Are these shia reports?

[fgss]

Are these reports really there in shia books? If yes can anyone share their online arabic source.

1) Abbas bin Abd al-Muttalib spoke to Amir Al-Muminin (Ali bin Abi Talib)  during the illness of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so that he asks  the Prophet, who will be in charge of affairs after him, and that if  it is for us (Ahl al-Bayt) he should reveal it; and if it is for some  other people, he entrust it to us. The leader of the faithful (Ali)  said, we went to the Messenger of Allah when his illness became  serious and we said O Messenger of Allah, choose a successor for us,  He said. “No, I fear that you will be divided regarding him, as the  children of Israel became divided over Harun, but if Allah knows any  goodness in you, He will choose for you (a leader).

Source: Murtada: Al-Shafi, vol-4, p. 149 and vol. 3 p. 295.
           

2) Imam Ja'far bin Muhammad Sadiq: ‘When the Messenger of Allah (peace be  upon him) was on his death bed, he called Abbas and Amir al-Muminin,  and then he said to Abbas “O the uncle of Muhammad … you will take the  heritage of Muhammad, pay back his debts and repulse his enemy”. He  replied him saying, "O Messenger of Allah, let my father and mother be  your ransom, I am an old man with many dependants and little wealth,  who can bear the like of your responsibilities?” He lowered his head  for a while and then he said again, “O Abbas, will you take the  heritage of Muhammad, repulse his enemy and pay back his loans?” He  replied as before… He then said “Definitely, I will give it to the one  who will take it and all the responsibilities associated with it.”  Then he said: “O Ali! O brother of Muhammad, will you repulse the  enemy of Muhammad, pay back his loans and take hold of his heritage?  He said, “Yes, let my father and mother be your ransom”. ‘Such is Ali,  my beloved friend’.

Source: Kulayni: Al-Kafi, vol 1 p. 236

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Are these reports really there in shia books? If yes can anyone share their online arabic source.

1) Abbas bin Abd al-Muttalib spoke to Amir Al-Muminin (Ali bin Abi Talib)  during the illness of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so that he asks  the Prophet, who will be in charge of affairs after him, and that if  it is for us (Ahl al-Bayt) he should reveal it; and if it is for some  other people, he entrust it to us. The leader of the faithful (Ali)  said, we went to the Messenger of Allah when his illness became  serious and we said O Messenger of Allah, choose a successor for us,  He said. “No, I fear that you will be divided regarding him, as the  children of Israel became divided over Harun, but if Allah knows any  goodness in you, He will choose for you (a leader).

Source: Murtada: Al-Shafi, vol-4, p. 149 and vol. 3 p. 295.

It's not worth looking because most likely he would be quoting them as the evidence taken by his opponents. And then would try to reject it.
           

2) Imam Ja'far bin Muhammad Sadiq: ‘When the Messenger of Allah (peace be  upon him) was on his death bed, he called Abbas and Amir al-Muminin,  and then he said to Abbas “O the uncle of Muhammad … you will take the  heritage of Muhammad, pay back his debts and repulse his enemy”. He  replied him saying, "O Messenger of Allah, let my father and mother be  your ransom, I am an old man with many dependants and little wealth,  who can bear the like of your responsibilities?” He lowered his head  for a while and then he said again, “O Abbas, will you take the  heritage of Muhammad, repulse his enemy and pay back his loans?” He  replied as before… He then said “Definitely, I will give it to the one  who will take it and all the responsibilities associated with it.”  Then he said: “O Ali! O brother of Muhammad, will you repulse the  enemy of Muhammad, pay back his loans and take hold of his heritage?  He said, “Yes, let my father and mother be your ransom”. ‘Such is Ali,  my beloved friend’.

Source: Kulayni: Al-Kafi, vol 1 p. 236

For this one, Shia will say that, this reference has nothing to do with appointing a successor. The discussion here is concerning the Prophet asking whether his uncle implement his will, pay off his debts and tend to the needs of his family.

[fgss]

You are right.

But Sheikh Mufeed also accepted and recorded a similar report from tabari in his al-Irshad.

And according to Mufeed, following happened just after the incident of pen and paper.

Where Abbas asked about the issue of leadership in ummah but prophet only entrusted Ali about his personal family affairs. That also was first offered to Abbas but he denied.

