Concept of Imamah in Ahlul Sunnah

[iceman]

From the mouth of the donkey who clearly distinguished himself from Islam and the Muslims.

Muslims fought each other because Imam Ali (ra) never considered them "certain individuals" but instead as "Muslims".  And they did not challenge the Caliphate system; they disagreed over the blood of Uthman (ra) and it was Imam Ali (ra) to bring troops to fight them.  However, the point still stands.  The first major bloodshed among Muslims happened at the time of Imam Ali (ra) and then Imam Hassan (ra).  Hence, you should blame Imamah for Islamic bloodshed.

No, I want to see how far will you go to not condemn such a kufr-ish clip to show you your "auqaat".

Caliphate is gone, unfortunately, but the first instance of Muslim infighting and bloodshed came at the time of an "infallible" (ra).  Therefore, blame Imamah!

Going by your belief, on that day, much like on so many other days, the "infallibles" (ra) stood around incapable of bringing pen and paper.  Once again, Umar (ra) incapacitated the "Divinely Appointed Infallibles" (ra).  They could not even overcome Umar (ra) to bring pen and paper and you want us to believe that they will guide all mankind.

For the sake of argument, I blame everyone who refused, and was unable, to bring pen and paper.  That is the fair stance.  If we adopt it, then, we have to also blame those who sat idly and did nothing, like Imam Ali (ra).

Time and again, your accusations fall directly upon your own "infallibles" (ra).  Every. Time.

It should worry you because, among many other reasons, the same "immature decision" was upheld by Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) who accepted to rule as per the "immature decision".

"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"

"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."

In both those statements, you have made the claim that Saqifa scarred Islam and Muslims, not you.  From that, it can be inferred that you are outside Islam and do not belong with the Muslims.  Had you been a little smarter, you would have said that Saqifa has scarred "most", "a significant portion", etc, of the Ummah.

How do you know it is not what the Prophet (saw) wanted?  The Prophet (saw) had left the earthly existence when the first three (ra) coerced your "infallibles" (ra) into unimportance and rendered them helpless, lol.

Yes, they did their job.  They affirmed that Abu Bakr (ra) was right when it comes to Fadak.  They affirmed that Muawiya, contrary to your belief, was a Muslim.  They affirmed, beyond a shadow of doubt, and to darken your face, that their rule was not "Divinely Ordained".  Indeed they did a good job except their deeds go against your beliefs.  Oops!

You could not distinguish Yunus (asws) from Yusuf (asws).

I asked at Shi'i mosques.  If you do not like my understanding of Imamah, you should fight those mosques.  I believe I already provided you their names and location.

Seems like you should first educate your own mosques because clearly you know something they don't!

Then where is it?  Not a single verse!

Consolation prize?

So Muawiya used his influence, support and connections to render Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) - who were being aided by Allah (swt) - useless?  A mere mortal outsmarted and outwitted two "Divinely Chosen Infallible" beings (ra)!  I say this Muawiya was a genius.  No wonder he gives you nightmares.

Kaminay, kanjar, you brought up ahaadith, not me. 

Compared to you, Yazeed, indeed, was an honorable and praiseworthy man.  His crime was that he killed Imam Hussain (ra); your crime is that you are hell-bent upon throwing the entire Ummah in confusion by undermining the message of Islam.

"The first major bloodshed among Muslims happened at the time of Imam Ali (ra) and then Imam Hassan (ra).  Hence, you should blame Imamah for Islamic bloodshed"

Yes and we along with the noble Ahle Sunnah believe Ali was right and on Haq. And we strongly criticise and condemn those who used violence and threatening behaviour against the rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Islamic Caliphate. We see them as terrorists because they engaged in terrorism. And this is where certain handful of Muslims (like ISIS) get their ideology from and think they're doing right.

"Hence, you should blame Imamah for Islamic bloodshed"

We don't blame the police, we blame the criminals and those who take on criminal activity. We don't blame the government but the terrorists and those engaged in such activity. We are honest about it. You aren't!

[muslim720]

Where and when? You accuse then run off on to something else. PROVE IT.

Donkey, for the second time:

"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"

"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."

WHAT A LOUSY EXCUSE. They took up arms against the Caliph (Ali) because he didn't give them governmental roles and positions? You must be joking. But thanks for being honest. At least we're getting somewhere.

I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met.  It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.  We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do.  Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]

Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you.  With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?

If this wasn't Ali but one of the first three then your belief and story would be absolutely the other way around.

Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken.

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met.  It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.  We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do.  Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]

Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!

You mean compared to Abu Bakr.

Again you have contradicted Imam Ali (ra)!  You are tarnishing the man to whom your first "infallible" Imam (ra) gave bayyah.

They just took the matter into their own hands. Then the decision was imposed on the others.

So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)?  Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them?  Shame!

Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards.

Therefore, according to you, Malik bin Nuwayrah was braver and more honorable than your first three Imams (ra).  For Abu Bakr (ra) to impose himself upon Malik, he (according to your lie) had to send an army to coerce Malik and his people.  However, your three "infallible" Imams (ra) gave in without any resistance, lol!

Why did he kill him? Thanks for accepting this though.

Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).

Some of you (Sunnis) believe Yazeed had nothing to do with it. He wasn't even aware of what was going on.

No, those Sunnis lay it into you.  It is true that Yazeed was not there so apart from the handful - Shimr, etc - the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school.

You accuse but can't prove. At least discuss so I can clear your misunderstanding.

Are you in denial?  Matters that are more than 1400 years old, you cannot lay them to rest despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them.

Yes and we along with the noble Ahle Sunnah believe Ali was right and on Haq.

Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed.

And this is where certain handful of Muslims (like ISIS) get their ideology from and think they're doing right.

These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes.  By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it.

We don't blame the police, we blame the criminals and those who take on criminal activity.

Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa.  However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali (ra).  By your standards, if you are not a hypocrite - I am sure it is very hard for you to shake it off - you should blame Imamah.

We don't blame the government but the terrorists and those engaged in such activity.

You don't blame the government?  What about this?

"Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.

Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards."

You are putting the blame on the government but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts.

We are honest about it. You aren't!

Still believe you are honest?

[iceman]

Donkey, for the second time:

"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"

"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."

I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met.  It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.  We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do.  Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]

Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you.  With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?

Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken.

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met.  It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.  We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do.  Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]

Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!

Again you have contradicted Imam Ali (ra)!  You are tarnishing the man to whom your first "infallible" Imam (ra) gave bayyah.

So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)?  Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them?  Shame!

Therefore, according to you, Malik bin Nuwayrah was braver and more honorable than your first three Imams (ra).  For Abu Bakr (ra) to impose himself upon Malik, he (according to your lie) had to send an army to coerce Malik and his people.  However, your three "infallible" Imams (ra) gave in without any resistance, lol!

Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).

No, those Sunnis lay it into you.  It is true that Yazeed was not there so apart from the handful - Shimr, etc - the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school.

Are you in denial?  Matters that are more than 1400 years old, you cannot lay them to rest despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them.

Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed.

These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes.  By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it.

Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa.  However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali (ra).  By your standards, if you are not a hypocrite - I am sure it is very hard for you to shake it off - you should blame Imamah.

You don't blame the government?  What about this?

"Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.

Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards."

You are putting the blame on the government but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts.

Still believe you are honest?

"Donkey, for the second time"

I strongly disagree. I didn't think you were a donkey for the first time, never mind about the second, third or fourth. Unless you consider yourself one then that's a different matter.

"I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra)"

You seem to live on assumptions, thoughts, emotions and feelings. You're not sure about anything.

"Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you.  With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?"

According to the Ahle Sunnah aqeedah the Ulul Amre is hakim e waqth, the ruler of the time. So with which face are you going to consider Muawiya and Ali the same?

"Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken"

Double standards has always been the way of the Ahle Sunnah. You can't stick to one thing. Heck, you can't even stick to your own belief and principles.

"Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!"

Nope. The situation between Ali and Muawiyya has exposed your double standards. Here Caliphate has no meaning for you. It suddenly disappears in thin.air.

[iceman]

Donkey, for the second time:

"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"

"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."

I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met.  It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.  We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do.  Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]

Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you.  With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?

Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken.

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met.  It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.  We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do.  Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]

Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!

Again you have contradicted Imam Ali (ra)!  You are tarnishing the man to whom your first "infallible" Imam (ra) gave bayyah.

So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)?  Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them?  Shame!

Therefore, according to you, Malik bin Nuwayrah was braver and more honorable than your first three Imams (ra).  For Abu Bakr (ra) to impose himself upon Malik, he (according to your lie) had to send an army to coerce Malik and his people.  However, your three "infallible" Imams (ra) gave in without any resistance, lol!

Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).

No, those Sunnis lay it into you.  It is true that Yazeed was not there so apart from the handful - Shimr, etc - the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school.

Are you in denial?  Matters that are more than 1400 years old, you cannot lay them to rest despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them.

Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed.

These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes.  By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it.

Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa.  However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali (ra).  By your standards, if you are not a hypocrite - I am sure it is very hard for you to shake it off - you should blame Imamah.

You don't blame the government?  What about this?

"Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.

Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards."

You are putting the blame on the government but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts.

Still believe you are honest?

"You are putting the blame on the government"

Did the government (Abu Bakr) act on Shariah law or governmental law?

"but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts"

How and in what way? You're playing DOUBLE STANDARDS. When it comes to Abu Bakr you're trying to justify everything. But when it comes to Ali the whole concept of Caliphate comes into doubt and suspicion. Definitely DOUBLE STANDARDS!

"Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa"

Never said that. I don't know how you came up with that.

"However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali"

Nope. It happened well before that. Does the WAR OF ZAKAH during Abu Bakr's reign ring any bells.

"you should blame Imamah"

For the bloodshed caused by others? You talk like those non muslims who believe that if it wasn't for Muhammad s.a.w then the killings (Badr, Ohad etc) wouldn’t have taken place.

[iceman]

Donkey, for the second time:

"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"

"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."

I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met.  It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.  We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do.  Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]

Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you.  With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?

Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken.

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met.  It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.  We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do.  Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]

Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!

Again you have contradicted Imam Ali (ra)!  You are tarnishing the man to whom your first "infallible" Imam (ra) gave bayyah.

So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)?  Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them?  Shame!

Therefore, according to you, Malik bin Nuwayrah was braver and more honorable than your first three Imams (ra).  For Abu Bakr (ra) to impose himself upon Malik, he (according to your lie) had to send an army to coerce Malik and his people.  However, your three "infallible" Imams (ra) gave in without any resistance, lol!

Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).

No, those Sunnis lay it into you.  It is true that Yazeed was not there so apart from the handful - Shimr, etc - the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school.

Are you in denial?  Matters that are more than 1400 years old, you cannot lay them to rest despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them.

Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed.

These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes.  By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it.

Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa.  However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali (ra).  By your standards, if you are not a hypocrite - I am sure it is very hard for you to shake it off - you should blame Imamah.

You don't blame the government?  What about this?

"Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.

Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards."

You are putting the blame on the government but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts.

Still believe you are honest?

"By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it"

What on earth are you talking about. Are you OK?

"Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed"

I don't know where on earth you got that from.

"despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them"

To prevent them from being the cause of further mischief. And to save the Ummah from further harm.

"the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school"

Nope. They were Muslims before Kufans and part of the Muslim army. And they were following the orders of your Caliph Yazeed.

[iceman]

Donkey, for the second time:

"Not me. Oh not at all. It's actually scarred Islam as well as the Muslim Ummah 😊"

"Inflicted lifelong wounds on Islam and the Muslims, not on me. Oh not at all."

I have a feeling you will disobey your own first "infallible" Imam (ra).

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met.  It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.  We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do.  Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]

Therefore, Imam Ali (ra) had a different view of Muawiya and his people than you.  With which mouth do you now dare claim you follow Imam Ali (ra)?

Conditional statements are worth nothing when Imam Ali (ra) has already spoken.

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Sham(Muawiya and his supporters) and us met.  It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one.  We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do.  Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.“ [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648; letter 58]

Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!

Again you have contradicted Imam Ali (ra)!  You are tarnishing the man to whom your first "infallible" Imam (ra) gave bayyah.

So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)?  Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them?  Shame!

Therefore, according to you, Malik bin Nuwayrah was braver and more honorable than your first three Imams (ra).  For Abu Bakr (ra) to impose himself upon Malik, he (according to your lie) had to send an army to coerce Malik and his people.  However, your three "infallible" Imams (ra) gave in without any resistance, lol!

Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).

No, those Sunnis lay it into you.  It is true that Yazeed was not there so apart from the handful - Shimr, etc - the army that drew swords and killed Ahlul Bayt (ra) were Kufans, the spiritual forefathers of your school.

Are you in denial?  Matters that are more than 1400 years old, you cannot lay them to rest despite the fact that your "infallibles" (ra) made peace with them.

Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed.

These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes.  By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it.

Wait, according to you, the root of all evil is Saqifa.  However, we know that Muslim bloodshed happened during the rule of Imam Ali (ra).  By your standards, if you are not a hypocrite - I am sure it is very hard for you to shake it off - you should blame Imamah.

You don't blame the government?  What about this?

"Where as Muawiya ran a campaign for Yazeed to be elected. And majority gave allegiance to him. See the difference on how Abu Bakr and Yazeed were selected. Yazeed gave the responsibility to Ubaydallah ibn Ziyaad to deal with Hussain and Abu Bakr gave a similar responsibility to Khalid ibn Waleed.

Basically an armed convoy was sent around to those who refused allegiance to Yazeed. A similar stance was taken by Abu Bakr on two occasions, once to get people to accept the decision in Saqifa without any objection and the second time to get people to hand over the Zakah money to them from now onwards."

You are putting the blame on the government but when it comes to Imam Ali's (ra) rule, you are changing goal posts.

Still believe you are honest?

"Imam Ali (ra) darkened your face!"

No, in fact Muawiya darkened yours by challenging your Caliphate system, making a mockery out of it and by telling and showing you where to STICK YOUR CALIPHATE!

"So Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself on three "infallible" Imams (ra) who were (allegedly) aided by Allah (swt)?  Were your "infallible" Imams (ra), with the aid of Allah (swt), so helpless that a mere fallible could impose himself on them?  Shame!"

There were 124,000 messengers. Take a look at how many were successful and how successful, if we go by your theory. Everything seems to be in between winning a loosing and might is strength, according to you. You are so emotional and answer less that you want to just argue like a child.

"I until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra)."

You must be living in cuckoo land then uptil now.

"It is true that Yazeed was not there"

He was hiding in his Caliphate compound. He just gave the orders. Wasn't anywhere near being a warrior. His father Muawiya, how many battles did he fight with Ali? 72.  I mean how many did Muawiya actually physically take part in? 😊 Go on, have a guess.

[muslim720]

I strongly disagree. I didn't think you were a donkey for the first time, never mind about the second, third or fourth. Unless you consider yourself one then that's a different matter.

Imam Kulayni narrated from a donkey so you should have taken that as a compliment.  Also, it is good to see you offer no rebuttal to that point (that you made takfeer upon yourself) so it still stands.

You seem to live on assumptions, thoughts, emotions and feelings. You're not sure about anything.

I offered you proof.

According to the Ahle Sunnah aqeedah the Ulul Amre is hakim e waqth, the ruler of the time. So with which face are you going to consider Muawiya and Ali the same?

Another point for which you offered no rebuttal.  Imam Ali (ra) considered Muawiya to be Muslim in your own books and you want us to believe otherwise.

Double standards has always been the way of the Ahle Sunnah. You can't stick to one thing. Heck, you can't even stick to your own belief and principles.

Ad hominem will get you no where!  You have failed to answer the report I quoted from Nahjul Balagha.  May Allah (swt) be pleased with Muawiya for the reason that centuries later, he is still winning and darkening the faces of Rawaafidh, lol.

Nope. The situation between Ali and Muawiyya has exposed your double standards. Here Caliphate has no meaning for you. It suddenly disappears in thin.air.

Caliphate has nothing to do with eemaan and Imam Ali (ra), in your own Nahjul Balagha, gave Muawiya the certificate of Islam.  Happy miserable days to you, lol.

Did the government (Abu Bakr) act on Shariah law or governmental law?

Did Imam Hassan (ra) act in accordance to Sharia law, government law or his own independent opinion when he gave his "Divinely Ordained Right" to Muawiya?

Did Imam Ali (ra) act in accordance to Sharia law, government law or his own independent opinion when he brought the army to fight Muawiya?

No matter which way you slice it, my point stands.  The first major bloodshed (among Muslims) took place when Imam Ali (ra) was the Caliph.  Since you love to blame Abu Bakr (ra) for everything that happened during his rule, let us see you blame your own first "infallible" Imam (ra) for a monumental catastrophe which he participated in.

How and in what way? You're playing DOUBLE STANDARDS. When it comes to Abu Bakr you're trying to justify everything. But when it comes to Ali the whole concept of Caliphate comes into doubt and suspicion. Definitely DOUBLE STANDARDS!

It is called "giving you a dose of your own medicine".  Had I not had enough exchanges with you, I would have found it hard to believe that you're that dumb to figure it out.

Never said that. I don't know how you came up with that.

Not a single discussion you have participated in has ended without you bringing up Saqifa.  Along with being in loser denial, you are into other denials as well.

Nope. It happened well before that. Does the WAR OF ZAKAH during Abu Bakr's reign ring any bells.

War of Zakah?  How about "Apostasy Wars" or "Ridda" wars?  You would not use the actual name because it would expose your lie.  The war was between Muslims and apostates whereas at the time of Imam Ali (ra), Muslim armies fought each other.

For the bloodshed caused by others?

