Allaahuakbar.net states:
Show us the names of the prophets between … and … in Quran if you think that every thing should be in Quran
The Shia who sends this question cannot realise what is the main issue. The issue is not about NAMES. It is about a CONCEPT.. The concept of prophethood has been addressed in Quran in many verses and there are a few verses that tells Muslims that they need to believe in all the prophets. Allah has given use the story of the main prophets and have left the story of others. There is no need to know the NAME of the (as they say) 124,000 prophets in order to obey Allah. The question is about the concept of Imaamat not the names of Imaams. Quran has established the concept of prophethood and its function for us through many verses. There is however not a single verse in Quran that explicitly tells us that there is another position called Imaamat which refers to infallible God appointed individuals who are not prophets and that their existence are necessary and there will be such Imams after the prophet.
This non-sense has already been dealt with above. If after reading the Qur’an, the author does not believe that Allah (swt) sends a guide whom He appoints to every people, then there really isn’t much else that can be said.
Allaahuakbar.net states:
It is a test that’s why it is not mentioned in Quran
This claim puts the function of Quran as a guidance under a serious doubt. By this claim there is no use to read Quran to get any guidance because who knows maybe there is a fundamental part of your belief that is not mentioned in Quran because God wants to test you! By the same token Bahayees claim that Quran talks about their prophet Baha’Ollah. When you ask them but where in Quran they will show you some verses that have nothing to do with their claim. When you say but these verses are not clear about your claim they say Oh because God is testing you, Nice!
No one with any knowledge has ever seriously argued that the Qur’an has not specifically said anything about Imamate as a test. The Qur’an is clear that every people will receive a guide, and we are no different. However, Sunnis have argued that it has specifically said things about God having a hand and so forth, without explaining it, in order for it to be a “test” as to whether or not we will refuse to think about what it means, or whether or not we will come to the obvious conclusion that the Hand of God refers to the power of God. Sunni Islam expects Muslims to believe all sorts of bizarre things that we are supposed to accept without asking why or how. We are not allowed to ask how a murderous liar like Yazid could become khalifah. We have to accept it, and not ask why. Does this sound like a reasonable religion?
Allaahuakbar.net states:
Arguments that use few verses of Quran out of the context Here Shia tries to refer to few verses in which the words Imaam or Khalifa are used.
It is interesting that most of the verses in this category are those that even Shia scholars do not use them to prove their doctrine cause Shia tafasir are clear about the commonly agreed meaning of these verses. There are however non-Scholar Shia youths, those who spend all their youth over internet debating with others that use these verses. To be more specific, these are the verses where the term Khalifa/Kholafa have been used or the verses that the term Imaam has been used in the meaning other than Leader. The Shia friends simply think any reference to Imaam or khalifa means what they think. The best way to answer them in this category is to refer them to their own tafasir like Almizan and Majmaolbayan. Also to remind him of the warning that Allah gives us in Quran about taking the verses out of their context (Arabic: Yoharrefonal Kalema An Mawaze’ehi)
The author has not even said what verses are supposedly lifted out of context. But whatever these verse are, the author has already made the point: that this is the argument of non-scholars. We would ask, then: Is Shi’ism to be refuted according to what “non-scholar youths” think? Could you imagine attempting to refute any religion by focusing on the statements of some of its ignorant followers? Should I refute Sunnism on the ground that a Sunni once said something dumb to me? Of course not. This is not a logical argument. The author has already acknowledged that the ‘ulama have never referred to whatever verses the author is talking about (he has not specified them), so this entire discussion is entirely irrelevant. In any case, as he has not even mentioned the verses that are supposedly being taken out of context, there is really nothing to refute here, or even to discuss.
Allaahuakbar.net states:
Sunnies believe in Mahdi while he is not mentioned in Quran:
Firstly the concept of Mahdi for the mainstream Muslims is totally different from the concept that Shia holds for Mahdi. This is another issue discussing of which will extend the length of the article. The Shia who brings this justification has confused his own understanding of the concept of Mahdi with the mainstream’s understanding of the concept. However the more important thing is that we cannot compare the belief of the mainstream Muslims about Mahdi with the belief of Imaamat in Shia. Imaamat is one of the main articles of faith for Shia but belief in Mahdi is not one of the main articles of belief of the mainstream Muslims. The articles of belief of the mainstream Muslims have been listed by the scholars and Alhamdolellah all of them are based on explicit verses of Quran. These are 6 (or 7 depending on the phrasing) articles of belief: Belief in God and his Oneness – Belief in Angels – Belief in God’s books (Bible, Quran, etc.) – Belief in God’s messengers = Believe in the day of resurrection= Believe in Qadar (i.e. every thing and event has been written). All of these are derived form explicit verses of Quran. The very reason that we cannot see THE BELIEF IN MAHDI being listed among the articles of belief of the mainstream Muslims is that this has not been commanded and explained and established in Quran in the same way that other articles of belief are established in Quran.