Quote:

"If this  matter  is  to be settled upon  us  after  you,  then  tell us,”  al-'Abbas  asked  him.” If  you  know  that we  are to be overcome,  then  give  us  the  decision.”

"You  are  those who will be found  weak  after me,”  he answered  and  then  was  silent.   

The  people  (rose to  leave),  weeping  with despair  at  (losing)  the Prophet,  may  God  bless  him  and  his family.  When  they  had left,  he,  peace be  on  him,  said:  "Send  back  to me my  brother and  my  uncle  (i.e.  'Ali and  al-'Abbas).” They sent  for  someone to call them  and  he  brought  them. 

When  he  had  them  sitting  close,  he,  blessings and  peace be  on  him,  said:  "Uncle of the  Apostle of  God,  will you  accept  my  testamentary  bequest  (wasi), fulfil my  promise and  carry  out my  religion?"

"Apostle of God,  your  uncle is  an  old  man  with the responsibilities  of a  large family,”  answered  al'Abbas.” You vie with the wind  n  liberality  and  generosity.  You  have  made  promises  which your  uncle could  never  fulfil.”
 
Then he turned to 'Ali  b.  Abi  Talib,  peace be  on  him,  and  said:  "Brother,  will you accept  my  testamentary bequest,  fulfil  my  promises,  carry  out  my  religion  on  my  behalf  and  look  after  the  affairs  of my  family  after me?"

"Yes,  Apostle  of God,”  he  replied.   

"Come near  me,”  he told  him.   He  went  near to  him  and  he  embraced him.  He took  his  ring  from  his  finger and  said:  "Take this  and  put  it on  your  finger.” Then he called for  his  sword,  his  breastplate and  all  his  weapons  and  gave  those to  him.  He  looked for a turban  which he used to  wear  around  his  stomach when  he  put on  his  weapons  and  went  out  to battle.  It was brought to him  and  he gave  it  to the  Commander of the  faithful,  peace be  on  him.  Then  he  said  to him: "Go,  'Ali,  in  the  name of God,  to your  house.”

[fgss]

Here is one more example.

Imam Musa al-kazim in his last will appointed his son Ali al-Redha as his trustee (wassi) and successor for his personal affairs of family and property just like Prophet saww did.

Like arabs, here also in Pakistan word successor (khalifah) is used for a son who took over family affairs after his father.


Uyun akhbar Redha.

5-1 (part)

And I will appoint my son Ali as my Trustee - along with his other brothers, God willing. If he recognizes that they have grown up enough and he likes to keep them as my Trustees - he can. If he is not pleased with them and wants them not to be my Trustees, he can. They have no authority over him. I entrust my affairs regarding charity, property, and my children to him and to Ibrahim, Abbas, Isma'il, Ahmad, Umm Ahmad. I entrust the affairs of my wives to Ali alone. He can spend one-third of the charity of my father and my household in any way he likes - as anyone would deal with his own property.


5-3 Ishaq and Ali, the sons of Abi Abdillah (a.s.) had Al-Husayn ibn Ahmad al-Menqari, Isma'el ibn Umar, Has'san ibn Mo’awiya and Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad Sahib al-Khatm bear witness that Abul Hassan Ali ibn Musa was the Testamentary Trustee of his father (a.s.) and was his successor. Two of them testified to this, and the other two said that he is the successor and his deputy. Then all their testimonies were accepted by the Judge Hafs ibn Ghiyath.


Musa al-Kazim's last will is also free from anything about divine leadership of ummah.

[fgss]

Some more reports testifying the same.


Uyun akhbar Redha

6-12 (part)

“We were nearly sixty Shiites who were next to the tomb of the Prophet (S). Abu Ibrahim Musa ibn Ja'far (a.s.) came towards us. He was holding the hand of his son - Ali - in his hand. He said, ‘Do you know who I am?’ We said, ‘You are our Master and our elder.’ Then he said, ‘Tell me my name and my family.’ Then we said, ‘You are Musa ibn Ja'far ibn Muhammad (a.s.).’ Then he asked, ‘Who is this with me?’ Then we said, ‘He is Ali ibn Musa ibn Ja'far (a.s.).’ He said, ‘Then bear witness that he is my counsel in my life, and is my Testamentary Trustee after my death.’

