TwelverShia.net Forum

Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: confusedshia on November 07, 2017, 05:27:20 PM

Title: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: confusedshia on November 07, 2017, 05:27:20 PM
Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on November 07, 2017, 05:35:58 PM
Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on November 07, 2017, 05:39:01 PM
Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 07, 2017, 06:37:21 PM
Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Thank you for admitting it: "Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality"

The biggest takfiree group, at last...
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Farid on November 07, 2017, 06:41:27 PM
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 07, 2017, 06:47:20 PM
Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.

If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: confusedshia on November 07, 2017, 08:01:01 PM
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Farid on November 07, 2017, 08:03:43 PM
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/

This might be useful to you.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: confusedshia on November 07, 2017, 08:35:59 PM
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/

This might be useful to you.

I think it was you said that before (maybe someone else), shia theology appears to be evolving and shias rely on contemporary scholars more so than classical ones today - I think this is the case. All of the Shia scholars I have spoken to have told me that a Sunni from our era may be judged as a Muslim, because we live in an age of confusion and things are no longer as clear for people as they once were. This seems to be the mainstream position amongst contemporary Shia scholars in my experience, as opposed to the classical scholars like al-mufid, who say whoever rejects one of the 12 imams is a kafir.

If Shia theology isn't evolving, then they are lying to me. I hope it is the former.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 07, 2017, 08:48:42 PM
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.

Thats not what zlatan wrote. He said the one who disbelieves in this part of usul al madhab is treated as a kafir in the akhirah.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: confusedshia on November 07, 2017, 09:14:35 PM
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.

Thats not what zlatan wrote. He said the one who disbelieves in this part of usul al madhab is treated as a kafir in the akhirah.

i don't know who zlatan is. i'm speaking of my experience with other shia indviduals who follow the likes of sistani, and the shia scholars i have interacted with about this.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on November 07, 2017, 09:17:18 PM
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.

Thats not what zlatan wrote. He said the one who disbelieves in this part of usul al madhab is treated as a kafir in the akhirah.

i don't know who zlatan is. i'm speaking of my experience with other shia indviduals who follow the likes of sistani, and the shia scholars i have interacted with about this.

My bad. You must have meant sistani. I mistook you for referring to zlatan the guy who posted on this thread.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 08, 2017, 02:56:56 AM
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/

This might be useful to you.

I think it was you said that before (maybe someone else), shia theology appears to be evolving and shias rely on contemporary scholars more so than classical ones today - I think this is the case. All of the Shia scholars I have spoken to have told me that a Sunni from our era may be judged as a Muslim, because we live in an age of confusion and things are no longer as clear for people as they once were. This seems to be the mainstream position amongst contemporary Shia scholars in my experience, as opposed to the classical scholars like al-mufid, who say whoever rejects one of the 12 imams is a kafir.

If Shia theology isn't evolving, then they are lying to me. I hope it is the former.

@confusedshia

Could you ask those people to elaborate the one that I highlighted above. What is the "confusion now" and "things aren't clear as they once were"?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: iceman on November 08, 2017, 03:31:21 AM
Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Thank you for admitting it: "Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality"

The biggest takfiree group, at last...

It sounds like you've scored a goal at last. 😃
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: iceman on November 08, 2017, 03:35:31 AM
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Relax, don't take it too seriously. 😊
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on November 08, 2017, 03:53:29 AM
Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.

If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...

Has nothing to do with size. A man could create his own sect right now with 5 people and if he believes in Tawheed, Nubuwwah and Qiyamah he will be treated as a Muslim.

As for when this ruling will change, it is said when Imam Al-Mahdi (as) returns.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Farid on November 08, 2017, 05:49:34 AM
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/

This might be useful to you.

I think it was you said that before (maybe someone else), shia theology appears to be evolving and shias rely on contemporary scholars more so than classical ones today - I think this is the case. All of the Shia scholars I have spoken to have told me that a Sunni from our era may be judged as a Muslim, because we live in an age of confusion and things are no longer as clear for people as they once were. This seems to be the mainstream position amongst contemporary Shia scholars in my experience, as opposed to the classical scholars like al-mufid, who say whoever rejects one of the 12 imams is a kafir.

If Shia theology isn't evolving, then they are lying to me. I hope it is the former.

Hmmm... I don't know about the people that are speaking to you, however, the views above are the orthodox Shia views. If an orthodox Shiasm does exist, then it is the one that believes in eternal hellfire for Sunnis.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on November 08, 2017, 07:07:00 AM
Sayyed Al-Khoei said a kafir who is jahil taqsiri is not worthy of punishment.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 08, 2017, 07:37:14 PM
Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.

If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...

Has nothing to do with size. A man could create his own sect right now with 5 people and if he believes in Tawheed, Nubuwwah and Qiyamah he will be treated as a Muslim.

As for when this ruling will change, it is said when Imam Al-Mahdi (as) returns.

Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".

When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):

Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".

Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)

....  no more taqiyyah.

Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on November 08, 2017, 08:13:40 PM
Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.

If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...

Has nothing to do with size. A man could create his own sect right now with 5 people and if he believes in Tawheed, Nubuwwah and Qiyamah he will be treated as a Muslim.

As for when this ruling will change, it is said when Imam Al-Mahdi (as) returns.

Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".

When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):

Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".

Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)

....  no more taqiyyah.

Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...

No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.

When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.

I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 09, 2017, 04:10:55 AM

Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".

When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):

Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".

Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)

....  no more taqiyyah.

Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...

No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.

When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.

I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.

That explanation of yours shows how short your memory is and will only invite another obvious problem:

Why the ruling for those living during "syubha period" only apply in dunya and not extended to akhira? This syubha of not knowing whether Twelverism on the haq or not, is due to your 12th Imam by going missing, not Sunnis. And you said it yourself that the syubha will be lifted when he re-appear. Hence, proof the "fault" is purely on his side.

When any Sunnis die before your imam's re-appearance, they will die together with that syubha. Nothing change. The status remain the same. So, by any stretch of imagination, the only just and fair ruling is that those Sunnis shall remain muslim and not kafir .

As for no one has ever said it is taqiyya, surely no one from your sect will ever do that. Who wants to admit that?

Hence, the only reasonable and logical answer to "muslim in this world" is taqiyyah mumbo-jumbo.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on November 09, 2017, 01:36:11 PM

Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".

When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):

Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".

Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)

....  no more taqiyyah.

Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...

No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.

When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.

I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.

That explanation of yours shows how short your memory is and will only invite another obvious problem:

Why the ruling for those living during "syubha period" only apply in dunya and not extended to akhira? This syubha of not knowing whether Twelverism on the haq or not, is due to your 12th Imam by going missing, not Sunnis. And you said it yourself that the syubha will be lifted when he re-appear. Hence, proof the "fault" is purely on his side.

When any Sunnis die before your imam's re-appearance, they will die together with that syubha. Nothing change. The status remain the same. So, by any stretch of imagination, the only just and fair ruling is that those Sunnis shall remain muslim and not kafir .

As for no one has ever said it is taqiyya, surely no one from your sect will ever do that. Who wants to admit that?

Hence, the only reasonable and logical answer to "muslim in this world" is taqiyyah mumbo-jumbo.

Lol. Another fascinating comment. And this is why if you are ignorant of Shi'i Fiqh, you should not speak.

"Shubha" in this case does not change your fate (Jannah or Jahannam), "shubha" in this case is related to whether someone is intentionally or non-intentionally denying an asl of the deen.

The default criteria for Islam according to scholars like Al-Khoei is belief in the shahadatayn and qiyamah. But if you intentionally deny any other part of the religion (like Salat for example), intentionally while knowing it is the correct hukm, you will he considered a kafir.

But this ruling of "shubha" does not apply to the three default beliefs that we stated as a criteria for calling someone a Muslim, which are; Tawheed, Nubuwwah (and according to some) Qiyamah.

Now, let's return to the usool. Imamah is not a criteria to default Islam (meaning being considered a Muslim in Fiqh) - but it is a criteria for actually being a Muslim in reality, and that is what you will be judged by in the akhira.

Because denial of Imamah is not any different from denial of Nubuwwah - in principle - and so when you ask me why this "shubha" is not extended to the akhira, the answer is that in the same way the kuffar cannot be excused for denial of the Prophet (s) based on "shubha", than those who deny the Imams (as) also cannot be excused.

And I already told you, your taqiyya theory does not hold up. I told you, according to this Fiqhi opinion, you can make up your own sect right now and as long as you believe in tawheed, nubuwwah, and Immamah, then you will be considered a Muslim.

This doesn't just apply to Sunnis.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 09, 2017, 05:10:29 PM

Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".

When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):

Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".

Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)

....  no more taqiyyah.

Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...

No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.

When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.

I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.

That explanation of yours shows how short your memory is and will only invite another obvious problem:

Why the ruling for those living during "syubha period" only apply in dunya and not extended to akhira? This syubha of not knowing whether Twelverism on the haq or not, is due to your 12th Imam by going missing, not Sunnis. And you said it yourself that the syubha will be lifted when he re-appear. Hence, proof the "fault" is purely on his side.

When any Sunnis die before your imam's re-appearance, they will die together with that syubha. Nothing change. The status remain the same. So, by any stretch of imagination, the only just and fair ruling is that those Sunnis shall remain muslim and not kafir .

As for no one has ever said it is taqiyya, surely no one from your sect will ever do that. Who wants to admit that?

Hence, the only reasonable and logical answer to "muslim in this world" is taqiyyah mumbo-jumbo.

Lol. Another fascinating comment. And this is why if you are ignorant of Shi'i Fiqh, you should not speak.

"Shubha" in this case does not change your fate (Jannah or Jahannam), "shubha" in this case is related to whether someone is intentionally or non-intentionally denying an asl of the deen.

The default criteria for Islam according to scholars like Al-Khoei is belief in the shahadatayn and qiyamah. But if you intentionally deny any other part of the religion (like Salat for example), intentionally while knowing it is the correct hukm, you will he considered a kafir.

But this ruling of "shubha" does not apply to the three default beliefs that we stated as a criteria for calling someone a Muslim, which are; Tawheed, Nubuwwah (and according to some) Qiyamah.

Now, let's return to the usool. Imamah is not a criteria to default Islam (meaning being considered a Muslim in Fiqh) - but it is a criteria for actually being a Muslim in reality, and that is what you will be judged by in the akhira.

Because denial of Imamah is not any different from denial of Nubuwwah - in principle - and so when you ask me why this "shubha" is not extended to the akhira, the answer is that in the same way the kuffar cannot be excused for denial of the Prophet (s) based on "shubha", than those who deny the Imams (as) also cannot be excused.

And I already told you, your taqiyya theory does not hold up. I told you, according to this Fiqhi opinion, you can make up your own sect right now and as long as you believe in tawheed, nubuwwah, and Immamah, then you will be considered a Muslim.

This doesn't just apply to Sunnis.

Thank you for explaining that. Despite jab here and there, I actually like the way you are trying to explain your sect.

Coming back to the discussion, reading from your responses, I got mix messages on "syubha". Hence, I would like you, firstly, to please explain clearly what "syubha" is and how does that related to "muslim in this world". The way you explained up there is not clear at all, at least to me.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on November 09, 2017, 07:14:06 PM

Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".

When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):

Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".

Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)

....  no more taqiyyah.

Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...

No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.

When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.

I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.

That explanation of yours shows how short your memory is and will only invite another obvious problem:

Why the ruling for those living during "syubha period" only apply in dunya and not extended to akhira? This syubha of not knowing whether Twelverism on the haq or not, is due to your 12th Imam by going missing, not Sunnis. And you said it yourself that the syubha will be lifted when he re-appear. Hence, proof the "fault" is purely on his side.

When any Sunnis die before your imam's re-appearance, they will die together with that syubha. Nothing change. The status remain the same. So, by any stretch of imagination, the only just and fair ruling is that those Sunnis shall remain muslim and not kafir .

As for no one has ever said it is taqiyya, surely no one from your sect will ever do that. Who wants to admit that?

Hence, the only reasonable and logical answer to "muslim in this world" is taqiyyah mumbo-jumbo.

Lol. Another fascinating comment. And this is why if you are ignorant of Shi'i Fiqh, you should not speak.

"Shubha" in this case does not change your fate (Jannah or Jahannam), "shubha" in this case is related to whether someone is intentionally or non-intentionally denying an asl of the deen.

The default criteria for Islam according to scholars like Al-Khoei is belief in the shahadatayn and qiyamah. But if you intentionally deny any other part of the religion (like Salat for example), intentionally while knowing it is the correct hukm, you will he considered a kafir.

But this ruling of "shubha" does not apply to the three default beliefs that we stated as a criteria for calling someone a Muslim, which are; Tawheed, Nubuwwah (and according to some) Qiyamah.

Now, let's return to the usool. Imamah is not a criteria to default Islam (meaning being considered a Muslim in Fiqh) - but it is a criteria for actually being a Muslim in reality, and that is what you will be judged by in the akhira.

Because denial of Imamah is not any different from denial of Nubuwwah - in principle - and so when you ask me why this "shubha" is not extended to the akhira, the answer is that in the same way the kuffar cannot be excused for denial of the Prophet (s) based on "shubha", than those who deny the Imams (as) also cannot be excused.

And I already told you, your taqiyya theory does not hold up. I told you, according to this Fiqhi opinion, you can make up your own sect right now and as long as you believe in tawheed, nubuwwah, and Immamah, then you will be considered a Muslim.

This doesn't just apply to Sunnis.

Thank you for explaining that. Despite jab here and there, I actually like the way you are trying to explain your sect.

Coming back to the discussion, reading from your responses, I got mix messages on "syubha". Hence, I would like you, firstly, to please explain clearly what "syubha" is and how does that related to "muslim in this world". The way you explained up there is not clear at all, at least to me.

Your welcome, and I apologise if there was a lack of akhlaq in my previous post(s).

What is meant by shubha is that you are not intentionally rejecting a part of the revelation (e.g Imamah) - but that this particular aqeeda has not been proven to you.  And so, when the Mahdi (as) returns, there is no room for doubt because he will prove this to you.

A Muslim in this world, according to this Fiqhi position of Al-Khoei, is that he is only required to believe in three things: Tawheed, Nubuwwah, Qiyamah. That's it.

If he believes in those three, and does not believe in anything which negates those three, then he is treated as a Muslim.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on November 10, 2017, 10:00:09 PM
Your welcome, and I apologise if there was a lack of akhlaq in my previous post(s).

Me too on my part. Understandably, engaging in this kind of discussion could easily raise ones emotion. However, I hope we do not go overboard or else Farid will kick both of us out... 😜

What is meant by shubha is that you are not intentionally rejecting a part of the revelation (e.g Imamah) - but that this particular aqeeda has not been proven to you.

Unintentional rejecting but not proven unto someone? What does that suppose to mean, really? Any example to make it clearer?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on February 03, 2018, 05:02:47 PM
@Zlatan,

*bump*
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 03, 2018, 07:12:28 PM
Unintentional rejecting but not proven unto someone? What does that suppose to mean, really? Any example to make it clearer?

It would be like someone disbelieving in Salat due to a shubha (hasn't heard of it being wajib, for eg). That guy is not declared a kafir. But someone who rejects Salat after it was proven to him it is wajib (proof from Qur'an and Sunnah) then he is a kafir.

The Sunni usually does not reject Imamah out of stubborness, but because it hasn't been proven to him. So he is like the one who has not believed in Salat because it hasn't been proven to him i.e he is treated as a Muslim.

This is related to treatment in dunya.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: GreatChineseFall on February 04, 2018, 05:53:35 PM
It would be like someone disbelieving in Salat due to a shubha (hasn't heard of it being wajib, for eg). That guy is not declared a kafir.

Is such a person a kafir in the Hereafter if he dies and never hears of it being wajib?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 04, 2018, 06:04:49 PM
Is such a person a kafir in the Hereafter if he dies and never hears of it being wajib?

No.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: GreatChineseFall on February 04, 2018, 10:42:25 PM
So he is like the one who has not believed in Salat because it hasn't been proven to him i.e he is treated as a Muslim.

So it isn't exactly the same then. Is there another example, besides someone who rejects Imamah openly, who is treated as a Muslim in this life and is considered a kafir in the Hereafter while rejecting something openly due to a shubha?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 05, 2018, 04:09:01 AM
So it isn't exactly the same then. Is there another example, besides someone who rejects Imamah openly, who is treated as a Muslim in this life and is considered a kafir in the Hereafter while rejecting something openly due to a shubha?

It's the same in treatment in the dunya.

As for your question, it seems that adl of Allah would be treated as the same in the Afterlife.
Title: Imamah
Post by: Abu_Abdullah on February 05, 2018, 11:32:31 AM
If someone believes in Imamah but doesn't believe in all 12 Imam's, so, for instance he only believes in 7 of them. Is he excused?
Title: Re: Imamah
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 05, 2018, 04:43:44 PM
If someone believes in Imamah but doesn't believe in all 12 Imam's, so, for instance he only believes in 7 of them. Is he excused?

No. Disbelief in one of them is like disbelief in all.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on February 05, 2018, 07:11:45 PM
It would be like someone disbelieving in Salat due to a shubha (hasn't heard of it being wajib, for eg). That guy is not declared a kafir. But someone who rejects Salat after it was proven to him it is wajib (proof from Qur'an and Sunnah) then he is a kafir.

Intresting anology but not really supporting your argument. It's hard to find muslims who disbelieve in salat due to not knowing salat is wajib or due to any other syubha. I don't know in which caves they are living in for not knowing the obligatory of salat in Islam and hence disbelieving it.

The Sunni usually does not reject Imamah out of stubborness, but because it hasn't been proven to him. So he is like the one who has not believed in Salat because it hasn't been proven to him i.e he is treated as a Muslim.

This is related to treatment in dunya.

Hmm... I have a thing to say to you but before I say that, I want your honest and straight answer. What is your take on us, Sunnis, on this forum? Are we still muslims in this dunya or already kuffar?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Hadrami on February 06, 2018, 01:34:07 AM
Intresting anology but not really supporting your argument. It's hard to find muslims who disbelieve in salat due to not knowing salat is wajib or due to any other syubha. I don't know in which caves they are living in for not knowing the obligatory of salat in Islam and hence disbelieving it.

Hmm... I have a thing to say to you but before I say that, I want your honest and straight answer. What is your take on us, Sunnis, on this forum? Are we still muslims in this dunya or already kuffar?
If Abu Bakr is kafir for a rafidi like him, its hard to believe all sunni in this world are not kuffar, but then again a lying sect follower usually lies to hide the takfiri nature of their sect
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 06, 2018, 03:24:03 AM
Intresting anology but not really supporting your argument. It's hard to find muslims who disbelieve in salat due to not knowing salat is wajib or due to any other syubha. I don't know in which caves they are living in for not knowing the obligatory of salat in Islam and hence disbelieving it.

Hmm... I have a thing to say to you but before I say that, I want your honest and straight answer. What is your take on us, Sunnis, on this forum? Are we still muslims in this dunya or already kuffar?

It doesn't have to be Salat, it can be any part of the revelation of the Prophet. What seems so hard for people here to understand is, that, simply saying the Shahadatayn is enough to be treated as a Muslim.

If you then deny any part of the revelation of the Prophet with no excuse (i.e shubha, or jahl) then you become a kafir.

It's not that hard really.



The ones on this forum are Muslim except the ones who have mocked the Twelfth Imam or have mocked our madhab due to their emnity, as I have seen from a lot of the people. Those people are kafirs and najis.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: GreatChineseFall on February 06, 2018, 01:21:39 PM
It's the same in treatment in the dunya.

As for your question, it seems that adl of Allah would be treated as the same in the Afterlife.

