TwelverShia.net Forum

Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Imamah-Ghaybah => Topic started by: zaid_ibn_ali on January 11, 2018, 12:11:07 PM

Title: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on January 11, 2018, 12:11:07 PM
In this day & age being a sayyid makes no difference in terms leadership whatsoever.
Who is ahle bayt today? Some Imam hiding for over a millenium?

The fact is that shi’ism has not stood the test of time. There is no ahle bayt leading the ummah. No Imam.

Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Kalaam on January 12, 2018, 07:18:27 PM
Yeah man, I also agree. Shiites are really confused on how to defend their perspective. All they have got is the Taqiyyah card. They say Imam is necessary for guiding Ummah, now if Imam can still guide the Ummah from behind the stage, why is there so much noha and matam over caliphate? If Imam can guide Ummah and do all his duties, he shouldn't have any problem with someone else's caliphate. Even Hadhrat Ali should have no problem with the caliphate, if he could do all his duties of imamate without governing.

You know what, their imams' have lived different lives. One Imam doesn't want to give allegiance, the other one gives allegiance easily. One is ready for fight in the face of death, the other one is all about hiding for protecting his life. At the end, all we get is a confused theory of imamate. A really confused one.

One more post to keep this forum live.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 12, 2018, 08:26:04 PM
In this day & age being a sayyid makes no difference in terms leadership whatsoever.
Who is ahle bayt today? Some Imam hiding for over a millenium?

The fact is that shi’ism has not stood the test of time. There is no ahle bayt leading the ummah. No Imam.

😂 Really funny. Shiaism along with the Shias have stood the test of time since the death of the Messenger (s). His (s) body didn't even turn cold and he (s) wasn't laid to rest yet since then Shiaism and the Shias have stood the test of everything that has been thrown at them.

It is because of the Shias that Islam and the Muslims prospered. And today it is because of these so called Sunis, who carry out terrorist activities to bring back that Islamic Caliphate at Saqifa, that Islam and the Muslims are getting a bad name globally.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 12, 2018, 08:34:15 PM
Yeah man, I also agree. Shiites are really confused on how to defend their perspective. All they have got is the Taqiyyah card. They say Imam is necessary for guiding Ummah, now if Imam can still guide the Ummah from behind the stage, why is there so much noha and matam over caliphate? If Imam can guide Ummah and do all his duties, he shouldn't have any problem with someone else's caliphate. Even Hadhrat Ali should have no problem with the caliphate, if he could do all his duties of imamate without governing.

You know what, their imams' have lived different lives. One Imam doesn't want to give allegiance, the other one gives allegiance easily. One is ready for fight in the face of death, the other one is all about hiding for protecting his life. At the end, all we get is a confused theory of imamate. A really confused one.

One more post to keep this forum live.

😁 Really funny. We are not confused and never have been. We have always been clear and open about who and what we are. And you......? We don't have double standards like you and there are no ifs and buts when it comes to us as you. By the way who on this site has played the Taqeya card? These are old and out of date allegations and excuses. Don't you think you should come up with something new?
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Kalaam on January 12, 2018, 08:41:54 PM
old is gold man
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 12, 2018, 08:46:46 PM
old is gold man

I will accept that because I know you can't do any better or go any further than that. 😂
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Mythbuster1 on January 12, 2018, 10:13:03 PM
😂 Really funny. Shiaism along with the Shias have stood the test of time since the death of the Messenger (s). His (s) body didn't even turn cold and he (s) wasn't laid to rest yet since then Shiaism and the Shias have stood the test of everything that has been thrown at them.

It is because of the Shias that Islam and the Muslims prospered. And today it is because of these so called Sunis, who carry out terrorist activities to bring back that Islamic Caliphate at Saqifa, that Islam and the Muslims are getting a bad name globally.

let me get this right......COZ OF SHIISM, ISLAM AND MUSLIMS PROSPERED.

Very interesting......I would like to know more if you can provide us with any evidence or proof from history.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Noor-us-Sunnah on January 12, 2018, 11:16:36 PM
Shias  argue with Sunnis, that their Imams were divinely appointed by Allah to guide people.

