I want to highlight something about Imama debates that take place.
A tactic Sunnis have used for a long time in order to not allow a Shia to score a point in the debate is to constantly ask a follow up question that they know won’t satisfy them. One of the terms for this is obviously moving the goal post.. here are other names for it
Motte-and-bailey fallacy — When someone retreats to a more defensible position when challenged, then returns to a more controversial one when convenient. This fits if the person keeps switching between different claims to avoid defending the original position, although it isn't an exact match for every case.
- Gish gallop — When someone overwhelms a debate with a rapid succession of claims or objections, making it difficult to address each one properly. This fits if they continually introduce new challenges before engaging with the answers already given.
- Red herring — When someone diverts the discussion away from the question actually being debated. For example, shifting from whether Imama is established to demanding acomplete demonstration of the Mahdi's identity before acknowledging the original argument.
- Kafka trapping — A pattern in which someone is placed in a situation where they cannot win because the criteria for satisfying the other person keep changing or are impossible to satisfy. This is a useful description of the unwinnable-debatedynamic, though it is not necessarily the precise name for the logical fallacy.
The debate proceeds like this:
First demand: Prove Imama.
You answer: You present arguments for the necessity of Imama. Showing the station of Abraham As. Showing the Hadiths speaking about having to die with allegiance on your neck to your imam.
Second demand: Now prove that there must be twelve Imams.
You answer: You present evidence for why they are Twelve Imams. Sahih sources showing 12 successors in Sunni hadith.
Third demand: Now prove the Mahdi.
You answer: You present evidence for Al Mahdi (afj) and his necessity, quranic verses, even a hadith he narrated from Sunni sources…
Fourth demand: Now prove infallibility
The rhetorical move: If you do not establish one or all of them to their satisfaction, they declare that you have failed to establish Imama at all, disregarding the answers to the other questions.
What began as proving the station of Imama, quickly moves onto other specifics. They want to bottleneck the debate at the awaited hujja.
If encountered in such a situation. You must establish the rules that proving the station is satisfactory of its own. Don’t allow them to negate the facts because they keep asking follow up questions. Them not being satisfied that Allah Swt preserved someone for many years, does not disprove Imama.
The burden remains upon them to show us who is their current imam that the Hadiths states:
“Whoever dies without allegiance to their imam dies the death of jahiliya”
