TwelverShia.net Forum

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Sunni-Shia / Re: Is Bakri an offensive term?
« Last post by Rationalist on Yesterday at 06:37:23 PM »
The Prophet (saww) gets wahi, that is exclusive to him. The Prophet (saww) then passes down his knowledge to his successors. How doesn't that make sense? That's 1+2=3 logic.
Then you have cases where you have child Imams such as the one numbered 9,10,11 and 12? How do they get all the knowledge in such short instance? Your books say the Imams knew the entire Bible, and the knowledge of all the Israeli Prophets combined. This is what you call Jafr.
Quote
Brother, I would suggest you stop embarrassing yourself. "Out of anger and frustration" - what are you on about? The Holy Qur'an did not cover every single detail of story of Pharoah (la) and Prophet Musa (as). This is simply an addition to that story. You still have made no point whatsoever.
The Quran also tells the Prophet(pbuh) there are many stories he did not have knowledge of. In fact it even says he did not even know who the monfiqeen were when he entered Madina. However your Imams know?
Quote
Do you have a link this conversation between Al-Ahwal (rah) and Zayd (rah)? I would like to see proof.

New topic?
Quote
What does the Iran-Iraq war have to do with the sahaba? Why are you changing the topic?
Just giving you examples of Rafidis fighting each other even though your books say they are created from a separate clay. This is because you gave me examples of how Sahaba disagreed
2
Quran-Tafseer / Re: Shin In the Quran
« Last post by Rationalist on Yesterday at 06:27:55 PM »
He copied and pasted two traditions which make the Rafidi Imam look inferior to Abdullah in Abbas. So first to explain this verse Jafar shows his own shin, then he says a ray of light will appear. This is your agreement with whoaretheShia? It looks like you are another blind muqalid like the average Rafidis.
3
Quran-Tafseer / Re: Shin In the Quran
« Last post by Zlatan Ibrahimovic on Yesterday at 05:36:27 PM »
Zlatan this is bumped for you.

I think the brother @WhoareShia answered you. He brought the hadiths from our books which explain it.

What do you want me to comment on?
4
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
« Last post by Zlatan Ibrahimovic on Yesterday at 05:35:16 PM »
Nahjul Balagha, with all due respect, is like an anonymous witness whose testimony is inadmissible in court because Al-Radhi provides not a single chain for what is between its' two covers.  However, due to the popularity of Khutbah Al-Shaqshaqiya, scholars have further examined the sermon, including the chains attributed to it, and have declared it inauthentic.

http://nahjul-balagha.net/shaqshaqiya-grading/

Is yours not blanket takfir as well?

That is the point!  A Shia does not have to prove Imamah to a Sunni; it should be something a Sunni understands just as he or she learns the Oneness of Allah (swt), Prophethood, Angels, Day of Judgment, Divine Decree and Holy Scriptures.  Two pages ago you you said whatever but don't let this ignorance linger on for another two pages.  We do not oppose Imamah out of stubbornness; we just don't see it in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Were the Muslims not outnumbered during the early battles at the time of the Prophet (saw)?  Did they wait for enough support?  Also, the same Caliphate which endowed Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) and Uthman (ra) all the power, the same power which - according to you - debilitated Imam Ali's (ra) "mission", was later given to Imam Ali (ra) and he was still waiting for "enough support"?  With your logic, the entire universe could have been at Imam Ali's (ra) command and he would have still waited for "enough support".  Oh wait, he had power over all the atoms.....ummmm, moving on!

I believe Imam Hussain (ra) fought Yazid to end nepotism whereas you believe in a form of nepotism called, "Imamah".  And yes, many Shia mosques say Imam Hussain (ra) revolted to do "nahi an al munkar".  Please show us which Islamic principles did Yazid, that najis khanzeer, violate or change.

