Hadith pickin'

[Optimus Prime]

It's very clear many Shias pull out Hadiths from our sources to confirm the virtues of their Imams, but then turn a blind eye when the very same source contains virtues of those whom they have great enmity for.

Has anyone else noticed this trend?

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

It's very clear many Shias pull out Hadiths from our sources to confirm the virtues of their Imams, but then turn a blind eye when the very same source contains virtues of those whom they have great enmity for.

Has anyone else noticed this trend?

This is called 1+1 = 2 logic.

These hadiths are binding upon you, not us. Similarily, if you find a in our sources which you think you can use to prove your point of view, you will use it in a discussion with Shi'a.

[Optimus Prime]

It's very clear many Shias pull out Hadiths from our sources to confirm the virtues of their Imams, but then turn a blind eye when the very same source contains virtues of those whom they have great enmity for.

Has anyone else noticed this trend?

This is called 1+1 = 2 logic.

These hadiths are binding upon you, not us. Similarily, if you find a in our sources which you think you can use to prove your point of view, you will use it in a discussion with Shi'a.

Not quite.

Sunnis don't go out of there way substantiating our fundamentals teachings from Shia sources.

The Shias on the other hand go to great length scurrying through our literature to confirm how their school of thought is Haq, and how our scholars generationally have either pulled the wool over our eyes purposely, or/and they all chainlike got it wrong. A classic example is the concept of Imamah. 

If you genuinely believe certain Sahaba's integrity, and trustworthiness has to be called into question for whatever reason - then you shouldn't be quoting anything from our sources because you'll end up making yourself look silly to no end, as there will always be a counter narration to refute your narrative.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

It's very clear many Shias pull out Hadiths from our sources to confirm the virtues of their Imams, but then turn a blind eye when the very same source contains virtues of those whom they have great enmity for.

Has anyone else noticed this trend?

This is called 1+1 = 2 logic.

These hadiths are binding upon you, not us. Similarily, if you find a in our sources which you think you can use to prove your point of view, you will use it in a discussion with Shi'a.

Not quite.

Sunnis don't go out of there way substantiating our fundamentals teachings from Shia sources.

The Shias on the other hand go to great length scurrying through our literature to confirm how their school of thought is Haq, and how our scholars generationally have either pulled the wool over our eyes purposely, or/and they all chainlike got it wrong. A classic example is the concept of Imamah. 

If you genuinely believe certain Sahaba's integrity, and trustworthiness has to be called into question for whatever reason - then you shouldn't be quoting anything from our sources because you'll end up making yourself look silly to no end, as there will always be a counter narration to refute your narrative.

Yes, this is how you do daw'ah. You use the sources of your opponents to refute them by their own books. It just so happens to be that many hadiths in the books of the Sunnis can be used to prove our madhab is the true one, which is why the debates tend to circle around the authenticity of these said hadiths.

This is not us believing the companion is trustworthy, if what he says is correct it does not mean we do not consider him a liar. Even a liar tells the truth at times.

The point is this is hujjah upon YOU. You deal with it, we are just pointing it out.

[Optimus Prime]

It's very clear many Shias pull out Hadiths from our sources to confirm the virtues of their Imams, but then turn a blind eye when the very same source contains virtues of those whom they have great enmity for.

Has anyone else noticed this trend?

This is called 1+1 = 2 logic.

These hadiths are binding upon you, not us. Similarily, if you find a in our sources which you think you can use to prove your point of view, you will use it in a discussion with Shi'a.

Not quite.

Sunnis don't go out of there way substantiating our fundamentals teachings from Shia sources.

The Shias on the other hand go to great length scurrying through our literature to confirm how their school of thought is Haq, and how our scholars generationally have either pulled the wool over our eyes purposely, or/and they all chainlike got it wrong. A classic example is the concept of Imamah. 

If you genuinely believe certain Sahaba's integrity, and trustworthiness has to be called into question for whatever reason - then you shouldn't be quoting anything from our sources because you'll end up making yourself look silly to no end, as there will always be a counter narration to refute your narrative.

Yes, this is how you do daw'ah. You use the sources of your opponents to refute them by their own books. It just so happens to be that many hadiths in the books of the Sunnis can be used to prove our madhab is the true one, which is why the debates tend to circle around the authenticity of these said hadiths.

This is not us believing the companion is trustworthy, if what he says is correct it does not mean we do not consider him a liar. Even a liar tells the truth at times.

The point is this is hujjah upon YOU. You deal with it, we are just pointing it out.

