Naveen Al-Rafidhi (Muslim720 and NaveenHussain only)

[muslim720]

Regarding following enemies of Ahlul Bayt (ra), it seems like you Rawaafidh know more, and better, than the Prophet (saw).  He (saw) befriended them, established marriage ties with them and entrusted them with his life.  But the Prophet (saw) somehow didn't know of the animosity they harbored in their chests.  You know but he (saw) did not...naudhibillah!

The Prophet (saww) treated EVERYONE justly, be they Kuffaar, or otherwise. You should know that. It puzzles me that you don't, evidently. The Prophet (saww) did marry man a woman, for many different reasons, as it's said. One such reason was said to bring together tribes. I think your logic will fail you when you reply with such comments. Just because I may marry a white woman, for example, doesn't mean I like the evil people among whites; sure, if they're good white people, I have no issues liking them. You should try to better acquaint yourself with the Holy Quraan:

Quraan 9:101
[Shakir]:

And from among those who are round about you of the dwellers of the desert there are hypocrites, and from among the people of Medina (also); they are stubborn in hypocrisy; you do not know them; We know them; We will chastise them twice then shall they be turned back to a grievous chastisement
-----

Your post has two lies.  First, your allegation that I do not know the Qur'an.  Two, that the Prophet [saw] treated everyone equally, even the Kuffaar.  While your second lie has truth in it, it is the twist that I will address which is a by-product of you projecting your own ignorance on to something that I thought you would at least understand, if not admit!

Let us see what is one of the most basic guidelines for marriage in the Qur'an.

"Let no man guilty of adultery or fornication marry and but a woman similarly guilty, or an Unbeliever: nor let any but such a man or an Unbeliever marry such a woman: to the Believers such a thing is forbidden."  (Surah An-Nur, verse 3)

I am not an Arab and my Arabic is zero but the Arabic word used there is "Mushrikat".  Now you believe that Abu Bakr [ra] was not a Muslim and by extension - plus fact that you consider Aisha [ra] to be an enemy of Ahlul Bayt [ra] - you consider his daughter to be a disbeliever.  Therefore, you must concede that the Prophet [saw] married a "mushrika" and violated the Qur'an so as to show fairness to everyone, including kuffaar.

Our Prophet [saw] never married a disbeliever.  Doing so would be a violation of the Qur'an.  Either you did not know that or tried to morph my post into something you could respond to.

As for bringing tribes together, Abu Bakr [ra] was from the Quraysh (no need to bring tribes together) and he was one of the first adults to accept Islam.  By marrying Aisha [ra], what severed ties did the Prophet [saw] mend with Abu Bakr [ra] except to strengthen his [saw] friendship with As-Siddeeq [ra]?

[NaveenHussain]

Glad you showed up!  Now I want to say two things but before that, allow me to address what I have highlighted from your post.  The entire Sahihain is archived online and translated in English.  Every Muslim and non-Muslim can access them with a few clicks.  Can you say the same regarding your books that are kept under lock-and-key? 

You live in Washington DC area and I have been to Imam Ali Center (where they have "Happy Birthday Imam Zaman" events with birthday cakes reading just that), Manassas Mosque and Islamic Education Center.  I have yet to see an English translation of Al-Kafi in any of those mosques.  On the contrary, if you go to IEC, they have an entire stand with pamphlets that explain Shia practices using Sunni hadiths. 

I have all 8 volumes of al-Kafi translated into English. I don't know why many Shia centers don't carry them yet, but I think it's because they've recently been translated, in-full, into English. I do hope that they'll acquire the books soon, if they haven't done so already.

Why am I saying all this?  Because we like to present the whole story.  If we were in the business of hiding, we would not have made our Sahihain available to everyone.  It is your ilk that rely on obscure narrations and isolated reports while hiding away their own problematic hadiths.  So this should be a good transition into my first point.

Presenting fabricated whole stories won't help your case, unless versus another ignorant person. Your Bakri leaders hid many things from the Ummah. Don't forget your lot follow known liars, according to ahadeeth we have reportedly from Imam Ali (as), and others from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (as),  such as Abu Hurayrah, `A'ishah, etc. Even Umar ibn al-Khattab hit Abu Hurayrah, mentioned in Saheeh Muslim, as it's evident even he didn't believer him [Abu Hurayrah].

1.  The report you have shared by Zayd ibn Arqam [ra] occurs in the same Sahih Muslim with different wordings.  In other words, the same incident (although one event) has been reported numerously with different wordings.  It is our tradition that teaches us to look at all reports pertaining to a matter in order to get the entire picture in its clearest form.  And it is quite clear, from what I have shared and what you have posted, that Zayd [ra] was not excluding the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] from anything except in the matter of Zakat.  Why?  Because while a man is responsible to feed his blood relatives, a woman can be divorced and therefore, he is no longer be responsible for them.  As for blood relatives, there are no cutting ties and hence you are always held accountable.  This is of importance because the Prophet [saw] divorced some of his wives.

I already explained about specific vs. general applications of the term Ahlul Bayt. Literalists will run into such problems, if they don't use their intellect [`Aql]. For instance, even Prophet Nooh's [as] own biological son isn't considered a part of his "Ahl," as shown from Quraan 11:46.

Unlike your lot that considers the Imams [ra] to be infallible, we do not consider Sahabas [ra] to be infallible. 

Let me ask you: do you consider the Quraan as infallible?

