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

[iceman]

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

You said; "Restating your point does not make it any truer or gain momentum" And the same applies to you. What makes you think different about yourself? Don't you think it's about time you stopped acting and behaving as MR RIGHT.

You say; "It is not like a snowball that will grow in size if you let it roll down longer" Why don't you start believing in and practice what you preech. Practice makes perfect. I'm here to discuss with you, not receive lectures from you.

What makes you think we aren't from Abraham and Nuh or as the Shia of Moses? What makes you think we are "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)"

You haven't given me any explanation or understanding based on logic and reason. All you've done is repeatedly put forward your opinion without any sort of backing what so ever. You're just talking air and wind.

You say; "You, on the other hand, have been following a parallel religion because you are with those who broke into sects."

Again for crying out loud what makes you think as such? No explanation or reasoning but just an opinion without any sort of backing. Once again air and wind. BACK IT UP.

I'm raised as a Shia and what was you raised as? Obviously a Suni. It's not surprising that you're still filled with rubbish and nonsense about Shias. Start thinking with an open mind rather than a mindset based on gossip and rumours.

The rest of your nonsense isn't worth reading let alone replying. You're one arrogant and cocky individual. This is how you view Shias and you want to fool us with your positive experience in Shia Mosques.

[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.]

We have one school of thought and how many do you have? And we differ more than you?😊 Don't you think it's about time you stopped being ignorant?

[iceman]

You mention this verse;

"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)"

You have also divided from one school of thought and ending up with four. You have also further divided. Would you like a complete list of your division? So according to the above verse you also are a must subject. The verse applies to you as well since you have divided surely and much more than we have.

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 above you mentioned also applies and fits with you. So where do you stand with this?

[muslim720]

The rest of your nonsense isn't worth reading let alone replying. You're one arrogant and cocky individual. This is how you view Shias and you want to fool us with your positive experience in Shia Mosques.

Wow, you cracked before you even addressed half of my points, lol.  Throwing toys out of the crib will not get you off the hook.

What makes you think we aren't from Abraham and Nuh or as the Shia of Moses? What makes you think we are "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)"

So let me break this down to you.  Ibrahim (asws) was the "shia" of Nuh (asws).  Are you the "shia" of the Prophet (saw)?  No!  You are the "shia" of Imam Ali (ra) so there is no similarity between your situation and Ibrahim's (asws).  Furthermore, after your allegiance to a non-prophet (Imam Ali), bearing his name as your source of identity (not the Prophet's (saw) name), you broke away from the main body of Muslims (as Imam Ali cautioned you not to in Nahjul Balagha) and formed your own sect naming yourselves "Shia". 

Your disobedience of the Qur'an is exactly as the verse prohibits.  You divided the religion and broke into sects, each calling yourself "Shia", be it Zaidi, Ismaili, Ithna Ashari, etc, all having fundamental creedal (aqeedah) differences.

To recap, "those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia)" apply to you because you are part of a sect that broke off from mainstream Muslims while applying the very label Qur'an condemns to themselves --> Shia.

We have one school of thought and how many do you have?

Our schools of thought are all Muslims, according to us.  I can choose to follow whichever or none.  Can you say the same about yourself and Zaidis?  How about Shirazis and Khameneis?

You have also divided from one school of thought and ending up with four. You have also further divided. Would you like a complete list of your division?

Our division is in fiqh, not aqeedah.  Nice try but no go!  Try harder next time.

[iceman]

Wow, you cracked before you even addressed half of my points, lol.  Throwing toys out of the crib will not get you off the hook.

So let me break this down to you.  Ibrahim (asws) was the "shia" of Nuh (asws).  Are you the "shia" of the Prophet (saw)?  No!  You are the "shia" of Imam Ali (ra) so there is no similarity between your situation and Ibrahim's (asws).  Furthermore, after your allegiance to a non-prophet (Imam Ali), bearing his name as your source of identity (not the Prophet's (saw) name), you broke away from the main body of Muslims (as Imam Ali cautioned you not to in Nahjul Balagha) and formed your own sect naming yourselves "Shia". 

