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

[iceman]

Blind entertaining the blind. You certainly know how to keep yourselves busy. Everything is there and right in front of you. And you still wish to play hide and seek. Carry on amusing and entertaining each other. After all what else can you do.

[iceman]

Muslim 720 says;

"I will expose your lie.  I have no problems saying, nor doing, it.  I have no issues with Shias except when they come to misrepresent our texts to cast doubts in the hearts and minds of innocent Muslims.  From my personal experience, in Muharram 2015, I was astonished to hear this big-shot lecturer - his lecture broadcasted live over the internet because the mosque could not afford to pay him $10,000 a night (as admitted by the imam of the mosque) - say that he would speak about the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra).  That was the topic he had chosen to speak about; the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra) which I thought was quite refreshing.  He, unfortunately, spent half of the time, if not more, to malign Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra).  This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say.  Nothing they say (at least in their eyes) can stand on its own without them attacking someone else or some other parallel concept.  Till date, I am not sure if they do this out of habit (upbringing) or helplessness (to make their own stance weightier)."

Notice this bit people,

"He, unfortunately, spent half of the time, if not more, to malign Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra).  This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say."

I asked him what exactly did he say about Aisha and Hafsa but the man didn't have the nerve to reply.

Now what ever he said about Aisha and Hafsa why is the entire Shia community at large being accused and labeled by Muslim 720 as such,

"This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say."

Muslim 720 is this what you are all about? Come on, stop dancing around and answer up. What are you afraid of? Stop playing hide and seek.

[muslim720]

Reply # 135 still remains unchallenged, let alone rebutted.

http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/imamah-usul-al-din-or-usul-al-mathab/135/

Wikipedia alone helped me to refute a good portion of what Iceman copy-pasted from Al-Islam.org, ShiaPen and countless Facebook pages featuring an article deeply rooted in lies and misrepresentations.  This is the "academic" level of electronic Shia resources.

[muslim720]

For Iceman's reading pleasures:
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[iceman]

Muslim 720 says;

"I will expose your lie.  I have no problems saying, nor doing, it.  I have no issues with Shias except when they come to misrepresent our texts to cast doubts in the hearts and minds of innocent Muslims.  From my personal experience, in Muharram 2015, I was astonished to hear this big-shot lecturer - his lecture broadcasted live over the internet because the mosque could not afford to pay him $10,000 a night (as admitted by the imam of the mosque) - say that he would speak about the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra).  That was the topic he had chosen to speak about; the virtues of Umm Salamah (ra) which I thought was quite refreshing.  He, unfortunately, spent half of the time, if not more, to malign Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra).  This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say.  Nothing they say (at least in their eyes) can stand on its own without them attacking someone else or some other parallel concept.  Till date, I am not sure if they do this out of habit (upbringing) or helplessness (to make their own stance weightier)."

Notice this bit people,

"He, unfortunately, spent half of the time, if not more, to malign Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra).  This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say."

I asked him what exactly did he say about Aisha and Hafsa but the man didn't have the nerve to reply.

Now what ever he said about Aisha and Hafsa why is the entire Shia community at large being accused and labeled by Muslim 720 as such,

"This is a disease among Shias, I'm sorry to say."

Muslim 720 is this what you are all about? Come on, stop dancing around and answer up. What are you afraid of? Stop playing hide and seek.

MUSLIM 720, ANY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE POST? ANY RESPONSE AT ALL? WHAT EXACTLY DID THE SCHOLAR SAY ABOUT AISHA AND HAFSA? OR DID YOU MAKE IT ALL UP?

[muslim720]

MUSLIM 720, ANY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE POST? ANY RESPONSE AT ALL? WHAT EXACTLY DID THE SCHOLAR SAY ABOUT AISHA AND HAFSA? OR DID YOU MAKE IT ALL UP?

The usual stuff Shias say about them.

- Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra) troubled the Prophet (saw) and always schemed to hurt him.

- Surah at-Tahreem

- Aisha (ra) fought against Imam Ali (ra).  He even cited an incident where Umm Salama (ra) reminded Aisha (ra) of her mistake almost making it seem like the former rubbed it in Aisha's (ra) face.

- Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra) hated Imam Ali (ra) and his family whereas Umm Salama (ra) loved and supported them.

That is all I can recall; it was more than 2 years ago. 

Now that you have your answer, please respond to my refutation.  Unless you are a spineless coward, do not dare use my reply (regarding what the scholar said about Aisha and Hafsa, may Allah be pleased with both) as a tangent (to steer the discussion in a different direction) or as an escape route.

[iceman]

The usual stuff Shias say about them.

- Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra) troubled the Prophet (saw) and always schemed to hurt him.

- Surah at-Tahreem

- Aisha (ra) fought against Imam Ali (ra).  He even cited an incident where Umm Salama (ra) reminded Aisha (ra) of her mistake almost making it seem like the former rubbed it in Aisha's (ra) face.

- Aisha (ra) and Hafsa (ra) hated Imam Ali (ra) and his family whereas Umm Salama (ra) loved and supported them.

That is all I can recall; it was more than 2 years ago. 

Now that you have your answer, please respond to my refutation.  Unless you are a spineless coward, do not dare use my reply (regarding what the scholar said about Aisha and Hafsa, may Allah be pleased with both) as a tangent (to steer the discussion in a different direction) or as an escape route.

The usual stuff, what is that suppose to mean? Still brainwashed about us while being brought up.

I'm not using anything but you are the one who mentioned this and brought something irrelevant to the thread. Don't accuse me in fact get your own act together.

Why did you even mention this in the first place when you exactly knew it had nothing to do with the thread? And stop judging us through gossip and rumours.

[muslim720]

Why did you even mention this in the first place when you exactly knew it had nothing to do with the thread? And stop judging us through gossip and rumours.

Fine, I should not have mentioned it.  Can you address my rebuttal now?  Thank you!

[iceman]

Fine, I should not have mentioned it.  Can you address my rebuttal now?  Thank you!

Yes of course. What would you like me to address, bring it forward bit by bit and one step at a time. OK, what and which bit and part is first.

[muslim720]

Reply # 135

http://forum.twelvershia.net/imamah-ghaybah/imamah-usul-al-din-or-usul-al-mathab/120/

[iceman]

Lets do this bit first, you said;

"Yes, Ibrahim (asws) was among the "shia" of Nuh (asws), however, your use of the word "shia", to describe yourself, has different connotations.  It does not fit this line of reasoning (Ibrahim to Nuh); rather you have created your own parallel religion and given yourself the label, "shia".  Ibrahim (asws) stayed in line with Nuh (asws), with his religion and message; you have come up with your own sect, set of standards, beliefs and practices."

How did you get to this conclusion and why? What makes you think that we're not this but that? And where exactly do you fit in? You are neither this Shia nor that.

The word SHIA  has been used be it in this manner or that. But where is the word SUNNI or AHLE SUNNAH? These are the ones that have been created and made up which have got nothing to do with Qoran or Sunah.

[muslim720]

Lets do this bit first, you said;

"Yes, Ibrahim (asws) was among the "shia" of Nuh (asws), however, your use of the word "shia", to describe yourself, has different connotations.  It does not fit this line of reasoning (Ibrahim to Nuh); rather you have created your own parallel religion and given yourself the label, "shia".  Ibrahim (asws) stayed in line with Nuh (asws), with his religion and message; you have come up with your own sect, set of standards, beliefs and practices."

How did you get to this conclusion and why? What makes you think that we're not this but that? And where exactly do you fit in? You are neither this Shia nor that.

The word SHIA  has been used be it in this manner or that. But where is the word SUNNI or AHLE SUNNAH? These are the ones that have been created and made up which have got nothing to do with Qoran or Sunah.

I did not ask to be interviewed.  Refute me and all the other points.  As I said, Ibrahim (asws) was in line with what Nuh (asws) believed in and the message he brought.  In your case, you have a parallel religion.  And we believe that whatever is in the Qur'an trumps everything that came before it and the Qur'an clearly informs the Prophet (saw) that he has nothing to do with those who split into sects (Shia).  Hence, we go by what the Prophet (saw) was told over what transpired before his prophethood.

Again, this isn't an interview.  Tackle my post in its entirety like I responded to yours.