Are you sure, because my impression was different. I thought that at the very least they would be treated as a Mu'min. To be clear, no one really rejects Imamah or the Adl of Allah totally, they may reject what is considered a fundamental part of it but not entirely. For example, a person who believes in the twelve Imams as the rightful successors but does not believe in their infallibility due to a shubha. He rejects a fundamental part of Imamah, which is the infallibility of them and he rejects a fundamental part of Adl, which is Allah leaving this world without an infallible guide. Is such a person a kafir in the Hereafter? And if so, is he treated as a Mu'min or a Muslim in this world? On what basis is the difference between a Mu'min and a Muslim made if he is a kafir in the Hereafter?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 06, 2018, 03:10:47 PM
Are you sure, because my impression was different. I thought that at the very least they would be treated as a Mu'min. To be clear, no one really rejects Imamah or the Adl of Allah totally, they may reject what is considered a fundamental part of it but not entirely. For example, a person who believes in the twelve Imams as the rightful successors but does not believe in their infallibility due to a shubha. He rejects a fundamental part of Imamah, which is the infallibility of them and he rejects a fundamental part of Adl, which is Allah leaving this world without an infallible guide. Is such a person a kafir in the Hereafter? And if so, is he treated as a Mu'min or a Muslim in this world? On what basis is the difference between a Mu'min and a Muslim made if he is a kafir in the Hereafter?

Interesting questions. There seems to be a difference of opinion amongst the fuqaha regarding what constitutes rejectness.

There are very important Fiqhi differences between a Mu'min and a Muslim as well as of course, the punishment in akhira. If you want I can go through them.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Hadrami on February 06, 2018, 10:10:27 PM
The ones on this forum are Muslim except the ones who have mocked the Twelfth Imam or have mocked our madhab due to their emnity, as I have seen from a lot of the people. Those people are kafirs and najis.
Stop lying ya takfiri. Loving Abu Bakr is enough to make a sunni to be considered as kafir and najis nasibi according to your filthy sect.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 07, 2018, 03:21:16 AM
Stop lying ya takfiri. Loving Abu Bakr is enough to make a sunni to be considered as kafir and najis nasibi according to your filthy sect.

This is why you have a filthy heart. You fool, not every nasibi is najis. You read stuff online in English from zindeeq websites like these and their liking which are created by your retarded Wahabi brethren.

Read ya ghabi if you can even read Arabic;

والجواب عن ذلك أن غاية ما يمكن استفادته من هذه الأخبار أن كل مخالف للأئمة (عليهم السلام) ناصبي إلاّ أن ذلك لا يكفي في الحكم بنجاسة أهل الخلاف ، حيث لا  دليل على نجاسة كل ناصب ، فان النصب إنما يوجب النجاسة فيما إذا كان لهم (عليهم السلام) وأما النصب لشيعتهم فان كان منشؤه حبّ الشيعة لأمير المؤمنين وأولاده (عليهم السلام) ولذلك نصب لهم وأبغضهم فهو عين النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) لأنه إعلان لعداوتهم ببغض من يحبهم ، وأما إذا كان منشؤه عدم متابعتهم لمن يرونه خليفة للنبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) من غير أن يستند إلى حبهم لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) بل هو بنفسه يظهر الحب لعلي وأولاده (عليهم السلام) فهذا نصب للشيعة دون الأئمة (عليهم السلام) إلاّ أن النصب للشيعة لا يستتبع النجاسة بوجه ، لما تقدّم من الأخبار والسيرة القطعية القائمة على طهارة المخالفـين ، فالنصب المقتضي للنجاسة إنما هو خصوص النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) .


Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: GreatChineseFall on February 07, 2018, 04:19:40 AM
Interesting questions. There seems to be a difference of opinion amongst the fuqaha regarding what constitutes rejectness.

There are very important Fiqhi differences between a Mu'min and a Muslim as well as of course, the punishment in akhira. If you want I can go through them.

Yeah sure, please do if it is not too much trouble. Please keep in mind that I didn't define reject either, so any scholar can put any definition he wants. Or do you mean that there are scholars that reject the very notion of "rejection due to shubha" or "rejection due to jahl"? If the differences can be clarified with examples like my example it would help even more. Also the issue of tahreef for example is an interesting case and if it leads to rejection of a fundamental part of Adl or Imamah.

This is why you have a filthy heart. You fool, not every nasibi is najis. You read stuff online in English from zindeeq websites like these and their liking which are created by your retarded Wahabi brethren.

Read ya ghabi if you can even read Arabic;

والجواب عن ذلك أن غاية ما يمكن استفادته من هذه الأخبار أن كل مخالف للأئمة (عليهم السلام) ناصبي إلاّ أن ذلك لا يكفي في الحكم بنجاسة أهل الخلاف ، حيث لا  دليل على نجاسة كل ناصب ، فان النصب إنما يوجب النجاسة فيما إذا كان لهم (عليهم السلام) وأما النصب لشيعتهم فان كان منشؤه حبّ الشيعة لأمير المؤمنين وأولاده (عليهم السلام) ولذلك نصب لهم وأبغضهم فهو عين النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) لأنه إعلان لعداوتهم ببغض من يحبهم ، وأما إذا كان منشؤه عدم متابعتهم لمن يرونه خليفة للنبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) من غير أن يستند إلى حبهم لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) بل هو بنفسه يظهر الحب لعلي وأولاده (عليهم السلام) فهذا نصب للشيعة دون الأئمة (عليهم السلام) إلاّ أن النصب للشيعة لا يستتبع النجاسة بوجه ، لما تقدّم من الأخبار والسيرة القطعية القائمة على طهارة المخالفـين ، فالنصب المقتضي للنجاسة إنما هو خصوص النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) .


To be fair, his statement "Loving Abu Bakr is enough to make a sunni to be considered as kafir and najis nasibi" and your quote are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It can be that Abu Bakr is a special case whereby loving him necessitates hating the Ahl al Bayt (due to him killing Fatima for example) and your quote could be talking about other Shia sects who reject some of the Imams.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 07, 2018, 07:26:09 AM
Yeah sure, please do if it is not too much trouble. Please keep in mind that I didn't define reject either, so any scholar can put any definition he wants. Or do you mean that there are scholars that reject the very notion of "rejection due to shubha" or "rejection due to jahl"? If the differences can be clarified with examples like my example it would help even more. Also the issue of tahreef for example is an interesting case and if it leads to rejection of a fundamental part of Adl or Imamah.

To be fair, his statement "Loving Abu Bakr is enough to make a sunni to be considered as kafir and najis nasibi" and your quote are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It can be that Abu Bakr is a special case whereby loving him necessitates hating the Ahl al Bayt (due to him killing Fatima for example) and your quote could be talking about other Shia sects who reject some of the Imams.

Of course there are scholars who reject the notion of rejection through shubha. Some said that non-Twelvers are out and out kafir and najis, among them Shaykh Al-Bahrani (rah).

Some Fiqhi differences between a Mu'min and a Muslim only;

- a Muslim who is not a Mu'min is not entitled to khums or zakat
- a Muslim who is not a Mu'min cannot give testimony for most things in court even if he is a truthful person
- according to majority of ulama, gheeba and sabb is only haram if it is directed towards a Mu'min
- prayer behind someone who is not a Mu'min is not valid, therefore the one who joins them in congregation does not pray in the same way one prays behind a Mu'min (i.e his niyyah is different).

The scholars differed on what is considered a rejection of a certain asl of the usool. Does disbelief in isma necessiate rejection of Imamah, for example? For example, Shaykh Al-Ansari (rah) says it doesn't.

So what necessiates rejection of an asl is differed upon.

Actually my quote is clear and was in reply to the narrations that say those who hate the Shi'a are nasibis. The Sayyed (rah) says not every nasibi is najis, and only [my point is here] the nasibi who has emnity towards Ahlulbayt (as) is najis.

In fact in another place he says even those who waged a war on the Imam (as) but not out of hatred for him - even they are not najis. Because what necessiates najasa is emnity towards them (as).
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 07, 2018, 10:12:51 AM
In fact in another place he says even those who waged a war on the Imam (as) but not out of hatred for him - even they are not najis. Because what necessiates najasa is emnity towards them (as).

So in that case, Muawiya - fighting for no other reason but for the qisas of Uthman (ra) - is not najis?  Why, then, all the hula palooza?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 07, 2018, 12:23:26 PM
So in that case, Muawiya - fighting for no other reason but for the qisas of Uthman (ra) - is not najis?  Why, then, all the hula palooza?

That's exactly why Sayyed Al-Khomeini ruled that Mu'awiyah was not najis.

Although other Shi'i scholars disagreed with this reading of history, but if it can be proven that Mu'awiyah did not fight out of hatred, then he was not najis according to the mabani of Al-Khoei and others.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 07, 2018, 10:58:08 PM
That's exactly why Sayyed Al-Khomeini ruled that Mu'awiyah was not najis.

Although other Shi'i scholars disagreed with this reading of history, but if it can be proven that Mu'awiyah did not fight out of hatred, then he was not najis according to the mabani of Al-Khoei and others.

Alhamdulilah, one more thing we all can agree on without going around in circles.  My contention, however, is with the word games.  Is it usool al-deen or madhhab? 

One learned Shia brother stated the following, "The Usool Al-Deen and Furoo` Al-Deen is not mentioned in ANY hadeeth.  The scholars have put this together much later on.  So you won't find aHaadeeth from the Ahl Al-Bayt (as) that says.  The Usool Al-Deen says, 'The Usool Al-Deen is....and the Furoo` Al-Deen is....'.  Actually there is a Hadeeth that talks about the pillars of faith, and it looks like the Sunnee's pillar of faith, but with Wilaayah put in there."

When asked for these narrations, he cited:
“I requested Aboo `Abd Allaah (as) ‘Teach me, please, the principles of beliefs. The Imam (as) said, ‘They are: to testify and affirm that there is no one who deserves to be worshipped except Allah, to testify and affirm that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and to affirm that whatever he has taught is from Allah. (It is of the principles of beliefs) to affirm and accept that there is 5 salaah (prayers), to pay Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fast) in the month of RamaDaan and to perform Hajj of the House (of Allah). (It is of the principles of beliefs) to love those who love us (‘A’immah from the family of the Messenger of Allah), to disown our enemies and to become part of the group of the truthful ones. (All such issues are of principles and obligatory matters).’”

    Source:
    Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 2
    Grading:
    Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
    --> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 101



“Aboo Ja`far (as) has said, ‘Islam is based on five principles. They are: Salaah, al-Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fasting), Hajj and al-Wilayah.  The call to none of the other principles has been so emphatic as it has been to al-Wilayah.  People accepted the other four but they left aside this [al-Wilayah].’”

    Source:
    Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 3
    Grading:
    Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq Kal-SaHeeH (Reliable like a SaHeeH (hadeeth))
    --> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 116


Why would people accept the other four but leave the simplest one out?  Wilayah, like belief in redemption through Christ, is just a belief.  Of the five, it would be the easiest of them all (to abide by).  The key phrase in all of this is, "The scholars have put this together much later on".

Brother Nader also referenced his own blog (where he has shared the same hadiths): http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/09/5-foundation-pillars-of-imaan-faith.html

In the comments section, some brother, Wasil, commented by saying, "Wilayat is from furu al-islam and it's one of the pillars of iman and without it iman is inadequate but to say that everybody who doesn't believe in it is kaffir is very extreme and contradicts quran and hadith." 

The question I have, then, is, why believe in something so problematic which contradicts the Qur'an and Hadith?  Why even bother giving it different spins or painting different pictures of it?  Which one is easier?  Having endless discussions which lead us no where leaving a vast majority of a population of 1.7 billion in doubt, feeling as though they may have violated Islam, or simply admitting that it is not in the Qur'an and Sunnah?  And if it is not in Qur'an and Sunnah then adios, bye bye, see ya later!
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Hadrami on February 08, 2018, 01:37:24 PM
This is why you have a filthy heart. You fool, not every nasibi is najis. You read stuff online in English from zindeeq websites like these and their liking which are created by your retarded Wahabi brethren.

Read ya ghabi if you can even read Arabic;

والجواب عن ذلك أن غاية ما يمكن استفادته من هذه الأخبار أن كل مخالف للأئمة (عليهم السلام) ناصبي إلاّ أن ذلك لا يكفي في الحكم بنجاسة أهل الخلاف ، حيث لا  دليل على نجاسة كل ناصب ، فان النصب إنما يوجب النجاسة فيما إذا كان لهم (عليهم السلام) وأما النصب لشيعتهم فان كان منشؤه حبّ الشيعة لأمير المؤمنين وأولاده (عليهم السلام) ولذلك نصب لهم وأبغضهم فهو عين النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) لأنه إعلان لعداوتهم ببغض من يحبهم ، وأما إذا كان منشؤه عدم متابعتهم لمن يرونه خليفة للنبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) من غير أن يستند إلى حبهم لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) بل هو بنفسه يظهر الحب لعلي وأولاده (عليهم السلام) فهذا نصب للشيعة دون الأئمة (عليهم السلام) إلاّ أن النصب للشيعة لا يستتبع النجاسة بوجه ، لما تقدّم من الأخبار والسيرة القطعية القائمة على طهارة المخالفـين ، فالنصب المقتضي للنجاسة إنما هو خصوص النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) .




so the professional ahmak trying to get out of the hole. As if any sunni will be happy to know loving Abu Bakr whom shia believe was a nasibi wont make sunni a najis, just a kafir. Good to know 😂😂 You scum always love to play with words like a lawyer
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 08, 2018, 04:29:38 PM
Alhamdulilah, one more thing we all can agree on without going around in circles.  My contention, however, is with the word games.  Is it usool al-deen or madhhab? 

One learned Shia brother stated the following, "The Usool Al-Deen and Furoo` Al-Deen is not mentioned in ANY hadeeth.  The scholars have put this together much later on.  So you won't find aHaadeeth from the Ahl Al-Bayt (as) that says.  The Usool Al-Deen says, 'The Usool Al-Deen is....and the Furoo` Al-Deen is....'.  Actually there is a Hadeeth that talks about the pillars of faith, and it looks like the Sunnee's pillar of faith, but with Wilaayah put in there."

When asked for these narrations, he cited:
“I requested Aboo `Abd Allaah (as) ‘Teach me, please, the principles of beliefs. The Imam (as) said, ‘They are: to testify and affirm that there is no one who deserves to be worshipped except Allah, to testify and affirm that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and to affirm that whatever he has taught is from Allah. (It is of the principles of beliefs) to affirm and accept that there is 5 salaah (prayers), to pay Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fast) in the month of RamaDaan and to perform Hajj of the House (of Allah). (It is of the principles of beliefs) to love those who love us (‘A’immah from the family of the Messenger of Allah), to disown our enemies and to become part of the group of the truthful ones. (All such issues are of principles and obligatory matters).’”

    Source:
    Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 2
    Grading:
    Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
    --> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 101



“Aboo Ja`far (as) has said, ‘Islam is based on five principles. They are: Salaah, al-Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fasting), Hajj and al-Wilayah.  The call to none of the other principles has been so emphatic as it has been to al-Wilayah.  People accepted the other four but they left aside this [al-Wilayah].’”

    Source:
    Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 3
    Grading:
    Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq Kal-SaHeeH (Reliable like a SaHeeH (hadeeth))
    --> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 116


Why would people accept the other four but leave the simplest one out?  Wilayah, like belief in redemption through Christ, is just a belief.  Of the five, it would be the easiest of them all (to abide by).  The key phrase in all of this is, "The scholars have put this together much later on".

Brother Nader also referenced his own blog (where he has shared the same hadiths): http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/09/5-foundation-pillars-of-imaan-faith.html

In the comments section, some brother, Wasil, commented by saying, "Wilayat is from furu al-islam and it's one of the pillars of iman and without it iman is inadequate but to say that everybody who doesn't believe in it is kaffir is very extreme and contradicts quran and hadith." 

The question I have, then, is, why believe in something so problematic which contradicts the Qur'an and Hadith?  Why even bother giving it different spins or painting different pictures of it?  Which one is easier?  Having endless discussions which lead us no where leaving a vast majority of a population of 1.7 billion in doubt, feeling as though they may have violated Islam, or simply admitting that it is not in the Qur'an and Sunnah?  And if it is not in Qur'an and Sunnah then adios, bye bye, see ya later!

Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith, not that there is a hadith which says "Usool Al-Deen are five, tawheed, nubuwwah etc..".

For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl.

The discussion of usool al madhab and usool al deen is mainly related to Fiqh, wherein a disbeliever in usool al madhab can still be treated as a Muslim. That's all.

The hadiths you laid out mention Arkan Al-Deen (Pillars of Islam), not the Usool.

What Wasil says has no basis, his views are shadh, I am telling you what our jurists say not what internet polemicists say.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 08, 2018, 04:30:55 PM
so the professional ahmak trying to get out of the hole. As if any sunni will be happy to know loving Abu Bakr whom shia believe was a nasibi wont make sunni a najis, just a kafir. Good to know 😂😂 You scum always love to play with words like a lawyer

Lol you ghabi, as if I care about the happiness of Sunnis. You think I am here to please you lot?

Hahahaha
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 08, 2018, 10:56:00 PM
Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith, not that there is a hadith which says "Usool Al-Deen are five, tawheed, nubuwwah etc..".

For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl.

I took brother Nader's point and understood it well (that usul al-deen is a concept and term made by scholars), however, Imamah finds itself without any leg to stand on when we explore the Qur'an (at least).

Quote
The discussion of usool al madhab and usool al deen is mainly related to Fiqh, wherein a disbeliever in usool al madhab can still be treated as a Muslim. That's all.

A sentence ago you said, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in....." and you made mention of Imamah in the same breath.  How can something that is an obligatory belief, as ordained by the Qur'an, be then open for Fiqhi discussion?  As far as we are concerned, without any Fiqh, if one disbelieves in any of the six articles of faith is a disbeliever.

Quote
The hadiths you laid out mention Arkan Al-Deen (Pillars of Islam), not the Usool.

So, then, where is your hadith regarding the usool al-deen?

Quote
What Wasil says has no basis, his views are shadh, I am telling you what our jurists say not what internet polemicists say.

His views are not shadh if you ponder over your own statements, "Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen."

And, "If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira."

And, "Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith..."

And, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl".

To recap, usool al-deen and usool al-madhhab are one in the same; therefore, disbelieving Imamah makes us disbelievers although some of your scholars may treat us as Muslims in this world.  Like you said to another brother, "as if I care about the happiness of Sunnis", I say to you, as if I care about the treatment of Shia scholars.

Why would I care how Shias treat us in this world?  Our entire life transaction is with Allah (swt), not your scholars so the Hereafter is what we seek, not dunya.

Maybe now Wasil's statement might make more sense to you.  In your madhhab, you have issued a judgment on us WITHOUT any backing from Qur'an and Sunnah.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 09, 2018, 03:18:58 AM
I took brother Nader's point and understood it well (that usul al-deen is a concept and term made by scholars), however, Imamah finds itself without any leg to stand on when we explore the Qur'an (at least).

A sentence ago you said, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in....." and you made mention of Imamah in the same breath.  How can something that is an obligatory belief, as ordained by the Qur'an, be then open for Fiqhi discussion?  As far as we are concerned, without any Fiqh, if one disbelieves in any of the six articles of faith is a disbeliever.

So, then, where is your hadith regarding the usool al-deen?

His views are not shadh if you ponder over your own statements, "Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen."

And, "If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira."

And, "Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith..."

And, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl".

To recap, usool al-deen and usool al-madhhab are one in the same; therefore, disbelieving Imamah makes us disbelievers although some of your scholars may treat us as Muslims in this world.  Like you said to another brother, "as if I care about the happiness of Sunnis", I say to you, as if I care about the treatment of Shia scholars.

Why would I care how Shias treat us in this world?  Our entire life transaction is with Allah (swt), not your scholars so the Hereafter is what we seek, not dunya.

Maybe now Wasil's statement might make more sense to you.  In your madhhab, you have issued a judgment on us WITHOUT any backing from Qur'an and Sunnah.