Speaking of presenting part of the picture, do you know that the same Zayd ibn Arqam [ra], says the following in the preceding part of the same Sahih Muslim?
"I have grown old and have almost spent my age and I have forgotten some of the things which I remembered in connection with Allah’s Messenger.”

It's not unusual that ordinary people will forget some things in regard to religion; it happens everyday. This, in no way, necessarily means he's forgotten the more important things that have to do with the religion of Islam.

2.  Now let us get to the second thing I wanted to mention.  While my brothers here have made my task very easy, they have left nothing for you.  Singing praises of Abu Talib does not make him a Muslim or believer.  You have to bring proof.  Also, I am still waiting for you to find the verses regarding Fadak in the Qur'an.  Trust me, not a single Shia scholar worth the name - unless he is honest and God-fearing - shares those verses when talking about Fadak.  You may ask why!  Because the verses themselves, without the need for any explanations or exegesis, make it clear that properties such as Fadak cannot be under sole ownership.  In other words, giving Fadak to Fatima [ra] - whether as a gift or inheritance - is against the Qur'an.

I will provide proofs for Abu Talib's (as) correct faith in my upcoming posts, in shaa'llah. I have to seek out evidences before I post slanderous comments [like you]. As for one of the verses of Fadak, Quraan 17:26, even your Sunni Mufassireen, Fakhruddeen Razi mentions the verse is in regards to Fadak.

[muslim720]

Well here is your chance to convert me.  Less bark, more bite.  Fadak verses from the Qur'an please.

One such verse, as I have shared with you elsewhere, is Quraan 17:26.

Now we are talking.  You are not sincere enough to share the verse so allow me to do the honor.

"And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift."

There!  Now explain what this has to do with Fadak, a land which fell in the hands of Muslims without any warfare. 

Waiting....

[muslim720]

Presenting fabricated whole stories won't help your case, unless versus another ignorant person.

It is from the same Sahih Muslim.  How can you accept one narration (which is in your favor) and ignore the rest (that expose your lies)? 

and others from Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (as),  such as Abu Hurayrah, `A'ishah, etc. Even Umar ibn al-Khattab hit Abu Hurayrah, mentioned in Saheeh Muslim, as it's evident even he didn't believer him [Abu Hurayrah].

I should address this since you brought up Imam Jafar As-Sadiq [ra] the other day!  Did you know that he was a descendant of Abu Bakr [ra] from his mother's side?  So no, our Imams [rah] of fiqh did not take from your 6th Imam.  They took it from a descendant of our First Caliph [ra].

I already explained about specific vs. general applications of the term Ahlul Bayt. Literalists will run into such problems, if they don't use their intellect [`Aql]. For instance, even Prophet Nooh's [as] own biological son isn't considered a part of his "Ahl," as shown from Quraan 11:46.

Nooh [as] is outside the scope of our discussion.  You brought up Sahih Muslim and the same Sahih Muslim did more damage to your claim than good.

Let me ask you: do you consider the Quraan as infallible?

Not only do I consider the Qur'an to be infallible but I consider anyone that speaks of distortions to be kaaffir.  Waiting for such a fatwa from your scholars.  It would be nice to see your own scholars make takfir on their predecessors. 

It's not unusual that ordinary people will forget some things in regard to religion; it happens everyday. This, in no way, necessarily means he's forgotten the more important things that have to do with the religion of Islam.

The man said that he has forgotten some of what he had heard but you say that he must have remembered the important things.  In other words, since the issue of being a part of Ahlul Bayt [ra] is important to you, you will decide for Zayd [ra] what he remembered correctly and what he had forgotten.

Judge, jury and executioner!

As for one of the verses of Fadak, Quraan 17:26, even your Sunni Mufassireen, Fakhruddeen Razi mentions the verse is in regards to Fadak.

Please bring that weak narration which you all quote.  Forget tafseer!  The Qur'anic verses in regards to Fadak, if you knew the Qur'an that is, clearly forbids Fadak from being inherited by, or gifted to, one person.

Do you even know how Fadak came under the the ownership of Muslims? 

[NaveenHussain]

Well here is your chance to convert me.  Less bark, more bite.  Fadak verses from the Qur'an please.

One such verse, as I have shared with you elsewhere, is Quraan 17:26.

Now we are talking.  You are not sincere enough to share the verse so allow me to do the honor.

"And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: But squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift."

There!  Now explain what this has to do with Fadak, a land which fell in the hands of Muslims without any warfare. 

Waiting....

I've already explained how Sunni scholars say the verse was revealed in regards to Fadak. Check my reply #22.

[Ibn Yahya]

Oh I know this guy lol

[NaveenHussain]

It is from the same Sahih Muslim.  How can you accept one narration (which is in your favor) and ignore the rest (that expose your lies)? 

I think only an amateur wouldn't understand that some ahadeeth can be taken, while some cannot. Logically, even a liar can tell the truth, as it's said a broken clock is correct twice a day. Think about it.

I should address this since you brought up Imam Jafar As-Sadiq [ra] the other day!  Did you know that he was a descendant of Abu Bakr [ra] from his mother's side?  So no, our Imams [rah] of fiqh did not take from your 6th Imam.  They took it from a descendant of our First Caliph [ra].

Very clever. Still, we have 5 prior A'immah (as) from whom we took Fiqh, via Rasool (saww), Jibra'eel (as), and ultimately, from Allah (swt), whereas your chain is broken and full of known liars.

Nooh [as] is outside the scope of our discussion.  You brought up Sahih Muslim and the same Sahih Muslim did more damage to your claim than good.