[iceman]

I did not ask to be interviewed.  Refute me and all the other points.  As I said, Ibrahim (asws) was in line with what Nuh (asws) believed in and the message he brought.  In your case, you have a parallel religion.  And we believe that whatever is in the Qur'an trumps everything that came before it and the Qur'an clearly informs the Prophet (saw) that he has nothing to do with those who split into sects (Shia).  Hence, we go by what the Prophet (saw) was told over what transpired before his prophethood.

Again, this isn't an interview.  Tackle my post in its entirety like I responded to yours.

I'm not interviewing you and neither am I interested in your autograph. I'm just asking you how you came to that conclusion that we're not in line with Abraham and Nuh but we're those who split into sects. And how exactly do we have a parallel religion. I'm refuting your post bit by bit. At least have the decency to engage in an academic discussion.

[iceman]

And what makes you think Ahle Sunah are in line when they have divided into different sects and further into groups. Also keeping in mInd having completely four different schools of thought.

[iceman]

This is your next bit;

"In the light of the above explanation and the fact that we all follow the Prophet (saw), I want you to (once again) pay attention to what Allah (swt) said to the Prophet (saw): "As for those who divide Their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least: Their affair is with Allah: He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did."  Translation, the Prophet (saw) has no part "in them in the least".  Who is this "them"?  Those who split into sects and refer to themselves as "Shia"."

And here is my response again, please pay attention;

The Term Shi’a in Qur’an and Hadith.    بِسْمِ اللَّـهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
 
The word "Shi’a”means "followers; members of party". As such, the term "Shi’a”alone has no negative or positive meaning unless we specify the leader of the party. If one is a Shi’a (follower) of the most righteous servants, then there is nothing wrong with being Shi’a, specially if the leader of such party has been assigned by Allah.

On the other hand, if one becomes the Shi’a a tyrant or a wrong-doer, he shall meet with the fate of his leader. In fact, Qur’an indicates that on the day of Judgment people will come in groups, and each group has its leader in front of it. Allah, to whom belong Might and Majesty, said:

One day We shall call every group of people by their respective Imams. (Qur’an 17:71)

In the day of judgment, the destiny of the "followers”of each group highly depends on the destiny of his Imam (provided that they really followed that Imam). Allah mentioned in Qur’an that there are two types of Imams. Some Imams are those who invite people to Hell fire. They are tyrannical leaders of each era (like Pharaoh, etc.):

And We made them (but) Imams inviting to the Fire; and on the Day of Judgment no help shall they find. In this world We continued to curse them; and on the Day of Judgment they will be among the hateful. (Qur’an 28:41-42).

Certainly, being the members of the parties of such Satanic Imams has been severely denounced in Qur’an, and the followers of such parties will meet the fate of their leaders. However, Qur’an also reminds that there are Imams who are appointed by Allah as Guides for the mankind:

"And We assigned from among them some Imams who GUIDE by Our authority since they were patient and believed firmly in Our Signs.”(Qur’an 32:24)

Certainly, the true followers (Shi’a) of these Imams will be the real prosperous on the day of resurrection. Thus being a Shi’a does not mean anything, unless we know the Shi’a of whom. Allah mentioned in Qur’an that Some of His righteous servants were Shi’a of His other righteous servants. An example was Prophet Abraham who was mentioned in Qur’an specifically as the Shi’a of Noah:

"And most surely Abraham was among the Shi’a of him (i.e., Noah)”(Qur’an 37:83)

 وَإِنَّ مِن شِيعَتِهِ لَإِبْرَاهِيمَ ﴿الصافات: ٨٣﴾

(Notice that the word "Shi’a”is explicitly used, letter by letter, in the above verse as well as the following verse.) In another verse, Qur’an talks about the Shi’a of Moses versus the enemies of Moses:

"And he (Moses) went into the city at a time when people (of the city) were not watching, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his Shi’a and the other beinghis enemy, and the one who was of his Shi’a cried out to him for help against the one who was of his enemy”(Qur’an 28:15)

فَوَجَدَ فِيهَا رَجُلَيْنِ يَقْتَتِلَانِ هَـٰذَا مِن شِيعَتِهِ وَهَـٰذَا مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ ۖفَاسْتَغَاثَهُ الَّذِي مِن شِيعَتِهِ عَلَى الَّذِي مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ...