6-13 (part)

on the authority of Abdullah ibn Marhoom, “I left Basra to go towards Medina. I met Aba Ibrahim (Imam al-Kazim) (a.s.) who was being taken to Basra. He sent someone to me and I went to him. Then Imam Al-Kazim (a.s.) gave me several books and ordered me to take them to Medina. I asked him, ‘May I be your ransom! Who should I give these books to?’ He (a.s.) replied, ’Give them to my son Ali (Al-Ridha’ (a.s.)). He is my Testamentary Trustee and in charge of my affairs. He is my best son.’”

6-14 (part)

“Abu Ibrahim (al-Kazim) (a.s.) sent someone after us, gathered us together and asked us, ‘Do you know why I have gathered you together?’ We replied, ‘No.’ Imam Al-Kazim (a.s.) said, ‘Bear witness that this - my son Ali is my Testamentary Trustee. He (a.s.) is in charge of all my affairs. He (a.s.) is my successor. Whoever has lent me something can take it back from him. Whoever has been given a promise by me should ask him to fulfill that promise. Whoever has to visit me in person can come to see me with a note from him.’”

[iceman]

Are these reports really there in shia books? If yes can anyone share their online arabic source.

1) Abbas bin Abd al-Muttalib spoke to Amir Al-Muminin (Ali bin Abi Talib)  during the illness of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so that he asks  the Prophet, who will be in charge of affairs after him, and that if  it is for us (Ahl al-Bayt) he should reveal it; and if it is for some  other people, he entrust it to us. The leader of the faithful (Ali)  said, we went to the Messenger of Allah when his illness became  serious and we said O Messenger of Allah, choose a successor for us,  He said. “No, I fear that you will be divided regarding him, as the  children of Israel became divided over Harun, but if Allah knows any  goodness in you, He will choose for you (a leader).

Source: Murtada: Al-Shafi, vol-4, p. 149 and vol. 3 p. 295.
           

2) Imam Ja'far bin Muhammad Sadiq: ‘When the Messenger of Allah (peace be  upon him) was on his death bed, he called Abbas and Amir al-Muminin,  and then he said to Abbas “O the uncle of Muhammad … you will take the  heritage of Muhammad, pay back his debts and repulse his enemy”. He  replied him saying, "O Messenger of Allah, let my father and mother be  your ransom, I am an old man with many dependants and little wealth,  who can bear the like of your responsibilities?” He lowered his head  for a while and then he said again, “O Abbas, will you take the  heritage of Muhammad, repulse his enemy and pay back his loans?” He  replied as before… He then said “Definitely, I will give it to the one  who will take it and all the responsibilities associated with it.”  Then he said: “O Ali! O brother of Muhammad, will you repulse the  enemy of Muhammad, pay back his loans and take hold of his heritage?  He said, “Yes, let my father and mother be your ransom”. ‘Such is Ali,  my beloved friend’.

Source: Kulayni: Al-Kafi, vol 1 p. 236

When it comes to books, whether written by Shia or Sunni scholars, the authors/writers have mentioned various and different things. Some as the other side of the argument. Most of it is collection of what was heard and said. What was the word at the time and what was going around and said. Picking something up at random and trying to use it as it is the thought and opinion of the author/writer just to score a point to prove an argument is what goes on. History along with hadiths have been exaggerated and fabricated by those who got into authority to suit their needs and to keep their position and authority safe. Governments do that. It's nothing new.

[fgss]

When it comes to books, whether written by Shia or Sunni scholars, the authors/writers have mentioned various and different things. Some as the other side of the argument. Most of it is collection of what was heard and said. What was the word at the time and what was going around and said. Picking something up at random and trying to use it as it is the thought and opinion of the author/writer just to score a point to prove an argument is what goes on. History along with hadiths have been exaggerated and fabricated by those who got into authority to suit their needs and to keep their position and authority safe. Governments do that. It's nothing new.

That is why I am asking to confirm that do such reports really exist in shia books or not.

Sheikh Mufeed also used similar narrations (from sunni sources) in his kitab ul Irshad under the heading "The Circumstances  of  the Last  Illness  and  Death  of  the  Prophet", may be to support his argument. You can call it pick and choose if you want.

