TwelverShia.net Forum

Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

demmzy15

Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« on: January 19, 2016, 05:22:08 PM »
Salam Alaikum Ya Ikwaan, it's been a long time. Sorry I wasn't constant, it was because I had exams.

I got into a discussion with a Shia about the 12 imams and I need your help. I'll be posting subsequently my posts and his also. His posts are colored red while mine are blue.  Plus I used in my arguments some materials from this site, Masha'Allah


MY PERSONAL REFUTATIONS TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED ARGUMENTS THAT THE 12 SUCCESSORS CANNOT BE THE 12 IMAMS OF THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD'S AHLUL-BAYT/PROGENY THAT (WE) THE SHIA-MUSLIMS BELIEVE IN AS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE SUCCESSORS TO THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD (s).

Sunni caliphs are more than 30 in number, and the Prophet (s) categorically stated there would be 12 successors.

it is very ironic that the Sunni scholars, as quoted above, would prepare a list of 12 from amongst their tens of caliphs to match to this hadith with no basis why they decide to choose those 12 names. some of them even include Yazeed, while others disregard him.

then these same people would accuse the Shia of being the ones bringing up the names of their Twelve Imams to match up with the hadiths. yet, the Twelve Imams of the Shia are all from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and were one after the other until the Twelfth. It was not a case that the Shia have countless, many or over 30 Imams from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and amongst them, like Sunnis do with their over 30 caliphs, they pick a list of 12. it is not the fault of the Shia that the line of Imamate stopped with the Twelfth Imam. it was not by choice that that happened, but by divine decree as the hadith of the Prophet (s) had predicted. these 12 Imams from the Prophet's progeny were one after another. it was a succession of father to son, by Allah's decree as this verse explains better:

"Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations. Offspring one of the other; and Allah is Hearing, Knowing." (Holy Quran 3:33-34)

regarding those Shia groups that are now extinct that stopped or believed in 3,4, or 7 Imams, that was borne out of their doubt, confusion or misinformation, largely due to geography and persecution. if they chose not to believe further, it does not make the line of succession of the Imamate up to the 12th stop, and nor does it make the hadith of the twelve successors, which both Sunnis and Shia believe in, null or void. whether you believe, or they believe, or not, the promise of Allah will manifest. after all, those extinct groups did believe that Imam Ali (as) was the first successor of the Prophet (s), and not Abu Bakr; will Sunnis also follow the footsteps of those extinct groups and believe in 3,4 or 7 Imams as they have done?

moreover, the Quran states that the "light/guidance of Allah cannot be extinguished". common sense dictates that if those groups were the guided, they wont go into extinction. The Twelver Shias (Ithna Ashariyyah) who make up the largest body of Shias, and the word "Shia" refers to them by default, is the only group that believe in Twelve Imams, again not by their choice but by divine decree as the Imamate stood on the number 12. the other two Shia sub groups, namely the Zaidis and Ismailis believe in many Imams, like Sunnis numbering tens. the Zaidis diverted after Imam Ali Ibn al-Hussain (as), and believed a different line, and the Ismailis stopped at Imam Ja'far al Sadeq (as), and believed in a different line. note the word "believe". in the case of the Zaidis and Ismailis, they "believed" in different lines, and not followed, because those they attributed the imamate to from among the children of the Imams among the Twelve Imams were not alive or present to lead them. they attributed the imamate to them after their death, while in reality those figures did not claim the imamate. on the other hand, the sucessionship of the Twelve Imams was both verbal and written. the Twelve Imams issued religious decrees (fatwas) to their Shia on the successor to come and his name amongst their offspring.

by no means can either of these argument stand to justify the claim that the Shia match their Twelve Imams (as) the hadith many years later. from the hadith itself, it is clear that the 12 wont rule altogether at once. its a case of successionship over the years. and that happened with the Shia not by choice as the imamate successionship halted at the number 12. it did not stop at 7 or 4 or 5 or continue to 15. it stopped at twelve. not by disobedience or rejection, but because at the number 12, there was no successor, and the 12th Imam was miraculously preserved while his forefathers were all martyred by the tyranical rulers.

this hadith is just a defeat for any Sunni who tries to prop up a list of 12 names from amongst the over 30 Sunni caliphs. it is unsubstantiated and a case of baselessness on the part on part of Sunni scholars who would stop at nothing to reject the obvious.

we believe that from the Shia belief "imamate" has a superior stations in Shia Islam (as it is both spiritual and material leadership), in contrast to the caliphate in the Sunni context, which is only material leadership. however, when the term "caliph" is used to refer to the successor of the Prophet (s), not in a defined Sunni context, but a general context, we do subscribe to this hadith of 12 caliphs. it is on the basis that the caliph of the Prophet (s) must be both a spiritual and worldly/material/political leader that we believe that the imamate in the Shia context carries more weight to the Shia than the caliphate to the Sunnis. the word "caliphs/successors" used in this hadith should therefore not be used in the definite sense of the Sunni caliphate or in that context. therefore playing with words that the Shias believe in imams and not caliphs is silly. whether they successors of the Prophet (s) are called "amir" (princes), khulafa (successors), imams (leaders), or hukkam (rulers), as far as they are 12 in number and one after the other and from the Prophet's progeny/Ahlul-Bayt (as) that is all that matter to us.

furthermore, in versions of this hadiths, not accepted by mainstream Sunni Islam, the names of the Twelve Imams are said to have been stated by the Prophet (s). this part of the hadith:

"”Then he said something I did not hear, and my father said that he said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.”

carries a lot of suspicion. note the emphasis "and my father said that he said"!!! and why did he not hear that "something" and his father told him-not the Prophet- that "all of them will be from Quraysh". could the Prophet (s) have added that all of them would be from Banu Hashim or from his Ahlul-Bayt (as) which the narrator concealed or claimed or even actually "did not hear"? in any case, all the caliphs being from quraysh again does disservice to the Sunnis. there were many Sunni caliphs not from Quraysh. and the hadith also discredits the Sunni rulers of today who are not from Quraysh!!! yet still, the Sunni caliphs from Quraysh were still more than 12!!! this hadith is really a thorn to Sunnis. however they twist it, it backfires on them!!!

the hadith states that Islam will prevail for as long as there are Twelve and this life will not end until those Twelve. it doesnt mean if the Twelve, or eleven of the Twelve, were all persecuted and martyred that means they failed. indeed Allah's promise to the prophets will be fulfilled with Imam Mahdi, the Twelfth, when he returns along with Prophet Jesus (as). so the argument that the hadith cant refer to the Twelve Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) is very dishonest. the Twelve Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) the Shia believe in were the fountain of Islamic Learning and Knowledge. the four imams of the four Sunni schools of thought benefitted immensely from the knowledge of Imam Ja'far Ibn Muhammad, al-Sadeq (as), the Sixth Imam. look at the dishonesty of Ibn Taymiyyah's word in saying that only Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) carried a sword. he disregarded Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain, both of whom fought with their father in the Battle of Siffin against Ibn Taymiyyah's role model Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan. further, Imam Hussain (as) gallantly stood in Karbala against Yazeed (Ibn Taymiyyah and the Wahhabis/Salafists' role model) with his sword and sacrificed everything for the defense of Islam and ended up having his blood triumph over the sword of falsehood of Banu Umayyah.

the clutching at straws and beating around the bush when it comes to this particular hadith that Sunnis generally do is ridiculous and show how unconvincing they can be when they are expose to the truth.