If Saqifa is the foundation for what ISIS is doing, a conclusion championed by Shias like yourself and Ammar Nakshawani, then Imam Ali (ra) is just as responsible for Muslim in-fighting because he brought the army to fight Muslims.

What on earth are you talking about. Are you OK?

You said: "And this is where certain handful of Muslims (like ISIS) get their ideology from and think they're doing right."

So I responded with: "These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes.  By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it."

With salaavot, we hope that your pea-sized brain understands it now.

I don't know where on earth you got that from.

You said: "Yes and we along with the noble Ahle Sunnah believe Ali was right and on Haq."

So I responded with: "Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed."

So yes, Imam Ali (ra) was upon haq but he was also an active participant in a war.

With one more salaavot, we hope that your pea-sized brain could process it.

To prevent them from being the cause of further mischief. And to save the Ummah from further harm.

How much more harm could they have caused?  Despite Imam Hassan (ra) giving up his Caliphate, Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).  How did Imam Hassan's (ra) generosity prevent further mischief or save the Ummah?  In fact, Imam Hassan (ra) actually strengthened the killer of his own brother while having the knowledge of the unseen.

Nope. They were Muslims before Kufans and part of the Muslim army. And they were following the orders of your Caliph Yazeed.

Are you calling the army that fought Imam Hussain (ra) to be Muslims?  Then why do you call Yazeed kafir? 

Whether they were following the orders of Yazeed or not, it does not change the fact that they are your spiritual forefathers who shaped your theology.

No, in fact Muawiya darkened yours by challenging your Caliphate system, making a mockery out of it and by telling and showing you where to STICK YOUR CALIPHATE!

Within our narrative, Muawiya wanted qisas.  Taking your narrative into account, yes, Muawiya made a mockery of your Imamah and showed you where to stick it.  In fact, Muawiya stuck it so far up yours that your 12th infallible, out of fear, is hiding in a cellar/cave, a place where the sun does not shine.

There were 124,000 messengers. Take a look at how many were successful and how successful, if we go by your theory. Everything seems to be in between winning a loosing and might is strength, according to you. You are so emotional and answer less that you want to just argue like a child.

All Prophets (asws) were successful; their success was realized in the coming of the Holy Prophet (saw).  So I may argue like a child but Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself upon your first three "infallible" Imams (ra) like they were small children who could be manipulated and overpowered.

#Winning

You must be living in cuckoo land then uptil now.

Upholding the tactics of true Rawaafidh, you have half-quoted my statement.

Here is what you quoted: "I until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra)."

Here is my original statement: "Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra)."

What I was saying is that you insinuate or allege that I never accepted Yazeed to have killed Imam Hussain (ra).

He was hiding in his Caliphate compound. He just gave the orders.

Orders were enough!  For one rogue Yazeed, there were thousands of rogue Kufans who wrote to Imam Hussain (ra) and then rained swords upon him. 

If I had such despicable creatures to use as peasants, I would not work another day.

Wasn't anywhere near being a warrior.

With so many crap chute Kufans around, no need to do the dirty work yourself.

His father Muawiya, how many battles did he fight with Ali? 72.  I mean how many did Muawiya actually physically take part in? 😊 Go on, have a guess

Are you saying that each and every battle between Muawiya and Imam Ali (ra), the latter was actually on the battlefield with his sword drawn and taking part in the combat?

Nonetheless, rest assured, Muawiya eventually outdid your second "infallible" Imam (ra) and his son came after your third "infallible" Imam (ra). 

I only see one side get out-dueled pretty badly.  What do you think?

[iceman]

Imam Kulayni narrated from a donkey so you should have taken that as a compliment.  Also, it is good to see you offer no rebuttal to that point (that you made takfeer upon yourself) so it still stands.

I offered you proof.

Another point for which you offered no rebuttal.  Imam Ali (ra) considered Muawiya to be Muslim in your own books and you want us to believe otherwise.

Ad hominem will get you no where!  You have failed to answer the report I quoted from Nahjul Balagha.  May Allah (swt) be pleased with Muawiya for the reason that centuries later, he is still winning and darkening the faces of Rawaafidh, lol.

Caliphate has nothing to do with eemaan and Imam Ali (ra), in your own Nahjul Balagha, gave Muawiya the certificate of Islam.  Happy miserable days to you, lol.

Did Imam Hassan (ra) act in accordance to Sharia law, government law or his own independent opinion when he gave his "Divinely Ordained Right" to Muawiya?

Did Imam Ali (ra) act in accordance to Sharia law, government law or his own independent opinion when he brought the army to fight Muawiya?

No matter which way you slice it, my point stands.  The first major bloodshed (among Muslims) took place when Imam Ali (ra) was the Caliph.  Since you love to blame Abu Bakr (ra) for everything that happened during his rule, let us see you blame your own first "infallible" Imam (ra) for a monumental catastrophe which he participated in.

It is called "giving you a dose of your own medicine".  Had I not had enough exchanges with you, I would have found it hard to believe that you're that dumb to figure it out.

Not a single discussion you have participated in has ended without you bringing up Saqifa.  Along with being in loser denial, you are into other denials as well.

War of Zakah?  How about "Apostasy Wars" or "Ridda" wars?  You would not use the actual name because it would expose your lie.  The war was between Muslims and apostates whereas at the time of Imam Ali (ra), Muslim armies fought each other.

If Saqifa is the foundation for what ISIS is doing, a conclusion championed by Shias like yourself and Ammar Nakshawani, then Imam Ali (ra) is just as responsible for Muslim in-fighting because he brought the army to fight Muslims.

You said: "And this is where certain handful of Muslims (like ISIS) get their ideology from and think they're doing right."

So I responded with: "These people also (mis)quote the Qur'an to justify their crimes.  By your logic, you should condemn the Qur'an and distance yourself from it."

With salaavot, we hope that your pea-sized brain understands it now.

You said: "Yes and we along with the noble Ahle Sunnah believe Ali was right and on Haq."

So I responded with: "Thank you for proving us right by admitting that someone can be upon haq while unfortunately contributing to a scenario causing bloodshed."

So yes, Imam Ali (ra) was upon haq but he was also an active participant in a war.

With one more salaavot, we hope that your pea-sized brain could process it.

How much more harm could they have caused?  Despite Imam Hassan (ra) giving up his Caliphate, Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra).  How did Imam Hassan's (ra) generosity prevent further mischief or save the Ummah?  In fact, Imam Hassan (ra) actually strengthened the killer of his own brother while having the knowledge of the unseen.

Are you calling the army that fought Imam Hussain (ra) to be Muslims?  Then why do you call Yazeed kafir? 

Whether they were following the orders of Yazeed or not, it does not change the fact that they are your spiritual forefathers who shaped your theology.

Within our narrative, Muawiya wanted qisas.  Taking your narrative into account, yes, Muawiya made a mockery of your Imamah and showed you where to stick it.  In fact, Muawiya stuck it so far up yours that your 12th infallible, out of fear, is hiding in a cellar/cave, a place where the sun does not shine.

All Prophets (asws) were successful; their success was realized in the coming of the Holy Prophet (saw).  So I may argue like a child but Abu Bakr (ra) imposed himself upon your first three "infallible" Imams (ra) like they were small children who could be manipulated and overpowered.

#Winning

Upholding the tactics of true Rawaafidh, you have half-quoted my statement.

Here is what you quoted: "I until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra)."

Here is my original statement: "Go ask Yazeed and thank you for confirming that you are a piece of crap for insinuating that I, until now, never accepted that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (ra)."

What I was saying is that you insinuate or allege that I never accepted Yazeed to have killed Imam Hussain (ra).

Orders were enough!  For one rogue Yazeed, there were thousands of rogue Kufans who wrote to Imam Hussain (ra) and then rained swords upon him. 

If I had such despicable creatures to use as peasants, I would not work another day.

With so many crap chute Kufans around, no need to do the dirty work yourself.

Are you saying that each and every battle between Muawiya and Imam Ali (ra), the latter was actually on the battlefield with his sword drawn and taking part in the combat?

Nonetheless, rest assured, Muawiya eventually outdid your second "infallible" Imam (ra) and his son came after your third "infallible" Imam (ra). 

I only see one side get out-dueled pretty badly.  What do you think?

"Another point for which you offered no rebuttal.  Imam Ali (ra) considered Muawiya to be Muslim in your own books and you want us to believe otherwise"

I never asked you to believe otherwise. Ali also said this. Take a look and digest it.

"O those whose bodies are present but whose wits are absent, whose wishes are scattered, and whose rulers are afflicted by them. Your leader obeys Allah but you disobey him while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah but they obey him. By Allah, I wish Mu’awiyah exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams, so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them"

Notice this bit which ALI ALSO SAID;

"Your leader obeys Allah but you disobey him while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah but they obey him"

You going to accept this as well? 😊

[muslim720]

I never asked you to believe otherwise. Ali also said this. Take a look and digest it.