What a weak argument, and nice way to sidestep what I wrote.

Not only do I consider the Qur'an to be infallible but I consider anyone that speaks of distortions to be kaaffir.  Waiting for such a fatwa from your scholars.  It would be nice to see your own scholars make takfir on their predecessors. 

Didn't `A'ishah mention about a goat eating certain verses from the Quraan? Do you agree she died as a Kafir? If so, I think we're in agreement there. Logically, if Allah (swt) can protect a book, do you think he couldn't protect the best of Messengers (saww) via infallibility?

It's not unusual that ordinary people will forget some things in regard to religion; it happens everyday. This, in no way, necessarily means he's forgotten the more important things that have to do with the religion of Islam.

The man said that he has forgotten some of what he had heard but you say that he must have remembered the important things.  In other words, since the issue of being a part of Ahlul Bayt [ra] is important to you, you will decide for Zayd [ra] what he remembered correctly and what he had forgotten.

As for the opposers, of course, you'll tend to agree with the interpretation of the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as).

Please bring that weak narration which you all quote.  Forget tafseer!  The Qur'anic verses in regards to Fadak, if you knew the Qur'an that is, clearly forbids Fadak from being inherited by, or gifted to, one person.

I already shared your Sunni scholar's interpretation of the said verse. Enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as) love to pick and choose when to follow Islam. Didn't Quraan warm about those who pick and choose certain parts of faith/book?

[muslim720]

I've already explained how Sunni scholars say the verse was revealed in regards to Fadak. Check my reply #22.

Correction, reply 22.  In that post, you only alluded to Fadak once when you said:
"As for one of the verses of Fadak, Quraan 17:26, even your Sunni Mufassireen, Fakhruddeen Razi mentions the verse is in regards to Fadak."

Fakhrudeen Razi [rah] is not Sunni scholars; he is, or was, a Sunni scholar.  This is the problem with your deceiving ways.  You pass one narration as many and you count a single scholar in plural to substantiate your lies. 

Coming to the verse, you had the audacity to say "Qur'an 17:26" without even posting the verse.  How does the verse pertain to Fadak?  But since all your references have backfired, let me help put your case to rest.

The narration used by all Shia websites is the following:

“Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her”.

    Tafseer Durr al Manthur v4, p177
    Kanzul Ummal, v2, p158
    Lababul Naqool, p137, Sura Isra
     Jam’e Asbab al-Nazul, Surah 17 verse 26 by Shiekh Khalid
    Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570

First of all, the Shias use this to prove that Fadak was gifted to Fatima [ra].  But the verse says to give the "haq" of the relative.  A gift is not your "haq".  Secondly, as I keep reminding you, this is a Meccan surah and Fadak fell in Muslim hands in Madina.  Even Shia tafseers agree that Surah Al-Israa was a Meccan surah (I can provide you references but I would rather stay away from your texts as much as I can).  And thirdly, one of the narrators (in the chain of the above-mentioned hadith) is Atiyah who is considered weak.  There is a list of 43 scholars weakening him.  Please let me know and I can provide you that list.

Now, back to square one!  Please provide me the Qur'anic verses pertaining to Fadak.

[muslim720]

I think only an amateur wouldn't understand that some ahadeeth can be taken, while some cannot. Logically, even a liar can tell the truth, as it's said a broken clock is correct twice a day. Think about it.

A broken clock can be correct twice a day but rest assured, a Rafidhi can never be right, not even once in a lifetime (as we have seen in your case).

Very clever. Still, we have 5 prior A'immah (as) from whom we took Fiqh, via Rasool (saww), Jibra'eel (as), and ultimately, from Allah (swt), whereas your chain is broken and full of known liars.

Those 5 A'immah wouldn't even spit on you.  To put things in perspective for you, we took from them and another 124,000 Companions [ra] (more or less).  Qualitatively and quantitatively, you lose!

What a weak argument, and nice way to sidestep what I wrote.

Not a weak argument but I was letting your stupidity slide unnoticed.  The son of Nuh [as] was a disbeliever.  Allah [swt] explains why his son was not part of his family.

"He said: 'O Noah! He is not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous.  So ask not of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge!  I give thee counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!' "

Comparing apples and orange!

Didn't `A'ishah mention about a goat eating certain verses from the Quraan?

Wow, peak of ignorance!  Was Qur'an not an oral tradition?  In other words, what was the primary method of transmission of the Qur'an?  And do you not know that the same Aisha [ra] was consulted repeatedly by Uthman [ra] when the Qur'an was being compiled?  There were many Companions [ra] who had memorized the Qur'an that were alive when the Mushaf was preserved in script.  Also, visit the following link:

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2010/10/myth-quran-verses-eat-goat.html

Lastly, let us talk about your scholars.  Al-Tabrasi for example!  He wrote a book to prove tahreef of the Qur'an.  When rebuked, he authored another book to defend his kufr. 

Want more examples?  Shaykh Sudooq, Shareef Murtadha, on and on!

It's not unusual that ordinary people will forget some things in regard to religion; it happens everyday. This, in no way, necessarily means he's forgotten the more important things that have to do with the religion of Islam.

Who are you to set the importance of a certain matter?  Furthermore, how are you qualified to make that call on behalf of Zayd [ra]?  Lastly, how can you be so sure what Zayd [ra] remembered and what he had forgotten?

As for the opposers, of course, you'll tend to agree with the interpretation of the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as).