Your disobedience of the Qur'an is exactly as the verse prohibits.  You divided the religion and broke into sects, each calling yourself "Shia", be it Zaidi, Ismaili, Ithna Ashari, etc, all having fundamental creedal (aqeedah) differences.

To recap, "those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia)" apply to you because you are part of a sect that broke off from mainstream Muslims while applying the very label Qur'an condemns to themselves --> Shia.

Our schools of thought are all Muslims, according to us.  I can choose to follow whichever or none.  Can you say the same about yourself and Zaidis?  How about Shirazis and Khameneis?

Our division is in fiqh, not aqeedah.  Nice try but no go!  Try harder next time.

CRACKED? You should have gone to SPEC SAVERS, you would have got better spectacles that would help you see clearly.  As far as your thinking is concerned I don't think anyone can help you with that unless you help yourself first.

Forget about who's Shia Abraham was, focus on this, was Abraham a Shia or not? The answer is a big fat YES. He was a Shia. So being a SHIA is not a crime and there is nothing wrong with that.

So where is the problem? There is no problem apart from you being brainwashed by being fed rubbish from the beginning. And you have a mindset based on that rubbish which you are hellbent in trying to prove.

Back to the discussion. Being a Shia is not a problem, it depends on who's Shia you are. This is one point. The second point is those who breakaway and create a separate ideology based on their thinking and develope another group or start to see  themselves separately and differently from the rest are labelled as Shia based on the verse you provided.

So based on this verse 'those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia)' and according to your explanation and understanding Abdul Wahaab is also a Shia because he broke away by putting forward a different ideology based on his thinking and started to see others different and himself separate from the rest.

You are a Suni. Which Suni are you? Well you had one school of thought 'Hanafi'. My first point on this is according to your explanation and understanding Imam Abu Hanifah was also a SHIA.WHY? I will tell you why.

[iceman]

WHY? Because Abu Hanifa broke away and kicked off his own separate school of thought. This is where the first ever Sunnis emerged from and Abu Hanifa and his followers were the first Shias according to your explanation and understanding of the verse.

Then we had people breaking away further such as Malik, then Shafi'ee and Hanbali. They and their followers are all Shias based on your explanation and understanding of the verse.

And you respond with well, ifs and buts. Ma brother difference is difference and separate is separate note matter what. So don't look for excuses with well, if and but.

[iceman]

Muslim 720 what do you think of the following,

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (/wəˈhɑːb/; Arabic: محمد بن عبد الوهاب‎; 1703 – 22 June 1792) was a religious leader and theologian from Najd in central Arabia who founded the movement now called Wahhabism. Born to a family of jurists, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's early education consisted of learning a fairly standard curriculum of orthodox jurisprudence according to the Hanbali school of law, which was the school of law most prevalent in his area of birth.

Despite his initial rudimentary training in classical Sunni Muslim tradition, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab gradually became opposed to many of the most popular Sunni practices such as the visitation to and the veneration of the tombs of saints, which he felt amounted to heretical religious innovation or even idolatry. Despite his teachings being rejected and opposed by many of the most notable Sunni Muslim scholars of the period, including his own father and brother,

Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab charted a religio-political pact with Muhammad bin Saud to help him to establish the Emirate of Diriyah, the first Saudi state, and began a dynastic alliance and power-sharing arrangement between their families which continues to the present day in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Al ash-Sheikh, Saudi Arabia's leading religious family, are the descendants of Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhab, and have historically led the ulama in the Saudi state, dominating the state's clerical institutions.

So he (Abdul Wahaab) must also be a Shia according to your explanation and understanding of the verse.

[iceman]

The Hanafi school of thought - was the earliest of the 4 mentioned, attributed to a student of a sahabah/companion of the Prophet s.a.a.s. However, it was founded in Iraq (intellectual capital of Islamic world) which was criticised by those living in Madinah (city of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.a.s) as having slightly different practises than the more learned ones in Madinah (those in Madinah claimed to follow traditions of the prophet s.a.a.s practised by thousands narrating from thousands (mutawattir) - rather than following a single/aHad hadith narrated from one person attributed to the prophet s.a.a.s ).

