I'm going to keep it nice and short from now on. I just can't be bothered with your ranting and raving or having a dig at me now and then.
You chose to participate in this discussion. No one forced you to be the spokesperson for all Shias. It would be nothing short of a catastrophe upon a catastrophe if you are the representative of all Shias on this forum.
Prove to me from the QUR'AN that rulers after Muhammad s.a.w (regardless of who that ruler may be) has the God given right to force people to give Zakah and hand of the Zakah money to the regime. And if people refuse to hand over the Zakah money to the regime in place then they are WAJIB UL QATAL Basically they face the death penalty.
The obligation to pay Zakah is a Qur'anic injunction so important that it is one of the five pillars of Islam. When it comes to its details, as is the case with prayer, fasting, Hajj, etc, we look at Prophetic narrations. In your case, your infallible Imams (ra) have declared the failure to pay Zakah to be a sure sign of apostasy and that such individuals must be killed.
By the way, as the other brother said, please do not pretend to be a Qur'anist now. You cannot even prove Imamah, let alone the names of 12 Imams (ra), from the Qur'an. Not to mention that collection of Zakah - although it is clear that Zakah is paid to the leader, as per Shi'i rulings - is not even part of the discussion except a distraction tactic by Shias.
Malik bin Nuwayrah prayed and did all the other things that were obligatory in Islam but denied that Zakah had nothing to do with Islam all of a sudden and out of the blue. Come on.
Strawman! Malik did not deny Zakah had anything to do with Islam. Malik said that since the Prophet (saw) had passed away, no one was obligated to pay Zakah; that Zakah was to be abolished.
This story was later on created by certain individuals just to protect Khalid bin Waleed and also Abu Bakr bin Kuafah.
For as many Shi'i scholars there are in the world, there is a different version of history. Rest assured that is not the case with our school. Name these "certain individuals" and provide evidence that can stand scrutiny. Otherwise, this will be another check your mouth issued that your @$$ cannot cash. You've issued many of these!
Otherwise if we speak the truth that Malik bin Nuwayrah only refused to hand over the Zakah money to the ruler just as other companions of the Prophet s.a.w and tribal leaders did then Abu Bakr's decision and Khalid's actions lead both into big trouble.
You and truth are polar opposites! My point still stands. Your Imams (ra) made paying Zakah an unconditional obligation refusal of which is punishable by death. There are no "ifs" and "buts" when it comes to paying Zakah.
In case you did not know, other tribes had also accepted false prophets. If you wish to side with Malik, you might as well side with the other tribes who took false prophets and undermined the Qur'anic concept of Prophethood.
It was just only a political dispute. People were not happy with this new rule that was actually forced on them that they should all of a sudden hand over the Zakah money or else.........
I knew it; in fact, I even warned you not to tread down this path. You are repeating the same lie that Ammar Nakshawani got called out for by brother Adnan Rashid. Till date, Ammar has not produced any evidence for this nonsensical claim. Therefore, I won't bother you to provide an authentic report for this idiotic claim because if Ammar could not substantiate it, you won't be able to substantiate it either.
We should absolutely be ashamed of, all of a sudden, accusing a great companion such as Malik bin Nuwayrah of such a hideous and ridiculous crime.
You should be ashamed for beating yourself every year saying you would have fought alongside Imam Hussain (ra) to save Islam when you consider Malik a "great companion" who, according to your own Imams (ra), deserved the death penalty for refusing to pay Zakah.
Allah knows best and let the matter rest with him since this was a political dispute between noble companions from all sides.
Can you name these "noble companions from all sides"?