My reply:

ZhulFiqar ^^^Whatever the Sunni Ulama named was based on opinions because the Prophet never mentioned anyone.

So just because the Twelver Shias are in complete agreement as to who the twelve caliphs are. Ironically, their agreement does not suggest any strength, but rather, implies a stubbornness that goes against logic.

Concerning the Twelver Shias being the righteous as you tried to portray above is not acceptable. Your allegations is just based on conjectures, it's a known and established fact the Twelver Shias were never the most populous until the time of Shah Isma'il. The was the man responsible for enforcing Twelver Shiism by killing, maiming and persecuting the Ahl Sunnah of Iran, so just because the Twelver Shias are the most famous of all Shias doesn't automatically translate other factions are lies(in light of Shiism).

The hadith in question goes as clearly stated by the op, I wish you read the op fully with no biased mind. I guess you just merely glanced through:

1- Al-Bukhari (#6682) narrated through the path of Shu’ba from Abdulmalik from Jabir bin Samura that the Prophet – peace be upon him – said that there will be twelve amirs. Shu’ba narrates it in this short form, which others, like Sufyan in Saheeh Muslim (#3394) and Abu Abd Al-Samad Al-Ami in Musnad Ahmad (#20019) narrated a lengthier form from Abdulmalik. The former said: The matters of the people will continue to progress as long as they are led by twelve men. The latter said: This religion will stay at a state of glory or the people will be in a good state until the passing of twelve caliphs.

2- Muslim (#3393) narrated from the path of Husain bin Abdulrahman from Jabir bin Samura the narration but said: This matter will not end until the passing of twelve caliphs.

3- Muslim (#3394) narrated from the path of Abu Awana from Simak the same narration in short form as well. However, he also narrated (#3395) from Hammad bin Salama from Simak that he said: Islam will stay in a state of glory until the passing of twelve caliphs. This is supported by Zakariya bin Abi Za’ida’s report in Mustakhraj Abi Awana (#5631) that includes this addition.

Meaning of the Hadith:

The meaning of the Hadith is apparent. Islam will go through phases, which include times of glory and times of disgrace. The years of glory that were known during the time of the Prophet – peace be upon him – will continue to last until the passing of twelve caliphs, which suggests a long period of glory.

The narration does not suggest that glory will only be known during the reign of twelve caliphs, but rather, it suggests an uninterrupted era of glory, which was a significant prophecy and good news for the Sahabah, who were used to the oppression from their enemies.

There is also nothing in this narration about the nature of these twelve caliphs. They are not described in any of the narrations in a positive or negative light, but only that Islam will see glory until they pass.

Moreover, there's no relation as to how Shias interpret this hadith!!! As clearly explained by the Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Kathir, et al. The interpretation of the Shia is baseless because only Ali and to some extent Hasan had power over the Ummah, this an established fact. There's no need for any conspiracy of this that those, it's very clear no ambiguity whatsoever!

Salam Alaikum!


He then replied:

You obviously did not read my post or if you did certainly not completely.

You view the "glory of Islam" as in phases. Your second and third caliphs were both killed by their enemies. The fourth to you was faced with two civil wars and a third battle against the Khawarij. The fifth murdered and plundered. The sixth massacred the family of Prophet Muhammad (s) and committed the Tragedy of Karbala. And ugly list goes on and on and on. Is this your definition of glory? All the conquests were through bloodshed and killings. Your definition of glory is material. To us, glory refers to "the righteous shall inherit the earth" as stated in the Holy Quran. That glory refers to the ultimate victory of Imam Mahdi (ajtfs) and the return of Prophet Jesus (as). "The earth shall be filled with justice and equality as it was filled with injustice and tyranny". Islam will be glorious or STANDING as far as there are Twelve Caliphs. Those Twelve are a condition for Allah's continuation of Islam. In another version of this same Hadith, it is stated that the Prophet (s) said: "the number of my successors is the number of the tribes of Banu Israeel".

It is funny you accuse me of conjectures when I presented facts and sound reasoning. I can do the same with yours. The problem is your arguments are not even conjecture but escapism to avoid the plain and obvious truth of the matter which your stance and arguments lack.

You speak of Shah Ismaeel and Persia. Are you really serious and responsible? Was it not through bloodshed and conquest Sunni Islam reached Persia? Did umar conquer Persia with roses and honey? Or by killing and destruction? As for Shah Ismaeel he was Sunni and became Shia. The presence of Shia Islam in Persia was way before shah Ismaeel. The main drive behind shah ismaeel's battles was warding off the Sunni Ottoman Empire. Ethnicism/ethnic rivalry was a fuel: Shah Ismael's Safavid Empire was Persian and the Sunni Ottoman Empire was Turkish. Turkish Shias were also treated in Anatolia with suspicion and cruelty and no better than the Safavids treated Sunnis in Persia. It took a violent turn in the form of a civil war. And the Shia too, whether in Persia or elsewhere, since the passing away of the Prophet (s) were oppressed and continue to be to this day. There is a divine secret behind that.

It is not right for a Sunni to accuse others of bloodshed. Shah Ismaeel acted in his national interest and as the head of an existing empire within that empire. Your caliphs did far worse in "spreading Sunni Islam" far and wide through the sword. And it can be easily said that if not for violence and bloodshed, Sunnis will not be the majority of Muslims today. That is certain. On the other hand, I don't know based on which census did you conclude that Twelvers were a minority. The Persian Shias were already twelvers before shah Ismaeel.so also those Shias in Lebanon,Iraq, Bahrain, and Arabia.

