Shias further exposed their disbelief in finality of Prophethood

Bismillah hirahman nir raheem.

Praise be to Allah! Our recent articles regarding Shias being the deniers of finality of Prophet-hood have left a tremendous impact on our truth-seeking readers. Those articles pushed many unbiased Shias to question their beliefs and to ponder over them. We ask Allah to guide those Shias who desire to be guided. Though our article left many knowledgeable Shias answerless, yet there were some ignorant critics who tried to refute our article, however praise be to Allah! They failed miserably. As usual their rebuttal was filled non-sense, stupid, deceptive and false arguments, which we will Inshallah reveal before our readers. But the most interesting thing which we found in their attempt to refute us was that, they unknowingly AFFIRMED what we stated about them. The Shias axed their own feet while trying to refute us, Praise be to Allah! Indeed this reminds us what Allah said: Look! How they lie against themselves! But the (lie) which they invented will disappear from them.(Quran 6:24)

 

Analyzing Shia Arguments:

Argument 1:

Shiawebsite[Wilayat.net] argued that “Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush”  whose video we used in our article, doesn’t represents Shiism.

Answer:  We never claimed that “Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush” is any Ayatullah in our article, neither did we claim that Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush studied at any Hawza(traditional Shi’a centre where clerics are trained). On the contrary we linked a website which gives the biography of Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush. Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush was a knowledgeable and a learned Shia who studied a lot of subjects, which even includes religious studies. He made extensive studies based on which he formed his views.

The important point which Shias didn’t realize about the view of Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush was that , He BACKED his view quoting the esteemed Shia scholar, Shaykh Al-Mufeed.

The interesting thing is that Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush claimed that there is no difference between Imams of Shias and Prophets as per Shia beliefs, and the Shias only pay lip service regarding finality of Prophethood. But the Shias DIDN’T DARE to refute Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush with proofs, they didn’t come up with any sort of proof which distinguished a Prophet and Imam as per Shia beliefs. They just tried to attack his credibility, but from a rational point of view this isn’t satisfactory at all. And this weak stance of Shias against Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush reveals the fact that, the views and claims of Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush had a lot of weight due to which Shias weren’t able to refute them.

So, on behalf of Dr. Abdol Karim Soroush, We CHALLENGE the Shias to provide us a difference between the CHARACTERISTICS OF IMAMS AND PROPHETS.

 

Argument 2:

Shiawebsite[Wilayat.net] Stated:

[Quote] The more accurate and complete translation is:
 
On the whole, we certainly admit that THE IMAMS ARE NOT PROPHETS and that they are more honourable and superior to all prophets and Awsiya (legatees) except our Prophet, peace be upon him and his family. And we do not know any aspect for not describing them with prophethood except consideration for the Majesty of the Last of the Prophets, and our intellects do not perceive a distinction between prophethood and Imāmah. As for what it established by the reports, we already know it. And Allāh the Most High know the truth of their conditions, peace of Allāh be upon them. [End]

To get what ‘Allāmah al-Majlisī has said clear, we must look at this. There are THREE different ranks: prophethood, Imāmah and messengership. Of the three ranks, it is ONLY messengers who receive legislative wahy, a book or a Sharī’ah from Allāh. The other two ranks, on their own, do not. Some people, like Ibrāhīm and Muhammad, peace be upon them, combined all three ranks, while most of Allāh’s chosen servants only had prophethood. A prophet who is NOT a messenger only acts as khalīfah to a messenger, teaching and enforcing his book and Sharī’ah after him. In the Ummah of Muhammad, the Twelve Imāms, peace be upon them, perform these same functions. So, other than in titles, their functions are basically the same. They are also appointed by Allāh alike, and enjoy the same rights over their respective Ummahs.
 