Sunnis claim that they are being guided by Prophet(saws) through his teachings. That is the narrations from Prophet(saws).

Ironically, when the Shias asked the hidden Shia Imam for any queries, so that they be guided through him. As it was his duty to guide Shias. He humiliated them by responding to refer the books of narrations. Which means when he was asked to perform his duty of guiding people, their Imam asked Shias to follow the footsteps of Sunnis, that is referring back to the books of narrations. Funnily the Shias argue with Sunnis when they seek guidance from the books of narrations.

Shia scholar Muhammad Sanad states:

حتى إن في كثير من الاسئلة الموجهة للناحية المقدسة يجيبهم عجل الله فرجه بالرجوع الى كتب الروايات

[In a lot of the questions transmitted to the holy seat, he (as) responds by telling them to refer back to the books of the narrations for answers.]

( Buhuth fi Mabani `Ilm-ul-Rijal pg.47-48)

 
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on January 12, 2018, 11:21:40 PM


It is because of the Shias that Islam and the Muslims prospered. And today it is because of these so called Sunis, who carry out terrorist activities to bring back that Islamic Caliphate at Saqifa, that Islam and the Muslims are getting a bad name globally.

Probably your most comedic comment yet.

I would love to see you try dig yourself out this one & explain.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 13, 2018, 01:24:41 AM
Probably your most comedic comment yet.

I would love to see you try dig yourself out this one & explain.

I don't need to dig myself out of anything. I don't follow a blind faith that started from Abu Hanifa then disputed in to four different sects years and years and years after Muhammad . And before the time of Abu Hanifa these so called Sunis were no where to be heard of or seen.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Rationalist on January 13, 2018, 05:37:08 PM
I don't need to dig myself out of anything. I don't follow a blind faith that started from Abu Hanifa then disputed in to four different sects years and years and years after Muhammad . And before the time of Abu Hanifa these so called Sunis were no where to be heard of or seen.

Who said the Jafari fiqh is the direct fiqh of Imam Jafar. Imam Jafar never got his fiqh codified. It evolved through the centuries, yet till today its all guesswork on what your scholars think Imam Jafar said.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Rationalist on January 13, 2018, 05:40:20 PM

It is because of the Shias that Islam and the Muslims prospered. And today it is because of these so called Sunis, who carry out terrorist activities to bring back that Islamic Caliphate at Saqifa, that Islam and the Muslims are getting a bad name globally.

Finally you came out of your closet. You think our Calipahs are responsible for today's problems. Have you not read the narration attributed to the 12th Imam? The 12th Imam makes ISIS look like a joke. I remember the Abbasids when they got into power they brought our the Ummawi rulers bodies and lashed them. The 12th imam in the 12er Shia books will supposed bring all the enemies of the Rafidah back to life and punish them. Then he will destroy mosque and kill Sunnis. Many of you Rafidah are waiting for that day, and have strong aqeeda toward Rajah.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 14, 2018, 09:24:46 PM
Finally you came out of your closet. You think our Calipahs are responsible for today's problems. Have you not read the narration attributed to the 12th Imam? The 12th Imam makes ISIS look like a joke. I remember the Abbasids when they got into power they brought our the Ummawi rulers bodies and lashed them. The 12th imam in the 12er Shia books will supposed bring all the enemies of the Rafidah back to life and punish them. Then he will destroy mosque and kill Sunnis. Many of you Rafidah are waiting for that day, and have strong aqeeda toward Rajah.

I've always been out in the open and available. 😊 Not your Caliphs but the rulers after Muhammad (s) are responsible for all the mess up till now because the didn't and refused to listen to Muhammad (s) and didn't take what he was willing to offer. And about the 12th Imam don't believe in and listen to what ever you here.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 14, 2018, 09:37:01 PM
I've always been out in the open and available. 😊 Not your Caliphs but the rulers after Muhammad (s) are responsible for all the mess up till now because the didn't and refused to listen to Muhammad (s) and didn't take what he was willing to offer. And about the 12th Imam don't believe in and listen to what ever you here. Correction; what ever you hear.