The Prophet (s) said his successors will be 12. Stick to 12. Who were the 12? Did you Actually have 12 or more? Don't go cherry picking from the list of over 30 and tell us these are the names of the 12. Those are not 12 and that is not 12. Certainly, you have way more. The Prophet said 12 only. We did not make them 12. We found them to be so. We did not make them match the Hadith in terms of number because there was no one to follow beyond the 12th Imam. And we did not stop but the line of Imamate halted at the 12th. The fact that extinct Shia groups stopped at 4 or 7 imams, shows that was their own handwork. While the line of Imamate continued and stopped by itself at the 12th. The two other Shia sub groups that survived to this day, like Sunnis, have many and tens of successors. Again their choice and handwork. But the stop at the 12th that mainstream Shia Islam, otherwise called Twelvers, abide by was miraculous. Not our doing.


So brothers I wish you could help me out here, some beneficial points to add!

Salam!

Farid

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2016, 08:39:20 PM »
Wa alaykum alsalam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh,

He said: To us, glory refers to "the righteous shall inherit the earth" as stated in the Holy Quran. That glory refers to the ultimate victory of Imam Mahdi (ajtfs) and the return of Prophet Jesus (as). "The earth shall be filled with justice and equality as it was filled with injustice and tyranny".

I say: The narration says that there will be glory UNTIL twelve caliphs, not AFTER caliphs.

As per the Shia view of history, Islam was never in a time of glory. The Prophet peace be upon him was surrounded by hypocrites, Ali's rights were usurped, and the Mahdi is hidden.

Furthermore, the assassinations of caliphs does not negate the glory of their times. Islam was in a state of expansion during those times.

Bolani Muslim

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2016, 10:07:05 PM »
I'm not an expert, but I noticed a few mistakes in what he wrote, since he didn't quote evidence, I'll take the liberty to do the same:
Quote
The fifth murdered and plundered. The sixth massacred the family of Prophet Muhammad (s) and committed the Tragedy of Karbala. And ugly list goes on and on and on.
He thinks we like all the Ummayads and Abbassids in power, but it was our 'evil caliphs' that killed Imam Abu Hanifa and tortured Imam Ahmad.

Quote
You speak of Shah Ismaeel and Persia. Are you really serious and responsible? Was it not through bloodshed and conquest Sunni Islam reached Persia? Did umar conquer Persia with roses and honey? Or by killing and destruction?
Did Hz Umar kill innocent people to accepting his religion? The people converted over the course of hundreds of years. Note how the Mother of Imam Zainul Abideen is from this 'haraam evil jihad' and Hz Salman Farsi was a general and became a governor.

Quote
It took a violent turn in the form of a civil war. And the Shia too, whether in Persia or elsewhere, since the passing away of the Prophet (s) were oppressed and continue to be to this day. There is a divine secret behind that. 
Your friend is brainwashed. He'll turn anything into a religious point, lol. I'm sure you can defend this.

Quote
  Shah Ismaeel acted in his national interest 
Hz Umar did the same, the jizya tax was lower then the taxes they paid by the zoroastrian king. It has a Shia bias, but it's good


Quote
On the other hand, I don't know based on which census did you conclude that Twelvers were a minority. The Persian Shias were already twelvers before shah Ismaeel.so also those Shias in Lebanon,Iraq, Bahrain, and Arabia.
On what census were they ever a majority? During and after the Fatimids, I'd assume the Ismailis are the majority (as they're mentioned a lot) and had a foothold in Africa and beyond. The Zaydis have a long and documented history in Yemen. The only 12er Shias in Iran were Qom and some villages. Bahrain is a tiny island with a tiny population. Iraq became 'shiasized' after the Safavids. Lebanon is majority Christian (and probably even more historically).

The 60mins ran out on me and I was too lazy to redo it all :/. Hope this helps!

Good article on the 12 caliph Hadis.
http://www.sjiieten-ontmaskerd.nl/AhlelBayt.com/www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/rebuttals/12-caliphs.html

Note, tell your friend that using a few words from dictionary.com doesn't make him smart.

Rationalist

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2016, 03:29:43 AM »
Quote
You speak of Shah Ismaeel and Persia. Are you really serious and responsible? Was it not through bloodshed and conquest Sunni Islam reached Persia? Did umar conquer Persia with roses and honey? Or by killing and destruction?
Imam Ali (as) himself told Umar to  stay back and send other troops to Persia. This is in Najh Al Balagha.

demmzy15

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2016, 08:56:35 AM »
Quote
You speak of Shah Ismaeel and Persia. Are you really serious and responsible? Was it not through bloodshed and conquest Sunni Islam reached Persia? Did umar conquer Persia with roses and honey? Or by killing and destruction?
Imam Ali (as) himself told Umar to  stay back and send other troops to Persia. This is in Najh Al Balagha.
Salam Alaikum brother, thanks for the help. Please can I get a good reference to this?!

Bolani Muslim

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2016, 09:07:04 AM »
http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=19794

Sermon 134
Delivered when Caliph `Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-mu'minin about himself, taking part in the march towards Rome ( Byzantine Empire ).

[Allah has taken upon Himself for the followers of this religion the strengthening of boundaries and hiding of the secret places. Allah helped them when they were few and could not protect themselves. He is living and will not die. If you will your self proceed towards the enemy and clash with them and fall into some trouble, there will be no place of refuge for the Muslims other than their remote cities, nor do they have anyone to return to after you. Therefore, you should send there an experienced man and send with him people of good performance who are well-intentioned. If Allah grants you victory, then this is what you want. If it is otherwise, you would serve as a support for the people and a returning place for the Muslims.]

Sermon 145
Spoken when `Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-mu'minin about taking part in the battle of Persia.
In this matter, victory of defeat is not dependent on the smallness or greatness of forces. It is Allah's religion which He has raised above all faiths, and His army which He has mobilized and extended, till it has reached the point where it stands now, and has arrived its present positions. We hold a promise from Allah, and He will fulfill His promise and support His army.

The position of the head of government is that of the thread for beads, as it connects them and keeps them together. If the thread is broken, they will disperse and be lost, and will never come together again. The Arabs today, even though small in number are big because of Islam and strong because of unity. You should remain like the axis for them, and rotate the mill (of government) with (the help of) the Arabs, and be their root. Avoid battle, because if you leave this place the Arabs will attack you from all sides and directions till the unguarded places left behind by you will become more important than those before you.

If the Persians see you tomorrow they will say, "He is the root (chief) of Arabia. If we do away with him we will be in peace." In this way this will heighten their eagerness against you and their keenness to aim at you. You say that they have set out to fight against the Muslims. Well, Allah detests their setting out more than you do, and He is more capable of preventing what He detests. As regards your idea about their (large) number, in the past we did not fight on the strength of large numbers but we fought on the basis of Allah's support and assistance.

Nauzubillah, tell your friend to repent because he has called Ameer al-Mumineen Ali (ra) a ZAALIM!

demmzy15

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2016, 01:46:09 PM »
http://islamic-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=19794

Sermon 134
Delivered when Caliph `Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-mu'minin about himself, taking part in the march towards Rome ( Byzantine Empire ).