Enemies of Ahlul Bayt [ra]?  Our books are replete with merits of Ahlul Bayt [ra] (when I say Ahlul Bayt [ra] I mean the wives, Ahlul Kisa [ra], et cetera).  If not for our books, you would not have known most narrations that you use against us like Hadith of Pen and Paper, for example (although it has nothing to do with merits of Ahlul Bayt [ra]).

I already shared your Sunni scholar's interpretation of the said verse. Enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as) love to pick and choose when to follow Islam. Didn't Quraan warm about those who pick and choose certain parts of faith/book?

Already refuted!  And what do we say about those who lie upon the Qur'an?  Like when people use Qur'an 17:26 in relation to Fadak when it has nothing to do with it.

[NaveenHussain]

I've already explained how Sunni scholars say the verse was revealed in regards to Fadak. Check my reply #22.

Correction, reply 22.  In that post, you only alluded to Fadak once when you said:
"As for one of the verses of Fadak, Quraan 17:26, even your Sunni Mufassireen, Fakhruddeen Razi mentions the verse is in regards to Fadak."

Fakhrudeen Razi [rah] is not Sunni scholars; he is, or was, a Sunni scholar.  This is the problem with your deceiving ways.  You pass one narration as many and you count a single scholar in plural to substantiate your lies. 

Coming to the verse, you had the audacity to say "Qur'an 17:26" without even posting the verse.  How does the verse pertain to Fadak?  But since all your references have backfired, let me help put your case to rest.

The narration used by all Shia websites is the following:

“Abu Saeed al Khudri and Abdullah Ibn Abbas narrate that when the verse relating to giving rights to kindred was revealed, the Prophet called Fatima Zahra (as) and gifted the land of Fadak to her”.

    Tafseer Durr al Manthur v4, p177
    Kanzul Ummal, v2, p158
    Lababul Naqool, p137, Sura Isra
     Jam’e Asbab al-Nazul, Surah 17 verse 26 by Shiekh Khalid
    Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570

First of all, the Shias use this to prove that Fadak was gifted to Fatima [ra].  But the verse says to give the "haq" of the relative.  A gift is not your "haq".  Secondly, as I keep reminding you, this is a Meccan surah and Fadak fell in Muslim hands in Madina.  Even Shia tafseers agree that Surah Al-Israa was a Meccan surah (I can provide you references but I would rather stay away from your texts as much as I can).  And thirdly, one of the narrators (in the chain of the above-mentioned hadith) is Atiyah who is considered weak.  There is a list of 43 scholars weakening him.  Please let me know and I can provide you that list.

Now, back to square one!  Please provide me the Qur'anic verses pertaining to Fadak.

It was my reply, #22. At first you denied [on Facebook] the verse being about Fadak, then when I mentioned your own scholar, you had to backtrack. Alhamdulillah. You had to eat your words. How did it taste? Good, I bet. Anyhow, There are many references, as you've posted, that point to that verse being about Fadak. That should suffice to anyone with a good level of sincerity. As for verses revealed in Makkah or Madeenah, I showed you proof, on Facebook, that some Surahs have verses that were said to have been revealed in Makkah and/or Madeenah. As for Fadak, it can be a right given by Allah (swt).

Here's another hadeeth we can use to prove :

Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:

أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.

Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.

[NaveenHussain]

Those 5 A'immah wouldn't even spit on you.  To put things in perspective for you, we took from them and another 124,000 Companions [ra] (more or less).  Qualitatively and quantitatively, you lose!

It wasn't from the ways of our A'immah (as) to spit on people. We know who your ilk follow -- the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as)

Not a weak argument but I was letting your stupidity slide unnoticed.  The son of Nuh [as] was a disbeliever.  Allah [swt] explains why his son was not part of his family.

"He said: 'O Noah! He is not of thy family: For his conduct is unrighteous.  So ask not of Me that of which thou hast no knowledge!  I give thee counsel, lest thou act like the ignorant!' "

Comparing apples and orange!

If I brought up all the unrighteous acts your leaders did to our beloved Ahlul Bayt (as), the impartial observer may also call your leaders disbelievers, in the true sense of the word.

Wow, peak of ignorance!  Was Qur'an not an oral tradition?  In other words, what was the primary method of transmission of the Qur'an?  And do you not know that the same Aisha [ra] was consulted repeatedly by Uthman [ra] when the Qur'an was being compiled?  There were many Companions [ra] who had memorized the Qur'an that were alive when the Mushaf was preserved in script.  Also, visit the following link:

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2010/10/myth-quran-verses-eat-goat.html

Quraan can be orally transmitted, or via written records, hence why many mention the accursed Mu`awiyyah as a scribe of the Prophet (saww). It's said Imam Ali (as) compiled the Quran in written form, after the passing of Rasool (saww).

Lastly, let us talk about your scholars.  Al-Tabrasi for example!  He wrote a book to prove tahreef of the Qur'an.  When rebuked, he authored another book to defend his kufr. 

Want more examples?  Shaykh Sudooq, Shareef Murtadha, on and on!

Please refer back to my argument about one of your main leaders, `A'ishah, and the story of goats eating verses of Quran, etc.

Who are you to set the importance of a certain matter?  Furthermore, how are you qualified to make that call on behalf of Zayd [ra]?  Lastly, how can you be so sure what Zayd [ra] remembered and what he had forgotten?

I can throw that question right back at you. I don't understand why you even brought it up. It's a weak argument.