Governments (banu ummayah and banu abbas) made reports are mostly there in history books but hadith books are mainly filled with fabricated and exaggerated reports of deviant groups, which I think is more dangerous as it corrupt our Usul and Furu both. 


Can you share some reports from shia sources about last days of Prophet saww? About what exactly happend before and after the incident of pen and paper, etc?

[iceman]

That is why I am asking to confirm that do such reports really exist in shia books or not.

Sheikh Mufeed also used similar narrations (from sunni sources) in his kitab ul Irshad under the heading "The Circumstances  of  the Last  Illness  and  Death  of  the  Prophet", may be to support his argument. You can call it pick and choose if you want.

Governments (banu ummayah and banu abbas) made reports are mostly there in history books but hadith books are mainly filled with fabricated and exaggerated reports of deviant groups, which I think is more dangerous as it corrupt our Usul and Furu both. 


Can you share some reports from shia sources about last days of Prophet saww? About what exactly happend before and after the incident of pen and paper, etc?

"may be to support his argument. You can call it pick and choose if you want"

An argument is an argument and it has more than one side. At least two if not more. One thing we need to understand is that when it comes to the grey areas that is where the argument and dispute lies. But when it comes to black and white there shouldn't be an argument and dispute over that. If there is then the intentions behind it are the problem.

The Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper, that he may write something so they do not go astray after him. This is serious as it sounds. The Prophet s.a.w should have been given a pen and paper. Deep down we all know that. Are conscious clearly tells us that. But those who opposed are the ones some seem necessary to protect and defend. That's where the problem is. And one needs to cause an argument and create a dispute with ifs and buts. Otherwise how can one protect those who opposed.

The Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper. WHY? That he may write something. Why? So they do not go astray. This is how serious and important it was. The Prophet s.a.w should have been given a pen and paper. It's as simple as that.

[fgss]

"may be to support his argument. You can call it pick and choose if you want"

An argument is an argument and it has more than one side. At least two if not more. One thing we need to understand is that when it comes to the grey areas that is where the argument and dispute lies. But when it comes to black and white there shouldn't be an argument and dispute over that. If there is then the intentions behind it are the problem.

The Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper, that he may write something so they do not go astray after him. This is serious as it sounds. The Prophet s.a.w should have been given a pen and paper. Deep down we all know that. Are conscious clearly tells us that. But those who opposed are the ones some seem necessary to protect and defend. That's where the problem is. And one needs to cause an argument and create a dispute with ifs and buts. Otherwise how can one protect those who opposed.

The Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper. WHY? That he may write something. Why? So they do not go astray. This is how serious and important it was. The Prophet s.a.w should have been given a pen and paper. It's as simple as that.

Yes I believe that to dispute is front of Prophet saww is not a good thing. Pen and paper should have been given when asked. But to be honest in order to properly understand the incident of pen and paper one need to study/analyse deep to clarify that who really opposed, who said what words and to whom. One can not simply blame a single person for all this just because only his name is mentioned in the reports. Following article is not about merely ifs and buts or picking and choosing rather only sound and authentic narrations from dozens of sources.

http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/the-event-of-pen-and-paper-as-understood-by-its-main-narrators/msg26065/?PHPSESSID=e9c6cd31a51253eff82284bc5039fc94#new


And yes it was serious and important that is why asked about ahle bayt narrative of this incident from reliable shia sources. I tried but not able to find any.

[fgss]

Could not found a report on incident of pen and paper from shia sources, instead got this report about Prophet's last words on his mimbar.

They are actually surprising. On his last public address on mimbar, Prophet did not name the one who is supposed to rule the ummah after him. He also did not remind people of ghadir declaration. Only gave some general instructions to whoever will rule after him.


Kulaini has narrated from Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) that Jibraeel, the trustworthy brought the news of the death of the Holy Prophet (S) when he was not suffering from any illness. By the command of the Prophet, announcement was made and all people gathered in his audience. The Holy Prophet (S) ordered the Emigrants and Helpers to arm themselves. Then he mounted the pulpit and informed the people about his passing away and he said: “I remind of Allah, to the one who will be the ruler of the community after me, he should indeed have mercy on Muslims, he should consider their elders respectable and be kind to their young, honor their scholars and not harm them in any way, which may degrade them and not make them poor which would lead them to infidelity. And he must not close the door (of justice) so that their strong may oppress the weak. And must not post them in boundaries of infidels for a long time, which would cause their generations to be cut off. Then he said: I have conveyed the message and I have been your well wisher, so you all must be witnesses. Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) said: This was the last discourse of the Prophet from a pulpit.”

