Ismaili or Ithna Asheri line of Imam - haq is with whom?

[anajmi]

At first place you don't even know the names of all 124,000 Prophets then on what basis can you claim that the then all people knew Prophet of their respective era?!!!

I am not sure you are understanding the simple thing I am trying to explain.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you know the name of your prophet? Just your prophet. Not the 124,000 prophets, but just your prophet? If you tell me that you do not, then you are not a muslim.

After you answer that question, answer this question,

Do you know the name of your Imam?

If not knowing the name of the prophet makes you a disbeliever, then what does not knowing the name of the Imam do to you?

By the way, you people also claim that anyone who dies without knowing the Imam of their time dies a death of jahiliyya. So, since you do not know your Imam, or even his name, what does that make you?

[Munira_RV]

Do you know the name of your prophet?

Prophet Mohamed (S)

After you answer that question, answer this question,

Do you know the name of your Imam?

No.

If not knowing the name of the prophet makes you a disbeliever, then what does not knowing the name of the Imam do to you?

Nothing.

By the way, you people also claim that anyone who dies without knowing the Imam of their time dies a death of jahiliyya.

Your above statement is false. Fatimi Dawat do not claim above premise.

Six new shariyat came brought one each by: Aadam, Nooh, Ibrahim, Moosa, Eesa and Mohamed (S). These Prophets were succeeded by their era Imams/Prophets. Eg) In the era of Hz. Saam ibn Nooh, the 'qalma' was "La ilaha illallah, Noohin najiyullah." Though leader of era was of Hz. Saam but 'qalma' recited was of his era 'naatiq' Hz. Nooh (S). Muslims who died in the era of Hz. Saam ibn Nooh - when they will be asked who your 'Natiq' will be they will tell "Nooh" but still Allah will peg them with their era Imam Hz. Saam and not with Hz. Nooh. Likewise is for Muslims who died after death of Moahmed (S) - e.g.) People who died after death of Imam Hasan (A) and before death of Imam Hussain (A): Who will be their Prophet? Mohamed (S). But they will be pegged with Imam of their time i.e. Hussain (A) and not with Mohamed (S), as Allah says in verse 17:71, all humans will be pegged with Imam of their respective era. Another example) People died before death of Imam Mustansir Billah (A) will be pegged with him though their Prophet will be Mohamed (S). And by the same token our current era Prophet is Mohamed (S) but Allah will peg us with Imam of our era, though we know him or not but Allah surely does now.

And remember Allah is ASKING nothing from mumin but love for the Imams, the kins of Mohamed (S), (verse 42:23).

Thus, all discussion in this and previous posts in reference to verse 17:71 (which BTW uses the word "Imam") does proves Imamat from Quran.

[anajmi]

By the way, you people also claim that anyone who dies without knowing the Imam of their time dies a death of jahiliyya.

Fatimi Dawat do not claim above premise.

Thank you for saying that this is a false statement. I would like the other Fatimi Dawat champions on this board to take note that knowing the Imam of your time is not necessary.

[Munira_RV]

By the way, you people also claim that anyone who dies without knowing the Imam of their time dies a death of jahiliyya.

Thank you for saying that this is a false statement. I would like the other Fatimi Dawat champions on this board to take note that knowing the Imam of your time is not necessary.

Though having Imaan on him (verse 17:71) and loving him (verse 42:23) is very necessary.

Now as you seem to have acknowledged the falseness of your current maslaq, so do proselyte to Fatimi dawat (Dawoodi Bohra) maslaq.

[Muslim First]

Though having Imaan on him (verse 17:71) and loving him (verse 42:23) is very necessary.

Quran, 17:71-72:
“One day We shall call together all human beings with their respective record book (imam): those who are given their record in their right hand will read it (with pleasure), and they will not be dealt with unjustly in the least. But those who were blind in this world, will be blind in the hereafter, and most stray from the Path.”

For critical analysis of

Verses 36:12 and 17:71-72
http://web.archive.org/web/200808210726 ... and-17-71/

42:23
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMa ... nguageId=2


(Say (O Muhammad, unto mankind): I ask of you no fee therefor, save loving kindness among kinsfolk…) [42:23].