Enemies of Ahlul Bayt [ra]?  Our books are replete with merits of Ahlul Bayt [ra] (when I say Ahlul Bayt [ra] I mean the wives, Ahlul Kisa [ra], et cetera).  If not for our books, you would not have known most narrations that you use against us like Hadith of Pen and Paper, for example (although it has nothing to do with merits of Ahlul Bayt [ra]).

Wives aren't a part of the specific term Ahlul Bayt (as). If it weren't for your books, we wouldn't need to know about the incident of the Pen and Paper.

Already refuted!  And what do we say about those who lie upon the Qur'an?  Like when people use Qur'an 17:26 in relation to Fadak when it has nothing to do with it.

Oh, you mean like how the Sunni scholar Fakhruddeen Razi did?

[muslim720]

At first you denied [on Facebook] the verse being about Fadak, then when I mentioned your own scholar, you had to backtrack. Alhamdulillah.

Allah [swt] is My Witness; when I pressed you to present the Qur'anic verses regarding Fadak - which you still have not been able to do - you said "Qur'an 17:26".  In fact, you even said something to the effect, “if I am not mistaken” after giving me the (wrong) reference.  Of course you were mistaken and it is a shame that after having been refuted on more than one basis – it is not a Madani surah, the verse speaks about “haq” (right) not gift, and the fact that the narrations that support your conclusion are all weak – you are still holding on to it.  You did not even bother to quote the verse, neither on Facebook nor here.  Again, to repeat myself for a third time, what does the verse have to do with Fadak?

You had to eat your words. How did it taste? Good, I bet. Anyhow, There are many references, as you've posted, that point to that verse being about Fadak. That should suffice to anyone with a good level of sincerity.

Wow!  Many references?  Yes, many references pointing to a single narration which has been weakened by at least 43 scholars.  And here is the elephant in the room.  I presented that (weak) report and then gave you its grading. 

Thus far, Alhamdulilah, every single reference you have shared with us has backfired.  Rest assured, the future (for you) will be just as gloomy as the skies have been over Washington DC for the past few days.  And I will ask you then, "how did it taste?" 

As for verses revealed in Makkah or Madeenah, I showed you proof, on Facebook, that some Surahs have verses that were said to have been revealed in Makkah and/or Madeenah. As for Fadak, it can be a right given by Allah (swt).

You did not even post Qur'an 17:26 on Facebook, let alone show me proof that it was revealed in Mecca.  Here is proof that state otherwise:

Shia Tafsir mizan states:
الميزان في تفسير القرآن سورة الإسراء 23 – 39
قوله تعالى: «و آت ذا القربى حقه و المسكين و ابن السبيل» تقدم الكلام فيه في نظائره، و بالآية يظهر أن إيتاء ذي القربى و المسكين و ابن السبيل مما شرع قبل الهجرة لأنها آية مكية من سورة مكية.
(Source)
In His saying {And give to the kindred his due and to the poor and to the wayfarer}, We already mentioned earlier on similar verse, by this aya it appears that giving (charity) to kindred and poor and wayfarer was legislated before Hijra because this aya is Makki from a Makki surah[/u].

سورة بني إسرائيل مكية

Tafsir Qummi Vol. 2, p. 3.

Shia Ayatullah Nasser Makarem Shirazi states:

وبالنسبة لمكان نزول السورة، فمن المشهور أن جميع آياتها مكية، ومما يؤيد ذلك أن مضمون السورة ومفاهيمها يناسب بشكل كامل مضمون ومحتوى وسياق السور المكية، هذا بالرغم من أن المفسرين يعتقد بأن هناك مقطعا من السورة قد نزل في المدينة، ولكن المشهور ما شاع بين المفسرين من مكية تمام السورة

As far as the issue that where this Surah (Isra) was revealed, then the famous thing is that all the verses are Makki, and what supports it is the text and the meanings and the context of the Surah, even though some Mufassireen believe that there are parts which were revealed in Madinah, but the famous thing between Mufassireen is that the whole Surah is Makki.( ‘al Amthal Fi Tafsir Kitab Allah Al Manzil, by Sheikh Nasser Makarem Shirazi, Vol8, page 384).

Here's another hadeeth we can use to prove :

Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:

أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.

Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.

I was ready for this one before you even reached out to it.

The author of the above book is a Shia, although not a Rafidhi and Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani listed him among the Shia authors in al-Dharee`ah ila Tasaneef al-Shi`ah.  Also, it is written in the introduction of the Shia Tafseer “Furat al-Kufi” that al-Hasakani, in his book, mainly quotes from Tafseer Furat meaning the contents of his book are Shia contents (they lean towards Shia beliefs).  The chain of this narration is weak anyways since we do not know who this Adam who narrates from al-Thawri is nor who ibn Munay`is.

While I will address the remainder of your verbal diarrhea later today, inshaAllah, please provide us the Qur'anic verses regarding Fadak.  You have till tomorrow. 

[muslim720]

It wasn't from the ways of our A'immah (as) to spit on people. We know who your ilk follow -- the enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as)

Really?  But they encouraged it, according to your books.  Far are the Imams [ra] from what you attribute to them.  In other words, they [ra] are innocent of your Shia-ism!

From Hasan ibn Ali: “This matter that you are waiting for, wouldn’t happen until some of you (shia) wouldn’t disown from others from you, and some of you would curse others from you, and some of you would spit in the faces of others from you, and some of you would testify to disbelief of others from you.”  (Kitab al-Ghaybah p 438)

If I brought up all the unrighteous acts your leaders did to our beloved Ahlul Bayt (as), the impartial observer may also call your leaders disbelievers, in the true sense of the word.