The Maliki school of thought - is the second earliest of the 4. this was the formalised the practises and interpretations of the learned ones living in Madinah (city of prophet Muhammad s.a.a.s). It draws it sources from widely accepted and practised sunnah of Madinah as a whole, which were shaped by the Prophet s.a.a.s and the sahabah whom lived amongst him (including the first caliphs like Omar r.a. and Ali r.a, etc).

The Shafi school of thought - this school comes next, and attempts to resolve issues regarding small differences in Islamic practises. So the imam collected all the hadith and attempted to categorise them into authentic, strong, weak, etc. Discarding all the weak hadith and keeping the rest: this made up the foundations of this school. (however it was criticised by the other 2 since discarding weak hadith and ignoring sayings of the sahabah - loses valuable information about the details of certain practises).

Non-the-less, this school prompted later scholars, like Bukhari, and some of his students - to do the same thing. Collect as many hadith as possible. then categorise them as authentic, strong, weak, fabricated. However, Bukhari was renowned for his insight and memory and succeeded in collecting a far wider collection of hadith. Some even say that his saheeh collection was taken as his own school of thought.

Hanbali school of thought - this school was by a contemporary of Bukhari, imam Ahmad. He was well renowned for his knowledge of hadith. his school of thought was founded on both authentic, strong and weak hadith (in contrast to some others, which did not accept weak hadith).

However, he was criticised by other well known scholars, like imam al-Tabari (renowned for works like Tabari’s history and Tabari’s Tafsir - more renowned than the infamous tafsir ibn kathir). Tabari stated that Ahmad ibn Hanbal was excellent in his field as a traditionalist (collector of hadith) -yet not very good at being a judge (fiqh) since many held the view that the religion was not as simple as following the Quran and Hadith,

but required intricate knowledge and wisdom to know how to apply the two and deal with contradictory hadith, etc. He went on to found his own Jariri school of thought that, like so many others, eventually became extinct (one can assume though - based on his works mentioned above - that it drew upon a more wide range of sources being less concerned about authenticity -

hence drawing criticism from Hanbali school - apparently labelling him as an innovator! Tabari's approach was conciliatory and moderate, seeking harmonious agreement between conflicting opinions).

Salafi - this is the most modern movement (they dont call it a school of thought however) and it is said to be based upon the authentic hadith collected by Bukhari and a few of his students as well as others - which together make up the 6 authentic books of Sunnah (bukhari, ibn majah, etc). The majority of their scholars also do not follow weak hadith (only authentic and strong) - thus holding the same criticisms as other schools who sought to do the same.

[iceman]

Often viewed as a minority figure in his own times and in the centuries that followed, Ibn Taymiyyah has become one of the most influential medieval writers in contemporary Islam, where his particular interpretations of the Qur'an and the Sunnah and his rejection of some aspects of classical Islamic tradition are believed to have had considerable influence on contemporary Wahhabism, Salafism, and Jihadism.

Indeed, particular aspects of his teachings had a profound influence on Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of the Hanbali reform movement practiced in Saudi Arabia known as Wahhabism, and on other later Wahabi scholars. Moreover, Ibn Taymiyyah's controversial fatwa allowing jihad against other Muslims is referenced to by Al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups.

Ibn Taymiyah was imprisoned several times for conflicting with the ijma of jurists and theologians of his day. From the city of Wasit, Iraq, a judge requested that Ibn Taymiyyah write a book on creed which led to him writing his book, for which he faced troubles, called Al-Aqidah Al-Waasitiyyah, a work on his view of the creed (`aqidah) of the salaf which included reference to the divine attributes of God.

Ibn Taymiyyah adopted the view that God should be described as he was literally described in the Qur'an and in the hadith,[38] and that all Muslims were required to believe this because according to him it was the view held by the early Muslim community (salaf). Within the space of two years (1305–1306) four separate religious council hearings were held to assess the correctness of his creed.