Said Ibn ‘Abbas: “When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, migrated to Medina, he went through periods of time when he faced needs and rights which he had to address but did not have the means to do so. The Helpers said: ‘Allah, exalted is He, has guided you through this man who is the son of your sister. He faces life’s vicissitudes and has rights but does not have the means to fulfil them. Collect for him from your wealth that which will not hurt you and give it to him so that he uses it to help himself with the ups and downs of life’. They collected some wealth and took it to him. They said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, you are the son of our sister, and Allah, exalted is He, has guided us through you. Sometimes you go through ups and downs in life and you also have rights to address. But you do not have the means to face up to all of this. We thought to collect for you some of our wealth so that you can use it when you need it. Here it is’. This verse was then revealed”.

Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi , trans. Mokrane Guezzou

[Muslim First]

42:23

Comment on kinship in Maudid's Tahafeem Quran

41The word qurba in the original has been interpreted differently by the different commentators. One section of them takes it in the meaning of kinship and has given this meaning to the verse "I do not ask of you any reward for this service, but I do desire that you (O people of Quraish) should show some regard tar the kinship that there is between me and you. You should have accepted my invitation. but if you do not accept it, you should not be so hard-hearted as to Become my bitterest enemies in the entire land of Arabia. " This is the interpretation given by Hadrat 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas, which has been cited by lmam Ahmad, Bukhari. Muslim. Tirmidhi, Ibn Jarir, Tabarani, Baihaqi. Ibn Said and others on the authority of many reporters and the same commentary has been given by Mujahid. 'Ikrimah, Qatadah, Suddi, Abu Malik, 'Abdur Rehman bin Zaid bin Aslam, Dahhak. 'Ata bin Dinar and the other major commentators.

The other section takes qurba in the meaning of nearness and interprets the verse to mean: "I do not seek from you any other reward than this that you should develop in yourselves a desire for attaining nearness to Allah. That is; you should be reformed. That is my only reward. " This commentary has been reported from Hasan Basri and a saying of Qatadah also has been cited in support of this: so much so that in a tradition by Tabarani this saying has also been attributed to Ibn 'Abbas. In the Qur'an itself, at another place, this same subject has been treated, thus: "Tell them: I do not seek of you any reward for this work: I only ask of the one who will. to adopt the way of his Lord.' (AI-Furqan: 57).

The third group takes qurba in the meaning of the kindred, and interprets the verse to mean this: "I do not seek from you any other reward than this that you should love my near and dear ones." Then, some of the commentators of this group interpret 'the kindred" to mean alt the children of 'Abdul Muttalib, and some others restrict it to Hadrat 'AIi and Fatimah and their children. This commentary has been reported from Said bin Jubair and 'Amr bin Shu'aib, and in some traditions it has been attributed to Ibn 'Abbas and Hadrat 'AIi bin Husain (Zam al-'Abedin), but this interpretation cannot be accepted for several reasons. Firstly. when Surah Ash-Shura was sent down at Makkah, Hadrat 'AIi and Fatimah had not yet been married and, therefore, there could be no question of their children. As for the children of 'Abdul Muttalib, they were not all following the Holy Prophet but some of them had openly joined with his enemies, and the enmity of Abu Lahab is too well known. Second, "the kindred" of the Holy Prophet were not only the children of 'Abdul Muttalib but he had his kindred among all the families of the Quraish through his mother and his father and his wife. Hadrat Khadijah. In all these clans he had his best supporters as well as his staunch enemies 'Third, and this is the most important paint, in view of the high position of a Prophet from which he starts his mission of inviting the people towards Allah, it does not seem fitting that he would ask the people to love his kindred in return for his services in connection with his great Mission. No person of fine taste could imagine that Allah would have taught His Prophet such a mean thing, and the Prophet would havc uttered the same before the Quraish. In the stones that have been narrated of the Prophets in the Qur'an, we find that a Prophet after a Prophet stands up before his people sad says: "I do not ask of you any reward: my reward is with Allah, Lord of the worlds." (Yunus: 72; Hud: 29, 51; Ash-Shu'ara': 109, 127, 145, 164, l80). In Surah Ya Sin the criterion given of a Prophet's truthfulness is that he gives his invitation without any selfish motive. (v. 21). In the Qur'an the Holy Prophet himself has been made to say again and again words to the effect: "I demand no reward from you for this message. " (Al An'am: 90, Yusuf: 104, Al-Mu'minun: 72, Al-Furqan: 57, Saba: 47, Suad: 86, At-Tur; 40, AI Qalam: 46). After this, what could be the occasion for the Holy Prophet to tell the people that in return for his service of inviting them to Allah, they should lout his relatives. Then it seems all the more irrelevant when we state that the addressees here are the disbelievers and not the believers. The whole discourse, from the beginning w the end, is directed to them. Therefore, there could be no question in this regard of asking the opponents for any reward, for a reward is asked of those who show some appreciation for the services that a person has rendered for them. The disbelievers were not at all appreciative of the Holy Prophet's services: on the contrary, they regarded them as a crime and had turned bitterly hostile to him.