The point is that Sunnis believe that, at the end of time, Allah (swt) will send somebody, and he will be the last leader of the people. Sunnis also believe that the first leader of the people, Adam (as), was also appointed by God. They also believe that everybody from Adam (as) to the Prophet (s) was appointed by God. Yet for some reason, everything goes on hold from the Prophet (s) to the Mahdi (as). In that interim, we are supposed to elect our leader, even though this has never happened before, and even though this practice will be abolished with the coming of the Mahdi (as). Why this strange hiatus?
Furthermore, Sunnis are always accusing Shi’as of believing that their Imams (as) will change the law. Yet according to the Sunnis, Allah (swt) allowed the Muslims to elect their own leaders after the Prophet (s). But we will no longer be able to do this after the Mahdi. As such, do they not then believe that the Mahdi (as) will be abrogating a law of the Prophet (s)? If a Shi’a said that Imam al-Mahdi (as) will abolish some laws of the Prophet (s), or that he will make haram something the Prophet (s) permitted, we would be branded as disbelievers and polytheists. But the Sunnis have no problem believing that the Mahdi (as) will make election haram, even though according to them the Prophet (s) made it halal.
Allaahuakbar.net states:
Imaamat is not the fundamental belief of 12ers, the appointment of Ali is the fundamental of belief.
If one cannot appreciate (in line with the conscious of all the scholars of Shia) that Ali being appointed by the prophet is the direct consequence of the concept of Imaamat and that Imaamat is the core belief of 12er Shia that’s fine. I would ask the same question about Ali. The question is a generic one that can be applied to any fundamental of belief: Where are explicit verses of Quran without any Tafsir or Hadeeth that clearly command us about what ever is the fundamental of 12ers’ belief that distinguishes them from the mainstream Muslims, being Imaamat or the Khilaafat of Ali after the holy prophet. There is no escape from this question as long as one believes that Quran is the ultimate guidance. And if a Muslim is not able to find this in Quran then by God he/she needs to answer God in the day of judgement that why he/she separate him/herself from the mainstream Muslims.
First of all, let us ask a question: Why is somebody answerable for separating himself from the “mainstream” (meaning majority) Muslims? Where is that in the Holy Qur’an? We demand clear, unambiguous verses saying that whatever the majority of people who claim to be Muslim say (acknowledging the fact that, in every age, most people who are born Muslim do not seriously practice their religion) must be accepted and obeyed. Of course there is nothing in the Qur’an to state this, and it is nothing but speculation on the part of the author. It is worth noting that the author claims to be an Iranian ex-Shi’a. It seems his major concern is being part of the “mainstream,” whatever that is (Sufi Sunnis? Wahabbis? Bilal Phillips Wahabbis or Bin Laden Wahabbis? Who is the mainstream?). We hate to be the ones to tell him this, but religion is not a popularity contest. You may feel a burning desire to follow along with the crowd, but that does not mean anything about what is the actual truth from Allah (swt). The fact that a large number of alleged Muslims say something does not mean anything. We have to look for the truth, and the truth is that to every people there is a guide.
But in any case, the author has once again missed the point. The belief in ‘Ali is not fundamental, for otherwise Zaidis and Ismailis would also be considered to have a correct belief system. Of course, according to the Twelver Shi’as, they do not. Nobody has ever said that belief in the Twelve Imams (as) is not important, for this would turn Shi’ism on its head: the point is to know and recognize and serve the Imam of one’s time, and if you don’t believe that Imam Muhammad al-Mahdi (as) is the Imam of our time, then you are in misguidance. To say that belief in him is not the main belief is foolhardy, and no Shi’a with any knowledge would ever utter such words. Such a person would, in fact, be a traitor to his Imam.