[Baqir Majlisi's Hayal al-quloob, vol 2]

[iceman]

We need to ask ourselves this question, when it comes to the Shia Imams did they live an open and free life along with their followers and supporters? Where they aloud to live and act openly and freely? The answer is NO. They were seen as opposition and a serious threat to those who ruled. They were either under house arrest or imprisoned. All the Imams didn't die a natural death but infact were killed one way or the other. And their followers and supporters were tortured and persecuted. Some followers and supporters sealed their belief by taking on taqeya and some even changed it to stay and keep their loved ones alive. So I wouldn't worry too much and rely on and about Shia reports. Because there was no even playing field or fair play to begin with. We know how brutal and ruthless the rulers became. Heavy handed tactics were used right from the very beginning to impose the decision mafe in Saqifa by a handful of people. Things were said to keep people happy and things were kept to keep people safe. A lot had to do with keeping people alive and safe.

[muslim720]

We need to ask ourselves this question, when it comes to the Shia Imams did they live an open and free life along with their followers and supporters? Where they aloud to live and act openly and freely? The answer is NO.

What a load of nonsense!  Did you forget the hadith which says that the "infallible" Imam (ra) narrated and clarified 30,000 matters in one sitting when he was a child?  And what about the pathetic Shi'i excuse to the "infallible" Imam's (ra) dichotomous rulings that he would issue two contradictory rulings, one in public and a different in private, to save his associates or hide his beliefs?

Those two facts alone refute your premise.

[fgss]

We need to ask ourselves this question, when it comes to the Shia Imams did they live an open and free life along with their followers and supporters? Where they aloud to live and act openly and freely? The answer is NO. They were seen as opposition and a serious threat to those who ruled. They were either under house arrest or imprisoned. All the Imams didn't die a natural death but infact were killed one way or the other. And their followers and supporters were tortured and persecuted. Some followers and supporters sealed their belief by taking on taqeya and some even changed it to stay and keep their loved ones alive. So I wouldn't worry too much and rely on and about Shia reports. Because there was no even playing field or fair play to begin with. We know how brutal and ruthless the rulers became. Heavy handed tactics were used right from the very beginning to impose the decision mafe in Saqifa by a handful of people. Things were said to keep people happy and things were kept to keep people safe. A lot had to do with keeping people alive and safe.

That means its not fair to rely upon shia reports in general as any report can be under taqqiyah. Specially reports on disputed matters.

As for persecution then it wasn't only limited to Divine Imams at that time, (in fact other members from progeny of both Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain had suffered more) but many ahlul sunnah scholars were also persecuted and no one from them did taqqiyah like it is attributed to ahlulbayt in shia works, which today's shia use as a last resort. So anything that goes against their beliefs they simply deem it as taqqiyah.

Therefore, we can safely say that there is nothing reliable in shia works about last and final days of Prophet's saww life and about other disputed matters. And what shia scholars like Mufeed had done is basically picking and choosing from sunni sources as per their needs.

Right

[fgss]

We need to ask ourselves this question, when it comes to the Shia Imams did they live an open and free life along with their followers and supporters? Where they aloud to live and act openly and freely? The answer is NO. They were seen as opposition and a serious threat to those who ruled. They were either under house arrest or imprisoned. All the Imams didn't die a natural death but infact were killed one way or the other.

Here is the opinion of Sheikh Mufeed on this matter.

He said that whether Imam al-Sajjad, al-Baqir, al-Sadiq, al-Jawad, al-Hadi and al-Askari were killed through persecution in one way or the other is not established and proven.

https://www.al-Islam.org/emendation-shiite-creed-shaykh-al-mufid/33-chapter-excess-and-delegation-al-ghuluww-wat-tafwid

Chapter: As for what Abu Ja‘far mentions of the death of our Prophet and the Imams by poison or murder, some of this is confirmed as fact and some not. What is confirmed is that the Commander of the Believers, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, departed from this world by murder, none of them died a natural death. Musa ibn Ja‘far, peace be upon him, was killed by poison.

