Once again I require your help

[Adil]

Asalaamualaykum, you all well?

Firstly, I consider laymen shia Muslims until they do something which takes them out of the fold of Islam. I met a shia who believed that the Qur'an is corrupted and him I classify as kaffir. But I don't exactly know where to draw the line with some other things, a shia asked if I thought he was kaffir, these are his words :

"I've been to Qom, and Mahshad. I've held and kissed the zarih around the grave of Bibi Masoomah (as) and Imam Ali al-Ridha (as). I've prayed to Allah for their intercession. Am I still muslim now?".

Are the actions mentioned above taking him out of Islam or is he on major deviancy but without leaving the religion? Also have you guys seen some shia kissing the shrine in qom to say that there's no harm of corona virus to the "holyness of the grave", what about him? Would he qualify as a kaffir or again is it major deviancy? I don't want to mistaken say someones non-Muslim and also I don't want to mistakenly think someones a Muslim.

Secondly. He also stated "The sahaba held each other in contempt. Enough to curse each other. Enough to goto war against each other. Enough to kill each other. Shias more correctly follow the traditional attitude of the sahaba towards other sahaba, than you folk." that doesn't me doubts or anything and I see through that logically because obviously most sahaba didn't participate in the fighting, the battle of the camel was started by troublemakers and you know fallible people like sahaba do argue with each other. But has someone written an article about this or done a video where they've explained this more thoroughly so I can better write down a rebuttal with more details included?

[muslim720]

Asalaamualaykum, you all well?

Firstly, I consider laymen shia Muslims until they do something which takes them out of the fold of Islam. I met a shia who believed that the Qur'an is corrupted and him I classify as kaffir. But I don't exactly know where to draw the line with some other things, a shia asked if I thought he was kaffir, these are his words :

"I've been to Qom, and Mahshad. I've held and kissed the zarih around the grave of Bibi Masoomah (as) and Imam Ali al-Ridha (as). I've prayed to Allah for their intercession. Am I still muslim now?".

Wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullah,

If you read the fatwa on Shias, they almost always invoke two points before declaring some of them outside the fold of Islam: belief in Tahreef and cursing the Companions (ra).  The first one, obviously, is more detrimental than the second, as far as I'm concerned and I'm not even 0.0000000001% scholar and usually they are mentioned in tandem.  So the idea is not that Shias are not Muslims, it is what they do that can cast doubt upon their faith.

Another point worth mentioning - which brother Adnan stated in a discussion - is that our scholars have always issued fatwa on Shias based on several factors; they have to disbelieve in Qur'an and/or curse the Companions (ra), etc.  In other words, it is not made explicit in mainstream Islam; it is something based on independent reasoning.  The Shias, on the other hand, have ahaadith which say that denying one Imam (ra) is kufr, let alone denying the entire chain of Imams (ra) or the entire concept.

With these two points, it becomes clear that Sunnis - in my opinion - should consider Shias what they really are, a fringe group of Muslims, instead of trying to push them out of Islam.  You should make a hundred excuses for your brothers before you declare one guilty.

In Andalus, I was reading in a beautiful book titled, "Peace Be Upon You", a Muslim "convert" returned to Andalusia and went to a Muslim judge to challenge Islam.  Long story short, he cursed the Holy Prophet (saw) and said the nastiest things about Islam.  The judge, while clearly upset, slapped him but verified whether the man was drunk or insane.  Even after confirming, he issued the man a court date and during the hearing, the man repeated the same remarks and asked for capital punishment at which point he was executed.

Are the actions mentioned above taking him out of Islam or is he on major deviancy but without leaving the religion? Also have you guys seen some shia kissing the shrine in qom to say that there's no harm of corona virus to the "holyness of the grave", what about him? Would he qualify as a kaffir or again is it major deviancy? I don't want to mistaken say someones non-Muslim and also I don't want to mistakenly think someones a Muslim.

What he did at Qom or other shrines, Allah (swt) will judge him as per his intentions.  Nothing for you to do!

Secondly. He also stated "The sahaba held each other in contempt. Enough to curse each other. Enough to goto war against each other. Enough to kill each other. Shias more correctly follow the traditional attitude of the sahaba towards other sahaba, than you folk." that doesn't me doubts or anything and I see through that logically because obviously most sahaba didn't participate in the fighting, the battle of the camel was started by troublemakers and you know fallible people like sahaba do argue with each other. But has someone written an article about this or done a video where they've explained this more thoroughly so I can better write down a rebuttal with more details included?

I love my younger brother more than anyone can imagine.  Yet, he is the one person I have fought with most.  If you see us argue, especially over sports (embarrassing, I know), you'd think we are enemies.  Far from it.  Fact of the matter is that despite differences and battles, not a single Sahabi (ra) stabbed or struck another to death - at least none that I'm aware of.  And while one may try to judge them in light of their actions, the worst amongst them at their worst was better than most of us at our best.

[iceman]

Asalaamualaykum, you all well?

Firstly, I consider laymen shia Muslims until they do something which takes them out of the fold of Islam. I met a shia who believed that the Qur'an is corrupted and him I classify as kaffir. But I don't exactly know where to draw the line with some other things, a shia asked if I thought he was kaffir, these are his words :

"I've been to Qom, and Mahshad. I've held and kissed the zarih around the grave of Bibi Masoomah (as) and Imam Ali al-Ridha (as). I've prayed to Allah for their intercession. Am I still muslim now?".

Are the actions mentioned above taking him out of Islam or is he on major deviancy but without leaving the religion? Also have you guys seen some shia kissing the shrine in qom to say that there's no harm of corona virus to the "holyness of the grave", what about him? Would he qualify as a kaffir or again is it major deviancy? I don't want to mistaken say someones non-Muslim and also I don't want to mistakenly think someones a Muslim.