1 - It is open for Fiqhi discussion because Sunnis claim there is no evidence for Imamah in Qur'an and Sunnah. It would be different if someone rejected something after it was proven to him it is in the Qur'an and Sunnah. But this hasn't been proven to most Sunnis, as they argue there is no proof for it in either the Qur'an or Sunnah. Therefore it does not necessiate that they be treated as kafirs.

2 - Where is my hadith regarding Usool Al-Deen? You want me to bring forth Shi'i hadiths which say disbelief in Imamah is kufr? Because this is what "Usool Al-Deen" are for. It is the parts of faith which are obligatory to believe in so one is considered a Muslim or Mu'min, and that disbelief in them necessiates kufr. If you want I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah.

3 - Your re-cap is actually accurate, finally we come to an agreement regarding what is meant by these terms.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 09, 2018, 06:26:17 AM
1 - It is open for Fiqhi discussion because Sunnis claim there is no evidence for Imamah in Qur'an and Sunnah.

So why is the matter open for discussion among Shias when it is "proven" to them?  Why bother giving it labels such as "usool al-deen" or "usool al-madhhab" when the end result, with Allah (swt), as per the Shia belief is the same (that any denier of Imamah will be a disbeliever and hence, Hell-bound)?

Quote
But this hasn't been proven to most Sunnis, as they argue there is no proof for it in either the Qur'an or Sunnah.

Are we wrong to assume that position when Imamah has no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah? 

Quote
Therefore it does not necessiate that they be treated as kafirs.

Well, someone might disbelieve in Scriptures (other than the Qur'an).  After we furnish proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah, we can pass judgement on him.  Why can't you do the same?  And if you cannot, surely you cannot, then what Wasil said should make sense to you.  And once it makes sense, call Imamah what you may (usool al deen or usool al-madhhab), it is pointless.  However, to condemn Muslims as disbelievers (even in the Hereafter) for something that is absent from our religious texts, you have enrolled yourself in the Takfiri school.

Quote
It is the parts of faith which are obligatory to believe in so one is considered a Muslim or Mu'min, and that disbelief in them necessiates kufr.  If you want I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah.

Before you bring "mutawatir" reports from within a sect that accounts for no more than ten to fifteen percent, please establish the belief through what is agreed upon, that is, the Qur'an. 

Quote
Your re-cap is actually accurate, finally we come to an agreement regarding what is meant by these terms.

I like to cut to the chase.  If the Hereafter is what matters to a Muslim or Mu'min, call it usool al-deen or usool al-madhhab, the end result, according to you, will be the same for majority of Muslims (who do not believe in Imamah).  The least you can do is provide us proof for Imamah, like we can quote tens of unambiguous Qur'anic verses to support our 6 articles of faith.  If you cannot do that, please do not get offended when it is said to you that you subscribe to a Takfiri ideology.

As much as we hate ISIS, may Allah (swt) destroy them and all such groups, they have far more clear-cut Qur'anic verses - when it comes to worship of  none other but Allah (swt) (without intermediaries) - to support their Takfir on you than you have to support yours on them.  When it comes to the fundamentals of Islamic worship, for example, you will be hard-pressed to seal the fate of accursed Takfiris like ISIS, let alone those who follow the religion like it was revealed to the Prophet (saw).
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 09, 2018, 04:02:41 PM
So why is the matter open for discussion among Shias when it is "proven" to them?  Why bother giving it labels such as "usool al-deen" or "usool al-madhhab" when the end result, with Allah (swt), as per the Shia belief is the same (that any denier of Imamah will be a disbeliever and hence, Hell-bound)?

Are we wrong to assume that position when Imamah has no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah? 

Well, someone might disbelieve in Scriptures (other than the Qur'an).  After we furnish proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah, we can pass judgement on him.  Why can't you do the same?  And if you cannot, surely you cannot, then what Wasil said should make sense to you.  And once it makes sense, call Imamah what you may (usool al deen or usool al-madhhab), it is pointless.  However, to condemn Muslims as disbelievers (even in the Hereafter) for something that is absent from our religious texts, you have enrolled yourself in the Takfiri school.

Before you bring "mutawatir" reports from within a sect that accounts for no more than ten to fifteen percent, please establish the belief through what is agreed upon, that is, the Qur'an. 

I like to cut to the chase.  If the Hereafter is what matters to a Muslim or Mu'min, call it usool al-deen or usool al-madhhab, the end result, according to you, will be the same for majority of Muslims (who do not believe in Imamah).  The least you can do is provide us proof for Imamah, like we can quote tens of unambiguous Qur'anic verses to support our 6 articles of faith.  If you cannot do that, please do not get offended when it is said to you that you subscribe to a Takfiri ideology.

As much as we hate ISIS, may Allah (swt) destroy them and all such groups, they have far more clear-cut Qur'anic verses - when it comes to worship of  none other but Allah (swt) (without intermediaries) - to support their Takfir on you than you have to support yours on them.  When it comes to the fundamentals of Islamic worship, for example, you will be hard-pressed to seal the fate of accursed Takfiris like ISIS, let alone those who follow the religion like it was revealed to the Prophet (saw).

I don't understand your first sentence. But the reason these terms exist is to benefit us, so that we Shi'a know how to treat different human beings. Whether we can eat their slaughtered animals, whether we can marry them etc..

Like I said, they are mainly related to Fiqhi differentiation. So they are important to us in that regard. They might not be important for you, but it wasn't created for you.

You can claim Imamah has no basis in Qur'an or Sunnah, we say it does. Therefore, that's the premise from which we derive our laws.

I don't understand your point about scriptures and Wasil? Also, you can call us takfiris, I really don't care. Lol.

I'm not here to argue about whether Imamah is in the Qur'an or not, this is a discussion on the terms which are in the title. I am merely explaining why we Shi'a do this, not arguing whether it is correct or not.

Once again, I am not offended at all when you say I am part of a takfiri ideology. So be it. But the difference between me and Sunni takfiris, is that Sunni takfiris tend to be quite violent against Shi'a.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Asif Hussain on February 09, 2018, 04:44:12 PM
But the difference between me and Sunni takfiris, is that Sunni takfiris tend to be quite violent against Shi'a.
[/quote]

So when the Safavid empire killed the Sunnis in Iran did they tickle them to death rather than violence? And what about the sunni's being killed in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Syria, may I ask how the shias found a way around being violent whilst carrying out these acts.

Please do not play the victim card here
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 09, 2018, 11:03:04 PM
I don't understand your first sentence.

I will be more specific.  If the matter is clear to you (Shias) from the Qur'an and Sunnah, there is no need for a discussion.  Whether it is open to discussion because Shia scholarship wishes to be fair to Muslims or because it saves them face or whatever, it shows insecurity and indecisiveness (on your part).

Quote
But the reason these terms exist is to benefit us, so that we Shi'a know how to treat different human beings. Whether we can eat their slaughtered animals, whether we can marry them etc..

Building on the insecurity and indecisiveness point, you will not find an iota of flaw in our six articles of faith, with the Qur'an and Sunnah replete with unambiguous proof (supporting them).  We are not adding anything to the tenets of faith.  It is borderline pathetic that you add Imamah to the religion and then backtrack for reasons "to benefit" you so that you "know how to treat different human beings".

Qadianis violate our beliefs; benefit or none, convenience or hardship, they are kafir.  No backtracking, no discussions!  What (I think) Wasil meant to say was that while Shias have a case within their own circles, it finds no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah.  For that reason, he withheld himself from making takfir on Sunnis.

Quote
Like I said, they are mainly related to Fiqhi differentiation. So they are important to us in that regard. They might not be important for you, but it wasn't created for you.

Brother, I know it was not created for us but why the hesitation and word-games when it has been "proven" to you through Qur'an and Sunnah?

Quote
You can claim Imamah has no basis in Qur'an or Sunnah, we say it does. Therefore, that's the premise from which we derive our laws.

......and yet you hesitate to call a spade a spade, you hesitate to call a denier of Imamah a kafir, even when it matches your premise of deriving laws.

Quote
I'm not here to argue about whether Imamah is in the Qur'an or not, this is a discussion on the terms which are in the title. I am merely explaining why we Shi'a do this, not arguing whether it is correct or not.

As with other discussions, namely mutah, this is the same quagmire we find ourselves in when it comes to discussing with Shias.  If Imamah is in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and you were the one to say, "......I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah", why the unnecessary word gymnastics?  Or do you set aside the fact that an (alleged) ordinance of Allah (swt) has been violated for your own worldly benefits, so you can eat our meat and marry from among us?  Is that your criteria?  Convenience over Islam?

Quote
Once again, I am not offended at all when you say I am part of a takfiri ideology. So be it. But the difference between me and Sunni takfiris, is that Sunni takfiris tend to be quite violent against Shi'a.

Wow!  Contemporary history 101!  What happened when Saddam was ousted?  Hint: Shia death squads.  As soon as the Shias came in power, they did not roll out beds of roses; they killed Sunnis indiscriminately.  There was a documentary in which a Sunni family was holding pictures of a family gathering, their Shia neighbors posing with them in the same pictures.  The same Shia neighbors, after the fall of Saddam, killed a good a portion of the same Sunni family.  I was not there to verify the story but there are enough grievances on both sides and I thought you could do better than pulling out a victim card so soon.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 10, 2018, 06:20:33 PM
I will be more specific.  If the matter is clear to you (Shias) from the Qur'an and Sunnah, there is no need for a discussion.  Whether it is open to discussion because Shia scholarship wishes to be fair to Muslims or because it saves them face or whatever, it shows insecurity and indecisiveness (on your part).

Building on the insecurity and indecisiveness point, you will not find an iota of flaw in our six articles of faith, with the Qur'an and Sunnah replete with unambiguous proof (supporting them).  We are not adding anything to the tenets of faith.  It is borderline pathetic that you add Imamah to the religion and then backtrack for reasons "to benefit" you so that you "know how to treat different human beings".

Qadianis violate our beliefs; benefit or none, convenience or hardship, they are kafir.  No backtracking, no discussions!  What (I think) Wasil meant to say was that while Shias have a case within their own circles, it finds no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah.  For that reason, he withheld himself from making takfir on Sunnis.

Brother, I know it was not created for us but why the hesitation and word-games when it has been "proven" to you through Qur'an and Sunnah?

......and yet you hesitate to call a spade a spade, you hesitate to call a denier of Imamah a kafir, even when it matches your premise of deriving laws.

As with other discussions, namely mutah, this is the same quagmire we find ourselves in when it comes to discussing with Shias.  If Imamah is in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and you were the one to say, "......I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah", why the unnecessary word gymnastics?  Or do you set aside the fact that an (alleged) ordinance of Allah (swt) has been violated for your own worldly benefits, so you can eat our meat and marry from among us?  Is that your criteria?  Convenience over Islam?

Wow!  Contemporary history 101!  What happened when Saddam was ousted?  Hint: Shia death squads.  As soon as the Shias came in power, they did not roll out beds of roses; they killed Sunnis indiscriminately.  There was a documentary in which a Sunni family was holding pictures of a family gathering, their Shia neighbors posing with them in the same pictures.  The same Shia neighbors, after the fall of Saddam, killed a good a portion of the same Sunni family.  I was not there to verify the story but there are enough grievances on both sides and I thought you could do better than pulling out a victim card so soon.

All of this stems from the fact that some Shi'a Fuqaha decided to differentiate between batini kufr and dhahiri kufr. They said dhahiri Islam is attained by simply saying the shahadatayn. But they said true Islam which one will be asked for in the akhira requires belief in all of the usool, not some. It isn't really difficult or insecure bro.

Furthermore, are you sure Sunnis don't do takfir on "ambiguous" things, as you say? Can you tell me why Ibn Hanbal does takfir of his own fellow Sunnis who say the Qur'an is created? That's a pretty big deal to me.

I don't know what wordplay is this. If you want me to be clear: the denier of the Imamah is a kafir. The only difference between you and outward kafirs is I treat you as a Muslim.

Can you bring me one Shi'a scholar who allowed the killings of Sunnis in contemporary times? What idiots in Iraq did has no religious backing at all.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Hadrami on February 10, 2018, 10:23:31 PM
Can you bring me one Shi'a scholar who allowed the killings of Sunnis in contemporary times?

ah the professional ahmak inserting the word "contemporary times", because he knows full well how extreme & violent his scum religion is throughout history once they came into power. Its not a coincidence that shia death squads came about once tyreheads got more power.

What idiots in Iraq did has no religious backing at all.
Saddam was a violent dictator, but iraq used to be known as clever & advanced arab country. Just few years under tyreheads rule, it became the center of chest slapping takfiri zombies who have successfully ruin that once most advanced & clever arab country. Again those idiots of death squads which massacred sunni in iraq came to existence after tyreheads power increased. The bin saba inspired religion followers and jews are expert in playing victim card.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 10, 2018, 11:39:11 PM
All of this stems from the fact that some Shi'a Fuqaha decided to differentiate between batini kufr and dhahiri kufr.

With no proof from the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah, is it any wonder they had to resort to this?  And setting hypocrites aside - because, unlike me who openly declares his disbelief in Imamah, the hypocrites do not openly declare their kufr - can you show me the proof for "batini" and "dhahiri" kufr?

Quote
They said dhahiri Islam is attained by simply saying the shahadatayn. But they said true Islam which one will be asked for in the akhira requires belief in all of the usool, not some. It isn't really difficult or insecure bro.

"They said" is insignificant because neither the Qur'an says what they say nor does it recognize Imamah. 

Quote
Furthermore, are you sure Sunnis don't do takfir on "ambiguous" things, as you say? Can you tell me why Ibn Hanbal does takfir of his own fellow Sunnis who say the Qur'an is created? That's a pretty big deal to me.

Assuming you are not misrepresenting the position of Ibn Hanbal (rah) or lying upon him, he made clear takfir.  He did not play word-games or give hypocritical and diametrically opposed ruling like, "those who believe that the Qur'an is created are Muslims in this world but not in the Hereafter".  That attitude is what does not sit well with me.  You can make takfir on us but when you do so, stand by it.  You cannot even call a spade a spade.

On a side note, I know the Ashari aqeedah states that the Qur'an is the Uncreated Speech of Allah (swt) and it was (if I am not mistaken) to counter the Mu'tazilite claim.  I hope you have not confused Mu'tazilites with Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah.

Quote
I don't know what wordplay is this. If you want me to be clear: the denier of the Imamah is a kafir. The only difference between you and outward kafirs is I treat you as a Muslim.

This is preposterous!  I am a denier of Imamah so I'm a kafir (as per your own standards) but then you treat me as a Muslim.  Why, then, do you have standards?

Reminds me of a discussion on ShiaChat in which brothers were mocking the narration in our books which say that a rock, upon which rested the clothes of Musa (asws), started running from him to the point that Children of Israel saw him naked and noticed that Musa (asws) had no deformities (I am sure you know the story).  Nader Zaveri, same Nader as the one with the blog, shared the very same narration from Shia books and said that while he rejected the hadith, it was authentic as per 90 - 95% of Shia standards.  He was putting his own intellect above, and ahead of, agreed-upon Shia standards.  Well then why do you even bother yourselves with standards you choose not to follow in the first place?

Quote
Can you bring me one Shi'a scholar who allowed the killings of Sunnis in contemporary times? What idiots in Iraq did has no religious backing at all.

Shia death squads, to my knowledge, killed indiscriminately without any such scholarly ruling or backing.  Imagine what would have happened if a scholar had given such a fatwa!  In the case of ISIS, may Allah (swt) destroy them, we had nutjobs finding one another; ISIS finding a "scholar" and redeeming their crimes through the nutjob scholar's fatwa (for argument's sake if we agree that certain scholars backed them).  In the case of Shia death squads, they killed so many Sunnis without any fatwa, meaning, they did not even await a religious justification to kill Sunnis; it was like no-brainer, killing Sunnis, no problem.  If you could reflect on that for a moment, you will understand how unnerving that is!
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 11, 2018, 07:50:53 AM
This is indeed very strange. You are asking me to present proof for a Fiqhi issue which is debated between Shi'a jurists themselves. What proof do you want me to give you? If I give you Shi'i hadith you will reject it because it isn't hujjah for you.

It's like me asking for proof about any Fiqhi issue which is disputed upon between Malikis and Hanbalis for example, and then you give me hadith proof as to why Hanbalis are more correct, and then I reject it and say Sunni hadith is rejected.

I don't know why you keep focusing on a simple Fiqh issue which is just like any other Fiqh issue. Lol.

Lol, is it really us who are into word games, or you lot who would go as far as to defend people who started wars and rebelled on the "legitimate Caliph' by saying they did "ijtihaad and erred" - radh, radh, radh. Lol.

A killer and a rebel (Abu'l Ghadiyah) killed Ammar (rah), but both of them are "radh"  :)

Why can't you call a killer a killer? Why resort to these games? Strange religion.

Who said that narration was authentic according to Shi'i standards? It was authentic according to rijali standards, but its matn was shaky. And to our standards, if its matn contradicts the Qur'an, it doesn't matter even if its chain is golden. This is a weak example I'm afraid.

Shi'a death squads are like Shi'as who drink alcohol or Shi'as who are thieves. That does not mean their religion promotes these things. Just as I don't hold you accountable for the crimes Sunnis committed, you shouldn't hold me accountable for what an idiot in Iraq did.

@Hadrami, the most retarded countries are Sunni countries. Look at Afghanistan, Somalia and others. Sunnis who declare other Sunnis as kafirs killing each other. Masha Allah. I will agree their infighting does prove they are following the sahaba  ;)
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 11, 2018, 11:30:38 AM
This is indeed very strange. You are asking me to present proof for a Fiqhi issue which is debated between Shi'a jurists themselves.

Disbelief in Imamah making Muslims kafir is a matter of fiqh or aqeedah?

Quote
It's like me asking for proof about any Fiqhi issue which is disputed upon between Malikis and Hanbalis for example, and then you give me hadith proof as to why Hanbalis are more correct, and then I reject it and say Sunni hadith is rejected.

When it comes to our core beliefs, the four schools of fiqh are united by the six articles of faith.  False equivalence!

Quote
I don't know why you keep focusing on a simple Fiqh issue which is just like any other Fiqh issue. Lol.

Simple "fiqh" issue?  It enables you to make takfir on a billion-plus Muslims and it is a "simple 'fiqh' issue"?

Quote
Lol, is it really us who are into word games, or you lot who would go as far as to defend people who started wars and rebelled on the "legitimate Caliph' by saying they did "ijtihaad and erred" - radh, radh, radh. Lol.

A killer and a rebel (Abu'l Ghadiyah) killed Ammar (rah), but both of them are "radh"  :)

Do you have any proof that we praise the killer of Ammar (ra)?  As for praising those who "started wars" with the legitimate Caliphs (ra), your own Imams (ra) praised him and the Prophet (saw) prophesied of "two Muslim groups" fighting each other.  Specifically speaking, there were renegades in those groups but generally speaking, they were two groups of Muslims.  Of course their aqeedah will not make sense to you because you are not sure about your own aqeedah while living a life in which, as admitted by your own self, convenience precedes religion.

Quote
Why can't you call a killer a killer? Why resort to these games? Strange religion.

It is criminal for you to speak about killers and rebels.  Shall I remind you that we did NOT erect a shrine for the killer (a non-Muslim at that) of the second Caliph?

Quote
Who said that narration was authentic according to Shi'i standards? It was authentic according to rijali standards, but its matn was shaky. And to our standards, if its matn contradicts the Qur'an, it doesn't matter even if its chain is golden. This is a weak example I'm afraid.

And how does it contradict the Qur'an?

Quote
Shi'a death squads are like Shi'as who drink alcohol or Shi'as who are thieves. That does not mean their religion promotes these things. Just as I don't hold you accountable for the crimes Sunnis committed, you shouldn't hold me accountable for what an idiot in Iraq did.

