best teacher and the absolute Just and he says in Quran that he never punish people unless he has given them the reasons and proof. Allah is giving certain credits to some issues in Quran by his emphasis on it, thus Muslims try to be good at those issues. He is far greater than asking people about something that he has not given it the same credit in Quran.

Why is that only when talking about Imamat, we start arguing about the degree of guidance in Quran?!
Why only when talking about Imamah, we need to prove that we need Tafsir and hadith as well?!


My question was a simple and rational one.
It's up to Shia to justify why Quran is not referring to Imamah in the same way (emphasis, strength, being explicit, command) that it refers to other things (things that to Shia are less important than Imamah?)

Note that I am not a Quranist and I do not reject the importance of Ahadith, however the main point is that if Quran (as the main source of guidance) had talked about Imamah in the same way that it talks about Oneness of God, Nabovvat, Salat, etc, then Muslims were encouraged to seek hadith and tafsir to know more about imamat.

I advise myself and all fellow Muslims to accept Quran as their Imam and not to put themselves Imams of Quran. Please do not put the complete authority of Quran under question to prove your points.

Let us not be among those who the holy prophet will complain of in the day of judgement. Those who have ignored Quran.


2. Is it accurate to say Quran has commanded obedience of the holy prophet and therefore we can refer to Hadith in order to prove Imamah?

It's true that we are commanded to follow the holy prophet.

However it's very very strange that as for less important issues (according to Shia) like Nabovvat and Ma'ad and Salat and Zakat, Allah has not left us only with the holy prophet. He has given us lots of verses in Quran to command us about these issues. However when it comes to Imamat, we are being referred to the holy prophet. Are you suggesting inconsistency in Quran?

The holy prophet IS NOT the volume II of the book of guidance. He is a messenger who delivers and teaches us the guidance that Allah has given us in Quran. . The prophet himself was learning Islam through Quran.

Besides, I would argue that even in the (authentic) words of the holy prophet there are no evidence for the doctrine of Imamah (and not in the words of Imam Ali, and Hassan and Hussain and Ali-ebnel-Hussain, up to Imam Baqir -RA,HM)

3. Some Shia brothers say: Prove that Aboobakr (RA) should be the khalif after the holy prophet from Quran:

This only shows the misunderstanding of some brothers about the belief of Sunnies. Believing in Kholafaye Rashedin is not a fundamental element of Islam. According to Sunnies, there are only 6 Articles of Faith and 5 pillars of Islam and believing in khelafat of Aboobakr is not part of either of them.

Any groups of people tend to elect some one as their leader. And the rational and most reasonable way to do so is by election. Certainly no system of public election was established at that time and the election of Aboobkar was done through negotiation of present people. You might think that it was not a good choice or that not all qualified people were presented at the time, that's your opinion and you might be able to prove it to be true. But it has nothing to do with looking for evidences on Quran about it. It's just a routine social practice that was and is and will be done in any society and no logical mind would expect a divine evidence for that.

Having said that, once the Sahabeh of the holy prophet agree on a great Sahabi like Aboobakr (RA) to become the Khalifah, then it is the duty of all Muslims to obey him for the sake of Islam and unity.

If you ask me what is your proof about this, I will give you a source that Shia holds as a very strong proof:

Nahjolbalaqah, letter No. 6 of Imam Ali to Mo'aviah (note that in some versions of Nahjul balagha. This letter is few numbers before or after):

"People who did Beyat to Aboobakr and Omar, did beyat with me in the same way. So the one who is present cannot select any one else for Kahlifah and the one who is absent cannot disobey people in their selection. Shora belongs to Mohajer and Ansar, so if they gather around a person and appoint him as their Imam this is to the satisfaction of Allah. If any one disapprove them on this or innovate something about it he should be taken back to the people who he has left (by accepting the appointed Khalifah), and if he refused to do so people has to fight with him as he is going to a path other than of Muslims."

Now it's up to you brothers whether you want to attribute Taqyah or lie or politics or what ever to your Imam and whether you like to justify his comment in the same way that you justify verses of Quran.

(also please beer in your mind that we have an explicit verse in Quran that says "va amrohom shoora baynahom", (and their affairs are done by consultancy between them). Surely the question of leadership is one of the affairs of Muslims. However I won't use this verse to prove anything about Khelafat in Islam. Unlike you Shia brothers and sisters, I am quite cautious about playing Lego with the verses of Quran)

Please note:
All the idea of this message is that the credit that we give to things needs to be the same level of credit that Quran gives to them, if we are to follow Quran.


