Reza Baniasadi; Fatemeh Ghoveh Nadooghan
Abstract
Ibn Taymiyyah criticized Allama Helli's rational argument about the Imamate of Imam Ali (a.s.), which he presented using the necessity of Imam's infallibility. While he generally does not accept the divine appointment of the Imam, he also rejects and does not accept the argument of the Imam's infallibility. ...
Read More
Ibn Taymiyyah criticized Allama Helli's rational argument about the Imamate of Imam Ali (a.s.), which he presented using the necessity of Imam's infallibility. While he generally does not accept the divine appointment of the Imam, he also rejects and does not accept the argument of the Imam's infallibility. In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah's objections to the necessity of infallibility in the imam return to the denial of the principle of Imamate in the sense intended by the Shia; Because by accepting the Imamate in the intended sense of the Shia, there is no escaping the acceptance of infallibility and, following it, the Imamate of Imam Ali (a.s.). This article is written in a descriptive-analytical way and aims to express the issue of the strength and power of Allameh Helli's argument on the Imamate of Imam Ali (a.s.), and in fact, it answers the question whether Ibn Taymiyyah's objections to the first rational argument of Allameh Helli prove Imam Ali's Imamate. (A) Is it included? By reflecting on the problems of Ibn Taymiyyah, it is clear from Allama Helli's rational argument on the Imamate of Imam Ali (a.s.) that his opinions are rejected, that the confirmation of Allamah's argument and, as a result, the proof of the Imamate of Imam Ali (a.s.) and, consequently, other Shia imams follow has it.
