Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?

[Khaled]

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:

وَلَا تَكُونُوا مِنَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ (31) مِنَ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا شِيَعًا ۖ كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ (32)

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?

[iceman]

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!

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

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).

[muslim720]

"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.

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

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

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.

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?

Ibn Uthaymeen calls it "Shart Al-Quwwa".

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

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

Tell that to your third Imam (ra).

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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?

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.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

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.

[GreatChineseFall]

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.

[Khaled]

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 

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.

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.

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?   

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.

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.   

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[muslim720]

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)?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? 

What did Al-Kulayni (ra) say?

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

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.

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)?

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.

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.

[Khaled]

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).

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.

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.

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

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

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.

[Khaled]

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

[iceman]

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?   

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.   

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.

[muslim720]

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?

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!

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".

[Khaled]

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.

بارك الله فيك for admitting that all you did in that thread was give your opinion instead of providing Shi’a scholars or ahadeeth that support your “analysis.”  As far as answering my points and questions, I listed them to you post by post and even numbered them for you, and you didn't get past question 1.

I don't think you gave any reason to why you thought it was weak.

Here you said this, but later on you say...

In your first post you explain the hadith based on your understanding and in this post you reject it by giving three reasons. Confusing!

Did I give any reasons or didn't I?

In fact you tried to explain it according to your own understanding giving it your own version and meaning.

I gave you the various versions and I asked you which one do you accept.  You never answered (and you won't).

Well if you don't think being hell bound is a massive takfeer then that's up to you.

I don't think it's a massive takfeer for 2 reasons.  1) The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم referred to them as being part of his Ummah, 2) I believe that the majority of Muslims will go to hell for a period of time; so even if I was to accept this hadeeth as authentic (which I don't), I would interpret this as being temporary instead of a massive takfeer like you are so inclined to believe.

In some places you exaggerate matters and in other places you mitigate.

In ALL places I try to be as inclusive as possible and avoid takfeer as much as possible.  You on the other hand...

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.

1) I don't consider the modern day 12ers the same, nor do I consider them descendants of the early Shi'i community. 2) The modern day khawarij and and the 12ers have the same amount of Muslim blood their hands.  You can close your eyes and plug your ears all you want.

We don't send takfeer commonly and openly as you do.

I'm glad you admit you "send takfeer", however, I don't make takfeer of any mainstream Muslim sect.  I consider you a Muslim and a believer no matter how hard you try to drag me down with you.  I don't make takfeer of you.

What do you think this site is all about.

Refuting 12erism.  I don't think Farid, Hani, Hassan Shemrani or any of the people that run this site make takfeer of the 12ers.  The people that do make takfeer of you I disassociate from and consider them even more misguided than the 12ers.

You mentioned something Ali said about Shias but how authentic or strong is this narration have you ever questioned yourself this?

I can't help but literally lol here.  Look what I said...

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.

I literally said I reject it, a long with all the other obviously made up versions of the hadeeth.  Come on akhi, stop being so emotional and defensive and try to understand what is being said to you.

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.

What did he صلى الله عليه وسلم say?  Do you have an authentic chain for it?  What proof do you have that you today are the right Shi'a, and not say the Zaydis?  How do you its the Usoolis not the akhbaris?  How do you know its the Pro-WF and not the anti-WF?  You have SO much to answer for before you can even claim to have any right over Ali رضي الله عنه; a person whose biography, teachings and overall worldview was recorded by the Sunnis; not the 12ers.  Even Nahj al-Balagha is a book which is primarily sourced from Sunni sources.

P.S.  I am disappointed that instead of learning to write صلى الله عليه وسلم after the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم's name, you just decided to not send salutations upon him at all.

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?

So you are unable to provide any differences in aqeedah?

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.

Umm... what happened to our discussion about Imamah being Usool ad-Deen or Madhhab (which according to you is the same word as deen, do you still believe that?) and the 73 sects hadeeth?  You are just all over the place like usual.

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.

The problem with your mentality is you exclude everyone who you disagree with and say they are not "real" Shi'as.  That's like me saying only the Hanbalis are "real" Sunnis.  If I was to do that, then the level of disagreement between them would be a fraction in comparison to the differences between your maraaji'3.  So, until you can tell me why the Akhbaris, the Shirazis, and the non-WFers aren't "real" Shi'is, let alone Zaydis, Ismailis and thousands of Shi'i groups that have existed throughout history, then your claim will just be that, a claim that is bigger criticism of Shi'ism than any other group in Islam.

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.

But that's what we are here to discuss and which I wish you would've discussed instead of that "analysis."  What did the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم say?  Why do you accept the hadeeth despite it being narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Mu'awiyah with a bunch of Nasibis in the chain?  Which version of the hadeeth do you accept and why?  What was your methodology?  Did you look at the chains?  I guarantee you will not answer, just like the Mut'ah thread.

[iceman]

Oh, so one takfeer sent in a private gathering is better than ten takfirs issued out in public?  Quantity over quality?

Is it authentic?  I will help yo

u; don't even bother checking, it is not!

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".
[/quote

When did I say that it is ok to send takfeer in private? Where and when did I say that?
Or it is better? Thanks for helping me, now would you mind telling me why you tthink it isn't authentic?

[muslim720]

When did I say that it is ok to send takfeer in private? Where and when did I say that?
Or it is better? Thanks for helping me, now would you mind telling me why you tthink it isn't authentic?

Clearly you were appealing to the rate of occurrence of takfir.  And while you've not quoted a narration with its source, I have already made it easier for you because all the "Glad Tidings O Ali...." narrations, and its many variants, are weak and rejected.  You can find them online along with their grading.

[iceman]

Clearly you were appealing to the rate of occurrence of takfir.  And while you've not quoted a narration with its source, I have already made it easier for you because all the "Glad Tidings O Ali...." narrations, and its many variants, are weak and rejected.  You can find them online along with their grading.

What, all and every single one of them is weak and rejected? So what is the reason and purpose off this? Talk to me, don't give me this, that and the other. Explain it to me.

[muslim720]

What, all and every single one of them is weak and rejected? So what is the reason and purpose off this? Talk to me, don't give me this, that and the other. Explain it to me.

As I said, there are many variants of "Glad Tidings O Ali; you and your Shia...." hadiths all of which are weak.  Most, if not all, of them have been refuted on this very website.  Please put in some effort and you will find them.  If I happen to stumble upon them before you, I'll definitely share them with you.

The purpose (of collecting such narrations) is for readers to be aware that these are in fact weak and unreliable hadiths so that at any point in time, no Shia can use them as reliable proof against us.  As to why there were such narrations in circulation, well, there were many exaggerators back then as there are now

[iceman]

As I said, there are many variants of "Glad Tidings O Ali; you and your Shia...." hadiths all of which are weak.  Most, if not all, of them have been refuted on this very website.  Please put in some effort and you will find them.  If I happen to stumble upon them before you, I'll definitely share them with you.

The purpose (of collecting such narrations) is for readers to be aware that these are in fact weak and unreliable hadiths so that at any point in time, no Shia can use them as reliable proof against us.  As to why there were such narrations in circulation, well, there were many exaggerators back then as there are now

It's not about me putting effort in but about you saying something and pointing it out then not backing it up and explaining it. This is exactly what you expect from me but don't do yourself.

[iceman]

It's not about me putting effort in but about you saying something and pointing it out then not backing it up and explaining it. This is exactly what you expect from me but don't do yourself.

Secondly why do you consider them weak, what is the reason and purpose? How do you categorise hadiths/narrations, what's the method and procedure?