TwelverShia.net Forum

Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Khaled

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #40 on: January 18, 2018, 01:14:20 AM »
According to the history books Ali worked as an adviser to the first three Califs. Ali and his Shia were always willing to support, assist, help and aid for the welfare of Islam and for the benefit of the Muslims. When ever the first three Caliphs were stuck or in trouble they turned towards Ali and his Shia. No wonder it was said that 'the best judge among us was Ali'. I know the information and material that I've put forward is painful for you because you wasn't expecting me to answer. But boys it was Ali and his Shia that the first three Caliphs were not opposed but helped and aided when stuck and needed. Who went to protect Osman when he was under internal threat because of the extreme amount of corruption with in his government caused by corrupt Umayeds brought in by Osman as a favour towards family and relatives. Moawiya new about Osman's position but didn't care to come to Osman's aid and defence.

Ali رضي الله عنه and his "Shi'a" رضي الله عنهم are Muslim; not Sunni or Shi'a.  What's ironic about your post (well, there are a long things wrong with it, but in specific) is that the "Sunnis" (i.e. everyone who is not a Twelver) did more to preserve the words of Imam Ali رضي الله عنه than the 12ers ever did.  In fact, even Nahj al-Balagha is a chainless book that relies almost primarily on Sunni sources!  Even the contents of Nahj al-Balagha comes from Sunni sources; meaning the Sunni system of preservation of the early sources even benefited the 12ers.  The saddest part of it all, is that the 12ers did not contribute anything to it; not in the field of Qur'an, not the field of hadeeth, not the field of history and not even in the field of preserving the statements and teachings of Imam Ali رضي الله عنه.

It is because of the Shias that Islam and the Muslims prospered.

I think a more accurate statement is, "It is because of the mainstream Muslims' historical preservation system that 12erism was able to survive."
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

Rationalist

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #41 on: January 18, 2018, 05:57:32 AM »
I've been told that the 12er Shia are very strong in philosophy. Maybe they can give the ummah a hand in that.

iceman

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #42 on: January 18, 2018, 02:54:35 PM »
Ali رضي الله عنه and his "Shi'a" رضي الله عنهم are Muslim; not Sunni or Shi'a.  What's ironic about your post (well, there are a long things wrong with it, but in specific) is that the "Sunnis" (i.e. everyone who is not a Twelver) did more to preserve the words of Imam Ali رضي الله عنه than the 12ers ever did.  In fact, even Nahj al-Balagha is a chainless book that relies almost primarily on Sunni sources!  Even the contents of Nahj al-Balagha comes from Sunni sources; meaning the Sunni system of preservation of the early sources even benefited the 12ers.  The saddest part of it all, is that the 12ers did not contribute anything to it; not in the field of Qur'an, not the field of hadeeth, not the field of history and not even in the field of preserving the statements and teachings of Imam Ali رضي الله عنه.

I think a more accurate statement is, "It is because of the mainstream Muslims' historical preservation system that 12erism was able to survive."

You said;

"Ali and his Shia are Muslims, not Suni or Shia"

Ok,  what do you make of the following;

" I swear by Him Who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shia shall secure deliverance on the Day of Resurrection."

Prophet Muhammad (sa).

Sunni references:

Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p655

Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p329

Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v12, p289

Al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani

Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v10, pp 21-22

Al-Darqunti, who said this tradition has been transmitted via numerous authorities.

Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p247

Rationalist

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #43 on: January 18, 2018, 05:28:46 PM »
These were the people who supported him in his Caliphate and wars. The reality is they were not 12ers or Rafidah. In fact even 12er Shia historians say they were closer to Sunni Islam.

You can't take that Hadith and apply it to today 12ers. It makes no sense.

iceman

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #44 on: January 18, 2018, 07:15:21 PM »
These were the people who supported him in his Caliphate and wars. The reality is they were not 12ers or Rafidah. In fact even 12er Shia historians say they were closer to Sunni Islam.

You can't take that Hadith and apply it to today 12ers. It makes no sense.

And what you've said are just words only with absolutely nothing to back them up. The hadith clearly mentions Ali and his Shia. Those who supported Ali in his Caliphate wars were known as the Muslim army. It's the Muslim army that supports the Caliph. And those who rebelled are known as the supporters of Moawiya, Aisha etc. Please do talk with a bit of logic, sense and reason.

Khaled

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #45 on: January 18, 2018, 08:49:38 PM »
You said;

"Ali and his Shia are Muslims, not Suni or Shia"

Ok,  what do you make of the following;

" I swear by Him Who controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shia shall secure deliverance on the Day of Resurrection."