Secondly. He also stated "The sahaba held each other in contempt. Enough to curse each other. Enough to goto war against each other. Enough to kill each other. Shias more correctly follow the traditional attitude of the sahaba towards other sahaba, than you folk." that doesn't me doubts or anything and I see through that logically because obviously most sahaba didn't participate in the fighting, the battle of the camel was started by troublemakers and you know fallible people like sahaba do argue with each other. But has someone written an article about this or done a video where they've explained this more thoroughly so I can better write down a rebuttal with more details included?

"Firstly, I consider laymen shia Muslims until they do something which takes them out of the fold of Islam"

It doesn't matter about your opinion and what you consider. It's about facts. Shias are Muslims just as you. No more and no less. You or I labelling anyone based on our opinion doesn't mean anything. Nor does it take anything away from anyone.

"I met a shia who believed that the Qur'an is corrupted and him I classify as kaffir"

No shia believes that the Qur'an is corrupted. Lets not come out with accusations.

"But I don't exactly know where to draw the line"

I'll tell you exactly what to do and where to draw the line. Are you responsible or will you be held responsible for what others think, say or do? That's the question you need to ask yourself. Just focus on yourself by worrying more about yourself rather than others. You won't be asked or held to account but for and about yourself.

And about the Sahaba, everyone is going to be judged by their intentions and actions. Sahaba or not, there is no diplomatic immunity.

[Adil]

"Firstly, I consider laymen shia Muslims until they do something which takes them out of the fold of Islam"

It doesn't matter about your opinion and what you consider. It's about facts. Shias are Muslims just as you. No more and no less. You or I labelling anyone based on our opinion doesn't mean anything. Nor does it take anything away from anyone.

"I met a shia who believed that the Qur'an is corrupted and him I classify as kaffir"

No shia believes that the Qur'an is corrupted. Lets not come out with accusations.

"But I don't exactly know where to draw the line"

I'll tell you exactly what to do and where to draw the line. Are you responsible or will you be held responsible for what others think, say or do? That's the question you need to ask yourself. Just focus on yourself by worrying more about yourself rather than others. You won't be asked or held to account but for and about yourself.

And about the Sahaba, everyone is going to be judged by their intentions and actions. Sahaba or not, there is no diplomatic immunity.

Two examples of shia believing that the Qur'an is corrupted.

[iceman]

Wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullah,

If you read the fatwa on Shias, they almost always invoke two points before declaring some of them outside the fold of Islam: belief in Tahreef and cursing the Companions (ra).  The first one, obviously, is more detrimental than the second, as far as I'm concerned and I'm not even 0.0000000001% scholar and usually they are mentioned in tandem.  So the idea is not that Shias are not Muslims, it is what they do that can cast doubt upon their faith.

Another point worth mentioning - which brother Adnan stated in a discussion - is that our scholars have always issued fatwa on Shias based on several factors; they have to disbelieve in Qur'an and/or curse the Companions (ra), etc.  In other words, it is not made explicit in mainstream Islam; it is something based on independent reasoning.  The Shias, on the other hand, have ahaadith which say that denying one Imam (ra) is kufr, let alone denying the entire chain of Imams (ra) or the entire concept.

With these two points, it becomes clear that Sunnis - in my opinion - should consider Shias what they really are, a fringe group of Muslims, instead of trying to push them out of Islam.  You should make a hundred excuses for your brothers before you declare one guilty.

In Andalus, I was reading in a beautiful book titled, "Peace Be Upon You", a Muslim "convert" returned to Andalusia and went to a Muslim judge to challenge Islam.  Long story short, he cursed the Holy Prophet (saw) and said the nastiest things about Islam.  The judge, while clearly upset, slapped him but verified whether the man was drunk or insane.  Even after confirming, he issued the man a court date and during the hearing, the man repeated the same remarks and asked for capital punishment at which point he was executed.



What he did at Qom or other shrines, Allah (swt) will judge him as per his intentions.  Nothing for you to do!



I love my younger brother more than anyone can imagine.  Yet, he is the one person I have fought with most.  If you see us argue, especially over sports (embarrassing, I know), you'd think we are enemies.  Far from it.  Fact of the matter is that despite differences and battles, not a single Sahabi (ra) stabbed or struck another to death - at least none that I'm aware of.  And while one may try to judge them in light of their actions, the worst amongst them at their worst was better than most of us at our best.

"I love my younger brother more than anyone can imagine.  Yet, he is the one person I have fought with most.  If you see us argue, especially over sports (embarrassing, I know), you'd think we are enemies"

How many battles did you fight. And how many were killed on both sides. Who's responsible for the casualties and the unnecessary loss. Lousy example and excuse you've put forward. Doesn't add up or match up.

Sahaba v Sahaba is one thing but going against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time is another. Don't keep looking for excuses.

"Far from it.  Fact of the matter is that despite differences and battles, not a single Sahabi (ra) stabbed or struck another to death - at least none that I'm aware of"

What another louse and cheap excuse. Preparing for war and giving the orders, doesn't that mean and stand for anything. That's like saying that Yazeed didn't kill Hussain personally and wasn't at Karbala when the incident took place, so Yazeed is free from any guilt or charges. Give me one human who the devil led astray personally. Don't become so blind.

"And while one may try to judge them in light of their actions"

We don't judge them but hold them to account for their actions. What is wrong is wrong. And who is wrong is wrong.

"the worst amongst them at their worst was better than most of us at our best"

This is injustice..You have no principles or rules then. Who gave them diplomatic immunity.

[iceman]

Two examples of shia believing that the Qur'an is corrupted.

Corrupted how and in what way. Don't give me videos and clips put together by anti shia propagandists. Give me a clear fatwa or statement of any known and recognised Shia scholar. Don't beat around the bush.