4. whether the way Quran talks about fundamentals are enough for us to understand all their details:

I have said this before and repeat it again here:
As Quran said, it's the book of guidance. Quran teaches us all the main things that we need to know for salvation and by putting emphasis on the issues it also encourages us to know more about them by referring to the holy prophet and by thinking. Only after finding the emphasis of Allah on Salat in Quran (98 explicit and strong verses) a Muslim will get an idea to refer to Sunnah for more details.
It's not like Quran only talks very implicitly about an issue and when you refer to the holy prophet you find that the issue is the most important issue in Islam after Tohid!. If it was like that Allah would never asked us to read Quran and to think about it. Then it wasn't really a book of guidance and the prophet would not advise us to refer to it in the state of confusion.

5. Why not obeying the Shia Imams, they were very pious and knowledgeable, why first looking for evidences from Quran:

I don't think any reasonable sunni has any problem with obeying Shia Imams. If you have found your Imams to be the most knowledgeable and pious people of their time then of course you like to follow them and this has nothing to do with Shia Sunni debate. There are some groups of Sunnies in an Arab country (can't remember where) who follow Imam Sadiq in Feqhe.
However the problem starts when Shia begins accusing others of being misguided and looking at their Imams as people with a rank higher than most of the prophets and start cursing and hating any one that they think some how disagreed Imams. The problem begins when they define the obedience of their Imams as a fundamental of Islam thus believing that all others are misguided.


6. The Verses that Shia refers to:

Finally and after all these arguments we reach to the verses that Shia brothers refere to in their arguments. Let us see the verses and realise how strong they are in proving Imamah.

Before this, let me discuss about few introductory concepts:

a. Let us first review the concept of Imamah in Shia:

According to 12er Shia (and not all Shia):

-Imam is the only Khalifah of Allah in the earth.
-Imam is the tool for obeying Allah, any acts of obedience without accepting the real Imam is useless.
-The world will be destroyed without Imam (Imam is the balance of the world).
-There were always Imams in the history.
-Imams have a rank that is higher than of prophets (unless prophet himself is an Imam, e.g. our holy prophet or Sayyedana Ebrahim).
-Imams are certain people that are appointed by God.
-Imams are infallible.
-Imams have access to a knowledge that normal people do not have an access to.
-After the holy prophet there are only 12 Imams with the above conditions.
-Only these 12 know all the things about true Islam and true interpretation of Quran.
-The existence of Imam is that important that it can happen that an Imam exists but is hidden for more than 1200 years (like Imam Mahdi).
-Concluding remark: The pre-requirement of any act of worship and any belief in Islam is believing in these 12 Imams. Muslims are not considered Momen (true believer) unless they are 12er Shia. Also any understanding of Islam that is not in agreement with the understanding of these 12 Imams is wrong.

[External Content]

Continued from above


I am sure anyone with a minor study of Imamah agrees with the above as the main belief of Shia on Imamah, any doubts or complains, I suggest people read the works of Mofid, Sadooq and Kolayni and Khomaini.

Now I don't mean that we need all the above to be proved by Quran. However the above shows the credit and weight that 12er Shia gives to the concept of Imamah. Now we can see whether such a weight and credit is also given to this concept by Quran.

b. Another important point:
There is a concept in Osoole Feqhe (common between both Shia and Sunni) that is called Haqiqate Shar'ie (Religious Identity) and Haqiqate Lafzi (Literal Identity) .
I need to explain this before looking at the verses:
I explain it by an example to make it easy to understand:
Salat by word means prayer, i.e any sort of. So they say that Haqiqate Lafzi (Literal Identity) of Salat is general prayer.
Now in Quran whenever we read Salat we don't get it as a general prayer, we get it as the five specific forms of prayer that a Muslim needs to perform daily. This other meaning of Salat is its Shar'iee (Religious) meaning and as they say, it is basically the Majazi (not-direct) meaning of the word.

However the word has been repeated in Quran and has been elaborated by Quran and holy prophet and has been practiced and put into action by Muslims so strongly that the Majazi meaning soon took over the Haqiqi meaning and this happened in the time of the prophet. From that time on, if a Sahabi hears Salat in Quran or from the mouth of the holy prophet he would never take it as a general prayer but he would take it as the specific meaning that we understand from it today.