Prophet Muhammad (sa).
*snip*

It's really sad that the 12ers have contributed so little to the spread and preservation of Islam, that this was the best you can do.

The sects Sunni and Shi'a did NOT exist during the time of the Sahahba, no matter how much you try to make it seem that way.  The word Shi'a means supporters, who in case you did not know, are considered Sahaba and Tabi'een for amongst Ahl as-Sunnah as well.  So how could you possibly interpret this to mean "12er Shi'as" I'm just flabbergasted. Are you saying that the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said that as opposed to "Abu Bakr and his Sunnis"?  Honestly, I don't believe in smiley faces and laughing at the person I'm having a conversation and saying things like:

Quote
Please do talk with a bit of logic, sense and reason.

But this was so illogical that I'm just unable to form a complete thought in response to it.

In either case, what would you say to a person who said, "Shi'a here meant the Zaydis?"  Or the Waqfis or the Ismai'ilis? Or his students that reported these reports from him and what he said in Nahj al-Balagha, i.e. the Ahl as-Sunnah.
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #46 on: January 18, 2018, 09:30:01 PM »
Ahlus sunnah say the 11 Imams shared same beliefs as them but 12ers say the opposite.

So lets talk from the period of after the 11th Imam onwards.

What have the 12ers contributed to the Islamic world since then?


Khaled

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2018, 11:33:09 PM »
Ahlus sunnah say the 11 Imams shared same beliefs as them but 12ers say the opposite.

So lets talk from the period of after the 11th Imam onwards.

What have the 12ers contributed to the Islamic world since then?

That's fair, or any of their students that there is a difference of opinion on between the Sunnis and Shi'is; i.e. Ja'afr al-Ju'fi, Zurarah, something like that.
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

Rationalist

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2018, 04:49:05 AM »
And what you've said are just words only with absolutely nothing to back them up. The hadith clearly mentions Ali and his Shia. Those who supported Ali in his Caliphate wars were known as the Muslim army. It's the Muslim army that supports the Caliph. And those who rebelled are known as the supporters of Moawiya, Aisha etc. Please do talk with a bit of logic, sense and reason.

The Muslim army was a label given to all of those who fought with Ali and against Ali. However, those who sided with Ali were Shia. Ali never said those who fought against me are not Muslims.

Are you trying to tell me that the Rafidah like yourself are the Shia according to the hadith? How is that possible?
None of the Rafidah population made the 11 Imam rulers. In fact, most the Imams left politics because the Rafidah were unreliable when it came to support. Even the current 12er shia population has been waiting for over 1000 years, and the 12th Imam still did not appear. So how can 12er Shia be the ones who fit the description of the hadtih?

iceman

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2018, 07:47:44 PM »
The Muslim army was a label given to all of those who fought with Ali and against Ali. However, those who sided with Ali were Shia. Ali never said those who fought against me are not Muslims.

Are you trying to tell me that the Rafidah like yourself are the Shia according to the hadith? How is that possible?
None of the Rafidah population made the 11 Imam rulers. In fact, most the Imams left politics because the Rafidah were unreliable when it came to support. Even the current 12er shia population has been waiting for over 1000 years, and the 12th Imam still did not appear. So how can 12er Shia be the ones who fit the description of the hadtih?

You said;

"The Muslim army was a label given to all of those who fought with Ali and against Ali."

Who gave this label and according to which principle or ideology?

Ali wasn't a tribal leader and having differences then going to war with another tribal leader for example Moawiya. What was the status of Ali? He was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. He was in government and in authority.

Moawiya, Aisha or anyone else were important personalities but were not in authority or government. They used their influence and position with in the community to stand against and challenge the Muslim government and authority. And they used means of violence and threatening behaviour to do that.

So I don't understand some people and their stance. When it comes to the first three Caliphs, anyone who opposed or challenged them are and have known to be wrong. They have been criticised and condemned and even been labelled as Murtad. But when it comes to the 4th we suddenly see this change of position and stance and consider to see everyone equal and one.

What's the reason behind these double standards and this hypocritical stance? No one said that those who raised arms against Ali weren't Muslims, they were. But using violence and threatening behaviour against the government/authority is called terrorism. And those who do it are known as terrorists. It's just as simple as that.

The Shia Imams didn't leave politics, certain Muslim had their own intentions and ideas. And we see this and the chain of events unfold during the Prophet's (s) final days and onwards. Authority and the chair gets you to do many things which you shouldn't and are not suppose to.

