What are the differences between Imams & Prophets within Shi'aism

[SyedShoaib786]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Speaking for myself, for example, I don't really see how I as a shia would even put such a belief (that Imams are superior to Prophets) into practice. I mean, let's say I did believe that -- how does it change what I do in my day? I don't think it really does, and therefore I'm not sure how it could possibly have an impact upon me as a Muslim. As it happens, I DON'T believe this, but we all know I'm kind of weird about what I believe anyway and beyond that I've never really bothered to *develop* such a belief because, again, I don't see how it affects or impacts my Islam. Do you understand what I'm saying?

yup. =)......

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Yeah, I get that it's "aqeedah," but again, WHY? In comparison to central issues such as belief in the Qur'an, the Messengerhood of Muhammad, and the Oneness of God, how is the issue of which historic leaders are more or less important at all relevant?

What is so important about it that it warrants such an important place in your aqeedah?



That's all fair enough, but I don't understand why believing that Imams are superior to some Prophets or what have you violates those principles.

Shias believe both of the things you've stated above -- Muhammad IS the Khatim un-Nabi. You clearly think that the importance shias place on Imams violates this somehow, but I don't see the "how."


Speaking for myself, for example, I don't really see how I as a shia would even put such a belief (that Imams are superior to Prophets) into practice. I mean, let's say I did believe that -- how does it change what I do in my day? I don't think it really does, and therefore I'm not sure how it could possibly have an impact upon me as a Muslim. As it happens, I DON'T believe this, but we all know I'm kind of weird about what I believe anyway and beyond that I've never really bothered to *develop* such a belief because, again, I don't see how it affects or impacts my Islam. Do you understand what I'm saying?

It is like saying:

"I believe that there is no god but Allah [swt], but Rambo is superior to Allah [swt]. I believe in the Oneness of God, Rambo is not a god and he is different than a god, etc etc...but Rambo is superior to Allah [swt] but that doesnt really affect anything...I dont see how it affects my day to day practises. I only worship Allah [swt] and I don't ask anyone else for anything...I just belive that Rambo, who is not a god, is superior to Allah and I dont see what the big deal is..."

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by Jaysh

It is like saying:

"I believe that there is no god but Allah [swt], but Rambo is superior to Allah [swt]. I believe in the Oneness of God, Rambo is not a god and he is different than a god, etc etc...but Rambo is superior to Allah [swt] but that doesnt really affect anything...I dont see how it affects my day to day practises. I only worship Allah [swt] and I don't ask anyone else for anything...I just belive that Rambo, who is not a god, is superior to Allah and I dont see what the big deal is..."

Um, it isn't like saying that at all. Not even remotely.

We're talking about comparing certain people with other people here. How is comparing an Imam to a Prophet making any claim about someone being superior to God (which would be shirk)?

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Yeah, I get that it's "aqeedah," but again, WHY? In comparison to central issues such as belief in the Qur'an, the Messengerhood of Muhammad, and the Oneness of God, how is the issue of which historic leaders are more or less important at all relevant?

What is so important about it that it warrants such an important place in your aqeedah?

It's not just a matter of historic leaders being more or less important. For instance, if one were to say Hazrat Ali (RA) was greater in status than the other Rightly Guided Caliphs (RA), we would consider that to be an innovated perspective, but not "kufr" or even anything to get "worked up" about.

The problem is that Sunnis view Nabuwwat to be a very specific & special status conferred by Allah SWT that no human being can ever begin to meet, let alone exceed. To denigrate the status of the nabis (AS) in favor of non-nabis - especially when Sunnis don't recognize an Imamate - could also potentially lead to denigration or demotion the status of the Prophet (SAW) (and such beliefs haven't been unknown to Shia groups in the past).

Returning to my first example, Shias themselves would say that the converse of the example - any of the first 3 caliphs being revered above or ahead of Sayyedina Ali (RA) - is kufr. It's a matter of aqeedah to them. I know you don't follow a traditional Shia understanding of the Imamate, I'm just saying that the getting worked up over status thing isn't alien to either group.

Originally Posted by Khairan

Shias believe both of the things you've stated above -- Muhammad IS the Khatim un-Nabi.

I agree they believe this, but that still doesn't resolve the issue.

Originally Posted by Khairan

Speaking for myself, for example, I don't really see how I as a shia would even put such a belief (that Imams are superior to Prophets) into practice. I mean, let's say I did believe that -- how does it change what I do in my day? I don't think it really does, and therefore I'm not sure how it could possibly have an impact upon me as a Muslim. As it happens, I DON'T believe this, but we all know I'm kind of weird about what I believe anyway and beyond that I've never really bothered to *develop* such a belief because, again, I don't see how it affects or impacts my Islam. Do you understand what I'm saying?

I understand what you're saying, and I apply this logic to esoteric/arcane arguments often. But you can only take it so far; what if a Muslim practiced the same Islam, but believed Ali (RA) really WAS a nabi, or something else along those lines? His day to day activities and practice might not differ, but his beliefs would clearly be something that most would take exception to.

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Um, it isn't like saying that at all. Not even remotely.

We're talking about comparing certain people with other people here. How is comparing an Imam to a Prophet making any claim about someone being superior to God (which would be shirk)?

It's an analogy, and it is exactly applicable. Again, it's an analogy. Please don't make me have to explain what an analogy is since you are a very intelligent man.