You've misunderstood.

Ahus Sunnah have proclaimed with confidence, that most of the Shia sources are unreliable for a number of reasons. So, we only use your own sources to highlight inconsistencies in your madhab to prove this very point not to justify our madhab is Haq.

Shias desperately go live, and will cherry pick Ahadith, that they believe proves their madhab. If you're going to do this, then by extension you need to refute the copious of narrations that suggest otherwise. The reality is you don't do that. You conjure up an array of comical excuses how x narrator is a liar, and how y narrator is dodgy. However, when the same narrator mass transmitted a virtue of 'Ali, you'll throw the narration in the faces of lay Sunni people.

This methodology of the Shias is indeed Hadith Pickin'. It can be summed up as nafsaniyat and shaytaniyat. The sewerage utterances you guys toss at the companions, you will be taken to task on the Day of Judgement, Insh'Allah! 

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

It's very clear many Shias pull out Hadiths from our sources to confirm the virtues of their Imams, but then turn a blind eye when the very same source contains virtues of those whom they have great enmity for.

Has anyone else noticed this trend?

This is called 1+1 = 2 logic.

These hadiths are binding upon you, not us. Similarily, if you find a in our sources which you think you can use to prove your point of view, you will use it in a discussion with Shi'a.

Not quite.

Sunnis don't go out of there way substantiating our fundamentals teachings from Shia sources.

The Shias on the other hand go to great length scurrying through our literature to confirm how their school of thought is Haq, and how our scholars generationally have either pulled the wool over our eyes purposely, or/and they all chainlike got it wrong. A classic example is the concept of Imamah. 

If you genuinely believe certain Sahaba's integrity, and trustworthiness has to be called into question for whatever reason - then you shouldn't be quoting anything from our sources because you'll end up making yourself look silly to no end, as there will always be a counter narration to refute your narrative.

Yes, this is how you do daw'ah. You use the sources of your opponents to refute them by their own books. It just so happens to be that many hadiths in the books of the Sunnis can be used to prove our madhab is the true one, which is why the debates tend to circle around the authenticity of these said hadiths.

This is not us believing the companion is trustworthy, if what he says is correct it does not mean we do not consider him a liar. Even a liar tells the truth at times.

The point is this is hujjah upon YOU. You deal with it, we are just pointing it out.

You've misunderstood.

Ahus Sunnah have proclaimed with confidence, that most of the Shia sources are unreliable for a number of reasons. So, we only use your own sources to highlight inconsistencies in your madhab to prove this very point not to justify our madhab is Haq.

Shias desperately go live, and will cherry pick Ahadith, that they believe proves their madhab. If you're going to do this, then by extension you need to refute the copious of narrations that suggest otherwise. The reality is you don't do that. You conjure up an array of comical excuses how x narrator is a liar, and how y narrator is dodgy. However, when the same narrator mass transmitted a virtue of 'Ali, you'll throw the narration in the faces of lay Sunni people.

This methodology of the Shias is indeed Hadith Pickin'. It can be summed up as nafsaniyat and shaytaniyat. The sewerage utterances you guys toss at the companions, you will be taken to task on the Day of Judgement, Insh'Allah! 

Or, it can prove the contradictions in your own texts, so we don't really need to refute them. We will point out these hadiths amongst your sources, and you can deal with them how you like. If it is sahih, then you can't turn away from it. And once again, I do not need to accept the reliability of the one who said it.

If Yazid praised Husayn and said he is righteous, then Yazid is correct but he is a dog who is cursed.

[Optimus Prime]

It's very clear many Shias pull out Hadiths from our sources to confirm the virtues of their Imams, but then turn a blind eye when the very same source contains virtues of those whom they have great enmity for.

Has anyone else noticed this trend?

This is called 1+1 = 2 logic.

These hadiths are binding upon you, not us. Similarily, if you find a in our sources which you think you can use to prove your point of view, you will use it in a discussion with Shi'a.

Not quite.

Sunnis don't go out of there way substantiating our fundamentals teachings from Shia sources.

The Shias on the other hand go to great length scurrying through our literature to confirm how their school of thought is Haq, and how our scholars generationally have either pulled the wool over our eyes purposely, or/and they all chainlike got it wrong. A classic example is the concept of Imamah. 

If you genuinely believe certain Sahaba's integrity, and trustworthiness has to be called into question for whatever reason - then you shouldn't be quoting anything from our sources because you'll end up making yourself look silly to no end, as there will always be a counter narration to refute your narrative.