I've said this before, don't read and believe in everything that is attributed to our Imams or even the Prophet (s). Use your aql and put it to proper use.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 14, 2018, 09:41:41 PM
let me get this right......COZ OF SHIISM, ISLAM AND MUSLIMS PROSPERED.

Very interesting......I would like to know more if you can provide us with any evidence or proof from history.

How much more and how many times do you need to know and hear?😊
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Sheikh on January 14, 2018, 11:26:15 PM
I've said this before, don't read and believe in everything that is attributed to our Imams or even the Prophet (s). Use your aql and put it to proper use.


Would you quit it with the aql card already?  Either bring some evidence or go home.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Mythbuster1 on January 14, 2018, 11:45:04 PM
How much more and how many times do you need to know and hear?😊

I haven’t heard no TRUTH from you or your so called AQL😂

Bring it on get your aql on and show us how Islam prospered cos of Shiism.

*popcorn* time🍿.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 14, 2018, 11:59:46 PM
I haven’t heard no TRUTH from you or your so called AQL😂

Bring it on get your aql on and show us how Islam prospered cos of Shiism.

*popcorn* time🍿.

No problem. 😀 If you tell me all the glory and praise Caliphate brought to Islam. And if Caliphate was so great then why is this world going to turn disastrous and what's the need for the Suni Al Mahdi the saviour to bring about justice.😂
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Rationalist on January 15, 2018, 01:42:06 AM
I've always been out in the open and available. 😊 Not your Caliphs but the rulers after Muhammad (s) are responsible for all the mess up till now because the didn't and refused to listen to Muhammad (s) and didn't take what he was willing to offer.
This is like Christians blaming Prophet Adam (as) from eating from the tree. Islam dismisses such type of blame. The Calipahs died before Imam Ali (as). After him you believe in 11 imams. Where were the Rafidah to help them become rulers? SO the fault was really the weakling Rafidah. I have hadith where it says the 12th Imam fled due to fear and lack of support from those who called themselves his Shia.


Quote
And about the 12th Imam don't believe in and listen to what ever you here.
The hadith are stated in your own books. In fact, I even have proof that where a 12er Shia scholar says that the Mahdi will punish Abi Bakr and Umar at their graves.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 15, 2018, 02:09:04 AM
This is like Christians blaming Prophet Adam (as) from eating from the tree. Islam dismisses such type of blame. The Calipahs died before Imam Ali (as). After him you believe in 11 imams. Where were the Rafidah to help them become rulers? SO the fault was really the weakling Rafidah. I have hadith where it says the 12th Imam fled due to fear and lack of support from those who called themselves his Shia.

The hadith are stated in your own books. In fact, I even have proof that where a 12er Shia scholar says that the Mahdi will punish Abi Bakr and Umar at their graves.

Don't listen to everything you hear. Just as everything isn't accepted by you from your books and you don't accept and believe in every single thing every Suni scholar say the same applies to us. So stop cherry picking bits and pieces to suit your nasty desire.

Jamal and Safeen wasn't caused by us now was it. Neither was it caused by Ibne Sabah or any Jew. 😊 We wasn't the ones who refused to join Osama's army on the Prophet's (s) demand. And neither are we the ones who slammed the Prophet (s) by saying "the book of Allah is sufficient for us".

You know everything and still wish to play blind.😊
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Mythbuster1 on January 15, 2018, 06:15:38 AM
No problem. 😀 If you tell me all the glory and praise Caliphate brought to Islam. And if Caliphate was so great then why is this world going to turn disastrous and what's the need for the Suni Al Mahdi the saviour to bring about justice.😂

Huh?.....why should I when you are the one who made a claim.......”Islam prospered coz of Shiism”🤔

How did a SECT/GROUP, a minority, a miniscule nuisance, make Islam prosper?

Come on then you made the claim at least stick to your guns.

......or are you making a FALSE claim??

You have 2 choices either show us proof or your a liar.

Balls in your court.😊
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: muslim720 on January 15, 2018, 07:30:16 AM
And neither are we the ones who slammed the Prophet (s) by saying "the book of Allah is sufficient for us".