[SyedShoaib786]

oye^...im sure the bro knows what an analogy is lol. he just didnt agree that it was applicable

khairan- the thing is bro, beliefs do have an impact on our life, just in ways greater than our understanding...just like many other things in this life... for example...

we live our lives understanding we will be judged according to our deeds...a person without that belief is loosely held by this notion... inshaAllah that makes sense, but u keep doing all the good deeds u can before its too late

[Jaysh]

indeed, beliefs are MORE important than actions. it's only the atheist kufaar who say all that matters is what you do and how you affect others.

[SyedShoaib786]

Originally Posted by Jaysh

indeed, beliefs are MORE important than actions. it's only the atheist kufaar who say all that matters is what you do and how you affect others.

and indeed if beliefs are ok your actions are what is important. and indeed if actions are ok, your intentions are what is important, and if indeed those are ok then....er...anyone care to keep it going?

[Khairan]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

The problem is that Sunnis view Nabuwwat to be a very specific & special status conferred by Allah SWT that no human being can ever begin to meet, let alone exceed. To denigrate the status of the nabis (AS) in favor of non-nabis - especially when Sunnis don't recognize an Imamate - could also potentially lead to denigration or demotion the status of the Prophet (SAW) (and such beliefs haven't been unknown to Shia groups in the past).

Okay, this helps a lot. My problem with what was being said heretofore was that it was all theoretical without a specific explanation of the beliefs underlying the issue. If I understand you, the objection to how shias views Imams is that it is at best the beginning of a slippery slope which leads to more dangerous beliefs down the line. Is that right?

[Jaysh]

Originally Posted by Khairan

Okay, this helps a lot. My problem with what was being said heretofore was that it was all theoretical without a specific explanation of the beliefs underlying the issue. If I understand you, the objection to how shias views Imams is that it is at best the beginning of a slippery slope which leads to more dangerous beliefs down the line. Is that right?

I doubt that's what SixPak is saying. It's not about the idea that it will lead to more slippery opinions down the line, but rather it is in itself a slippery idea.

[Chisti]

Originally Posted by Jaysh

It is like saying:

"I believe that there is no god but Allah [swt], but Rambo is superior to Allah [swt]. I believe in the Oneness of God, Rambo is not a god and he is different than a god, etc etc...but Rambo is superior to Allah [swt] but that doesnt really affect anything...I dont see how it affects my day to day practises. I only worship Allah [swt] and I don't ask anyone else for anything...I just belive that Rambo, who is not a god, is superior to Allah and I dont see what the big deal is..."

Jaysh, but this idea can be applied to the salafi aqeeda as well, right? I mean "there is nothing like God, but he has hands - but his hands are not like our hands" .... isn't it like saying You are sane, but insane, in a way that suits your majesty without the How ...

I don't think we can categorize the shia as kafirs on the basis of their aqeeda ... otherwise the ahl-e-sunnah would have done so already - However, I don't think you are saying that they should be categorized as kafir, right? And I understand that the above is an analogy that you used.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Chisti

Jaysh, but this idea can be applied to the salafi aqeeda as well, right? I mean "there is nothing like God, but he has hands - but his hands are not like our hands" .... isn't it like saying You are sane, but insane, in a way that suits your majesty without the How ...

I don't think we can categorize the shia as kafirs on the basis of their aqeeda ... otherwise the ahl-e-sunnah would have done so already - However, I don't think you are saying that they should be categorized as kafir, right? And I understand that the above is an analogy that you used.

1. The issue of Allah's (subhana wa ta'ala) attributes isn't a fundamental article of faith in this instance. This is why you will not see Asharis and Hanbalis doing takfeer of each other. Rather the accusation is one of bid'a. Most Asharis and Hanbalis consider the other group still part of Ahl us Sunnah, but to a lesser degree.

2. One doesn't submit the attributes of Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) to logic or understands them to creation. It is illogical to say for a living being to be sane and insane at the same time. However, this principle is an inductive principle that is derived from our observations of physical objects and living things. One cannot apply such a principle to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) since He is entirely free from the creation. Rather, all we know of Him is what He tells us and if He says He has a yadd, He has a yadd. What is this yadd like and how is it possible? We don't know because He doesn't tell us. We affirm the text and consign the meaning to Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) and emphasize His absolute dissimilarity to the creation. Some of the 'Ulema have stated that under certain situations, its acceptable to interpret what yadd means (such as "power") so as to show people that one cannot take it literally (a physical hand with parts).

3. There have been many Sunni 'Ulema of the past and even today that have done takfeer of Shias of all different sects. Only a handful of Barelwi-esque scholars don't do takfeer, but many of them are fairly ignorant of the actual beliefs of Shi'a 'Ulema. Most of them aren't aware of the distinctions between Akhbaris and Usulis.

[MossadConspiracy]

artist's depiction

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by Jaysh

I doubt that's what SixPak is saying. It's not about the idea that it will lead to more slippery opinions down the line, but rather it is in itself a slippery idea.

Yeah, that's accurate - Khairan said "at best," though, so I think he understood what I was saying

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

3. There have been many Sunni 'Ulema of the past and even today that have done takfeer of Shias of all different sects. Only a handful of Barelwi-esque scholars don't do takfeer, but many of them are fairly ignorant of the actual beliefs of Shi'a 'Ulema. Most of them aren't aware of the distinctions between Akhbaris and Usulis.

Barelwi scholars all do takfir of Shias afaik (dunno what Barelwi-esque is)

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

Barelwi scholars all do takfir of Shias afaik (dunno what Barelwi-esque is)

In the words of Shaykh ul Islam Lil Jon: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!