In other words the importance of the concept has swapped the position of Haqiqate Lafzi (literal Meaning) with Majazi (indirect) meaning. They call the new meaning of the word (that once was Majazi) "Haqiqate Shar'ie" (Religious identity). That means Shar'ea (religion) has given a specific meaning to the word.

Zakat and hajj and Saom also have Haqiqate Shar'yee.

Even Resalat has a Haqiqate Sharyee. When you read Rasool in Quran you never think that it is talking about a postman. You know that it is talking about some one coming to us by the command of Allah. You realise the haqiqate Shar'ie of the word.

Now Imamh has a Haqiqate Lafzi.
According to all the books of Loqat it means leader.
(In common between Shia and Sunni mofassrin in some occasions it also means book)

So when we see the words Imam in Quran, we cannot simply attribute it to the 12er Shia understanding of Imam. There are lots of differences between a simple leader and what we saw as the belief of Shia on Imamah. Same goes with the word Kahlifa.

c. By an explicit and clear and strong and direct verses, I mean just the same way that Allah talks about other fundamental issues in Quran. To understand a verse of Quran by means of another verse of Quran is one of the strongest ways of interpretation of Quran. However this approach is far different from mixing verses of Quran and playing with them. If we get a verse and compare it to other one, and get the results to compare it to the third one and with the help of hadith and tafsir mix a concept with the results and apply it to the forth one for our final conclusion, we are dangerously playing with Quran and this is not what I mean by explicit, direct, clear and strong evidence. This is not the way that you would look for proof for other fundamentals of Islam in Quran. Quran is not a book of chemistry brothers, it's a clear book of guidance.


Okay now let us see the verses one by one:

****************************************
"And thy Lord creates what He wills and chooses; they have no right to choose; glory be to Allah, and exalted be He above what they associate! (28:68). "

The Shiite Brother who raised this verse then said:
"This clearly shows that man has no right to make any selection; it lies entirely in the hands of Allah."

Then he proceeded to say:
"Before creating Adam (as), Allah informed the angels:

... "Verily I am going to make a caliph in the earth ". . . ( 2: 30).
And when the angels demurred politely at the scheme, their protest was brushed aside by a curt reply: "Surely I know what you know not" (ibid.). If the ma'sum (infallible) angels were given no say in the appointment of a caliph, how can fallible humans expect to take the whole authority of such an appointment in their own hands?""""""""


Brother, I beg you, for your own sake, go and read some of the Shia Tafasir like Tafsire Almizan or Majma'Olbayan to see if at least your own scholars have understood these verses in the same way that you are understanding them.

Please use a search engine and search for the word Khalifa to see its meaning in Quran. If you do so you will find that Khalifa does not mean an Imam. Human being is God's Khalifa in world because he has the most complete qualifications among the whole creators, including angels.

This is exactly what Allameh Tabatabayee says in tafsir of this verse. He explains in detail that here Khalifa does not mean only Adam. It means the human being from his generation as well. Allamah then refers to other verses in which the word Khalifa or Kholafa has been mentioned to support his comment (a comment that is not exclusive to him but is a common understanding by almost all the Shia and Sunni scholars). He then says that God never said in reply to the angels that this Khalifa will not do what they suggested. He only said that he (God) knows something that they do not know.

In fact the question of the angels itself shows that Khalifa here does not have that specific meaning that the brother says.


As for the second verse please read your Majmaolbayan to see what does the "Choice" refers to in this verse and what was the story behind it.

You said "Man has no right to make ANY selection".

Firstly it is interesting that you suddenly changed the word Choice to the word Selection to make it closer to the context of 12ers Imamat!

Secondly this is a very weird comment I have ever heard and I am not sure if your scholars agree you on this.
So on what basis in Iran, the Majles of Khobregan selected Khameneyee to be the leader? In what way could a Shia select a Marja for himself? In what way do you select an Imam to lead the prayer? Haven't you ever vote for any election which is a way to selection and is a choice? Have you never chosen any thing in your life, how do you want to get married then Ensha'Allah?! Why then in another verse God says "Wa Amrohom Shoora Baynahom"? When you use the word "ANY" you are making generalisation from this verse. If you are going to say these do not included in the word Choice then I will ask on what basis you include Imamat in this word.