Bro, if you wanted compliments, wallaahi, I'd have decorated your profile with compliments.  Just drop the idiocy :)

As per your own standards, Al-Kafi (which has more narrations than Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim combined) is two-thirds unauthentic.  Brother Farid, may Allah (swt) reward him, did a research and found out that Al-Kafi is only 14.86% comprised of Prophetic narrations.  Taking out the repeats, etc, it contains only a handful of authentic Prophetic narrations; that number comes out to be less than 2% of the entire volume.

https://gift2shias.com/2013/03/24/prophets-saws-narrations-in-al-kafi/

So what is this "authentic Sunnah" that you speak of?

"Scholars have declared it unauthentic" which scholars? Shaykh Al-Mufid (ra) accepted it and declared it mashoor. I'm not going to take the opinion of an internet polemicist over him. But if you really insist, we have other hadiths which prove the Imam (as) called to himself, most notably the hadith of Al-Shaybani in Al-Ihtijaj. If you can read Arabic, I can link you to it.

Ours is blanket takfir. I'm asking what is the difference.

Really? What is the status of someone who doesn't believe in rak'aat in Salat or changes their number. Is he kafir or not? Why does Ibn Hanbal make takfir of those who say the Qur'an is created? If I pick up the Qur'an right now, will that be clear to me that the Qur'an is uncreated? No. Ibn Hanbal will have to "prove" it to me. Yet he declares the one who say it is created to be a kafir.

Maybe you don't know the rulings of warfare in your own madhab. We also say if the Muslims are outnumbered they still have to fight, but it depends on how much the other side has. If there is no hope in victory, then this obligation drops. Ibn Uthaymeen calls it "Shart Al-Quwwa". You don't go in to a conquest to lose. And Imam Ali (as) does not have control over atoms, all supernatural abilities are from Allah (swt), and it may be used by His permission.

Allah (swt) favours progenies and families over others. He favoured the family of Muhammad (saww) to lead this Ummah. As for Yazid (la), have you not read about what he did in Medina? He declared "istibaha" for the City. And he burnt the Ka'aba as well.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Harrah

I haven't even included what he did to the grandson of the Prophet (saww).

You know, I don't hate you, if you thought that. But as per your request, I'll stop some of my idiocy. I do agree the maths thing was childish, especially since this discussion is serious and about the Deen. In exchange, all I want from you is to stop sarcasm and snarky remarks and even compliments. Deal?

I think Al-Kafi has similar amounts of sahih/reliable narrations in it then Bukhari because as you said, it has more hadiths. But I don't see why this is problematic? What was your point bro?

In our belief, when the Imam (as) narrates, he is taking from the Prophet (saww) - so it is the same hujjah as when we see a Prophetic hadith. Because their knowledge is inherited from the Prophet (saww).
5
General Sunni-Shia / Re: Is Bakri an offensive term?
« Last post by Zlatan Ibrahimovic on Yesterday at 04:27:47 PM »
In another words the Prophet (pbuh) had to rely on wahi, but an Imam who doesn't have wahi has equal status in opinion? This makes no sense.
I agree. The point I want to make is Shia is found in the Quran in links to the Pharaoh, but not Rafidi. So  this Rafidi version of Imam Jafar is just making a blanket statement based on anger and frustration.   
Al Ahwal said that Imam Baqer (as) told him a secret that he didn't tell Imam Zayd (as). This was his death. Imam Zayd (as) said there was no secret, as Al Baqer (as) would never hid anything from him. In the end, Al Ahwal said since Imam Zayd is going to die he doesn't have to join him. Yet in other narrations Imam Jafar advises the Shia to support Imam Zayd. See the contradiction?

12er Shia fought against each other. Look at the Iran and Iraq war.  Most of Sadaam's forces consisted of Iraqi Shia.
Also there has been a war between the Amal and Hezbullah back in the 80's as well.

Its not like thing changed when the people of Kufa became Rafidi. There is a narration in al Kafi were 100,000 Rafidis told Imam Jafar they support him. Imam Jafar in reply said he couldn't even find 17 among them that are sincere. This case continued till the 12th imam finally decided to disappear.

The Prophet (saww) gets wahi, that is exclusive to him. The Prophet (saww) then passes down his knowledge to his successors. How doesn't that make sense? That's 1+2=3 logic.

