Shi’ism has not stood the test of time!

[Mythbuster1]

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.😊

[muslim720]

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.

[Rationalist]

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?

[iceman]

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?

[Khaled]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[Khaled]

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)

[iceman]

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?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Keep dodging!

[Khaled]

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

[iceman]

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.

[iceman]

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).

[iceman]

) 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?

[iceman]

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.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

You’ve been asked to point out just one thing twelvers have contributed.

What on earth is all this long drivel that you posted?

[Khaled]

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...

[GreatChineseFall]

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.

[iceman]

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.

[Rationalist]

The Shias in the of Ali were not Rafidah. They were closer to Sunni in aqeeda.

[muslim720]

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.