1305 hearing. The first hearing was held with the Shafii scholars who accused Ibn Taymiyyah of anthropomorphism. At the time Ibn Taymiyyah was 42 years old. He was protected by the then Governor of Damascus, Aqqush al-Afram, during the proceedings. The scholars suggested that he accept that his creed was simply that of the Hanbalites and offered this as a way out of the charge.

The issue being, if Ibn Taymiyyah ascribed his creed to the Hanbali school of law then it would be just one view out of the four schools which one could follow rather than a creed everybody must adhere to. Ibn Taymiyyah was uncompromising and maintained that it was obligatory for all scholars to adhere to his creed.

1306 hearings and imprisonment.
Two separate councils were held a year later on 22 and 28 of January 1306. The first council was in the house of the Governor of Damascus Aqqush al-Afram, who had protected him the year before when facing the Shafii scholars.

A second hearing was held six days later where the Indian scholar Safi al-Din al-Hindi found him innocent of all charges and accepted that his creed was in line with the "Qur'an and the Sunna". Regardless, in April 1306 the chief Islamic judges of the Mamluk state declared Ibn Taymiyyah guilty and he was incarcerated.He was released four months later in September.

[iceman]

Muslim 720 you have plenty of information above to ponder on. Do nock yourself out on it. And you will still come with well, ifs and buts.

Is this true about SUNNI Deobandis,

The Deobandis believe that the Messenger of Allah(sa) is alive in his
grave and can be benefited from, just as he could be benefited
from, during his lifetime in this world. Fazaail-e-Aamaal is full of
such quotations, which claim that the Messenger of Allah(sa) is
aware of the conditions of his Ummah (nation) and can physically
help those who seek his assistance. They also claim that He is in
contact with the Deobandi scholars from whom He learnt to
speak the Urdu language.Moreover, the Deobandis extend these qualities to their dead
Shaikhs and scholars, as is mentioned in their books.

If yes then Muslim 720 what are your thoughts on these SUNNIS?

Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi (A Great Dewbondi Scholar) writes in
“Al-Baraheen al-Qaatiyah”About the superiority of the Madrasa (school) of Deoband,
he says, “It comes to my mind that the school of Deoband has an exalted position
near Allah, because of the numerous scholars who have passed out from it
and benefited the common folk. Subsequently, a noble person was
blessed with a vision of the Prophet Muhammed(sa) in which he saw
Allaah’s Messenger(sa) speaking in Urdu. The noble person asked,
‘How do you know this language, while you are an Arab?’ He(sa)
said, ‘From the time I have been in contact with the scholars of the
school of Deoband, I’ve known this language’.” Rasheed Ahmad
Gangohi comments, “From this we understand the greatness of this
Madrasa (school).” [Al-Baraheen al-Qaatiyah, p.30]

[iceman]

Muawiyah And The Origin Of The Word “Al-Jama’ah”

al-Tabari recorded that: Sajah remained with Banu Taghlib untill Muawiya transferred them in his days on the “year of the union (al-Jama’ah)”. When the people of Iraq agreed (to recognize) Muawiyah (as caliph) after ‘Ali, Muawiyah took to expelling from al-Kufa those who had been vehement in the cause of ‘Ali, and to settle in their homes those people of Syrai and al-Basrah and the Jazirah who were most vehement in his own cause; it was they who were called the “transfers”in the garrison towns.

(The translator of the work writes in reference to the year of the union as follows:)

Aam al-Jama’ah the year 40 A.H/A.D 660-661, so called because the Muslim Community came together in recognizing Muawiyah, ending the political division of the first civil war. Pace Caetani, 648; see Abu Zahrah al-Dimashqi, Tarikh, 188 (no. 101) and 190 (no. 105)

Sunni reference:

History of al-Tabari, English version, v10, p97

Who was the first one that used the term “Ahlussunnah and al-Jama’ah”?