[anajmi]

Now as you seem to have acknowledged the falseness of your current maslaq,

Actually, you and I together have proven the falseness of the assertion that knowing the Imam is necessary in Fatimi Dawat, which is what I have been claiming all along.

If knowing the Imam is not necessary, then the Imam himself is not necessary.

Though having Imaan on him (verse 17:71) and loving him (verse 42:23) is very necessary.

17:71 doesn't talk about having Imaan on Imam. It simply says that you will be called with your Imam. That Imam could be the prophet (saw) as has been explained earlier.
42:23 I am not even sure how you derived loving the Imam that no one knows, from this ayah.

Allah has very clearly identified who we need to have Imaan on in other ayahs of the Quran. For example,

ayah 2:285
آمَنَ الرَّسُولُ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِن رَّبِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّن رُّسُلِهِ وَقَالُواْ سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا غُفْرَانَكَ رَبَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ

Imaan required in Rasool, in what was revealed to them, Imaan in Allah, Imaan in His angels, Imaan in His revelations and Imaan in the fact that all his apostles brought the message of Tawheed. No need to have Imaan in a non-existent Imam.

[Muslim First]

Have you ever read translation of Qur'an by Ayatullah Agha Pooya Yazdi and Mir Ahmed Ali? They are openly claiming references in the Qur'an about Imams. I prefer to believe them.

Yes I have

Take the challenge
This is an open challenge for the Javedh to give Quranic verses which outline and justify the Shia concept of Imamah. Can Javedh produce even a single verse outlining Imamah, without any additions to the translation, without parenthetical insertions to the translation, without Hadith to “support” their interpretation, without Tafseer, and without their his personal commentaries leading us from verse to verse?

[Munira_RV]

يَوْمَ نَدْعُو كُلَّ أُنَاسٍ بِإِمَامِهِمْ ۖ فَمَنْ أُوتِيَ كِتَابَهُ بِيَمِينِهِ فَأُولَٰئِكَ يَقْرَءُونَ كِتَابَهُمْ وَلَا يُظْلَمُونَ فَتِيلًا فَتِيلًا

Abdullah Yusuf Ali: One day We shall call together all human beings with their (respective) Imams: those who are given their record in their right hand will read it (with pleasure), and they will not be dealt with unjustly in the least.

Word "Record book" in Arabic is written in red text = كِتَابَهُ

Word "Imam" in Arabic is written in green text = بِإِمَامِهِمْ

So in verse above "Imam" is separate entity and "record book" is separate entity, they are not one and same. Should they have been same then word "كِتَابَهُ" should have been used instead of word "بِإِمَامِهِمْ".

As Muslim First bhai himself says in his post in this thread in reference to verse 21:73 - the word "Imams" have been used for Prophets i.e. for humans and not for record books. So we learn from Quran that word "Imam" is used in context of human leader and not in reference of 'record book'.