This is while if you read the verse and your own tafasir you will find that it has a specific meaning by Choice. In Majmaolbayan the most popular reference of the Shia Tafsir it is stated that Koffar were saying why the prophet could not be one of our bosses and in response God says in this verse that Allah choose who is going to be the prophet. The prophet that Allah talks about came with many evidences with HIMSELF to show he was chosen by Allah. And you are comparing this with choosing an Imam after the prophet. Nice!

On what authority brother you give yourself a right to ignore all the reasonable tafasir to this verse, apply your own pre-assumptions to it, interpret it in a way that it suits you and then generalise it to the issues that you like?

For further references about the meaning of Khalifa in Quran please see the next part.

(By the way, Shia says world is not empty from Imam, who was the Imam after Jesus? Who was the immediate Imam before Ibrahim and the immediate Imam before the prophet of Islam? Have the prophet ever met him?!)


*****"O Dawud ! Verily; We have made thee (Our) caliph on the earth ..." (38:26)

Sayyedana Dawood was a prophet and he was appointed by Allah to lead his people as the representative of Allah in this vesre.
Not sure how do we want to conclude Shia Imamah from a verse that is about a prophet.
First Dawood was a prophet, he had the advantage of receiving revelation, he is in no way comparable to people who are not receiving any revelations. Secondly according to Quran any one and any group of people can become Khalifah of Allah. They only need to believe in Allah and do good things.
Refer to:Noor-55
Also see:Fater: 39;Naml: 62;Yones: 14

 

*****And We made them Imams who were to guide by Our command ... (21:73)

Sorry that brothers often delete the first part of the verse when they refer to it, Allah warns us about those who change the words from their position (Yoharrefonal-Kalema An Mavaze'ehi).

If you read the verses before this, you will see that it's all about prophets. Has nothing to do with non-prophets and you cannot derive anything from it for non prophets.

***** "Surely I am going to make you an Imam for men." (Ibrahim) said: "And of my offspring?" He said: "My covenant will not include the unjust. " (2 : 124)

Again the verse is about a prophet and it's simply talks about the concept of leadership in general. In other verses of Quran like 21:73 you see that all of those who were from the generation of Ibrahim and are referred to as Imams are prophets.


*****... "Verily I am going to make a caliph in the earth ". . . ( 2:30).

And when the angels demurred politely at the scheme, their protest was brushed aside by a curt reply: "Surely I know what you know not" (ibid.).

If you even refer to your own tafasir you will see that even your own scholars (mostly) say that by Khalifah here it means human being in general and specifically those who believe and do good things, as the verse 55 of Sura Noor says and like the other verses I gave earlier about Sayyedana Dawood .

*****32:24 Sura Sajdah Ayat 24
"And we assigned from among them some Imams who guide by Our authority since they were patient and believed firmly in Our Signs."

The vesre again has nothing to do with the Shia definition of Imamah. You can consider Aboobkar and Omar and Osman and Ali as Imams who Allah put them for people.
This is because "Jaalna" in Quran does not necessarily means that God has put something by command. If you read the uses of the word "Ja'alna" (which here has been translated un-accurately as we Assigned) in Quran you will see that in almost all the cases the word Ja'alna in Quran does not have an exclusive Tashre'yee meaning (i.e some thing that has been put in action by a REVEALED command of Allah), in Quran it has generally used for the Takvini meaning (i.e something that has put in action by a will of Allah without necessarily revealing a command about it), by Ja'alna it does not mean that a revelation or a command has come from Allah to appoint someone as the leader. The above verse only means that from Bani Isra'yeel, those who were qualified for leadership became leaders for their people by the will of Allah. Interestingly enough there are no mentions of infallibility as a qualification for Imams in this verse. Refer to your main source of Tafsir (Majma'olbayan) and see if there you can find any tafseer for this verse to the benefit of Shia. The author in Majmaolbayan even says that some of the scholars believe that A'emma in this verse means prophets.