Well, let us start with Fadak.  So far, all your references have been refuted.  As for the rest of the "unrighteous acts", line them up.  We will go through all of your propaganda in an afternoon leaving you with nothing to hide behind.

Quraan can be orally transmitted, or via written records, hence why many mention the accursed Mu`awiyyah as a scribe of the Prophet (saww). It's said Imam Ali (as) compiled the Quran in written form, after the passing of Rasool (saww).

And your point is.....

Please refer back to my argument about one of your main leaders, `A'ishah, and the story of goats eating verses of Quran, etc.

I take it that you did not even read my rebuttal let alone visit the link I provided you.  Since your comprehension skill is poor - to put it very nicely - let me explain it to you differently.  While you are as smart as a goat, what goat can eat someone's brain?  The Qur'an was memorized by many Sahabas [ra].  Eating the parchment on which verses were written does not delete those verses from the memory of those who had memorized the Qur'an.  Are you usually this stupid or is it a special occasion today?

I can throw that question right back at you. I don't understand why you even brought it up. It's a weak argument.

You can throw it right back at me and I will embarrass you again because while you are fixated on one narration by Zayd [ra] regarding this matter - and here we go back to who presents half the story (not the whole) - I presented all the narrations by Zayd [ra] (regarding the status of the wives of the Prophet [saw]). 

As I said, we make a decision after we have exhausted all the verses, hadiths and scholarly opinions.  If you read all the narrations by Zayd [ra], it is clear that he did not exclude the wives [ra] from being part of the household of the Prophet [saw].  He was only making a special case for blood relatives since wives can be divorced.  I have already explained this so no need to repeat myself.

If it weren't for your books, we wouldn't need to know about the incident of the Pen and Paper.

But what an embarrassment that is!  The Rawaafidh use that narration to prove that the Prophet [saw] was about to dictate the Imamat of Imam Ali [ra].  Yet, your own Imams [ra] missed such an important event.  We narrated it but it slipped your Imams' [ra] attention and they failed to narrate such a "monumental event".

Oh, you mean like how the Sunni scholar Fakhruddeen Razi did?

Absolutely no shame!  Not even an apology lying blatantly.  Khair, your buffoonery is a reflection of your Rawaafidh madhhab.  We are not laughing with you but at you!

[muslim720]

Similarly Hakim Haskani al-Hanai also records in Shawahid al-Tanzeel, Volume 1 page 570:

أخبرنا عقيل بن الحسين قال: أخبرنا علي بن الحسين قال: حدثنا محمد بن عبيد الله قال: حدثنا أبو مروان عبد الملك بن مروان قاضي مدينة الرسول بها سنة سبع وأربعين وثلاث مائة قال: حدثنا عبد الله بن منيع ، قال: حدثنا آدم قال: حدثنا سفيان عن واصل الأحدب عن عطاء: عن ابن عباس قال: لما أنزل الله: (وآت ذا القربى حقه) دعا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله فاطمة وأعطاها فدكا وذلك لصلة القرابة.

Aqeel bin al-Hussain from Ali bin al-Hussain from Muhammad bin Ubaidullah from Abu Marwan Abdulmalik bin Marwan the judge of Madina from Abdullah bin Manee from Adam from Sufyan from Wasel al-Ahdab from Atta from ibn Abbas saying: ‘When Allah revealed ‘{And give to the near of kin his due}’ Allah’s Apostle (s) called Fatima and gave her Fadak because she was the near of kin’.

The author of the above book is obviously a Shia, although not a Rafidhi and scholar Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani listed him among the Shia authors in al-Dharee`ah ila Tasaneef al-Shi`ah.  On top of it is written in the introduction of the Shia Tafseer Furat al-Kufi that al-Hasakani in his book mainly quotes from Tafseer Furat, meaning the contents of his book are Shia contents.  The chain of this narration is weak anyway since narrator Abdullah bin Manee’ is majhool(anonymous), and same is the case of Adam who narrates from al-Thawri , since his status too is unknown.

I have addressed two different chains from which we have this report.  Both are problematic for the following reasons:

1.  Author of the book is a Shia.

2.  Adam (in the chain) is an unknown narrator so are Adam, ibn Munay' and bin Manee'.

[NaveenHussain]

These Wahhabi-Nasibi literalists...no wonder you guys are so misguided. According to Saheeh chains, according to the grading standards of Bukhari and Muslim, your Abu Bakr (la), Umar (la), and other hypocrites tried to kill our beloved Prophet (saww):

http://www.revisitingthesalaf.org/2012/02/companions-attempt-to-kill-prophet.html

[NaveenHussain]

These misguided Bakris. May Allah (swt) guide you all back to true Islam. You guys follow the accursed `A'ishah when even she lied to the Prophet (saww) about his wife Zaynab and the "honey-drink." If she (la) is brave enough to lie to him (saww), what makes you think you can trust her. I feel bad for the naive Sunnis.

[muslim720]

These Wahhabi-Nasibi literalists...no wonder you guys are so misguided. According to Saheeh chains, according to the grading standards of Bukhari and Muslim, your Abu Bakr (la), Umar (la), and other hypocrites tried to kill our beloved Prophet (saww):

http://www.revisitingthesalaf.org/2012/02/companions-attempt-to-kill-prophet.html

This is called changing goalposts.  Since the above has nothing to do with Fadak and you have till tomorrow to find the Qur'anic verses, let me re-cap what you have failed to achieve thus far.