[Adil]

Wa alaykum as salaam wa rahmatullah,

If you read the fatwa on Shias, they almost always invoke two points before declaring some of them outside the fold of Islam: belief in Tahreef and cursing the Companions (ra).  The first one, obviously, is more detrimental than the second, as far as I'm concerned and I'm not even 0.0000000001% scholar and usually they are mentioned in tandem.  So the idea is not that Shias are not Muslims, it is what they do that can cast doubt upon their faith.

Another point worth mentioning - which brother Adnan stated in a discussion - is that our scholars have always issued fatwa on Shias based on several factors; they have to disbelieve in Qur'an and/or curse the Companions (ra), etc.  In other words, it is not made explicit in mainstream Islam; it is something based on independent reasoning.  The Shias, on the other hand, have ahaadith which say that denying one Imam (ra) is kufr, let alone denying the entire chain of Imams (ra) or the entire concept.

With these two points, it becomes clear that Sunnis - in my opinion - should consider Shias what they really are, a fringe group of Muslims, instead of trying to push them out of Islam.  You should make a hundred excuses for your brothers before you declare one guilty.

In Andalus, I was reading in a beautiful book titled, "Peace Be Upon You", a Muslim "convert" returned to Andalusia and went to a Muslim judge to challenge Islam.  Long story short, he cursed the Holy Prophet (saw) and said the nastiest things about Islam.  The judge, while clearly upset, slapped him but verified whether the man was drunk or insane.  Even after confirming, he issued the man a court date and during the hearing, the man repeated the same remarks and asked for capital punishment at which point he was executed.



What he did at Qom or other shrines, Allah (swt) will judge him as per his intentions.  Nothing for you to do!



I love my younger brother more than anyone can imagine.  Yet, he is the one person I have fought with most.  If you see us argue, especially over sports (embarrassing, I know), you'd think we are enemies.  Far from it.  Fact of the matter is that despite differences and battles, not a single Sahabi (ra) stabbed or struck another to death - at least none that I'm aware of.  And while one may try to judge them in light of their actions, the worst amongst them at their worst was better than most of us at our best.

Thanks for the reply bro. Bro I'm not out to go giving judgements on shia but I would like clarity on the borders between shia acts/beliefs which make a person leave Islam and other acts/beliefs which whilst wrong do not take someone out of Islam. Some borders I do know like for example if they say the Qur'an is corrupted regardless of their intention. But what about something as I have mentioned above? What do those acts count as?

[muslim720]

How many battles did you fight. And how many were killed on both sides.

Many verbal battles but zero casualties, Alhamdulilah!

Who's responsible for the casualties and the unnecessary loss. Lousy example and excuse you've put forward. Doesn't add up or match up.

The Divinely-Ordained Imam (ra) is responsible for not doing his job to guide people and prevent the life loss.  Lousy concept you have put forward.  Doesn't add up or match up.

Sahaba v Sahaba is one thing but going against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time is another. Don't keep looking for excuses.

The Fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph (ra) was still a Sahabi so it is Sahaba vs Sahaba, ya jahil!

What another louse and cheap excuse. Preparing for war and giving the orders, doesn't that mean and stand for anything. That's like saying that Yazeed didn't kill Hussain personally and wasn't at Karbala when the incident took place, so Yazeed is free from any guilt or charges.

As usual, the fallacious arguments posited by dimwits have to invoke extreme examples when we see that in almost all of these battles, the Sahaba (ra) themselves reconciled (eventually).  And then there were those who attacked Imam Hassan (ra) and stripped "infallibility" and "Imamah" from his offspring for doing just that (make peace).  We are not concerned with the latter.

Give me one human who the devil led astray personally. Don't become so blind.

You.  Shi'i scholars who believe in Tahreef.

There you go!  Easy peasy.

We don't judge them but hold them to account for their actions. What is wrong is wrong. And who is wrong is wrong.

Don't care what you do!  If you have a document that certifies your greatness like the Qur'an guarantees theirs, we will take a look at it.  Otherwise, shut up!

This is injustice..You have no principles or rules then. Who gave them diplomatic immunity.

The Qur'an gives them that immunity whereas your "infallible" Guide cannot even make his own case, lol.

[iceman]

Many verbal battles but zero casualties, Alhamdulilah!



The Divinely-Ordained Imam (ra) is responsible for not doing his job to guide people and prevent the life loss.  Lousy concept you have put forward.  Doesn't add up or match up.



The Fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph (ra) was still a Sahabi so it is Sahaba vs Sahaba, ya jahil!



As usual, the fallacious arguments posited by dimwits have to invoke extreme examples when we see that in almost all of these battles, the Sahaba (ra) themselves reconciled (eventually).  And then there were those who attacked Imam Hassan (ra) and stripped "infallibility" and "Imamah" from his offspring for doing just that (make peace).  We are not concerned with the latter.



You.  Shi'i scholars who believe in Tahreef.

There you go!  Easy peasy.



Don't care what you do!  If you have a document that certifies your greatness like the Qur'an guarantees theirs, we will take a look at it.  Otherwise, shut up!



The Qur'an gives them that immunity whereas your "infallible" Guide cannot even make his own case, lol.

"The Divinely-Ordained Imam (ra) is responsible for not doing his job to guide people and prevent the life loss"

Lol. Lol again. Acording to us and the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah it was those who took up arms and used their influence to rebel against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time who were responsible. The 4th rightly guided Caliph was on Haq. And those who opposed the Caliph regardless through what ever means were on bail. Our objective along with the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah is clear. You can play double standards on it.

"The Fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph (ra) was still a Sahabi so it is Sahaba vs Sahaba, ya jahil!"

Was still? We and the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah don't come out with ifs and buts. We're clear on it. Don't use sahabiath as an excuse to berry your head in favouritism and start personality worship over it. Those who were guilty and wrong are guilty and wrong. Sahabiath gives no immunity.