I am not holding you accountable but it is good to get a taste of your own medicine.  Shias, even famous ones, like Nakshawani, are quick to call Sunnis out for the crimes committed by those we do not associate ourselves with.  However, at the mere mention of Shia death squads, the whole thing turns into, "but you cannot blame our entire population for the short-comings and crimes of a few Shias".  I say fine, practice what you preach and stand by your standards; otherwise, you'll be judged by the same standards.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 12, 2018, 01:28:51 PM
Disbelief in Imamah making Muslims kafir is a matter of fiqh or aqeedah?

When it comes to our core beliefs, the four schools of fiqh are united by the six articles of faith.  False equivalence!

Simple "fiqh" issue?  It enables you to make takfir on a billion-plus Muslims and it is a "simple 'fiqh' issue"?

Do you have any proof that we praise the killer of Ammar (ra)?  As for praising those who "started wars" with the legitimate Caliphs (ra), your own Imams (ra) praised him and the Prophet (saw) prophesied of "two Muslim groups" fighting each other.  Specifically speaking, there were renegades in those groups but generally speaking, they were two groups of Muslims.  Of course their aqeedah will not make sense to you because you are not sure about your own aqeedah while living a life in which, as admitted by your own self, convenience precedes religion.

It is criminal for you to speak about killers and rebels.  Shall I remind you that we did NOT erect a shrine for the killer (a non-Muslim at that) of the second Caliph?

And how does it contradict the Qur'an?

I am not holding you accountable but it is good to get a taste of your own medicine.  Shias, even famous ones, like Nakshawani, are quick to call Sunnis out for the crimes committed by those we do not associate ourselves with.  However, at the mere mention of Shia death squads, the whole thing turns into, "but you cannot blame our entire population for the short-comings and crimes of a few Shias".  I say fine, practice what you preach and stand by your standards; otherwise, you'll be judged by the same standards.

No, the Fiqh issue which is debated is whether Sunnis are treated as Muslims ot kafirs. A group of our jurists ruled that Sunnis are najis, for example. But there is ijma on kufr of Sunnis.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about whether there is a difference of opinion on the kufr of Sunnis, but a difference of opinion on how they are treated. That is the "simple Fiqh issue". And I don't know why it's a big issue for you if it means takfir, lol, Sunni scholars declare us innovators and some go as far as declare us kafirs, and we're in Jahannam regardless.

Of course I have proof you guys praise the killer of Ammar ibn Yassir (ra). Ibn Hazm said he made a mistake and did ijtihaad and sent taradhi on him.

For more quotes on him by Sunni scholars, either in praise or doing aplogetics; http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=134800

I'm not telling you to call those who fought Imam Ali (as) kafirs, but you should call them rebels and renegades. But you can't do that, because of "ijtihada fa akhta". Lol.

Also, my Imams (as) praised them? Please present proof for that. As I already know what to say to that, as it is a Sunni talking point that has even been refuted by intelligent Sunnis.

Sorry did I only say if it contradicts the Holy Qur'an? If it contradicts aql or general principles of the madhab, then it can be set aside. These general principles have much stronger backing than a solitary report. It's not just about having thiqa narrators. What brother Nader meant by standards is rijali standards, but a narration still has to pass other tests to be accepted, and all Shi'a scholars are in agreement to this.

Unfortunately for you, it is false equivalence to equate death squads with terrorism in the Sunni world. Atleast 67 million Sunnis are sympathetic to ISIS according to a Pew Research Poll. And that's just ISIS.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 12, 2018, 11:05:19 PM
No, the Fiqh issue which is debated is whether Sunnis are treated as Muslims ot kafirs. A group of our jurists ruled that Sunnis are najis, for example. But there is ijma on kufr of Sunnis.

Good to know!

Quote
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about whether there is a difference of opinion on the kufr of Sunnis, but a difference of opinion on how they are treated. That is the "simple Fiqh issue".

The big issue, which you keep missing, is this, not that you make takfir on us.  If we are kafir, why is our treatment up for debate?  The Qur'an and Sunnah clearly outlines how to deal with non-Muslims, from the People of the Book down to the last disbeliever.  You are forced to make a special case for us because your own belief is absent from the sources you claim to use to "prove" our kufr, lol.

Quote
And I don't know why it's a big issue for you if it means takfir, lol, Sunni scholars declare us innovators and some go as far as declare us kafirs, and we're in Jahannam regardless.

....and there is no debate on it.  If you are a Shia without extremist beliefs, you're a Muslim.  If you're a Shia who, for example, believes in tahreef, etc, then you are NOT a Muslim; by the way, a "Sunni" who believes in tahreef is also kafir (just to set the record straight).  No discussions on our end; straight to the verdict.

Quote
Of course I have proof you guys praise the killer of Ammar ibn Yassir (ra). Ibn Hazm said he made a mistake and did ijtihaad and sent taradhi on him.

Before we get to Ibn Hazm (rah), a fourth century Andalusian scholar, allow me to highlight the Shia misrepresentation of facts.  Since the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah follows the Qur'an and offers unambiguous proof for their beliefs, Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) said, "We testify that Ammar is in heaven, and his killer, if he is from the people of radhwan(those that gave the pledge under the tree), is in heaven."  Why did Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) say this?  Because the Qur'an guarantees these men the Pleasure of Allah (swt) and therefore, Jannah.  Unlike you, my brother, we do not put our own logic, desires and convenience ahead of Islam.  Now, the RTS Team lied upon Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) by claiming that he (Ibn Taymiyyah) said, "We swear heaven for Ammar and as for his killers they believe that heaven is for him also".

RTS also quotes Ibn Atheer (rah) and Al-Thahabi (rah) in an attempt to prove that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance under the tree.  However, all they did was quote that Abu Al-Ghadiya gave a pledge to the Prophet (saw) which does not prove that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged under the tree and was from among those for whom verse 18 of Surah Fat'h was revealed.  Many pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) during his prophethood but there is no proof that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) under the tree.

The narration that suggests that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) makes it clear that his pledge came on the day of `Aqabah so it is possible that Ibn Hazm (rah) mistakenly took it as the pledge that was given under the tree.  Read more: http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/08/24/response-to-is-allah-swt-pleased-with-the-companions/

Quote
I'm not telling you to call those who fought Imam Ali (as) kafirs, but you should call them rebels and renegades. But you can't do that, because of "ijtihada fa akhta". Lol.

You think you are slick but I already blocked your escape route.  We say that Muawiyah was wrong, one hundred percent, in being hasty in the matter of qisas of Uthman (ra).  However, as admitted by you, and here is where your escape route was blocked, if Muawiyah truly sought qisas and fought Imam Ali (ra) for that reason only (and not out of personal hatred towards Imam Ali (ra) as Shias claim), then he was not najis for fighting against Imam Ali (ra).  Unless you claim that you know what is in the hearts and minds of men!  However, the Prophet (saw) clearly referred to the killers of Ammar (ra) as rebels or transgressors and that is what we believe.

Quote
Also, my Imams (as) praised them? Please present proof for that. As I already know what to say to that, as it is a Sunni talking point that has even been refuted by intelligent Sunnis.

I said "him", not "them".  Since you place the crime of the murder of Ammar (ra) on Muawiyah, did your Imams (ra) not make peace with Muawiyah?  Did one not give his "Divinely Ordained" leadership to Muawiyah and trusted him with the affairs of the entire ummah?  Were they not receiving stipend, as was their right, from Muawiyah?  Did Imam Ali (ra) not refer to his party as Muslims and that they only differed on the matter of qisas?

Your entire paradigm is based on denial, my brother, and you accuse us of it, lol.

Quote
Sorry did I only say if it contradicts the Holy Qur'an? If it contradicts aql or general principles of the madhab, then it can be set aside.

So now we know that you place not just convenience but also aql ahead of the Prophet (saw), and thereby Islam.  What does aql say?  That it was a prostitute who was paid by Qarun to make up an allegation against Musa (asws)?  And when Musa (asws) confronted the prostitute (and asked her to take an oath), she - without any overpowering evidence, action or speech against her from Musa (asws) - retracted her statement, as it says in Hayatul Quloob.  That sounds very believable!  Why did the prostitute accept the deal and then break so easily?  And bear in mind this is the same Children of Israel who saw Jesus (asws) giving life to the dead and still reject him.  Nothing short of seeing Musa (asws) naked would have put their accusations to rest.  And that is what Allah (swt) arranged for without compromising Musa's (asws) modesty.

Quote
Unfortunately for you, it is false equivalence to equate death squads with terrorism in the Sunni world. Atleast 67 million Sunnis are sympathetic to ISIS according to a Pew Research Poll. And that's just ISIS.

You are right, it is false equivalence because, as I said, ISIS claimed to have a "fatwa" whereas Shia death squads killed Sunnis as though it is a given thing to do in their paradigm which needs no "fatwa".  ISIS is a group of mercenaries who kill for the one with the highest bid; Shia death squads killed their own neighbors, the same neighbors whose houses they visited, whose food they ate. 

As for your Pew Research, assuming 15% of the 1.7 billion Muslims are Shias, we are left with one billion four hundred forty-five million Sunnis.  Therefore, 67 million/1.45 billion (approx) x 100 = 4.62%.  So, to put things in perspective, 4.62 percent of the Sunni world supports ISIS, if what you shared is true.  However, you did not provide a reference so I had to look it up.

Pew Research published an article with the title, "In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS".  It exposes your lie significantly.  Read it here:  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 13, 2018, 02:51:39 AM
Good to know!

The big issue, which you keep missing, is this, not that you make takfir on us.  If we are kafir, why is our treatment up for debate?  The Qur'an and Sunnah clearly outlines how to deal with non-Muslims, from the People of the Book down to the last disbeliever.  You are forced to make a special case for us because your own belief is absent from the sources you claim to use to "prove" our kufr, lol.

....and there is no debate on it.  If you are a Shia without extremist beliefs, you're a Muslim.  If you're a Shia who, for example, believes in tahreef, etc, then you are NOT a Muslim; by the way, a "Sunni" who believes in tahreef is also kafir (just to set the record straight).  No discussions on our end; straight to the verdict.

Before we get to Ibn Hazm (rah), a fourth century Andalusian scholar, allow me to highlight the Shia misrepresentation of facts.  Since the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah follows the Qur'an and offers unambiguous proof for their beliefs, Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) said, "We testify that Ammar is in heaven, and his killer, if he is from the people of radhwan(those that gave the pledge under the tree), is in heaven."  Why did Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) say this?  Because the Qur'an guarantees these men the Pleasure of Allah (swt) and therefore, Jannah.  Unlike you, my brother, we do not put our own logic, desires and convenience ahead of Islam.  Now, the RTS Team lied upon Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) by claiming that he (Ibn Taymiyyah) said, "We swear heaven for Ammar and as for his killers they believe that heaven is for him also".

RTS also quotes Ibn Atheer (rah) and Al-Thahabi (rah) in an attempt to prove that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance under the tree.  However, all they did was quote that Abu Al-Ghadiya gave a pledge to the Prophet (saw) which does not prove that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged under the tree and was from among those for whom verse 18 of Surah Fat'h was revealed.  Many pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) during his prophethood but there is no proof that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) under the tree.

The narration that suggests that Abu Al-Ghadiya pledged allegiance to the Prophet (saw) makes it clear that his pledge came on the day of `Aqabah so it is possible that Ibn Hazm (rah) mistakenly took it as the pledge that was given under the tree.  Read more: http://www.twelvershia.net/2013/08/24/response-to-is-allah-swt-pleased-with-the-companions/

You think you are slick but I already blocked your escape route.  We say that Muawiyah was wrong, one hundred percent, in being hasty in the matter of qisas of Uthman (ra).  However, as admitted by you, and here is where your escape route was blocked, if Muawiyah truly sought qisas and fought Imam Ali (ra) for that reason only (and not out of personal hatred towards Imam Ali (ra) as Shias claim), then he was not najis for fighting against Imam Ali (ra).  Unless you claim that you know what is in the hearts and minds of men!  However, the Prophet (saw) clearly referred to the killers of Ammar (ra) as rebels or transgressors and that is what we believe.

I said "him", not "them".  Since you place the crime of the murder of Ammar (ra) on Muawiyah, did your Imams (ra) not make peace with Muawiyah?  Did one not give his "Divinely Ordained" leadership to Muawiyah and trusted him with the affairs of the entire ummah?  Were they not receiving stipend, as was their right, from Muawiyah?  Did Imam Ali (ra) not refer to his party as Muslims and that they only differed on the matter of qisas?

Your entire paradigm is based on denial, my brother, and you accuse us of it, lol.

So now we know that you place not just convenience but also aql ahead of the Prophet (saw), and thereby Islam.  What does aql say?  That it was a prostitute who was paid by Qarun to make up an allegation against Musa (asws)?  And when Musa (asws) confronted the prostitute (and asked her to take an oath), she - without any overpowering evidence, action or speech against her from Musa (asws) - retracted her statement, as it says in Hayatul Quloob.  That sounds very believable!  Why did the prostitute accept the deal and then break so easily?  And bear in mind this is the same Children of Israel who saw Jesus (asws) giving life to the dead and still reject him.  Nothing short of seeing Musa (asws) naked would have put their accusations to rest.  And that is what Allah (swt) arranged for without compromising Musa's (asws) modesty.

You are right, it is false equivalence because, as I said, ISIS claimed to have a "fatwa" whereas Shia death squads killed Sunnis as though it is a given thing to do in their paradigm which needs no "fatwa".  ISIS is a group of mercenaries who kill for the one with the highest bid; Shia death squads killed their own neighbors, the same neighbors whose houses they visited, whose food they ate. 

As for your Pew Research, assuming 15% of the 1.7 billion Muslims are Shias, we are left with one billion four hundred forty-five million Sunnis.  Therefore, 67 million/1.45 billion (approx) x 100 = 4.62%.  So, to put things in perspective, 4.62 percent of the Sunni world supports ISIS, if what you shared is true.  However, you did not provide a reference so I had to look it up.

Pew Research published an article with the title, "In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS".  It exposes your lie significantly.  Read it here:  http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

Because the Holy Qur'an tells us how to deal with people who are outwardly kafir. As for the Sunnah, that is where Shi'a scholars have differed. The Sunnah (which includes that of the 12 Imams in out view) is where Shi'i jurists would debate on how the Imams (as) treated Sunnis.

Actually there is a debate on whether Shi'a are kafir or what constitutes as kufr according to Sunnis. Not only on here we see Sunni members discuss amongst themselved whether takfir is warranted, but amongst your scholarship too.

There are some who said our scholars are kafir but the laymen or jahils are Muslim. There are some who argue they're both Muslim. There are those who argue we're all kafir from the get-go, such as Fawzan Al-Fawzan.

The idiots who run this website and wrote that article need to read up on what was the pledge of ridhwaan on.

The pledge of ridhwaan according to Sahih Muslim was a pledge on not to run away in battle.

Furthermore, Al-Albani refuted those who defended Abu'l Ghadiyah and resorted to wordplay, and authenticated the hadith which says the killer of Ammar (ra) is in Hellfire.

On Mu'awiyah, I do not care how noble his intentions are, a rebel is a rebel. And rebels are condemned in Islam. Yet Sunnis claim he is a good person, and resort to wordplay to try to prove this. Also, let's not resort to words like "slick". I have respected you in this discussion, it would be best if you respect me.

Imam Hasan (as) made peace because he was forced to, after he saw that his position on the ground was weak. His companions were betraying him or refusing to fight.

Aql is very important to us and confirmed by our Imams (as) as a source of validation. Therefore, we don't place it ahead of Islam, but rather say it is part of Islam.

I believe the actual issue of Musa (as) being accused of zina hasn't been proven yet.

Also, how did you conclude by saying I lied when I said the truth? You yourself just made the calculation and I don't see where I lied. I didn't say most Sunnis support ISIS, I said 67 million at least which is way too much to say the least.

Sectarian gangs in Iraq do not have anywhere near as much support in our circles. And they also don't have fatwas to resort to, unlike Sunni extremists who have their own Shaykhs.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 14, 2018, 09:31:30 AM
Because the Holy Qur'an tells us how to deal with people who are outwardly kafir. As for the Sunnah, that is where Shi'a scholars have differed. The Sunnah (which includes that of the 12 Imams in out view) is where Shi'i jurists would debate on how the Imams (as) treated Sunnis.

Irrespective of what you take as "sunnah", I would like to remind you that the Sunnah to follow is that of the Prophet (saw).

Quote
Actually there is a debate on whether Shi'a are kafir or what constitutes as kufr according to Sunnis. Not only on here we see Sunni members discuss amongst themselved whether takfir is warranted, but amongst your scholarship too.

...by placing Shias in various categories, as I mentioned earlier.

Quote
There are some who said our scholars are kafir but the laymen or jahils are Muslim. There are some who argue they're both Muslim. There are those who argue we're all kafir from the get-go, such as Fawzan Al-Fawzan.

Surely Fawzan Al-Fawzan is our "Shaykh al-Ta'ifa".

Quote
The idiots who run this website and wrote that article need to read up on what was the pledge of ridhwaan on.

Actually, the idiots that lied to you regarding Ibn Hazm (rah) should study more carefully before allowing their mouths to issue checks their behinds can't cash.

Quote
The pledge of ridhwaan according to Sahih Muslim was a pledge on not to run away in battle.

And your point is?

Quote
Furthermore, Al-Albani refuted those who defended Abu'l Ghadiyah and resorted to wordplay, and authenticated the hadith which says the killer of Ammar (ra) is in Hellfire.

Those?

Quote
On Mu'awiyah, I do not care how noble his intentions are, a rebel is a rebel. And rebels are condemned in Islam. Yet Sunnis claim he is a good person, and resort to wordplay to try to prove this. Also, let's not resort to words like "slick". I have respected you in this discussion, it would be best if you respect me.

We say exactly what the Prophet (saw) said about him.  No more, no less.  As a casual boxer, I find the term "slick" not as offensive as you.  A "slick" boxer is a compliment, actually.

Quote
Imam Hasan (as) made peace because he was forced to, after he saw that his position on the ground was weak. His companions were betraying him or refusing to fight.

...while his brother (ra) fought with 72 men.  Surely, Imam Hassan (ra) must have had more than 72 companions.  And which brother was right?  The one that made peace or the one that fought?  If you divorce authentic Sunnah from history, you will never find reconciliation in almost anything you follow.

Quote
Aql is very important to us and confirmed by our Imams (as) as a source of validation. Therefore, we don't place it ahead of Islam, but rather say it is part of Islam.

I believe the actual issue of Musa (as) being accused of zina hasn't been proven yet.

Well, if I am not mistaken, your Imam (ra) validates the story which is why it is taken as the explanation for the Qur'anic verse (in regards to this matter).

Quote
Also, how did you conclude by saying I lied when I said the truth? You yourself just made the calculation and I don't see where I lied. I didn't say most Sunnis support ISIS, I said 67 million at least which is way too much to say the least.

You lied because you pulled numbers out of thin air without a valid reference.  I only made calculations to show you that even if accepted at face value, your numbers mean very little.

Quote
Sectarian gangs in Iraq do not have anywhere near as much support in our circles. And they also don't have fatwas to resort to, unlike Sunni extremists who have their own Shaykhs.

If you can claim to have "sectarian gangs" without support, why can't we have rogue Shaykhs that do not have our support?  As I said before and this will be the third time, to wait for a fatwa (even from a nutjob "shaykh") is one thing; to kill your own neighbors without a fatwa is another.  In time, I hope you grasp the seriousness of what I have put in front of you.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 14, 2018, 03:21:04 PM
Irrespective of what you take as "sunnah", I would like to remind you that the Sunnah to follow is that of the Prophet (saw).

...by placing Shias in various categories, as I mentioned earlier.

Surely Fawzan Al-Fawzan is our "Shaykh al-Ta'ifa".