In the above verse of Qur’an, one is named the Shi’a of Moses (as) and the other one is named the enemy of Moses, and the people at that time were either the Shi’a or the enemy of Moses (as). Thus Shi’a is an official word used by Allah in His Qur’an for His high rank prophets as well as their followers. Do you want to say Prophet Abraham was sectarian? How about Prophet Noah and Prophet Moses?

If somebody calls himself a Shi’a, it is not due to any sectarianism, nor any innovation. It is because Qur’an has used the phrase for some of His best servants. The above verses that I mentioned in support of Shi’a, has used this term singular form (i.e., one group of followers).

This means that it has special meaning, such as: The Shi’a of Noah (as), The Shi’a of Moses (as). Also in the History of Islam, Shi’a has been specially used for the "followers of ‘Ali". The first individual who used this term was the Messenger of Allah himself:

The Messenger of Allah said to ‘Ali: "Glad tiding O ‘Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shi’a (followers) will be in Paradise."

[iceman]

You further say;

"Two points:

1.  Re-read what I said regarding Imam Suyuti (rah) and "hatib al lail" (one who collects wood in the dark).

2.  Al-Qundoozi Al-Hanafi is not Sunni.  In fact, he came much much later than any of the classical scholars of hadith.
http://www.twelvershia.net/2016/09/24/al-qunduzi-al-hanafi-exposed/

No problem, I most certainly will.

You say;

"Again, Al-Zamakhshari is not Sunni but a Mu'tazilite.  Please inform Al-Islam.org, ShiaPen and the countless Shia pages on Facebook to update their information and take out Al-Qunduzi Al-Hanafi and Al-Zamakhshari from their list.  It is embarrassing to feign scholarship when Wikipedia is all it takes to know a man and his beliefs.  In fact, Wikipedia lists "Rabi al-Abrar" among his works, before you claim the article is referring to another Al-Zamakhshari.

Al Zamakhshari is not a Sunni, really? Because you said so? Or have you got anything to back it up. And who exactly are 'mu"'azillite' then? What do they see and call themselves as?

[iceman]

You further say;

"Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah is "one of the most devastating polemics ever written against the Shiite doctrine of the imāma and in defence of the first three caliphs." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Sawa%27iq_al-Muhriqah)

OK, if you say so.

You say;

"Of course you did not know that!  Without having read the book, I can bet you that Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami (rah) was only quoting this fabricated hadith to refute it.  It is much like what I'm doing, at the moment; you make a fallacious claim and I quote you just to refute that point of yours.  I suggest you read Ibn Hajar Al-Haythami's (rah) entire take on this narration and not just quote what he quoted to refute."

You said, "I CAN BET YOU......."
Here we go with your assumptions again. You need to stop betting and assuming and start talking reality and facts. Give me something assuring.

You said;

"By the way, "Al-Tabarani, on the authority of Imam Ali (ra)" is not a reference."

Really? Just because you said so and I suppose to take it at face value?

[Abu Muhammad]

And what makes you think Ahle Sunah are in line when they have divided into different sects and further into groups. Also keeping in mInd having completely four different schools of thought.

As if Twelverism remains the same since beginning. Does Usooli and Akhbari ring any bells? Or you might need this to understand better:

The leader of the Twelver Imami Shia sect al-Tusi says in “al-`Iddah fi Usoul al-Fiqh” 1/138:

وقد ذكرت ما ورد عنهم عليهم السلام في الأحاديث المختلفة التي تخص الفقه في كتابي المعروف بالاستبصار وفي كتاب تهذيب الأحكام ما يزيد على خمسة آلاف حديث. وذكرت في أكثرها اختلاف الطائفة في العمل بها. وذلك أشهر من أن يخفى، حتى إنك لو تأملت اختلافاتهم في هذه الأحكام وجدته يزيد على اختلاف أبي حنيفة والشافعي ومالك

[I (al-Tusi) have mentioned their narrations (as) in different Ahadith regarding Fiqh in my book “al-Istibsar” and “Tahdheeb al-Ahkam” and they number around five thousand(narrations). I have mentioned that the (Twelver) sect differed in following most of them. That is too popular and cannot be hidden. In fact, if you observe their difference in the rulings you would find that they differ more than the difference between Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi`i.]