Now, if Allāh had NOT honoured Muhammad with the Finality of Prophethood, He certainly would have described the Imāms with prophethood also. But, as an honour to the Messenger of Allāh, He has cancelled the title of prophethood. Nonetheless, its functions are still performed by the Imāms, peace be upon them. ‘Allāmah al-Majlisī, may Allāh be pleased with him, therefore finally submits that while logically both Imāmah and prophethood are very similar, THE HADĪTHS HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THE IMĀMS ARE NOT PROPHETS, AND THAT THE TWO OFFICES ARE DIFFERENT!  

No wonder, Khorasānī cut out the most relevant facts, so that his distortion could be complete! [Quote]  [Screen Shot]

Praise be to Allah! He made Shias expose their ugly beliefs from their own writings. They shamelessly proclaim that their Imams are superior to ALL Prophets, this is how Imams are not Prophets. Mashallah! What a refutation given by the Shias. We must give them a round of applause for exposing their own heretic beliefs.

Let us explain to our readers what the Shias tried to say. Suppose there are three level of academics, Lowest level is of Graduate, Middle level is of Post-Graduate and the Top level is of PhD in Iran. The education minister declares that, from now NO ONE is eligible to become a graduate. People who have sense will understand from this statement that, since there cannot be a graduate, So obviously there isn’t going to be a Post-Graduate or Ph.D. But from a Shia perspective, there can be a Ph.D. which is the highest level even if according to educational minister no one is eligible to become a Graduate which is the lowest academic level. We hope this example might help our readers in understanding how stupid the Shia beliefs are.

Anyways our main emphasis in our previous article was not regarding Shia belief that, Imams are superior to Prophets, but it was regarding how Shias have rejected the finality of Prophethood, that is why we quoted those words of Baqir Majlisi which stated that, according to Shiism there is no difference between Imamate and Prohethood. And Praise be to Allah that even the Shias now have affirmed this fact. They have declared that Imams and Prophets ONLY DIFFER IN TITLES, as we can see in the red portion in the quote. So, this is what we accused Shias of, and this is what we called as denial of finality of Prophethood, and Alhamdulilah now we find that Shias agreed to what we had stated. This must be an eye-opener for Shias who were doubtful over our claims, now they can judge that whether they want to remain on a belief according to which, there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IMAM AND PROPHET EXCEPT IN TITLES , or they want to reject this heretic belief and embrace to the true Islamic belief, which is of Ahlesunnah.

 

Argument 3

Shiawebsite[Wilayat.net] Stated:

[Quote] Now, let us turn the table! Imām al-Bukhārī (Sahih, Kitab Fadhail as-Sahaba, hadith #3486) records:

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لقد كان فيما قبلكم من الأمم محدثون فإن يك في أمتي أحد فإنه عمر
The Messenger of Allāh, peace be upon him, said: “Verily, among the past Ummahs were muhadathūn. If there is any of them in my Ummah, it is ‘Umar.
 
A muhadath (plural, muhadathūn) is someone to whom angels, peace be upon them, speak. He may be a prophet and may not be. But, in terms of access to angels, and communication with them, there is no difference between a muhadath and a prophet. Sayyidah Maryam, peace be upon her, was one of the past muhadathūn. Allāh states:
 

وَإِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلَائِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَاكِ وَطَهَّرَكِ وَاصْطَفَاكِ عَلَىٰ نِسَاءِ الْعَالَمِينَ

 
And (remember) when the angels said: “O Maryam! Verily, Allāh has chosen you, purified you, and chosen you above the women of the ‘Ālamīn (mankind and jinn) (of her lifetime).”
Qur’ān 3:42
 
In the commentary of the above hadīth, Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī (Fath al-Bari, Kitab Fadhail as-Sahaba, hadith #3486) states:

وقوله : ” وإن يك في أمتي ” قيل : لم يورد هذا القول مورد الترديد فإن أمته أفضل الأمم ، وإذا ثبت أن ذلك وجد في غيرهم فإمكان وجوده فيهم أولى ، وإنما أورده مورد التأكيد … وتمحضت الحكمة في وجودهم وكثرتهم بعد العصر الأول في زيادة شرف هذه الأمة بوجود أمثالهم فيه ، وقد تكون الحكمة في تكثيرهم مضاهاة بني إسرائيل في كثرة الأنبياء فيهم ، فلما فات هذه الأمة كثرة الأنبياء فيها لكون نبيها خاتم الأنبياء عوضوا بكثرة الملهمين . وقال الطيبي : المراد بالمحدث الملهم البالغ في ذلك مبلغ النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم – في الصدق ، والمعنى لقد كان فيما قبلكم من الأمم أنبياء ملهمون ، فإن يك في أمتي أحد هذا شأنه فهو عمر
And his statement “and if there is any in my Ummah”, it is said: this statement is not a statement of rejection (i.e. of the possibility of muhadathūn in his Ummah) because his Ummah is the best of Ummahs. If it (the fact of the existence of muhadathūn) is established that this existed in other Ummahs, then its existence among them (i.e. his Ummah) is even more likely. The statement was only made for emphasis (on the fact that muhadathūn exist in his Ummah)… The wisdom in the specific fact that they (muhadathūn) exist, and in great numbers, after the first period is that it is an additional honour for this Ummah, through the existence of THE LIKE OF THEM in it. Indeed, there is wisdom in their proliferation, similar to the (case of) Banū Isrāīl among whom was proliferation of prophets. Due to that fact that this Ummah does not have plenty of prophets because its prophet is the Last of the Prophets, THOSE WHO RECEIVE DIVINE INSPIRATION are plenty in it. Al-Tayyibī said: “The meaning of al-Muhadath is a person who RECEIVES DIVINE INSPIRATION, WHO HAS REACHED THE LEVEL OF THE PROPHET, peace be upon him, IN TRUTHFULNESS”. The meaning then is: There were DIVINELY INSPIRED PROPHETS among those before you, IF THERE WERE ANYONE WHO HAS REACHED THIS STATUS in my Ummah, it is ‘Umar.”
 
So, does this not mean that Sunnīs do NOT believe in the finality of prophethood? [Quote]

Considering the fact, that everyone knows Shias are religious deceivers and religious slanderers as these are from the TEACHINGS OF THEIR RELIGION, we don’t want to quote all those shia hadeeth and verdicts of esteemed Shia scholars, which encourages Shias to lie and deceive their opponents. Because even in this argument the Shias have again displayed their religious teachings of deception, but unfortunately since they lack common sense they weren’t able to implement this in a proper manner.

Firstly the Shias gave their own definition for “muhadath”, Shiawebsite stated: [Quote]a muhadath (plural, muhadathūn) is someone to whom angels, peace be upon them, speak. He may be a prophet and may not be. But, in terms of access to angels, and communication with them, there is no difference between a muhadath and a prophet[Quote]

From this definition they tried to prove that a muhadath is a person with whom angels speak and there is no difference between a muhadath and a prophet in terms of access to angels.

But eventually they quoted a definition given by Sunni scholar for the word muhadath, which is different from the tricky Shia definition.[Quote] Al-Tayyibī said: “The meaning of al-Muhadath is a person who RECEIVES DIVINE INSPIRATION, who has reached the level of the Prophet, peace be upon him, IN TRUTHFULNESS”.[Quote]

The Stupid Shias didn’t knew that Inspiration(Ilham) is not wahi(revealation), and in the case of inspiration a person doesn’t talks to angels as the Shia thought. Linguistically Inspiration(Ilhaam) refers to encompassing something, and from this comes the meaning: placing something in the heart and encompassing it, Allah –All Mighty- says: [And He inspired it to what is wrong for it and what is right for it] [Al-Shams 91:8] Ilhaam (inspiration) is something that falls in the heart, so that the heart is comforted by it, and is something Allah favors few of his chosen servants.

For example: Suppose a pious person is lost in the jungle and he had two ways in front of him, then Allah will place in his heart the urge to choose one way which would save him. This is what inspiration is, there’s no revelation or angels. It’s just a subtle guidance from Allah bestowed upon pious people.  So in short a Muhadath is a person who is given one divine favour, but a Prophet has many.