Actually, the idiots that lied to you regarding Ibn Hazm (rah) should study more carefully before allowing their mouths to issue checks their behinds can't cash.

And your point is?

Those?

We say exactly what the Prophet (saw) said about him.  No more, no less.  As a casual boxer, I find the term "slick" not as offensive as you.  A "slick" boxer is a compliment, actually.

...while his brother (ra) fought with 72 men.  Surely, Imam Hassan (ra) must have had more than 72 companions.  And which brother was right?  The one that made peace or the one that fought?  If you divorce authentic Sunnah from history, you will never find reconciliation in almost anything you follow.

Well, if I am not mistaken, your Imam (ra) validates the story which is why it is taken as the explanation for the Qur'anic verse (in regards to this matter).

You lied because you pulled numbers out of thin air without a valid reference.  I only made calculations to show you that even if accepted at face value, your numbers mean very little.

If you can claim to have "sectarian gangs" without support, why can't we have rogue Shaykhs that do not have our support?  As I said before and this will be the third time, to wait for a fatwa (even from a nutjob "shaykh") is one thing; to kill your own neighbors without a fatwa is another.  In time, I hope you grasp the seriousness of what I have put in front of you.

We believe the Sunnah is to follow the Prophet (saww) who we believe told us to hold onto his Ahlulbayt (as) as a source of guidance.

We place Sunnis in one category, we differ amongst ourselves on how to deal with them.

Fawzan is not your Shaykh Al-Ta'ifa. I'm just saying Sunnis differed in whether we are innovators, or kafirs, or whether our aalims are kafir but our jahils are not.

The idiots who didn't lie about Ibn Hazm were Sunnis. If you want I can link the website from which I got my info from.

My point is the pledge doesn't make them immune from criticism or exposing their sins.

Yes, Al-Albani replied to his fellow Sunni scholars who defend Abu'l Ghadiyah. Such as Ibn Hazm.

Please don't call me slick. It is best we stay on the discussion and refer to eachother without personal descriptions.

Yazid (la) and his father aren't the same. Yazid was a bigger danger to Islam. Do you disagree with this? And why do you believe Al-Husayn (as) rose up? And was he wrong to rise up?

I'm glad you said I lied. Now it is time to defend myself;

If I remember, I said at least 67 million Sunnis support ISIS, now lets use the Pew Research poll to find out if I'm wrong. Hopefully my maths is correct.

9% of Pakistan are sympathetic ISIS, that is equivalent to 17.3 million supporters of ISIS in Pakistan. Strong start, but put your seatbelt on, the ride has only just started.

14% of Nigeria are sympathetic to ISIS, that is equivalent to.. 26 million? Yes, no? Dang, it looks like we're more than halfway through and it already has exceeded half of my given number. Still a liar? Or changed your opinion? No? Let's continue!

Indonesia, the number is at 4%, and that's the equivalent of 10.4 million people.

Dang.. so far we have 53.7 million supporters. There's a few countries left on that list you know, if you want I can continue the maths lesson but you should decide if I should. Still a liar? We'll see.

Difference between us and you guys, we don't have "rogue" Shaykhs. We have idiots with weapons. And I'm not saying ISIS is true Sunnism, of course it isn't. I'm saying, which a Shi'i "takfiri" isn't the same as the Sunni takfiri.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 15, 2018, 12:10:39 AM
We believe the Sunnah is to follow the Prophet (saww) who we believe told us to hold onto his Ahlulbayt (as) as a source of guidance.

Yes, hold onto Ahlul Bayt (ra) for guidance; take this brother but not that one, this son over that one.  Absolutely!

Quote
We place Sunnis in one category, we differ amongst ourselves on how to deal with them.

Idiots!  Sorry to say that but I call a spade a spade.  If only you could acknowledge the basis upon which you categorize us (as kafirs) is non-existent would have made your misery a lot lesser, lol.

Quote
My point is the pledge doesn't make them immune from criticism or exposing their sins.

Who said the pledge made them infallible?  We do not dissect a verse and label a sub-verse as "Ayat Tatheer" and then rest our entire (albeit shaky) foundation on it.  The pledge guarantees them the pleasure of Allah (swt) and by its extension, Jannah.

Quote
Yes, Al-Albani replied to his fellow Sunni scholars who defend Abu'l Ghadiyah. Such as Ibn Hazm.

Thus far, you have Al-Albani (another "Shaykh al-Ta'ifa"), Fawzan al-Fawzan and Ibn Hazm (if we set aside his error in judgment).  One great list; if they narrated something, it would have been the "golden chain", at least per Shia standards of scrutinizing our reports.

Quote
Please don't call me slick. It is best we stay on the discussion and refer to eachother without personal descriptions.

You call us kafirs and do not like for me to call you "slick" when I explained to you that it does not carry the sort of negative connotation in my mind that we associate with the word?  Do you prefer Kleenex or do you prefer another brand?

Quote
Yazid (la) and his father aren't the same. Yazid was a bigger danger to Islam. Do you disagree with this? And why do you believe Al-Husayn (as) rose up? And was he wrong to rise up?

The entire sect is clear upon the fact that both Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) are the Leaders of the Youth of Paradise.  The Prophet (saw) prophesied that one will make peace and the other one will be martyred, therefore, we easily reconcile between one giving up the Caliphate and the other fighting against Yazid (la).  Now you might understand why I said, "If you divorce authentic Sunnah from history, you will never find reconciliation in almost anything you follow".

Going back to Yazid (la), there was a topic initiated on this forum challenging Shias to prove what sorts of crimes (namely, modifications of deen) did Yazid (la) indulge in.  I suggest you prove that to us.  I am not here to defend Yazid (la); I am here to strike a balance so that truth is upheld and falsehood/exaggerations are ousted.

Quote
I'm glad you said I lied. Now it is time to defend myself;

You aren't slick so let's see how well you slip them.  Please bear in mind that I brought up the Pew Research and numbers; you just made a claim.  Do not let this get too far from your sight.

Quote
If I remember, I said at least 67 million Sunnis support ISIS, now lets use the Pew Research poll to find out if I'm wrong. Hopefully my maths is correct.

Yes, use the Pew Research poll I shared; you're welcome!

Quote
9% of Pakistan are sympathetic ISIS, that is equivalent to 17.3 million supporters of ISIS in Pakistan. Strong start, but put your seatbelt on, the ride has only just started.

Seat belt?  Umm sure, Dale Earnhardt Jr.?

Quote
14% of Nigeria are sympathetic to ISIS, that is equivalent to.. 26 million? Yes, no? Dang, it looks like we're more than halfway through and it already has exceeded half of my given number. Still a liar? Or changed your opinion? No? Let's continue!

Oh no, I'm cornered!

Quote
Indonesia, the number is at 4%, and that's the equivalent of 10.4 million people.

Very good!  You know how to go after the nations with the largest Muslim populations.  However, your wait is almost over; its coming.

Quote
Dang.. so far we have 53.7 million supporters. There's a few countries left on that list you know, if you want I can continue the maths lesson but you should decide if I should. Still a liar? We'll see.

You are short by a little over 13 million and you still think you've a point.  Maybe Holocaust exaggerators should consult you.  However, you may have shown some promise in math but have failed elsewhere.  Please read how these studies are conducted.  You will see that in no case have they surveyed more than a 1000 - 1200 individuals; so the percentage (for each country) is an extrapolation of a sample population of about 1000 individuals.

In the case of Pakistan, for example, 1200 individuals were surveyed.  1200 (the entire sample size) out of 193.2 million comes to a healthy 0.00062111801%. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/international-survey-research/international-methodology/global-attitudes-survey/pakistan/2015

Quote
Difference between us and you guys, we don't have "rogue" Shaykhs. We have idiots with weapons. And I'm not saying ISIS is true Sunnism, of course it isn't. I'm saying, which a Shi'i "takfiri" isn't the same as the Sunni takfiri.

So have your shaykhs, too, have attained infallibility?  If an idiot can have a weapon, he may also have some background in religious studies to make himself out to be a "shaykh".  And we will agree that Sunni takfir isn't the same as Shia takfir; we (our legitimate scholars) base it upon Qur'an and Sunnah, yours is a result of your own projections on the Qur'an and Sunnah.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Abu Muhammad on February 15, 2018, 03:31:20 AM
@Zlatan

Thanks for your posts. It becomes clearer and clearer by each day.

From now on, whenever a Twelver comes to me and says, "We Twelvers take our Sunni brothers as Muslims", I'll take that as "We Twelvers take our Sunni brothers as Kuffar whom we treat as Muslims".

It just strengthens my understanding of what Twelvers believe towards Sunnis from the very beginning I know Twelverism and will hold onto that. Thank you again.

Any "unity-inclined" Twelvers in this forum have got anything to say? @Ibrahim, anything you'd like to say?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 15, 2018, 09:33:38 AM
Yes, hold onto Ahlul Bayt (ra) for guidance; take this brother but not that one, this son over that one.  Absolutely!

Idiots!  Sorry to say that but I call a spade a spade.  If only you could acknowledge the basis upon which you categorize us (as kafirs) is non-existent would have made your misery a lot lesser, lol.

Who said the pledge made them infallible?  We do not dissect a verse and label a sub-verse as "Ayat Tatheer" and then rest our entire (albeit shaky) foundation on it.  The pledge guarantees them the pleasure of Allah (swt) and by its extension, Jannah.

Thus far, you have Al-Albani (another "Shaykh al-Ta'ifa"), Fawzan al-Fawzan and Ibn Hazm (if we set aside his error in judgment).  One great list; if they narrated something, it would have been the "golden chain", at least per Shia standards of scrutinizing our reports.

You call us kafirs and do not like for me to call you "slick" when I explained to you that it does not carry the sort of negative connotation in my mind that we associate with the word?  Do you prefer Kleenex or do you prefer another brand?

The entire sect is clear upon the fact that both Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) are the Leaders of the Youth of Paradise.  The Prophet (saw) prophesied that one will make peace and the other one will be martyred, therefore, we easily reconcile between one giving up the Caliphate and the other fighting against Yazid (la).  Now you might understand why I said, "If you divorce authentic Sunnah from history, you will never find reconciliation in almost anything you follow".

Going back to Yazid (la), there was a topic initiated on this forum challenging Shias to prove what sorts of crimes (namely, modifications of deen) did Yazid (la) indulge in.  I suggest you prove that to us.  I am not here to defend Yazid (la); I am here to strike a balance so that truth is upheld and falsehood/exaggerations are ousted.

You aren't slick so let's see how well you slip them.  Please bear in mind that I brought up the Pew Research and numbers; you just made a claim.  Do not let this get too far from your sight.

Yes, use the Pew Research poll I shared; you're welcome!

Seat belt?  Umm sure, Dale Earnhardt Jr.?

Oh no, I'm cornered!

Very good!  You know how to go after the nations with the largest Muslim populations.  However, your wait is almost over; its coming.

You are short by a little over 13 million and you still think you've a point.  Maybe Holocaust exaggerators should consult you.  However, you may have shown some promise in math but have failed elsewhere.  Please read how these studies are conducted.  You will see that in no case have they surveyed more than a 1000 - 1200 individuals; so the percentage (for each country) is an extrapolation of a sample population of about 1000 individuals.

In the case of Pakistan, for example, 1200 individuals were surveyed.  1200 (the entire sample size) out of 193.2 million comes to a healthy 0.00062111801%. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/methodology/international-survey-research/international-methodology/global-attitudes-survey/pakistan/2015

So have your shaykhs, too, have attained infallibility?  If an idiot can have a weapon, he may also have some background in religious studies to make himself out to be a "shaykh".  And we will agree that Sunni takfir isn't the same as Shia takfir; we (our legitimate scholars) base it upon Qur'an and Sunnah, yours is a result of your own projections on the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Absolutely. We only take from a select among of individuals in the Prophet's (saww) progeny.

I have a question; why do some Sunni scholars say our scholars are kafir but our jahils are Muslim? And is that calling a spade a spade?

I say most of them broke the pledge, since they pledged to not flee. Majority of them fleed.

I don't understand your point on Al-Abani, Fawzan and Ibn Hazm. Please elaborate.

Just don't describe me at all. Whether it is a compliment or not. That's just my request, it would be kind of you to accept it.

Before we continue on Imam Al-Husayn (as), may I ask why you think he rebelled against Yazid (la)? Just so that I understand your position more. Thanks.

I am short by 13 million, but we have a few countries left. I really don't want to have to continue on the maths, but if you insist I will continue. I did not do this to "corner" you, that isn't a passion of mine, all I want for you is to remove your accusation that I'm a liar. Also, I don't believe in the holocaust.

I recognise how polls are done. Are you suggesting we ignore them? Because I don't understand your point here. Please elaborate.

Our takfir does not say Sunni blood is halal. Your takfiris say the same about us. That's my point.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 15, 2018, 09:38:37 AM
@Zlatan

Thanks for your posts. It becomes clearer and clearer by each day.

From now on, whenever a Twelver comes to me and says, "We Twelvers take our Sunni brothers as Muslims", I'll take that as "We Twelvers take our Sunni brothers as Kuffar whom we treat as Muslims".

It just strengthens my understanding of what Twelvers believe towards Sunnis from the very beginning I know Twelverism and will hold onto that. Thank you again.

Any "unity-inclined" Twelvers in this forum have got anything to say? @Ibrahim, anything you'd like to say?

Your welcome and thank you for bringing this topic up. Believing Sunnis are kafir does not necessarily mean unity is wrong, we see that many nations are united despite their populations following different faiths.

We have common goals for the bettering of the Ummah (Palestine for example), and that's what unity is about. Unity in aqeeda is a no-no but unity on political goals and economic goals and community togetherness (visiting each other, attendibg each other funerals etc...) is not an issue to us, in fact that's the best option.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 15, 2018, 10:09:12 AM
Absolutely. We only take from a select among of individuals in the Prophet's (saww) progeny.

Cut-paste method, invented nearly 14 centuries ago, lol.  Dissect even the family of the Prophet (saw).

Quote
I have a question; why do some Sunni scholars say our scholars are kafir but our jahils are Muslim? And is that calling a spade a spade?

While your scholars have busied themselves with our treatment, our scholars have given the masses of Shia the benefit of doubt, for example, by not declaring them guilty of tahreef as was the belief held by the likes of Al-Kulayni, Al-Kashani, Al-Amili, Majlisi and Al-Tabrisi (5 out of the 7 main foundational Shia scholars); for more, watch the latest Sunni Defense video and listen to brother Hani's analysis. 

Our scholars have ruled the masses to be innocent due to their (the masses') ignorance (when it comes to certain disturbing creedal matters) and the fact that they do not deny any of our six articles of faith.

Quote
I say most of them broke the pledge, since they pledged to not flee. Majority of them fleed.

Majority of them fled?  Seriously, you - as said to you before - should be the last one to speak about fleeing.  With no intention to mock anyone, the world cannot remain without an Imam, as per your belief.  Yet we have been waiting for over 1000 years now.

Quote
I don't understand your point on Al-Abani, Fawzan and Ibn Hazm. Please elaborate.

There is no need because the smart ones understand when given hints.

Quote
Just don't describe me at all. Whether it is a compliment or not. That's just my request, it would be kind of you to accept it.

Wow, okay!

Quote
Before we continue on Imam Al-Husayn (as), may I ask why you think he rebelled against Yazid (la)? Just so that I understand your position more. Thanks.

My faith is independent of what happened at Karbala whereas it is one of the foundational, if not the most foundational, incident(s) of your faith.  Therefore, it is for you to speculate over it, from as many angles as you wish, to give your faith multi-faceted legitimacy.  As for us, the Qur'an and Sunnah are sufficient.

Quote
I am short by 13 million, but we have a few countries left. I really don't want to have to continue on the maths, but if you insist I will continue. I did not do this to "corner" you, that isn't a passion of mine, all I want for you is to remove your accusation that I'm a liar. Also, I don't believe in the holocaust.

You are a liar; when you quoted 67 million, you hadn't done any math.  Even now, you are saying that you will "continue on the maths".  So then how did you arrive at that number?  Where is your proof that gave you that exact number (67 million)?

Quote
I recognise how polls are done. Are you suggesting we ignore them? Because I don't understand your point here. Please elaborate.

I suggest you take poll results with a grain of salt.

Quote
Our takfir does not say Sunni blood is halal. Your takfiris say the same about us. That's my point.

Has this turned into, "Whose Takfir Is It Anyway?"

Quote
We have common goals for the bettering of the Ummah (Palestine for example), and that's what unity is about.

What ummah are you talking about, after having made takfir on us?  Qadianis are not part of the ummah.  Do you get it now or need further elaboration?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 15, 2018, 01:30:09 PM
Cut-paste method, invented nearly 14 centuries ago, lol.  Dissect even the family of the Prophet (saw).

While your scholars have busied themselves with our treatment, our scholars have given the masses of Shia the benefit of doubt, for example, by not declaring them guilty of tahreef as was the belief held by the likes of Al-Kulayni, Al-Kashani, Al-Amili, Majlisi and Al-Tabrisi (5 out of the 7 main foundational Shia scholars); for more, watch the latest Sunni Defense video and listen to brother Hani's analysis. 

Our scholars have ruled the masses to be innocent due to their (the masses') ignorance (when it comes to certain disturbing creedal matters) and the fact that they do not deny any of our six articles of faith.

Majority of them fled?  Seriously, you - as said to you before - should be the last one to speak about fleeing.  With no intention to mock anyone, the world cannot remain without an Imam, as per your belief.  Yet we have been waiting for over 1000 years now.

There is no need because the smart ones understand when given hints.

Wow, okay!

My faith is independent of what happened at Karbala whereas it is one of the foundational, if not the most foundational, incident(s) of your faith.  Therefore, it is for you to speculate over it, from as many angles as you wish, to give your faith multi-faceted legitimacy.  As for us, the Qur'an and Sunnah are sufficient.

You are a liar; when you quoted 67 million, you hadn't done any math.  Even now, you are saying that you will "continue on the maths".  So then how did you arrive at that number?  Where is your proof that gave you that exact number (67 million)?

I suggest you take poll results with a grain of salt.

Has this turned into, "Whose Takfir Is It Anyway?"

What ummah are you talking about, after having made takfir on us?  Qadianis are not part of the ummah.  Do you get it now or need further elaboration?

We take from the chosen ones amongst the Prophet's family.

Even for scholars who don't believe in tahreef they were ruled as kafirs to many Sunni scholars. So why are the masses given the benefit of the doubt? What is it that our scholars believe which we are excused from?

The Imam (as) has not started his battle so that he could "flee". These guys fled mid-battle.

I don't really like hints in discussions. I like bold and clear.

Imam Al-Husayn (as) was not the same as Imam Al-Hasan (as), as Al-Husayn (as) was promised bay'ah by the Kufans. He was bertrayed. I didn't ask you if Karbala was fundamental to your faith, I just want your opinion on it.

Man, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I did my calculations. Yet you still insist I'm a liar. Dang. No choice but to continue.

So we were at 53.7 million. Let's continue in Turkey. 8% of Turkey is.. 6.3 million. We're at 60 million already. Now Malaysia, 3.4 million favourable to ISIS.  That's 63.4 million. Senegal, 1.6 million are favourable to ISIS. Getting real close to that magic number, that's 65 million right there. Burkina Faso, we get 1.4 million who are favourable. That's 66.4 million. Put your glasses on, cause the magic number is about to shine on your face. Jordan, we have 282000 people who are favourable. Whoa, looks like the number is at 66.68 million people who are favourable. Dang, maybe I was short and I really am I liar :( jokes ;) we can still get to the finish line. Thanks to the Palestinian territories, we are now at 66.95 million Sunnis that are favourable to ISIS. Oh no... I'm all out of countries, but it doesn't matter, cause I left  the Zionist entity last. Since you like hints, I'll let you figure out why. I'll also make you do the last calculation if you want. But with that, we cross over the the magic number. And I didn't even add the thousands in my first calculations, we would have passed the finish line earlier had I did. The truth is I got the number 67 from an article or a post online, I just decided to have a little fun with this ;)

Still a liar? :p

So take the poll results with a grain of salt? What is the point in polling them?