Yes, this is how you do daw'ah. You use the sources of your opponents to refute them by their own books. It just so happens to be that many hadiths in the books of the Sunnis can be used to prove our madhab is the true one, which is why the debates tend to circle around the authenticity of these said hadiths.

This is not us believing the companion is trustworthy, if what he says is correct it does not mean we do not consider him a liar. Even a liar tells the truth at times.

The point is this is hujjah upon YOU. You deal with it, we are just pointing it out.

You've misunderstood.

Ahus Sunnah have proclaimed with confidence, that most of the Shia sources are unreliable for a number of reasons. So, we only use your own sources to highlight inconsistencies in your madhab to prove this very point not to justify our madhab is Haq.

Shias desperately go live, and will cherry pick Ahadith, that they believe proves their madhab. If you're going to do this, then by extension you need to refute the copious of narrations that suggest otherwise. The reality is you don't do that. You conjure up an array of comical excuses how x narrator is a liar, and how y narrator is dodgy. However, when the same narrator mass transmitted a virtue of 'Ali, you'll throw the narration in the faces of lay Sunni people.

This methodology of the Shias is indeed Hadith Pickin'. It can be summed up as nafsaniyat and shaytaniyat. The sewerage utterances you guys toss at the companions, you will be taken to task on the Day of Judgement, Insh'Allah! 

Or, it can prove the contradictions in your own texts, so we don't really need to refute them. We will point out these hadiths amongst your sources, and you can deal with them how you like. If it is sahih, then you can't turn away from it. And once again, I do not need to accept the reliability of the one who said it.

If Yazid praised Husayn and said he is righteous, then Yazid is correct but he is a dog who is cursed.

Yes, I understand how it could appear contradictory, but reconciling between narrations is an integral component of Hadith science. Our Hadith 'Ulema have written treaties, where they have reconciled between narrations by showing where the missing connection is, or/and chained Ahadith together to present the authentic version of events, and thereby refuting the opponents in question.

This has been presented to many Shias umpteen times especially on these forums, but again they dismiss it ignorantly to add to their list of excuses when they hit a dead-end, and realise they cannot corroborate using our materials, throwing their minds in an endless loop of doubt. 

Statements of praise is one thing, but I'm referring to fundamental topics like aqeedah.

[Abu Muhammad]

Love to see that brother Imam Ali is back.

It was almost akin to seing the real Imam Ali (ra) dealing with his own treacherous Kufan followers. 😛

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

It's very clear many Shias pull out Hadiths from our sources to confirm the virtues of their Imams, but then turn a blind eye when the very same source contains virtues of those whom they have great enmity for.

Has anyone else noticed this trend?

This is called 1+1 = 2 logic.

These hadiths are binding upon you, not us. Similarily, if you find a in our sources which you think you can use to prove your point of view, you will use it in a discussion with Shi'a.

Not quite.

Sunnis don't go out of there way substantiating our fundamentals teachings from Shia sources.

The Shias on the other hand go to great length scurrying through our literature to confirm how their school of thought is Haq, and how our scholars generationally have either pulled the wool over our eyes purposely, or/and they all chainlike got it wrong. A classic example is the concept of Imamah. 

If you genuinely believe certain Sahaba's integrity, and trustworthiness has to be called into question for whatever reason - then you shouldn't be quoting anything from our sources because you'll end up making yourself look silly to no end, as there will always be a counter narration to refute your narrative.

Yes, this is how you do daw'ah. You use the sources of your opponents to refute them by their own books. It just so happens to be that many hadiths in the books of the Sunnis can be used to prove our madhab is the true one, which is why the debates tend to circle around the authenticity of these said hadiths.

This is not us believing the companion is trustworthy, if what he says is correct it does not mean we do not consider him a liar. Even a liar tells the truth at times.

The point is this is hujjah upon YOU. You deal with it, we are just pointing it out.

You've misunderstood.

Ahus Sunnah have proclaimed with confidence, that most of the Shia sources are unreliable for a number of reasons. So, we only use your own sources to highlight inconsistencies in your madhab to prove this very point not to justify our madhab is Haq.

Shias desperately go live, and will cherry pick Ahadith, that they believe proves their madhab. If you're going to do this, then by extension you need to refute the copious of narrations that suggest otherwise. The reality is you don't do that. You conjure up an array of comical excuses how x narrator is a liar, and how y narrator is dodgy. However, when the same narrator mass transmitted a virtue of 'Ali, you'll throw the narration in the faces of lay Sunni people.