To understand this verse better, I invite you to look at the other verse that includes the word Imam and interestingly enough is often EXCLUDED from the Shia argument when they talk about the use of the word Imam in Quran.
The verse is related to the debate as it has the same expression that the above verse has.
Forqan 74:
"... Those who say in their prayer: `O lord grant unto us wives and offspring who will be the comfort of our eyes, and assigned us as Imams for the righteous ".
The last part of the verse uses the same impression, i.e. Vaj'alna lelmottaqina Imama.
Obviously the Imam in this verse is not the same Imam that Shia believes in (read the Shia tafasir to see they agree this). An Imam according to Shia never prays to become Imam (they are appointed divinely from the beginning). This verse shows that every normal human being, even those who have sins in the condition that they truly repent (refer to the few verses before the above verse), can become an Imam for Muslims. He does not need to be infallible and he does not need to be directly appointed by Allah. By the same token, the word "Ja'alna" in verse 32:24 has nothing to do with being directly appointed by Allah. Hence the verse is simply talking about the general meaning of Imamat which is leadership.
It is really sad that we read in Shia sources that a Shia is narrated from Imam Sadiq that the verse 74 of Forqan was not: "and assign us as Imams for the righteous", but it really was "and assign FOR us Imams FROM the righteous. It is sad to see a Shia narrator attributes the idea of Tahrif to Imam Sadiq just to justify a verse of Quran that is opposed to his belief.

Having said all the above, even if for the sake of discussion we accept that the verse is saying that Allah really appointed Imams for Bani Israil by revelation or so, still there is no indication from the vesre that Allah will also appoint Imams for Muslms by revelation or so and that this is the Sunnah of Allah. We can see that any nations with their own prophets had certain conditions that were excluded to themselves.

***** 17:71] (Remember) the day when We will call every people with their Imam; then whoever is given his book in his right hand, these shall read their book; and they shall not be dealt with a whit unjustly.

The verse above only says that at the day of judgement every one will be called with their Imam. The verse is very sensible and logical as naturally every one has a leader in his life and he/she follows that leader. Even an atheist has a leader. Quran simply says that in the day of judgement every one will be called with his leader. The question is that what does this verse have to do with Shia definition of Imamah? Allah knows best!
If you refer to the Shia popular Tafsir (Majma'olbayan), you will see that the author discusses 5 possibilities for the meaning of Imam in this verse. Interestingly enough none of them are specifically infallible Imams. I asked brothers for explicit verses and they give me a verse that even their own scholars are not taking as a proof!

*****"And We made them (but) Imams inviting to the Fire; and on the Day of Judgment no help shall they find. In this world We continued to curse them; and on the Day of Judgment they will be among the hateful. (Quran 28:41-42).

[External Content]

Continued from above


Absolutely not an explicit verse on Imamah. The brother thinks any verse that has the word Imam in it is an explicit verse for Imamah by the Shia definition!

*****"0 Messenger! Make known that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, for if you do it not, you will not have conveyed His message and Allah will save you from the (mischief) of people." (Surah al-Ma'idah, 5:67)

The verse is irrelevant to the discussion. I asked verses that explicitly and with no need to Hadith proves Shia definition of Imamah and a brother is suggesting a verse that Shia use, with reference to some Ahadith to prove Ali (RA) was appointed by Allah.
First even if for the sake of discussion we agree that the verse is referring to Qadire Khom and appointment of Imam Ali, it has nothing to do with 12er's concept of Imamah. Technically one can believe that Imam Ali was appointed by the holy prophet but he can still be Sunni. Zaidies are another group of Shia, they believe in this verse in the way that 12ers interpret it but they don't accept the 12 Imams. According to 12ers they are misguided, cause 12ers have Hadith that says if some one even denies one of the 12 Imams it's like denying all of them. The distance between what Shia concludes from this verse and the doctrine of Imamat in 12er Shia is too far to call this an explicit verse for 12er Shia Imamat theory.

As I said the verse is out of the context of this discussion, however for the respect of the brother who suggested the verse let me only point out that it doesn't make sense that the verse refers to the appointment of Imam Ali.
The word "Onzela" (revealed) by default means a verse of Quran that has been revealed to the holy prophet. There are no verses of Quran on appointment of Imam Ali !
Also according to Sunnies Qadire Khom was not exclusively about appointment of Imam Ali, so again the verse does not make any sense. Also if you read Sunni tafasir you will see strong arguments to show this verse did not revealed in the HajjatolWeda. Moreover you cannot see a single reference to Qadire Khom in Nahjolbalaqah, even in the ceremony of Sheqshaqyah where Imam is talking openly. In fact it seems that even Imam Ali never interpreted Qadr in the way that Shia interpret it as there are no authentic hadith from Imam Ali in which he uses the event of Qadir as a proof for his right to be the only Khalifah. Where ever he has referred to this event it is to show his merits and to encourage people to support him.