The same scholars who do takfir on you tell us to go to your funerals and pray with you.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Mythbuster1 on February 15, 2018, 04:17:31 PM

The Imam (as) has not started his battle so that he could "flee”.These guys fled mid-battle.

Dang......how old are you?

The imam hasn’t or couldnt start a battle full stop yet he FLED without one?🤔

Comparing that guy to people who DID fight and then flee (according to shias) is a wrong comparison on many levels.

Try better next time.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 15, 2018, 04:21:41 PM
Dang......how old are you?

The imam hasn’t or couldnt start a battle full stop yet he FLED without one?🤔

Comparing that guy to people who DID fight and then flee (according to shias) is a wrong comparison on many levels.

Try better next time.

Lol. Guess you haven't read laws in Islamic warfare. Fleeing is a sin unless there is a good reason to flee.

The Imam (as) doesn't have an army, he hasn't fled. He is hidden and is waiting for the time to rise.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 16, 2018, 01:40:03 AM
We take from the chosen ones amongst the Prophet's family.

Chosen by who?  And why are they chosen when the religion has been perfected and is completely silent on this matter?  The questions are glaring at you and you don't even have Ray-Bans.

Quote
Even for scholars who don't believe in tahreef they were ruled as kafirs to many Sunni scholars. So why are the masses given the benefit of the doubt? What is it that our scholars believe which we are excused from?

Then these scholars may have believed in something other than tahreef which put them outside the fold of Islam.  What it is that these scholars believed in (which deemed them kafir) is for you to find out (so that you do not follow their kufr); it is not for me to answer.

Quote
The Imam (as) has not started his battle so that he could "flee". These guys fled mid-battle.

At least "these guys" showed up to the battle.  The Imam has not even showed up.  I can understand showing up and then fleeing but not showing up?!  Come on!

Quote
I don't really like hints in discussions. I like bold and clear.

No doubt!

Quote
Imam Al-Husayn (as) was not the same as Imam Al-Hasan (as), as Al-Husayn (as) was promised bay'ah by the Kufans. He was bertrayed. I didn't ask you if Karbala was fundamental to your faith, I just want your opinion on it.

While you acknowledge that Imam Hussain (ra) was betrayed, I had a Shia imam deny such a thing.  He pinned it on Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) who, according to the Shia imam, was the source of this lie.  As for my opinion, Hassanain (may Allah's peace be upon them, their parents and maternal grandfather) were right; they were both superior to Muawiyah, his son and even Abu Sufyan.  It is also my opinion (along with certain scholars') that Imam Hassan (ra) was the Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph.

Quote
Man, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I did my calculations. Yet you still insist I'm a liar. Dang. No choice but to continue.

The truth is I got the number 67 from an article or a post online, I just decided to have a little fun with this ;)

Wow, so you used an online post, possibly an article (though I'm sure you'd have shared it if it was one), to malign a large number of Sunnis and associate them with a group we, for the most part, consider kafir!

Quote
Still a liar? :p

Worse than that bro, now that you've admitted that you quoted a post and decided to "have a little fun" with it.  Khabeeth, for one and many more words come to mind to describe you but I do not look forward to your tantrums so I will not go further.

Quote
So take the poll results with a grain of salt? What is the point in polling them?

Maybe for you to "have fun" with because 1200, for example, is not an accurate representation of a country with over 193 million Muslims (Pakistan).

Quote
The same scholars who do takfir on you tell us to go to your funerals and pray with you.

Wallaahi, I respect your scholars.  I respect Ayatollah Khamenei and Ayatollah Sistani; I have tremendous respect for Imam Khomeini (rah) despite what people say about him, or the other two.  Until I see proof with my own eyes and hear it with my own ears, I will continue to respect them (and others).  However, as for those who make takfir on me and then ask you to attend my funeral and pray for me can kiss my behind.  I would get in trouble otherwise I'd have said it very explicitly, without any hints since you like "bold and clear".

Just in case you're taken back by my comment, I will never follow a Sunni scholar who makes takfir on you but also urges me to attend your funeral and pray for you.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 16, 2018, 06:13:24 AM
Chosen by who?  And why are they chosen when the religion has been perfected and is completely silent on this matter?  The questions are glaring at you and you don't even have Ray-Bans.

Then these scholars may have believed in something other than tahreef which put them outside the fold of Islam.  What it is that these scholars believed in (which deemed them kafir) is for you to find out (so that you do not follow their kufr); it is not for me to answer.

At least "these guys" showed up to the battle.  The Imam has not even showed up.  I can understand showing up and then fleeing but not showing up?!  Come on!

No doubt!

While you acknowledge that Imam Hussain (ra) was betrayed, I had a Shia imam deny such a thing.  He pinned it on Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) who, according to the Shia imam, was the source of this lie.  As for my opinion, Hassanain (may Allah's peace be upon them, their parents and maternal grandfather) were right; they were both superior to Muawiyah, his son and even Abu Sufyan.  It is also my opinion (along with certain scholars') that Imam Hassan (ra) was the Fifth Rightly Guided Caliph.

Wow, so you used an online post, possibly an article (though I'm sure you'd have shared it if it was one), to malign a large number of Sunnis and associate them with a group we, for the most part, consider kafir!

Worse than that bro, now that you've admitted that you quoted a post and decided to "have a little fun" with it.  Khabeeth, for one and many more words come to mind to describe you but I do not look forward to your tantrums so I will not go further.

Maybe for you to "have fun" with because 1200, for example, is not an accurate representation of a country with over 193 million Muslims (Pakistan).

Wallaahi, I respect your scholars.  I respect Ayatollah Khamenei and Ayatollah Sistani; I have tremendous respect for Imam Khomeini (rah) despite what people say about him, or the other two.  Until I see proof with my own eyes and hear it with my own ears, I will continue to respect them (and others).  However, as for those who make takfir on me and then ask you to attend my funeral and pray for me can kiss my behind.  I would get in trouble otherwise I'd have said it very explicitly, without any hints since you like "bold and clear".

Just in case you're taken back by my comment, I will never follow a Sunni scholar who makes takfir on you but also urges me to attend your funeral and pray for you.

The religion was perfected on the same day the wilayah of Ali (as) was announced. That's what we believe. It was the last faridha.

Me to find out? What is this we are doing, hints and clues? How can this be a discussion when we can't even be transparent with each other? It would have been better for you to just say you don't know why.

Also, what is the difference between what I believe about Sunnis and those who say our scholars are kafir but our jahils are Muslim? As I believe the jahils amongst Sunnis if they are qasir, then they don't deserve punishment. And this is not me who said it, this is Al-Khoei. I would like your opinion on this.

The Imam (as) will rise when the conditions are fulfilled. As you know there are conditions for waging war in Islam, you don't go in to the battle knowing you will lose.

Of course I acknowledge they bertrayed him. Because that's what history says. If Al-Hasan (as) is superior to Mu'awiyah, why did he want his khilafa? And why did he give the rulership to his accursed son, when he was meant to give it to Al-Husayn (as)?

I did the calculations on my own and it turns out the number 67 was correct. So why are you angry? Focus on the number, not who provided it. It's correct and that's that.

I'm a khabeeth now? Lol. Very respectful. But you know, Pew Research is one of the most reliable and accurate on these issues. I'll take their methods over yours, thanks.

I don't know why you're bothered on takfir, when it is largely related to whether you're going to Hell or not. You can easily believe someone is going to Hell yet be friends with them
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 16, 2018, 06:39:14 AM
The religion was perfected on the same day the wilayah of Ali (as) was announced. That's what we believe. It was the last faridha.

It has became apparent that you are arguing for the sake of argument.  However, it has been fun for me so why stop, right?  Speaking of the religion being "perfected on the same day the wilayah of Ali (as) was announced", the sad thing is that Imam Ali (ra) never referred to the announcing of his "wilayah" or present it as a proof.  Not once!

Quote
Me to find out? What is this we are doing, hints and clues? How can this be a discussion when we can't even be transparent with each other? It would have been better for you to just say you don't know why.

To know something, I must be concerned with it.  In the case of why takfir was made on certain scholars of yours, I am not even concerned.  However, as I said, if I were you, I'd be concerned so that I don't follow their kufr.

Quote
Also, what is the difference between what I believe about Sunnis and those who say our scholars are kafir but our jahils are Muslim? As I believe the jahils amongst Sunnis if they are qasir, then they don't deserve punishment. And this is not me who said it, this is Al-Khoei. I would like your opinion on this.

You cannot use the "jahil" card because you claim Imamah to be in the Qur'an, the same book we, too, take as the Word of Allah (swt).  So the minute a Sunni has picked up and opened a Qur'an without acknowledging Imamah (for the obvious fact that it does not exist in the Qur'an), he or she becomes kafir, as per what you shared from your scholars.

Quote
The Imam (as) will rise when the conditions are fulfilled. As you know there are conditions for waging war in Islam, you don't go in to the battle knowing you will lose.

The purpose of an Imam, as per your madhhab, is not to wage wars only.  He is a leader and he is obliged to lead from the front in every matter of life.  Having said that, I wish to congratulate you on condemning Imam Hussain (ra) who Shias say fought against Yazid with all the odds stacked against him.  If only you heeded my advice to stick to the authentic Sunnah; you would have avoided this latest pitfall.

Quote
Of course I acknowledge they bertrayed him. Because that's what history says. If Al-Hasan (as) is superior to Mu'awiyah, why did he want his khilafa? And why did he give the rulership to his accursed son, when he was meant to give it to Al-Husayn (as)?

If you want my opinion on this, as much as I consider Imam Hassan (ra) to be the Fifth Rightly-Guided Caliph, I am against power held within a family.  In other words, just because I support Imam Hassan (ra) over Muawiyah does not mean that I would have hoped for Imam Hassan (ra) to have ruled and then pass the power to his own brother (after himself).  This is me upholding what Imam Hussain (ra) fought for.  Imam Hussain (ra) revolted against Yazid to prevent Caliphate from turning into a familial business, handed down from father to son or brother to brother.  In fact, among many logical reasons, I reject Imamah on this very basis.  How can Shias support Imam Hussain (ra) fighting against such a corrupt system of power management and delegation but then ascribe the same corruption to Imam Hussain (ra), his father (ra), his brother (ra) and his descendants (ra)?

Quote
I did the calculations on my own and it turns out the number 67 was correct. So why are you angry? Focus on the number, not who provided it. It's correct and that's that.

lol, congratulations, you can do math!

Quote
I'm a khabeeth now? Lol. Very respectful. But you know, Pew Research is one of the most reliable and accurate on these issues. I'll take their methods over yours, thanks.

I have been extremely respectful towards you.  I have only judged you on your own admission.

Quote
I don't know why you're bothered on takfir, when it is largely related to whether you're going to Hell or not. You can easily believe someone is going to Hell yet be friends with them

What I find funny is the fact that you cannot even prove our kufr from Qur'an and authentic Sunnah, lol.  And your scholars (those who hold such a belief) are trying to come to an agreement on how to engage with us.  Pathetic :D
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Mythbuster1 on February 16, 2018, 09:50:41 AM
Lol. Guess you haven't read laws in Islamic warfare. Fleeing is a sin unless there is a good reason to flee.

The Imam (as) doesn't have an army, he hasn't fled. He is hidden and is waiting for the time to rise.

Lol I guess the Shias broke the law on Islamic warfare when they sided with kuffar against the Muslims.....DAAAAANG!!
Fleeing without entering the battlefield for NO REASON but fear for ones own life? A tad bit selfish, no? Cowardly? Scared? Try sitting down with a cuppa and ponder over it!
A man fleeing compared to a divine being fleeing......ponder over it.

Ready to rise? He already showed his face and then fled.......what is he gonna rise for now? So he can flee again?

That’s logic ^^^
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 16, 2018, 10:11:43 AM
It has became apparent that you are arguing for the sake of argument.  However, it has been fun for me so why stop, right?  Speaking of the religion being "perfected on the same day the wilayah of Ali (as) was announced", the sad thing is that Imam Ali (ra) never referred to the announcing of his "wilayah" or present it as a proof.  Not once!

To know something, I must be concerned with it.  In the case of why takfir was made on certain scholars of yours, I am not even concerned.  However, as I said, if I were you, I'd be concerned so that I don't follow their kufr.

You cannot use the "jahil" card because you claim Imamah to be in the Qur'an, the same book we, too, take as the Word of Allah (swt).  So the minute a Sunni has picked up and opened a Qur'an without acknowledging Imamah (for the obvious fact that it does not exist in the Qur'an), he or she becomes kafir, as per what you shared from your scholars.

The purpose of an Imam, as per your madhhab, is not to wage wars only.  He is a leader and he is obliged to lead from the front in every matter of life.  Having said that, I wish to congratulate you on condemning Imam Hussain (ra) who Shias say fought against Yazid with all the odds stacked against him.  If only you heeded my advice to stick to the authentic Sunnah; you would have avoided this latest pitfall.

If you want my opinion on this, as much as I consider Imam Hassan (ra) to be the Fifth Rightly-Guided Caliph, I am against power held within a family.  In other words, just because I support Imam Hassan (ra) over Muawiyah does not mean that I would have hoped for Imam Hassan (ra) to have ruled and then pass the power to his own brother (after himself).  This is me upholding what Imam Hussain (ra) fought for.  Imam Hussain (ra) revolted against Yazid to prevent Caliphate from turning into a familial business, handed down from father to son or brother to brother.  In fact, among many logical reasons, I reject Imamah on this very basis.  How can Shias support Imam Hussain (ra) fighting against such a corrupt system of power management and delegation but then ascribe the same corruption to Imam Hussain (ra), his father (ra), his brother (ra) and his descendants (ra)?

lol, congratulations, you can do math!

I have been extremely respectful towards you.  I have only judged you on your own admission.

What I find funny is the fact that you cannot even prove our kufr from Qur'an and authentic Sunnah, lol.  And your scholars (those who hold such a belief) are trying to come to an agreement on how to engage with us.  Pathetic :D

There is proof in both the Holy Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah. Imam Ali (as) did say so, read Khutba Al-Shaqshaqiya.

It wasn't on certain scholars of mine. Pay attention. It's a blanket takfir on any Shi'i who is a scholar. Yet both the scholars and jahils believe the same thing.

Of course the jahil card works, because it hasn't been proven to most Sunnis it is in the Qur'an and Sunnah. If a Shi'i proves it to them, and they reject out of stubborness, then they are completely kafir now. I believe I said this 2 pages ago.

The Mahdi (as) will wage wars, unlike his predecessors. That's why he needs support. And we believe that with enough support even Imam Ali (as) would have taken down the illegitimate governments of the Saqifa usurpers. Imam Al-Husayn (as) was bertrayed.

The reason Al-Hassan (as) wanted Al-Husayn (as) to be ruler is not cause he is his brother. This isn't nepotism. I'm sure you agree Al-Husayn (as) was much more worthy than that najis khanzeer aka Yazid (la). And Al-Husayn (as) revolted to do nahi an al munkar.

Thanks for saying I'm good at maths :D appreciated

Authentic sunnah is not what is in Bukhari, you'll find the authentic sunnah in our books.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Mythbuster1 on February 16, 2018, 02:14:50 PM

Authentic sunnah is not what is in Bukhari, you'll find the authentic sunnah in our books.

That is one funny answer Lol authentic Sunna like TAHREEF? In your books?

Great sunnah for hypocrites.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 16, 2018, 11:43:44 PM
There is proof in both the Holy Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah. Imam Ali (as) did say so, read Khutba Al-Shaqshaqiya.

Nahjul Balagha, with all due respect, is like an anonymous witness whose testimony is inadmissible in court because Al-Radhi provides not a single chain for what is between its' two covers.  However, due to the popularity of Khutbah Al-Shaqshaqiya, scholars have further examined the sermon, including the chains attributed to it, and have declared it inauthentic.

http://nahjul-balagha.net/shaqshaqiya-grading/

Quote
It wasn't on certain scholars of mine. Pay attention. It's a blanket takfir on any Shi'i who is a scholar. Yet both the scholars and jahils believe the same thing.

Is yours not blanket takfir as well?

Quote
Of course the jahil card works, because it hasn't been proven to most Sunnis it is in the Qur'an and Sunnah. If a Shi'i proves it to them, and they reject out of stubborness, then they are completely kafir now. I believe I said this 2 pages ago.

That is the point!  A Shia does not have to prove Imamah to a Sunni; it should be something a Sunni understands just as he or she learns the Oneness of Allah (swt), Prophethood, Angels, Day of Judgment, Divine Decree and Holy Scriptures.  Two pages ago you you said whatever but don't let this ignorance linger on for another two pages.  We do not oppose Imamah out of stubbornness; we just don't see it in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Quote
The Mahdi (as) will wage wars, unlike his predecessors. That's why he needs support. And we believe that with enough support even Imam Ali (as) would have taken down the illegitimate governments of the Saqifa usurpers.

Were the Muslims not outnumbered during the early battles at the time of the Prophet (saw)?  Did they wait for enough support?  Also, the same Caliphate which endowed Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and Uthman (ra) all the power, the same power which - according to you - debilitated Imam Ali's (ra) "mission", was later given to Imam Ali (ra) and he was still waiting for "enough support"?  With your logic, the entire universe could have been at Imam Ali's (ra) command and he would have still waited for "enough support".  Oh wait, he had power over all the atoms.....ummmm, moving on!

Quote
The reason Al-Hassan (as) wanted Al-Husayn (as) to be ruler is not cause he is his brother. This isn't nepotism. I'm sure you agree Al-Husayn (as) was much more worthy than that najis khanzeer aka Yazid (la). And Al-Husayn (as) revolted to do nahi an al munkar.

I believe Imam Hussain (ra) fought Yazid to end nepotism whereas you believe in a form of nepotism called, "Imamah".  And yes, many Shia mosques say Imam Hussain (ra) revolted to do "nahi an al munkar".  Please show us which Islamic principles did Yazid, that najis khanzeer, violate or change.

Quote
Thanks for saying I'm good at maths :D appreciated

Bro, if you wanted compliments, wallaahi, I'd have decorated your profile with compliments.  Just drop the idiocy :)

Quote
Authentic sunnah is not what is in Bukhari, you'll find the authentic sunnah in our books.

As per your own standards, Al-Kafi (which has more narrations than Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim combined) is two-thirds unauthentic.  Brother Farid, may Allah (swt) reward him, did a research and found out that Al-Kafi is only 14.86% comprised of Prophetic narrations.  Taking out the repeats, etc, it contains only a handful of authentic Prophetic narrations; that number comes out to be less than 2% of the entire volume.

https://gift2shias.com/2013/03/24/prophets-saws-narrations-in-al-kafi/

So what is this "authentic Sunnah" that you speak of?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: iceman on February 17, 2018, 02:55:52 AM
As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Well that shouldn't really bother you because according to the Prophet his Ummah will eventually divide into 73 different factions and only one will be heavenly and all the rest will be hell bound. Vast majority of the Muslims will go to hell or may be you can clarify the Hadith more better. Give it a shot.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Khaled on February 17, 2018, 03:29:23 AM
Well that shouldn't really bother you because according to the Prophet his Ummah will eventually divide into 73 different factions and only one will be heavenly and all the rest will be hell bound. Vast majority of the Muslims will go to hell or may be you can clarify the Hadith more better. Give it a shot.

First of all, I personally believe the hadeeth is weak.

Second of all, the hadeeth says "My Ummah will split up into 73 sects", i.e., they will still be part of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's Ummah, so it is not a massive takfeer.