So comparing Prophetic Wahi(revealation) with Ilham(inspiration) and Prophet with  Muhadath is either stupidity of Shias OR a trick to deceive people. Both have the difference of chalk and cheese.

Moreover, Allamah Idris Kandelvi states on Page 118 “Aqaaidul Islaam ” that “All the “Ilhaam” and “Dreams” of the Nabi are “Qat’y(categorical proof), and the “Kashf” and “Ilhaam” of a wali are zanni(not finite proofs ), not on any one, let alone on the Wali per se, the Wali’s Ilhaam is not a proof meaning is not compulsory to act upon.”

However the Wahi of Shia Imams is Qat’y and it is compulsory to act upon. 

Secondly, The hadith simply states that Umar(ra) was a pious person who had good qualities that qualify him of being a candidate of Prophet-hood, it doesn’t say he reached their rank or that he’s a Prophet or he’s infallible or that Allah chose him, neither does Ahlesunnah believes as such. So the Shia tricks to cover their heretic beliefs in regards to finality of Prohethood by making false and stupid accusations against Ahlesunnah are busted again.

Thirdly, and most importantly Al-Imam Ibn al-Qayyim(rah) defines Muhadath in the first volume of his book: “Madaarij al-Saalikeen Bayn Manaazil Iyaaka Na`budu wa Iyaaka Nasta`een”: 

The Prophet (saw) said: “In the nations before you were Muhaddathoun, IF there was to be one in this nation it would be `Umar.”

Notice, the Prophet (saw) uses the word “IF”, meaning it is not established that such a rank exists today, but we know that it existed in past nations, this is similar to the narration that says: “If there was a prophet after me, then it would be `Umar.” This does not prove that there were prophets after Sayyiduna Muhammad (saw).

Ibn al-Qayyim says: I heard Shaykh al-Islam Taqi-ul-Deen Ibn Tayymiyah affirm that they were in previous nations, as for their presence in this nation, it is tied with the conditional “IF”. Although, it is the best of nations because previous nations needed their presence whereas ours does not because of the excellence of our Prophet (saw) and the perfection of his message, so Allah (swt) did not make us rely on a Muhaddath or a Mulham or Sahib Kashf or a dream ect…

The Muhaddath is he who gets spoken to within himself, in his heart, and the matter happens just as he was told it would.

As for what many of the people of ignorance and imaginations say: “My heart spoke to me from my Lord.”

It is true, his heart did speak to him, but from who? was it from himself? was it from Allah? or was it from Shaytan?

So if he says that his Lord spoke to his heart, then he attributed this to someone without being sure, and this is a form of lying!

The Shaykh said: The Muhaddath of this nation (`Umar bin al-Khattab) would never say such a thing, Allah (swt) saved him from uttering such words. On the contrary, once the writer of `Umar bin al-Khattab (ra) wrote: “This is what Allah made Ameer al-Mu’mineen `Umar see concerning such and such” So `Umar (ra) told his writer: “No! Erase it! Write down: This is what `Umar saw, if it is correct then it is from Allah, and if it is incorrect then it is from `Umar, Allah and his messenger are free from it.”
In another Fiqhi issue `Umar ibn al-Khattab (ra) said: “I rule in this matter based on my opinion, if it turns out to be correct then it is from Allah, and if I turn out to be wrong then it is from me and from Shaytan.”

This is the man whom the messenger (saw) described as Muhaddath, not the ones of our days who openly declare that Allah spoke to them and informed their hearts and they judge based on this! So observe the two and judge for yourself.(Madaarij al-Saalikeen Bayn Manaazil Iyaaka Na`budu wa Iyaaka Nasta`een).

This shows that there is no comparision between Muhaddath as per Ahlesunnah and Imam of Shias, there is a difference of Chalk and cheese. 