Coming back to 17:71 - As Abdullah Yusuf Ali correctly puts up: all humans (of all era) will be called with their Imams, and they will be given their record books of their deeds. This verse clearly and categorically reveals and acknowledge: Imams as the leader of all people in all era.

Above fails punctures the challenge given by some sects to Fatimi Dawat Shia's!

Dear Muslim First bhai,

Your original premise of challenge was to stick to only Quran for proving or disproving Imamat and not to use any tafseer nor any hadith. Now check your second-last post and other previous posts through out you and your jodidaar anajmi bhai have taken refuge of quoting tafseer and hadith! You have deviated from your own original premise! Same way you have deviated from rightful Islam.

Refer to the quoted text above which is using only Quran and the aayat 17:71 itself to show outrightly that the word "Imam" meant Imam (human) and not the record book. Hence Imamat is proven from Quran and that punctures your made-up challenge.

[Munira_RV]

Actually, you and I together have proven the falseness of the assertion that knowing the Imam is necessary in Fatimi Dawat, which is what I have been claiming all along.

If knowing the Imam is not necessary, then the Imam himself is not necessary.

In your previous post you asked if knowing "NAME" of Imam was necessary? To this I replied, "No". Now you dishonestly lied by changing 'not knowing name' into 'not knowing the Imam' itself! Wah bhai wah!

We know about every Imam at least following:
(1) He is appointed authorised person by Allah (verse 4:59) via Mohamed (S), Ali (A), Hussain (A)..... and the chain there of.

(2) Imam of every era knows not only all languages ("bhasha") that people speak, indeed he knows all the tongues ("boil") that all people in all era speaks. Refer Sura Maryam verse 96 & 97.

(3) Sura al Baqarah - ) ذَٲلِكَ ٱلۡڪِتَـٰبُ لَا رَيۡبَ‌ۛ فِيهِ‌ۛ هُدً۬ى لِّلۡمُتَّقِينَ (٢) ٱلَّذِينَ يُؤۡمِنُونَ بِٱلۡغَيۡبِ وَيُقِيمُونَ ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَمِمَّا رَزَقۡنَـٰهُمۡ يُنفِقُونَ (That Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide for mutaqeen (pious ones). Those who believe in the ghaib (the unseen, which covers the Prophets when they went into caves or Imams during their concealment), and establish prayer and spend out of what We have given them rizq.)

Should Quran be referring herself then it would have used word "haada" or "haaza" which in english means, "This book" but Quran says Zalikal Kitaab "That book". Who is "that"? Quran challenge is there is no error in her and this challenge is standing for past 1400 years. So the book that Quran is referring to has to be one without errors and equal in status that of book Quran herself. None of Sunni/Wahabi/Salafi so called scholar till date have failed to report not even one error committed by Ameer al momineen Mola Ali (A)! But same cannot be said for Awwal, Sani and Salis, in their own books their misdeeds and sins are reported.

[anajmi]

Munira_RV,

Since you do not know your Imam, or even his name, I am going to assume that you haven't validated any of the qualities about him that you describe. Infact, the prophet (saw) did not know any language other than Arabic. I seriously doubt Ali spoke Gujarati. Is there a single narration from any of them in a language other than Arabic? Where do you people get these fairy tales from?

Surah baqara

والَّذِينَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ وَبِالآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ

Required is belief in that which was bestowed on the prophet (saw) and that which came before him. No need to believe in anything that comes after him. Specially that which cannot be verified by anyone.

Imam of every era knows not only all languages

Since no one has ever spoken to the Imam or even knows who he is, I am sure there is no one who can actually validate this. By the way, you have completely misunderstood those ayahs. The Quran was revealed in Arabic to make it easy for the prophet to understand and explain to people. I am not sure from where you get these crazy interpretations. The jews took such liberties with their scriptures and became cursed forever.

[Muslim First]

It looks like Munir_RV is our old friend Badrijanab

[ghulam muhammed]

In all probability it seems to be badrijanab himself who previously posted with multiple IDs such as Mubarak, Doctor etc but it seems he has now not only preferred a new ID but has even changed his gender !