Third of all, the contradictory reports of this hadeeth say things like the saved sect is "What I am upon today and my Companions" as well as "The Jama'aah," and "The Sawaad al-A'dham."  Whichever version you choose, it doesn't reconcile with 12 theology.  I'm going with the opinion that it is the "Jamaa'ah" or the "Sawaad al-A'dham" i.e. those who stick with the majority and don't purposefully divide themselves into sects.

Fourth of all, if you really want to see a treatment of this hadeeth, there are plenty of Salafi sites out there that discuss it since they also believe they are the saved sect.  You guys have a lot in common it seems.

Fifth of all, how did you come to the conclusion that this hadeeth was saheeh?  I'm asked you plenty of times how you authenticate ahadeeth and all I've gotten in return is crickets.  Don't you think this hadeeth contradictions the Qur'an when Allah says:
Quote
وَلَا تَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (31) مِنَ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا ۖ كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ (32)

Quote
and be not of Al-Mushrikun (the polytheists, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah). Of those who split up their religion (i.e. who left the true Islamic Monotheism), and became sects, [i.e. they invented new things in the religion (Bid'ah ), and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it.

I thought Shi'as authenticated ahadeeth based on whether it contradicts the Qur'an or not?  Or do you not think this hadeeth contradicts the Qur'an?
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: iceman on February 17, 2018, 04:13:51 PM
First of all, I personally believe the hadeeth is weak.

Second of all, the hadeeth says "My Ummah will split up into 73 sects", i.e., they will still be part of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's Ummah, so it is not a massive takfeer.

Third of all, the contradictory reports of this hadeeth say things like the saved sect is "What I am upon today and my Companions" as well as "The Jama'aah," and "The Sawaad al-A'dham."  Whichever version you choose, it doesn't reconcile with 12 theology.  I'm going with the opinion that it is the "Jamaa'ah" or the "Sawaad al-A'dham" i.e. those who stick with the majority and don't purposefully divide themselves into sects.

Fourth of all, if you really want to see a treatment of this hadeeth, there are plenty of Salafi sites out there that discuss it since they also believe they are the saved sect.  You guys have a lot in common it seems.

Fifth of all, how did you come to the conclusion that this hadeeth was saheeh?  I'm asked you plenty of times how you authenticate ahadeeth and all I've gotten in return is crickets.  Don't you think this hadeeth contradictions the Qur'an when Allah says:
I thought Shi'as authenticated ahadeeth based on whether it contradicts the Qur'an or not?  Or do you not think this hadeeth contradicts the Qur'an?

Lets look at your points one by one. You said "I personally believe that Hadith is weak" and then you've moved on. You haven't given any explanation or understanding what so ever to why you think the Hadith is weak. You've just given your opinion on the Hadith then swiftly moved away.

The second comment you've made is that it doesn't matter if the Ummah splits, so what they still are part of the Ummah so it's not a big deal. For heavens sake 72 sects are going to hell, they are hell bound and you don't seem to think this is serious?

The third comment you've made is, it doesn't reconcile with the 12 theology. In other words 'well it's not you'. I don't know why we always seem to get personal on a general discussion. When did I say it was us? You've further given your opinion and this is just an opinion like anyone elses.

Now you first bring in the companions, they themselves were all over the place in just a short matter of time. The difference developed into division and it went that far where those in authority exiled others, even killed others because of that difference and division.

You further mention "what I am upon today and my companions, AS WELL AS the 'Jama'ah' AND THE 'Sawaad Al Ad'ham'." Well excuse me what does this 'AS WELL AS', AND THE' mean? You and I both know you're adding those who are or happen to be different and bringing them on board by saying 'AS WELL AS, AND THE'.

Again you mention your opinion and what you're going with and that is the 'Jama'ah' or the 'Sawaad Al Ad'ham'. And you further clarify this by saying "those who stick with majority and don't PURPOSELY divide themselves into sects". I don't know what you meant or mean by PURPOSELY and who you are trying to save and defend by the word.

My dear brother I will start off with who divides themselves purposely? And are you on what the Prophet and his companions were on? The Companions themselves different hugely. Today the Ahle Sunah do not belong to one school of thought but four different and separate schools of thought.

And these schools of thought were kicked off and are linked to four different Imams 'Aimah e Arbaa', not intoduced by the Messenger or his companions. And apart from that there is further division of Suni Deobandhi, Barelvi, Wahabi, Sufi, Ahle Hadees, Salafi etc, so what are you talking about? You have a major division and difference which further escalates right there and infront of your eyes and you want to play blind?

And last I will ask you the same question, how do you know that this Hadith is weak? You claim it is weak but give no explanation in fact you clarify it and give your opinion on it?

With Adab and Salaam!
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 17, 2018, 05:35:16 PM
Nahjul Balagha, with all due respect, is like an anonymous witness whose testimony is inadmissible in court because Al-Radhi provides not a single chain for what is between its' two covers.  However, due to the popularity of Khutbah Al-Shaqshaqiya, scholars have further examined the sermon, including the chains attributed to it, and have declared it inauthentic.

http://nahjul-balagha.net/shaqshaqiya-grading/

Is yours not blanket takfir as well?

That is the point!  A Shia does not have to prove Imamah to a Sunni; it should be something a Sunni understands just as he or she learns the Oneness of Allah (swt), Prophethood, Angels, Day of Judgment, Divine Decree and Holy Scriptures.  Two pages ago you you said whatever but don't let this ignorance linger on for another two pages.  We do not oppose Imamah out of stubbornness; we just don't see it in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Were the Muslims not outnumbered during the early battles at the time of the Prophet (saw)?  Did they wait for enough support?  Also, the same Caliphate which endowed Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and Uthman (ra) all the power, the same power which - according to you - debilitated Imam Ali's (ra) "mission", was later given to Imam Ali (ra) and he was still waiting for "enough support"?  With your logic, the entire universe could have been at Imam Ali's (ra) command and he would have still waited for "enough support".  Oh wait, he had power over all the atoms.....ummmm, moving on!

I believe Imam Hussain (ra) fought Yazid to end nepotism whereas you believe in a form of nepotism called, "Imamah".  And yes, many Shia mosques say Imam Hussain (ra) revolted to do "nahi an al munkar".  Please show us which Islamic principles did Yazid, that najis khanzeer, violate or change.

Bro, if you wanted compliments, wallaahi, I'd have decorated your profile with compliments.  Just drop the idiocy :)

As per your own standards, Al-Kafi (which has more narrations than Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim combined) is two-thirds unauthentic.  Brother Farid, may Allah (swt) reward him, did a research and found out that Al-Kafi is only 14.86% comprised of Prophetic narrations.  Taking out the repeats, etc, it contains only a handful of authentic Prophetic narrations; that number comes out to be less than 2% of the entire volume.

https://gift2shias.com/2013/03/24/prophets-saws-narrations-in-al-kafi/

So what is this "authentic Sunnah" that you speak of?

"Scholars have declared it unauthentic" which scholars? Shaykh Al-Mufid (ra) accepted it and declared it mashoor. I'm not going to take the opinion of an internet polemicist over him. But if you really insist, we have other hadiths which prove the Imam (as) called to himself, most notably the hadith of Al-Shaybani in Al-Ihtijaj. If you can read Arabic, I can link you to it.

Ours is blanket takfir. I'm asking what is the difference.

Really? What is the status of someone who doesn't believe in rak'aat in Salat or changes their number. Is he kafir or not? Why does Ibn Hanbal make takfir of those who say the Qur'an is created? If I pick up the Qur'an right now, will that be clear to me that the Qur'an is uncreated? No. Ibn Hanbal will have to "prove" it to me. Yet he declares the one who say it is created to be a kafir.

Maybe you don't know the rulings of warfare in your own madhab. We also say if the Muslims are outnumbered they still have to fight, but it depends on how much the other side has. If there is no hope in victory, then this obligation drops. Ibn Uthaymeen calls it "Shart Al-Quwwa". You don't go in to a conquest to lose. And Imam Ali (as) does not have control over atoms, all supernatural abilities are from Allah (swt), and it may be used by His permission.

Allah (swt) favours progenies and families over others. He favoured the family of Muhammad (saww) to lead this Ummah. As for Yazid (la), have you not read about what he did in Medina? He declared "istibaha" for the City. And he burnt the Ka'aba as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Harrah

I haven't even included what he did to the grandson of the Prophet (saww).

You know, I don't hate you, if you thought that. But as per your request, I'll stop some of my idiocy. I do agree the maths thing was childish, especially since this discussion is serious and about the Deen. In exchange, all I want from you is to stop sarcasm and snarky remarks and even compliments. Deal?

I think Al-Kafi has similar amounts of sahih/reliable narrations in it then Bukhari because as you said, it has more hadiths. But I don't see why this is problematic? What was your point bro?

In our belief, when the Imam (as) narrates, he is taking from the Prophet (saww) - so it is the same hujjah as when we see a Prophetic hadith. Because their knowledge is inherited from the Prophet (saww).
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 18, 2018, 06:35:04 AM
"Scholars have declared it unauthentic" which scholars? Shaykh Al-Mufid (ra) accepted it and declared it mashoor. I'm not going to take the opinion of an internet polemicist over him. But if you really insist, we have other hadiths which prove the Imam (as) called to himself, most notably the hadith of Al-Shaybani in Al-Ihtijaj. If you can read Arabic, I can link you to it.

I cannot think straight, thanks to the long post I just typed, but I like you fervor in defending a book without a chain.  As for which scholars, the link made a list of the four (if I'm not mistaken) chains and criticized each one.

Quote
Ours is blanket takfir. I'm asking what is the difference.

Nothing except Shias complain a lot about "takfiris".  Double standards much!

Quote
Really? What is the status of someone who doesn't believe in rak'aat in Salat or changes their number. Is he kafir or not? Why does Ibn Hanbal make takfir of those who say the Qur'an is created? If I pick up the Qur'an right now, will that be clear to me that the Qur'an is uncreated? No. Ibn Hanbal will have to "prove" it to me. Yet he declares the one who say it is created to be a kafir.

Apples and oranges!  Salah is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an (this oft-repeated recycled counter argument is getting old and is very pathetic) whereas Imamah is not.  As for the Qur'an being the Uncreated Word of Allah (swt), it is not even among our six basic articles of faith.  Imamah, on the other hand, is included in your five usool, whether you refer to it as "usool al-deen" or "usool al-madhhab" (which you admitted is the same and carries the same consequence for those who reject it in the Hereafter).

The Uncreated Creator's speech must be Uncreated falls within the realm of philosophy and we excelled in that realm to silence the Mu'tazilites and their likes.

Quote
Maybe you don't know the rulings of warfare in your own madhab. We also say if the Muslims are outnumbered they still have to fight, but it depends on how much the other side has. If there is no hope in victory, then this obligation drops.

Proof?

Quote
Ibn Uthaymeen calls it "Shart Al-Quwwa".

Isn't that an Iraqi soccer (football) team?

Quote
You don't go in to a conquest to lose.

Tell that to your third Imam (ra).

Quote
And Imam Ali (as) does not have control over atoms, all supernatural abilities are from Allah (swt), and it may be used by His permission.

...and tell that to Al-Kulayni.  And now you wish to speak of supernatural abilities of Allah (swt)?  Few posts ago, you could not fathom Allah (swt) moving a rock with Musa's (asws) clothes on it.

Quote
Allah (swt) favours progenies and families over others. He favoured the family of Muhammad (saww) to lead this Ummah.

Proof?  As I said in the shoutbox, before you speak of the second of the Two Weighty Things, get familiar with the first of the Two Weighty Things.

Quote
As for Yazid (la), have you not read about what he did in Medina? He declared "istibaha" for the City. And he burnt the Ka'aba as well.

Which one of that amounts to destruction of Islam that we should thank Imam Hussain (ra) for his valor and rescue of Islam?

Quote
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Harrah

I haven't even included what he did to the grandson of the Prophet (saww).

Your link already includes what he did to the grandson (ra) of the Prophet (saw); it mentions that Yazid (la) had two problems, Imam Hussain (ra) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr (ra) both of whom refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid (la).

Quote
You know, I don't hate you, if you thought that. But as per your request, I'll stop some of my idiocy. I do agree the maths thing was childish, especially since this discussion is serious and about the Deen. In exchange, all I want from you is to stop sarcasm and snarky remarks and even compliments. Deal?

I have no hatred for you either.  I am glad you admitted your little trick and now I can take you as a sincere person who wishes to engage not just respectfully but also academically.

Quote
I think Al-Kafi has similar amounts of sahih/reliable narrations in it then Bukhari because as you said, it has more hadiths. But I don't see why this is problematic? What was your point bro?

Out of 16,000-plus narrations, you have less than 2% authentic narrations from the Prophet (saw).  Isn't that an elephant in the room, my brother?

Quote
In our belief, when the Imam (as) narrates, he is taking from the Prophet (saww) - so it is the same hujjah as when we see a Prophetic hadith. Because their knowledge is inherited from the Prophet (saww).

The Prophet (saw), on the contrary, on many occasions, encouraged everyone present to narrate to those who were absent (and future generations, of course) everything they had learned from him.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 19, 2018, 10:19:12 AM
I cannot think straight, thanks to the long post I just typed, but I like you fervor in defending a book without a chain.  As for which scholars, the link made a list of the four (if I'm not mistaken) chains and criticized each one.

Nothing except Shias complain a lot about "takfiris".  Double standards much!

Apples and oranges!  Salah is clearly mentioned in the Qur'an (this oft-repeated recycled counter argument is getting old and is very pathetic) whereas Imamah is not.  As for the Qur'an being the Uncreated Word of Allah (swt), it is not even among our six basic articles of faith.  Imamah, on the other hand, is included in your five usool, whether you refer to it as "usool al-deen" or "usool al-madhhab" (which you admitted is the same and carries the same consequence for those who reject it in the Hereafter).

The Uncreated Creator's speech must be Uncreated falls within the realm of philosophy and we excelled in that realm to silence the Mu'tazilites and their likes.

Proof?

Isn't that an Iraqi soccer (football) team?

Tell that to your third Imam (ra).

...and tell that to Al-Kulayni.  And now you wish to speak of supernatural abilities of Allah (swt)?  Few posts ago, you could not fathom Allah (swt) moving a rock with Musa's (asws) clothes on it.

Proof?  As I said in the shoutbox, before you speak of the second of the Two Weighty Things, get familiar with the first of the Two Weighty Things.

Which one of that amounts to destruction of Islam that we should thank Imam Hussain (ra) for his valor and rescue of Islam?

Your link already includes what he did to the grandson (ra) of the Prophet (saw); it mentions that Yazid (la) had two problems, Imam Hussain (ra) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr (ra) both of whom refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid (la).

I have no hatred for you either.  I am glad you admitted your little trick and now I can take you as a sincere person who wishes to engage not just respectfully but also academically.

Out of 16,000-plus narrations, you have less than 2% authentic narrations from the Prophet (saw).  Isn't that an elephant in the room, my brother?

The Prophet (saw), on the contrary, on many occasions, encouraged everyone present to narrate to those who were absent (and future generations, of course) everything they had learned from him.

Even if you weaken that one hadith, we Shi'a have others hadiths proving Imam Ali (as) used Al-Ghadir as proof for his khilafa.

I don't complain about takfir, I think those who latch onto it are doing it for political reasons.

Salat is mentioned and Wilaya is also mentioned in our opinion. But both require tafsir to explain what they are. If you gave someone the Holy Qur'an and he was alone in an island, will he know how to pray? It is not amongst your articles of faith but it warrants takfir?

Insha Allah, this is proof;

http://www.ajurry.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10797

It's called شرط القوة "Shart Al-Quwwa".

What did Al-Kulayni (ra) say? The reason the hadith of the stone is shaky is because some say the matn is absurd, and Allah (swt) does not do absurd things.

I am not going to get into a discussion on thaqalayn, but the fact that the family of the Prophet (saww) is amongst the favoured is clear in Bukhari;

{إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَى آدَمَ وَنُوحًا وَآلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ} إِلَى قَوْلِهِ: {يَرْزُقُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ}. قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ وَآلُ عِمْرَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ مِنْ آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَآلِ عِمْرَانَ، وَآلِ يَاسِينَ، وَآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: {إِنَّ أَوْلَى النَّاسِ بِإِبْرَاهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ} وَهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ، وَيُقَالُ آلُ يَعْقُوبَ، أَهْلُ يَعْقُوبَ. فَإِذَا صَغَّرُوا {آلَ} ثُمَّ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الأَصْلِ قَالُوا أُهَيْلٌ

What do you mean?

When the Imams (as) narrate it is like the Prophet (saww) is talking bro, because we say all their knowledge is inherited from him. He gave it to Ali (as), Ali (as) gave it to Hasan (as), and so on.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: GreatChineseFall on February 19, 2018, 11:26:50 AM
Of course there are scholars who reject the notion of rejection through shubha. Some said that non-Twelvers are out and out kafir and najis, among them Shaykh Al-Bahrani (rah).

Not necessarily. They could argue that rejection through shubha is theoretically impossible or that it is practically non-existent. It's a subtle difference but if the latter, Shia scholars could reach consensus regarding the verdict of one who rejects through shubha or jahl and have differing views regarding what constitutes shubha, rejection, jahl and so on. In any case, it seems to me that Shia scholars differ on the terms themselves and also on the rulings.

Some Fiqhi differences between a Mu'min and a Muslim only;

- a Muslim who is not a Mu'min is not entitled to khums or zakat
- a Muslim who is not a Mu'min cannot give testimony for most things in court even if he is a truthful person
- according to majority of ulama, gheeba and sabb is only haram if it is directed towards a Mu'min
- prayer behind someone who is not a Mu'min is not valid, therefore the one who joins them in congregation does not pray in the same way one prays behind a Mu'min (i.e his niyyah is different).

The scholars differed on what is considered a rejection of a certain asl of the usool. Does disbelief in isma necessiate rejection of Imamah, for example? For example, Shaykh Al-Ansari (rah) says it doesn't.

So what necessiates rejection of an asl is differed upon.

I know a little bit about the differences, but I was wondering more about when a person is ruled to be treated as a Mu'min(but a kafir in reality) and when as a Muslim(but a kafir in reality). It seems to me that a person is never ruled to be treated as a Mu'min but regarded a kafir due to shubha or jahl, is that correct? Can you give examples how Shia scholars ruled tahreef, rejecting isma and so on? Is there a Shia scholar who says disbelieving in isma is a rejection of an asl and how does he rule such a person if the rejection is done because shubha or jahl?

I think this is also the problem that others are trying to point out. In reality a Muslim is a Mu'min and a Mu'min is a Muslim, so in reality their treatment in this world is the same, because they are the same group of people. This actually means that Sunni's are not only not considered Muslims, they are not treated as Muslims in reality as well and the treatment you speak of is rather misleading. The difference in treatment would only make sense if the two groups are different.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Khaled on February 19, 2018, 09:08:34 PM
Lets look at your points one by one.

بارك الله فيك وأحسن الله إليك, this is what I had hoped for in the Mut'ah thread.  I am glad you actually did it here.  Perhaps if you had done it in the Mut'ah thread we could've avoided the 300 post thread  ;)

Quote
You said "I personally believe that Hadith is weak" and then you've moved on. You haven't given any explanation or understanding what so ever to why you think the Hadith is weak. You've just given your opinion on the Hadith then swiftly moved away.

Not true.  I actually gave two reasons why I think the hadeeth is weak.  Firstly, I noted that the hadeeth is reported with contradictory answers.  I then stated that whichever version you want me to accept, will still contradict your aqeedah.  Secondly, I noted that the hadeeh contradicted the Qur'an and asked you how you accepted it.  You did not answer either point.

Thirdly however, the hadeeth has numerous problems with the chains.  The only decent chain goes back to Abu Hurayrah, and that version only says that the Ummah will split up into 73 sects.  It doesn't say anything about all of them in hell except 1 nor does it say anything who that one is.  Those are my 3 main reasons for rejecting this hadeeth.