I will see how well you can digest my points coming up.

"Your leader obeys Allah but you disobey him while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah but they obey him"

Exactly why we ask you to renounce your books!  What has been (falsely) attributed to your Imams (ra) contradict each other. 

In one place, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do" about Muawiya.

In another, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "...while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah..."

These sort of contradictions are many in your ahaadith; authentic reports with contradictory information. 

Thank you for proving my point right.

You going to accept this as well? 😊

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-97-although-allah-gives-time-oppressor

"By Allah in Whose power my life lies, these people (Mu’awiyah and his men) will overcome you not because they have a better right than you but because of their hastening towards the wrong with their leader and your slowness about my right (to be followed)."  So even Imam Ali (ra) admits that Muawiya was #winning, lol.

"I called you for war but you did not come."  Such brave men!

"I warned you but you did not listen."  Sounds a lot like Shias today.

"By Allah, I wish Mu’awiyah exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams, so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them."  So one from Muawiya's men was more able than ten of Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, lol.

Finally, the main message which you will never hearken:
"I have seen the companions of the Prophet but I do not find anyone resembling them.  They began the day with dust on the hair and face (in hardship of life) and passed the night in prostration and standing in prayers.  Sometimes they put down their foreheads and sometimes their cheeks.  With the recollection of their resurrection it seemed as though they stood on live coal.  It seemed that in between their eyes there were signs like knees of goats, resulting from long prostrations.  When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched.  They trembled for fear of punishment and hope of reward as the tree trembles on the day of stormy wind."

[iceman]

I will see how well you can digest my points coming up.

Exactly why we ask you to renounce your books!  What has been (falsely) attributed to your Imams (ra) contradict each other. 

In one place, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do" about Muawiya.

In another, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "...while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah..."

These sort of contradictions are many in your ahaadith; authentic reports with contradictory information. 

Thank you for proving my point right.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-97-although-allah-gives-time-oppressor

"By Allah in Whose power my life lies, these people (Mu’awiyah and his men) will overcome you not because they have a better right than you but because of their hastening towards the wrong with their leader and your slowness about my right (to be followed)."  So even Imam Ali (ra) admits that Muawiya was #winning, lol.

"I called you for war but you did not come."  Such brave men!

"I warned you but you did not listen."  Sounds a lot like Shias today.

"By Allah, I wish Mu’awiyah exchanges with me like Dinars with Dirhams, so that he takes from me ten of you and gives me one from them."  So one from Muawiya's men was more able than ten of Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, lol.

Finally, the main message which you will never hearken:
"I have seen the companions of the Prophet but I do not find anyone resembling them.  They began the day with dust on the hair and face (in hardship of life) and passed the night in prostration and standing in prayers.  Sometimes they put down their foreheads and sometimes their cheeks.  With the recollection of their resurrection it seemed as though they stood on live coal.  It seemed that in between their eyes there were signs like knees of goats, resulting from long prostrations.  When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched.  They trembled for fear of punishment and hope of reward as the tree trembles on the day of stormy wind."

"I will see how well you can digest my points coming up"

I've digested your insults and sarcasm for the sake of dealing with your accusations, your points aren't a problem.

"Exactly why we ask you to renounce your books!  What has been (falsely) attributed to your Imams (ra) contradict each other"

This is exactly my point. Allow me to correct you. First of all, "your books", they are not our books and out belief and faith doesn’t depend entirely on those books. We don't consider those books on and at the level as you do Sehih Sitta. The AhleSunnah statement 'Haza Sehih Bukhari Baad Az Kitaab e Baari'.

When you put forward references from books about Imams saying about those who refuse to pay Zakah, why did I challenge you on this. For the same reason. This is why I asked you for a direct reference from the Qur'an.

"In one place, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do" about Muawiya.

In another, Imam Ali (ra) allegedly said, "...while the leader of the people of Syria (ash-Sham) disobeys Allah..."

Why do you pick and choose what suits you then? If there's a contradiction then you shouldn't use such as reference just to suit yourself.

"These sort of contradictions are many in your ahaadith; authentic reports with contradictory information"

Then you shouldn't pick and choose for reference what suits .

"Sounds a lot like Shias today"

They weren't Shias. They were Muslims. But if you see them as Shias then who were the Sunnis? Or where were the Sunnis.

"So one from Muawiya's men was more able than ten of Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, lol"

Those who disbelieved or went astray were always greater in number. Might and numbers have value for you but not in the eyes of us and Allah.

""I have seen the companions of the Prophe"

Does this mean every single companion of the Prophet s.a.w? The Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper, so what happened? Companions? Which companions.

"When Allah was mentioned their eyes flowed freely till their shirt collars were drenched"

And when the Prophet s.a.w mentioned about pen and paper, what happened then?

[muslim720]

I've digested your insults and sarcasm for the sake of dealing with your accusations, your points aren't a problem.

I was referring to the bits from Nahjul Balagha; you have made a blunder.

This is exactly my point. Allow me to correct you. First of all, "your books", they are not our books and out belief and faith doesn’t depend entirely on those books.

Then who and what define your beliefs?  Do you freestyle it?  Or do your scholars freestyle it?

We don't consider those books on and at the level as you do Sehih Sitta. The AhleSunnah statement 'Haza Sehih Bukhari Baad Az Kitaab e Baari'.

Haza?  Hada, maybe, then again, Arabic and Shias are opposite ends of spectrum.  Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an" based on the statement of earlier, classical scholars.  Akhbaris considered the four books of ahaadith to be authentic, cover to cover.  Play this card against rookies!

When you put forward references from books about Imams saying about those who refuse to pay Zakah, why did I challenge you on this. For the same reason. This is why I asked you for a direct reference from the Qur'an.

I challenge you to consult your marja'a and ask them their ruling on a Shi'i who rejects an authentic saying of an Imam (ra), like you did.  For once, walk the walk!

It is ridiculous when you ask for Qur'anic proof when the Qur'an mandates Zakah.  Going against a Qur'anic obligation is kufr and as per your Imam (ra), the offender must face capital punishment.

Why do you pick and choose what suits you then? If there's a contradiction then you shouldn't use such as reference just to suit yourself.

To me, Nahjul Balagha is not a source worthy of any repute.  The issue I have is two-fold:

1.  How is it that you miss certain positive statements made by Imam Ali (ra) in regards to the Sahaba (ra)?

2.  Why do you rely on anything falsely attributed to the Imams (ra) when they are contradictory, thereby confusing and misguiding people, while the job of the Imams (ra) were to guide people?

They weren't Shias. They were Muslims. But if you see them as Shias then who were the Sunnis?

These were Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, no matter how bad you want them to be otherwise.

Or where were the Sunnis.

With the Imams (ra) having knowledge of the unseen, why would they need the Sunnis, lol?  All of a sudden, the "Guides" (ra) aided by Allah (swt) with power over atoms needed Sunnis to come to their aid?

Those who disbelieved or went astray were always greater in number. Might and numbers have value for you but not in the eyes of us and Allah.

In the comment before this one, you asked as to where the Sunnis were!  And now you claim that Allah (swt) is sufficient.  Well, according to your theology, Allah (swt) was not sufficient, naudhibillah, for your Imams (ra) who faced humiliation, conspiracies and defeat at every turn.

Does this mean every single companion of the Prophet s.a.w? The Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper, so what happened? Companions? Which companions.

The Prophet (saw) asked for a pen and paper and the Sahaba (ra) could not deliver, including Imam Ali (ra).  If there is blame, it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra).

And when the Prophet s.a.w mentioned about pen and paper, what happened then?

Well, when the Sahaba (ra) saw that Imam Ali (ra) was subdued and that Imam Ali (ra) could not fulfill the wish of the Prophet (saw), they followed suit.  You wanted Sahaba (ra) to follow Imam Ali (ra), right?  So they did!  And you are still complaining.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

[iceman]

I was referring to the bits from Nahjul Balagha; you have made a blunder.

Then who and what define your beliefs?  Do you freestyle it?  Or do your scholars freestyle it?

Haza?  Hada, maybe, then again, Arabic and Shias are opposite ends of spectrum.  Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an" based on the statement of earlier, classical scholars.  Akhbaris considered the four books of ahaadith to be authentic, cover to cover.  Play this card against rookies!

I challenge you to consult your marja'a and ask them their ruling on a Shi'i who rejects an authentic saying of an Imam (ra), like you did.  For once, walk the walk!

It is ridiculous when you ask for Qur'anic proof when the Qur'an mandates Zakah.  Going against a Qur'anic obligation is kufr and as per your Imam (ra), the offender must face capital punishment.

To me, Nahjul Balagha is not a source worthy of any repute.  The issue I have is two-fold:

1.  How is it that you miss certain positive statements made by Imam Ali (ra) in regards to the Sahaba (ra)?

2.  Why do you rely on anything falsely attributed to the Imams (ra) when they are contradictory, thereby confusing and misguiding people, while the job of the Imams (ra) were to guide people?