1.  You could not prove that the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] are not part of his household.  The Qur'an, the Prophet [saw] and even the Companions [ra] recognized them as "Ahlul Bayt".  As bitter of a pill that is for you, choke on it.

2.  You have not presented one authentic narration which writes Fadak for Fatima [ra].  On the contrary, the Qur'anic verse you presented has nothing to do with Fadak.  One of the two narrations tying the verse to Fadak was weak and the other was a fabrication by a Shia.  To make matters worse for you, without the need to entertain those forged narrations, I refuted you when I schooled you regarding the verse.  The verse, in fact the entire Surah, is Meccan whereas Fadak fell in Muslim hands years later in Madina.

Now, with your tail tucked between your legs, you want to shift the debate to Companions [ra] conspiring to kill the Prophet [saw].  Accept defeat on the above-mentioned points and we can proceed with your third soon-to-be failure.  Until then, you have no where to run. 

By the way, here is your refutation: http://twelvershia.net/2013/04/15/response-to-assassination-attempt-on-the-prophet-saw/

PS - I hope your boy on Facebook - the love child of Yasser Al-Khabees and Hassan Shaytanyari who was boasting that he is giving dawah to an Afghan family - is reading all this (since you have shared your bravado there but the coward that he is, he can insult us behind our backs but won't dare present himself here).  Tell him to come see this Afghan.  Enough selfies for him; time for him to man up or cover himself up like a woman!

I will give him a taste of history; what Mirwais Khan Hotak, the brave Afghan, did to his Safavvid Shias

[NaveenHussain]

Allah [swt] is My Witness; when I pressed you to present the Qur'anic verses regarding Fadak - which you still have not been able to do - you said "Qur'an 17:26".  In fact, you even said something to the effect, “if I am not mistaken” after giving me the (wrong) reference.  Of course you were mistaken and it is a shame that after having been refuted on more than one basis – it is not a Madani surah, the verse speaks about “haq” (right) not gift, and the fact that the narrations that support your conclusion are all weak – you are still holding on to it.  You did not even bother to quote the verse, neither on Facebook nor here.  Again, to repeat myself for a third time, what does the verse have to do with Fadak?

You didn't refute anything. Even your own Bakri scholars mention the verse is about Fadak. Fadak was Fatimah's Haqq. You can call it gift, Haqq, etc., and it won't contradict. Check Sunni scholar Fakhruddeen Razi's commentary on the verse. I know Sunni scholars are naive, but are you implying your own scholars didn't know the whereabouts of the verse's revelation?

Wow!  Many references?  Yes, many references pointing to a single narration which has been weakened by at least 43 scholars.  And here is the elephant in the room.  I presented that (weak) report and then gave you its grading. 

43 scholars? That's it? Your WHOLE Bakri faith has fooled billions via the known liar Abu Hurayrah, yet you lot consider him reliable, when even your Umar (la) even hit him and didn't trust him. You don't follow Umar (la) in that. Why not? lol...

You did not even post Qur'an 17:26 on Facebook, let alone show me proof that it was revealed in Mecca.  Here is proof that state otherwise:

I did mention the verse. It seems you're forgetful.

Shia Tafsir mizan states:
الميزان في تفسير القرآن سورة الإسراء 23 – 39
قوله تعالى: «و آت ذا القربى حقه و المسكين و ابن السبيل» تقدم الكلام فيه في نظائره، و بالآية يظهر أن إيتاء ذي القربى و المسكين و ابن السبيل مما شرع قبل الهجرة لأنها آية مكية من سورة مكية.
(Source)
In His saying {And give to the kindred his due and to the poor and to the wayfarer}, We already mentioned earlier on similar verse, by this aya it appears that giving (charity) to kindred and poor and wayfarer was legislated before Hijra because this aya is Makki from a Makki surah[/u].

سورة بني إسرائيل مكية

Tafsir Qummi Vol. 2, p. 3.

Shia Ayatullah Nasser Makarem Shirazi states:

وبالنسبة لمكان نزول السورة، فمن المشهور أن جميع آياتها مكية، ومما يؤيد ذلك أن مضمون السورة ومفاهيمها يناسب بشكل كامل مضمون ومحتوى وسياق السور المكية، هذا بالرغم من أن المفسرين يعتقد بأن هناك مقطعا من السورة قد نزل في المدينة، ولكن المشهور ما شاع بين المفسرين من مكية تمام السورة

As far as the issue that where this Surah (Isra) was revealed, then the famous thing is that all the verses are Makki, and what supports it is the text and the meanings and the context of the Surah, even though some Mufassireen believe that there are parts which were revealed in Madinah, but the famous thing between Mufassireen is that the whole Surah is Makki.( ‘al Amthal Fi Tafsir Kitab Allah Al Manzil, by Sheikh Nasser Makarem Shirazi, Vol8, page 384).

Keep in mind that it's said Quran has many layers. This is why we follow Quraan and Ahlul Bayt (as), else we'd be like Bakri ISIS terrorists that interpret the Quran as they want. Ahlul Bayt (as) are the ones to explain the Quran, and no, we don't rely on enemies of Ahlul Bayt (as) such as `A'ishah, for interpretation of Quran. That being said. In regard to the verse 17:26, it's reported Imam J`afar al-Sadiq (as) said: "The right of Ali ibn abi Talib [as] which has been due to him, has been succession to the Messenger [saww] of Allah [swt] and having prophetic sciences." -al-Kafi vol.1 pg 294.