You did far worse!  You abandoned the Qur'an and compiled a book with grave issues and gave it the title "The Sufficient" ---> Al-Kafi.

I respect your traditions but we can play this game all day long and I assure you we can outmatch your witty (otherwise, insulting) comments.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Rationalist on January 15, 2018, 04:29:04 PM

Jamal and Safeen wasn't caused by us now was it. Neither was it caused by Ibne Sabah or any Jew. 😊 We wasn't the ones who refused to join Osama's army on the Prophet's (s) demand. And neither are we the ones who slammed the Prophet (s) by saying "the book of Allah is sufficient for us".
But you have 12 imams you claim to follow. Most of these 12 outlived these events. So why didn't free will allow the Rafidah population to allow the remaining imams to become calipah?
It's the Ummayads who said we are power and there is no such thing as free will. However even your aqeeda is saying the same thing?

Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 15, 2018, 07:23:48 PM
Like I said, one at a time and one step at a time. Can't deal with all of you and everything at the same time. So who's first  and then what is first?
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Khaled on January 15, 2018, 08:02:23 PM
Like I said, one at a time and one step at a time. Can't deal with all of you and everything at the same time. So who's first  and then what is first?

I don't know if the brothers here would disagree with me, but I would like you to provide one way Shi'asm saved Islam.  I'll make it easier for you; please provide one thing Twelverism (not Zaidism obviously) contributed to Islam as a whole.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 15, 2018, 08:14:24 PM
I don't know if the brothers here would disagree with me, but I would like you to provide one way Shi'asm saved Islam.  I'll make it easier for you; please provide one thing Twelverism (not Zaidism obviously) contributed to Islam as a whole.

Ok, absolutely and it would be my pleasure. Not that it's going to make any difference to you and neither are you going to accept anything I say. But lets not use that as an excuse because we have audience/viewers.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Khaled on January 15, 2018, 08:23:04 PM
Ok, absolutely and it would be my pleasure. Not that it's going to make any difference to you and neither are you going to accept anything I say. But lets not use that as an excuse because we have audience/viewers.

Instead of making that post, you could've just answered the question.  Or you could've made that the beginning of your post, and dedicated the rest of it to answering the question.  Like always, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I will excpect an answer (even though you've already dodged the question a few times)
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 15, 2018, 08:53:24 PM
Instead of making that post, you could've just answered the question.  Or you could've made that the beginning of your post, and dedicated the rest of it to answering the question.  Like always, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I will excpect an answer (even though you've already dodged the question a few times)

I haven't dodged the question at all. I've just been asked something and without been given the opportunity and time to answer it negative comments are already being made. So what do I make of this. Working at the moment. Will answer. Do we have patience? Or are we that desperate to try and score one against the Shia. You've seem to notice my smiley faces but no comment on others?
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on January 15, 2018, 09:08:38 PM
Keep dodging!
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Khaled on January 15, 2018, 09:20:38 PM
I haven't dodged the question at all. I've just been asked something and without been given the opportunity and time to answer it negative comments are already being made. So what do I make of this. Working at the moment. Will answer. Do we have patience? Or are we that desperate to try and score one against the Shia. You've seem to notice my smiley faces but no comment on others?

You have dodged the questions since it doesn't need that much thought, I can within seconds name the contribution any Muslim sect has made to Islam:

Sufis = major narrators of Qur'an
Salafis = major contribution to the spread of publishing books in the Muslim world
Asharis = defended Islam during the medieval days
Shafi'is = helped progress the sciences of hadeeth and Usool
Mu'tazilis = major contributors to all things related to Arabic
Hanafis = helped preserve the Ahl ar-Ra'yy school, progressed how Islamic law is studied (multiple times throughout history)
Malikis = helped establish Ilm al-Hadeeth, preserved the Madina school
Hanabilah = preserved the early aqeedah of the Sunnis

etc.

Just one thing you can think of that the Muslim world as a whole benefited from
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 16, 2018, 08:13:31 PM
Ok, lets start the ball rolling. People seem to be getting impatient. When the coincidental, hasty and immature decision suddenly and out of the blue was made in Saqifa and to be noted that people didn't gather in Saqifa for the purpose and reason to select and appoint a successor to Muhammad (s) and a leader for the Ummah. As mentioned before it wasn't and there wasn't a public gathering/assembly in Saqifa to select and appoint a leader.