 

Argument 4

Shiawebsite[Wilayat.net] stated:

[Quote] This establishes Shaykh al-Mufīd’s aim: he wanted to examine the difference between messengers and prophets, peace be upon them all. Then, Shaykh al-Mufīd stated:
 

واتفقت الإمامية على أن كل رسول فهو نبي وليس كل نبي فهو رسول،

 
The Imāmiyyah are unanimous upon the fact that EVERY messenger is a prophet, but not every prophet is a messenger.
 
This is because not all prophets, peace be upon them, were sent with a new book or a new Sharī’ah. Those of them that were given a new scripture or law are the messengers. The rest of them only came to teach and implement the book or law given to the messengers among them. This is why Shaykh al-Mufīd, may Allāh be pleased with him, added:
 

وقد كان من أنبياء الله عز وجل حفظة لشرائع الرسل وخلفائهم في المقام،

 
Verily, among the prophets of Allāh, the Almighty, were those who were PRESERVERS of the Sharī’ahs of the messengers, and were their khalīfahs in the rank.
 
In other words, some prophets were given no book or Sharī’ah. Their only job was to teach the people about the books and Sharī’ahs of the past prophets, and to implement them if they could. Usually, a messenger came with a new book or a new Sharī’ah. When he died, prophets came after him to teach his book and implement his Sharī’ah. They were his Khalīfahs only in the teaching and implementation of the book and/or the Sharī’ah. Other than teaching and implementing the book or Sharī’ah of the previous messenger, these prophets did nothing more. They received no legislative wahy, and no scripture from Allāh, and no Sharī’ah!
 
We ask you, Khorasānī: is this not true? Is it not true that some, if not the majority of the prophets, were only like khalīfahs who only preserved the teachings and laws of a messenger? Is it not the same thing that Allāh has stated here:
 
Verily, We did send down the Tawrah (to Mūsā), therein was guidance and light, BY WHICH THE PROPHETS, WHO SUBMITTED THEMSELVES TO ALLĀH, AND THE RABBIS AND PRIESTS RULED AND JUDGED THE JEWS, FOR TO THEM WAS ENTRUSTED THE PRESERVATION OF ALLĀH’S BOOK, and they were witnesses to it.
Qur’ān 5:44
 
This blessed verse informs us that:
 
1. The Prophet Mūsā, peace be upon him, was sent by Allāh with the Tawrah, thereby proving that he was both a prophet and messenger.
2. After him, Allāh entrusted the preservation of the Tawrah to a succession of prophets, and after them to the rabbis and priests of Israel.
3. These prophets were given NO legislative wahy, or book or Sharī’ah. Rather, they performed the SAME function as the rabbis and priests of Israel.
4. The prophets, the rabbis and the priests were equal witnesses to the Tawrah.
5. Other than titles, there were no differences between the prophets, the rabbis and the priests in their preservation of the Tawrah.
 
Now, our esteemed readers can easily understand these words of Shaykh al-Mufīd:

وإنما منع الشرع من تسمية أئمتنا بالنبوة دون أن يكون العقل مانعا من ذلك لحصولهم على المعنى الذي حصل لمن ذكرناه من الأنبياء عليهم السلام.
The Sharī’ah has only forbidden the naming of our Imāms with prophethood, although logic allows this due to their attaining what THOSE OF THE PROPHETS WE MENTIONED attained. [Quote]

This argument displays a tricky technique of Shias through which they fool their audience. They tried their best to divert the attention of readers from the subject of the issue. That is why they made some nonacademic and childish allegations of mistranslation against us, but people who have an academic background can easily make out, how weak, pathetic and pointless the Shia allegations were, so instead of answering those silly allegations, we feel what is worthy to be refuted is their main argument. However, in order to please the Shias we would follow their translation and Inshallah we will expose their deceit using their own translation.

Now, in order to analyze that how Shias tried to fool people, we request our readers to keep in mind the SUBJECT of the issue here, and the SUBJECT of the issue here was, “Difference between Messengers and Prophets” , as can also been seen in the bolded part in red which is present in quote.