How the Ahlul Bayth and their believers and supporters have been treated throughout history and how they've been kept away from government and governing is crystal clear. It's just the Muslim Ummah has been too careless and ashamed to stand up and face the facts.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 07:54:18 PM by iceman »

Khaled

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2018, 09:00:41 PM »
You said;

"The Muslim army was a label given to all of those who fought with Ali and against Ali."

Who gave this label and according to which principle or ideology? *goes off topic*

Are you willing to concede that the 12er madhhab has not contributed ONE positive thing to the entire Muslim Ummah?
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

Rationalist

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2018, 11:42:02 PM »

How the Ahlul Bayth and their believers and supporters have been treated throughout history and how they've been kept away from government and governing is crystal clear. It's just the Muslim Ummah has been too careless and ashamed to stand up and face the facts.

Your reply does not explain how the people who supported Ali in his Caliphate we're not Shia according to Hadith and how the 12er Shia are the ones who fit the Hadith. You instead went on an emotional rant about how the Shia suffered. Even the Jews suffered in history and till today live in fear just like the 12ers.

iceman

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #52 on: January 20, 2018, 12:18:33 AM »
You mention something and when I question you over it you suddenly spring on to something else. Those who supported Ali in his Caliphate were Muslims. The same Muslims who supported the first three. The only difference is there were individuals who believed that Ali was the successor to Muhammad (s) and the first Imam and leader of the Muslims.These people were a minority just like today and first existed at Ghadeer and were known when opposed Saqifa.

We believe the Hadith about Ali and his Shia refers to those of all generation who believe in Ali as successor to Muhammad (s) and the first Imam of the people. We do not believe that this Hadith is specific and related to Ali and his caliphate period. And why use the word 'shia'? Why not the term 'suni' or 'muslims'? Surely there is a big difference.

The Muslims could never distinguish till this very day about right from wrong were as the Shias did from the beginning. Caliphate from Saqifa onwards brought in all kinds and different rulers, where as Imamah brought in the noble, law abiding and God fearing.

Take a moment out and carefully look at what Caliphate brought in. Good as well as the bad, right as well as the wrong, the pious and God fearing as well as the corrupt and cruel, those who followed the rule of law as well as the dictators and tyrants. Is this the system (caliphate) you believe in and follow?

And why do you see Ali's Caliphate different from the first three? Why the double standards when it comes to Khulafaa e Rashedoon?

Khaled

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #53 on: January 20, 2018, 01:40:37 AM »
You mention something and when I question you over it you suddenly spring on to something else

We have begged you for an entire thread to tell us how the 12ers saved Islam, when it was clear you had nothing, I asked you a simple question that I have been thinking about for a while; name one thing that the 12ers contributed to the Ummah at large?  Your response, "Saqifah!"

Quote
Those who supported Ali in his Caliphate were Muslims. The same Muslims who supported the first three. The only difference is there were individuals who believed that Ali was the successor to Muhammad (s) and the first Imam and leader of the Muslims.These people were a minority just like today and first existed at Ghadeer and were known when opposed Saqifa.

Who are these Companions that were "known" that believed in 12er Madhhab's understanding of the successor ship?  I won't hold my breath, I know you won't answer.

Quote
We believe the Hadith about Ali and his Shia refers to those of all generation who believe in Ali as successor to Muhammad (s) and the first Imam of the people. We do not believe that this Hadith is specific and related to Ali and his caliphate period. And why use the word 'shia'? Why not the term 'suni' or 'muslims'? Surely there is a big difference.


Because Shi'a means "party" as opposed to "Sunni", if he was to say "Muslims" that would imply the rest are non-Muslims.  This conversation is happening despite the fact that we haven't even established the authenticity of the hadeeth or whether it has been accurately translated.

Quote
The Muslims could never distinguish till this very day about right from wrong were as the Shias did from the beginning. Caliphate from Saqifa onwards brought in all kinds and different rulers, where as Imamah brought in the noble, law abiding and God fearing.

May Allah forgive you; how can you possibly have this negative of an opinion of the greatest Ummah that has ever existed?  This is purely sectarian hatred, nothing more, nothing less.  The Muslim world was the best Ummah that ever existed whether you like it or not.  Only the 12ers and the Islamaphobes have this negative-a-view of the Muslim Ummah.  All I can say is, may Allah forgive you and those who teach you this hatred.

Quote
Take a moment out and carefully look at what Caliphate brought in. Good as well as the bad, right as well as the wrong, the pious and God fearing as well as the corrupt and cruel, those who followed the rule of law as well as the dictators and tyrants. Is this the system (caliphate) you believe in and follow?