Now how did people take and react to this decision? Evidence is there in the history books that people objected and opposed the decision made in Saqifa. People criticised and condemned it and refused to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr. Lets stick to the stance and role of Ali and his Shia. Point to be noted that this is where Shias originated and emerged from.

Did Ali and his Shia object and oppose through means of violence and threatening behaviour? Did Ali and his Shia use means of violence and threatening behaviour to challenge and take on Abu Bakr and his party? Did Ali and his Shia use techniques and tactics to derail and upset Abu Bakr and his group? Did Ali and his Shia put their party, themselves and their agenda before the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims? Did Ali and his Shia use what ever means necessary to obtain their objective and goal against Abu Bakr?

Ali and his Shia did have a choice but what and which choice did they make and take? They could have easily rebelled against Abu Bakr and made his life difficult and complicated by putting the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims and risk and at stake, just like Moawiya, Aisha etc.

What was the stance of Ali and his Shia despite objecting and rejecting the decision in Saqifa and refusing to accept and swear allegiance to Abu Bakr? This is what we shall look at next and in great detail.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 16, 2018, 09:32:10 PM
The Sunni narration dealing with Imam Ali’s bayah is found in Sahih Bukhari, the most revered book of the Sunnis:
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 546

She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband 'Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect 'Ali much, but after her death, 'Ali noticed a change in the people's attitude towards him. So Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. 'Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet's death and Fatima's death). '

Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, "Come to us, but let nobody come with you," as he disliked that 'Umar should come, 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone " Abu Bakr said, "What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them' So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then 'Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), "We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Apostle.”

Thereupon Abu Bakr's eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, "By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah's Apostle is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah's Apostle following, in disposing of it, but I will follow." On that 'Ali said to Abu Bakr, "I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon." So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashah-hud and then mentioned the story of 'Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered;

Then 'Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) for forgiveness, he uttered Tashah-hud, praised Abu Bakr's right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with. 'Ali added, "But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry." On that all the Muslims became happy and said, "You have done the right thing." The Muslims then became friendly with 'Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr).
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 16, 2018, 09:44:28 PM
) There is no way for the e-Sunni to reconcile this authentic narration with the fabricated ones which state bayah was given after one day.


2) “he disliked that 'Umar should come, 'Umar said (to Abu Bakr), "No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone "” – indicative of the harsh and distant attitude


3) Sunnis believe that during those six months, based on the “Imam of the time” hadith, Ali was committing a very big sin, and if he was to have died it would be the death of the jahil. Therefore there must have been a big reason why he abstained for six whole months.


4) Assuming Imam Ali did give bayah, this does not mean to say he considered Abu Bakr’s rule legitimate. Nay, he only paid allegiance for the greater good, and that was to reconcile the nation. His views remained the same, and are expressed most famously in Khutbatul Shaqshaqiyya, delivered during his reign as caliph.

So Ali and his Shia didn't swear allegiance to Abu Bakr for at least six months. Now we need to ask ourselves what was Ali and his Shias stance towards Abu Bakr and his party? Did they keep a low profile and remained patient and even assisted and cooperated with Abu Bakr and his party for the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims and for the sake of the greater good?

Or did Ali and his Shia rebel and turned towards violence and threatening behaviour and used techniques and tactics to derail Abu Bakr's reign and authority? What really was the stance of Ali and his Shia?
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 16, 2018, 09:49:58 PM
Audience/readers/viewers, a point to be noted.

Sahih Bukhari

Ali added, “But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry.”
..........
“You did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah's Apostle.” Thereupon Abu Bakr's eyes flowed with tears.
The above quotations are something you, my dear readers, have to pay close attention to. In the Bukhari hadith, Imam Ali says that he should have been consulted, and then Abu Bakr started crying, and the oath of allegiance was given. Abu Bakr’s tears when Ali gave bayah to him gave us the impression that he would not repeat his mistake of not consulting with the companions regarding Ali’s claim to leadership.