I was ready for this one before you even reached out to it.

The author of the above book is a Shia, although not a Rafidhi and Aqa Buzruq al-Tehrani listed him among the Shia authors in al-Dharee`ah ila Tasaneef al-Shi`ah.  Also, it is written in the introduction of the Shia Tafseer “Furat al-Kufi” that al-Hasakani, in his book, mainly quotes from Tafseer Furat meaning the contents of his book are Shia contents (they lean towards Shia beliefs).  The chain of this narration is weak anyways since we do not know who this Adam who narrates from al-Thawri is nor who ibn Munay`is.

It looks like he was a Sunni scholar and Dhahabi explicitly states in Tadkirat al-Hufaz that he was a follower of Abu Hanifa. For this reason, he has introduced him as "Abul Qasim Ubaidullah al-Hanafi".
In this connection, Ya'qub Ja'far says: The author of the book is Abul Qasim Hakim Haskani; he is one of the great Sunni traditionists and Hufaz who came from Neishabour and, as his student Abdul Ghafir says, he is the follower of the Hanafi religion. Some say that he may've been Sunni, but converted to Shiism, after finding the truth.

[NaveenHussain]

This is called changing goalposts.  Since the above has nothing to do with Fadak and you have till tomorrow to find the Qur'anic verses, let me re-cap what you have failed to achieve thus far.

1.  You could not prove that the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] are not part of his household.  The Qur'an, the Prophet [saw] and even the Companions [ra] recognized them as "Ahlul Bayt".  As bitter of a pill that is for you, choke on it.

2.  You have not presented one authentic narration which writes Fadak for Fatima [ra].  On the contrary, the Qur'anic verse you presented has nothing to do with Fadak.  One of the two narrations tying the verse to Fadak was weak and the other was a fabrication by a Shia.  To make matters worse for you, without the need to entertain those forged narrations, I refuted you when I schooled you regarding the verse.  The verse, in fact the entire Surah, is Meccan whereas Fadak fell in Muslim hands years later in Madina.

I already explained to you the general and specific terms; it's just too bad Wahhabi-Nasibi types are inclined to take everything literally. Your Sunni scholars lied to you yet again, and you, believe them. The naivety...

By the way, here is your refutation: http://twelvershia.net/2013/04/15/response-to-assassination-attempt-on-the-prophet-saw/

How is it a refutation? It doesn't refute anything. Did the "refutation" mention the hadeeth from Saheeh Muslim? If not, why not? They couldn't refute it? "Refutation..." lol...maashaa'llah

PS - I hope your boy on Facebook - the love child of Yasser Al-Khabees and Hassan Shaytanyari who was boasting that he is giving dawah to an Afghan family - is reading all this (since you have shared your bravado there but the coward that he is, he can insult us behind our backs but won't dare present himself here).  Tell him to come see this Afghan.  Enough selfies for him; time for him to man up or cover himself up like a woman!

I will give him a taste of history; what Mirwais Khan Hotak, the brave Afghan, did to his Safavvid Shias

Call Fadak TV so they can destroy your whole fabricated sect, just like I am. He challenges people like all the time. Call, if you dare.

[muslim720]

You didn't refute anything. Even your own Bakri scholars mention the verse is about Fadak.

I did not refute anything?  I reckon you cannot read or have no shame.  By the way, do you follow "Bakri" scholars that you hold on to their opinion so fiercely? 

Fadak was Fatimah's Haqq. You can call it gift, Haqq, etc., and it won't contradict.

Just when I think you cannot be any more stupid, you raise the bar.  Although logic and Rawaafidh do not mix, let me explain this to you in simpler terms.  Your "haqq" is like your paycheck.  A gift would be annual bonus.  Your employer cannot refuse you a paycheck but they can refuse to give you a bonus (depending on the financial circumstances of the company). 

Check Sunni scholar Fakhruddeen Razi's commentary on the verse.

Had you spent time with someone knowledgeable, you would have known that majority of scholars of tafseer list almost all the narrations - weak and strong - in regards to a matter.  After mentioning them, they give their opinion as to which ones are accepted and which ones are not.  Ibn Kathir [rah] is a prime example because he does the same in his tafseer.

43 scholars? That's it?

Bring me 10 that authenticate Attiya!  Heck, you would not even dare share the verse, let alone the narration.  Now, all of a sudden, 43 scholars become too little for the one who could not even dare open his mouth.

Keep in mind that it's said Quran has many layers.

Agreed but before you peel away the layers, the verse was revealed in Mecca and is part of a Meccan surah and Fadak fell in Muslim hands in Madina (years after the 17:26 was revealed).  Full stop!

It looks like he was a Sunni scholar and Dhahabi explicitly states in Tadkirat al-Hufaz that he was a follower of Abu Hanifa. For this reason, he has introduced him as "Abul Qasim Ubaidullah al-Hanafi".

Really?  If having "al-Hanafi" in your name makes you Hanafi, then are we to assume that the former Prime Minister of Iraq - Nouri Al-Maliki - was Maliki?

Having said that, even if he was Sunni, the narration is still weak as I have shared.  You have two to three narrators that are completely unknown.  Maybe they were hidden guides sending knowledge from some cave!

Some say that he may've been Sunni, but converted to Shiism, after finding the truth.

Shot yourself in the foot!  Thank you!