If one searches through the history books, he will find that they agreed to call the year in which Muawiyah seized the power as “The Year of al- Jama’ah” meaning the majority of people. It was called so, because the nation had already become divided into two factions after the death of Uthman:

The Shia of Ali and the followers of Muawiyah. When Imam Ali (AS) was martyred and Muawiyah took over the power, the year was called “al- Jama’ah”. Out of these two parties, the majority leading by Muawiyah won the throne, and the other party was considered as a dangerous rival. Therefore the name of “Ahl al-Sunnah and al-Jama’ah” indicates the Sunnah of Prophet merged by the innovations by Muawiyah, and the agreement on his leadership.

Who was the first to use the term Ahl al-Sunnah [Sunni Traditions] and al-Jamaah?

I have searched through the history books and found that they agreed to call the year in which Muawiyah seized power “the year of al-Jamaah”. It was called thus because the nation became divided into two factions after the death of Uthman:

The Shia of Ali and the followers of Muawiyah. When Imam Ali was martyred and Muawiyah seized power after his pact with Imam Hasan which enabled him to become commander of the believers the years was then called “al-Jamaah”. Therefore the name Ahl al-Sunnah [Sunnah Traditionists], and al-Jamaah indicates the Sunnah [tradition] of Muawiyah, and the agreement on his leadership, and does not mean the followers of the Sunnah [tradition] of the Messenger of Allah.

[muslim720]

You are a Suni. Which Suni are you? Well you had one school of thought 'Hanafi'. My first point on this is according to your explanation and understanding Imam Abu Hanifah was also a SHIA.WHY? I will tell you why.

Very good point!  While your cut-paste (winded) posts are exhaustive, you just admitted that Surah Al-Anam verse 159 condemns you. 

You have brought up Imam Abu Hanifa (rah) and that he was a "Shia".  Do his followers, or the followers of Imam Shafi'i (rah), Imam Malik (rah) or Imam Hanbal (rah) call themselves "shia"?  No!  Do you call yourself "shia"?  Yes!

Do the followers of the four Imams (rah) call each other kafir?  No!  Do you believe in a different line of Imams (ra) in comparison to Zaidis and Ismailis?  Yes!

Does rejecting a single Imam, according to your sect, makes one kafir?  Yes!  So the Zaidis and Ismailis, along with Sunnis, are all kaffirs (according to your madhhab).

Therefore, you have taken a parallel path (far from being a sect) and have proudly adorned yourself with the label of "Shia".  Hence, Allah (swt) informed His Messenger (saw):
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least.  Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Al-An'am 6:159)

WHY? Because Abu Hanifa broke away and kicked off his own separate school of thought. This is where the first ever Sunnis emerged from and Abu Hanifa and his followers were the first Shias according to your explanation and understanding of the verse.

No because Imam Abu Hanifa (rah) or any of the other three Imams (rah) did not break away.  That is why Shias are called "Rawaafidh".  If he, or any one of them had broken away, as you claim, he wouldn't have taught his students that while he thought he was upon haq, the other three could be right too.  Since these were Imams (rah) of fiqh, this is not an issue.  However, the key point is that they all gave each other the benefit of doubt which shows that none of them broke away.  They just formulated their own methodology and jurisprudence from it.

Do you say that about any other Muslim sect?  "We, Ithna Asharis are upon haq, but the Zaidis, Ismailis or even Sunnis could be right too".  You'll never say that!

Being a Shia is not a problem

Keep repeating that.  It might help you block out the Words of Allah (swt) in Surah Al-An'am verse 159.

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (/wəˈhɑːb/; Arabic: محمد بن عبد الوهاب‎; 1703 – 22 June 1792) was a religious leader and theologian from Najd in central Arabia who founded the movement now called Wahhabism. Born to a family of jurists, Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab's early education consisted of learning a fairly standard curriculum of orthodox jurisprudence according to the Hanbali school of law, which was the school of law most prevalent in his area of birth.

Muhammad ibn Abd-al Wahhab can go to h3ll or not, as far as I'm concerned.  Try him with someone else.  I'm not cool with him.