"when we see that in almost all of these battles, the Sahaba (ra) themselves reconciled (eventually)"

Ceasefire is no reconciliation. It was Hassan the 5th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time against a very influential figure called Muawiya who built reputation and support under the rule of the first three caliphs. Hassan governed through Qur'an and Sunnah based on justice and fairness. Muawiyah governed by his will, wish and desire. He used his influence and might to get what he wanted regardless of the consequences and what effect it had on Islam and the Muslims. It's obvious that you do see it but are too naive to accept it.

"And then there were those who attacked Imam Hassan (ra) and stripped "infallibility" and "Imamah" from his offspring for doing just that (make peace)"

That's Muslims for you.

"The Qur'an gives them that immunity whereas your "infallible" Guide cannot even make his own case, lol."

The Qur'an doesn't give anyone immunity apart from those who were under the blanket and upon whom the verse of Tat'heer was revealed.

"Don't care what you do!  If you have a document that certifies your greatness like the Qur'an guarantees theirs, we will take a look at it"

No one has a document apart from those under the blanket. Only they have the certificate of approval and no one else.

"You.  Shi'i scholars who believe in Tahreef"

What is Tehreef, define and talk about it. Don't be an ignorant fool by throwing accusations around.

[muslim720]

Lol. Lol again. Acording to us and the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah it was those who took up arms and used their influence to rebel against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time who were responsible. The 4th rightly guided Caliph was on Haq. And those who opposed the Caliph regardless through what ever means were on bail. Our objective along with the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah is clear. You can play double standards on it.

As evident, the truth has incapacitated you.  If the Fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph (ra) did not make direct claim to his "Divinely Ordained Leadership" - let alone teach us new things like going to Karbala is better than Hajj - why would we take anything else you say seriously?  The science of hadith categorizes "liars" as weak narrators so you want us to believe a liar like you who follows a tradition of misguided liars?

Was still? We and the Ahle Sunnah Wal Jama'ah don't come out with ifs and buts. We're clear on it. Don't use sahabiath as an excuse to berry your head in favouritism and start personality worship over it. Those who were guilty and wrong are guilty and wrong. Sahabiath gives no immunity.

We, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jam'ah, existed long before your beliefs crystallized into what they are today and will continue to exist long after another Shi'i strand replaces the Ithna Ashari.

And when you talk about personality worship, it is like a bastard asking for paternity tests from others.

Ceasefire is no reconciliation. It was Hassan the 5th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time against a very influential figure called Muawiya who built reputation and support under the rule of the first three caliphs. Hassan governed through Qur'an and Sunnah based on justice and fairness. Muawiyah governed by his will, wish and desire. He used his influence and might to get what he wanted regardless of the consequences and what effect it had on Islam and the Muslims. It's obvious that you do see it but are too naive to accept it.

Repeating the same record won't help you.  What will help you is the answer to this simple question (if you dare): why did Imam Hassan (ra) - the Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph (according to us) and Second "Infallible" Imam (according to you) abdicate what was Divinely Ordained for him so that a "tyrant" like Muawiya could rule over Muslims?

That's Muslims for you.

No, that would be Shias who excommunicated the offspring of Imam Hassan (ra) from any Divine Leadership claims ONLY because their father (ra) made peace with Muawiya.  And you dare claim to be a lover of Ahlul Bayt (ra).

The Qur'an doesn't give anyone immunity apart from those who were under the blanket and upon whom the verse of Tat'heer was revealed.

"(And there is also a share in this booty) for the poor emigrants, who were expelled from their homes and their property, seeking Bounties from Allāh and to please Him. And helping Allāh (i.e. helping His religion) and His Messenger (Muhammad SAW). Such are indeed the truthful (to what they say)

And those who, before them, had homes (in Al-Madinah) and had adopted the Faith, love those who emigrate to them, and have no jealousy in their breasts for that which they have been given (from the booty of Banī An-Nadīr), and give them (emigrants) preference over themselves, even though they were in need of that. And whosoever is saved from his own covetousness, such are they who will be the successful"

Where do you fit Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) in those two verses of Surah Al-Hashr 8-9?

They clearly talk about Allah's (swt) Pleasure with Muhajir and Ansar.  Except your First "Infallible" Imam (ra), none were either Muhajir or Ansar.

You will fare better if you read the Qur'an more often

What is Tehreef, define and talk about it. Don't be an ignorant fool by throwing accusations around.

You are an ignorant fool to not know what Tahreef means.  You asked me to show you "one human who the devil led astray personally".  I showed you many.  You.  All those Shi'i scholars who believe(d) in Tahreef.

[iceman]

As evident, the truth has incapacitated you.  If the Fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph (ra) did not make direct claim to his "Divinely Ordained Leadership" - let alone teach us new things like going to Karbala is better than Hajj - why would we take anything else you say seriously?  The science of hadith categorizes "liars" as weak narrators so you want us to believe a liar like you who follows a tradition of misguided liars?



We, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jam'ah, existed long before your beliefs crystallized into what they are today and will continue to exist long after another Shi'i strand replaces the Ithna Ashari.

And when you talk about personality worship, it is like a bastard asking for paternity tests from others.



Repeating the same record won't help you.  What will help you is the answer to this simple question (if you dare): why did Imam Hassan (ra) - the Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph (according to us) and Second "Infallible" Imam (according to you) abdicate what was Divinely Ordained for him so that a "tyrant" like Muawiya could rule over Muslims?



No, that would be Shias who excommunicated the offspring of Imam Hassan (ra) from any Divine Leadership claims ONLY because their father (ra) made peace with Muawiya.  And you dare claim to be a lover of Ahlul Bayt (ra).