This methodology of the Shias is indeed Hadith Pickin'. It can be summed up as nafsaniyat and shaytaniyat. The sewerage utterances you guys toss at the companions, you will be taken to task on the Day of Judgement, Insh'Allah! 

Or, it can prove the contradictions in your own texts, so we don't really need to refute them. We will point out these hadiths amongst your sources, and you can deal with them how you like. If it is sahih, then you can't turn away from it. And once again, I do not need to accept the reliability of the one who said it.

If Yazid praised Husayn and said he is righteous, then Yazid is correct but he is a dog who is cursed.

Yes, I understand how it could appear contradictory, but reconciling between narrations is an integral component of Hadith science. Our Hadith 'Ulema have written treaties, where they have reconciled between narrations by showing where the missing connection is, or/and chained Ahadith together to present the authentic version of events, and thereby refuting the opponents in question.

This has been presented to many Shias umpteen times especially on these forums, but again they dismiss it ignorantly to add to their list of excuses when they hit a dead-end, and realise they cannot corroborate using our materials, throwing their minds in an endless loop of doubt. 

Statements of praise is one thing, but I'm referring to fundamental topics like aqeedah.

Well that's your job. We point out these hadiths, you go on to attempt to reconcile them, we go back and forth on whether this is correct or not. This is what is called an arguement. This is how people operate.

If an accursed person had a correct aqeeda in one way, that does not mean we accept their righteousness.

For example: I agree with the waqifites that Imam Ali (as) is the true wali as appointed by Allah, but this agreement is useless. Why is it useless? Because they are an evil sect who rejected the Imams (as) after Al-Kadhim (as), and therefore they are just another group of deviants.

And so, I can agree with a deviant person or group on one matter of aqeeda, and disagree with them on another.

Love to see that brother Imam Ali is back.

It was almost akin to seing the real Imam Ali (ra) dealing with his own treacherous Kufan followers. 😛

Or how he dealt with the accursed ones in the battle of Badr.

[Optimus Prime]

Well that's your job. We point out these hadiths, you go on to attempt to reconcile them, we go back and forth on whether this is correct or not. This is what is called an arguement. This is how people operate.

If an accursed person had a correct aqeeda in one way, that does not mean we accept their righteousness.

For example: I agree with the waqifites that Imam Ali (as) is the true wali as appointed by Allah, but this agreement is useless. Why is it useless? Because they are an evil sect who rejected the Imams (as) after Al-Kadhim (as), and therefore they are just another group of deviants.

And so, I can agree with a deviant person or group on one matter of aqeeda, and disagree with them on another.

When it comes to arguing Tashayyu with the aid of our sources, it's a hopeless exercise. If an open-minded Shia studies our sources objectively, and with certified commentaries of our Akabir 'Ulema, it'll rip a wide open spectrum of incertitude in their mind.

If a Shia studies our sources with a biased, and prejudice mind-set, their mind will flounder in a maze of incongruities. 

You're a smart dude, and it's high time you embrace the Haq.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Well that's your job. We point out these hadiths, you go on to attempt to reconcile them, we go back and forth on whether this is correct or not. This is what is called an arguement. This is how people operate.

If an accursed person had a correct aqeeda in one way, that does not mean we accept their righteousness.

For example: I agree with the waqifites that Imam Ali (as) is the true wali as appointed by Allah, but this agreement is useless. Why is it useless? Because they are an evil sect who rejected the Imams (as) after Al-Kadhim (as), and therefore they are just another group of deviants.

And so, I can agree with a deviant person or group on one matter of aqeeda, and disagree with them on another.

You're a smart dude, and it's high time you embrace the Haq.

The haqq is with the guy you are named after. Insha Allah I am one of his followers, may Allah shower him with blessings.

[Optimus Prime]

Well that's your job. We point out these hadiths, you go on to attempt to reconcile them, we go back and forth on whether this is correct or not. This is what is called an arguement. This is how people operate.

If an accursed person had a correct aqeeda in one way, that does not mean we accept their righteousness.

For example: I agree with the waqifites that Imam Ali (as) is the true wali as appointed by Allah, but this agreement is useless. Why is it useless? Because they are an evil sect who rejected the Imams (as) after Al-Kadhim (as), and therefore they are just another group of deviants.

And so, I can agree with a deviant person or group on one matter of aqeeda, and disagree with them on another.

You're a smart dude, and it's high time you embrace the Haq.

The haqq is with the guy you are named after. Insha Allah I am one of his followers, may Allah shower him with blessings.

We'll see.