Yes, the system that brought the Khulafa ar-Rashideen is the system I follow.  Maybe you need to look at Islamic history without sectarian blinders on and just see just how great our tradition is.  I reiterate, May Allah forgive you and those who taught you this hatred.

Quote
And why do you see Ali's Caliphate different from the first three? Why the double standards when it comes to Khulafaa e Rashedoon?

I see them all as the best successors to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.  May Allah be pleased with Abu Bakr, Umar, Othman and Ali, the greatest people that ever lived.  And may Allah forgive any believer who has been taught to hate them and the rest of the 1400 year old Muslim Ummah.

Now... after we have finished all that; can you PLEASE provide one thing that the 12er madhhab has contributed to the Ummah?  Ali رضي الله عنه is not part of my madhhab or your madhhab, just like the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم isn't.  Appealing to them is such a glaring logical fallacy that I'm surprised that someone who continues to appeal to "logic" can't see it.

Now, just one thing please.
كلُّ سُلامى من الناس عليه صدقة كلَّ يوم تطلع فيه الشمس، تَعدلُ بين اثنين صدقة، وتعين الرَّجل في دابَّته فتحمله عليها أو ترفع له عليها متاعَه صدقة، والكلمةُ الطيِّبة صدقة، وبكلِّ خطوة تَمشيها إلى الصلاة صدقة، وتُميط الأذى عن الطريق صدقة

MuslimAnswers

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #54 on: January 20, 2018, 08:46:45 AM »
Quote
May Allah forgive you; how can you possibly have this negative of an opinion of the greatest Ummah that has ever existed?  This is purely sectarian hatred, nothing more, nothing less.  The Muslim world was the best Ummah that ever existed whether you like it or not.  Only the 12ers and the Islamaphobes have this negative-a-view of the Muslim Ummah.  All I can say is, may Allah forgive you and those who teach you this hatred.

This is the paradox of the 12er Shia religion: They denigrate us the Ummah - Nay, say this is not even the Ummah of Muhammad (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) to begin with - yet they, including their "Holy Imams", have no choice but to take the textual evidences, and the Arabic language itself from us since we are the only route for anything to make sense in Islam whatsoever. The other option would be for their "Holy Imams" to come up with Miracles (say, something like the Quran in terms of utter openness and as convincing proof) and then they would have to reconstitute knowledge, language and the pillars of reality from the beginning and away from us the supposed Non-Ummah - needless to say, no need to hold our breath for this to be manifested from their "Imams".
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 08:52:33 AM by MuslimAnswers »

Rationalist

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2018, 09:14:07 AM »
You mention something and when I question you over it you suddenly spring on to something else.
I provided my understanding of the hadith about Ali and his Shia (party).

Quote
Those who supported Ali in his Caliphate were Muslims.
No they were Shia Muslim. Shia means party and since they supported him they were considered Shia.

Quote
The same Muslims who supported the first three. The only difference is there were individuals who believed that Ali was the successor to Muhammad (s) and the first Imam and leader of the Muslims.These people were a minority just like today and first existed at Ghadeer and were known when opposed Saqifa.
Salman Farsi and Ammar Yassir also worked as governors under the rule of Umar. This is the same Umar you believe killed Fatima by breaking her ribs.

Quote
We believe the Hadith about Ali and his Shia refers to those of all generation who believe in Ali as successor to Muhammad (s) and the first Imam of the people. We do not believe that this Hadith is specific and related to Ali and his caliphate period. And why use the word 'shia'? Why not the term 'suni' or 'muslims'? Surely there is a big difference.
There were many Shia sect in the past and many Shia sects today. However, even though the other Shia sects believe Ali is first successor, but your books consider them be among the Nawasib. So again your point of view fails.


Quote
And why use the word 'shia'? Why not the term 'suni' or 'muslims'? Surely there is a big difference.
Muslim again is a term that applies to all the people who were in Jamal and even Siffin. It was Imam Ali who himself called them Muslims. However, Shia at the time was applied to those who supported Ali in his Caliphate. Its only today closed minded and hatred filled 12ers who say majority of the people were not Shia.




Quote
where as Imamah brought in the noble, law abiding and God fearing.
Sadly, the 12th Imam's role brought in the concept of being in fear and disappearing. It also brings in revenge and hatred. Then on top of that it brings in the concept of resurrecting people from their graves and punishing them.

Also, the 12er Shia have suffered in the past. Did the 12th Imam come out to help them? Even in Iran where there is a majority 12er Shia government, the Rafidah population are still whining like little babies.