"(And there is also a share in this booty) for the poor emigrants, who were expelled from their homes and their property, seeking Bounties from Allāh and to please Him. And helping Allāh (i.e. helping His religion) and His Messenger (Muhammad SAW). Such are indeed the truthful (to what they say)

And those who, before them, had homes (in Al-Madinah) and had adopted the Faith, love those who emigrate to them, and have no jealousy in their breasts for that which they have been given (from the booty of Banī An-Nadīr), and give them (emigrants) preference over themselves, even though they were in need of that. And whosoever is saved from his own covetousness, such are they who will be the successful"

Where do you fit Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) in those two verses of Surah Al-Hashr 8-9?

They clearly talk about Allah's (swt) Pleasure with Muhajir and Ansar.  Except your First "Infallible" Imam (ra), none were either Muhajir or Ansar.

You will fare better if you read the Qur'an more often



You are an ignorant fool to not know what Tahreef means.  You asked me to show you "one human who the devil led astray personally".  I showed you many.  You.  All those Shi'i scholars who believe(d) in Tahreef.

As evident, the truth has incapacitated you.  If the Fourth Rightly-Guided Caliph (ra) did not make direct claim to his "Divinely Ordained Leadership" - let alone teach us new things like going to Karbala is better than Hajj - why would we take anything else you say seriously?  The science of hadith categorizes "liars" as weak narrators so you want us to believe a liar like you who follows a tradition of misguided liars?"

When you start to lose an argument that's when you bring in irrelevant stuff. Stick to the facts. According to the Ahle Sunnah Ali was the 4th rightly guided Caliph. According to the Ahle Sunnah the Ulul Amre of the time is the Caliph. Now those who use their influence and take up arms against the rightly guided Caliph and the Ulul Amre of the time, those who use means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met are known as terrorists/outlaws regardless of their personality or prestige status. Stick to these facts. Don't berry your head in the side or go hopping around to bring in irrelevant stuff. It's a lost argument for you because of your arrogance. You don't need to accept this. Facts don't need your acceptance and approval. This is the Ahle Sunnah view and stance that those who raise arms against the rightly guided Caliph are outlaws. Now you need to put your confrontational stance aside and decide if you're Ahle Sunnah or something else.

"We, the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jam'ah, existed long before your beliefs crystallized into what they are today and will continue to exist long after another Shi'i strand replaces the Ithna Ashari"

Wrong again because your banging your head against facts. You're a bad lower. The Sunnis came around during the time and generation of our 6th Imam Jaffar Al Sadiq. Your Imam Abu Hanafi was a student of our 6th Imam who then went off and apposed Jaffar to create his own school of thought backed by the government against Al Sadiq. This is where the first Sunnis emerged, the followers of Abu Hanifa.

Later on Sunnis fell into disarray and developed differences where Imam Malik separated and started his own school of thought. The difference furthered to Shafi and Hambali schools of thought. You didn't even exist and were no where to be seen when we were around.

"And when you talk about personality worship, it is like a bastard asking for paternity tests from others"

Lol. Lol again. You are so far stuck up in personality worship that a few companions and that's just a handful never got anything wrong what so ever. You have turned them into Holy saints. They abandoned the Prophet s.a.w and left him stranded in battle and ran to save their lives. They shunned the Prophet s.a.w when he asked for pen and paper and weren't interested in what he had to offer. This went on while the Prophet s.a.w was alive. Never mind about what they got up to after the Prophet's s.a.w death.

"Repeating the same record won't help you"

The constant confrontational stance won't help you.

"why did Imam Hassan (ra) - the Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph (according to us) and Second "Infallible" Imam (according to you) abdicate what was Divinely Ordained for him so that a "tyrant" like Muawiya could rule over Muslims?"

This has been answered many times. But just to silence you and to put your mischief to rest.
 
First of all you said;

"why did Imam Hassan (ra) - the Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph (according to us) and Second "

Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph according to the Ahle Sunnah? Really? When it comes to Jamal and Safeen where does your 4th rightly guided Caliph according to the Ahle Sunnah go? Lol.

Now the answer to your question which I will most certainly dare to answer as usual unlike you.

Imam Hassan did not abdicate what was Divinely Ordained for him.

The tyrant like Muawiya, your words, only ruled over Muslims due to the failure of the Muslims. Just like Yazeed ruled over the Muslims. Just like the Prophet s.a.w was prevented from pen and paper and what he had to offer wasn't accepted to begin with. The failure of the companions and their offsprings at their time and generation. That's were the fault and blame is.

[iceman]

No, that would be Shias who excommunicated the offspring of Imam Hassan (ra) from any Divine Leadership claims ONLY because their father (ra) made peace with Muawiya.  And you dare claim to be a lover of Ahlul Bayt (ra)"

Lol. Lol again. Blame the Shias for everything. That's all you can do. That's the most easy way out for you. Shias killed Hussain, Shias let down Hassan, Shias killed Usman, Shias this Shias that. Where were you (Sunnis) in all this? Lol.

"Where do you fit Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) in those two verses of Surah Al-Hashr 8-9?"

In the verses you mentioned how does your handful companions and their actions after the Qur'an was revealed and what they got up to fit in? As for Hassan and Hussain I can do much better something that is undisputed and which you can't deny or reject. The verse of Mubahila and Tat'heer. You can't beat that.

"They clearly talk about Allah's (swt) Pleasure with Muhajir and Ansar.  Except your First "Infallible" Imam (ra), none were either Muhajir or Ansar"

Yeh. Those who performed and achieved well. And it applies to those when the verses were revealed. You can't pick up verses and start justifying and protecting those who failed by falling below expectation or those after the demise of the Prophet s.a.w regarding what they did and got up to. Nice try.

"You will fare better if you read the Qur'an more often"

I do read it more often. The only difference is you read it to find bits and pieces to try and defend your handful of godly figures. And you look at history to see what bits and pieces you can find either to undermine the Shia faith or to paint a bad picture. That's the difference.