It is highly probable that ar-Rida (‘Ali ibn Musa) was poisoned, yet this cannot be confirmed. As for the others, there is no justification for the claim that they were either poisoned or murdered or killed through persecution, since the reports concerning this matter are extremely confused, and there are no means of proving it definitely.

[iceman]

What a load of nonsense!  Did you forget the hadith which says that the "infallible" Imam (ra) narrated and clarified 30,000 matters in one sitting when he was a child?  And what about the pathetic Shi'i excuse to the "infallible" Imam's (ra) dichotomous rulings that he would issue two contradictory rulings, one in public and a different in private, to save his associates or hide his beliefs?

Those two facts alone refute your premise.

You live in an ANTI SHIA WORLD. So that's how you are going to see everything. Unless you come out of it, we'll be just banging heads.

[iceman]

That means its not fair to rely upon shia reports in general as any report can be under taqqiyah. Specially reports on disputed matters.

As for persecution then it wasn't only limited to Divine Imams at that time, (in fact other members from progeny of both Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain had suffered more) but many ahlul sunnah scholars were also persecuted and no one from them did taqqiyah like it is attributed to ahlulbayt in shia works, which today's shia use as a last resort. So anything that goes against their beliefs they simply deem it as taqqiyah.

Therefore, we can safely say that there is nothing reliable in shia works about last and final days of Prophet's saww life and about other disputed matters. And what shia scholars like Mufeed had done is basically picking and choosing from sunni sources as per their needs.

Right

"That means its not fair to rely upon shia reports in general as any report can be under taqqiyah. Specially reports on disputed matters"

No, that wouldn't be true. Never mind about Shia reports, the Sunnah of the Prophet s.a.w is also disputed. Is it not. Since the Prophet's s.a.w death it all went awol after that. And this is something we can't deny. One thing we have to accept is that Caliphate brought all this on.

The Prophet s.a.w didn't name and appoint anyone so therefore it was an important matter that who should govern and handle the Muslim affairs and this should be dealt with immediately is what brought all this mayhem on. This is where and why things began to go wrong. And they did.

"As for persecution then it wasn't only limited to Divine Imams at that time, (in fact other members from progeny of both Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain had suffered more)"

Absolutely. I agree. Anyone who was or seemed a threat to the ruling party was dealt with in that manner.

"but many ahlul sunnah scholars were also persecuted and no one from them did taqqiyah"

Not true. I disagree. Taqeya is part of the Islamic belief and was practiced due to extreme and unfortunate circumstances by the early or first Muslims. So it shouldn't be limited or attached to just Shias.

"So anything that goes against their beliefs they simply deem it as taqqiyah"

First of all we need to learn 'what exactly is the Shia belief' rather than just banging on about things based on gossip and rumours.

"Therefore, we can safely say that there is nothing reliable in shia works about last and final days of Prophet's saww life and about other disputed matters"

Not true. I disagree. Just as everything that is associated to the Prophet s.a.w isn't acceptable. Hadiths are categorised as Qawi, Zaeef, Thika etc. Certain things are believed to be exaggerated or fabricated when it comes to the Prophet s.a.w. So on this basis would you say that nothing is reliable when it comes to the Prophet s.a.w? This wouldn’t be true now would it. You know what I mean and what I'm talking about.

[muslim720]

You live in an ANTI SHIA WORLD. So that's how you are going to see everything. Unless you come out of it, we'll be just banging heads.

No, you bang your heads during Muharram; we don't!

I only quoted you an authentic Shi'i narration and an established Shi'i belief (that the Imam would give mutually exclusive responses depending on his location, i.e., in public versus in private).  How does this prove that I live in an anti-Shia world?

The reality of the matter is that you fail to realize that your beliefs are far from what is established via Qur'an and Sunnah.  Remember T-110?  It was weeks before Ramadan that I challenged him to back his claims.  We are nearing Eid-ul-Adha and he is yet to present his case. 

It took him two weeks to realize he was in hot water.  Years have gone by and you are yet to come away from your nonsense.