As a whole, to be brief I can only say here that the verse is not at all explicit about Imamah.

***** "And everything We have detailed for you in a clear Imam." (36:12)
The brother who suggests this verse, has not any idea of the tafsir of this verse according to Shia Scholars. Almost all the scholars (Shia and Sunni) agree that the word Imam here refers to Lohe Mahfooz (the secured book of deeds). There are other verses in Quran where the word Imam is explicitly used as "book", like: Hood 17.
The way our brother is trying to interpret the verse with Imam being meant a Shia Imam is very senseless and unreasonable and his comments are even not in agreement with the comments of the most celebrity Shia Mofassers like Tabrasi and Allammah Tabatabayee.


***** "O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to God and His Apostle, if ye do believe in God and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination." (4:59)

Shia often says that this verse shows that AFTER the prophet there are CERTAIN INDIVIDUALDS who it is obligatory to obey and who possess an INTRINSIC authority worthy of obedience.
I ask Allah to forgive us for interpreting his verses in the way that we desire.
All the elements of this verse are against what Shia is saying:

The verse is talking generally about those who are given a responsibility of the affairs of Muslims, these could be heads of army, head of a group, etc. The verse does not specify these people to certain individuals.
Last part of the verse explicitly shows that at the end of the day it's only Allah and his prophet who are the main references. So there are no INTRINSIC authority.


The question is that if the verse means the 12 infallible Shia Imams, why people are advised to go back to the Allah and his apostle as the final referee, why not going back to the infallible Imams?
Interestingly enough before the revolution in Iran almost all the Shia scholars were agreed that Olelamr here ONLY means infallible Imams. After the revolution however many of them started arguing that Olel'amr means Imam or his deputy (to prove their theory of Welayate Faqih). A clear example of putting one self as the Imam of Quran!

The other question. According to Shia, the holy prophet himself was an Imam and we cannot have two imams in one time. However the verse is suggesting obeying the holy prophet and those in authority at the same time.

I wonder how should a Muslim understand from this verse or combination of this verse and other verses that there are certain infallibles in the generation of the holy prophet that should be followed and despite the explicit point of the verse, Muslims do not need to refer their problems to Quran and the holy prophet if they follow these Imams cause they are already the talking Quran and their words are the words of the holy prophet!

The verse simply advises Muslims to obey those who are in authority. This is a very civilised advice that prevents the Islamic society of becoming a mess. The last part of the verse directs people that to whom should they refer if they had problems in obeying those authorities. They should refer to Allah (Quran) and the prophet (Sunnah).

If you refer to Tafasir (even Shia Tafasir) you will see the occasion for which this verse was revealed. It was about an incident in following a commander of an army that the prophet (PBUH) had sent.

Another interesting point is that if this was a general rule we needed to see it in other verses of Quran with the same context. There are 16 verses in Quran that command Muslims directly with the word "Ati'oo" to obey Allah and/or the prophet. Only two verses add another reference to Allah and prophet (Olelamr). Again see the weight that Quran gives to a concept and the weight that Shia gives to it. Are they equal?!

***** "And God only intends to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to purify you with a complete purification." (33:33)

First the verse itself proves nothing for Shia. They need hadith to prove something from it.
Second, let us avoid being among those who have been complained by Allah for taking his words out of its context (Yoharrefonal Kalema An Mavaze'ehi).
After and before this verse is about the wives of the prophet. It is not nice to include something completely irrelevant in between a group of verses that are talking about a solid subject.
Brothers might say that the verb is for male not for female. Well of course, because the holy prophet himself is included here and according to Arabic grammar, when even one male is among females, we should have the verb for male. Refer to verse: 11:73 (Ebrahim was included in Ahlalbayt, thus we have a verb for male. Also refer to 28:29.
Another important point is that whenever in Quran God says :Yoridollah (God Intendeth), it doesn't mean that God really (literally) do that, it means that God likes to see you in that position thus he gives you such commands, it is rather an encouragement to obey. See this verse:
"Allah does not intend to place you in a difficulty, but intends (Yorido) to make you purify, and to complete his favour upon you , that ye may be grateful. Quran 5 : 6
So can we use the same analogy and say that all sahabah are infallible?!
There are lots of other difficulties in the interpretation of this verse in Shia way, like the meaning of Rejs and whether being purified from Rejs means to become infallible.