Esteemed Shia scholar Shaykh al mufeed, was discussing about the “Difference between Messengers and Prophets”, He stated his views under the Chapter:

– القول في الفرق بين الرسل والأنبياء عليهم السلام
“The Statement about the DIFFERENCE between messengers and prophets, peace be upon them.”

So, if we need to understand the statement made by Shaykh Mufeed then we have to understand it in the perspective of the differences between Messengers and Prophets. Now, lets see what Shaykh Mufeed stated.

He Stated:

واتفقت الإمامية على أن كل رسول فهو نبي وليس كل نبي فهو رسول، وقد كان من أنبياء الله عز وجل حفظة لشرائع الرسل وخلفائهم في المقام
“The Imāmiyyah are unanimous upon the fact that every messenger is a prophet, but not every prophet is a messenger. Verily, among the prophets of Allāh, the Almighty, were those who were preservers of the Sharī’ahs of the messengers, and were their khalīfahs in the rank”.

Shia scholar, Al-Mufeed while describing the difference between Messengers and Prophets, came up with a difference which is, “Prophets are those who don’t receive a NEW shariah but rather they preseve the Sharī’ah of the Messengers and are their Caliph in the rank.” This was the ONLY difference which according to Sheikh Mufeed was present between Messengers and Prophets, which in other words mean that, Messengers and Prophets had all the same qualities except the one which Shaykh Mufeed mentioned.

Then Shaykh Mufeed Continues which the most crucial part of our discussion, He states:

[Quote]
وإنما منع الشرع من تسمية أئمتنا بالنبوة دون أن يكون العقل مانعا من ذلك لحصولهم على المعنى الذي حصل لمن ذكرناه من الأنبياء عليهم السلام.
The Sharī’ah has only forbidden the naming of our Imāms with prophethood, although logic allows this due to their attaining what those of the Prophets we mentioned attained.[Quote]

As we know that Al-Mufeed was talking about differences between Messengers and Prophets, and there was ONLY one difference between them, So now we understand from the above statement that, Like Prophets have attained everything same as Messengers EXCEPT ONE thing, as there is ONLY difference between Messenger and Prophet , So Similarly EVEN the (shia) Imams have attained the same as Prophets, AS THEY TOO HAVE JUST ONE DIFFERENCE. That is why the Intellect of Al-Mufeed ALLOWS shias to NAME IMAMS AS PROPHETS.

In simple words, Sheikh Al Mufeed was discussing about the difference between Messengers and Prophets and he came up with ONE difference. Al-Mufeed then said that the Imams too have attained the same as Prophets, which means like Prophets EVEN IMAMS have just ONE difference with Messengers. That is why Mufeed said that, their intellect allows Shias to name Imams with Prophethood. Had it been that the Imams had some more differences then Shaykh Mufeed wouldn’t have said that, their intellect allows Shias to name their Imams with Prophet-hood. Because Prophet-hood is a rank which has just one difference from Messenger-hood as per Shiekh Mufeed, So how could He name any candidate with Prophethood, who has more than one difference?  Thus, from a logical and apparent view, according to Shia Sheikh Mufeed the Shia IMAMS TOO HAD SAME DIFFERENCE WHICH PROPHETS HAD WITH MESSENGERS, due to which Al-Mufeed declared that the intellect of Shias allows them to name their Imams with Prophet-hood.

So, Alhamdulilah the trick of Shiawebsite, of derailing away from the subject and self-creating irrelevant arguments and its refutations inorder to fool the audience have been EXPOSED.

Shiawebsite[Wilayat.net] Stated:

[Quote] Shaykh al-Mufīd, may Allāh be pleased with him, added:

وقد كان من أنبياء الله عز وجل حفظة لشرائع الرسل وخلفائهم في المقام،
Verily, among the prophets of Allāh, the Almighty, were those who were PRESERVERS of the Sharī’ahs of the messengers, and were their khalīfahs in the rank.
 