"You are an ignorant fool to not know what Tahreef means.  You asked me to show you "one human who the devil led astray personally".  I showed you many.  You.  All those Shi'i scholars who believe(d) in Tahreef"

You are an ignorant arrogant or arrogant ignorant, which ever way you want it. You don't have a clue what Tehreef means. Nor do you have a clue about anything else.

[Mythbuster1]

When you start to lose an argument that's when you bring in irrelevant stuff. Stick to the facts. According to the Ahle Sunnah Ali was the 4th rightly guided Caliph. According to the Ahle Sunnah the Ulul Amre of the time is the Caliph. Now those who use their influence and take up arms against the rightly guided Caliph and the Ulul Amre of the time, those who use means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met are known as terrorists/outlaws regardless of their personality or prestige status. Stick to these facts. Don't berry your head in the side or go hopping around to bring in irrelevant stuff. It's a lost argument for you because of your arrogance. You don't need to accept this. Facts don't need your acceptance and approval. This is the Ahle Sunnah view and stance that those who raise arms against the rightly guided Caliph are outlaws. Now you need to put your confrontational stance aside and decide if you're Ahle Sunnah or something else.

Yes and use the ahlu sunnah view on yourself, the terrorist Malik bin nuwerah your hero fought against the first khaliph ra so come on now and use the same argument for the first and call nuwerah an outlaw or terrorist or are you just a typical Shiite hypocrite talking nonsense as usual just answering for the sake of it.

[iceman]

Yes and use the ahlu sunnah view on yourself, the terrorist Malik bin nuwerah your hero fought against the first khaliph ra so come on now and use the same argument for the first and call nuwerah an outlaw or terrorist or are you just a typical Shiite hypocrite talking nonsense as usual just answering for the sake of it.

"Yes and use the ahlu sunnah view on yourself, the terrorist Malik bin nuwerah your hero fought against the first khaliph"

What is the Ahle Sunnah view? Lets look at some facts first which normally bite you. Malik was a Sahabi, not just a Sahabi but also a tax collector. He was from bani Tamim, he belonged to the tribe of Tamim. Malik bin Nuwayrah and his men didn't fight the first Caliph. This is where you are wrong. They put down their arms/weapons. As soon as they did they were arrested and taken as prisoners. Then beheaded. Why? The charge against them was that they became munkar e Zakah meaning they started to believe that Zakah wasn't obligatory. They didn't pray and no Azaan was heard. There was no trial or investigation. Just accused, charged and killed over night.

The person who did this was your champion Khalid ibn Waleed under the armed battalion he controlled. Some men from that battalion complained to the first Caliph that Khalid acted hastily. Some said that they did hear the Azaan at bani tamim tribe and saw them pray. Umar believed and told the first Caliph that Khalid should be punished for this. The first Caliph summoned Khalid and questioned him over this. The decision by the first Caliph was reached that Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were killed unlawfully. Qisas money as compensation was given to Malik's brother.

Go do some homework child rather than jumping up and down.

"so come on now and use the same argument for the first and call nuwerah an outlaw or terrorist"

Open your eyes and stop playing blind. Make a principle and stick to it. If you believe that Jamal and Safeen was a result of the difference between companions and people of equal status and standard, then use the same principle that Abu Bakr, Khalid, Malik and his tribes men were also companions and this was also a difference between companions and men of equal status and standard.

But if you believe that Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were wrong since they were up against the first Caliph and an armed battalion sent by the Caliph and this was a clash with the government then use this same principle in Jamal and Safeen and strip those, who raised arms against the 4th Caliph, off their companionship and label them Murtad just as you do and consider Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men. 😊

You're all about double standards. Make a principle, lay it down then stick to it. 😆

"call nuwerah an outlaw or terrorist"

😊 As long as you consider those who went against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time terrorists, outlaws and Murtad. Put your words where your mouth is. 😆

[Mythbuster1]

"Yes and use the ahlu sunnah view on yourself, the terrorist Malik bin nuwerah your hero fought against the first khaliph"

What is the Ahle Sunnah view? Lets look at some facts first which normally bite you. Malik was a Sahabi, not just a Sahabi but also a tax collector. He was from bani Tamim, he belonged to the tribe of Tamim. Malik bin Nuwayrah and his men didn't fight the first Caliph. This is where you are wrong. They put down their arms/weapons. As soon as they did they were arrested and taken as prisoners. Then beheaded. Why? The charge against them was that they became munkar e Zakah meaning they started to believe that Zakah wasn't obligatory. They didn't pray and no Azaan was heard. There was no trial or investigation. Just accused, charged and killed over night.

The person who did this was your champion Khalid ibn Waleed under the armed battalion he controlled. Some men from that battalion complained to the first Caliph that Khalid acted hastily. Some said that they did hear the Azaan at bani tamim tribe and saw them pray. Umar believed and told the first Caliph that Khalid should be punished for this. The first Caliph summoned Khalid and questioned him over this. The decision by the first Caliph was reached that Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were killed unlawfully. Qisas money as compensation was given to Malik's brother.

Go do some homework child rather than jumping up and down.

"so come on now and use the same argument for the first and call nuwerah an outlaw or terrorist"

Open your eyes and stop playing blind. Make a principle and stick to it. If you believe that Jamal and Safeen was a result of the difference between companions and people of equal status and standard, then use the same principle that Abu Bakr, Khalid, Malik and his tribes men were also companions and this was also a difference between companions and men of equal status and standard.