The verse is a simple advise to the wives of the prophet to make them more pure and with the help of Hadith we can also conclude that other members of the family of the prophet, specifically Imam Ali, Lady Fatimah and Hasanain (RAHM) were included in the verse.
The verse proves nothing about the concept of Imamah and has nothing to do with the Imams of Shia from the forth Imam to the last.

***** "Didn't you turn your vision to the chiefs of the children of Israel after Moses? They said to a Prophet (that was) among them: `Appoint for us a king that we may fight in the cause of Allah.'" (Quran 2:246)
The above verse actually is against the Shia doctrine of Imamah.

First the verse shows that Allah has appointed Taloot upon the request of people themselves, . Second there is no evidence that Taloot was infalliable.
Also Taloot was only appointed as a king and for the purpose of fighting, while they already had a prophet who would advise them on religion.
The discussion is not that whether we need to follow the one that God appoints for us (of course we need to), but the discussion is that weather in Islam God has appointed certain people for us to follow after the holy prophet.

*****
And make for me a vizier from my family, Harun (Aaron) my brother" (20:29-30). And Allah said: "You are indeed granted your petition, O Musa!" (ibid., 36).

This is again comparing Apple with Orange.
Haroon was himself a prophet, capable of receiving revelation.
He died before Musa and thus never was his successor after him.
This is the only occasion that we are aware of when a prophet asks God to be granted a deputy to share the prophecy. Generalising this to make conclusions for Imam Ali and eleven other Imams is really strange.
Imam Ali never shared the prophecy with the prophet.
The only occasion where the prophet compares Ali with Haroon is when he is leaving the city for a fight without Ali (RA) and finds Ali to be sad about it. The comparison refers to the incidents where Musa left his people and appointed Haroon as his rep. In his absence. It is worthy of notice that it wasn't only Ali who was occasionally appointed as the prophet's rep. Some other Sahabah too had the same privilege in other occasions, including Aboobakr.

*****
Say I do not ask you for any reward other than kindness to my kinship. (Shoora 23)

Firstly even in Shia Tafasir like Majmaolbayan you can read how many possibilities have been discussed about the meaning of Qurba. If we had Zelqurba instead of Felqurba then the Kinship was surely the best meaning but as it is just now, kinship is only a possibility.
Secondly, the verse is in a Sura that is Macci which means has been revealed in Macceh. In Macceh Imam Ali had not yet married with lady Fatimah and there were no Hassan and Hussain!
Thirdly it is very strange that the prophet says to Koffar that I want this reward from you while they even do not accept his message.
Thirdly, if the verse means to be kind to Ahlalbayt (and we believe that Qurba means the 12er's definition of Ahlalbayt) this again has nothing to do with the 12ers doctrine. All the sects and groups of Islam apart from Nasebis love Ahlalbayt.

Conclusion and discussion:

1. There are no explicit verses or groups of verses in Quran to prove the Shia concept of Iamamah.

2. Shia brothers say that just as we have verses in Quran on important issues like Salat and the details are in ahadith, we also have verses on Imamat and the details are in ahadith.
The above is a mixed of wrong assumptions and statements. First, comparing to issues like Salat, Imamat is much more important issue. Yet while we have 98 strong and explicit verses on Salat that has changed this general term for prayer to a specific meaning in Islam (and about the same for other important issues), as for Imamah we see that Quran is (in comparison to other issues) very general.
On the other hand, even when comparing Salat for example with Imamah in ahadith, we see the same difference. Brothers say that we have the details of Imamah in Ahadith. This is not true at all. The details of Imamah can only be found in the ahadith that are attributed to Imam Baqer or Sadeq (unless we want to go for unreliable ahadith). How many ahadith do we have from the holy prophet with detailed explanation about the Imamat? Even in Shia sources there are not that much. And comparing to an issue like Salat, what is the percentage of these ahadith? Except one vague hadith in Muslem, how many other AUTHENTIC ahadith can Shia show from Sunni sources about the number of Imams? How many about their names? How many about their infallibility? How many about the obligatory of following them? And what is the percentage of these ahadith comparing with the ahadith about Salat? So what I am saying is that even in Hadith side of the story, 12ers have no better condition in terms of proof.