These were Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, no matter how bad you want them to be otherwise.

With the Imams (ra) having knowledge of the unseen, why would they need the Sunnis, lol?  All of a sudden, the "Guides" (ra) aided by Allah (swt) with power over atoms needed Sunnis to come to their aid?

In the comment before this one, you asked as to where the Sunnis were!  And now you claim that Allah (swt) is sufficient.  Well, according to your theology, Allah (swt) was not sufficient, naudhibillah, for your Imams (ra) who faced humiliation, conspiracies and defeat at every turn.

The Prophet (saw) asked for a pen and paper and the Sahaba (ra) could not deliver, including Imam Ali (ra).  If there is blame, it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra).

Well, when the Sahaba (ra) saw that Imam Ali (ra) was subdued and that Imam Ali (ra) could not fulfill the wish of the Prophet (saw), they followed suit.  You wanted Sahaba (ra) to follow Imam Ali (ra), right?  So they did!  And you are still complaining.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

"I was referring to the bits from Nahjul Balagha"

Oh, the bits you pick and choose to suit your need when you're stuck.

"you have made a blunder" What ever.

"Then who and what define your beliefs?"

The QUR'AN. Does it wring a bell?

"Haza?  Hada, maybe, then again, Arabic and Shias are opposite ends of spectrum"

You seem to make mountains out of molehills. Well it's obvious you've got nothing solid to jump up and down about, so you've got to make a fuss over something to comfort yourself.

"Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an" based on the statement of earlier, classical scholars.  Akhbaris considered the four books of ahaadith to be authentic, cover to cover.  Play this card against rookies"

Does Salman Rushdie and his book the satanic verses wring a bell? Where do you think he got the material for his book? Take a guess. Take a look down your girebaan.

"These were Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, no matter how bad you want them to be otherwise"

Shias are the ones who stood by no matter what. The others always looked at what benefited and suited them, just like nowadays.

"I challenge you to consult your marja'a and ask them their ruling on a Shi'i who rejects an authentic saying of an Imam (ra), like you did.  For once, walk the walk!"

And I challenge you to prove from the Qur'an that if you refuse to pay Zakah to the ruler of the time then you are Wajib Ul Qatal.

I also challenge you to tell me why the Prophet s.a.w all of a sudden and out of the blue prohibited Mu'tah.

Your faith and belief doesn't stand on much. All you do is keep yourself busy in slagging others off. That's what keeps you going.

"And now you claim that Allah (swt) is sufficient"

You've got it all mixed up. Umar claimed and reminded the others that we have the book of Allah and that is sufficient for us.

"Well, according to your theology, Allah (swt) was not sufficient, naudhibillah,"

No, according to Umar's theology there was no need for what the Prophet s.a.w had to say or write.

[iceman]

I was referring to the bits from Nahjul Balagha; you have made a blunder.

Then who and what define your beliefs?  Do you freestyle it?  Or do your scholars freestyle it?

Haza?  Hada, maybe, then again, Arabic and Shias are opposite ends of spectrum.  Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an" based on the statement of earlier, classical scholars.  Akhbaris considered the four books of ahaadith to be authentic, cover to cover.  Play this card against rookies!

I challenge you to consult your marja'a and ask them their ruling on a Shi'i who rejects an authentic saying of an Imam (ra), like you did.  For once, walk the walk!

It is ridiculous when you ask for Qur'anic proof when the Qur'an mandates Zakah.  Going against a Qur'anic obligation is kufr and as per your Imam (ra), the offender must face capital punishment.

To me, Nahjul Balagha is not a source worthy of any repute.  The issue I have is two-fold:

1.  How is it that you miss certain positive statements made by Imam Ali (ra) in regards to the Sahaba (ra)?

2.  Why do you rely on anything falsely attributed to the Imams (ra) when they are contradictory, thereby confusing and misguiding people, while the job of the Imams (ra) were to guide people?

These were Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, no matter how bad you want them to be otherwise.

With the Imams (ra) having knowledge of the unseen, why would they need the Sunnis, lol?  All of a sudden, the "Guides" (ra) aided by Allah (swt) with power over atoms needed Sunnis to come to their aid?

In the comment before this one, you asked as to where the Sunnis were!  And now you claim that Allah (swt) is sufficient.  Well, according to your theology, Allah (swt) was not sufficient, naudhibillah, for your Imams (ra) who faced humiliation, conspiracies and defeat at every turn.

The Prophet (saw) asked for a pen and paper and the Sahaba (ra) could not deliver, including Imam Ali (ra).  If there is blame, it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra).

Well, when the Sahaba (ra) saw that Imam Ali (ra) was subdued and that Imam Ali (ra) could not fulfill the wish of the Prophet (saw), they followed suit.  You wanted Sahaba (ra) to follow Imam Ali (ra), right?  So they did!  And you are still complaining.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

"The Prophet (saw) asked for a pen and paper and the Sahaba (ra) could not deliver, including Imam Ali (ra).  If there is blame, it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra)"

And the Sahaba? And Umar. Could not deliver? Umar believed there was no need for it. Including Ali? Ali didn't object and wasn't from the objection party of Umar.

"If there is blame"

If there is blame? If? Is this how much you love the Prophet s.a.w? Is this how much you care about the truth?

"it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra)"

This is the only problem, you're not willing to recognise and accept the truth.

[iceman]

I was referring to the bits from Nahjul Balagha; you have made a blunder.

Then who and what define your beliefs?  Do you freestyle it?  Or do your scholars freestyle it?

Haza?  Hada, maybe, then again, Arabic and Shias are opposite ends of spectrum.  Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an" based on the statement of earlier, classical scholars.  Akhbaris considered the four books of ahaadith to be authentic, cover to cover.  Play this card against rookies!

I challenge you to consult your marja'a and ask them their ruling on a Shi'i who rejects an authentic saying of an Imam (ra), like you did.  For once, walk the walk!

It is ridiculous when you ask for Qur'anic proof when the Qur'an mandates Zakah.  Going against a Qur'anic obligation is kufr and as per your Imam (ra), the offender must face capital punishment.

To me, Nahjul Balagha is not a source worthy of any repute.  The issue I have is two-fold:

1.  How is it that you miss certain positive statements made by Imam Ali (ra) in regards to the Sahaba (ra)?

2.  Why do you rely on anything falsely attributed to the Imams (ra) when they are contradictory, thereby confusing and misguiding people, while the job of the Imams (ra) were to guide people?

These were Imam Ali's (ra) Shias, no matter how bad you want them to be otherwise.

With the Imams (ra) having knowledge of the unseen, why would they need the Sunnis, lol?  All of a sudden, the "Guides" (ra) aided by Allah (swt) with power over atoms needed Sunnis to come to their aid?

In the comment before this one, you asked as to where the Sunnis were!  And now you claim that Allah (swt) is sufficient.  Well, according to your theology, Allah (swt) was not sufficient, naudhibillah, for your Imams (ra) who faced humiliation, conspiracies and defeat at every turn.

The Prophet (saw) asked for a pen and paper and the Sahaba (ra) could not deliver, including Imam Ali (ra).  If there is blame, it falls just as much on Imam Ali (ra).

Well, when the Sahaba (ra) saw that Imam Ali (ra) was subdued and that Imam Ali (ra) could not fulfill the wish of the Prophet (saw), they followed suit.  You wanted Sahaba (ra) to follow Imam Ali (ra), right?  So they did!  And you are still complaining.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't!

"Well, when the Sahaba (ra) saw that Imam Ali (ra) was subdued and that Imam Ali (ra) could not fulfill the wish of the Prophet (saw), they followed suit"

It was Umar. He's your man who's actions you're so eager to protect that you're willing to screw yourself up for it.

"It is ridiculous when you ask for Qur'anic proof"

Is it? It's not ridiculous when you ask.

"Going against a Qur'anic obligation is kufr"

Where does it say not paying Zakah to the ruler of the time is going against a Qur'anic obligation?

"and as per your Imam (ra), the offender must face capital punishment"

CAN YOU PROVE THIS FROM THE QUR'AN. NO YOU CAN'T.

"How is it that you miss certain positive statements made by Imam Ali (ra) in regards to the Sahaba (ra)?"

I don't miss anything. You pick and choose. I just mention the other bit or the other side of the argument.

"Why do you rely on anything falsely attributed to the Imams (ra) when they are contradictory"

Why are you casting doubt over what I mention? What about what you mention, why are you adamant that it is sehih?

[iceman]

Surah Aal-e-Imran verse 32 Say, "Obey Allah and the Prophet, but if they turn back, then verily Allah does not love the disbelievers"

Surah Anfal verse 20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)."

We learn from the traditions that towards the end of his noble life, the Prophet's (s) condition was deteriorating. The majority opinion holds that the Prophet (s) left no will before his death, and made no attempt to do so. However, according to the Qur'an it is absolutely obligatory on all Muslims to leave a will. Allah (swt) says in his Glorious Book:

"It is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind any goods that he makes a bequest for Parents and (the nearest kinsmen) in goodness, this is a duty upon the pious" (The Qur'an 2:180)).