However, this did not take place. He did not give the companions a list of names for them to choose a leader. Abu Bakr appointed Omar as his successor, and then proceeded to consultation. He did not consult with them to determine his successor. When Talha and Abdul Rahman Ibn Aouf criticised Omar, Abu Bakr did not even think to reverse his decision. He simply retorted in defence of Omar. Why should we not say it as it is? Abu Bakr was indebted to Omar for what happened at Saqifa, and was paying his debt on his deathbed.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on January 16, 2018, 10:04:14 PM
You’ve been asked to point out just one thing twelvers have contributed.

What on earth is all this long drivel that you posted?
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Khaled on January 16, 2018, 10:44:29 PM
Ok, lets start the ball rolling. *snip*

Unfortunately, as usual, you actually didn't respond.

However, if what you are trying to say is that by not revolting against Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه, Ali رضي الله عنه "saved Islam", this is problematic from a large number of angels:

1) I don't believe that 12erism, in the form it exists today existed before the death of Hasan al-Askari رحمه الله.  In fact, I don't believe it existed like it does today before the time of the Second Majlisi.  I think Ali رضي الله عنه's behavior is in-line with how I understand Islamic ethics to be; so this could just as easily be as example of Sunnism considering how influential he is on Ahl al-Sunnah.  If you reject this, then how can you reject that this can be an example of Zaydism, or Waqfism, or Ismailism etc?

2) If real Islam is 12er Shi'asm, then what Imam Ali رضي الله عنه didn't save Islam at all since 95% of the Ummah this whole time (i.e. everyone who is not a 12er) has understood his actions as supporting of the Khalifate, not against it.  So if there was any doubt before, Imam Ali رضي الله عنه's actions only further confirm the story understood by everyone who is not 12er.

3) Of course this topic has been beaten to death, but of course this intrepretation doesn't make sense considering Imam Hussain رضي الله عنه did revolt; how did both actions save Islam?

Now, can you actually show something that the 12ers contributed to mainstream Islam?  Because if that's all you got...
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: GreatChineseFall on January 16, 2018, 10:49:36 PM
You’ve been asked to point out just one thing twelvers have contributed.

What on earth is all this long drivel that you posted?
It seems to me that he is trying to say that the biggest contribution of Twelver Shia's is that they didn't rebel against the rulers, which if that's the case, is very telling.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 17, 2018, 01:31:55 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.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Rationalist on January 17, 2018, 03:45:09 PM
The Shias in the of Ali were not Rafidah. They were closer to Sunni in aqeeda.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: muslim720 on January 17, 2018, 09:30:21 PM
Ok, lets start the ball rolling.

You were asked for the contribution that Twelver Shias made to Islam and you went off on a tangent while quoting from our books, at least Sahih Bukhari.  Don't you see the irony in that?  It indirectly proves that you have not made a tiny contribution as much as a history book.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Khaled on January 17, 2018, 10:14:20 PM
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."
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Rationalist on January 18, 2018, 02:57:32 AM
I've been told that the 12er Shia are very strong in philosophy. Maybe they can give the ummah a hand in that.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 18, 2018, 11:54:35 AM
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
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Rationalist on January 18, 2018, 02:28:46 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.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 18, 2018, 04:15:21 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.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Khaled on January 18, 2018, 05:49:38 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.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on January 18, 2018, 06:30:01 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?

Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Khaled on January 18, 2018, 08:33:09 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.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Rationalist on January 19, 2018, 01:49:05 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?
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 19, 2018, 04:47:44 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.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Khaled on January 19, 2018, 06:00:41 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?
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Rationalist on January 19, 2018, 08:42:02 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.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 19, 2018, 09:18:33 PM
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?
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Khaled on January 19, 2018, 10:40:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: MuslimAnswers on January 20, 2018, 05:46:45 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".
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: Rationalist on January 20, 2018, 06:14:07 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.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 21, 2018, 10:57:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: zaid_ibn_ali on January 21, 2018, 11:48:15 PM
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.

Title: Re: Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!
Post by: iceman on January 22, 2018, 12:08:55 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 😀