But if you believe that Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were wrong since they were up against the first Caliph and an armed battalion sent by the Caliph and this was a clash with the government then use this same principle in Jamal and Safeen and strip those, who raised arms against the 4th Caliph, off their companionship and label them Murtad just as you do and consider Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men. 😊

You're all about double standards. Make a principle, lay it down then stick to it. 😆

"call nuwerah an outlaw or terrorist"

😊 As long as you consider those who went against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time terrorists, outlaws and Murtad. Put your words where your mouth is. 😆

Oh how you missed out the self confessed prophet sajjah who made a pact with your hero. According to Tabari “this agreement stated that first they would deal with local enemy tribes together, and then they would confront the state of Madinah.”

Khalid bin Waleed ra made the right decision Alhamdulillah for the sword of Allah.

Fact of the matter is ahlu sunnah that includes all love and respect Abu Bakr sidique ra and Khalid bin Waleed ra you will Never find any ahlu sunnah criticise any sahaba especially for the terrorist Nuwera, your lies are clear to see.

Kid it was YOU who said fighting against khaliphs equals terrorists, I only gave you 1 example of Nuwera who did just that and........you’re coming out with excuses!!

You seriously are a dimwit.

[iceman]

Oh how you missed out the self confessed prophet sajjah who made a pact with your hero. According to Tabari “this agreement stated that first they would deal with local enemy tribes together, and then they would confront the state of Madinah.”

Khalid bin Waleed ra made the right decision Alhamdulillah for the sword of Allah.

Fact of the matter is ahlu sunnah that includes all love and respect Abu Bakr sidique ra and Khalid bin Waleed ra you will Never find any ahlu sunnah criticise any sahaba especially for the terrorist Nuwera, your lies are clear to see.

Kid it was YOU who said fighting against khaliphs equals terrorists, I only gave you 1 example of Nuwera who did just that and........you’re coming out with excuses!!

You seriously are a dimwit.

😀 I love putting a straight jacket on you.

"Khalid bin Waleed ra made the right decision Alhamdulillah for the sword of Allah"

Not according to Umar he didn't. Umar wanted him brought to justice and punished. Abu Qatadah reported him to Abu Bakr. The first Caliph decided that Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were killed unlawfully. Qisas blood money was given as compensation. Go do some homework child.

You said;

"Never find any ahlu sunnah criticise any sahaba"

Then you say;

"especially for the terrorist Nuwera"

You've said it yourself. Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were Sahabi who are not just criticised but called and labelled murtad. Despite reports that he was killed unlawfully. Not trial, no judge, no jury, no justice, nothing. Just accused and killed. And you bang on about the Ahle Sunnah view 😊

"Kid it was YOU who said fighting against khaliphs equals terrorists, I only gave you 1 example of Nuwera who did just that and........you’re coming out with excuses!"

I'm just pointing out the double standards about you. And how you completely disregard facts. Ali was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. Those who used means of violence and threatening behaviour and raised arms against the Caliph just to have their demands met what would you call them?😊

[Soccer]

The truth is no sect is a version of the religion that God enjoined upon humanity.  Sunnis are right about somethings, and Shiites right about others thing, Salafis are even right about no innovations meant to be in religion. 

Islam is not the religion of submission talked about in Quran and Mohammad's way is not our way. Titles and claims are just that, reality is, guidance varies degrees these days.

The manifest strong nature of religion has been compromised.  Things we think 20 verses of Quran say, but in fact, Quran says the opposite of all those translations maybe a thing.

This is why I don't judge humans harshly in this age.  The true nature of guidance is harder, and people in general cannot be compared to those who deny clear miracles and when the religion reinforced with miracles, clear signs, and clear path.

[Mythbuster1]

😀 I love putting a straight jacket on you.

"Khalid bin Waleed ra made the right decision Alhamdulillah for the sword of Allah"

Not according to Umar he didn't. Umar wanted him brought to justice and punished. Abu Qatadah reported him to Abu Bakr. The first Caliph decided that Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were killed unlawfully. Qisas blood money was given as compensation. Go do some homework child.

You said;

"Never find any ahlu sunnah criticise any sahaba"

Then you say;

"especially for the terrorist Nuwera"

You've said it yourself. Malik bin Nuwayrah and his tribes men were Sahabi who are not just criticised but called and labelled murtad. Despite reports that he was killed unlawfully. Not trial, no judge, no jury, no justice, nothing. Just accused and killed. And you bang on about the Ahle Sunnah view 😊

"Kid it was YOU who said fighting against khaliphs equals terrorists, I only gave you 1 example of Nuwera who did just that and........you’re coming out with excuses!"

I'm just pointing out the double standards about you. And how you completely disregard facts. Ali was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. Those who used means of violence and threatening behaviour and raised arms against the Caliph just to have their demands met what would you call them?😊

Don’t worry bout me kid you are stuck in your straight jacket till death, especially if you have beliefs of super humans and a human still living hiding in fear coz god made it so...........good luck with that mentally deranged thinking, you definitely are a dimwit.

Khalid bin Waleed ra is in heaven and He is loved and respected by all Muslims 1.6 billion of us, ahlu sunnah love him and ahlu sunnah love Him and hate Nuweara the “terrorist”.

No one gives a crap about Nuwera, you can keep him and his love for sajjah, he quickly forgot about the real prophet pbuh after He passed away and joined sajjah.

Dimwit iceman:

“I'm just pointing out the double standards about you. And how you completely disregard facts. Ali was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. Those who used means of violence and threatening behaviour and raised arms against the Caliph just to have their demands met what would you call them?”

“According to the Ahle Sunnah Ali was the 4th rightly guided Caliph. According to the Ahle Sunnah the Ulul Amre of the time is the Caliph. Now those who use their influence and take up arms against the rightly guided Caliph and the Ulul Amre of the time, those who use means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met are known as terrorists/outlaws regardless of their personality or prestige status. Stick to these facts.”

Go on then Nuwera was the first terrorist scum go on then dimwit call him for who he was.