In other words, some prophets were given no book or Sharī’ah. Their only job was to teach the people about the books and Sharī’ahs of the past prophets, and to implement them if they could. Usually, a messenger came with a new book or a new Sharī’ah. When he died, prophets came after him to teach his book and implement his Sharī’ah. They were his Khalīfahs only in the teaching and implementation of the book and/or the Sharī’ah. Other than teaching and implementing the book or Sharī’ah of the previous messenger, these prophets did nothing more. They received no legislative wahy, and no scripture from Allāh, and no Sharī’ah!

We ask you, Khorasānī: is this not true? Is it not true that some, if not the majority of the prophets, were only like khalīfahs who only preserved the teachings and laws of a messenger? Is it not the same thing that Allāh has stated here:
 
Verily, We did send down the Tawrah (to Mūsā), therein was guidance and light, BY WHICH THE PROPHETS, WHO SUBMITTED THEMSELVES TO ALLĀH, AND THE RABBIS AND PRIESTS RULED AND JUDGED THE JEWS, FOR TO THEM WAS ENTRUSTED THE PRESERVATION OF ALLĀH’S BOOK, and they were witnesses to it.
Qur’ān 5:44
 
This blessed verse informs us that:
 
1. The Prophet Mūsā, peace be upon him, was sent by Allāh with the Tawrah, thereby proving that he was both a prophet and messenger.
2. After him, Allāh entrusted the preservation of the Tawrah to a succession of prophets, and after them to the rabbis and priests of Israel.
3. These prophets were given NO legislative wahy, or book or Sharī’ah. Rather, they performed the SAME function as the rabbis and priests of Israel.
4. The prophets, the rabbis and the priests were equal witnesses to the Tawrah.
5. Other than titles, there were no differences between the prophets, the rabbis and the priests in their preservation of the Tawrah.

[Quote]   [Screen Shot]

Firstly, Let us make it clear to the readers that, Sheikh Al Mufeed nowhere mentioned anything about Rabbis and Priests and their job of preservation of the book and this has a reason behind it which we will discover soon, and it’s just an insertion of Shias to fool people, So that they could cover their heretic beliefs.

As we explained above that, Shiekh Al Mufeed was talking about the difference between Messengers and Prophets. He came up with a difference that, “Prophets are those who don’t receive a NEW shariah but rather they preseve the Sharī’ah of the Messengers and are their Caliph in the rank”. This implies that Prophets are those who have EVERYTHING IN COMMON with the Messengers, That is, they have all those qualities which the messengers have, except the difference which Sheikh Mufeed pointed out.

Now as per the differentiation of Shiekh Mufeed, Inorder to call someone a Prophet, a candidate should have ALL the qualities of a Messenger EXCEPT that the candidate doesn’t receives a NEW shariah but rather He preseves the Sharī’ah of the Messenger. And according to Sheikh Mufeed the Shia Imams have attained that. That is why, According to him the intellect of Shias allows them to name their Imams with Prophethood.

Now after understanding what exactly sheikh Mufeed explained, Let us verify the ignorant Shia claim that, whether the same is applicable to Rabbis and Priests?

1. The rabbis and priests WEREN’T the Caliphs of the Messengers, but as per Shiekh Mufeed Prophets and Shia Imams were the Caliphs of Messengers. But if the Shias say that the Rabbis and Priests were Caliph then they have contradicted their own belief because according to Shiism a Caliph is an infallible who is appointed by Allah, but here we find that all the rabbis and priests are being made as Caliphs who were not infallible.

2. The rabbis and priests didn’t receive wahi like the Prophets and (shia)Imams.

3. The rabbis and priests weren’t infallible like the Prophets and (shia)Imams.

There are many more of such differences but, we hope that only these would be sufficient to shatter the silly argument of Shias.