[Allah has taken upon Himself for the followers of this religion the strengthening of boundaries and hiding of the secret places. Allah helped them when they were few and could not protect themselves. He is living and will not die. If you will your self proceed towards the enemy and clash with them and fall into some trouble, there will be no place of refuge for the Muslims other than their remote cities, nor do they have anyone to return to after you. Therefore, you should send there an experienced man and send with him people of good performance who are well-intentioned. If Allah grants you victory, then this is what you want. If it is otherwise, you would serve as a support for the people and a returning place for the Muslims.]

Sermon 145
Spoken when `Umar ibn al-Khattab consulted Amir al-mu'minin about taking part in the battle of Persia.
In this matter, victory of defeat is not dependent on the smallness or greatness of forces. It is Allah's religion which He has raised above all faiths, and His army which He has mobilized and extended, till it has reached the point where it stands now, and has arrived its present positions. We hold a promise from Allah, and He will fulfill His promise and support His army.

The position of the head of government is that of the thread for beads, as it connects them and keeps them together. If the thread is broken, they will disperse and be lost, and will never come together again. The Arabs today, even though small in number are big because of Islam and strong because of unity. You should remain like the axis for them, and rotate the mill (of government) with (the help of) the Arabs, and be their root. Avoid battle, because if you leave this place the Arabs will attack you from all sides and directions till the unguarded places left behind by you will become more important than those before you.

If the Persians see you tomorrow they will say, "He is the root (chief) of Arabia. If we do away with him we will be in peace." In this way this will heighten their eagerness against you and their keenness to aim at you. You say that they have set out to fight against the Muslims. Well, Allah detests their setting out more than you do, and He is more capable of preventing what He detests. As regards your idea about their (large) number, in the past we did not fight on the strength of large numbers but we fought on the basis of Allah's support and assistance.

Nauzubillah, tell your friend to repent because he has called Ameer al-Mumineen Ali (ra) a ZAALIM!
Thank you very much brother, may Allaah to enrich you with knowledge!

demmzy15

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2016, 05:13:32 PM »
Salam Alaikum Ikwaan, thank you all for the contributions! I replied him yester night, mine is in blue:

ZhulFiqar, I read all your posts carefully with no biased mind. And it's still doesn't make sense!

The narration says that there will be glory UNTIL twelve caliphs, not AFTER caliphs.

As per the Shia view of history, Islam was never in a time of glory. The Prophet peace be upon him was surrounded by hypocrites, Ali's rights were usurped, and the Mahdi is hidden. You Shias hold the view that Islam was disgraced during the reign of Ali, Al-Hasan, Al-Hussain, and then his children, and will continue to be in a state of disgrace until the rise of the 12th Imam. This interpretation totally contradicts the meaning of the Hadith. Some of you guys even claimed that some of this great men had to carry out takkiyah just to save themselves.

What's funny is that, the hadith of Ahl Sunnah in which your Ulama then adopted you then use and twist it's meanings. Allah's refuge is sought!

I state this hadith again:

Al-Bukhari (#6682) narrated through the path of Shu’ba from Abdulmalik from Jabir bin Samura that the Prophet – peace be upon him – said that there will be twelve amirs. Shu’ba narrates it in this short form, which others, like Sufyan in Saheeh Muslim (#3394) and Abu Abd Al-Samad Al-Ami in Musnad Ahmad (#20019) narrated a lengthier form from Abdulmalik. The former said: The matters of the people will continue to progress as long as they are led by twelve men. The latter said: This religion will stay at a state of glory or the people will be in a good state until the passing of twelve caliphs.

The meaning you gave to "state of glory" is not restricted to that because there's no evidence for that. A point you've dwindling around since and you've not yet disproved is that only two of your Imams were Caliphs. The hadith never said "12 men who are supposed to be caliphs" but it stated explicitly "12 caliphs".

For your other points, no Ahl Sunnah would agree with you all the listed caliphs are Saints! No one would, in fact some of them persecuted known scholars like Imam Ahmad, Imam Abu Hanifah so your perception is totally wrong. Plus-- the assassinations of caliphs does not negate the glory of their times. Islam was in a state of expansion during those times.

Coming to your post on Persia!

There's a huge difference between the blessed Superb Caliph Umar and Shah Isma'il.

Did Caliph Umar kill innocent people to accepting his religion? The people converted over the course of hundreds of years. Note how the Mother of Imam Zainul Abideen is from this 'haraam evil jihad' and Salman Farsi(Ahl Bayt) was a military general and became a governor. Very ironic tho!

Also, Twelver Shias being the majority, on what census were they ever a majority? During and after the Fatimids, I'd assume the Ismailis are the majority (as they're mentioned a lot) and had a foothold in Africa and beyond. The Zaydis have a long and documented history in Yemen. The only 12er Shias in Iran were Qom and some villages. Bahrain is a tiny island with a tiny population. Iraq became 'shiasized' after the Safavids. Lebanon is majority Christian (and probably even more historically).

So how were they ever a majority, please I need clearer explanations on this.

Concerning this post of yours:
Quote
The Prophet (s) said his successors will be 12. Stick to 12. Who were the 12? Did you Actually have 12 or more? Don't go cherry picking from the list of over 30 and tell us these are the names of the 12. Those are not 12 and that is not 12. Certainly, you have way more. The Prophet said 12 only. We did not make them 12. We found them to be so. We did not make them match the Hadith in terms of number because there was no one to follow beyond the 12th Imam. And we did not stop but the line of Imamate halted at the 12th. The fact that extinct Shia groups stopped at 4 or 7 imams, shows that was their own handwork. While the line of Imamate continued and stopped by itself at the 12th. The two other Shia groups that survived to this day, like Sunnis, have many and tens of successors. Again their choice and handwork. But the stop at the 12th that mainstream Shia Islam, otherwise called Twelvers, abide by was miraculous. Not our doing.

The Hadith of the twelve Caliphs is an example of a “self-fulfilling prophecy”. Therefore, we must define what exactly is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We read:
A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that, in being made, actually causes itself to become “true”.
(“Self-fulfilling prophecy”, Wikipedia)

To give an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, we have the literary story of “Romulus and Remus”: according to legend, Romulus and Remus were in their childhood sentenced to death for fear of a prophecy that one day they would kill the king. However, Romulus and Remus escape death and later in life they hear stories of the prophecy; after hearing these prophecies, Romulus and Remus then realize that their destiny in life is to kill the king, and they then do exactly that.
In other words, a self-fulfilling prophecy is a statement which may sufficiently influence people in such a way that their reactions ultimately fulfill (or seem to fulfill) the prophecy.