Aam al-Jama’ah the year 40 A.H/A.D 660-661, so called because the Muslim Community came together in recognizing Muawiyah, ending the political division of the first civil war. Pace Caetani, 648; see Abu Zahrah al-Dimashqi, Tarikh, 188 (no. 101) and 190 (no. 105)

You so shot yourself in the foot, again!  Why was this called the year of jama'ah?  By the way, this has nothing to do with the term, "Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah".  I will get to that in a minute but this was called the year of jama'ah because it was when Imam Hassan (ra), in a move that still torments Shias, delivered his "Divinely Ordained" Caliphate in the hands of Muawiya, a "hypocrite and nasibi" (according to you).

All the Muslims were united once again, as a community, therefore, the "year of jama'ah".  However some chose to break away from the united body of Muslims.  The minute these people branched off is when they were called "Rawaafidh" and the same people adopted the title, "Shia" (which is you).  So thank you for proving that Surah Al-An'am verse 159 applies to none other but you.

"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad SAW) have no concern in them in the least.  Their affair is only with Allāh, Who then will tell them what they used to do." (Al-An'am 6:159)

As for where did the term "Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah" came from?  Ibn Mas’ood (ra) commenting on the verse in the Qur’an in surah A’-Imraan (which means);

 “And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves.” (3:103)

explained that the rope mentioned in the verse was the Jama’ah.  The derivation of Ahlus Sunnah can be made from the following verse, also in Al’ Imraan:

 “On the Day (of Resurrection) when some faces will become white and some faces will become black.” (3:106)

Similar narrations have been narrated from Abdullah Ibn Umar (ra).  Imam Muslim (in the Muqaddimah of his Sahih) narrates it from Muhammad Ibn Sirin and Imam Al-Darimi narrates it in his Musnad from Al-Hassan Al-Basri.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen summarized Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah as ‘those who adhere to the Sunnah and who unite upon it, not turning to anything else, whether that be in matters of belief or matters of actions which are subject to Islamic rulings. Hence they are called Ahlus Sunnah because they adhere to it (the Sunnah), and they called al-Jamaa’ah because they are united in following it.’

Also, this term has been authentically narrated by the Ahl Al-Bayt (Ibn Abbas) themselves.

https://gift2shias.com/2013/12/12/muawiyah-was-the-first-one-wh-oused-the-term-ahlussunnah-and-al-jamaah/

[iceman]

Muslim 720 I will respond to your points later but first lets sort this out.

"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).

First of all this is Allah speaking and is part of the Qur'an and Allah is referring to Muhammad (pbuh ). This is not Allah speaking to Muhammad about his Ummah and what will happen after him. Or is he?

Secondly notice the words "Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shia)," Notice the word SHIA which is in brackets,

now how did you come to the conclusion that 'those who divide their religion and break up into sects' will call themselves SHIA? There are others but they don't call themselves SHIA?

Thirdly you are giving the above verse your meaning and understanding which isn't hujjath. So what did Allah mean here?

We can break this up into two, 1 that Allah meant 'Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects' are known  and considered as SHIA. So this would mean all and every single one who divide their religion and break up into sects are known and recognised by Allah as SHIA,

or Allah is sending a message that those who divide their religion and break up into sects will be the ones who actually call themselves SHIA?

Which one is it and how did you get to that conclusion?

[iceman]

"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)."

First Allah says, "Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects" then Allah says, "you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least",

So who were these people and did they exist during the Prophet's time? Because Allah said and once again, ""you (O Muhammad s.a.w.) have no concern in them in the least",

Was this just a warning and reminder to Muhammad about people from the Ummah who will come to be and Muhammad was just being informed of what will happen after him,

or was Muhammad being made aware and was warned about people from his Ummah during his regin and time?