Brother, I would suggest you stop embarrassing yourself. "Out of anger and frustration" - what are you on about? The Holy Qur'an did not cover every single detail of story of Pharoah (la) and Prophet Musa (as). This is simply an addition to that story. You still have made no point whatsoever.

Do you have a link this conversation between Al-Ahwal (rah) and Zayd (rah)? I would like to see proof.

What does the Iran-Iraq war have to do with the sahaba? Why are you changing the topic?

Can you give me the hadith in Al-Kafi? Can't find it. It has become clear that some people here just assert stuff without sources.
6
General Discussion / Re: Israeli F-16 downed by Syria
« Last post by Zlatan Ibrahimovic on Yesterday at 04:15:57 PM »
I can only speculate and based on his father's actions, I can confidently say that my speculation can be elevated to an educated guess.

No doubt but when you play by Western politics and go by West-drawn borders, disregarding Islamic brotherhood, this is bound to happen.  Iran did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan; it empowered the mightiest military to achieve maximum "success" (in other words, destruction).  We are all getting played.

Finally we reach some agreement.
7
Imamah-Ghaybah / Re: Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?
« Last post by iceman on Yesterday at 04:13:51 PM »
First of all, I personally believe the hadeeth is weak.

Second of all, the hadeeth says "My Ummah will split up into 73 sects", i.e., they will still be part of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم's Ummah, so it is not a massive takfeer.

Third of all, the contradictory reports of this hadeeth say things like the saved sect is "What I am upon today and my Companions" as well as "The Jama'aah," and "The Sawaad al-A'dham."  Whichever version you choose, it doesn't reconcile with 12 theology.  I'm going with the opinion that it is the "Jamaa'ah" or the "Sawaad al-A'dham" i.e. those who stick with the majority and don't purposefully divide themselves into sects.

Fourth of all, if you really want to see a treatment of this hadeeth, there are plenty of Salafi sites out there that discuss it since they also believe they are the saved sect.  You guys have a lot in common it seems.

Fifth of all, how did you come to the conclusion that this hadeeth was saheeh?  I'm asked you plenty of times how you authenticate ahadeeth and all I've gotten in return is crickets.  Don't you think this hadeeth contradictions the Qur'an when Allah says:
I thought Shi'as authenticated ahadeeth based on whether it contradicts the Qur'an or not?  Or do you not think this hadeeth contradicts the Qur'an?

Lets look at your points one by one. You said "I personally believe that Hadith is weak" and then you've moved on. You haven't given any explanation or understanding what so ever to why you think the Hadith is weak. You've just given your opinion on the Hadith then swiftly moved away.

The second comment you've made is that it doesn't matter if the Ummah splits, so what they still are part of the Ummah so it's not a big deal. For heavens sake 72 sects are going to hell, they are hell bound and you don't seem to think this is serious?

The third comment you've made is, it doesn't reconcile with the 12 theology. In other words 'well it's not you'. I don't know why we always seem to get personal on a general discussion. When did I say it was us? You've further given your opinion and this is just an opinion like anyone elses.

Now you first bring in the companions, they themselves were all over the place in just a short matter of time. The difference developed into division and it went that far where those in authority exiled others, even killed others because of that difference and division.

You further mention "what I am upon today and my companions, AS WELL AS the 'Jama'ah' AND THE 'Sawaad Al Ad'ham'." Well excuse me what does this 'AS WELL AS', AND THE' mean? You and I both know you're adding those who are or happen to be different and bringing them on board by saying 'AS WELL AS, AND THE'.

Again you mention your opinion and what you're going with and that is the 'Jama'ah' or the 'Sawaad Al Ad'ham'. And you further clarify this by saying "those who stick with majority and don't PURPOSELY divide themselves into sects". I don't know what you meant or mean by PURPOSELY and who you are trying to save and defend by the word.