Prophet-hood is a rank which has just one difference from Messenger-hood as per Shiekh Mufeed, here we found that there are many other differences, So how could any Shia name Rabbis and Priests with Prophethood?  Ofcourse! No sane Shia will buy the stupid logic of Shiawebsite, which they invented to cover their heretic beliefs.

IF ANY SHIA DISAGREES WITH OUR SIMPLE AND CLEAR EXPLANATION, THEN WE CHALLENGE THAT SHIA TO PRODUCE US ONE DIFFERENCE IN THE QUALITIES/CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN PROPHETS AND IMAMS.

Not only Sunnis, but even the Shias know very well that there is no difference between the qualities/characteristics of Prophets and Imams, the Shiawebsite which tried to refute us, tried hard to divert the attention of readers away from the Subject of the issue, So that they could easily fool their audience with their silly irrelevant claims. However even they know very well that there is no difference between the qualities of Prophets and Imams. If any of our reader would like to acquire more information on this issue then please refer this link.[Click Here]

 

TRAPPED IN THEIR OWN LOGIC

Shiawebsite[Wilayat.net] Stated:

[Quote]In other words, some prophets were given no book or Sharī’ah. Their only job was to teach the people about the books and Sharī’ahs of the past prophets, and to implement them if they could……

Is it not the same thing that Allāh has stated here:
 
Verily, We did send down the Tawrah (to Mūsā), therein was guidance and light, BY WHICH THE PROPHETS, WHO SUBMITTED THEMSELVES TO ALLĀH, AND THE RABBIS AND PRIESTS RULED AND JUDGED THE JEWS, FOR TO THEM WAS ENTRUSTED THE PRESERVATION OF ALLĀH’S BOOK, and they were witnesses to it.
Qur’ān 5:44
 
This blessed verse informs us that:

3. These prophets were given NO legislative wahy, or book or Sharī’ah. Rather, they performed the SAME function as the rabbis and priests of Israel.

5. Other than titles, there were no differences between the prophets, the rabbis and the priests in their preservation of the Tawrah. [Quote]

According to the Shia claim, the job of the Rabbis and Priests(i.e Scholars) of Israel was same as that of Prophets, that is teaching people about the books and Shariahs and Ruling and Judging the Jews. So the question which arises is that, “If the Scholars of Israel who were fallible performed the SAME FUNCTIONS OF PROPHETS, then why CAN’T THE SCHOLARS of Muslim Ummah after Prophet Muhammad(saw) perform the same job?

Ahle-Sunnah believes that the Sahaba were the best scholars of deen, they were fallible, yet they continued the job of Prophet(saw) of teaching the book, implementing the Shariah, Ruling the Muslims and Judging them, after them the Scholars took continued this job which is being done till this date. So, Alhamdulilah the Shias atlast unknowingly affirmed that the belief of Ahlesunnah is the most correct and is as per Quran, infact they advocated our belief and they didn’t notice that they were refuting their own beliefs that after Prophet Muhammad(saw) there needed to be infallibles who would teach the book, implement the Shariah, Rule and Judge the Muslims.

The Shias argue that ONLY infallibles could do the job of a Prophet, whereas here we find as per their own claim that fallible scholars did the SAME Job of Prophets.

This Shias might lose their senses after reading our answer, and realizing that they have made a blunder which collapsed their whole creed, they might again come up with a silly response as usual to defend their destroyed beliefs. To such Shias we remind that, if you come up with ANY DIFFERENCE between the Job of Scholars of Israel and Prophets then you will be contradicting your claim.

Look! How they lie against themselves! But the (lie) which they invented will disappear from them. (Quran 6:24)

“We had given to them ears and eyes and hearts, but neither their ears benefited them in the least, nor their eyes, nor their hearts, as they used to reject Allāh’s signs; and they were encircled by what they used to ridicule.” [Quran 46:26]

May Allah guide those Shias who really seek to know the truth.

All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. We testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad is His slave and last Prophet. We ask Allaah to exalt his mention as well as that of his family and all his companions.