Dimwit and his double standards 😁

[iceman]

Don’t worry bout me kid you are stuck in your straight jacket till death, especially if you have beliefs of super humans and a human still living hiding in fear coz god made it so...........good luck with that mentally deranged thinking, you definitely are a dimwit.

Khalid bin Waleed ra is in heaven and He is loved and respected by all Muslims 1.6 billion of us, ahlu sunnah love him and ahlu sunnah love Him and hate Nuweara the “terrorist”.

No one gives a crap about Nuwera, you can keep him and his love for sajjah, he quickly forgot about the real prophet pbuh after He passed away and joined sajjah.

Dimwit iceman:

“I'm just pointing out the double standards about you. And how you completely disregard facts. Ali was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. Those who used means of violence and threatening behaviour and raised arms against the Caliph just to have their demands met what would you call them?”

“According to the Ahle Sunnah Ali was the 4th rightly guided Caliph. According to the Ahle Sunnah the Ulul Amre of the time is the Caliph. Now those who use their influence and take up arms against the rightly guided Caliph and the Ulul Amre of the time, those who use means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met are known as terrorists/outlaws regardless of their personality or prestige status. Stick to these facts.”

Go on then Nuwera was the first terrorist scum go on then dimwit call him for who he was.

Dimwit and his double standards 😁

"Don’t worry bout me kid you are stuck in your straight jacket till death, especially if you have beliefs of super humans and a human still living hiding in fear coz god made it so"

And you're stuck in your straight jacket till death, and that is the unfortunate incident in Saqifa were an immature and illegitimate decision was reached by just a handful of people with no authority what so ever on behalf on anyone. You follow your belief and we follow ours. Why don't you leave it till that then. What's bothering you about us. We don't give two monkeys about you and what you believe in.

"Khalid bin Waleed ra is in heaven and He is loved and respected by all Muslims 1.6 billion of us, ahlu sunnah love him and ahlu sunnah love Him and hate Nuweara the “terrorist”

Is he 😊 Who told you that? 😊 So you decide who's in heaven and who ain't? Umar wanted him published, Abu Bakr thought he made a grave mistake by acting hastily, he captured and took hostage Malik and his tribes men (companions of the Prophet s.a.w), accused them and beheaded them. No trial, no judge, no jury, no justice no nothing. And you think he's in heaven for that. 😊

This is the problem with your kind, you're in favouritism and personality worship. You're actually blind.

"No one gives a crap about Nuwera, you can keep him and his love for sajjah, he quickly forgot about the real prophet pbuh after He passed away and joined sajjah"

Reality and facts do. Malik along with his tribes men were killed unlawfully. It was definitely manslaughter if not murder. You can't run from this kid 😊

"Go on then Nuwera was the first terrorist scum go on then dimwit call him for who he was"

Why was he a scum? And what about those who used means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met and took up arms against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time 😊

I'm not going to let you run from this kido 😊

[Mythbuster1]

"Don’t worry bout me kid you are stuck in your straight jacket till death, especially if you have beliefs of super humans and a human still living hiding in fear coz god made it so"

And you're stuck in your straight jacket till death, and that is the unfortunate incident in Saqifa were an immature and illegitimate decision was reached by just a handful of people with no authority what so ever on behalf on anyone. You follow your belief and we follow ours. Why don't you leave it till that then. What's bothering you about us. We don't give two monkeys about you and what you believe in.

"Khalid bin Waleed ra is in heaven and He is loved and respected by all Muslims 1.6 billion of us, ahlu sunnah love him and ahlu sunnah love Him and hate Nuweara the “terrorist”

Is he 😊 Who told you that? 😊 So you decide who's in heaven and who ain't? Umar wanted him published, Abu Bakr thought he made a grave mistake by acting hastily, he captured and took hostage Malik and his tribes men (companions of the Prophet s.a.w), accused them and beheaded them. No trial, no judge, no jury, no justice no nothing. And you think he's in heaven for that. 😊

This is the problem with your kind, you're in favouritism and personality worship. You're actually blind.

"No one gives a crap about Nuwera, you can keep him and his love for sajjah, he quickly forgot about the real prophet pbuh after He passed away and joined sajjah"

Reality and facts do. Malik along with his tribes men were killed unlawfully. It was definitely manslaughter if not murder. You can't run from this kid 😊

"Go on then Nuwera was the first terrorist scum go on then dimwit call him for who he was"

Why was he a scum? And what about those who used means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met and took up arms against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time 😊

I'm not going to let you run from this kido 😊

You do give two monkeys about us this is why you are a member here and posting.  Look even saqifa gets you twisted it’s saqifa this saqifa that oh everything rotates around saqifa, you keep banging on about saqifa that it burns you lol, get over it the event has passed try coming with something better.......if you can.

Nothing is bothering me about a fake made up sect that has no root in Quran or sunnah, this is a site to counter Shiite lies if you didn’t know so I didn’t join here to leave it at that kid. And it’s not my fault you cannot provide clear proofs and and answers.

Oh yes Alhamdulillah He is in highest heaven and there is NOTHING you can do or say apart from cry and complain about a companion loved and respected by BILLIONS.
Only the mentally deranged have issues with The Sword of Allah swt.

As for personality worship lol you are number 1 for it we don’t add divinity to persons and use them as forms of worship like  Abdullah ibn Saba', who may have denied that Ali had died and predicting his return (rajʿa), don’t deny your real history kid.

You can defend and personally worship Nuwera the believer in a prophet after Nabi Muhammed pbuh, you can love and worship Murtad that’s your prerogative but you have nothing on Khalid ra, Alhamdulillah, it will hurt we know but truth is bitter you have to admit.

Look how twisted you are and backed into a corner your nonsense is hypocritical at best to the point you are stuck in your own stupidity........it was you who stated anyone fighting against a khaliph is a terrorist so I just turned it around to that scum and look at you.

Gotta take my hat off to your stupidity kid.👍