My dear brother I will start off with who divides themselves purposely? And are you on what the Prophet and his companions were on? The Companions themselves different hugely. Today the Ahle Sunah do not belong to one school of thought but four different and separate schools of thought.

And these schools of thought were kicked off and are linked to four different Imams 'Aimah e Arbaa', not intoduced by the Messenger or his companions. And apart from that there is further division of Suni Deobandhi, Barelvi, Wahabi, Sufi, Ahle Hadees, Salafi etc, so what are you talking about? You have a major division and difference which further escalates right there and infront of your eyes and you want to play blind?

And last I will ask you the same question, how do you know that this Hadith is weak? You claim it is weak but give no explanation in fact you clarify it and give your opinion on it?

With Adab and Salaam!
9
General Sunni-Shia / Re: Is Bakri an offensive term?
« Last post by Rationalist on Yesterday at 08:21:07 AM »
Of course he has proof. If he says something it is like the Prophet (saww) said it. Everything he has inherited from the Prophet (saww).
In another words the Prophet (pbuh) had to rely on wahi, but an Imam who doesn't have wahi has equal status in opinion? This makes no sense.

Quote
The word Shi'a can carry several meanings and not just one. What matters is who it is referring to, and which party. You can have Shi'a of Mu'awiyah and Shi'a of Ali (as). As you tell me about Pharoah (la) and how the Qur'an said his supporters were Shi'a, the same Holy Qur'an said that there was someone who was a Shi'i of Prophet Musa (as). And it says referrinh to Prophet Ibrahim (as) that he is amongst the Shi'a of someone. So I really don't understand this strange arguement, what are you really trying to say?
I agree. The point I want to make is Shia is found in the Quran in links to the Pharaoh, but not Rafidi. So  this Rafidi version of Imam Jafar is just making a blanket statement based on anger and frustration.   

Quote
Where is the proof that they argued? Do you have proof?
Al Ahwal said that Imam Baqer (as) told him a secret that he didn't tell Imam Zayd (as). This was his death. Imam Zayd (as) said there was no secret, as Al Baqer (as) would never hid anything from him. In the end, Al Ahwal said since Imam Zayd is going to die he doesn't have to join him. Yet in other narrations Imam Jafar advises the Shia to support Imam Zayd. See the contradiction?


Quote
Also, it's strange you used this as an arguement, I mean bro, your sahaba destroyed each other and yet you do taradhi on them all. Be consistent.
12er Shia fought against each other. Look at the Iran and Iraq war.  Most of Sadaam's forces consisted of Iraqi Shia.
Also there has been a war between the Amal and Hezbullah back in the 80's as well.

Quote
Guess most "Shi'a" at the time of Ali (as) were batris. But that actually makes sense you know, even when Imam Ali (as) tried to reverse the innovations of his predecessors, the people would riot. So, it actually makes sense.

Its not like thing changed when the people of Kufa became Rafidi. There is a narration in al Kafi were 100,000 Rafidis told Imam Jafar they support him. Imam Jafar in reply said he couldn't even find 17 among them that are sincere. This case continued till the 12th imam finally decided to disappear.
10
General Sunni-Shia / Re: Is Bakri an offensive term?
« Last post by MuslimAnswers on Yesterday at 07:51:41 AM »
وعليكم السلام

I think the problem with this term is that it is not accurate.

If it means "those who follow the Madhhab of Abu Bakr", while that would be great, non-Shi'as all agree that none of the madhaahib of the Sahaaba survived.  So while I would love to know what the madhhab of Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman or Ali رضي الله عنهم was, I don't believe they survived.  Therefore, this phrase wouldn't describe anyone.

.....

So in conclusion, I find it to be a childish term to be honest, one used by a person who really has nothing to say, but uses these terms to make his handful of followers laugh.

Others can correct me, but perhaps those Twelvers who originally insisted on using this appellation constantly are connecting it with the Urdu meaning of this word, and they also are using it in a vulgar and obscene manner, tied to vulgar Islamophobic depictions of Muslims; it certainly is not beneath self-righteous Twelvers to do this. And Allah knows best.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10