Quote
The second comment you've made is that it doesn't matter if the Ummah splits, so what they still are part of the Ummah so it's not a big deal. For heavens sake 72 sects are going to hell, they are hell bound and you don't seem to think this is serious?

This is why I ask you to quote me instead of just rephrasing my argument.  I said the hadeeth is not a massive takfeer, I didn't say anything about whether this is problematic or not.  Therefore, I don't think this hadeeth can be used by 12ers and the khawarij to justify making takfeer of everyone who is not part of their sect.

Quote
The third comment you've made is, it doesn't reconcile with the 12 theology. In other words 'well it's not you'. I don't know why we always seem to get personal on a general discussion. When did I say it was us? You've further given your opinion and this is just an opinion like anyone elses.

We are having a discussion about Imamah, is it an asl of the deen or the madhhab, and you asked us to reflect on the hadeeth of the 73 sects.  How is this a general discussion again?   :o

Quote
Now you first bring in the companions, they themselves were all over the place in just a short matter of time. The difference developed into division and it went that far where those in authority exiled others, even killed others because of that difference and division.

They didn't have differences in aqeedah.  However, if you want to reject that version of the hadeeth no problem, so do I.  Just like I do all versions of the hadeeth, including the one in which Ali رضي الله عنه says that the Ummah will split into 73 sects, the worst are the Shi'ah.

Quote
You further mention "what I am upon today and my companions, AS WELL AS the 'Jama'ah' AND THE 'Sawaad Al Ad'ham'." Well excuse me what does this 'AS WELL AS', AND THE' mean? You and I both know you're adding those who are or happen to be different and bringing them on board by saying 'AS WELL AS, AND THE'.

Actually, I am not adding anything, I did not narrate the hadeeth.  Dude, stop being so delusionally sectarian.   :D

The hadeeth of the "What I am upon and my companions" is one version.  The other two versions simply say "Al-Jama'ah" and "al-Sawaad al-A'dham".  So please familiarize yourself with the hadeeth before talking about it.

Quote
Again you mention your opinion and what you're going with and that is the 'Jama'ah' or the 'Sawaad Al Ad'ham'. And you further clarify this by saying "those who stick with majority and don't PURPOSELY divide themselves into sects". I don't know what you meant or mean by PURPOSELY and who you are trying to save and defend by the word.

What I meant is people who purposefully disassociate themselves with the majority of the Muslims; like the 12ers and the Khawarij.  I was not trying to save anyone and defend anyone, I was accusing the 12ers and the khawarij of massive takfeer of the rest of the Ummah.

Quote
My dear brother I will start off with who divides themselves purposely? And are you on what the Prophet and his companions were on? The Companions themselves different hugely. Today the Ahle Sunah do not belong to one school of thought but four different and separate schools of thought.

The Shi'as and the khawarij purposefully divided themselves of the Ummah as I have already mentioned.  The Companions didn't differ on basics of Aqeedah, and the Muslims groups (except the khawarij and 12ers) pray in the same mosques, study and learn from each other.  There are some extremists amongst us sure, but it is not the majority like it is with the 12ers.

Quote
And these schools of thought were kicked off and are linked to four different Imams 'Aimah e Arbaa', not intoduced by the Messenger or his companions. And apart from that there is further division of Suni Deobandhi, Barelvi, Wahabi, Sufi, Ahle Hadees, Salafi etc, so what are you talking about? You have a major division and difference which further escalates right there and infront of your eyes and you want to play blind?

Again, these differences are just as common as the differences between your maraaji'.  At the end of the day, we all pray in the same mosques, study with each other.  Did you know that I have a teacher and studied with someone (online and offline) from every one of those schools you listed?  Do you know which school I have yet to find a teacher in?  I am sure you can guess.

Quote
And last I will ask you the same question, how do you know that this Hadith is weak? You claim it is weak but give no explanation in fact you clarify it and give your opinion on it?

With Adab and Salaam!

I gave you three reasons.  Now the ball is your court; why do you accept this hadeeth as saheeh?  And which version do you accept?  The one by Abu Hurayrah?  Or the one narrated by Mu'awiyah which has nasibis in the chains?  Or do you accept the one by Imam Ali رضي الله عنه which says the worst of those sects are the Shi'ah?

P.S.  It might be better if you learn how to write out صلى الله عليه وسلم after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's name, because whatever you are writing after it keeps causing your post to come out crossed out.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 19, 2018, 11:31:19 PM
Even if you weaken that one hadith, we Shi'a have others hadiths proving Imam Ali (as) used Al-Ghadir as proof for his khilafa.

Did Imam Ali (ra) also mention in those narrations that the Prophet (saw) offered it first to Abbas (ra)?  Are those hadiths also contradictory to what happened at Ghadeer?  Here is Shaykh Mufid narrating what happened after the Incident of Pen and Paper?

When they (the people) had left (the room), he (the Prophet) said: “Send back to me my brother (Ali) and my uncle (Abbas).”  They sent for someone to call them and he brought them.  When he had them sitting close, he (the Prophet) said: “Uncle of the Apostle of Allah, will you accept my testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promise, and carry out my religion?”

“Apostle of Allah, your uncle is an old man with the responsibilities of a large family,” answered Al-Abbas.  “You vie with the wind in liberality and generosity.  You have made promises which your uncle could never fulfill.”  Then he (the Prophet) turned to Ali ibn Abi Talib, and said: “Brother, will you accept my testamentary bequest (wasi), fulfill my promises, carry out my religion on my behalf and look after the affairs of my family after me?”  “Yes, Apostle of Allah,” he (Ali) replied.  (Kitab Al-Irshad, by Shaykh Mufid, p.131)

Confused?  The Incident of Pen and Paper happened well after the announcement at Ghadeer Khum.  Why, then, did the Prophet (saw) offer Imamah to Abbas (ra) [according to Shaykh Mufid] when it was already announced for Imam Ali (ra)?

Quote
I don't complain about takfir, I think those who latch onto it are doing it for political reasons.

And you are doing it for noble reasons?  You cannot even prove our kufr, lol.

Quote
Salat is mentioned and Wilaya is also mentioned in our opinion. But both require tafsir to explain what they are.

Erroneous claim!  Salat is mentioned whereas Wilaya is not.  The foundation of salat (in the Qur'an) does not require tafseer.  The Qur'an clearly establishes its presence, existence and essence in Islam; it has been mentioned about 700 times in the Qur'an.

Quote
If you gave someone the Holy Qur'an and he was alone in an island, will he know how to pray?

I am not sure if Shias like to play innocent or the concept is too difficult (for them) to grasp.  Qur'an establishes salah and we learn the method of praying from the Sunnah.  As for Wilaya, there is nothing in the Qur'an to even remotely hint it.

Quote
It is not amongst your articles of faith but it warrants takfir?

I have already clarified myself when it comes to the Uncreated Creator's Speech being Uncreated and that whole discussion was to silence the Mu'tazilites.

Quote
Insha Allah, this is proof;

http://www.ajurry.com/vb/showthread.php?t=10797

It's called شرط القوة "Shart Al-Quwwa".

Why are you reducing the entire paradigm of Imamah to leadership in war situations?  Is it because a huge chunk of your argument depends on "proving" others ran away from battles?  An Imam is a guide; he leads from the front (not by hiding somewhere) in all aspects of life, not just war.

The Imam is in hiding out of fear for his life so I say this to Shias.  It is a widely accepted belief, among Shias, that Imams (ra) know their Hour of Death.  As a Shia, you will have to agree with me that the 12th Imam is alive, at the moment.  Knowing his hour of death, I am sure the Imam could have put one and one together to realize that death would not afflict him from the moment he went into occultation until February 19, 2018 (and beyond).  Wouldn't it have been better for him to be around, correct us, guide us and then go into hiding a day before his hour of death

Quote
What did Al-Kulayni (ra) say?

Al-Kafi has chapters dedicated to the supernatural powers of the Imams (ra).

Quote
The reason the hadith of the stone is shaky is because some say the matn is absurd, and Allah (swt) does not do absurd things.

Absurd according to you!  I have already mentioned how this was the same Children of Israel that renounced Jesus (asws) despite the latter raising the dead, curing the blind and the lepers, etc.  Nothing short of seeing Musa (asws) would have silenced them.

Quote
I am not going to get into a discussion on thaqalayn, but the fact that the family of the Prophet (saww) is amongst the favoured is clear in Bukhari;

{إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَى آدَمَ وَنُوحًا وَآلَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَآلَ عِمْرَانَ عَلَى الْعَالَمِينَ} إِلَى قَوْلِهِ: {يَرْزُقُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ}. قَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ وَآلُ عِمْرَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ مِنْ آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَآلِ عِمْرَانَ، وَآلِ يَاسِينَ، وَآلِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ: {إِنَّ أَوْلَى النَّاسِ بِإِبْرَاهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ} وَهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ، وَيُقَالُ آلُ يَعْقُوبَ، أَهْلُ يَعْقُوبَ. فَإِذَا صَغَّرُوا {آلَ} ثُمَّ رَدُّوهُ إِلَى الأَصْلِ قَالُوا أُهَيْلٌ


The narration speaks of Two Weighty Things, the Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt (ra).  Since the Qur'an comes first, let us consult it for the meaning of Ahlul Bayt (ra).  The word "Ahlul Bayt" occurs three times in the Qur'an, if I'm not mistaken.  Once in relation to Ibrahim (asws) when Sara (asws) is referred to as his Ahlul Bayt; then in relation to Musa (asws) when his wife is referred to as his "ahl".  And then in verse 33:33.

In each one of those occurrences, it is in relation to a man (or a prophet) and his wife or wives.  On what basis do you ostracize the wives (ra) of the Prophet (saw)?

Quote
What do you mean?

I cannot elaborate any more on this; less than 2% of Al-Kafi is comprised of authentic Prophetic narrations.  If it is too hard to grasp, I apologize.  I cannot help you if you cannot see the elephant in the room.

Quote
When the Imams (as) narrate it is like the Prophet (saww) is talking bro, because we say all their knowledge is inherited from him. He gave it to Ali (as), Ali (as) gave it to Hasan (as), and so on.

No doubt you say that but you say a lot of things almost none of which stands scrutiny.  And most of them are refuted by the same sources you rely on.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Khaled on February 20, 2018, 02:08:32 AM
Even if you weaken that one hadith, we Shi'a have others hadiths proving Imam Ali (as) used Al-Ghadir as proof for his khilafa.

السلام عليكم,

The problem with using this approach is that your ahadeeth aren't corroborated.  That's what makes the mainstream system of hadeeth so reliable and why the orientalists have given up on attacking our hadeeth traditions.  If you don't like one book of hadeeth, there are literally hundreds like it written all over the Muslim world over a 200 year period.  The 12ers on the other hand really only have one source of hadeeth.  It'd be like if mainstream Muslims only had Saheeh or al-Bukhari (or more like something like Musnad Ahmad I suppose).

Quote
I don't complain about takfir, I think those who latch onto it are doing it for political reasons.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I "latch onto it" because of theological reasons.  Muslim groups making takfeer of other groups has a lot of practical applications as well; take for example how the 12er community by and large supported Bashar al-Asad; they would never do so had they viewed the Syrian people as believers.  Since they view them as kafirs, its easy for them to support Bashar.  Similary the Deash supporters have no problem in what their leadership does since they view the Syrian people as kafirs.  It is irrelevant to me if the 12ers view the rest of the Muslim population as Muslim in this Dunya for convenience.

Quote
Salat is mentioned and Wilaya is also mentioned in our opinion. But both require tafsir to explain what they are. If you gave someone the Holy Qur'an and he was alone in an island, will he know how to pray? It is not amongst your articles of faith but it warrants takfir?

Again, this is problematic because he will at least know that he is supposed to pray, he would know he is supposed to recite Qur'an prayer, that he is supposed to stand, bow, prostrate.  He would know to glorify Allah in his prayer.  He wouldn't know how to pray like the Muslims do, but at the very least he would know that he is supposed to pray, that he is supposed to fast Ramadan (even if he doesn't know what it is, at least he would know it was a month), he would know he needs to pay Zakat and make Hajj.  Yes, he wouldn't know the details, but no one is asking for the details for Imamah in the Qur'an.  We are only asking for ONE explicit proof.  I believe that there is NO way a person could find proof for an infallible Imam in the Qur'an without a Shi'i influence.  I would say it is impossible.

Quote
When the Imams (as) narrate it is like the Prophet (saww) is talking bro, because we say all their knowledge is inherited from him. He gave it to Ali (as), Ali (as) gave it to Hasan (as), and so on.

When did this happen?  Did Ali رضي الله عنه give to al-Husayn رضي الله عنه as well or did he learn from al-Hassan رضي الله عنه?  Did al-Mahdi learn from al-Hasan al-Askari رحمه الله?  How was this done?  Did they have lessons?

بارك الله فيك
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on February 20, 2018, 06:06:16 PM
Al-Salamu Alaykum

I will respond in the coming days inshaAllah. I just want the brothers to know it is difficult to respond to two long posts, so bare with me and please don't respond until I responded to both of you.
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: Khaled on February 20, 2018, 08:18:09 PM
Al-Salamu Alaykum

I will respond in the coming days inshaAllah. I just want the brothers to know it is difficult to respond to two long posts, so bare with me and please don't respond until I responded to both of you.

وعليكم السلام

Since I came in second I'm willing to step down in the discussion and let you go back to muslim720.

بارك الله فيك
Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: iceman on February 22, 2018, 04:32:41 AM
بارك الله فيك وأحسن الله إليك, this is what I had hoped for in the Mut'ah thread.  I am glad you actually did it here.  Perhaps if you had done it in the Mut'ah thread we could've avoided the 300 post thread  ;)

Not true.  I actually gave two reasons why I think the hadeeth is weak.  Firstly, I noted that the hadeeth is reported with contradictory answers.  I then stated that whichever version you want me to accept, will still contradict your aqeedah.  Secondly, I noted that the hadeeh contradicted the Qur'an and asked you how you accepted it.  You did not answer either point.

Thirdly however, the hadeeth has numerous problems with the chains.  The only decent chain goes back to Abu Hurayrah, and that version only says that the Ummah will split up into 73 sects.  It doesn't say anything about all of them in hell except 1 nor does it say anything who that one is.  Those are my 3 main reasons for rejecting this hadeeth.

This is why I ask you to quote me instead of just rephrasing my argument.  I said the hadeeth is not a massive takfeer, I didn't say anything about whether this is problematic or not.  Therefore, I don't think this hadeeth can be used by 12ers and the khawarij to justify making takfeer of everyone who is not part of their sect.

We are having a discussion about Imamah, is it an asl of the deen or the madhhab, and you asked us to reflect on the hadeeth of the 73 sects.  How is this a general discussion again?   :o

They didn't have differences in aqeedah.  However, if you want to reject that version of the hadeeth no problem, so do I.  Just like I do all versions of the hadeeth, including the one in which Ali رضي الله عنه says that the Ummah will split into 73 sects, the worst are the Shi'ah.

Actually, I am not adding anything, I did not narrate the hadeeth.  Dude, stop being so delusionally sectarian.   :D

The hadeeth of the "What I am upon and my companions" is one version.  The other two versions simply say "Al-Jama'ah" and "al-Sawaad al-A'dham".  So please familiarize yourself with the hadeeth before talking about it.

What I meant is people who purposefully disassociate themselves with the majority of the Muslims; like the 12ers and the Khawarij.  I was not trying to save anyone and defend anyone, I was accusing the 12ers and the khawarij of massive takfeer of the rest of the Ummah.

The Shi'as and the khawarij purposefully divided themselves of the Ummah as I have already mentioned.  The Companions didn't differ on basics of Aqeedah, and the Muslims groups (except the khawarij and 12ers) pray in the same mosques, study and learn from each other.  There are some extremists amongst us sure, but it is not the majority like it is with the 12ers.

Again, these differences are just as common as the differences between your maraaji'.  At the end of the day, we all pray in the same mosques, study with each other.  Did you know that I have a teacher and studied with someone (online and offline) from every one of those schools you listed?  Do you know which school I have yet to find a teacher in?  I am sure you can guess.

I gave you three reasons.  Now the ball is your court; why do you accept this hadeeth as saheeh?  And which version do you accept?  The one by Abu Hurayrah?  Or the one narrated by Mu'awiyah which has nasibis in the chains?  Or do you accept the one by Imam Ali رضي الله عنه which says the worst of those sects are the Shi'ah?

P.S.  It might be better if you learn how to write out صلى الله عليه وسلم after the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's name, because whatever you are writing after it keeps causing your post to come out crossed out.

In the Mutah thread I gave you an in depth and detailed analysis. I answered all of your questions and commented on all of your points. And I did this on numerous occasions due to your constant denial and argumentative stance. The thread is there, do ponder over it.

I don't think you gave any reason to why you thought it was weak. In fact you tried to explain it according to your own understanding giving it your own version and meaning. The Hadith doesn't contradict the Qoran because it doesn't matter which generation and time the majority have always gone or remained astray. And every religious community/nation has eventually differed and divided.

In your first post you explain the hadith based on your understanding and in this post you reject it by giving three reasons. Confusing! Well if you don't think being hell bound is a massive takfeer then that's up to you. In some places you exaggerate matters and in other places you mitigate.

Please don't align or mix us with the Khwarij because we are the followers of Ali who was opposed and murdered by the Khawarij. We don't send takfeer commonly and openly as you do. What do you think this site is all about. I know you're having a discussion on Imamah but take a look at the posts on this thread and see how many and much are off topic before pointing out to me.

You mentioned something Ali said about Shias but how authentic or strong is this narration have you ever questioned yourself this? You seem to question and raise concern about everything else. What did the Prophet say about Ali and his Shia reaching Hauz e Qausar, you forgot to mention that. Ali and his Shia will be successful. Notice the word SHIA.

Like I said before that the companions disagreed and differed greatly where they exiled, murdered and killed each other. If they were on one path then what went wrong? Companions, Al Sawaad, Al Jama'ah? What's happening here? Are we playing HAPPY FAMILIES? I don't think so. What's the difference? If there isn't then why called different?

You can accuse who ever you want, after all it's just your opinion and nothing more. So carry on. You're constantly accusing, banging and bashing the 12rs like there's no tomorrow but you're not giving me anything genuine or solid. And I will give you something in return, the Prophet said Ali and his Shia will be successful. The word SHIA has been used. Now twist and turn it how you want that, it's not this Shia but that Shia. It doesn't matter which way you turn or twist it you'll end up with the word SHIA.

Our marjas belong to and follow the same school of thought. Why are we deliberately playing blind games here? Belonging to the same school of thought and having difference in thought, opinion and point of view over a matter or issue is one thing. But having four absolutely and completely different and opposite schools of thought is another. It's not the same thing unless your playing dumb and blind.

I accept what the Prophet has said and what you mention of Ali goes against the saying of the Prophet. So what Ali is accused of saying about Shias is made up because it goes against the Qoran and Sunah.

Title: Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
Post by: muslim720 on February 22, 2018, 11:00:39 AM
We don't send takfeer commonly and openly as you do.

Oh, so one takfeer sent in a private gathering is better than ten takfirs issued out in public?  Quantity over quality?

Quote
What did the Prophet say about Ali and his Shia reaching Hauz e Qausar, you forgot to mention that. Ali and his Shia will be successful. Notice the word SHIA.

Is it authentic?  I will help you; don't even bother checking, it is not!

Quote
You're constantly accusing, banging and bashing the 12rs like there's no tomorrow but you're not giving me anything genuine or solid. And I will give you something in return, the Prophet said Ali and his Shia will be successful. The word SHIA has been used. Now twist and turn it how you want that, it's not this Shia but that Shia. It doesn't matter which way you turn or twist it you'll end up with the word SHIA.

No need to twist anything; in fact, you're (the one) twisting facts in order to make believe.  The report is not authentic so you have not provided anything "genuine" or "solid".