[fgss]

"That means its not fair to rely upon shia reports in general as any report can be under taqqiyah. Specially reports on disputed matters"

No, that wouldn't be true. Never mind about Shia reports, the Sunnah of the Prophet s.a.w is also disputed. Is it not. Since the Prophet's s.a.w death it all went awol after that. And this is something we can't deny. One thing we have to accept is that Caliphate brought all this on.

The Prophet s.a.w didn't name and appoint anyone so therefore it was an important matter that who should govern and handle the Muslim affairs and this should be dealt with immediately is what brought all this mayhem on. This is where and why things began to go wrong. And they did.

Here I just repeated your words and asked a question.

You said....

So I wouldn't worry too much and rely on and about Shia reports. Because there was no even playing field or fair play to begin with.

 
That is why shias often rely on sunni reports, but the problem is that mostly they do cherry picking.

"As for persecution then it wasn't only limited to Divine Imams at that time, (in fact other members from progeny of both Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain had suffered more)"

Absolutely. I agree. Anyone who was or seemed a threat to the ruling party was dealt with in that manner.

"but many ahlul sunnah scholars were also persecuted and no one from them did taqqiyah"

Not true. I disagree. Taqeya is part of the Islamic belief and was practiced due to extreme and unfortunate circumstances by the early or first Muslims. So it shouldn't be limited or attached to just Shias.

"So anything that goes against their beliefs they simply deem it as taqqiyah"

First of all we need to learn 'what exactly is the Shia belief' rather than just banging on about things based on gossip and rumours.

 

All Imams were not a threat to the rulers nor all were under persecution and died because of that. Its a misconception which is popular among shias.

Here is the opinion of Sheikh Mufeed on this matter.

He said that whether Imam al-Sajjad, al-Baqir, al-Sadiq, al-Jawad, al-Hadi and al-Askari were killed through persecution in one way or the other is not established and proven.

https://www.al-Islam.org/emendation-shiite-creed-shaykh-al-mufid/33-chapter-excess-and-delegation-al-ghuluww-wat-tafwid

Chapter: As for what Abu Ja‘far mentions of the death of our Prophet and the Imams by poison or murder, some of this is confirmed as fact and some not. What is confirmed is that the Commander of the Believers, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, peace be upon them, departed from this world by murder, none of them died a natural death. Musa ibn Ja‘far, peace be upon him, was killed by poison.

It is highly probable that ar-Rida (‘Ali ibn Musa) was poisoned, yet this cannot be confirmed. As for the others, there is no justification for the claim that they were either poisoned or murdered or killed through persecution, since the reports concerning this matter are extremely confused, and there are no means of proving it definitely.

   

Hence, many Imams were not under extreme conditions, yet they did taqiyyah (as evident from numerous shia reports). And on other hand ahlul sunnah scholars who weren't divine guides, yet they chose not to do taqiyyah (lie and conceal the truth).

Early first companions of Prophet saww also didn't do taqqiyah when severely persecuted by mushrikeen, except by one or two from them.

"Therefore, we can safely say that there is nothing reliable in shia works about last and final days of Prophet's saww life and about other disputed matters"

Not true. I disagree. Just as everything that is associated to the Prophet s.a.w isn't acceptable. Hadiths are categorised as Qawi, Zaeef, Thika etc. Certain things are believed to be exaggerated or fabricated when it comes to the Prophet s.a.w. So on this basis would you say that nothing is reliable when it comes to the Prophet s.a.w? This wouldn’t be true now would it. You know what I mean and what I'm talking about.

Having weak, fabricated or exaggerated reports on name of Prophet (saww) or ahlul bayt (as) is a different thing as such reports have either liars or unknown narrators in the chain or some other serious defects, which is relatively easy to figure out based on ilm ul rijal. Here I was talking about thousands of authentic shia reports with all thiqah narrators in the chain, yet are considered unacceptable because someone has declared that it is under taqiyyah, merely on basis of assumptions/qiyas.

[iceman]

No, you bang your heads during Muharram; we don't!

I only quoted you an authentic Shi'i narration and an established Shi'i belief (that the Imam would give mutually exclusive responses depending on his location, i.e., in public versus in private).  How does this prove that I live in an anti-Shia world?

The reality of the matter is that you fail to realize that your beliefs are far from what is established via Qur'an and Sunnah.  Remember T-110?  It was weeks before Ramadan that I challenged him to back his claims.  We are nearing Eid-ul-Adha and he is yet to present his case. 