We may thus ask the question: Would the Prophet of Allah (s) of all Muslims - the one whose Sunnah we are obliged to follow - disregard an order stipulated in the Holy Qur'an?

When a group of companions visited the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he (s.a.w.a.) ordered them:

آتُوْنِیْ بِدَوَاتٍ وَ قِرْطَاسٍ اِکْتُبُ لَکُمْ کِتَابًا لَنْ تَضِلُّوْا بَعْدَہ اَبَدًا

“Fetch me a pen and a paper so that I write a will for you so that you are not deviated after me.”

Umar said:

اِنَّ النَّبِیَّ غَلَبَہ الْوَجْعُ وَ عِنْدَکُمْ کِتَابُ اللهِ، حَسْبُنَا کِتَابُ اللهِ۔

“Surely the Prophet is overcome by illness (suggesting that his words should not be taken seriously).The Book of Allah is with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us!!!”

So what did the Prophet s.a.w say?

"Fetch me a pen and a paper so that I write a will for you so that you are not deviated after me.”

And what did Umar say?

“Surely the Prophet is overcome by illness, the Book of Allah is with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us!!!”

And what did Allah say?

"Surah Anfal verse 20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)."

Muslim 720, what's Ali got to do with this? And why are you disregarding everything and mentioning Ali?

People decide for yourselves.

[muslim720]

Oh, the bits you pick and choose to suit your need when you're stuck.

No, the bits that goes unnoticed by your scholars, lol.

The QUR'AN. Does it wring a bell?

Okay, Qur'anist, show me Imamah from the Qur'an.  If you offer anything but unequivocal proof, I will take it that not only your Imams (ra) failed but you failed them too.

You seem to make mountains out of molehills.

Your people do not know Arabic.  You do not have a chain for the Qur'an.  Yet you claim to have your beliefs derived from the Qur'an.

Does Salman Rushdie and his book the satanic verses wring a bell? Where do you think he got the material for his book? Take a guess. Take a look down your girebaan.

The point stands; Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an".  Another fail!

I have never read the book by Salman Rushdie but if your claim is that he (mis)used our ahaadith, well, don't you do the same?  In fact, people like Salman Rushdie use Shi'i criticism of our ahaadith to use against us.  In other words, you supplied Salman Rushdie with material for the Satanic Verses.  That is the scene down your girebaan!

Shias are the ones who stood by no matter what. The others always looked at what benefited and suited them, just like nowadays.

They were his Shias and you have failed to rebut this point.  In fact, you only stand by Imam Ali (ra) when it benefits you.  If you stood by him no matter what, you would not have sliced up his family, thrown out Imam Hassan's (ra) progeny and carve a small population out of Imam Hussain's (ra) progeny.

And I challenge you to prove from the Qur'an that if you refuse to pay Zakah to the ruler of the time then you are Wajib Ul Qatal.

Hahaha, another fail!

Choke on this: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/part-6-it-obligatory-obey-true-imams

"According to reliable source Abu Sabah has narrated that I give witness that I have heard Imam Sadiq (a.s.) saying: Ali (a.s.) was the Imam whose obedience was made obligatory by Allah, and similarly Hasan, Husain and Ali bin Husain (a.s.) were the Imams whose obedience was made compulsory by Allah.

Also the same Imam Baqir (a.s.) is reported to have said that: We are same group of Imams whose obedience has been made obligatory by Allah for the people and you should follow those (Imams) for knowing whom is not impossible for the people."

"It is narrated according to reliable chains of narrators that a man from Fars asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Is your obedience compulsory? He said: Yes. He asked: Is it obligatory as was the case with Amirul Momineen (a.s.). He replied: Yes.

Again, according to reliable sources, Abu Baseer has reported that he asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Are all the Imams (a.s.) like one person in the matter of Imamate and is the obedience to them compulsory? Does the command apply to all of them? He replied: Yes."

Chapter 1 heading of Hayat-ul-Qulub reads: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/chapter-one-there-imam-every-age-and-his

"Which mentions that the existence of Imam is essential in every period of the time and that no age ever remains without an Imam and that it is obligatory to obey him and that people do not get guidance but through the Imam and that it is necessary that the Imam must be clear of all sins and that he ought to be appointed by Allah. Also a brief description of the Divine texts (Nusoos) revealed regarding the Imams. So also some of their virtues."

I also challenge you to tell me why the Prophet s.a.w all of a sudden and out of the blue prohibited Mu'tah.

I told you!  There were many children of Mu'tah claiming to be lovers of Ahlul Bayt (ra) who were also self-claimed scholars.  It had to be brought to an end.

Your faith and belief doesn't stand on much.

My faith rests on such a strong foundation that I can forego so much territory and still be right.  You cannot even give up an inch worth of territory.

You've got it all mixed up. Umar claimed and reminded the others that we have the book of Allah and that is sufficient for us.

No, you are conflating things.  First, you asked as to where the Sunnis were (when your Imams were in despair).  Then, in the very next statement, you said that Allah (swt) is sufficient for your Imams (ra).  So which one is it?

If we go by your narrative, Allah (swt) was not sufficient for your Imams (ra) because they were met with defeat at every step of the way.

No, according to Umar's theology there was no need for what the Prophet s.a.w had to say or write.

According to Imam Ali's (ra) theology as well because he did not seek to challenge or change Umar's (ra) stance.

And the Sahaba? And Umar. Could not deliver? Umar believed there was no need for it. Including Ali? Ali didn't object and wasn't from the objection party of Umar.

You can slice this as many ways as you like but it will remain bitter (for you).  If what Umar (ra) did was wrong, Imam Ali (ra), as the Divinely Chosen Leader next in line, should have made it right.  Imam Ali (ra) did not do anything.  Now you are faced with two options:

1.  Imam Ali (ra), with all said and done, agreed with Umar (ra).

                                         OR

2.  Imam Ali (ra) is equally to be blamed for failing to deliver.

If there is blame? If? Is this how much you love the Prophet s.a.w? Is this how much you care about the truth?

I care about truth just as much as Umar and Imam Ali (peace and blessings upon them) did.  They both did not bring a pen and paper so I stand by them.  It is you who has a problem.  The problem wreaks with stench when we see that your hypocrisy compels you to blame Umar (ra) but not his accomplice (Imam Ali).

This is the only problem, you're not willing to recognise and accept the truth.

It is not my fault you are hurt by Imam Ali's (ra) decision to not act and not deliver.

It was Umar. He's your man who's actions you're so eager to protect that you're willing to screw yourself up for it.

There is no better screwjob than what the Imams (ra) did to you.  Did not claim Fadak, did not bring pen and paper, did not preach Imamah, negotiated with Muawiya twice, gave up Caliphate (their Divinely Ordained Right) to Muawiya....list goes on!

You may not know this but Shias, deep down, have no issues with Umar (ra).  It is actually that they are hurt by the actions of their own Imams (ra) because none of it adds up with their concocted beliefs.

Is it? It's not ridiculous when you ask.

No, it is ridiculous when you act dumb.

It has been narrated from Abi {Abdullah (Imam) al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “Allah has not imposed anything more serious than Zakat upon this nation – and due to it, many of them shall perish.”
Al-Kafi, Volume 3, Page 497, and Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 22

It has been narrated from Abul Hasan (Imam) al-Ridha (peace be upon him), that he said: “Indeed Allah, the Sublime and Glorious, commanded three things and coupled them with three other things: He prescribed the prayer and the zakat (together). Thus, whoever prays and does not act upon the zakat, his prayer shall not be accepted from him ...”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 12

It has been narrated from Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “There is no prayer for whom there is no zakat; and there is no zakat for whom there is no piety.”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 81, Page 252

So there is no prayer without Zakat, as per your "infallible" Imams (ra).

CAN YOU PROVE THIS FROM THE QUR'AN. NO YOU CAN'T.

Imam, Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (as) said, "Indeed we do not classify a person as a true believer until he follows all of our teachings..." (al-Kafi, vol. 2, pg. 78, sec. al-Wara’, no. 13)

According to your Imam (ra), you are not a true believer but since you fake being one, that must mean you are a hypocrite, lol.

Muslim 720, what's Ali got to do with this? And why are you disregarding everything and mentioning Ali?

Imam Ali (ra) was present in the room.  As the "Divinely Chosen Leader" next in line, he should have accommodated the Prophet's (saw) request.  However, Imam Ali (ra) did not.  That means that he either agreed with Umar (ra) or was too weak to act on his own which disqualifies him from being a leader.

As far as you are concerned, you blame Umar (ra).  My point is simple and rational; the blame is equally on Imam Ali (ra).

[muslim720]

Surah Aal-e-Imran verse 32 Say, "Obey Allah and the Prophet, but if they turn back, then verily Allah does not love the disbelievers"

Surah Anfal verse 20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)."