3. There is another very important point that Shia often ignores. We have been told in Quran that truth and false are clearly revealed for us (the verse in Ayatalkorsi) and that God do not expect any actions from his servants unless it is clearly stated for them. We only need to follow certain Imams after the prophet if there are verses to COMMAND us to do so. From all the verses of Imamah that brothers suggest only one or two are giving direct commands to Muslims. (Yet as I discussed at the above even these verses are not clear about the 12ers doctrine of Imamat). This puts the obligatory of belief in this concept in a serious question. At the same time we see serious commands of Allah about issues like oneness of God, Nabovvat, Salat, Fasting, etc.

4. While the weight of Shia concept of Imamah is very strong in their belief, to the contrary the mood of Quran is not the same. In Quran Taqva has been defined as the only criteria to be the best to Allah. Belief and good deeds are defined to be the criteria for being safe in the hereafter. Momen has been defined explicitly in certain verses of Quran, including the first verses in Sura Momenoon.

5. Not only Quran does not support the belief of Imamah in Shia, it also disagrees with this belief. Quran is full of the verses that says only Allah can help you and only he can guide you and you only need to call him and that those who you call beside him have nothing to do with your destiny. Quran emphasis that no ones deeds are to be ignored and that no relation or friendship can help people in the day of judgement. Quran shows that even the prophets were not sinless and that some times even they were doing mistakes, let alone non-prophets. Quran indicates that the holy prophet is nothing but a Rasool and a good example for obedience. He does not have any extra knowledge and before revelation of Quran he too was lost. Let alone the non-prophets. Quran encourages us in the verse that I referred to, to ask to be an Imam for pious Muslims.

6. The fact is that the question that why Quran is not in-line with Shia belief is a very annoying and difficult question for 12er Shia. Among the old times scholars of Shia many like Jazayeri, Tabrasi, Majlesi, Ayyasi, Qomi, Feize Kashani, etc believed in Tahrif of Quran (changes appeared in Quran). They used to base their arguments on numerous ahadith that they had about Tahrif. This was the defense of Shia against the question: You cannot find any explicit verses about Shia in Quran cause Quran has been changed!
After many centuries now the Shia scholars have realised the effect and danger of this claim for themselves. Thus they are now using another approach. They say that Quran has not been changed but "we cannot interpret Quran by ourselves" or that "Quran itself is not enough for guidance", etc. These are again to defend themselves against the question above.

7. The holy prophet has said that his Ommah will go to all the wrong paths that other people have gone to. Maybe one of the examples of this is exaggerating about certain people and putting them in between people and God. The same wrong path that Christians went about Sayyedana Eisa and his pure mother.

8. Brothers have got used to some verses in Quran and they think these verses are quite clear about Imamah. Why don't they experience a very easy experimental learning? Give a simple translation of Quran to a Non-Muslim and ask him to read it and write down for you 5 of the most important principles of Islam. Is there really any chance that he writes anything close to the concept of Imamah?

With all due respect, the brother's belief in having explicit verses in Quran about Imamah is just like the belief of Bahayees in having explicit verses in Quran about their holy book, and like the belief of Ahmadiah in having explicit verses in Quran about the continue of prophecy after the holy prophet, and like the belief of followers of Rashid Khalifah in having explicit verses in Quran about his coming. They and 12ers all have one thing in common. Only they (themselves) are able to understand your belief from Quran.

I really remind all of us to put Quran as our leader and not ourselves as leaders of Quran. I have quoted few verses of Sura of Kahf at the end of this thread. Let us all read it and think about it, maybe it also has something for us to learn.

May Allah put all of us in the right path.

******************************************
"We have explained in detail in this Quran, for the benefit of mankind, every kind of similitude, but man is in most things contentious.
And what is there to keep back men from believing now that guidance has come to them, nor from praying for forgiveness from their lord, but that (they ask that) the ways of the ancients be repeated with them, or the wrath be brought to them face to face?
...
the unbelievers dispute with vain arguments, in order therewith to weaken the truth, and they treat my signs (verses of Quran) as a jest, as also the fact that they are warned.
And who doth more wrong than one who is reminded of the signs (verses) of his lord but turns away from them. ... "
(Kahf, 54-57)


http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/quran_vs_shia.htm