[iceman]

As if Twelverism remains the same since beginning. Does Usooli and Akhbari ring any bells? Or you might need this to understand better:

The leader of the Twelver Imami Shia sect al-Tusi says in “al-`Iddah fi Usoul al-Fiqh” 1/138:

وقد ذكرت ما ورد عنهم عليهم السلام في الأحاديث المختلفة التي تخص الفقه في كتابي المعروف بالاستبصار وفي كتاب تهذيب الأحكام ما يزيد على خمسة آلاف حديث. وذكرت في أكثرها اختلاف الطائفة في العمل بها. وذلك أشهر من أن يخفى، حتى إنك لو تأملت اختلافاتهم في هذه الأحكام وجدته يزيد على اختلاف أبي حنيفة والشافعي ومالك

[I (al-Tusi) have mentioned their narrations (as) in different Ahadith regarding Fiqh in my book “al-Istibsar” and “Tahdheeb al-Ahkam” and they number around five thousand(narrations). I have mentioned that the (Twelver) sect differed in following most of them. That is too popular and cannot be hidden. In fact, if you observe their difference in the rulings you would find that they differ more than the difference between Abu Hanifa, Malik and al-Shafi`i.]

I asked for an answer based on explanation and understanding about you and what your position is and where do you stand. I didn't ask for a tit for tat argument or a confrontational stance which you're giving me. What, you can't? You can't explain yourself?

[muslim720]

"And most surely Abraham was among the Shi’a of him (i.e., Noah)”(Qur’an 37:83)

Restating your point does not make it any truer or gain momentum.  It is not like a snowball that will grow in size if you let it roll down longer.  Ibrahim (asws) continued the message of Nuh (asws).  You, on the other hand, have been following a parallel religion because you are with those who broke into sects.  And the Qur'an explicitly forbids the Prophet (saw) from having anything to do with people like you when it says, "Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia), you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least.  Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Surah Al-An'am verse 159)

Forget Ibrahim (asws) and Nuh (asws), it is time for you to contemplate on the repercussions of being a Shia while claiming to be from the ummah of Muhammad (saw).

Here is another condemnation: "Of those who split up their religion and became sects (Shia), [they invented new things in the religion and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it. (Surah Ar-Rum verse 32)

The Messenger of Allah said to ‘Ali: "Glad tiding O ‘Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shi’a (followers) will be in Paradise."

Already refuted!  How many times will you re-paste the same weak hadith which was refuted 3 to 4 pages ago, in all its variations?

Al Zamakhshari is not a Sunni, really? Because you said so? Or have you got anything to back it up. And who exactly are 'mu"'azillite' then? What do they see and call themselves as?

I provided you the reference; it says about him that he "subscribed to the Muʿtazilite theological doctrine".  Here is the link once again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Zamakhshari

Instead of formulating questions, click on the links and read my posts carefully.  I understand that you were raised on stories of one Shia refuting 100 Sunnis by just posing one question but those stories don't fly in reality.

Here we go with your assumptions again. You need to stop betting and assuming and start talking reality and facts. Give me something assuring.

Well, I gave you the benefit of doubt.  I figured ignorance is a lot better and far more innocent than being deceptive.  I am sure you did not know that Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah was written to refute Shias.  Or are you telling me that you knew that it was written to refute Shias and yet you quoted it (to prove Shiaism to be true)?  Not knowing (that it was written to refute Shias) and quoting from it (to support Shiaism) makes you ignorant; knowing (that it was written to refute Shias) and quoting it (to support Shiaism) makes you deceptive, an important placeholder in the army of Iblees.

Really? Just because you said so and I suppose to take it at face value?

Yes, "Al-Tabarani on the authority of Imam Ali (ra)" is not a reference.  They were not contemporaries, if only you knew, and there is no reference to (a book or declaration) where Al-Tabarani (rah) narrates from Imam Ali (ra).

Keep trying because you have addressed nothing, let alone refute.