When the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was being written, the Prophet (saw) asked Imam Ali (ra) to erase the words "Messenger of God".

Imam Ali (ra) said:

"This high rank has been bestowed upon you by Allah Himself, and I shall never delete the words ‘Messenger of Allah' with my hand."

So, in the face of this disobedience, what did the Prophet (saw) do?

The Prophet (saw), disobeyed in front of the idolaters of Quraysh, took the pen in his own hand and deleted the words which were offensive to the idolaters.

And what did Allah say?

"Surah Anfal verse 20: "O ye who believe! Obey Allah and His Messenger, and turn not away from him when ye hear (him speak)."

In front of idolaters, Imam Ali (ra) disobeyed the Holy Prophet (saw) and disrespected his order.

Imagine the message Imam Ali (ra) was sending to the idolaters.  Imam Ali (ra) challenged the Holy Prophet (saw) in front of the idolaters and showed them that the Holy Prophet (saw) had no control over his own followers.  Imam Ali (ra) cast doubt upon the rule of the Holy Prophet (saw), RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE IDOLATERS.  Imam Ali (ra) also hinted to the idolaters that there is clear dissent among the Muslims and more so, between him and the Holy Prophet (saw).

People decide for yourselves.

[iceman]

No, the bits that goes unnoticed by your scholars, lol.

Okay, Qur'anist, show me Imamah from the Qur'an.  If you offer anything but unequivocal proof, I will take it that not only your Imams (ra) failed but you failed them too.

Your people do not know Arabic.  You do not have a chain for the Qur'an.  Yet you claim to have your beliefs derived from the Qur'an.

The point stands; Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an".  Another fail!

I have never read the book by Salman Rushdie but if your claim is that he (mis)used our ahaadith, well, don't you do the same?  In fact, people like Salman Rushdie use Shi'i criticism of our ahaadith to use against us.  In other words, you supplied Salman Rushdie with material for the Satanic Verses.  That is the scene down your girebaan!

They were his Shias and you have failed to rebut this point.  In fact, you only stand by Imam Ali (ra) when it benefits you.  If you stood by him no matter what, you would not have sliced up his family, thrown out Imam Hassan's (ra) progeny and carve a small population out of Imam Hussain's (ra) progeny.

Hahaha, another fail!

Choke on this: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/part-6-it-obligatory-obey-true-imams

"According to reliable source Abu Sabah has narrated that I give witness that I have heard Imam Sadiq (a.s.) saying: Ali (a.s.) was the Imam whose obedience was made obligatory by Allah, and similarly Hasan, Husain and Ali bin Husain (a.s.) were the Imams whose obedience was made compulsory by Allah.

Also the same Imam Baqir (a.s.) is reported to have said that: We are same group of Imams whose obedience has been made obligatory by Allah for the people and you should follow those (Imams) for knowing whom is not impossible for the people."

"It is narrated according to reliable chains of narrators that a man from Fars asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Is your obedience compulsory? He said: Yes. He asked: Is it obligatory as was the case with Amirul Momineen (a.s.). He replied: Yes.

Again, according to reliable sources, Abu Baseer has reported that he asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Are all the Imams (a.s.) like one person in the matter of Imamate and is the obedience to them compulsory? Does the command apply to all of them? He replied: Yes."

Chapter 1 heading of Hayat-ul-Qulub reads: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/chapter-one-there-imam-every-age-and-his

"Which mentions that the existence of Imam is essential in every period of the time and that no age ever remains without an Imam and that it is obligatory to obey him and that people do not get guidance but through the Imam and that it is necessary that the Imam must be clear of all sins and that he ought to be appointed by Allah. Also a brief description of the Divine texts (Nusoos) revealed regarding the Imams. So also some of their virtues."

I told you!  There were many children of Mu'tah claiming to be lovers of Ahlul Bayt (ra) who were also self-claimed scholars.  It had to be brought to an end.

My faith rests on such a strong foundation that I can forego so much territory and still be right.  You cannot even give up an inch worth of territory.

No, you are conflating things.  First, you asked as to where the Sunnis were (when your Imams were in despair).  Then, in the very next statement, you said that Allah (swt) is sufficient for your Imams (ra).  So which one is it?

If we go by your narrative, Allah (swt) was not sufficient for your Imams (ra) because they were met with defeat at every step of the way.

According to Imam Ali's (ra) theology as well because he did not seek to challenge or change Umar's (ra) stance.

You can slice this as many ways as you like but it will remain bitter (for you).  If what Umar (ra) did was wrong, Imam Ali (ra), as the Divinely Chosen Leader next in line, should have made it right.  Imam Ali (ra) did not do anything.  Now you are faced with two options:

1.  Imam Ali (ra), with all said and done, agreed with Umar (ra).

                                         OR

2.  Imam Ali (ra) is equally to be blamed for failing to deliver.

I care about truth just as much as Umar and Imam Ali (peace and blessings upon them) did.  They both did not bring a pen and paper so I stand by them.  It is you who has a problem.  The problem wreaks with stench when we see that your hypocrisy compels you to blame Umar (ra) but not his accomplice (Imam Ali).

It is not my fault you are hurt by Imam Ali's (ra) decision to not act and not deliver.

There is no better screwjob than what the Imams (ra) did to you.  Did not claim Fadak, did not bring pen and paper, did not preach Imamah, negotiated with Muawiya twice, gave up Caliphate (their Divinely Ordained Right) to Muawiya....list goes on!

You may not know this but Shias, deep down, have no issues with Umar (ra).  It is actually that they are hurt by the actions of their own Imams (ra) because none of it adds up with their concocted beliefs.

No, it is ridiculous when you act dumb.

It has been narrated from Abi {Abdullah (Imam) al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “Allah has not imposed anything more serious than Zakat upon this nation – and due to it, many of them shall perish.”
Al-Kafi, Volume 3, Page 497, and Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 22

It has been narrated from Abul Hasan (Imam) al-Ridha (peace be upon him), that he said: “Indeed Allah, the Sublime and Glorious, commanded three things and coupled them with three other things: He prescribed the prayer and the zakat (together). Thus, whoever prays and does not act upon the zakat, his prayer shall not be accepted from him ...”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 12

It has been narrated from Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “There is no prayer for whom there is no zakat; and there is no zakat for whom there is no piety.”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 81, Page 252

So there is no prayer without Zakat, as per your "infallible" Imams (ra).

Imam, Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (as) said, "Indeed we do not classify a person as a true believer until he follows all of our teachings..." (al-Kafi, vol. 2, pg. 78, sec. al-Wara’, no. 13)

According to your Imam (ra), you are not a true believer but since you fake being one, that must mean you are a hypocrite, lol.

Imam Ali (ra) was present in the room.  As the "Divinely Chosen Leader" next in line, he should have accommodated the Prophet's (saw) request.  However, Imam Ali (ra) did not.  That means that he either agreed with Umar (ra) or was too weak to act on his own which disqualifies him from being a leader.

As far as you are concerned, you blame Umar (ra).  My point is simple and rational; the blame is equally on Imam Ali (ra).

"No, the bits that goes unnoticed by your scholars, lol"

They don't go unnoticed but contradict. Those that contradict are not mentioned.

"Okay, Qur'anist"

So if I ask proof from the Qur'an then I become a Qur'anist, and if you ask...? 😊

"show me Imamah from the Qur'an"
 Show me IMAMAH from the Qur'an? What, really? How many times? Either you like going in circles or playing dumb. I don't engage in such.
 
"If you offer anything but unequivocal proof"

Ok, since you've asked and then set the standard and restricted to your desire and need as usual then, you tell me what you see and consider as 'unequivocal proof'.

"will take it that not only your Imams (ra) failed but you failed them too"

Can't you engage in a discussion based on literacy and intelect. What is failure according to you? Define failure for me and give me an example of it. I know this is something that fightens you.

[iceman]

No, the bits that goes unnoticed by your scholars, lol.

Okay, Qur'anist, show me Imamah from the Qur'an.  If you offer anything but unequivocal proof, I will take it that not only your Imams (ra) failed but you failed them too.

Your people do not know Arabic.  You do not have a chain for the Qur'an.  Yet you claim to have your beliefs derived from the Qur'an.

The point stands; Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an".  Another fail!

I have never read the book by Salman Rushdie but if your claim is that he (mis)used our ahaadith, well, don't you do the same?  In fact, people like Salman Rushdie use Shi'i criticism of our ahaadith to use against us.  In other words, you supplied Salman Rushdie with material for the Satanic Verses.  That is the scene down your girebaan!

They were his Shias and you have failed to rebut this point.  In fact, you only stand by Imam Ali (ra) when it benefits you.  If you stood by him no matter what, you would not have sliced up his family, thrown out Imam Hassan's (ra) progeny and carve a small population out of Imam Hussain's (ra) progeny.

Hahaha, another fail!

