How Mohammed Hijab could be better than Zain Rizvi?

[sid]

How Mohammed Hijab could be better than Zain Rizvi.First of all, even though Alhumdulilah there are shia scholars and works of shias that are branching out into different subjects, the trouble is online there are still shia books online which offer topics only revolving or involving the ahlulbayt or karbala, etc geared towards this.Whilst this is no problem and should be encouraged, unfortunately other topics should be covered in their own individual aspects.While a book about how the Imams a.s. prayed is good, a book on individually increasing peoples spirituality should also be made.Yes i know such books are made, but topics like this are not exactly what id say are found in numbers ,but topics of books on ahlulbayt are plenty. Unfortunately , Zain Rizvi is the same.Yes even if one says hes extremely good at arguing, he only touches on topics of history, refuting sahabas, and merits of Ahlulbayt, stuff that has been discussed over and over again.But are there videos of him taking about jannah, akhirah, about namaz, about khushoo ,about quran, does he debate christians or jews or atheists, who knows, most of his videos are history histroy history!!!!!is this all the shia mind concentrates on at the end ofthe day??? Zain Rizvi is an intellectual in history, but does he talk about delving into how beautiful the quran is, what other meanings does it offer besides how it relates to ahlulbayt?if so Good.if not ,that is not good.Mohammed Hijab defo has many videos taking to different people, etc.And dont tell me he is covered by saudi petro-dollars.And yes if anyone wants to know i am shia.Born shia,everything.Please correct me if i made any mistake in this post.

[Rationalist]

The 12er Shia sect is based strongly on history. This is sadly their main concentration. Either they cry about the past events, or they go into romantic modes and talk about the Mahdi.

[sid]

The 12er Shia sect is based strongly on history. This is sadly their main concentration. Either they cry about the past events, or they go into romantic modes and talk about the Mahdi.

they concentrate on history for a good reason, and that is to know the events that happened which were very tragic and to dissect who is right from wrong, for that one voud need to look at history to see who was right or wrong.But i am talking about only focusing on ahlulbayt and history.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

What kinda history is that without the best part of history: SEERAH.

Nothing at all about life of Prophet SAW. Just wailing stories about kerbala etc.

[Rationalist]

they concentrate on history for a good reason, and that is to know the events that happened which were very tragic and to dissect who is right from wrong, for that one voud need to look at history to see who was right or wrong.But i am talking about only focusing on ahlulbayt and history.

I will tell you the problem with that perspective. The issue is the Imams of Ahlul Bayt did not tell the Ummah they are the 12 divinely appointed Imams of the ummah. Yet the 12er Shia say its because of taqiyyah they couldn't.

So example if Saqifa, Jamal, Siffin, Karbala occurred sure we should focus on who was right and wrong. However, just because one side was right, it does not in anyway mean that there are 12 divinely appointed imams.

Therefore, how can history really prove there are 12 divinely appointed Imams? It compliments the idea that some of Imams were the most fit for the position, but it doesn't prove them to be divinely appointed.

So again living is history, all it doing is increasing your love, making your emotional and cry, and sadly it exploitation to take takfir on those who disagree with you.
 

[Khaled]

they concentrate on history for a good reason, and that is to know the events that happened which were very tragic and to dissect who is right from wrong, for that one voud need to look at history to see who was right or wrong.But i am talking about only focusing on ahlulbayt and history.

How do you dissect right from wrong when you are disconnected from the original sources?