When Shias knew of this prophecy, they then adjusted to it. So today, you deceive many Sunnis that this hadith goes in line with you methodology while in reality this hadith was by Ahl Sunnah in which you adjusted to. This as shown in a Shia book:

These and other traditions (Hadith) were spread in both Imamite and Zaydite circles…According to al-Saduq these traditions (Hadith) and others predicting the occurrence of the Ghayba were the main reason for the Imamite acceptance of the Ghayba and for their being satisfied that the series of the Imams should stop at the twelfth.
(The Occultation of the Twelfth Imam: A Historical Background, by Dr. Jassim M. Hussain, p.138)

In other words, the Imamah of the Imami Shia would not have ended at the number twelve had it not been for this Hadith of the twelve Caliphs found in mainstream Muslim books of Hadith. It was this Hadith which was one of the “main reasons” that caused the Shia to terminate the Imamah at the number twelve. So it's not a coincidence, you Shias base you beliefs solely on the books of Ahl Sunnah!! !!

Now coming to the listing of this caliphs in which Ahl Sunnah defer, just as how you've asked “who are the twelve Caliphs” and then think you've made bone-breaker point(lol, according albaqir ). This is nothing particular or peculiar about our lack of certainty with regards to this one specific prophecy, but rather we are similarly uncertain about the bulk of the Prophet’s prophecies. In another Hadith, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) has stated that a mujaddid (reviver of the faith) would appear after every century; if we ask the Sunni scholars to name who were all the mujaddideen of the Ummah throughout the centuries, we find that they will not be able to name them. In fact, there is no way that anybody can know for certain even a single of these mujaddideen, namely because to say something like that with absolute certainty would be speaking about the Unseen without knowledge from Allah, which is considered a sin.

Therefore, it is not fair for you to demand for us to say for certainty who the twelve Caliphs are, when in fact our doctrine necessitates that we cannot talk about this with certainty as it being a thing only Allah knows. The vagueness of the Prophet’s prophecy is not at all limited to this one particular Hadith but can be seen in many other Hadith, such as the prophecy about Gog and Magog. Throughout the ages, people have guessed as to who Gog and Magog refers to, some saying that it refers to the Turks while others saying it refers to the Mongols, some say Gog and Magog have already come, whereas others say that they are yet to come–but nobody knows with certainty.

Many of the prophecies of the Prophet (SAW) were vague and we can only guess at their exact meaning; such is the nature of prophecies. So when we Sunnis are vague with who are the twelve caliphs in the Hadith, we are vague with all the prophecies in general, because we do not wish to speak about the Unseen without knowledge. Allah warns in the Quran:

“Say: The things that my Lord has indeed forbidden are…saying things about Allah of which you have no knowledge.”
(Quran, 7:33)

And Allah warns against Dhann (conjecture), saying:
“But of that they have no knowledge: they merely conjecture!”
(Quran, 45:25)

And Allah says further:
“Most people are such that if you follow them they will lead you away from the right path, because they rely on conjecture only.”
(Quran, 6:116)

The truthful scholars of Sunni Islam can only therefore guess at who the twelve Caliphs are, and it should be understood that these are guesses at best; only deviants manipulate the Word of Allah claiming certainty.

So be careful brother!


He then replied in red, NB:that my posts were in quotes too:

complete your sentence:

"And it's still doesn't make sense!...to me"

no one is saying AFTER. that is point number 1. where did you get that from? there is even nothing in the Arabic wordings containing the word "glory". i understood that was figurative, not literal. there is no word as "MAJD" (glory) in the arabic. literally, the hadith states that the religion will NOT CEASE TO STAND UNTIL there are 12 successors. there is no word as "glory" in the Arabic. you are trying to insert or plunge words that i have not said and the hadith does not contain literally. i can read Arabic, in case you cannot. if you cannot, you can be excused. but if you can and you are being dishonest, as all your arguments in this thread are dishonest, then it is not excusable. you are therefore deceitful.

point number 2, please get to know the definition of "UNTIL". the hadith says : this religion will not cease to stand UNTIL there are 12 successors. meaning for as long as there are the 12 successors, the religion will STAND. the word in arabic is "hattah". there is a difference between "UNTIL" and "AFTER". this means the religion will survive up to the time of the 12th successor. this evidently means going by the time that has elapsed (over a 1000 years), logic entails we believe that the 12th successor has not yet passed away. we are in the era of the 12th. this justifies the Shia belief in the 12th Imam's disappearance for over a thousand years and still counting and will return at the end of time along with Prophet Isa (as). the Shia belief in Ghaibah is thus justified just with one word you are using to confuse yourself because you have dodged the truth. otherwise, answer this question:

how can a religion over a thousand years old be said to continue or stand UNTIL there are 12 rulers? this means the reign of the 12 successors amount to the time of the religion's existence. this goes to show that AFTER the 12th, the end time begins.

note again: the word UNTIL is what WE emphasize on and accept wholely, and not AFTER. we do not say the religion will exist AFTER there are 12 rulers. meaning before 12 rulers, the religion will cease to exist or will not exist.

UNTIL: "UP TO".

Quote
As per the Shia view of history, Islam was never in a time of glory.

speak for yourself.not on behalf of things you are evidently ignorant of but insist on expressing your empty opinions on based on sectarian blindness.

Quote
The Prophet peace be upon him was surrounded by hypocrites,

this is not an assertion exclusive to the Shia. it is a Quranic assertion. there is a Surat in the Holy Quran called Surat al-Munafiqun (Hypocrites). the Prophet (s) was indeed surrounded by hypocrites; people who claimed to have believed but did not believe. there are many verses on them, and even miraculous ones that expose their hypocrisy as part of the knowledge of the unseen given divinely to the Prophet (s). we simply disagree on the hypocrisy of some, who you have elevated beyond reason.

Quote
Ali's rights were usurped,

this is found in Sunni Islam's most authentic books. in both Bukhari and Muslim, the protest of Imam Ali (as) and his refusal to give Ba'yah to Abu Bakr are recorded. we did not invent this.

Quote
You Shias hold the view that Islam was disgraced during the reign of Ali, Al-Hasan, Al-Hussain, and then his children, and will continue to be in a state of disgrace until the rise of the 12th Imam.

that is your stupidity.

the Shia stance is that "their honor from Allah is martyrdom"...these was the reply of Imam Ali Ibn al-Hussain Zainul-Abideen (as), the fourth holy Imam from the progeny of the Prophet Muhammad (s), to Yazeed the tyrant, and fifth Sunni caliph, after the tragedy of Karbala and the beheading of Imam Hussain (as)-grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (s).