Quote
Take a moment out and carefully look at what Caliphate brought in. Good as well as the bad, right as well as the wrong, the pious and God fearing as well as the corrupt and cruel, those who followed the rule of law as well as the dictators and tyrants. Is this the system (caliphate) you believe in and follow?
If Caliphate is what bring the likes of Muawiyah and Yazid to power, then why did the majority of the people give Ali the bayah?They didn't side with Muawiyah.

Quote
And why do you see Ali's Caliphate different from the first three? Why the double standards when it comes to Khulafaa e Rashedoon?

I don't believe in the concept of Khulufa Rashidoon. To me the Caliphate is similar to term presidency. The difference is one rules via secular law and the other rules through Islamic law.

iceman

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #56 on: January 22, 2018, 01:57:00 AM »
We have begged you for an entire thread to tell us how the 12ers saved Islam, when it was clear you had nothing, I asked you a simple question that I have been thinking about for a while; name one thing that the 12ers contributed to the Ummah at large?  Your response, "Saqifah!"

Who are these Companions that were "known" that believed in 12er Madhhab's understanding of the successor ship?  I won't hold my breath, I know you won't answer.
 

Because Shi'a means "party" as opposed to "Sunni", if he was to say "Muslims" that would imply the rest are non-Muslims.  This conversation is happening despite the fact that we haven't even established the authenticity of the hadeeth or whether it has been accurately translated.

May Allah forgive you; how can you possibly have this negative of an opinion of the greatest Ummah that has ever existed?  This is purely sectarian hatred, nothing more, nothing less.  The Muslim world was the best Ummah that ever existed whether you like it or not.  Only the 12ers and the Islamaphobes have this negative-a-view of the Muslim Ummah.  All I can say is, may Allah forgive you and those who teach you this hatred.

Yes, the system that brought the Khulafa ar-Rashideen is the system I follow.  Maybe you need to look at Islamic history without sectarian blinders on and just see just how great our tradition is.  I reiterate, May Allah forgive you and those who taught you this hatred.

I see them all as the best successors to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم.  May Allah be pleased with Abu Bakr, Umar, Othman and Ali, the greatest people that ever lived.  And may Allah forgive any believer who has been taught to hate them and the rest of the 1400 year old Muslim Ummah.

Now... after we have finished all that; can you PLEASE provide one thing that the 12er madhhab has contributed to the Ummah?  Ali رضي الله عنه is not part of my madhhab or your madhhab, just like the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم isn't.  Appealing to them is such a glaring logical fallacy that I'm surprised that someone who continues to appeal to "logic" can't see it.

Now, just one thing please.

And I've responded by giving you a much detailed analysis in great length. You still wish to ignore it. Sunni Islam has brought Caliphate which has brought tyrant and dictators in the past and now is bringing terrorist organisations. Shia Islam has brought the opposite. Ali and his Shias and note the word 'Shias', will be successful. Not the Sunis or the Muslims but Ali and his Shia.

Now you can twist and turn this as much as you like that Shias don't mean these Shias but it means those Shias. You can fiddle about with the meaning and explanation of Shias as much as you want. But you deep down know who's going to be successful. It's your ignorance stepping in the way.

Ali is a part of out madhhab and we believe in the Wilayat of Ali. Saqifah is not a part of your madhhab but the foundation and base of it.

zaid_ibn_ali

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #57 on: January 22, 2018, 02:48:15 AM »
Why do 12ers waffle & write a whole complex formula essay in reply to a simple question?

They do this all the time.

Like politicians when asked a very simple question that only needs a short sentence reply.


iceman

Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
« Reply #58 on: January 22, 2018, 03:08:55 AM »
Why do 12ers waffle & write a whole complex formula essay in reply to a simple question?

They do this all the time.

Like politicians when asked a very simple question that only needs a short sentence reply.

By the sound of it essays seem to be well above your educational and intellectual level. So what's your simple question and how do you know that it needs a short sentence reply?😊 The question depends on the one who asks, so don't you think the answer should depend on the one who answers? 😊 Or is it that the question depends on you and the answer should be of your desire 😀

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3720 Views
Last post May 05, 2015, 12:48:22 PM
by farrukhkabir
16 Replies
2349 Views
Last post September 04, 2015, 03:22:45 PM
by MuslimK
0 Replies
564 Views
Last post July 28, 2015, 02:52:06 AM
by Ibn Yahya
6 Replies
2322 Views
Last post July 13, 2016, 01:03:42 AM
by ShiaMan