[iceman]

The Holy Quran says in verses 159 of Chapter al-An'am:

«إِنَّ الَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا دِينَهُمْ وَ كانُوا شِيَعاً لَسْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِي شَيْ‏ءٍ إِنَّما أَمْرُهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُهُمْ بِما كانُوا يَفْعَلُونَ‏»

"Surely they who divided their religion into parts and became sects, you have no concern with them; their affair is only with Allah, then He will inform them of what they did."

A number of exegetes believe that the verse has been revealed about Jews and Christians who were divided into groups and sects out of envy and hostility against one another. However, some others are of the view that the verse refers to those who tried to sow seeds of discord and disunity among the people. They are the ones who feigned conversion to Islam and did not truly embrace it due to prejudice, spite and hypocrisy. 

It seems that the verse includes a universal instruction about all those who create disunity and seek to create innovations including those who lived before this Ummah or those who are in the Ummah for the time being. In other words, the verse means that those who created division in religion as the Quran says, "and those to whom the Book had been given did not show opposition but after knowledge had come to them, out of envy among themselves" are not in the way of Islam which is based squarely on unity and they will be judged by their Lord. 

Nothing from their misdeeds will stick to you. God, the Exalted, will make them aware of their deeds on the Day of Judgment. He will reveal to them the reality of their behavior. Therefore, the verse is general showing also the Prophet's disavowal to the Jews and Christians as well as to those who created divisions and innovations in the Islamic Ummah.

[iceman]

Mujahid, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and As-Suddi said that this Ayah was revealed about the Jews and Christians. Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented,

﴿ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ فَرَّقُواْ دِينَہُمۡ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا ﴾

(Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects...) "Before Muhammad was sent, the Jews and Christians disputed and divided into sects. When Muhammad was sent, Allah revealed to him,

﴿ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ فَرَّقُواْ دِينَہُمۡ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا لَّسۡتَ مِنۡہُمۡ فِى شَىۡءٍ‌ۚ ﴾

(Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects, you have no concern with them in the least.) It is apparent that this Ayah refers to all those who defy the religion of Allah, or revert from it. Allah sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth so that He makes it victorious and dominant above all religions. His Law is one and does not contain any contradiction or incongruity. Therefore, those who dispute in the religion,

﴿ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا ﴾

(...and break up into sects,) religious sects, just like those who follow the various sects, desires and misguidance - then Allah has purified His Messenger from their ways. In a similar Ayah, Allah said,

I am looking into this in depth by moving away from brother Muslim 720's tit for tat points and comments so we can focus better on what really needs to be addressed rather than being distracted.

Notice this verse again, take a look at the Arabic version and then English;

﴿ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ فَرَّقُواْ دِينَہُمۡ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا لَّسۡتَ مِنۡہُمۡ فِى شَىۡءٍ‌ۚ ﴾

notice the words  ﴿ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا ﴾ this doesn't mean SHIA but in fact it means SECTS. The actual translation wordo by word is;

"Absolutely those who divide their religion and become sects" 

﴿ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا ﴾  actually means 'and become sects'. This has nothing to do with Shia or Shiaism.

[iceman]

One needs to move away from the sarcastic comments and personal points made by some to distract our attention and make us focus on a tit for tat argument rather than looking into and discussing the main thing.

See how the propagandists twist and turn things and start giving their own explanation, meaning and understanding then they put up a confrontational stance to distract and divert.

The verse under discussion has got nothing to do with the Shia sect. In fact it doesn't even mean Shia or refers to a singular or particular sect. But see how they twist and turn it to fool people and misguide the average and common folk about Shiaism and Shias.

It just means 'and become sects' that's all it means. It doesn't even mean Shia or refers to a singular or particular sect or group. Nice one bro Muslim 720. Thanks for giving me something to look into. When it comes you gents one needs to watch your techniques and tactics on distraction and diversion.

Here it is once

﴿ إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ فَرَّقُواْ دِينَہُمۡ وَكَانُواْ شِيَعً۬ا لَّسۡتَ مِنۡہُمۡ فِى شَىۡءٍ‌ۚ إِنَّمَآ أَمۡرُهُمۡ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ ثُمَّ يُنَبِّئُہُم بِمَا كَانُواْ يَفۡعَلُونَ ﴾

(159. Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects, you have no concern with them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.) those who divide their religion and break up into sects, you have no concern with them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to do.)