Quote
This interpretation totally contradicts the meaning of the Hadith. Some of you guys even claimed that some of this great men had to carry out takkiyah just to save themselves.

prophets of Allah also practiced Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is a Quranic and Islamic doctine. it is found in the Quran, and in times of necessity and when the conditions exist for Taqiyyah, it must and should be practiced to save the believers, their lives and properties from harms-way. if you dont believe in Taqiyyah, then no one would be surprised.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2016, 05:34:32 PM by demmzy15 »

demmzy15

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2016, 05:42:07 PM »
Quote
I state this hadith again:
Al-Bukhari (#6682) narrated through the path of Shu’ba from Abdulmalik from Jabir bin Samura that the Prophet – peace be upon him – said that there will be twelve amirs. Shu’ba narrates it in this short form, which others, like Sufyan in Saheeh Muslim (#3394) and Abu Abd Al-Samad Al-Ami in Musnad Ahmad (#20019) narrated a lengthier form from Abdulmalik. The former said: The matters of the people will continue to progress as long as they are led by twelve men. The latter said: This religion will stay at a state of glory or the people will be in a good state until the passing of twelve caliphs.
The meaning you gave to "state of glory" is not restricted to that because there's no evidence for that. A point you've dwindling around since and you've not yet disproved is that only two of your Imams were Caliphs. The hadith never said "12 men who are supposed to be caliphs" but it stated explicitly "12 caliphs".

you have to stop beating around the bush. the version we deal about and i give importance to are the ones in Bukhari and Muslim. if you bring up one isolated version, to talk about "state of glory", then you have to bring the arabic version, let us first see if the arabic word for "glory" is found in it. secondly, talking about "state of glory", your Sunni caliphs or during their time cannot be described as "glorious" going by their atrocities and bloodshed.

you stated that only two of our 12 Imams (as), the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (s), were actually caliphs. you are mixing things up. "caliph" can literally mean successor or right successor regardless if the person actually held the political office and position of caliphate, or if he was denied the office but remains the rightful successor or caliph. also, the word "IMAM" carries more weight to the position of the rightful 12 successors of the Prophet (s) because the word "IMAM" denotes both political and spiritual leadership. now, if most of the rightful successors of the Prophet (s) did not hold the office of caliphate does not make them less of the rightfully designated successors of the Prophet (s). there were prophets rejected by their peoples. that does not make them less of prophets and truthful because of people's ignorance and rejection. to Sunnis, caliphate is a matter for people to decide and choose. to the Shia IMAMATE (which encompasses both political leadership-caliphate-and spiritual leadership) is a matter of Allah to choose and decide for the Ummah and for His Religion. therefore, it is not the choice of people or a thrown or an office wrongly usurped that makes one a successor of Rasulullah (s). it is the choice and will of Allah, as declared on several occasions by the Prophet (s) himself. to this end, i must mention the saying of the Prophet (s):

"Hassan and Hussain are TWO IMAMS whether they stand up or sit down".

"stand up" refers to Imam Hussain's (as) uprising with the sword. and "sit down" refers to Imam Hassan's (as) abdication of worldly position and signing a conditioned truce with Muawiyah to protect the blood of Muslims from being shed.

Quote
For your other points, no Ahl Sunnah would agree with you all the listed caliphs are Saints! No one would, in fact some of them persecuted known scholars like Imam Ahmad, Imam Abu Hanifah so your perception is totally wrong. Plus-- the assassinations of caliphs does not negate the glory of their times. Islam was in a state of expansion during those times.

you should not consider conquests and war as times of "glory". it is not glory for a religion to act like a bully and raging into the lands of non-Muslims and butchering them and forcing them to convert and forcefully taking over their wealth and ra.ping their women or taken them as s e x slaves. that is not Islam, but jahiliyyah. Islam does not force anyone to convert or die. i consider those times as times of shame, and not glory. if you hold on to such belief that justify conquest and forceful conversions to "spread your Islam", then what is the difference between you and ISIS or Boko Haram? that is why recently a truthful saudi wahhabi cleric (Kalbani, former imam of Makkah) said that ISIS represents the purest form of the salafist/wahhabi ideology. your denial that the likes of ISIS and Boko Haram have no relation to "your islam" is false. they are part and parcel of your creed. i am pointing to wahhabism/salafism, which is an extremist and violent ideological movement within Sunni Islam.

Quote
Coming to your post on Persia!
There's a huge difference between the blessed Superb Caliph Umar and Shah Isma'il.
Did Caliph Umar kill innocent people to accepting his religion? The people converted over the course of hundreds of years. Note how the Mother of Imam Zainul Abideen is from this 'haraam evil jihad' and Salman Farsi(Ahl Bayt) was a military general and became a governor. Very ironic tho!

Shah Ismaeel was one man. after he died, one would expect persians to go back to Sunnism. especially that subsequent rulers were Sunnis after Shah Ismaeel. but did that happen? no!

the conversion and conquest of Persia was bloody. the killer of Umar, Abu Lu'lu, was persian and he killed umar to take revenge.

the mother of Imam Zainul Abideen (as) being persian does not justify the crimes committed or conquest of foreign lands and their forceful conversion to Islam. the taking part of Salam al-Farisi (RA) can be disputed. Salman (RA) is listed in authentic Sunni narrations as part of the companions who refused to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr or recognize his caliphate. they stood by Imam Ali (as) loyally. and they were the pioneer Shia in resisting the oppression meted out on the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

Imam Ali (as), even though in his prime, did not take part in any battle after the death of the Prophet (s). Imam Ali (as) was active in all fields during the time of the Prophet (s), and when he took over the office of caliphate, he also fought three wars. yet, during the time of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Usthman, Imam Ali (as) refrained from fighting or actively going to the battlefield. why? he limited his rule to advising for the general wellfare of the ummah and the common Muslim, which was selfless sacrifice for the ummah at large and the religion of Allah.


TO BE CONTINUED...


Brothers, I'll be expecting your help, this people have been successful in deceiving many Sunnis. Some are my friends who now are cool around, something I fear that they might eventually embrace someday!

Salam!

Hani

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2016, 10:20:55 PM »
Bro, you made the classic mistake of going into a bazzilion topics at the same time. That's why you guys are writing HUGE paragraphs to refute eachother. Always stick to one very specific topic when debating a Shi`ee,otherwise you'll waste your time and energy.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Bolani Muslim

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2016, 03:13:24 AM »
Bro Hani has a point. Your friends trying to 'throw all he's got' at you in the hopes your ignorant about something of your beliefs. I'm not surprised Shias are winning converts, they're good at debating, but not comprehending.

Bolani Muslim

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2016, 03:13:37 AM »
Bro Hani has a point. Your friends trying to 'throw all he's got' at you in the hopes your ignorant about something of your beliefs. I'm not surprised Shias are winning converts, they're good at debating and manipulation, but not comprehending.