Choke on this: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/part-6-it-obligatory-obey-true-imams

"According to reliable source Abu Sabah has narrated that I give witness that I have heard Imam Sadiq (a.s.) saying: Ali (a.s.) was the Imam whose obedience was made obligatory by Allah, and similarly Hasan, Husain and Ali bin Husain (a.s.) were the Imams whose obedience was made compulsory by Allah.

Also the same Imam Baqir (a.s.) is reported to have said that: We are same group of Imams whose obedience has been made obligatory by Allah for the people and you should follow those (Imams) for knowing whom is not impossible for the people."

"It is narrated according to reliable chains of narrators that a man from Fars asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Is your obedience compulsory? He said: Yes. He asked: Is it obligatory as was the case with Amirul Momineen (a.s.). He replied: Yes.

Again, according to reliable sources, Abu Baseer has reported that he asked Imam Ridha (a.s.): Are all the Imams (a.s.) like one person in the matter of Imamate and is the obedience to them compulsory? Does the command apply to all of them? He replied: Yes."

Chapter 1 heading of Hayat-ul-Qulub reads: https://www.al-islam.org/hayat-al-qulub-vol3-allamah-muhammad-baqir-al-majlisi/chapter-one-there-imam-every-age-and-his

"Which mentions that the existence of Imam is essential in every period of the time and that no age ever remains without an Imam and that it is obligatory to obey him and that people do not get guidance but through the Imam and that it is necessary that the Imam must be clear of all sins and that he ought to be appointed by Allah. Also a brief description of the Divine texts (Nusoos) revealed regarding the Imams. So also some of their virtues."

I told you!  There were many children of Mu'tah claiming to be lovers of Ahlul Bayt (ra) who were also self-claimed scholars.  It had to be brought to an end.

My faith rests on such a strong foundation that I can forego so much territory and still be right.  You cannot even give up an inch worth of territory.

No, you are conflating things.  First, you asked as to where the Sunnis were (when your Imams were in despair).  Then, in the very next statement, you said that Allah (swt) is sufficient for your Imams (ra).  So which one is it?

If we go by your narrative, Allah (swt) was not sufficient for your Imams (ra) because they were met with defeat at every step of the way.

According to Imam Ali's (ra) theology as well because he did not seek to challenge or change Umar's (ra) stance.

You can slice this as many ways as you like but it will remain bitter (for you).  If what Umar (ra) did was wrong, Imam Ali (ra), as the Divinely Chosen Leader next in line, should have made it right.  Imam Ali (ra) did not do anything.  Now you are faced with two options:

1.  Imam Ali (ra), with all said and done, agreed with Umar (ra).

                                         OR

2.  Imam Ali (ra) is equally to be blamed for failing to deliver.

I care about truth just as much as Umar and Imam Ali (peace and blessings upon them) did.  They both did not bring a pen and paper so I stand by them.  It is you who has a problem.  The problem wreaks with stench when we see that your hypocrisy compels you to blame Umar (ra) but not his accomplice (Imam Ali).

It is not my fault you are hurt by Imam Ali's (ra) decision to not act and not deliver.

There is no better screwjob than what the Imams (ra) did to you.  Did not claim Fadak, did not bring pen and paper, did not preach Imamah, negotiated with Muawiya twice, gave up Caliphate (their Divinely Ordained Right) to Muawiya....list goes on!

You may not know this but Shias, deep down, have no issues with Umar (ra).  It is actually that they are hurt by the actions of their own Imams (ra) because none of it adds up with their concocted beliefs.

No, it is ridiculous when you act dumb.

It has been narrated from Abi {Abdullah (Imam) al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “Allah has not imposed anything more serious than Zakat upon this nation – and due to it, many of them shall perish.”
Al-Kafi, Volume 3, Page 497, and Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 22

It has been narrated from Abul Hasan (Imam) al-Ridha (peace be upon him), that he said: “Indeed Allah, the Sublime and Glorious, commanded three things and coupled them with three other things: He prescribed the prayer and the zakat (together). Thus, whoever prays and does not act upon the zakat, his prayer shall not be accepted from him ...”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 93, Page 12

It has been narrated from Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that he said: “There is no prayer for whom there is no zakat; and there is no zakat for whom there is no piety.”
Bihar al-Anwar, Volume 81, Page 252

So there is no prayer without Zakat, as per your "infallible" Imams (ra).

Imam, Ja’far b. Muhammad as-Sadiq (as) said, "Indeed we do not classify a person as a true believer until he follows all of our teachings..." (al-Kafi, vol. 2, pg. 78, sec. al-Wara’, no. 13)

According to your Imam (ra), you are not a true believer but since you fake being one, that must mean you are a hypocrite, lol.

Imam Ali (ra) was present in the room.  As the "Divinely Chosen Leader" next in line, he should have accommodated the Prophet's (saw) request.  However, Imam Ali (ra) did not.  That means that he either agreed with Umar (ra) or was too weak to act on his own which disqualifies him from being a leader.

As far as you are concerned, you blame Umar (ra).  My point is simple and rational; the blame is equally on Imam Ali (ra).

"Your people do not know Arabic"

We've got and have had plenty of Scholars who were of Arabian origin and those who can and could read, write and speak arabic fluently.

You do not have a chain for the Qur'an"

Here is our chain, pay attention.

Hassan ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Musa ibn jaffar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali from Muhammad s.a.w.

The above is our authentic, reliable and pure chain. WHAT ABOUT YOURS? CAN YOU MATCH THAT? CAN YOU EVEN COME ANYWHERE NEAR OR CLOSE TO THIS.

"Yet you claim to have your beliefs derived from the Qur'an"

ABSOLUTELY 😊

Vast majority of you follow the Hanafi school of thought. Started and kicked off by Imam Abu Hanifa. Who and what was he and his heritage and link? Relax, just trying to answer what new you've asked and started.

Imam Abu Hanifa wasn't of Arabian origin. He was of persian origin. Do correct me if I'm wrong. And his father and grandfather weren't even Muslims. They were FIRE WORSHIPPERS. So what chain or do you have.

"The point stands; Imam Khomeini referred to Nahjul Balagha as the "Brother of the Qur'an".  Another fail!"

If you use references from books, be it ours or yours, then that's ok but if we use references from the exact and same books then why is there a problem? I'll answer that, your double standards. You have one principal for us and a separate one for yourself.

[muslim720]

They don't go unnoticed but contradict. Those that contradict are not mentioned.

Thank you for admitting you have contradictory beliefs.  Exactly what I have been saying all this time!

Show me IMAMAH from the Qur'an? What, really? How many times? Either you like going in circles or playing dumb. I don't engage in such.

In the words of Floyd "Money" Mayweather, millions have tried and millions have failed.  Thank you for proving Imamah does not exist in the Qur'an.  It is a lie you have concocted which you falsely attribute to the Qur'an.
 

Ok, since you've asked and then set the standard and restricted to your desire and need as usual then, you tell me what you see and consider as 'unequivocal proof'.

It is quite clear that you have no "unequivocal proof" which is why you want me to define terms rather than furnish your proof.

Can't you engage in a discussion based on literacy and intelect.

You have lost that privilege to be treated as an equal.

What is failure according to you? Define failure for me and give me an example of it. I know this is something that fightens you.

Failure is everything your "infallibles" (ra) experienced, as per your theology and when you speak of fear, be careful.  The hidden one might retrace his steps and run right back into hiding.

We've got and have had plenty of Scholars who were of Arabian origin and those who can and could read, write and speak arabic fluently.

And they speak the language of donkeys too which is why they narrate from a donkey, lol.

Hassan ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Musa ibn jaffar ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Hussain ibn Ali from Muhammad s.a.w.

As laughable as your evidence is, it actually contradicts your popular false belief that Imam Ali (ra) preserved the Qur'an because there is no Imam Ali (ra) in the chain.

Factually speaking, the Qur'an in your house is known as the Uthmanic Qur'an.  We gave you so much and not even a thank-you, you ungrateful dimwit.

The above is our authentic, reliable and pure chain. WHAT ABOUT YOURS? CAN YOU MATCH THAT? CAN YOU EVEN COME ANYWHERE NEAR OR CLOSE TO THIS.

Our chain is even better.  We got it directly from the Prophet (saw), put into a book form at the time of Uthman (ra) and you borrow our recitation of Hafs n Asim, both of whom are majhool (unknown) to you guys.

Waiting for a thank-you.

Imam Abu Hanifa wasn't of Arabian origin. He was of persian origin. Do correct me if I'm wrong. And his father and grandfather weren't even Muslims. They were FIRE WORSHIPPERS. So what chain or do you have.

We can always talk about Imam Kulayni and the remaining scholars from whom you got your Four Books; all of them were of non-Arab origin, in fact Persians.

How about your present marjas?  Ayatollahs Sistani, Shirazi and Khamenei are all Persians.  According to your own assessment, they are fire-worshipers and you follow them. 

Your spit landed right back on your own face, lol.