The verse is general and only speaks about those who divide their religion and break up into sects. That's all it says and means.

Now waiting for ma brother Muslim 720's response. May be he can build the strength and have the courage to tell me where it says and means Shias and what does a general verse have to do with Shiaism.

[iceman]

اِنَّ الَّذِيۡنَ فَرَّقُوۡا دِيۡنَهُمۡ وَكَانُوۡا شِيَـعًا لَّسۡتَ مِنۡهُمۡ فِىۡ شَىۡءٍ​ ؕ اِنَّمَاۤ اَمۡرُهُمۡ اِلَى اللّٰهِ ثُمَّ يُنَـبِّـئُـهُمۡ بِمَا كَانُوۡا يَفۡعَلُوۡنَ‏

(6:159) Surely you have nothing to do with those who have made divisions in their religion and become factions.141 Their matter is with Allah and He will indeed tell them (in time) what they have been doing.

This is addressed to the Prophet (peace be on him) and through him to all followers of the true faith. The import of this statement is that true faith has always consisted, and still consists, in recognizing the One True God as one's God and Lord; in associating none with God in His divinity - neither in respect of His essence, nor of His attributes, nor of His claims upon His creatures; in believing in the Hereafter and hence considering oneself answerable before God; and in living according to those principles and values which have been communicated by God to mankind through His Prophets and Books.

This was the religion entrusted to man at the beginning of human life. The religions which emerged later stemmed from the perverted ingenuity of man, from his baser lusts, and from an exaggerated sense of devotion to venerable personalities. Such factors corrupted the original religion and overlaid it with harmful innovations. Hence, people modified and distorted the original beliefs by mixing them with products of their conjecture and philosophical thinking.

More and more innovations were added to the original laws of the true religion. Putting aside the Law of God, men set themselves up as their own law-makers, indulged in hair-splitting elaborations, and exaggerated the importance of disagreements in minor legal problems. They showed excessive veneration for some Prophets of God and some standard-bearers of the true religion, and directed their rancour and hatred against the others. Thus there emerged innumerable religions and sects, the birth of each leading to the fragmentation of humanity into an ever-increasing number of mutually hostile groups.

Anyone who decides to follow the true religion must therefore cut himself off from all factions and chart an independent course.

[muslim720]

Muslim 720 I will respond to your points later but first lets sort this out.

There is no sorting out needed.  You proudly call yourself "Shia" while the Prophet (saw) was informed that he had nothing to do with you or your ways.  By citing the "year of jama'ah", you proved that you (Shias) broke away and formed your own sect while applying the label of "Shia" to yourselves.  You dug your own grave; I only helped you into it.

[iceman]

There is no sorting out needed.  You proudly call yourself "Shia" while the Prophet (saw) was informed that he had nothing to do with you or your ways.  By citing the "year of jama'ah", you proved that you (Shias) broke away and formed your own sect while applying the label of "Shia" to yourselves.  You dug your own grave; I only helped you into it.

Oh yes there is. Yes we do proudly call ourselves Shia because calling yourself Shia 'meaning follower' isn't a crime. It depends on who's Shia you are.

The Prophet (saw) was informed that he had nothing to do with us and our way,  where and when was he informed of such? And who were the Shias at the Prophet's time which he was informed to be aware of?

Shias didn't break away, those who raised arms against your fourth rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims were the ones who broke away. Double standards and hypocritical element has always been part and a piece of your Aqeedah.

I didn't dig my own grave, you shot yourself in the foot. I exposed your lie. Where in the verse does it say and mean SHIA? I gave you a full and in depth analysis and you haven't even had the courage to touch it.

Where is your reply/response to post #195 and 196? I exposed your lie and unveiled your agenda. Give me a clear and in depth response to #195 196. Or admit that you are a PROPAGANDIST.