It took him two weeks to realize he was in hot water.  Years have gone by and you are yet to come away from your nonsense.

"No, you bang your heads during Muharram; we don't!"

You get very personal and sarcastic. Get yourself checked out. Get some help man, you definitely need it. As for your sarcastic comment,

"No, you bang your heads during Muharram; we don't!"

I've seen some Sunnis bang their heads against the wall or hit their hands or slap their thighs or chests when grieving. It all depends on the individual and the tragedy.

"I only quoted you an authentic Shi'i narration and an established Shi'i belief (that the Imam would give mutually exclusive responses depending on his location, i.e., in public versus in private)"

I can give you plenty of this. The Kutub al-Sittah are six books containing collections of hadith compiled by six Sunni Muslim scholars in the ninth century CE. They are sometimes referred to as Al-Sihah al-Sittah, which translates as "The Authentic Six".

Despite this certain references aren't accepted. Why? Why call them SEHIH SITTAH to begin with. Apply the same standards and rules that you live and go by yourself.

"How does this prove that I live in an anti-Shia world?"

You live in a anti shia world. You're full of hatred and bitterness. You pick and choose bits and pieces and always try to paint a negative picture about the Shia faith and community. You're always critical and all the time. You always seem to put negative experience on different tales you have about Shia mosques, their Imams and people. So there you have it.

"The reality of the matter is that you fail to realize that your beliefs are far from what is established via Qur'an and Sunnah"

My faith and belief is based on Qur'an and Sunnah. You need to get rid of that anti shia sentiment that you're brought up with, develope an open mind and start thinking rationally. Go and learn about who and what we are rather than jumping up and down based on gossip and rumours or what you've been fed about us.

"Remember T-110?  It was weeks before Ramadan that I challenged him to back his claims.  We are nearing Eid-ul-Adha and he is yet to present his case. 

It took him two weeks to realize he was in hot water.  Years have gone by and you are yet to come away from your nonsense"

I'm here and I've always been. Stop jumping up and down and bringing in irrelevant stuff. Put forward what ever your worries are about my faith and community one by one and I'll be more than happy to address your absolute and complete misunderstanding about us. 😊

[muslim720]

You get very personal and sarcastic. Get yourself checked out. Get some help man, you definitely need it.

Thank you!  And what is your qualification for your diagnosis?

I've seen some Sunnis bang their heads against the wall or hit their hands or slap their thighs or chests when grieving. It all depends on the individual and the tragedy.

Have you seen Sunnis bang their heads and slap their faces as an annual ritual?  Thought so!

I can give you plenty of this. The Kutub al-Sittah are six books containing collections of hadith compiled by six Sunni Muslim scholars in the ninth century CE. They are sometimes referred to as Al-Sihah al-Sittah, which translates as "The Authentic Six".

Despite this certain references aren't accepted. Why? Why call them SEHIH SITTAH to begin with. Apply the same standards and rules that you live and go by yourself.

Let's not waste time on "plenty".  Give me one report where the narrator gives contradictory rulings and acknowledges it as a fair methodology to dispense information.

You live in a anti shia world. You're full of hatred and bitterness. You pick and choose bits and pieces and always try to paint a negative picture about the Shia faith and community. You're always critical and all the time. You always seem to put negative experience on different tales you have about Shia mosques, their Imams and people. So there you have it.

That still does not answer my question which was, "How does this prove that I live in an anti-Shia world". 

Restating the symptoms is not a reasonable diagnosis nor is it a valid response.

My faith and belief is based on Qur'an and Sunnah.

The Qur'an that we preserved and the "Sunnah" that is full of liars like Abu Baseer, Zurarah, Hisham bin Hakam, Hisham bin Salim, etc, nearly all of whom were cursed by the Imams (ra) in your own texts.

I'm here and I've always been. Stop jumping up and down and bringing in irrelevant stuff. Put forward what ever your worries are about my faith and community one by one and I'll be more than happy to address your absolute and complete misunderstanding about us. 😊

This is typical Iceman!  Beghairat and besharam to the core!  Won't address a single post and sums up each one of his own posts with "put forward whatever your worries....I'll be more than happy to address".