[Munira_RV]

Gholam Mohamed bhai and Muslim First bhai,

Thank you for being afraid of my write-ups.

Though I must acknowledge I have learn a lot from Hanif bhai, Badrijanab bhai, Porus bhai, Znanwalla bhai and lately I like some work of Silvertongue bhai where he presented categorical traditions from Sahih Bukhari/Muslim and proved Hz. Aisha is not party to Ahle-Bayt and Panjatan are indeed the only party to Ahle-Bayt.

I must also acknowledge that by discussion with Anajmi bhai have put me to do more research and further refinement. Reading posts of bhai Pardesi, bhai Doctor, bhai S. Insaf, bhai Adam, bhai Asif786, bhai Turbo, bhai Hussain_KSA, bhai Accountability, behen Nafeesa, and few more too were good learning.

This website is very good source of learning. The arguments, counter-arguments, their rebut... it is like being part of good group-discussion or talk-show. Unlike book format this website offers easier new way to access brainstorming thoughts and learn from it. I've joined this forum one and half year back, but I wish I could have joined when most of above were active! Nevertheless their write-ups saved here will always help those who want to learn by reading conversations among different school of thoughts. Unfortunately they cannot be assembled in some orderly fashion to make the reading time saving, convenient and easy browsing!

[Muslim First]

Thank you for being afraid of my write-ups.

Same tired arguments

[Munira_RV]

33:30 - O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for God.

33:31 - But any of you that is devout in the service of God and His Apostle, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.

33:32 - O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (God), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.

33:33 - And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey God and His Apostle. And God only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.

Verse 30-32 says the wives of Prophet Mohamed (S) are susceptible to sins and therefore precaution is warned to them as their punishment is double than common women.

Refer the bold text above - Allah is making Ahlul Bayt as pure and spotless. As they are spotless & pure hence they are NOT susceptible to sins, but Prophet wives are indeed susceptible to sins & double punishment. Hence as per Quran wives of Prophet are not part of Ahlul Bayt.

Hadith below are in line with Quran verses above:

Narrated Yazid Ibn Hayyan:

We went to Zaid Ibn Arqam and said to him: You have found goodness (for you had the honor) to live in the company of the Prophet (S) and offered prayer behind him, and the rest of the Hadith is the same (as 3 traditions before) but the Prophet said: "Behold, for I am leaving amongst you two weighty things, one of them is the Book of Allah...", and in this (Hadith) these words are also found: We said: "Who are his Ahlul-Bayt (that the Prophet was referring to)? Are they his wives?”

Thereupon Zaid said: "No, by Allah! A woman lives with a man (as his wife) for a while; he then divorces her and she goes back to her parents and her people. The Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet are his lineage and his descendants (those who come from his blood) for whom the acceptance of charity (Sadaqah) is prohibited."

Reference:

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of virtues of companions, section of the virtues of ‘Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1874, Tradition #37

Zaid Ibn Arqam said: I have grown old and have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). So accept whatever I narrate to you, and which I do not narrate do not compel me to do that. He then said: One day, Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood up to deliver sermon at a watering place known as Khum (Ghadir Khum) which is situated between Mecca and Medina.

He praised Allah, Extolled Him and delivered the sermon and exhorted (us) and said: "Now to our purpose, O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I shall answer that call (would bid good-bye to you). But I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah... The second are the members of my household (Ahlul-Bayt). By Allah I remind you (of your duties) to the Members of my House (saying three times)."

He (Husayn Ibn Sabra) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren’t his wives the members of his family? Thereupon Zaid said: His wives are among Ahlul-Bayt but here Ahlul-Bayt are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: ‘Ali and the offspring of ‘Ali; Aqil and the offspring of Aqil, and the offspring of Ja’far and the offspring of Abbas.

Reference:

• Sahih Muslim, Chapter of the virtues of companions, section of the virtues of ‘Ali, 1980 Edition Pub. in Saudi Arabia, Arabic version, v4, p1873, Tradition #36.