Rationalist

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2016, 07:54:20 AM »
Avoid topics defending Umar. They hate Umar more than Iblis himself. Also there is a famous quote by Imam Ali posted on 12er Shia website  which  states 'It is easier to turn a mountain into dust than to create love in a heart that is filled with hatred.' This is the case of hate that the 12er Shia have toward the 2nd.  Also, notice the 12er Shia use a formula. This is to antagonize Sunnis Islam, and attack Umar. So with  this done all of sudden the 12 Imams concept is supposed to make sense? There were many others in the family of Prophet who claimed Imamate. Prophets have not used Taqiyyah to deny their Prophethood, however, the Imams which the 12er Shia believe in supposedly were destined to become rulers, but used taqiyyah?

Rationalist

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2016, 08:29:12 AM »

you have to stop beating around the bush. the version we deal about and i give importance to are the ones in Bukhari and Muslim. if you bring up one isolated version, to talk about "state of glory", then you have to bring the arabic version, let us first see if the arabic word for "glory" is found in it. secondly, talking about "state of glory", your Sunni caliphs or during their time cannot be described as "glorious" going by their atrocities and bloodshed.

There are many ahadith in the 12er SHia book where the 12th Imam will commit atrocities and bloodshed. I will post them below.
Quote
you stated that only two of our 12 Imams (as), the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (s), were actually caliphs. you are mixing things up. "caliph" can literally mean successor or right successor regardless if the person actually held the political office and position of caliphate, or if he was denied the office but remains the rightful successor or caliph.
Nobody is mixing up anything. The 12 Calipahs ahadith actually says the 12 will rule over the Ummah. Again I personally don't think this ahadith is binding on the ummah, but since it talks about the 12 rulers, this is prove that the ahadith is not talking about a dozen imams from the household. By telling above the 12 Imams don't have to rule shows how they don't fit into the 12 Calipah ahadith in the Sunni books.
Quote
also, the word "IMAM" carries more weight to the position of the rightful 12 successors of the Prophet (s) because the word "IMAM" denotes both political and spiritual leadership. now, if most of the rightful successors of the Prophet (s) did not hold the office of caliphate does not make them less of the rightfully designated successors of the Prophet (s). there were prophets rejected by their peoples. that does not make them less of prophets and truthful because of people's ignorance and rejection. to Sunnis, caliphate is a matter for people to decide and choose. to the Shia IMAMATE (which encompasses both political leadership-caliphate-and spiritual leadership) is a matter of Allah to choose and decide for the Ummah and for His Religion. therefore, it is not the choice of people or a thrown or an office wrongly usurped that makes one a successor of Rasulullah (s). it is the choice and will of Allah, as declared on several occasions by the Prophet (s) himself. to this end, i must mention the saying of the Prophet (s):
Does this mean any other person from the lineage of Fatima (sa) who claimed Imamate is a kaffir?

Quote
"Hassan and Hussain are TWO IMAMS whether they stand up or sit down".

"stand up" refers to Imam Hussain's (as) uprising with the sword. and "sit down" refers to Imam Hassan's (as) abdication of worldly position and signing a conditioned truce with Muawiyah to protect the blood of Muslims from being shed.
Exactly this is proof that they are not appointed to rule of the ummah. Both Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Hussain (as) became the rulers through a bayah of the people. They only chose to get into politics when people gave them the bayah. They didn't tell people were are the among the 12 divinely appointed imams.

Quote
you should not consider conquests and war as times of "glory". it is not glory for a religion to act like a bully and raging into the lands of non-Muslims and butchering them and forcing them to convert and forcefully taking over their wealth and ra.ping their women or taken them as s e x slaves. that is not Islam, but jahiliyyah. Islam does not force anyone to convert or die. i consider those times as times of shame, and not glory. if you hold on to such belief that justify conquest and forceful conversions to "spread your Islam", then what is the difference between you and ISIS or Boko Haram? that is why recently a truthful saudi wahhabi cleric (Kalbani, former imam of Makkah) said that ISIS represents the purest form of the salafist/wahhabi ideology. your denial that the likes of ISIS and Boko Haram have no relation to "your islam" is false. they are part and parcel of your creed. i am pointing to wahhabism/salafism, which is an extremist and violent ideological movement within Sunni Islam.

This is actually ideology of the Shia belief of the 12th imam.
12th imam will not follow the Sunnah according to the ahadith below:

Ali bin al-Husayn narrated from Muhammad bin Yahya al-Attar from Muhammad bin Hassaan ar-Razifrom Muhammad bin Ali al-Kufi from Ahmad binMuhammad bin Abu Nasr from Abdullah bin Bukayr from his father that Zurara had said to Abu Ja'far Muhammadbin Ali al-Baqir (s):“I want you to mention to me the name of one of the virtuous men-I meant al-Qa'im (s).”He said: “His name is like mine.”I said: “Will he act like Muhammad (s)?”He said: “O Zurara, how far! He will not act as the Prophet (s) has acted.”I asked: “May I die for you! Why not?” He said: “The Prophet (s) has acted leniently towards his umma. He has entreated people kindly whereas al-Qa'im (s) will use his sword with them. He has been ordered by the book, which is with him, to do so. He will kill (bad) people without forgiving anyone. Woe unto whoever opposes him then. Iqd ad-Durar p.226, Ithbat al-Hudat , vol.3 p.539, Hilyatul Abrar , vol.2 p.628, Biharul Anwar , vol.52 p.353, Muntakhab al- Athar p.302, Mo’jam, Ahadeeth al-Imam al-Mahdi, vol.3 p.303.

12th Imam to destroy Mosques

Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa'eed narrated from Alibin al-Hasan at-Taymali from al-Hasan and Muhammad,the sons of Ali bin Yousuf, from Sa’dan bin Muslim fromSabah al-Muzni from al-Harith bin Haseera from Habbaal-Orani that Amirul Mo'mineen (s) had said:“As if I see our Shia in the mosque of Kufa setting uppavilions to teach the people the Qur'an as it has beenrevealed but when our Qa’im appears, he will destroy it(the mosque) and level its mihrab to the ground.”
Biharul Anwar , vol.52 p.364,
Mo’jam Ahadeeth al-Imam al-Mahdi vol.3 p.126.



Abu Sulayman Ahmad bin Hawtah narrated fromIbraheem bin Iss~haq an-Nahawandi from Abdullah binHammad al-Ansari from Sabah al-Muzni from al-Harithbin Haseera that al-Asbugh bin Nabata had said:“I heard Ali (s) saying: “As if I see the Persians settingup their pavilions in the mosque of Kufa and teachingpeople the Qur'an as it has been revealed!”

I said: “O Amirul Mo'mineen, is the Qur'an not as it hasbeen revealed?”He said: “No, it is not. The names of seventy ones of Quraysh have been removed from it.


The name of AbuLahab has been left (in the Qur'an) just to remind theProphet (s) of something because he is the Prophet’suncle.”


Biharul Anwar , vol.52 p.364.
 


Quote
yet, during the time of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Usthman, Imam Ali (as) refrained from fighting or actively going to the battlefield. why? he limited his rule to advising for the general wellfare of the ummah and the common Muslim, which was selfless sacrifice for the ummah at large and the religion of Allah.
And what was his advise to Umar on Persia? It was to send troops there.

Rationalist

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2016, 08:33:46 AM »
Quote
this is not an assertion exclusive to the Shia. it is a Quranic assertion. there is a Surat in the Holy Quran called Surat al-Munafiqun (Hypocrites). the Prophet (s) was indeed surrounded by hypocrites; people who claimed to have believed but did not believe. there are many verses on them, and even miraculous ones that expose their hypocrisy as part of the knowledge of the unseen given divinely to the Prophet (s). we simply disagree on the hypocrisy of some, who you have elevated beyond reason.

Hypocrites did not exist  only in the time of the Prophet(s) or in the Sunni community. In fact, in al Kafi it points out they are in majority within the Shia coumminty as well. In one ahadith in Al Kafi Imam Jafar wanted to declare the Calipahate but he could not do so because the 100,000 who claimed they are supporting him in reality did not. Imam Jafar in that ahadith states in that 100,000 even 17 are not loyal.

Rationalist

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2016, 08:46:43 AM »
But the stop at the 12th that mainstream Shia Islam, otherwise called Twelvers, abide by was miraculous. Not our doing.[/color]

The problem is the 12er Shia sect is its not practical. If we refer to the 12er shia books ever since the 12th imam disappeared he had one complaint and that is one of the main reason he is still did not appear in the mainstream public. The reason is the hypocrisy of the Shia.

Refer to the ahadith:

Imam Mahdi (A.S.) said.
"If our shias; may Allah help them in His obedience; would have fulfilled their covenant with united hearts then there would have. been no delay in our meeting, and they would have been blessed with our visitation at the earliest, along with the recognition of truth and confirmation of our rights."
(Al Ihtejaj vol.2 Pg.602)

Bolani Muslim

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2016, 06:43:10 PM »
[Abū Baṣīr reported:]
Abū ‘Abd Allāh (Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq) said: “When the Qā’im, peace be on him, rises,
he will destroy the Sacred Mosque so that it is reduced to its foundations. He
will move the station to the place in which it was. He will cut off the hands of
the Banū Shayba and hang them on the Ka‘ba. On it he will write: ‘These are the
thieves of the Ka‘ba.

[Abū al-Jārūd reported on the authority of Abū Ja‘far (al-Bāqir), peace be on
him, in a long account (ḥadīth):]:
(al-Bāqir) said: “When the Qā’im, peace be on him, rises, he will go to Kūfā and
some ten thousand persons called the Batriyya (Zaydi sect) who will be wearing arms will
come out (against him). They will say: ‘Go back where you came from. We have
no need of the sons of Fāṭima.’ He will put them to the sword until he comes
to the last of them. Then he will enter Kūfā. There he will kill every doubting
hypocrite and he will destroy their palaces. He will kill those who fight for them
until Allāh, the Mighty and High, is satisfied.”

[Abu Khadīja reported on the authority of Abū ‘Abd Allāh (Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq),
peace be on him:]
(Ja‘far al-Ṣādiq) said: “When the Qā’im, peace be on him, rises, he will come
with a new commandment (from Allāh) just as the Apostle of Allāh, may Allāh
bless Him and His Family, summoned (men) to a new commandment (from
Allāh) at the beginning of Islam.”

[Abū Baṣīr reported on the authority of Abū Ja‘far (al-Bāqir), peace be on him,
to a long account:]
(al-Bāqir) said: “When the Qā’im, peace be on him, rises, he will go to Kūfā.
There he will destroy four mosques. There will not remain a mosque on the
face of the earth which has a verandah except he will destroy it and make it flat.
He will expand the main street and every (building) which juts out along the
road will be destroyed. He will destroy the latrines and waste pipes (which jut
out) on to the roads. There will be no innovation left which he does not remove
and no religious practice (sunna) which he does not establish. He will conquer
Constantinople, China and the mountains of al-Daylam. He will remam (doing)
that for seven years, each year being ten of your years. Then Allāh will do what
He wishes.”

[Jabīr (al-Ju‘fi) reported on the authority of Abū Ja‘far (al-Bāqir), peace be on
him, to a long account:]
(al-Bāqir) said: “When the Qā’im from the family of Muḥammad, may Allāh
bless Him and His Family, arises, he will set up encampments and he will teach
the people the Qur’ān as it was revealed by Allāh, the Mighty and High. The
greatest difficulty will be for those who have learnt it as it is today, because it
differs from its (original) composition.”

You can find these and more lovely Hadith in:
Kitab al-Irshad pg 519-521
http://www.shia-maktab.info/index.php/en/library/books/english?format=raw&task=download&fid=93

Link

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2016, 12:49:22 AM »
So the strength of the affair of the God and his Messenger, is measured by Dunya standards: conquests and what not. What a joke.
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

Rationalist

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2016, 01:08:05 AM »
So the strength of the affair of the God and his Messenger, is measured by Dunya standards: conquests and what not. What a joke.

Another foolish 12er who fails who understand the ahadith of the 12 Calipahs and tries to put words into another person's mouth. Its says the 12 Calipah will be rulers and Islam will be a powerful under them. Nobody here said anything about achieving the dunya. In response some people are interpreting it that way.  Again this ahadith has nothing to do with aqeeda.

Link

Re: Please Help me in this Discussion with a Shia!
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2016, 03:32:53 AM »
I believe the family of Ibrahim were true rulers and kings, whether people accepted them or not. They ruled the people with an authority that had more consequence to disobedience and rejection then any worldly believed in authority. A tantamount of denying that leads to disbelieving in God being the True King.

The same is true of the family of Mohammad
Love of the family of Yaseen is the light of the heavens and the earth.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
1128 Views
Last post May 19, 2015, 05:40:42 PM
by Al Dukhan
11 Replies
1810 Views
Last post May 27, 2015, 10:12:27 AM
by Muhammad Tazin
6 Replies
989 Views
Last post May 14, 2016, 04:29:06 PM
by MuslimK
13 Replies
1139 Views
Last post June 23, 2017, 07:02:07 PM
by Muhammad Tazin